Elissa,

I want to object to your characterization of vision, not to suggest that your description is flawed, but rather to reach a greater understanding of what vision is. Before I do I would like to say that I entirely agree with you in that it would be great if someone would share their vision with us. In some ways I think that vision has been shared.

In your comments you state: "Vision is never true when it is objectified. To say, “I envision universal healthcare,” that is not vision; to say, “I envision universal equality,” that is vision. [snip] You envision fuzzy things, not discrete ones."

First off, I'm not sure that I understand how you objectify universal healthcare but not universal equality. In fact, I'm not certain how you would objectify either of them. To me they both seem fuzzy.

I come to my understanding of a vision primarily through the military. In the mid to late 80's the Army began adding vision statements to their operations order. In an operation order a commander would receive a mission statement; somethink like "capture hill Omega." Based on the intent of the operation the commander would have to develop a vision to relay to the subordinate units. In this case a vision might express the desire to see enemy bodies strewn about their feet as the conquering army stood on the top of the hill at the end of the day; or, the attacking unit might surround and control all the access points to the hill denying the enemy the ability to move on or off the hill; or, the commander might want to see the enemy retreating toward the horizon at the end of the day or perhaps placing a call to the next higher echelon for a cease fire or surrender. All of these visions, which present the essence of the commander's desire, allow the troops to act on their own without minute moment-to-moment guidence and instruction from the commander, basically without micro-management. A vision allows people to act in the absence of subsequent directives. Each of the visions I've described achieves the mission to "capture hill Omega."

I'm not sure that "[v]ision is all about faith . . ." unless we are to agree that we must have faith that the vision is realistic and obtainable. Visions are tangible and realistic, something we can touch and say, "yeah, I can do that, that's reasonable." This isn't to say that a vision isn't demanding or that it doesn't require us to aspire to our best efforts.

I suspect that there is a vision that has been shared with us this week at the convention. Sure we want better health care and better schools. Certainly we want to win the war on terrorism. But the underlying theme that has been resonating at times throughout the convention is that we are "One"! This doesn't apply to America alone but also to the global community. How do we become one with the global community? What actions do we as individuals and local, and state, and federal communities take in our desire to become "One"? How do we behave in the absence of directives to achieve this oneness? We behave in a way that will improve our stature with the rest of the world. We behave in a way that reaches out to others. We behave in a way that asks others to join us or in a way that makes us acceptable when we seek to join them. We behave in a way that is moral, not moralistic.

I apologize for the rant, I hope you won't take offense. Take care.

Joel, thank you for your thoughtful response. From my perspective, "fuzzy" means nonspecific. Healthcare is a specific thing. You can explain it in precise terms, referring to specific elements of it. It's pretty clear to anyone hearing the term what you mean, and it's exclusive in the sense that it is--or can be--objectively defined. Equality can mean different things to different people under different circumstances. It's an inclusive term, because it allows interaction between the person and the idea. So, healthcare has a fixed set of meanings, while equality is a value and a philosophical concept that is more open-ended and not dependent on a particular situation.

As for your example, I think you're talking about mission as opposed to vision. In the corporate world, a mission statement is based on both the values and goals of the company. The vision statement is fuzzier because it speaks about the reason for being and a general direction that informs the mission. Mission says "What and how do we do what we do" but vision says "Why are we here and where are we heading in relation to the bigger picture."

This is all off the top of my head, so if it still isn't clear, let me know. And if it is clear, do you still think we have had a vision shared with us at the convention?

And thanks again for your comment.

Hi Elissa,

Thanks for responding. I don't think that we are all that far apart with our distinctions between mission statements and vision. Missions are intermediate steps; that is, specific objectives or goals to be accomplished on the way to something bigger.

I think that an essential component of vision is it's ability to provide direction and guidance when no one else, i.e. leaders, are around to tell us what to do. I think that what I have in mind about vision stops about a half-step short of where you suggest it might be. For example, you suggest that "The vision statement . . . speaks about the reason for being." To my way of thinking this goes a little too far; the "reason for being" is what God, religion, or spirituality all try to address to some degree. I agree with the last part of your statement when you suggest that "The vision statement . . . [provides] a general direction that informs the mission."

When you stated that "universal equality . . . is vision" I suspect that that might be going a bit too far for a pragmatic vision. It may be going too far because of the problems you noted with defining equality. To my way of thinking, the vision needs to both define the kind of equality that we're wanting to achieve and guide our behavior.

To answer your question about whether or not I feel that a vision is developing at the convention I will suggest that Obama, and some others, took the first steps in this direction when they offered the idea of unity and becoming one nation. As large and diverse as our nation is, the vision might necessarily have to play to a denominator that will both disappoint and challenge. Becoming "one" begins to define a kind of equality and it lends itself toward a suggestion of behavior. It will need clarification.