~synthesis~

republican prime - reinvention

Necessity is the mother of invention. How true. It can also be the mother of reinvention.

When you become stale you get a makeover; when your home becomes stale, you remodel; when a corporation becomes stale, the board hires a new CEO; when a political party becomes stale - hmmm. They get a new leader in every primary - that hasn't changed things; they've tried makeovers, but people have seen through them. How does change happen for a party?

Once in a blue moon, a unique opportunity presents itself; something happens that is (or could be) so cataclysmic as to separate the very atoms that form the molecule of the party. Depending on how it is interpreted and shaped, the party can stay the course; or maybe, just maybe, if the powers can help it along, take the road not taken and emerge as a whole new entity. Let's call this "R-Prime."

Today the Republican Party (call this "R-Base") is floundering. Its identity is shaped by polarizing factions (religious right, war-obsessed xenophobes, etc.) who have taken the party away from its founding tenets of equality, integrity, small government, fiscal responsibility and adherence to the Declaration of Independence. Many of the R-Base winners in the national election are fervent adherents of these hard-line causes - their rhetoric does more harm than good if the goal is to be a truly national party.

R-Base has gotten to the point where they are actually evicting moderate Republican candidates who have a chance to win to promote people who think the "right" way.

If the R-Base leadership wishes (truly wishes) to once more be the party of Lincoln, it must recognize the potential "opportunity" that has presented itself in the last few weeks, and take action. Sarah Palin's base (dare I say "flock") are the very factions that are pushing R-Base past Attila the Hun on the spectrum. Can they take advantage? Here's what I would do:

1. Actively and vocally support Palin's "voice", build a strong attachment between Palin and her flock (Palin + flock = "Plock") through media appearances.
2. Post the book tour, publicly prevail on her to campaign for Plocky candidates - strengthen her relationship with that demographic, those politicians, and their fund-raising machines. Most critically, bolster her (and her Plock's) belief that she is a force in American politics, that she is a "leader" and has the potential to be the leader of her party.
3. Irrespective of how the midterms go, use 2010 to begin the R-Base shift - first remove abortion and gay rights from the platform - no litmus tests or other restrictions, marriage as a legal construct has no connection to marriage as defined by any religion - "the Republican Party believes all women and men are equal and not subject to any religious precept." Second, remove the idea that a good offense is the best defense - America's foreign policy is now economic policy; we will no longer have a unilateral armed presence in any country other than the USA. Third, start writing a new contract for America - one based on the founding principles of the Republican Party - equality, small government, balanced budgets, eliminate the deficit, etc.
4. Will these changes pass? No. Not unless something else is done in parallel. Once the midterms are over and Palin forms her "exploratory" committee, the Republican leadership must privately review the new platform with her (as the de facto nominee), assure her in no uncertain terms that this is the future, and that as a leader with a powerful connection to the base, she must bring them along. She needs to know that this is the only way the R-Base believes it can be a force in the future. When she expresses her doubts, she must be told that as the prospective nominee, she has no choice but to support this new platform. As preparation for this conversation, they must have primed the pump with the media, talking about how Palin is a force unto herself, that she has the gravitas to truly achieve. After the meeting, someone must leak the fact that things didn't go so well, and they're worried that Palin will "defect" and create her own party, taking the massively influential "base" and its money with her.
5. Allow nature to take its course, reluctantly encouraging those members of Congress that prefer the Plock to consult their faith and make the best decision for their, and their electorate's future.

If all goes as planned, within six months of the midterms, the following will happen: Palin will do a Perot, declare that she's "goin' rogue" and rally her followers to join her newly-formed Plock Party. She will encourage many of the House and Senate members that she campaigned for to do a Lieberman and get on her Plock-wagon.

Thus is born R-Prime. Its leaders will be able to pass the platform (per #3) because the naysayers will have Plocked off. R-Prime will also pick up many of the centrists that voted for Obama in 2008 who are now "available" because the right to choose, gay marriage, etc. won't be issues. More than this, they will gain funding from corporate (and maybe small business) interests who will realize that even Obama couldn't fix the bumbling acts of a Pelosi/Reid Congress.

The 2012 elections will herald the first truly three-party Congress - in the Senate for example, the Dems will have ~45 seats, the Plocks ~35, and the R-Primes ~20. The House will have a similar mix. Obama will barely win his second term, and Palin and the R-Prime candidate will lose. Facing the prospect of waiting yet another four years, Palin will succumb to Rupert Murdoch's offer of $5m/year to host her own show on Fox, and remove herself from active Plock leadership.

