~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.

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.

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.

tribal self-preservation

Our DNA prioritizes self-preservation (fight/flight, procreation, etc.) - this is human-nature. "Self" goes pretty far - we see this behavior extend to the family unit, or even the community, and in the case of larger threats, to entire nations (witness 9-11). We also see this in less urgent situations like team sports and at work.

Does self-preservation ever lead to self-destruction?

At work, management sometimes bands together and starts listening more to themselves and ignoring the truth from the trenches even when the source is their own employees. This can lead to strategic myopia or the grasping of scarily flimsy straws. The team ends up feeding off of its cognitive dissonance vs. facing reality. This might be sustainable in the short term (possibly because they're riding their own inertia + euphoria), but it will fall down at some point.

Scott McLeod pointed to an article on the end of teacher sameness and loyalty, which predicts that teachers unions' hold will erode as teachers' roles get more varied (flaunting the unions' goal of a totally consistent and standard teaching remit); in time, they'll just fade away as fewer teachers "fit" their criteria of standardness.

IMO he is overlooking the fact that a lot of the power of unions actually comes from the employer, yep - the unions' power comes from the employer.

While It is true that great teachers create great students, it is more true that great teachers with crappy administrators create crappy schools. I've been to many schools in the last 18 months, and every school I've seen that is wonderful has an administrator/leader who relentlessly and passionately pursues the best for their students. Whenever the leader is bad/stodgy/status quo, the school is too.

David Warlick's post on common core standards scorns the work that the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers have published. He calls out this sentence:

These standards will be research and evidence-based, internationally benchmarked, aligned with college and work expectations and include rigorous content and skills.

Wow - that sounds really good, doesn't it? When David dug deeper, he found that the detail was an amalgam of existing, 20th century ideas. No new news at all.

The "employers" that wrote this appeared to prioritize self-preservation (getting reelected or reappointed) over the best for students. To get re-upped, they need the unions' (most powerful voting bloc) support. By writing a sound byte like the one above, and then putting the same old stuff in the fine print, they preserve themselves and their fellow tribe members, the unions.

The "tribe" seeks the appearance of driving change, but the reality of preserving the status quo.

Teach for America is small - 7,300 TFA teachers out of 6.8 million total - but their effect is huge. We all know the acronym, and teachers and unions are paying attention and changing behavior.

What's the TFA equivalent for Principles and Superintendents? Is it Charter schools? They are almost always the brainchild of a visionary, but the "tribe" scorns if not reviles them. Is it money? America spends more per student than most countries - it hasn't made a difference. It's not shame or guilt (that just strengthens their resolve).

What if Superintendents were paid exactly the same wage (in Massachusetts for example, they make $144k/year) as their lowest paid teacher but budgets had to stay the same or go down? Would that weed out those who were less committed? Would it create a massive gap in leadership? Would anyone notice?

nerd-up!

There's a conversation happening between luminaries in American industry, major players in the American philanthropic scene, leaders in the American education system, and some very senior and "in-the-know" people in the state and federal governments to figure out ways to grow the number of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics)-skilled graduates in the United States. Specifically, there aren't enough students in elementary and high school with an interest in STEM and there aren't enough university graduates in STEM to fill current and future open positions.

Let me start by saying that I don't believe in isolating any one (or one set of) disciplines - good learning must be holistic and serve the complete child. I can't learn science well and sacrifice communications skills (reading, writing, speaking, etc.); I can't learn engineering well and sacrifice creativity (music, sculpting, painting, etc.); I can't learn any STEM discipline without a good (really good) sense of art and crafts (carpentry, etc.).

Making this about one and not the other creates a bifurcation of the education system that is wrong and unfair. My good friend Larry has decided he'll focus his schools on STEAM for this very reason (science, technology, engineering, art and mathematics) - I could agree more + I love the idea of steAm:-)!!!

How about this:

Overarching goal: every student must achieve their greatest academic potential.

STEM-focused goal: America will double the number of American-educated, successful STEM employees by 2020.

Situation:

• The forecast for STEM jobs in ten years is almost double the current population of STEM employees (i.e. at least 80% growth in jobs in 10 years)
• American junior and high school students drop out of STEM disciplines at alarming rates
• Graduates in general are weak in STEM basics irrespective of major
• Students are daunted by the sciences, and aren't captivated by how interesting (and well-paid) jobs in the sciences can be; it's also noteworthy that students normally decide (explicitly or implicitly) an interest in STEM before they reach grade 7
• Employers have done an abysmal job of engaging students and compelling them with opportunities in their organizations
• Philanthropy alone cannot sustain any major social (or other) change (it's incredible at sparking things, but it's not forever)
• In the rest of the world, families and institutions value STEM graduates tremendously; students are encouraged by their peers, families, employers, etc. to get in that game, and get some of that coin; and the results in these countries (like Korea for example) are outstanding, and at a lower cost-per-student than America

Truths:

• Employers are motivated by the following: making money, hiring the best talent, looking good (image) - let's not waste time on any other incentives - help them with these three and you win, everything else is crap
• Students are motivated by the following: getting laid, making money, looking good - let's not waste time on any other incentives - help them with these three and you win - everything else is crap
• Parents are motivated by the following: getting the kids gainfully-employed, becoming burden-free empty-nesters, being financially solvent - ibid
• Teachers & Administrators are motivated by the following: being employed, teaching students, preserving status quo - ibid
• Governments are motivated by the following: getting elected, being perceived as doing good, getting re-elected - ibid

If we want all schools to improve their curriculum and performance, the most sustainable way to do this, is to get the parents (voters) to demand it and expect it. If you want scale and sustainability, this is the ONLY way to do it. If you can achieve this, the governing bodies who seek reelection will find a way to make it happen, and I argue, make it happen without additional funds.

This is a marketing problem - if the demand is created, and elected stakeholders start feeling it from their constituents, outcomes will occur.

Some might think this trivializes the problem, but I've never heard of organized ingenuity (seems like an oxymoron), or broad, sustained, grassroots change (outside of declarations of war or the like) happening just because one person (irrespective of how charismatic, powerful or visible they are) said it should.

The real goal is to make STEM sexy (dare I say: "STEAMy" = Science + Technology + Engineering + Art + Math = yeah baby!).

Sustained, societal change requires a broad from the bottom-up movement that changes culture and expectations.

Solution:

I think we need to create a whole new concept and movement in America - I'm calling it "MInternship" - a combination of mentoring and internships.

Today, most American STEM firms get R&D tax credits for doing all that nerd stuff. I want to change the rule for getting the tax credits. From now on (beginning with the 2010 tax year), in order to qualify for any R&D tax credits, 100% of your R&D staff must mentor a student in grades 6-12. Each mentee must also intern in your organization for at least one week during the school year (not in one go, plus it counts as community service for the student), and optionally for an additional two weeks during the summer break - paid experience.

But please let's not make this exclusive to STEM - why not open this up to all industries - if you want your R&D or operating tax credits, this is the new cost of doing business - involve the future in the present.

It is an amazing opportunity for employers to reach out, identify and nurture stars, eventually hire them, and of course get those tax credits. It's huge for students because they get to be engaged in reality, identify with people who are doing great work, learn, and realize that this could be their vocation.

We marry this with a marketing campaign where we showcase and applaud nerds (Iron Man and Hulk are two pretty cool nerds, and both got laid (well Hulk almost did)!), with creative uses of media - targeting both parents and students. This campaign is a myth-busters campaign - we want everyone to know that nerd-smarts are absolutely attainable irrespective of gender, demographics, whatever; and we especially want everyone to know that nerds get paid really well, and better on average than other professions.

This marketing campaign has to show parents how important it is for them to focus on their children's academic time as an investment in independence, and how a great education is the key to being a successful empty-nester.

Result:

It will take some time - say 5-6 years, but if done right, this is a sustained and totally scalable approach to growing the American nerd (and otherwise) population - by creating a desire in the American ethos for a better education that is more closely connected to employment. We are also addressing the needs of each of the audiences identified above.

The problem with it is that it doesn't fit well with bureaucrats and politicians because it doesn't demonstrate direct and substantive results in the first year. (Though I'd challenge you to name five government programs that have.) But the key is to find answers that will be pervasive and live for a long time.

It will also be daunting because it's whacky, there were no committees formed, we didn't hire expensive consultants, and there were no 500-page PowerPoint presentations developed that demonstrated blah, blah, blah.

Let's hope that that group of people above will come to a dramatic and divergent conclusion, rather than live up to a most primo nerd (Einstein)'s definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

actually, "gov"-up

Creating a converged government is controversial, some of the comments I received (like J.R.'s) made me ask myself, "what if we could do a full tear-down and start over, what would the new house look like?" But before I get into that, as d.eris pointed out, the result would no longer be a federation, so instead of a federal government, there would be a national government, or just a government:-).

So... here goes - this is mostly about the process of getting elected, some of the political accountability and it touches on a couple of other aspects like taxation and some core national services. This is by no means exhaustive. Hopefully it provokes a debate about how things could be in iAmerica (i=imaginary;-).

Elections

There are only two kinds of elected officials - the President/VP and the 435 members of Congress; there is no Senate, nor of course are there any local officials. The President can run for one six-year term. Congresspeople can run for up to two four-year terms, and they overlap - so half the House is reelected every two years.

Campaign Financing

Actual or prospective government employees may not accept any kind of gift - public or private, cash or otherwise. To become a candidate, you must be nominated by 1% of your district's citizens, or 10,000 voters, whichever is less. Once nominated, you are entitled to $0.50 per voter in your district, or approximately $250,000 in government funds for your campaign. The presidential candidate follows roughly the same process, and is likewise constrained to $0.50/voter of national funding.

