Alas, we soon learned only the OMB would see the real thing. There was no "there" there in the story. I considered killing my own piece, but then a funny thing happened:

A torrent of emails and phone calls told me a substantial list of radio and print interviews were waiting to be had. I went with my original story (read it here "Obama Fires Fiduciary Starter Pistol to Mixed Reviews," FiduciaryNews.com, February 24, 2015) and spent most of Tuesday talking to radio hosts covering the nation's heartland – and wherever else you can get SiriusXM.

This cross-country radio tour of sorts revealed the thoughts of Middle America, and neither regulators nor the industry will like what I discovered.

Here's the thing: There are just as many misperceptions about the fiduciary issue as there are strong opinions about the government and the financial services industry. Of special note to fiduciary advocates, you immediately lost a lot of support among people that should be supporting you simply because of your association with Monday's main messenger. I'm not being political here, just realistic. 

Here are a few representative remarks, culled from non-trade chatrooms I monitor: 

"If you like your financial advisor, you can keep your financial advisor." 

"What Obamacare has done to your health care, this new fiduciary rule will do to your retirement." 

"The government wants to take over and control your retirement." 

You get the idea. Very little of these comments have anything to do with the reason the DOL is trying to address conflicts of interest. Lest you think this vitriol focused solely on the current occupant of the White House, here are a few more paraphrased comments that I heard: 

"What can we do about all these shady advisers?" 

"You mean it's legal for advisers to get kickbacks?" 

"Who needs Wall Street, anyway? All they want is your money. You're better off doing it yourself." 

The radio hosts, while less extreme, still managed to echo how the public has misframed the issue.

Here are three commonly held assertions that should be addressed for the good of the industry (no matter what side you are on): 

Public Misunderstanding #1: "The Greedy Industry will fight this Conflict of Interest Proposal." This is wrong. This is not an example of the industry vs. the regulators. What's occurring is nothing less than a civil war within the financial services industry. It's the "Big Box" financial services firms vs. the "Mom & Pop" neighborhood advisers. Quite frankly, we don't know on which side the regulators will fall, but for all their lip service to the Moms & Pops, in the end many feel money rules the day and, in this case, "money" means the same thing as "Big Box." 

Public Misunderstanding #2: The Greedy Industry is stealing money from my retirement plan." Chances are, this is certainly not true for the vast majority of 401(k) plans. A recent study concluded no less than two-thirds of 401(k) plan assets benefit from non-conflicted advice. What's more, the conflicts of interest that do occur are specifically permitted by the Department of Labor, so, technically, it's not "stealing" (although it's also not necessarily in the retirement saver's "best interest," either). Many feel these same self-dealing exemptions will continue to be permitted in the proposal submitted by the DOL. One final comment on this idea: The idea that commissions are evil is also misplaced. The commission-based business model is a critical element for agency transactions. This is the traditional brokerage function and is essential for the continued success of our capital markets. The DOL is not prohibiting this business model. 

Public Misunderstanding #3: "Why do we need a 'new' rule? Don't things always get worse whenever the government makes a new rule?" OK, I'll admit, the second half of this sentiment might have some merit, but the premise that this is a "new" rule is misleading and incorrect. The Fiduciary Standard currently exists and, as mentioned above, is being enjoyed by a vast majority of 401(k) plans now. (IRA plans? That may be another story …) But the rule is not "new." What is new is the sense that businesses providing identical services be subject to the same government regulations. That's fair. That levels the playing field. That removes the corporate cronyism that currently exists. But fiduciary advocates be warned, this same objective can be achieved not only by forcing brokers under the same fiduciary standard umbrella, but by simply removing the fiduciary requirement that currently exists for RIAs. 

What we end up with remains to be seen. Right now, it's incumbent upon the industry to recognize it has a public relations problem. The damage to our reputation will only increase if we continue to fight this civil war the way we have been for that last several years. 

Take heart, dear reader, for I will end with a winning suggestion.

There's another name for "civil war" when it comes to business: "Competition." Let's agree on a way to remove Washington from this equation and take our battles to where the public might view us more sincerely. Let's stop trying to out-lobby each other and begin trying to out-advertise each other. That spirit of competition is the best way to present our arguments.

Only there, in the middle of the marketplace, in the middle of America, stands our true arena of honor.