R-Prime will have a huge role in shaping the American legislative agenda (asserting their balance of power in Congress), and if they are able to stay true to their Contract with America and make a difference, they will be poised for a strong showing in 2012 and 2016. The Plock base will erode; they may remain a viable party in the years to come, but hopefully never enjoy a balance-of-power position in Congress. The Dems will have to choose between moving farther to the left ("D-Plock") or moving closer to the center, but tone their voice towards the individual proletariat and attempt to paint R-Prime as the business/bourgeois party.

Is this far-fetched? Notwithstanding the sage voices of Fox News, I think ultra-right is untenable in American politics, and if the Republicans have the stomach for it, they can reinvent. Will it happen? I hope so. Would I vote for R-Prime? Yes.

anti ex parte party

What branch of the federal government has the highest level of integrity? Which would you trust more than the others?

The Executive and Legislative are infected with special interests, and motivated not by what's right, but by what's popular and what sells. The Judicial seems to be the most transparent and the one where outcomes and implications are most easily observed and measured.

The Supreme Court is generally at the back of the decision tree - they don't create, they interpret and to some degree, enforce. But they have a system that prioritizes integrity and peer review in a way that the other two don't.

Is it because judges were deemed to be less trustworthy and therefore had to have walls put around them? Is it self-imposed? Judicial is the also only branch that has a competence/experience/academic barrier to entry - the others are a free for all - anyone can apply - all you need is citizenship, access to money, and a gullible electorate (this last you get for free).

Is there a way to inject trustworthiness into Congress and the White House? I suppose the founders felt that the election process was the best policing agency for this, but let's face it - that hasn't really worked.

Judges are required to explain and document their analysis and rulings (unlike the White House or Congress).  Judges can only communicate (directly or indirectly) with any person or group that has a connection to a case if it's "on the record." Any communication that violates this is called ex parte.

Why can't we apply the same standards across all three branches? What if every conversation related to a bill/measure/whatever was required to be on the record and fully-disclosed to the public as a matter of law? For national security issues, the conversations should be documented and available after an appropriate period. No matter what the discussion, or with whom, everything must be part of the public record.

If I had an interest in a particular law or ruling, I'd want to be able to see the "paper trail" of influence for every Congressman or Senator that voted for or against it, or helped craft it; and I'd want to see it in roughly real time (i.e. within a day of the conversation). I'd also like to eliminate the statute of limitations for violations, if an elected official is found to have done something inappropriate even after they've left office, they're still liable and subject to judgment

In 1994 the Republican party drew up a Contract with America that made a series of commitments that would be kept if they won a Republican majority in the House. I thought that was a brilliant tactic and wonder if they might not do it again?

If I were running their party and facing a possible worst-case scenario with Sarah Palin, I would want to reestablish my party with all demographics, and unshackle myself from any one interest group. The heartland, religious right, tea party, or whatever are all important constituents, but to win I need them and more. The American politic isn't as parochial as it once was; you are a victim of being fractionalized (the Palin effect) if you allow any one person or community to define the essence of the party.

Like the Contract, I'd also want to define a new game and force the others to come to me, and play by my rules (straight from Sun Tzu's Art of War).  My opening gambit: "we are now the anti-ex parte party; all of our candidates have signed this pledge and we call on our opponents to share our commitment of integrity and accountability to the American people." It would be a way to jettison the anti-Cheney/Bush sentiment, the religious right leaning that has turned off many voters, and the Palin effect. It would also put the President and many Democratic leaders in a difficult position, because either way (take the pledge or not), they lose. Can't beat those odds.

But the best thing is it would bring a measure of integrity and accountability to Congress and the White House.

spoiler alert

To be an effective spoiler, you must lure people in and then do the bait and switch by thoroughly turning the tables on them. You have to be smarter than people expect.

It's impossible over the last few days to read/watch/listen to any kind of news without hearing about Sarah Palin, her book, her Oprah interview, and how she's still just a honest, God-fearing, down-to-earth, anti-socialism hockey grandmother.

The Republican Party, despite her rather harsh words about the McCain campaign seems cautiously supportive. There is no doubt that since she was nominated as John McCain's running mate, the heartland has turned out in droves for her; and if the Republicans are to win more House seats during the midterms  or mount a viable challenge in 2012, they will need the heartland to turn out in droves for their nominee.