Voting

Voting is mandatory and fully electronic. The penalty for not voting is harsh - your tax bracket is raised to the next level until your vote is recorded (i.e. skip two elections and you're in a higher tax bracket for four years).

During the election (one month every two years), candidates must speak not only about their national interests, but also their local/district commitments. Each candidate must declare their ten most critical local priorities, which forms the basis of their "local" platform and part of the framework for their accountability to their voters.

Voting is a three-step process:

1. Indicate your top ten local issues/priorities based on the published list of each candidate's top ten (so if there are three candidates, you pick your hot issues based on the aggregated (30 or less, since some issues will overlap) candidates' list).
2. Vote for your Congressperson (you will also see how each candidate matches up to your top ten; if there is an incumbent, you see how they performed in support of your top ten issues).
3. Select your presidential candidate (potentially with a similar prioritization model).

By first being asked to prioritize the local issues you care about, we create a sensitivity to local needs for the eventual winner, plus the voter is now able to clearly see which candidate(s)' priorities are most closely aligned. It doesn't force you to vote for the best match, but at least you are making a more informed choice. Moreover, it is in the candidates' best interests to understand their voters' issues up-front and focus on the things at top of mind in their platform to create the most matches on voting day.

Reach

A mandatory electronic voting process includes the provision that the government provide every citizen with the means to do this. As you probably know, every wireless device in the world (phone or PC or whatever) has a unique (MAC or IMEI) address. The government must provide each citizen with a basic device (that is registered to their social security number; if the citizen chooses, they can purchase their own device, but each citizen must have a "registered" device).

This device will be provisioned with basic, free wireless access to deliver government services (voting, emergency services, information, potentially health care records (in a health vault of some kind), financial information (e-wallet), etc.). Each citizen will therefore be able to "connect" and vote wherever they are on Election Day. Since the incentive is quite powerful (see above), it is expected that turnout will be virtually 100%, ensuring that every individual's voice is heard.

Further, the system will capture local priorities (this could also be extended to national priorities), aggregated by district to ensure local needs are met, and when mapped to voting records, actual outcomes, etc., will create a powerful accountability model. I would imagine getting a quarterly report card on how my Congressperson is doing vis-à-vis the aggregated priorities of the district, and the ones I outlined.

This might create the perception of a more big-brother-ish society, but I think with the right regulatory safeguards, it actually creates the opportunity for a leaner, more accessible government, and a better-served citizenry.

Once Elected

The three branches of government remain intact, though Congress does have additional responsibilities.

Congresspeople are required to spend two-thirds (67%) of their time in their district, overseeing national agency focus and prioritization based on the local top ten issues, etc.; and one-third (33%) in Washington on national issues (education, health care, security, infrastructure, defense, etc.).

The local responsibility is much greater than in today's Congress. In this regard, Congresspeople act more like governors of their district. This will require a larger local staff, a deeper understanding of local needs and issues, as well as the ability and accountability for all of the constituents' governing needs.

Since the penalty for accepting private or commercial funds is termination, lobbyists will have a harder time creating influence. Congresspeople will also be judged based on their track record versus the priorities their district set out during the election; this will create a more powerful accountability dynamic, and given that they are required to "govern" their district as well, build a deeper appreciation and focus on the needs and challenges facing their constituents.

When in Washington D.C., Congresspeople will focus on national issues alongside the President. This process operates similarly to the current House, but with the dynamic of a multi-party system (vs. the two that currently dominate). As we've discussed here and here, I think a 3+-party system offers a better representation of the people's wishes, creates more moderated governance, and provides a stronger checks/balances model than we have now.

Checks and Balances

While in principle the federal/state/local model is a check/balance model, I don't believe it works in reality. Look at how much power the Feds wield during crises (9-11, Katrina, etc.), but more importantly, when you follow the money it's very clear that in the end, federal dollars are worth way more than local dollars. You only have to look as far as No Child Left Behind - the Feds account for only 9% of the total national education budget, and yet through NCLB, they basically defined an education model that dramatically altered every state's approach to education.

But if you want more evidence of this, ask any state or local official that you know how much time they have spent (as a percentage) trying to figure out how to maximize their access to federal funds (TARP, stimulus, or otherwise). It's now common for a city to have a stimulus package lobbyist in DC!

When a municipality or state is beholden to the Federal government for handouts, the checks and balances have evaporated. 

I therefore feel that the Congressional accountability model, change in their job descriptions, constraints to financing rules, and the multi-party approach, combined with the current Separation of Powers are enough to ensure an improved government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Taxation

There is only one form of taxation allowed in the country - a simple and progressive income tax. We would start from scratch and create a simpler tax policy for the country that achieved three things - enough income to operate the country (no deficit financing); the ability to set aside some funding as a national reserve; ideally operated so that the poorest third (or higher) of the population paid no taxes. Note that if you didn't vote in an election but were in the lower third of income earners, you would now be subject to taxation per the penalties of not voting.

National Standards

There will be national standards for things like education, health care, infrastructure (roads, air/marine traffic, etc.) and domestic and national security. These standards will ensure equal access to all resources for all people and across the country. Every school for example will operate under the same guidelines and expectations, much like this. In the same way, all roads, railways, airports, ports, etc. should be managed equitably.

Health care... that's a whole separate kettle of fish - I may write a separate post on this, but in the mean time, suffice it to say that today Americans are not the healthiest people in the world, and much work is needed to get them closer to good health. Defense - I believe this is a matter of foreign policy vs. global policy, where in almost every case, economic acts trump military acts.

As I began to write this, it became clear how expansive and complex this is. It raised to a higher notch my respect and admiration for the gentlemen that wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It made me realize how much they were able to accomplish with so few words. They were quite something.

In a related vein, I think these next-generation Congresspersons have an incredibly difficult job. In this new world, I think it might actually be the place where true impact is created, and where leadership and the qualities of being a great leader are tested and honed.

fed-up?

Hello everyone and sorry for the two-week gap in posts - you gotta love vacation-time!

All levels (from municipal to federal) face tough, tough financial challenges; each layer is dealing with its own challenges and scrambling to survive. Even if one level finds balance, it is still subject to the whims of those around it. In California for example, the state's recent budget agreement requires the municipalities to "contribute" money to the state's coffers, so a resident of a city can get hit twice - first with a state-wide program cut, and then because the city's revenue stream is impeded, a potential (and potentially related) municipal cut as well; all of this with no aggregated consideration of that individual or organization's situation.

For example, an education program cut by the state could reduce an inner-city school's funding, and when combined with a separate municipal cut, could result in the school canceling specific programs, or closing its doors altogether.

Additionally, both the state and city leaderships are also aggressively pursuing federal funds to mitigate their failures, creating a dependency on yet another branch of government. In good times when taxes are flowing, this type of thing doesn't happen often enough to cause any wide-spread grief. But now, when things are pervasively bad, the impact is profound. What becomes glaringly clear is the extent to which every level of government is intertwined, and really one big morass instead of a set of "small" ones.

Small Government?

A lot of people (me included) believe in the idea that small government is better, that the Feds should delegate legislation, decision-making and authority as far down the chain as possible on the assumption that local issues are best dealt with by local governments; thereby keeping the Federal government small. But this has spawned a system where each of the levels runs elections, legislates, is responsible for collecting its own revenue, and forming and staffing its own organization(s), defining separate priorities, perpetuating more bureaucracy, etc. But the delineation of responsibilities between the layers isn't clear, things like education or health care or law enforcement all have multi-layered and often competing or conflicting agendas.

With all this layering and duplication and potentially conflicting actions, surely the last thing that's accomplished is a smaller government?

Wherever you may go

Let's start with something as simple and seemingly innocuous as marriage, which is bizarrely deemed to be a local issue. The opening of the Declaration of Independence states that, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. With the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln posited the idea of a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.; and whose closing demands that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Whether gay, straight or otherwise, you are equal and have the right to be happy no matter what. Hmmm... How then does one state get to have one law about marriage, and the state right next door an altogether different law? What happened to the citizen in all of that? How is it consistent with the Declaration that a gay person is prevented from being equal and pursuing happiness in one state, but by literally crossing a street, they suddenly have rights?

And when it becomes an inter-state issue, courts and governments at all levels have to deal with the issues of marriage - because it's clear that in reality, no one level owns it.

Money changes everything

How about taxation and spending. Today every layer of government must find a way to raise funds from the citizenry. It is possible for you to be subjected to three or four taxes that are separately progressive and regressive, that create tremendous pain not only for you the tax payer, but also the collection system. The result is organizations at each level doing the same thing, not thinking about each other, and wasting money, due to the the inherent redundancy and inefficiency.

When it comes to spending priorities, one state might choose health care over education, because more of their voters are closer to retirement and in need of more care. Maybe this is reasonable, but in tough times, when they have to close schools because they can't get budgets balanced or borrow to cover shortfalls, what happens to the children of that state, and their future?

The disparity of student performance by state in the USA (as well as the disparity in curriculum goals, learning standards, etc.) is proof that American students are victims of district, state, and nation-wide discrimination. This can't be right, and it certainly doesn't save money when each city, district, or state makes their own decisions about closing schools, changing curricula, etc. In this the communications revolution era, it is stunningly naïve to think that education should be local vs. global.

In the end...

Why is "many governments" considered small government? Why not have one national government that assures every student the same educational opportunities; where everyone lives by the same laws; that we should all pay taxes, but that those taxes ought to be collected once, be progressive, and cover the needs of all the citizens, according to the laws of the land?

A valid argument against one big government is that there is nothing to temper its behavior - without a system of checks and balances, a government could turn authoritarian, no longer represent the will of the people, and potentially even harm them. No doubt this is a huge risk, and one that should be guarded against. But then I think about the Cheney/Bush presidency, and imagine if a second 911-like attack had occurred just after the 2008 Primaries, that Cheney might have declared a state of emergency and delayed or canceled the elections in the interest of national security... that doesn't seem implausible does it?

