~synthesis~

anger

Does it feel like the world is angrier today than ever before? Perhaps it's just that communication is so easy, that every action (more often every bad action) in the world is made more visible. But I think it's more than that.

A 22-year-old man shot a Congresswoman in Arizona. There are violent clashes in the Sudan during a referendum that will decide whether the country should be split in half. A few days ago, Salman Taseer, the Governor of Punjab, Pakistan was assassinated; his death was celebrated by a segment of the country that decried his moderate views. The assassin was showered with rose petals and garlands during his appearance before the court. What provokes all this anger?

Extremism exists in every community - that's reality. The "edges" have historically not been as visible to the middle, but the media in their relentless quest for shock-journalism are changing that. Once they become visible, it's much easier for the edges to collect fellow extremists, and wannabe extremists with the tools the Internet makes available.

What were scattered, random, disconnected micro-freaks are finally able to coalesce into much larger, more coherent, better funded, and very real threats to the mainstream. Of course the media will now shower ever more attention on these now macro-freaks, and in doing so, legitimize them (can you say, "Joe the Plumber"???). This is when things get scary.

Being legitimized means that you are accepted as part of the zeitgeist - you are now acculturated, and scarily you are a "respected" force. Look at Moktada al-Sadr who recently returned to Iraq from exile - originally a cleric in a small town, he became political by weaponizing his community, and inciting them to resist. He became a force when CNN and the US Army began to pay attention to him, and this enabled him to recruit more micro-freaks to the point where he went macro.

The scariest part is when a mainstream player decides that to become even more "main," they must incite the fervent and freakish edges to their cause, thus expanding their base with people more driven to act (donate, vote, rock the vote, etc.). Frenzy is currency is politics - the ability to drive your constituents into a frenzy is considered a good thing (for any party); it is defined as:A state of violent mental agitation or wild excitement; temporary madness or delirium; a mania; a craze. Is it hard to picture violent acts resulting from this? If you can drive your constituents into a frenzy against your opponent, your chances of winning have gone up significantly. Honor and being honorable are seen as weakness.

Going back to the Arizona case, the same NY Times article talks about how Sarah Palin's Facebook page contained a map where every "enemy of Palindom" was identified with cross hairs. It's interesting that she just chose to take this down now, in the wake of the Arizona shooting (the Congresswoman is one of the "targets" she identified). Is that an admission of guilt?

I wrote a post after the US Midterm elections last November questioning whether Democracy is simply the lesser evil, and that there must be a better form of government that is at once both pluralistic and of integrity.

No doubt there are horrific examples of wanton violence in non-democratic states around the world, and when they occur, the "voting" countries all rise up to condemn them. And yet more and more we see horrible acts of violence in the name of winning elections in democratic countries, yet no-one rises up to question that.

Campaigning and then governing based on anger is no different than despotism and fascism when it comes to the price exacted on humanity and integrity. In fact, the advantage with despots and fascists is at least you know what's coming and can, to an extent, steel yourself. With democracy acts of anger are random and spurious, and always catch you by surprise and unprepared.

Until politicians (and voters) can agree that winning with integrity is preferred to winning at all costs, acts of anger will occur even more frequently - this isn't the last time a 9 year old girl will be killed by politics.

the D.T.s

In this time of reflection, I've been asking myself - what monumental legislation did the US government pass over the last 30 years? What laws have had a profound and lasting effect on people, the economy, and the world's view America?

I thought of two - the War on Drugs and the War on Terror:

WoD: jailed the second-most people in history (after the internment of the Jews during the WWII); cost $billions in increased law enforcement, court delays, prisons; demonstrated to the world that America cares less about its people and more about self-righteous politics.

WoT: created the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security (aka the War on Americans), killed more Americans than 911 (and counting) with wars in Iraq/Afghanistan; cost the American economy $trillions; proved to the world that everything looks like a nail in America, because the only tool they have is a hammer.

Have drugs or terrorists been defeated? Is America better than it was before either War?

2011 brings us an even more polarized nation/government; a revitalized Republican Congress; and impending redistricting based on the 2010 Census that will allow the newly-elected State and Federal politicians to draw the lines of their district to ensure a partisan electorate and future reelections. This is a perfect storm, giving Congress the impetus to "do something big" in 2011.