Ms Palin is being understandably coy about her intentions (other than to help elect Republicans in 2010, and promote her book). Polls show that well over half (59%) of Republicans and 21% of Independents have a favorable opinion of her, and I imagine close to that percentage believe that she'd make a good president. In her own words, her people are "everyday, hard-working Americans who want government back on their side."

For someone who has been as contentious as she has, whose family has had as many ups and down as hers has, this is either a remarkable testament to her star-power, or a serious indictment of the American voters. What you can't argue is her ability to draw a crowd, get free publicity and media coverage, and raise funds for candidates she supports.

So what of all this? What's the political upshot? Who's most afraid of Palin?

I think it's the leaders of the Republican Party who are most scared. And if the Democrats are thinking at all, they're secretly rooting for her. You might be wondering if I've gone off the bend, or is this just a typo?

What if in 2011 as the Republican leadership game begins to heat up, Sarah Palin, having supported the party during the midterms, resigns from the Republican party (citing concerns about how establishment they are, reiterating their screw-ups during the last presidential election, and punctuating all this with her real worry, which is their centrist, almost liberal views on key issues (she may not even have to name these issues))?

Yes, Sarah Palin will resign. In her speech she will say that since the mid-terms she has assembled a team who like her are just plain, ordinary Americans, and raised a large-enough war chest to finance her own campaign without the help of the Republican party.

She will then announce her candidacy for President of the United States as an Independent with the wholehearted support of the Tea Party, the NRA, much of the religious right, and potentially Fox News (maybe she'll also announce Sean Hannity is her choice for Vice President). Thus will "Palin - for the People" be born.

Like Ross Perot before her, she will split the Republican base, earning about 20% of the popular vote, and giving a landslide victory to the Democratic ticket.

I don't believe she is this smart, but then again, I didn't just resign my job and get a $7million book deal.

affect magic

I tend to think in threes. Driving home this evening, the concept of experiences was bouncing around my head, and I saw three aspects - those that create, those that watch, and those that curate.

I was marveling earlier at my good fortune to have such great friends. Two of my dearest hosted an impromptu celebration tonight for a collection of fellows that were all three of these aspects of creation. They are artists one and all - their inspiration comes from everywhere, anywhere, and everything in between. It is filled with passion, intellect, sensuality, brutality... It is life.

Creators of experience use authorship, performance, story-telling, and many other -ships to enliven. Their ability to interpret the world and then reveal it is astounding to me.  The watchers (perhaps voyeurs is a better word) are people like me, who (I must admit) are all about the vicarious moment. Being a part of conversations in this home reminded me of how passion and art create boldness. How they bring to people the strength and fierceness to not just do it, but to do it in a unique, magical and affecting way.

As an observer, I got to revel in their energy, and to be ever-more inspired to create my own thing - for that I thank them.

Curators are many things - they are of course creator and observer, but that's not enough. They are also collector (like the creator they must consume, digest and interpret but they also have to get others to give). The are able to do this because they honor without judgment. They like to watch, but their eyes are filters that aim to reveal insides. In the processing is a special mechanism that formulates that most conveyable aspect that when combined with other such aspects, achieves a gestalt that we as voyeurs will experience and say "wow."

Tonight I was at a celebration for A Wink and a Smile. It is a brilliant and wonderful film whose director Deirdre Timmons is the quintessential curator. She and her producer-husband Jack Timmons are creatures who have that ability to find, nurture, honor and convey expression in a way that simply affects magic.

Driving home, I got to thinking about other brilliant curators - the first that came to mind is another good friend - Larry Rosenstock. As the leader of High Tech High, Larry like Deirdre created an environment in which his actors (teachers) are able to create and express and inspire and provoke with the trust and freedom that becomes the magic that is High Tech High.

It's one of those ineffable "we know it when we see it" qualities that is able to affect magic. If there were more magic affectors like Deirdre and Larry, we'd have more brilliant films, more brilliant schools, and more brilliant ...brilliance.

absurdity

The recent healthcare debate has been angst-ridden to say the least. With something this big, everyone's bound to have issues, and compromise is the word of the day. But there's a limit isn't there?

The New York Times singled out two constituencies today - overweight people, and people who care about abortion rights. The "fat pride" [their phrase not mine] people argue that being heavy is not unhealthy (!?!). According to Linda Bacon, a professor of nutrition at City College of San Francisco, “What we’re doing in public health care policy is harmful. We give a direct and clear message that there’s something wrong with being fat.” The Pro-Life people argue that the government should not fund abortions because they are morally opposed to it.