A second argument is that local issues can't be dealt with "federally" - exactly which issues fall into this category? And why can't a federal machine solve them?

I think a three (or more)-party political system reduces the Authoritarian risk. I think a purely federal government is a viable governing mechanism. It would be much more efficient, ensure that every citizen is equal, and not be subject to the sometimes idiotic whims of locally-elected "leaders."

focus and discipline

There are two aspects of American politics that I find painful - length and complexity. The former is the interminable process from Primary to General that ought to be shrunk dramatically. I proposed an approach to reducing the time and cost of elections a while back - I still think it's applicable. In the same post I also talked about a simpler and less cumbersome voting process; it and the vote counting part seem complex as hell.

In my last post about a third party, d.eris' blog and the post he pointed me to (whose numeric analysis of the recent election is very interesting), we're all talking about a 3rd party in American politics.

I wonder if the biggest obstacle for a 3rd party is the agony of the primary/general election and then the horrible voting process - who in their right mind would want to run there?

According to most pundits, the recent general election had a strong turnout, which equated to a mere 51% of the electorate actually voting! So President Obama's 52% popular vote equates to only 26% of the electorate vs. the 25% that Senator McCain received. Of those that voted and those that didn't, I imagine it broke down like this:

1. I'm a member of the D or R party and I always vote for our candidate
2. I love the R or D candidate and am voting for him
3. I hate the R or D candidate and will vote the other way so he doesn't win
4. Neither candidate is great, I'll vote for the one I perceive to be least bad
5. Neither candidate is great, but D or R stands for XXX and I will support him because of that issue
6. I'd really like to vote but it's a real pain and/or I'm tired of this process and can't wait 'til it's over and won't vote
7. My vote won't make a difference either way/don't really care, won't vote

In all of this, we know for sure that the 1-5 basically split their vote between the two parties, and if 6-7 had voted for a separate party, that 3rd party would have won a landslide victory with half again as many votes as either D or R. #3-7 might have gone elsewhere if there had been a compelling alternative and the act of voting was easier.

Compelling Alternative

What if a prospective candidate's platform were ethics-based (per the Jacksonian Party post) and they committed to only one term? In other words - vote for me, here are my ethics, and I won't run again, which means if I win, I don't need to raise money for reelection or campaign - my decisions will be based on my ethics platform, and I will not be influenced by lobbies.

I think a candidate like this has a good chance to create a stir and even win, if their platform is compelling to at least #s 3-5 & 7.

Voting Simplified

Now imagine if all citizens were able to vote from home (or from their mobile phones), and imagine that like Australia, people were required by law to vote. These two things will never happen per the comments to this post - incumbent politicians will NOT allow voting to be made easier or require all voters to vote. They like it as difficult as it is, and only want the voters that voted for them to vote.

If by some miracle voting became simpler and all voters were required to vote, then the election process would be cheap, cheap, cheap, and much easier. A significant percentage of a candidate's budget goes towards building massive local machines to get the vote out. Combine not having to spend that because voting is mandatory with social networks and the internet and the media to directly reach your audience, and you have a whole new ballgame.

Back to Reality

Let's face it - this aint going to happen in America. So what's possible? d.eris suggested we must first build confidence in, and a perception of viability for a 3rd party. I'm not sure that's needed - you're not trying to win people who vote. At a minimum, it feels like #4 & 7 would be inclined to vote for a separate candidate, and some of #5 might join the party as well. Additional momentum can be built based on a compelling voice, and the strategy I outlined above (a commitment to only run once) might achieve that, especially when combined with an ethics-based platform. The critical success factor though is being ULTRA-precise about the target audience (if it's just #4, 5 & 7, then focus ONLY on those people); do not fall into the R/D trap of trying to win everyone. Commit to and engage your audience ONLY - if you happen to get votes from others, that's their problem, not yours.

One thing that pervades the electorate is the feeling that politicians can't be trusted. If it is possible to be the trustworthy candidate, by admitting your motivation and your strategy, this might be a winner. Here are the promises I'd make (in no particular order):

• Will only serve ONE term
• Will not spend more than $X on this campaign - most of the outreach will be done electronically at very low cost, there will be no advertising
• Will NOT accept any donations once the campaign is over - no way to be bribed while in office
• Will make no more than three program (ex. change education in XXX way) commitments, because that's all you can do in one term
• Will clearly describe leadership style integrity, transparency, accountability
• Will never spin

Net

With a commitment to Ethics, a precisely targeted campaign, and a clearly articulated platform, it is possible for a 3rd party to coalesce, and achieve critical mass. It will only work with discipline and a strict, rigid adherence to the strategy.

thirds

First, sorry for the lapse in writing - I've been in Japan since just after the fourth, and in Kyoto for the first time - what a wonderful city!

It is election season in Japan, and I learned some interesting things about their process. First, the election laws in Japan are old and quite arcane - according to the BBC and Newsweek, once an election starts, you may not create new websites or update existing ones; you can only distribute so many posters or leaflets to a very small percentage (less than 5%) of your constituency; there are many others. Second, there is no interest on the part of the politicians to change the system! The politicians (I should say incumbent politicians) want to make it as difficult as possible, to impede opponents/upstarts from gaining ground.

This surprised me: only 95% of Japanese in their 20s surf the web, and only a third of them vote. The Japanese think that makes sense: "Young people shouldn't be involved, ...because they're not serious enough or they don't have the education." What's more, most of the politicians are in their 70s like Senator McCain, and recognize that their online savvy isn't comparable to their grand children's. Again the incumbent party (LDP) is old, entrenched and knows that 79% of Internet users in Japan would vote for the DPJ, so they've impeded it.

We've had a great conversation on this blog about the viability of a third party in the American political system. There's a lot of theoretical argument against it, d.eris (here and on his blog) and Dale Shelton have both mentioned Duverger's Law, and the nature of the American politic which impedes a multi-party system.

But in Canada they've shown that multi-party systems can survive, often beginning regionally (for example the Bloc Québécois is a totally regional party, but still a national force, while the New Democratic Party began in Western Canada, but is now a fully-national party). Canada, like the US has a system where only one party or candidate can win in a given district, and yet critical mass can and has occurred; multiple parties are flourishing.

I think the American system has the same "mentality" as the Japanese LDP. It believes it's OK to disenfranchise whomever it wants to as long as the incumbents prevail (can you say "redistricting"?). Perhaps American politicians will take a lesson from the citizens of Iran, who have demonstrated that when they're pushed far enough, they will rise up and insist that their voices are heard.

Further to what I wrote in threeway anyone? - this is the first time in history that it is possibly to directly reach practically every voter in the United States - all you need is their mobile phone number. Moreover, because of the technology proficiency gap between the contemporaries of most of today's politicians and the 18-29 year-old demographic, it is fair to assume that the 18-29 year-olds are actually more reachable and more interconnected than any other demographic in history.

This convinces me that it is possible to organize a national party or at a minimum a strong regional party (both coasts + cities like Chicago, Austin, other university towns, etc.) that would dramatically alter the political landscape and balance of power in Congress. I don't think it'll take something as dramatic as recent events in Iran to create a groundswell, it might be much simpler - perhaps the next mortgage-the-future spending proposal by the President or Congress?

threeway anyone?

My last post about the Sovietization of America and the comments by J.R. and Erin got me to thinking about multi-party (vs. one or two-party) politics:

One-party politics is a sham. But it is also the closest thing to an ideal government provided you have the luxury of an integrity-filled, un-bribable, benevolent dictator. If you don't have that, it's a false democracy, and just plain sucks.

Two-party politics is by definition polarizing. There is no way for one to prevail over the other if they are so similar that it's hard to tell them apart. Each of the two parties has to stake out ground that is sufficiently different from the other that the constituents have a clear choice to make. Further, the issues need to be sufficiently provocative as to elicit powerful emotional responses from proponents of either view (ex. religion, security, abortion, etc.).

Another aspect you might not have thought about - two-party systems make it really easy for special interest groups to form and flourish. The parties themselves help because they've chosen opposing views on highly polarized issues. By promoting and advocating their views, they create a population that is violently for or against the issue, and the special interests get to prey on these people for funding and activism.

Two-party systems are shockingly divisive, you only have to look at the last presidential election to see proof of this. The combative and vitriolic tone was such that witless citizens actually began to believe the rhetoric, and suddenly the opposing leader became a terrorist or evil incarnate or worse. How sad, and how wrong.

Three-party politics can get very interesting. America saw a hint of this recently with Senator Liberman's defection from the Democratic party. Did you notice how much power he had all of a sudden? In a tight, often deadlocked Senate, he was a deciding vote, and hence actively courted by both parties. One person/party ended up wielding much more power was their due...

Now imagine if there were three parties in the US - D, R, and X. Say that D and R are the incumbents, and X was formed Nov 6, 2008 - just after the presidential election. X is centrist (fiscally conservative and socially liberal), and led and funded by the 18-29 year-old demographic [worth reading this article about shifting electoral tides]. It engages via non-traditional means (no TV advertising, purely e-focused, therefore requiring relatively little funding); it is led by university student activists and leaders, and new economy business leaders. Importantly, it hardly ever competes with either D or R for mind-share, since it doesn't go after traditional R&D issues, nor does it target traditional D&R strongholds (seniors, unions, religious groups, etc.).

In the mid-term elections, X is able to convert 45 D and 15 R seats, resulting in the following mix in the House: D:210, R:163, X:60. Since a majority vote = 218, neither party can win a vote without X, but either D+X or R+X (or D+R) can prevail.