The Center for Disease Control and the Office of the Surgeon General say that obesity is unhealthy, increases the risk of other diseases, and requires more medical intervention over the life of the patient. These are not guesses, there is data to back this up. Of course we're giving a direct and clear message that there's something wrong with being fat! What kind of moron (other than Ms Bacon) would say that's a bad thing? And yet, we have a huge (sorry) lobby that's now actively pursuing this agenda! Given how politicians whore themselves out to lobbies with voters, I have no doubt that we will see some Congressional panderer put forth a bill making obesity an American right.

IMO societal obesity is a failure - but our focus should be building a culture of health and fitness in our children. That's how we change things.

People are discriminated against based on how they look; obese people are obviously so, and therefore subject to discrimination. This is inexcusable. BUT - let's not mistake anti-discrimination as reason to argue that we should encourage obesity! Jeez!

In 1973, the United States Supreme Court held that a woman may abort her pregnancy for any reason, provided that the fetus is younger than 24-28 weeks (after which it is deemed to be viable - able to survive outside the womb). After 24-28 weeks, abortion must be available when needed to protect the woman's health. 

IMO every abortion is a failure - but our focus should be on preventing unwanted pregnancies. That's how we change things.

The Supreme Court is the law of the land. If the law of the land states that abortion is legal, then how is it possible that the government's health insurance plan won't cover it? If a healthcare bill does get passed, I hope someone appeals this exclusion and that the Supreme Court has the fortitude to hear the case.

But this is all just sophistry. Here's the real absurdity:

The greatest impetus for healthcare reform is neither abortion nor obese people - it is serving the millions of citizens that don't have access to medical care. It is recognition that these un(or under)-insured Americans ought to have access as a matter of societal rightness. I couldn't agree more - a society is formed when people want to live together for mutual benefit; it is when the community works together to care of the one. IMO this is at the core of being human.

Which segment of society is more likely to be obese? Which segment is more likely to have an unplanned pregnancy? I'll give you one guess.

"Democracy" is a powerful word. According to Webster, two definitions are: "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation"; and "the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges." Both American political parties are supporters of the democratic ideal - this is a big part of American foreign policy - bringing lawful democracy to those that don't have it. But when it comes to their own citizens, elected leaders on both sides of the aisle are flaunting both their own laws and the essence of democratic equality.

The absurdity must end.

the time is now

This week, I had the great pleasure of meeting Prof. Deborah Ball (math teacher and Dean of UMichigan's School of Education) as she spoke to a group of math teachers (I crashed the party). She was there to talk about teaching math, but really, her presentation was about two issues that I think we ignore at our own peril - a national education approach vs. state/district, and that teaching is a professional discipline and not a just a job.

With respect to federalizing - IMO it is utterly moronic to have more than one school district in America. According to the 2002 census there are:

• 13,506 school district governments
• 178 state-dependent school systems
• 1,330 local-dependent school systems
• 1,196 education service agencies (agencies providing support services to public school systems)

That's 16,210 separate entities that govern this country's public school system! There's just no way a rational person can say that's a good thing. It turns out, neither the Constitution or any of the 27 Amendments ever mentions the word "education" - that's a mistake.

My thanks to Larry for the African proverb below - it is brilliant, has many messages, not the least of which is "sure if you had had a brain you would have done this ages ago, but since you didn't then, it's time to grow some and get it done now." President Obama and Secretary Duncan need to grow some (the Republicans will likely endorse this before the Democrats), argue that eliminating 16,210 agencies is a good thing, and that we need a 28th Amendment to the Constitution to mandate that public education be nationally funded and administered.

As Deborah pointed out, every country that does education well, does it as one - we can learn from that. Moreover it is morally abhorrent for the government to discriminate against a child's right to a great education just because of their zip code. <-- Where are our student-rights advocates?

The second (and best) part of Deborah's speech was about teaching as a profession, with specific skills, discipline and capabilities. Lay teachers (i.e. parents, etc.) do create learning experiences for their child, but they have nowhere near a professional approach, worse, they often do the wrong thing if their goal is to grasp the child's current understanding and help them learn more. (If the goal is to make the "teacher" feel good, then they're successful.)

Read at least the first 2-3 presentations on Deborah's website, and you will see that she talks at length about how a professional teacher is distinguished from a lay-teacher. She also answers the question "what persistently impedes progress?" by identifying five contributors:

1. Persisting with extinct arguments about skills versus conceptual understanding
2. Lack of a central or common curriculum
3. Persisting with outdated and refuted ideas about "teacher quality," especially with respect to content knowledge
4. Persisting with pendulum shifts from teacher-proofing to teachers, but rarely focusing on teachING
5. Persisting with approaches to teacher education that emphasize things other than practice (e.g. reflection, believes, propositional knowledge, experience)

We've talked about #2 already, the other four are all aspects of respecting teachers as professionals, treating them as such, measuring their ability to teach separately from domain knowledge, and providing them with the tools and mentorship and support to become more skilled teachers. During her lecture, she gave us all a bunch of tests that show how different it is to be a professional teacher vs. a lay-teacher. It was fantastic.

But do teachers really want to be professionals? Do they really want that obligation and expectation? I think they do, I think the bulk of teachers go into it because they are called to it. BUT - as Deborah points out, that doesn't mean they're going to be good at it. It's also not the case that teaching is more art than science. There are specific tools and techniques that effective teachers use that lay-teachers or ineffective teachers don't. This needs to change.

But achieving professionalism isn't just about the teacher, it's a systemic commitment. It must start with the school leaders and administrators providing an environment where teachING is valued and developed; it goes to teachers colleges who must focus on developing these skills from the outset and for accreditation; it goes to the unions who must support these initiatives to measure and compensate their members in terms of their professional ability vs. tenure. It goes to teachers who have to sign up to evolve their technique in order to improve their performance.

Note that I didn't say teachers should be accountable for student outcomes. I think that's the job of schools vs. individual teachers. BUT - teachers do need to be accountable for developing their craft. They need to be paid based on their ability (vs. tenure) in this regard.

If we are able to go from 16,210 to 1 and treat teachers as professionals and measure their proficiency accordingly, change will happen. Not planting the tree 20 years ago shouldn't stop us from planting it today.

simplicity

Have you noticed that the more America cares about something, the more she screws it up?

From education to healthcare to crime to terrorism to disaster relief to taxation to foreign policy to whatever; anything that the politicians get their paws on is sure to take a turn for the worse. Moreover, the longer they hold on to it, the more harm they do. The media doesn't help with it's hype-obsessed approach, but that's a separate story.

Education has been at the forefront of political debate for as long as I can remember, but this year 7,200 American students will drop out on every school day. Look at America's foreign policy history of "anointing" leaders (just in the Middle East: Saddam Hussein, Hamid Karzai, the Taliban, etc.); or how Hurricane Katrina was handled; or how many people in this country die of preventable diseases; or the "war" on drugs; or crime-prevention efforts that result in more crimes and more criminals in jail year on year.

The list is endless, as is the complexity of each of these programs. It seems that everything this country cares about must be huge, intricate, nuanced, and over-manned. If it isn't we don't care enough. If we don't throw enough money at it, we're not really committed. Therein lies the rub, the fallacy, and our failure.

What can be done to create a more productive system? Whatever it is, it's for sure not as simple as I'm about to make it. Or is it? Is that our problem? We like complexity? It's much easier to hide (or hide things) in a tree/bush/shrub/etc.-ridden forest than in a less-cluttered place like an empty parking lot. Ask people in the government and they will affirm that it's an incredibly complex and nuanced thing - this is why the 2008 Federal Budget numbered 2,200 pages.

Warren Buffet once said that "business schools reward difficult complex behavior more than simple behavior, but simple behavior is more effective." Most corporations and governments are rife with business school graduates. Maybe not such a good thing... We should not take this idea that complexity is good, inevitable, and to be cherished as truth or acceptable.