In the end, all three parties will moderate their positions because none of the three can go it alone anymore. The more polarizing the proposition, the more likely it is to be discarded. Ideally, the three parties might also come together to pass anti-lobbying and campaign finance reforms.

Some of you might be thinking "what if it goes the other way" - imagine if instead of X, the new party that formed was G**2 (G-squared). Let's say G**2 stands for Guns and God. They splinter off of the existing R party and manage to get 40-50 candidates elected. Now you have an altogether different dynamic - R becomes the new X (it is socially moderate, and fiscally conservative); in most cases, D and R will work together, moderate their positions, and annex G**2. At some point, G**2 will become completely fractionalized.

Impact of Original D, R & X:

• Both R and D have to court X, but because X is centrist and doesn't care about all of R or D's issues, nor are they competing in R or D's strongholds, R & D will have to moderate their positions to even reach X.
• The special interests and lobbyists are thrown in a tizzy (technical term) - their ability to influence votes is diminished, and they are unable to affect change on issues X cares about by going to their traditional D or R representatives. Those guys simply don't have the votes to make change happen anymore, and X voters don't really spend money on this crap:-)!
• In 2012, if X has been effective, it will vie for 2-3 Senate seats and grow its House base by 4-6 seats. It will maintain its e-engagement model and continue to require minimal funding to reach its audience.

A three-party system would absolutely change the dynamic in American politics. Moreover, this is the perfect time for a well-organized X party for and by the 18-29 demographic to take hold and flourish.

What do you say? Would you vote for X?

nyet nyet...

I read an outsider's view of life in the Soviet Union in 1982 by Edward Crane this morning. 1982 is 27 years, or roughly a generation ago - it seems like so much longer ...or does it?

The Soviet Union was formed in 1922 following a long and bloody civil war. Its formation spawned a massive industrialization, achieving among other things, the electrification of the USSR. Socialism became the policy, along with a one-party system that viewed everyone including their own citizenry with suspicion and mistrust.

Following WWII, the USSR built a mighty military machine and a progressively oppressed society. It viewed everyone not "of the Party" as "them" and not "us." The socialist way achieved a high degree of equality, but very little quality. Over time, the "thems" became most of the rest of the world; and despite becoming an industrial/military superpower, the Soviets were only interested in further domination and suppression. Needless to say, this created enemies among all the "thems," who were united in their "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality. In the end, there were very few countries that the USSR could count on, and most of those were "allies" due to economic ties vs. any sense of camaraderie.

According to Crane, Debra Kocher, and Wikipedia, life there was at best dour. It was permeated with authoritarian thuggery, excessive oversight, chronic despair, alcoholism, religious oppression, dilapidated infrastructure, lack of basic services (like health care, good education), and shortages of food and consumer goods. While not explicit, each also remarks on how the Soviet people's views of life in the West were inaccurate, and "crafted" by their government. Worst of all, all three characterized the Soviet people as being entirely without hope.

The downfall of the USSR was the result of a lack of industrial self-sufficiency, the resulting economic disparity leading to a lack of foreign currency with which to import goods; and then the disaffection of all the States in the Union, leading to their own declarations of independence, and the eventual Soviet dissolution by Gorbachev.

Is there parallelism between then and now? Yes, I think so, but these are still two very different unions. 

In America, politics is a predatory act. Politicians either prey on hope, fear, or ignorance, or sometimes all three. The ideal situation for any politician, Democrat or Republican, is to have an utterly submissive and willing populace. After September 11, 2001, Americans bowed to Cheney/Bush's will, blindly accepted everything they said, and believed their resolution to be true and righteous.

During this time, Americans accepted many changes to their way of life in the name of a secure society. The government was happily given permission to impinge on its citizens' privacy (listening to communications, proliferating security cameras, watching economic transactions); control movement (all air travel and border crossings); declare war on nations; commit crimes on foreign soil; and spend $billions that it didn't have - all in the name of national security.

Americans have also become increasingly xenophobic - everyone else is "them" and only Americans are "us." The idea of building, dare I say it, an Iron Curtain between the United States and Mexico was at the forefront of political debate just a few short months ago, as is the ever-present issue of restricting immigration.

Religion dominates policy issues, whether it is marriage or sex education or abortion or gay rights or curriculum. It aims to control large swaths of political will and social behavior.

American infrastructure is horribly dilapidated - roads and bridges are falling apart, trains are failing, airplanes are poorly maintained, and air traffic control is in a dangerous state. Hospitals are unable (or unwilling) to care for everyone, millions go without health care altogether; schools are in decline, students that do manage to graduate are poorly equipped for their next evolution. The economy is tanking, unemployment is rising precipitously, as is the number of people who have already lost unemployment benefits but remain without work or income.

Is it simply a matter of time before someone comes along with a "just and righteous" value proposition, and the citizens willingly accept a bold new way to salvation, where the "state" controls everything and "provides" everyone exactly what they need?

The recent election might be a ray of hope, though things don't seem to have changed a whole lot. The many economic packages have dramatically increased state ownership of industry (textbook socialism); the ideas of nationalization, excessive government oversight, and foreign intervention have become acceptable; a tacit rejection of the very things that made America the country it once was. A country that rejected oppression (religious or otherwise); that opened its arms and welcomed all people; whose Declaration of Indepencence brilliantly stated:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Why aren't these words quoted more often? Why isn't their truth and practice promoted more often? And why isn't their violation called out more often?

Now I don't really believe that America will all of a sudden turn into a variant of the Soviet Union, but I think some sense of why and how this country was formed in the first place needs to be much closer to the front of our minds than mired somewhere in the bowels. 

Let us be vigilant lest we be doomed to generations of constipation...

UPDATE - corrected to reflect correct document - thanks Josh

epic movements

How do you create a global movement? What does it take to start something that sufficiently compels the leaders of governments around world to make the necessary trade-offs on a national scale to make change happen?

About a month ago, I had the opportunity to spend 30 minutes on the phone with Steve Killelea - a very interesting fellow who has taken on an equally interesting mission - global peace. To do this, Steve decided to make peace tangible - define it, quantify it, and build a model that allows each country to be assessed and ranked so that government leaders can see how they compare to each other, and take action.

As our conversation went on, he said that there were three causative factors for peace - income per capita, perception of corruption, and education. So the wealthier, more educated and less corrupt you are, the more likely you are to be peaceful - kinda makes sense. I also learned that the biggest driver of change in a country's ranking is domestic stability; Mexico for example has fallen significantly due to its drug-related issues.

Around the same time, I had the good fortune of previewing the premier of the upcoming NOVA scienceNOW season, where I learned about Luis von Ahn, and in particular this really cool idea he has called GWAP - games with a purpose. von Ahn is a fascinating and rather divergent thinker - he's done some brilliant and powerful work in a variety of areas - watch the NOVA episode when it airs to learn more.

Going back to Killelea's GPI (global peace index), I think it's a bizarrely interesting idea to quantify peace (I would have thought of it like porn - you know it when you see it:-)). First, I think you have to be very sure of your data before you publish - there are some numbers that I do question - the USA is absolutely not 99% literate, nor with a 75% (or less) high school graduation rate is post secondary enrollment 82%. I say this because the countries that this Index needs to influence are those that will dismiss the analysis (which I think is worthwhile) based on any error, and then we're nowhere.

I think for Killelea (or anyone) to create geopolitical change, there needs to be a really (really) big hammer - it's called the power of the people. There's no way you're going to pressure the USA (ranked #83 - remember the three factors - education, corruption and wealth!) to do anything differently without two actions - demonstrate the profundity of their impact, and get their citizens to viscerally understand how widely-felt their country's acts are, and start the change from within (witness recent events in Iran).

To do the first, the Peace Index must include a coefficient of influence for every country that measures and demonstrates the ripple effect on other countries of their malfeasance. So if America does something untoward, the impact spreads well beyond her borders to affect XX other countries. In this way, the whole world can see how interdependent it is, and each country will know just how much it's harshing on everyone else off with its actions. This can be an incredible motivator - both for the one country and those that are affected by its actions.

To do the second, we must humanize. Let's bring Luis von Ahn back into the mix. I think his GWAP is unique in how it connects with people's insides. The two gents need to collaborate and build a game (or other vehicle) that can go seriously viral, that shows people exactly how their government creates un-peace, how it affects them, and then helps them understand and play out approaches to shift the balance so that the country becomes peaceful from within - as Kellelea stated, domestic issues are the biggest driver of changes in ranking - let the people act!

Global change comes from within - let the people be the change they seek.

uniting divides

Why is abortion such a pivotal and polarizing issue in the United States? Why doesn't the death penalty get the same level of attention? If one is deemed murder, how is it that the other is not?

Pro Life proponents argue that abortion is wrong because life is life; that from the moment of conception, a fetus is alive and human. While I get that capital punishment responds to a criminal act, if life is life, then killing is murder - period. No life (irrespective of how good or bad it is) should be ended, and society is equally guilty of murder if they employ the electric chair or an abortionist. Why then doesn't the Pro-Life movement fight the death penalty with the same vigor?

By the same token, why doesn't the Pro Choice lobby advocate for the death penalty? Why are they not also proponents of euthanasia? Why is their energy not equally applied to all forms of life-related self (or societal)-determination?

Similarly, the equal access to marriage debate (exemplified by Proposition 8 in California) is also polarizing but flawed. If all men are created equal, then how is it possible for a law to discriminate against some but not others? Moreover, how is it possible for a law (Proposition 8) to exist claiming that it protects the sanctity of marriage, and yet there is a sister law (divorce) that facilitates dissolution of this "most sacred institution"? How is giving people a legal "out" to marriage an acceptable compromise, but allowing "different" people to get married wrong?