What if three things were to change:

1. Spend well - most budgets are funded based on LOBA (lower of budget or actual), which is fine when you have a ton of money and no accountability. It favors those who spend, not those who do. What if this changed - budgets are now zero-based (start from scratch), and funded based on outcomes. There will be multi-year projects that need to maintain funding, but they should be assessed based on what got done in the current year and whether it's time to increase, reduce, or cut the investment. The goal should be (for the 1st year) a budget that is 10% the size of the current one - 220 pages.
2. Rewarding completion - why don't things stop in government? So many projects (largely due to #1) go on and on and on, just because departments measure success based on funding; and cutting things admits a need for less money. We should reward good completion - it could be as simple as a bonus (to the government employees, not the contractors) for finishing a project on time, on budget, and closing up that shop. Those people should be first in line for the next cool thing to happen, because they got it done the last time. I'm not sure what the real goal should be, but my gut says 80% of programs 20 years or older should be cut, and 20% of programs younger than 20 years should be cut - every year.
3. Being accountable for less - this is big. I've never seen any successful project get done when it had more than three objectives. In fact, the most successful ones have just one. When you try and do everything for everyone, you end up doing nothing for anyone. We must only fund programs that have a clear, singular, time-limited objective. It's true that some things are not time-limited - defense or social security come to mind - and that's fine, they should be the exceptions. The goal should be for every project to have a clear, specific and timely outcome. If it doesn't, it doesn't get funded.

I know I've focused solely on money, but look at how things get done in government, it boils down to he who has the $$ has the power. Let's temper that power a bit...

democracy

Leonard Cohen is one of my favorite artists - he is a brilliant poet and a great entertainer - I was (ironically) listening to Democracy as I was reading the news:

It's coming to America first,
the cradle of the best and of the worst.
It's here they got the range
and the machinery for change
and it's here they got the spiritual thirst.
It's here the family's broken
and it's here the lonely say
that the heart has got to open
in a fundamental way:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

The NY Times reported that Dede Scozzafava (R) suspended her candidacy for an upstate New York Congress seat this weekend. Scozzafava's support of gay and abortion rights caused conservative interest groups to embark on an extensive radio and advertising campaign against her (despite he being a fellow Republican). Without missing a beat, the RNC switched its support to a more "mainstream" conservative candidate, but they never consulted the district in question, which of course is upset because the new candidate is a national choice and not a local one.

This is not about calling out the Republican party - this could just as easily have happened with the Democrats if a candidate wasn't "on board" with one of their core issues.

I'm not an alarmist, but the first thing I thought of after reading this article was these words: "Our job as Americans and as Republicans is to dislodge the traitors from every place where they've been sent to do their traitorous work." -- As spoken by Senator Joseph McCarthy in a 1952 speech at the Republican National Convention.

Those were complex times, when fear prevailed in the face of a very scary enemy and the government felt empowered to do whatever was necessary to win. Sound familiar? As today (with Newt Gingrich in the NY Times article), there were cautionary voices that spoke out, most notably:

Sir, I detest, I abhor their [communists'] philosophy, but I detest more than that their tactics, which are those of the fifth column, and are dishonest, but at the same time I never as a citizen want to see our country become urged, by either fear or resentment of this group, that we ever compromise with any of our democratic principles through that fear or resentment. I still think that democracy can do it.
–Ronald Reagan, testifying to HUAC as president of the Screen Actors Guild (1947)

It's easy to understand why the conservative Republican community is so bent on protecting itself. After years of dominance, the last months have been a struggle. When you face this kind of test, you think about what got you here (your last win) and try to recreate it or protect it. In the corporate world, it's strategic entrenchment - where a company tries to milk its cash cows to the last drop, forgetting how they began in the first place, and as a result allowing others to eat their lunch, their dinner, and future meals as well.

A set of principles galvanized a group of people to form the Republican party. If I were in their leadership today, I would remember that moving away from a successful approach is incredibly difficult, and requires serious conviction. But the alternative is someone else eating your lunch, dinner and all your future meals...

As Cohen said:

Sail on, sail on
O mighty Ship of State!
To the Shores of Need
Past the Reefs of Greed
Through the Squalls of Hate
Sail on, sail on, sail on, sail on.

antitrust

Does human nature dictate that we don't trust each other? It seems that way. While it is true that communities can form and have each others' backs, the vast majority of society seems bent on believing and expecting the worst of its people.

This is why we have police officers, FBI/CIA/DEA/NSA/TSA/XXX agents, a vast military machine, and even a division at the US Department of Justice that focuses solely on corporate antitrust. Schools have metal detectors, airports have ridiculous security procedures - it goes on. As a politician, you have to show that you are tough on crime, promoting your prosecutorial record (or in some states how many people you've put on death row). Have you ever heard a politician campaign on the fact that they have less people behind bars, and claiming it to be a good thing?

As an aside, it's interesting that American (I can't speak for other countries) enforcement officers are measured on their conviction rates vs. their prevention rates. Success is putting more people behind bars vs. preventing the crime from happening in the first place. Implication: the whole system is conditioned to look for wrong-doing (perhaps even creating wrong-doing to succeed) vs. preventing it.