What about rape? With mandatory sentencing rules, it is possible for someone to get a ridiculous sentence for a relatively benign crime (like Billy Ochoa a drug addict who at 53 was sentenced to 326 years to life for welfare fraud totaling $2,100.00, yes - a lousy $2k), while David Harold E. Earls was sentenced to one (1) year in jail for raping a 5-year-old girl. [This just makes me want to vomit.]

It feels wrong that these other issues have such relatively small bases of support vs. abortion. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying abortion is OK or trivial, nor am I advocating for one side or the other. I'm just trying to figure out why this one issue, which for decades has dominated American society, politics and jurisprudence, has no resolution, but rather an ever-rising level of angst and vitriol.

Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result. This qualifies - both sides are insane and sadly, appear to have no intention of stopping the insanity.

Thanks to J.R., I first re-read sorry seems to be the hardest word, then read a John Baldoni post that J.R. referenced, and then listened to President Obama's Cairo speech. Like John, I was struck by this statement in response to another insanity:

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

How true.

Is there anything that unites these two sides (Pro Life - Pro Choice) besides the word "Pro"?

I think there is - the unwanted pregnancy; irrespective of how it came about (consensual or otherwise), I believe both sides would wholeheartedly agree that it is a far, far better thing for all if the number of unwanted pregnancies goes to zero.

Then why not work together - Pro Life/Choice side-by-side - to educate youths and adults alike, to offer free and unencumbered (no strings attached) counseling, and to also provide free contraception to those that need it?

Their precedent is Portugal legalizing personal use drugs, causing overall drug use to fall dramatically.

Both sides would have a productive mechanism through which to participate and channel their passion. They would be able to measure success by helping more and more babies in this country and around the world be born to healthy, happy, willing, and prepared parents, thus eliminating the reason for fighting in the first place.

Imagine that.

Then imagine all of us together putting our energy and focus behind the next big issue, and then the one after that... <-- this is democracy in action.

criminal freedom

The Social Science Research Network published an analysis which concludes that when you criminalize a thing, it becomes institutionalized. The example the author (Aaron Simowitz) chose is prostitution; Aaron's paper is divided into five parts - to quote his abstract (my emphasis):

Part I of this paper will examine the practice of prostitution in North America prior to the prohibitionist and criminalization campaign ushered in by the Progressive Era. Part II will examine this campaign and the immediate effects it had on the organization of prostitution. Part III will demonstrate that prostitution, particularly in urban centers, achieved a remarkable degree or organization and structure shortly after criminalization. Part IV notes that the independent contactor [sic] model that typified the 19th century in North American remains prevalent in the Dutch system of prostitution, a radically different framework owing to the absence of criminalization. Part V will set out an analysis of the forces behind the criminalization to institutionalization link. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of the policy implications of better understanding the relationship between criminalization and institutionalization.

When something gets criminalized, the government abdicates oversight; by making something illegal (i.e. against or outside the law), the law is no longer available to control it. The only power the law has is to say it's wrong, and describe the penalties. Everything else is literally outside the law.

So what happens? When the legal system or any other legal oversight mechanism is unavailable, the void doesn't stay empty for very long - it gets filled by those opportunists that have something to gain. By definition, these people operate outside the law. But without oversight, they have have free reign, as long as they have good lawyers and know and how to avoid being found out or being penalized. In very short order, they form their own rules, their own policies and processes, and hence build a vibrant institution that's outside the law.

Yesterday I proposed that the US government get in the business of drug production and distribution; I was serious. Why? Because you can't change things without being a part of them. History has shown us that regulation is participation, but criminalization is abdication. If we don't care to get involved, we are not likely to control the outcome.

40 years of failure to legally control drug production, distribution and usage in the United States combined with a worsening drug situation for the country should point to the fact that staying outside the game is not working - we need to get in the thick of it.

By getting involved, we can control and regulate usage; by decriminalizing, we de-romanticize the idea of drugs; by being a part of it, it is possible to proactively treat people who have a drug problem; "Drugs America" should eventually work itself out of a job by making treatment and prevention a priority, and hopefully reduce demand, impede "external" suppliers and eventually reduce the problem to the point where it can be managed.

What's next? Prostitution America? Getting in the game is always better trying to influence it from the outside.

criminal addiction

Former Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske was interviewed on the local NPR station yesterday about his recent confirmation as the new head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). Kerlikowske stated that he was removing the phrase "war on drugs" from the ONDCP's lexicon which is nice, but he will not put decriminalization on the table, which is a shame.

America's obsession with criminalizing everything and putting all miscreants behind bars is well known, and has contributed to this country having by far the largest percentage of incarcerated adults on the planet (only 5% of the world's population, but 25% of the jailed population). The greatest contributor to growing the criminal ranks was President Nixon, who in 1969 declared a war on drugs, specifically against producers, distributors and consumers of substances including marijuana, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and illicitly-obtained prescription drugs.

This morning I read an article in Scientific American on the impact of a change in drug-related legislation in Portugal. I didn't realize that for most of this century, Portugal has had the most liberal drug laws in Europe. I would have guessed the Netherlands; this very religious (mostly Catholic) and socially conservative country would never have occurred to me.

By changing the laws so that personal possession of drugs (including the ones mentioned above) resulted not in jail but the offer of therapy, Portugal was able to reduce the number of teens doing drugs, drug-related HIV infections, and most critically, more than double the number of people seeking treatment for addiction. Portugal has the lowest rate (10%) of lifetime marijuana use among EU countries with those over 15. The most comparable US statistic (for people over 12) is 39.8%. The Portuguese have done all this and saved money - the cost of therapy is lower than imprisonment, and with successful therapy, former addicts are able to become contributing members of society more quickly.

The ultra-hard stand America has taken during its 40-year war against drugs has resulted in four times higher use of marijuana compared to Portugal, who decriminalized drugs in 2001. Despite all of her efforts, America has the highest per capita usage of cocaine and marijuana in the world.

I suppose those in favor of current policy would argue that it would be worse if the laws were more lenient, that we should have even more stringent rules, and they'd dismiss the Portuguese results as an aberration, or those of a much smaller country that doesn't compare to the USA.

I think the current approach has failed; there are not only more addicts in this country, but we're spending increasingly more money only to achieve increasingly worse results. Change is required, and should have two parts:

I. Decriminalize

The US must decriminalize personal use of drugs. This must also apply to (and hence release) all those currently in jail for what is now legal. Like the Portuguese, panels (a psychologist, social worker and legal adviser) must be formed to handle every case, and the government must also ensure adequate treatment capacity for everyone who seeks it. This will end up costing less than the current cost of finding, arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating drug users. It will also free up the criminal courts to handle other cases, and reduce their backlog. The only losers will be the lawyers, and on this I agree with Shakespeare.

II. Control

This might be a tad more controversial. Paul Atreides (main character in Frank Herbert's Dune series) once said of another drug (the spice melange), "He who can destroy a thing controls a thing." In the same vein, the American government needs to think of alternative approaches to enforcing the production and distribution of drugs. Much of this begins outside the borders of America, which makes it very difficult.

What if the United States government became the largest (and only) domestic marijuana, cocaine and heroin producer and distributor in the country? They would be able to regulate production, quality, distribution and pricing. Imagine the impact. By out-pricing foreign suppliers, they could reduce the impact of players like the Central American and Afghan drug cartels. By controlling quality, they could reduce health risks; and by controlling distribution, they would eliminate a whole other tier of criminals.

Then we must use the profits to pay for therapy and addiction centers; contribute to national health care, education; and maybe even lower the deficit :-). I'm not saying the motivation for this should be revenue, rather, that the revenue should be put to good use, first to reduce the effects of drugs in the society, second to reduce addiction, and then to contribute to other worthwhile efforts if possible.

After blindly failing for 40 years, it's time we opened our eyes. Addiction is not a crime, but treating addicts as criminals is. We need radical approaches to solving the problem.

pig-headed banking

A home enters foreclosure every 13 seconds in the United States. The forecast is that an additional six million homes are at risk of foreclosure before our little crisis ends. Now put yourself in the seat of the Senior Vice President (or Assistant Deputy Manager in the real world) of Mortgage Collections at Citibank or Wells Fargo or whatever. Besides feeling good that you made several hundred fools who bought beyond their means whimper, what have you accomplished?

As I understand it, most foreclosed homes (in today's reality at least) have two things in common. Their house is now worth less than the mortgage (underwater); and the original mortgage, which was negotiated in "good" times, had an sub-prime adjustable rate, which the homeowner could pay, but the rates have now "adjusted" beyond their means.

So what happens to the Senior VP's portfolio? While he has eliminated several hundred late or defaulted mortgages (which looks good), here's the not-so-good:

• Value of the portfolio has dropped (since assets now have a lower value due to change in ownership & underwaterness)
• Bank now has even more unsellable (empty, dilapidated) property on its books (they own the homes)
• Cash flow has been reduced (mortgages are now not being paid)
• Expenses have gone up (legal and real estate fees for changing ownership)
• Customer satisfaction has gone down (more people hate them)

This doesn't bode well for this bank, banks in general, and the industry as a whole. To add salt, vinegar and Tabasco to the open wound, the customer has to find a new (and clearly cheaper) place to live; their kids may have to change schools; and the whole family is in an ultra-stressful situation, which could result in medical issues, etc. There is also the ripple effect - as more homes are abandoned, real estate prices have fallen, and now even people that did not purchase sub-prime loans are affected and unable to maintain their mortgages, and of course the community's economy starts to depress.

Now I'm not saying the customer is without blame, they bought beyond their means, certainly didn't understand the terms and conditions of their mortgage, and may in some Darwinian sense deserve their fate.

But still - how is the bank benefited by doing this? How is the local economy benefited from this? And by the way - how often has the US Government bought beyond its means? How often has the US Government not understood the "terms and conditions" in say an international trade or foreign policy scenario? These are the patterns and behaviors the citizens are following...

The net result of any foreclosure (in good or bad times) is that both sides lose. The only possible winner in a foreclosure is a cash-rich bargain hunter up homes at ultra-low prices and waiting to sell them when times improve.

A while back, I wrote about the lending crisis and proposed a government-driven solution that would buy up depressed assets and negotiate better terms for the homeowner. In retrospect, I think a better answer is for the banks to do it themselves.

But why aren't banks helping themselves by proactively renegotiating mortgages, keeping the asset intact, and maintaining their cash flow? Surely no-one can argue that it's better to cut off their noses to spite their faces? Why not have a simple escalation process that reaches out to homeowners and helps them stay in their homes and keep paying their mortgages, albeit at lower rates?

Am I missing something?

P.S. Apologies to any pigs I might have offended.

criminal insanity

To succeed in American politics, all politicians, Democrat and Republican alike must have a reputation of being tough on crime. In fact, on a percentage basis, you're more likely to succeed vs. any opponent if you've got a background in criminal justice (prosecutor, attorney general, etc.), and specifically on the "jes' throw all them f#($ers in jail" side.

According to this, in 2007 more than 7.3 million adults were under some form of correctional supervision. That's 2.4% of the country, or 1 in 41 people! But only 75% of America's population is adults, so it's really 3.2%, or 1 in 31 adults!! OMG!!

This includes those in prison, jail, on parole or probation; so for context, the number of people in prison or jail was just under 2.3 million, or about one-third.

The impact to our economy is noteworthy. Check out the chart on the right - I'm not a mathematician, nor am I a statistician but even my tiny little brain is able to spot the trend here. America spent about $210 billion on criminal justice in 2007, up from just under $36 billion in 1982. This amounts to a pretty modest 583% growth over 25 years. If the trend continues, that would put us at $1.2 trillion in 2032.

Want more? Projecting the 7.3 million people puts us at 29 million adults who would be guests or "friends" of the American judicial system in 2032.

Now take a look at the chart on the left (click to enlarge; source: Wikipedia). Assuming all judicial systems around the world are basically right and that everyone in jail is supposed to be there, the United States of America (home of the brave and land of the free) is by far the most criminally-infested country in the world, followed only by Russia. The rest of the planet is basically filled with decent, law-abiding citizens.

This can't be right can it? This country whose capacity for greatness is limitless cannot possibly also be the one that contains the most evil and socially-divergent people, can it?

It is time to recognize the insanity and abolish the "tough on crime" litmus test. We must instead find leaders who believe in the inherent goodness of people, the idea that crime is not the individual's failing, but rather society's failing. It is the obligation of a great and caring society to seek out and nurture the best attributes of its people and not assume the worst. If we draw the line in the right place, we can create a safer, healthier and more vibrant society where prisons are viewed as an absolute last resort, and we look first at the better angels of every person's nature.

absolutely

Defining moments are often ones where difficult trade-offs are made. It can be personal sacrifice vs. personal safely - someone (firefighter) deciding to run into a burning building to save a victim. It can be commitment vs. profitability - a company altering its usage contracts after people have "signed up" to take advantage of a revenue opportunity. It can be morals vs. expediency - a politician deciding that even if citizen's lives are at stake, we don't compromise our laws proscribing torture.

These trade offs are generally about integrity (sacrifice, commitment, morals) versus necessity (safety, profitability, expediency). It is not necessarily about ethics, though they do play a role, nor is it about legality, though that also plays a role. It's about principles.

I'm reminded of a line from a film, in this case, The Contender, where the main character says: "Principles only mean anything when we stick by them when they're inconvenient." The most famous principle of all time is the ethic of reciprocity, or the golden rule - "do unto others as you would have them to unto you."

How often have you flaunted this principle in the interest of necessity or convenience? Did you feel a twinge? As individuals we should hopefully not violate this rule very often.

Publicly traded companies are ironically almost required to violate this rule - they routinely attempt to undermine their competition. But they have other principles that together form their integrity. Things like fair treatment of employees, customer service, truth in advertising, obeying commercial rules, adhering to intellectual property rights, etc. It's the idea of the new green being corporate behavior - not social responsibility or the environment, but integrity.

What about the principles of a nation? How should a country's integrity be characterized? For most, the rules governing treatment of the citizens are enumerated in their Bill of Rights or their constitution or both. But these documents don't talk very much about how the government should behave. It's not surprising - the authors probably wanted to give the government of the day as much latitude as possible, but I wonder if there are any absolutes that every leader and government of this country ought to adhere to?

I'd start with three for the United States:

1. Every person on the planet should (by the US government, defense, security agencies, etc.) be treated like they were an American citizen, and accorded the exact same rights. This is a global "do unto others..."
2. Government and religion should never be connected. Laws should not be biased by religion; the only advantage organized religion should get is their tax-free status.
3. Government should prioritize serving its citizens above anything else - for example, domestic fundamentals (national education, health care, domestic infrastructure, etc.) should come before foreign policy - you don't get to fund the latter if the former isn't funded.

The standard for adherence to the laws of the land is highest with the governments, and their accountability should greater as well. If these are the right absolutes, then they can't be violated - if the government does violate it, the individuals should be terminated.

Some might consider this drastic, but that's what absolutes are...

oversight Easter egg?

When the US Federal Government "took over" key American financial institutions, they imposed executive compensation restrictions, undertook Congressional investigations on bonuses, and decided to legislate how "their banks" would pay their employees.

What did the employees do? Many left. Where did they go? Some (the best and most employable investment bankers and traders) went to smaller, boutique firms where compensation is not regulated by Congress. The NY Times thinks this is a bad thing, but maybe not - here are three possible outcomes, which together might be a silver lining:

I. Dekeiretsuification

The exodus of trading talent means the big (now over-regulated) financial institutions may not be able to rebuild their brokerage/Wall Street presence. This could be a godsend if they go back focusing on their core business. Banks stick to savings and credit, insurance companies focus on actuarials, and trading companies focus on the markets.

If we can go back to a pre-1999, reinstated Glass-Steagall Act state, then government oversight of each type of financial institution is more clear, and conglomerate organizations like today's AIG & Citi are not possible. So even if bad behavior does occur, there should be less need for government intervention, and market forces would prevail.

II. Renegade Boutiquism

As these "quality" traders and brokers move to smaller, boutique firms, they will go back to their roots - commissions by the deal (no long-term view); employing aggressive, creative market-making approaches, looking for every loophole and finding new ways to create revenue streams; and doing whatever it takes to achieve hyper-returns.

Today there is a good regulatory framework (the SEC), but with one gaping hole - the rating agencies. As I wrote here, they were a critical point of failure, contributing signficantly to our current predicament. The SEC and Congress need to focus their energies on repairing this to restore rating integrity. Let the boutiques play - this is the "cowboy" end of the financial services system, and it should remain so.

III. Lax Americana

For those with a big ego who can't let go of "American supremacy," this is the tough pill to swallow. Being meekly Canadian, I'm not so wrapped up in it :-). With tight Glass-Steagall-like regulation, there is no possibility of massive American financial conglomerates. But I'm guessing that Russian, Chinese and Brazilian regulators will not restrain their banks, and these will be the new financial services "powerhouses" of the 21st century.

If US (and the West) regulators can think long term, they will first make sure that their infrastructure's dependency on these mega-banks is limited and managed; and they will resist the teenage male testosterone urge to view these "foreigners" as a challenge to their "manhood".

When they were going after the salaries and bonuses, I thought the Feds were being spuriously regulative. But provided we can re-enact Glass-Steagall, reassert Rater integrity, and stay focused on the long-term health of the economy, the result should be a stronger, more accountable, and better managed financial services system.

Let's hope the Easter Bunny is smiling...

edu-urgency?

Understanding the target audience is critical to the success of any business. Understanding the business model of your company is rather important as well. If you don't know why and how you make money, any success is a fluke.

How do schools or school systems "make money"? If a school is like a restaurant - the chef is the principal, the sous-chefs are faculty, the maitre d' is the vice principal, and the waiters are the staff. The differences (in no particular order):

1. A chef knows immediately if his work is successful, the principal doesn't
2. A chef gets paid by his customers, the principal doesn't
3. Chefs get fired if their product isn't good, the faculty has tenure
4. The restaurant (except in Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares) succeeds by giving it's customers the best, a school succeeds by meeting its funder's targets
5. A restaurant is inspired to be special, unique and ever-evolving to attract the best clientele, a student has no choice, and will attend school no matter how un-special, average, and boring it is.

Conclusion - schools are not set up to care about their customers, just their funders. The business model for learning in this country bears almost no accountability for the satisfaction or success of its customers. The decentralized model of learning in America theoretically avoids this issue by operating "close to the customer" and being driven by the expectations of parents (theoretically closest to their children). Boy - that's really worked well hasn't it!

Instead of student-driven, adapted to local requirements, direct accountability, we have inefficiency, inconsistency, budget shortfalls, and poor leadership. More than one quarter of high school students fail to graduate. Last year more than 1.3 million graduates required remediation (inability to read, write or do basic math effectively) before entering college or university.

The situation is dire, but there's no urgency or imperative for change (I'm thinking of something at the level of "national security" on September 12, 2001). We are capable of rapid and dramatic change, we just need to feel the urgency - we felt it after 9-11, and IMO the Education crisis in this country is much, much more serious.

Moreover, we're not short on benchmarks for success in our very own backyard. Seattle Girls' School and High Tech High are proof that learning greatness is possible, and can be successful. Why are they unique? One reason is the brilliance & strength of their leaders, the other is the fact that they sit outside the system. No doubt there are many innovators within the system as well - some that I admire are in my blog roll. They should all be the rule and not the exception.