Surely this can't be a productive way to live? This mentality permeates the corporate space as well; with few exceptions, almost every large (> 500 employees) company I've ever worked with or for has a layer of politics and mistrust between departments. In some cases it's the arrogance of not wanting to take a dependency on "them" to do something, so you create your own redundant process; in other cases, it's a belief (not inaccurate) that compensation/recognition is a zero-sum game that requires me/us to do better than him/them - for me/us to win, he/they have to lose. The team matters less than the individual.

Whatever it is, companies as much as societies believe the worse of themselves, and design and manage to that expectation of untrustworthy behavior. Look at HR models, regulatory compliance rules and trainings, corporate overhead, and you'll find that much of that is rooted in the expectation of betrayal.

But there are exceptions, my thanks to Axon for sharing this statement of Netflix' Freedom and Responsibility culture. It speaks volumes about their approach, but it's also interesting that it took 128 pages to tell the story. I wonder if one statement might have sufficed:

"We hired you because we believe in you, share your passion for doing great things, and feel your belief in us. All we ask is that you always keep our shared goal for greatness at the front of your mind and do the right thing."

Is it possible that if I trust you, you will feel empowered by that trust and allow the better angels of your nature to prevail? We do this in places like airports where we ask a stranger to watch our bags for a minute. Parents do this when entrusting their children to babysitters. Team sport athletes do this because they know they have to act as one and trust in each other in order to win. Netflix does this.

What will it take to do it more broadly? I think it boils down to one thing - the imposition of a shared accountability. This might not stop all untrustworthy behavior, but from what I've read of organizational behavior and crowd theories (like Wisdom of Crowds), it is possible to move the needle towards less oversight but better outcomes through self- and team-policing. Look at most smaller organizations, and especially those where each employee has some kind of equity stake in the company and you see this how well this can work. Is it possible that size does matter? That once you hit a certain size trust just begins to fade? I can't believe this (that's the Pollyanna in me, I know) - I think we can design organizations and even communities that are pro-trust.

It's a matter of will.

content, bandwidth and lunch

Marshall McLuhan was right - the medium is the message.

In almost every case, those that thought content was king were proven wrong. From analog modems (remember baud rates?) to DSL to Cable to FIOS, people routinely (and happily) pay a premium for bandwidth,  but they absolutely hate to pay for content.

Think back to the days of the original Napster and Kazaa - if I had been one of those that used either service, my thought process was simple: "I hate paying for content, but I don't mind paying as much or more than $100/month for bandwidth." I may only download 50 songs in a month but I'm still going to be happy with my killer bandwidth vs. having paid $50 for music.

These days people actually pay for multiple sources of bandwidth - I have broadband at home, a data plan for my phone (and a voice plan) and then also pay for hot spots when the need arises. But I still dislike paying for content, I do use Pandora/Hulu, etc. and will buy content, though grudgingly.

Mark Cuban wrote brilliantly about the DVR vs. internet video. In it he talks about how in their typically narrow-minded (the only thing I know is a hammer so everything looks like a nail) mentality, media companies want cable companies to eliminate or cripple DVRs because they allow viewers to avoid commercials. This perspective is shared by most if not all content publishers. They're crazy!

You know others are progressively eating more of your lunch and yet all you want to do is hang on to the meager scraps you have now? Why?

Digitization has altered the equation for publishers - they had the corner on both the medium and the message, but now anyone can distribute content (we haven't even talked about bit torrent) and most people can publish without needing an "official" publisher.

From music to video to books, each publishing machine has attempted to preserve its original business in the hopes of extracting yet one more drop of revenue. But in trying to preserve history, they're losing sight of the future.

People are willing to pay for access, but content ...not so much. Content is less-valued - not just in publishing, but also pharmaceuticals with generics, with clothing and jewelry and knock-offs, etc.

Here's the thing - digitization increases profitability. Manufacturing costs drop dramatically (no physical bits), distribution costs drop dramatically (no bits, no inventory, no returns), cost of sales drops dramatically (eliminate the middle-man), and market size increases dramatically (direct to every customer on the planet, no retail constraints).

If you had all four of these factors beckoning you, why not go that way? Why not actively pursue tomorrow instead of trying to live in yesterday?

Because the greatest predictor of future failure is past success.