How do we create a structure that allows SGS & HTH to be the norm? To start, let's federalize learning. The distributed model has failed, let's centralize. Let's redefine success - schools must be more accountable and directly tied to the end result of their work - successful graduates. 

BUT - we must only Federalize the "what" not the "how." The Feds should finance Education, and they must define success in a way that is external to the K-12 schools. It's not about erasing creativity and local context, it's about creating a national mandate for learning outcomes - the "what." The "how" should still be in the hands of schools and teachers - they're the ones who understand their own students and community and how best to serve them.

The great thing about this approach is that no school gets left behind. Funding should be available to all schools whether rural, urban, inner city, or suburban. Every school should be held to a single standard of accomplishment, and budgets should not be victims of local or state circumstances. Many of us live in States where budgets are being cut, and education is being made to pay the price - that's not an acceptable scenario.

We must create an apocalyptic sense of urgency about Education in this country and then take drastic measures.

impossible is nothing

According to the Conference Board, about 40% of households will e-file their tax returns this year. Why isn't it higher? It saves the IRS $millions to have people e-file vs. paper-file. Why is it not 99%? Imagine how many trees we'd save just by not having to print all those forms and booklets and stuff? Imagine how much more efficient the IRS would be if it didn't have to transcribe the millions of manually-filled-out forms? Imagine how much less expensive it would be for the Feds to run the IRS!

Let's look at voting systems for elections. Why is this not fully-electronic today? How is it that India, a country that has a much less advanced infrastructure compared to the United States is able to conduct fully-electronic voting? Imagine how many trees we'd save, imagine how much complexity would be eliminated, imagine how many fewer lawyers we'd need! All of this plus we'd learn the results immediately! When the last polls closed, the results (the final results) would be published, and undisputed.

There are many other examples:

• Why does it take so much paperwork for a Veteran to receive their benefits?
• Why is it so hard for a family to apply for tuition assistance?
• Why is it so hard for someone who can't afford to feed their family to get meal-assistance?
• The list is endless.

Don't you wonder why this country insists on remaining in the dark ages so much? After all, this the nation that became something, the thing in a matter of 15-20 generations! It flaunted rules and traditions, challenged the establishment, was noisy, aggressive and passionate, and got it done!!

But then all of a sudden, laurels were found, and people insisted on resting on them. WTF? Why abandon that passion, energy, the feeling of never being satisfied with good enough?

Simple. We became comfortable. We became complacent. We did this because things were going so well (due to the work our predecessors had done), and we figured it would just remain this way no matter what - it was our birthright. Hah!

We forgot the hard work, sacrifice and passion it took to get here in the first place. And most critically, that if this country could do it, any other that wished to put in the hard work would do this and more.

Now all of a sudden, there's a sense of discomfort, that others have not only caught up, but surpassed.

The sense of entitlement, and resulting bureaucracy has led us astray. The effect of mind-numbing paperwork (while useful in keeping certain people employed and feeling like they had the biggest penises in the room) has resulted in hopeless inefficiency; process that take months or years to accomplish what should happen in minutes; and the reality of bureaucratic inertia arresting productive work, and impeding great outcomes.

Let us start somewhere. Why doesn't the IRS take the lead and say that they will only accept paper returns on an exception basis. That they will require that everyone who has an ATM card or a mobile phone or a TV must file electronically. (They will provide mechanisms that allow for that to happen at post offices, public libraries, other state-run facilities and even hospitals.) In the end, even doing this will save more money than it costs to process all the paper returns.

Why doesn't the FEC state that we will require a voting system like the one I described here??

Why doesn't the Veteran's administration say that we will automatically give every Veteran the benefits they're owed - no paperwork required? And so on?

Is it really that hard? I don't think so. Is it equitable for every citizen? No. So why not create exceptional solutions that specifically cater to those "edge-cases" vs. burden the whole system with it? That's a truly equitable solution.

From what I know of the IRS (I had the opportunity to work with it's then CIO about five years ago), this (even accounting for all the special accommodations I described above) would actually be a net cost savings to them; in conversations with people at the Department of Social Security, I heard similar words when talking about their processes.

Maybe it's time for President Obama to enact Patriot Act Part 2 - the American Redemption from the Tyranny of Paperwork.

Oh, and Mr. President: please just email the Act to Congress, and have them e-vote to pass it.

fiscal prozac

Stimulus packages are near top-of-mind for almost every person on the planet who has access to CNN. I have also fallen victim to this and written about it on a number of occasions. Two posts (one, and two) prompted a lot of discussion (my gratitude to Bob S. for sharing his economist’s perspective).

Here’s what I’ve learned so far.

We need to see 10 trillion dollars (yes, $10T!) of flow through the American machine annually (GNP) to have a solid economy with “full” employment. At its worst, our GNP had fallen to $7T. The goal of the stimulus packages at the highest level is merely to throw money at the problem. It turns out that it matters less where the money goes, as long as there’s more money flowing. As long as cash flows into the system, expansion happens.

What about the bank bailouts? When you borrow money, leverage is created – you’re spending more than you have, and the banks are too. They convert their deposits (counting on most loans to be paid back on time) into debt, at a greater than 1:1 ratio. In other words, they can lend more money than they have, because they’ve done the due diligence (theoretically!), to know that they are issuing loans to credit-worthy people.

Why not just lend like mad and use the leverage to bridge the $3T gap? Because there's not enough motivation to borrow. In tough times, we all naturally become more conservative, spend less, even start saving in case of an even rainier day ahead.

That’s where the stimulus packages come in. They create immediate cash flow, hopefully directed at driving demand and consumption of goods and services so that people start spending, cause movement in the economy which spurs borrowing, etc.

This is the theory. And hopefully the very bright minds “in charge” get it done, and done right. Money it seems is the ultimate anti-depressant.

But this isn't all peaches and cream.

First, and this is more of a nit. It just rubs me the wrong way that so much money is going to fund what is clearly political pork barrel pandering. There should be more integrity in the system and a sense of social accountability that is sadly missing among those that got elected.

Second, and this is my big one. Have you seen anything that leads you to believe that banks will be better lenders this time around?

We’ve seen bad judgment, which of course provokes Congress to write laws preventing that specific behavior. AIG gives out bonuses to many of those that caused their problems in the first place; GMAC advertises multi-year interest-free loans to anyone as long as they have a pulse; I still get 5-10 credit card, and 3-4 mortgage re-financing solicitations a week.

I’m sure there are examples where banks have cleaned up their acts, but the leadership that caused bad lending remains mostly in place; regulatory oversight hasn't changed enough. International or multinational regulations haven't changed either. Here's a site that reports on regulatory changes - no mention of real or substantive change.

In the main, it looks like the feds are on the right track to improving the economy, except for preventing it from happening again, or even something as simple as disciplinary actions against those that caused this in the first place.

Oversight anyone?

oversight or insight?

I once heard that governing is about doing as little as possible, making only the most subtle changes, allowing the machine to operate as naturally as possible. The premise being that something as large, interconnected and complex as a whole country (or planet) has more moving parts than any human can grasp, and big, hasty changes invariably lead to unintended consequences.

The American tax code is a great example. Every new law has a number of amendments attached to it because the legislators didn't think the original through, and then needed to react to loopholes they inadvertently created. The end result is an incoherent system, with no clear strategy or intent, and a massive and wasteful administrative process.

The last few months have caused many to demand greater regulatory oversight, be that antitrust, prisoner treatment, stem cell research, banking, automobile manufacturing, health care, or education. There's just one thing we know for sure that applies in all these cases. The government is the wrong place to manage it. They are not equipped with the insight, expertise, or management experience; they are utterly susceptible to external influence (lobbyists, lust for power, etc.); and finally as lawyers, they are incapable of simplicity and succinctness, the absence of which is of course the petri dish in which all loopholes and bad behavior are cultivated.

So if it's not about legislating oversight, what other options are available to the government? What do they have at their disposal? Well, other than a bunch of soldiers and tanks, it boils down to money - either giving it to someone or taking it away (taxes).

Making smart choices about where to spend these incredibly vast sums of money is not easy. We don't have to look farther than the first batch of TARP "grants" to know that the best laid plans of mice and men... I know we've been having an amazing discussion in the comments section of this post, but I still think as a matter of policy, the government should use money to motivate behavior that shapes results that matter, outcomes that are sustainable, and impact that is largely self-policing.

What can they to do motivate the right outcomes? I think we spend more time wondering about the how than the what, and in the case of the Feds, I don't think they should ever focus on the how - they simply don't have the time to know enough. Instead, let them focus on the whats.

With education, which what do you want? (!) Is it as simple as more and better graduates?

In banking, which what do you want? How about decision-making that demonstrates accountability of results 3-5 years hence (i.e. commissions/bonuses paid based on results in the future).

In taxation - a simple way of equitably collecting what's needed with no room to move - maybe a flat tax?

In transportation - people safely getting from A to B. The government should only pay for that outcome. Why is it concerned with the how?

This is an incredible over-simplification, I know. Being purely outcome-driven, and allowing the free market system to decide everything might not be perfect. But deciding (legislating) everything and being purely process driven isn't right either.

So I prefer the idea that the government should do as little as possible legislatively and as much as possible economically to motivate (and incent) outcomes, leaving the "how" to the marketplace.

Imagine for example if the TSA had not been formed, but instead the FAA had created an X-Prize
that built a system that ensured that people and baggage boarding an airplane did so with maximum safety and minimum intrusion.

I bet we would never have to take off our shoes, or wait in ridiculous lines as poorly-trained people attempted to look authoritative.

Dichotomies abound

President Obama said many things in his Feb 24 speech. Here are two passages that I found interesting (my italics, and the quotes  came about a minute or so apart):

And though all these challenges went unsolved, we still managed to spend more money and pile up more debt, both as individuals and through our government, than ever before.

In other words, we have lived through an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity; where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election.

...

The concern is that if we do not re-start lending in this country, our recovery will be choked off before it even begins.

You see, the flow of credit is the lifeblood of our economy. The ability to get a loan is how you finance the purchase of everything from a home to a car to a college education; how stores stock their shelves, farms buy equipment, and businesses make payroll.

Whoa! First, borrowing too much is what caused all this; and then to get out of it, we have to start lending and borrowing all over again!  The very thing that caused the economy to tank is what we need to do to un-tank it? I'm not an economist, but that doesn't seem right does it? I know you can use fire to stop forest fires from spreading, but this is like going shopping to prevent people from buying stuff.

Now let's say this actually does make economic sense. I have two questions:

1. How confident are we that lenders won't do the exact same thing they did before, since they know that they're judgment-proof and will get bailed out anyway? (Yet more irony that the Feds will have to borrow $$ to do this!)
2. Has America gotten smarter in the last six months? Is the citizenry now impervious to those moronic ads? Did we spike the fluoride in the water supply over the holidays?

Because if the answer to these questions is "no," then what makes us think that the result will be any different this time?

A data point: the highest poverty level for a family of four in the United States is $26,500, which is in Alaska (amazing BTW that the poverty level in Alaska is $5,000 more than that average in the "lower 48").  Let's say we triple that and round up to get to $80,000. Now what if the Feds said that as of today and through the rest of this calendar year, we will stop withholding Federal tax from every household that earns $80,000 or less?

Maybe the ceiling needs to be higher (say $100k), or whatever the right number is to equal the amount of money we were going to spend on this stimulus anyway.

How much more "cash flow" might this create?

I know this doesn't help small businesses who need credit lines to help with cash flow, and we clearly need to solve this.

But for the consumer, I wonder if this might do more than enabling bad lenders...

Stimulate Profound Learning Outcomes

What recommendation would you give the President if he asked for your views on how best to energize our economy? I'm assuming The Big O has all the time in the world, and does in fact read this blog! So here goes, starting with the program musts:

• Must have an immediate impact
• Must be something that has a pre-defined and fixed end
• The economy must continue to flow and remain energetic once the stimulus stops
• It can not be something that ought to be in the budget anyway (i.e. investments that should be sustained over time)
• It must have the effect of being inspiring as well as provoke optimism and a belief that it's not time to "hunker down" and save for a rainy day
• It should not be prone to abuse and fraud

I've written recently about the stimulus package here and here, and then before that had written about two ideas that I'd come up with on the mortgage crisis and then about Detroit Big Three. I still like these, and they fit the criteria.

What about tax-related approaches? A lot of attention goes towards cuts or rebates - and I was generally skeptical about that, but then read this and this, and wondered if I was wrong. Digging a bit deeper, I found this and this. Conclusion: there is no conclusive evidence that a tax cut or rebate will create a positive stimulus to the economy.

But - are we over-thinking this? What's the one thing people are most worried about right now? The one thing that makes them want to save and not spend? The one thing that creates the fear of "what happens tomorrow?" Unemployment - if you feel like your job is here to stay, that your cash flow is predictable, then I think spending will follow, and economic vibrancy is the result. How do we create meaningful, sustainable jobs without bloating the government?

Combining my recent post on the learnings from Japan, where the greatest ROI from their stimuli was from Education investments (174% growth), with this post from Eduwonk, which pointed to this excellent analysis correlating jobs at risk with education level, and now add this entry I wrote last year called Redefining Learning. It suggests that the earlier children are engaged in learning, the better. It also says that teacher-to-student ratios should be highest in early years - from age zero to ten or twelve, and then go down from there. And, we know that investing in Education is goodness all around.

Based on all of this, we should:

1. Redefine public school-eligible ages to begin from the second year (age 1+) through to the eighteenth year (age 17+)
2. Specify teacher-to-student ratios going from 5:1 to 30:1, growing with the students' age
3. Redefine curriculum and assessment standards based on existing research
4. Establish teacher qualification standards and certify teachers colleges
5. Determine the physical classroom and teacher capacity that will be required to service our population 25 years out; this will feed into post-secondary requirements as well

The stimulus package should:

1. Construct new schools **all physical assets in schools should be federalized - they own, provision and maintain all public schools in the country **
2. Expand Teachers' College capacity to accommodate new teacher requirements for the next 25 years
3. Develop a national curriculum with corresponding assessment standards
4. The States (who now don't own and maintain the schools) will hire the new teachers and staff
5. The Stimulus will bump up State funding for staffing
6. The Feds will commit to maintaining schools and State education funding through budget cycles

Implications

Daycare centers will be redundant, but all these jobs just transfer to the new model. Parents of young children will find their "operating costs" are lowered dramatically as the public system covers what was daycare, they will have the time to at least get part-time jobs, and their ability to make ends meet should improve. There will be a surge in employment for construction (which will taper off over time), teachers colleges will grow, we will lower unemployment, and of course the ranks of teachers will double (3 million additional jobs), adding tremendously to the goodness of our country and our children.

What are we waiting for?

Do you feel stimulated?

There is an $825 billion economic stimulus package before Congress. Add the $700 billion that was passed just a few months ago, and we're north of $1.5 trillion!

How does this plus wars on two fronts get paid for? Where is all the money really going? How does a citizen evaluate these expenditures and determine whether they are wise, and whether they will result in turning the prosperity tide?

As I understand it, the purpose of a stimulus to the economy is to increase the flow of money in the system (and not expand the wallets of the CEOs that got us here). That is, people buying and selling and earning and spending. That flow creates a virtuous circle that moves the economy towards robustness. Economic confidence is one measure of this. There are many others - employment, the money supply, inflation rates, etc.

So - how have we done lately?

Almost exactly a year ago, President Bush implemented a tax rebate to "give the economy a shot in the arm". Several months after the "stimulus", we're in a state that most closely resembles the Great Depression. Looks like President Bush missed - he shot the economy in the groin instead...

Then there's the first $350 billion - how many of you have benefited from this? Have any of you noticed an improvement of any kind since the money was distributed?

And what does the new administration wish to do? Go right back and hit our poor economy the groin yet one more time!

Looking at the bill the House just passed, there's basically zero dollars that go directly to people that would spend it in ways that would help money flow. Take a look at it. The only "cash" that goes to people that would actually spend is tax rebates, and we (and our groins) know how effective they are.

I wrote twice (here and here) about how to help the economy by actually giving money to people who can spend it. But it does require more work, than just giving huge sums of money to very few people. Both of these suggestions require a more structured federal involvement, but interestingly, don't require a whole lot of corporate oversight or regulatory action.

I think doing these two things have a better shot of working and cost vastly less than $1.5 trillion. Your comments are welcome.

Winning Elections

Andrew Sullivan wrote a great post today about how gay people in California really feel about Proposition 8. And it got me to thinking - why did it pass? For that matter, why do most "righteous" cause-based efforts not succeed?

Some examples - Kerry/Bush, the environment/global warming, a woman's right to choose, equal pay, etc. Why is it almost inevitable that these causes end up having a steeper hill to climb?

With Kerry for example, he had (as most Democrats do) the vast majority of "cool" people on his side (whether that was Hollywood, music, sports, whatever). And yet he lost. As a marketer, advocacy and creativity are HUGE. He had both of these in spades, and yet...

Take the environment - even if you discount global warming, how is it that when the vernacular is "pollution" a word that has NO positive definitions, which no matter how you slice it is bad, the cause still suffers?

Here's my theory.

They care too much, and then get lost in the issue vs. the winning. When something is so deeply entrenched in your heart and stomach, your head walks away. Think of your beliefs, a brilliant idea you came up with, the "rightness" of it is never open to question. The whole organization is also emotionally wound to the point where they are easily fractured into small pieces vs. always unified.

To get things done, convince others, win big, you've got to get out of your heart and into your head. There is absolutely a place for emotion and passion, but if that's leading the way, you invariably get statements like: "I can't believe you don't understand this!!" or "It's so obvious - don't you see???" In both cases, make sure your face has at least 3 times more blood than normal, your voice is beseechingly loud and your hands are grasping at straws.

Now think about how Kerry was defeated or how the environmentalists are foiled. And look at the modus operandi of those players. Zero heart, zero stomach, zero emotion - just plain, cold, calculating strategy.

Are they better people? No. Are they smarter, clearly yes - they're winning far more frequently. Can you say Swift boat, or death tax? Can you say clean coal? <-- Just what the hell is clean coal anyway? It's absolute fiction! And yet...

...they won.

What do to?

The most brilliant strategist ever (IMO) is Sun Tzu. The Art of War, which was written 2,600+ years ago is an incredible book - if you need to win at anything, this book should be the first thing you read and re-read. Some noteworthy quotes:

Remember this always:

It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on.

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

Implication - the cause should be separated from the fight (think of Karl Rove?). The general must not look at the cause with bias or subjectivity. Be dispassionate about what you have, what you don't have, what you need and what you must do to win. It's not about the cause anymore. It's about winning.

Now this is how they win: 

If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.

Surely there are literate people on both sides of these issues? Why isn't everyone reading this book?

It is critical to always know that:

The clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy's will to be imposed on him.

Just my opinion, but it seems to me that every time a "righteous" cause loses, it's because they were outwitted, and not because they were wrong.

Bottom line - winning is about winning. Once you've won, then go back to the cause. Don't let the people who lead the cause lead the battle. They're obviously not good at it.

Now look at Barak Obama's campaign and how it was run. He's read this book, maybe even twice...