I think they will want to declare a War on something. Potential "enemies" - overall government spending (nuke all socialist programs); repealing the Health Care Bill; and Education.

The average age in Congress is 57, we have an increasingly aging electorate, and lest we forget, the Republicans are also known as the GOP - the Grand Old Party; Medicare, Social Security, etc. are relatively safe.

Health care - the incoming Congress is already contemplating repealing ObamaCare; but the Democrats will (per the deal on tax cuts) negotiate some tweaks, but keep the essence intact.

That leaves Education, where costs are rising, performance is declining, and (pro-Democrat) unions are strong. The latest PISA scores (OECD global student achievement testing) have the US toying with average, while others are excelling in literacy, numeracy and science. This, despite spending more per student than almost every country in the world. Powerful ammunition in the right hands...

Congressional Republicans are supporters of school vouchers (un-bundling the public school budgets, giving parents vouchers to pay their child's tuition at a school of their choice); a "free market education system"; and they are strong supporters of faith-based schools.

With an increasingly polarized electorate, and armed with equally polarized candidates, the extreme right (conservative, pro-religion, pro guns, pro-military, anti-abortion, anti-homosexual, anti-socialism, etc.) are stronger than ever. They advocate Family Values, and want to see America restored to its "rightful path."

According to Pew Research, American scientists are 55% Democrat, 32% Independent, and 6% Republican. If you can stomach her, listen to this speech - Palin is a political force with a large and energized following, and the wit and vocabulary to incite them to action. She appeals to that growing extreme right who wishes to take back America from the "intellectual snobs that have put us in this mess," and to return America to "just plain folk" vs. those elitist science-mongering snobs. Scientists aren't their people; science disputes Intelligent Design; it questions their right to burn coal and petroleum (GOP disbands committee on global warming); it advocates for stem cell research, abortions, and all manner of foul and evil acts; science disputes the very existence of God.

How might the next war be declared? Here's a possible excerpt from the speech:

America was a proud and honorable nation, standing on the shoulders of great men who gave their blood for her freedom, and so that our children could fulfil their dreams, knowing that they were protected from all forms of evil. My fellow Americans this is no longer the case. Today we are weak, our values are eroding, the very nature of the American family is in question!

We must rise once more! We must take back America, restore her to her rightful place as the land of the free and the home of the brave, as the one nation under God. Our journey begins with our children. Our schools must reflect our vision, our potential, and our values. The public school system - from the buildings to the curriculum to the teachers - is a failure. Decisive action is required.

Starting today, American parents will receive vouchers to choose a school for their children that aligns to their values and morals, and that teaches the tried and true curriculum that built this once-great nation. American baby boomers are the most educated and successful community in history; we need schools that teach what they were taught and in the way they were taught.

The voters are demanding a stronger, faith-based education system that adheres to these principles. We have heard you, and will match your voucher if you choose to place your child in a qualifying school, thus doubling the funding for the "right" schools. This free market approach, which again goes back to our roots, is how we will take back America, restore our children's education, and take back our schools.

Is it really that far-fetched to imagine the incoming Congress declaring a War on Science?

Most of us know the term D.T.s to describe addiction withdrawal symptoms. America is going through the Delirium Tremens right now with the Wars on Drugs and Terror and soon, science. But why? Every war was declared with the intent of restoring the good old days. If this declaration succeeds, it could very well drive America back into the 17th Century with trials in Salem for the Mark Zuckerbergs of tomorrow.

Congress needs to go into rehab, do the 12-Step Program and rid itself of this addiction once and for all. No addiction is healthy, and an addiction to war is the least healthy of all.

bumfuzzled

There's been a lot of furor lately about WikiLeaks and the US State Department documents they published (vs. stole). The United States Congress is seeking to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange; Senator Joe Lieberman in a recent Fox News interview stated that Assange (an Australian) should be tried for American treason! He is also contemplating charges against the New York Times for bad citizenship! Do Senators now get to fabricate their own laws? Next he'll outlaw literate people - oh wait - that was Pol Pot.

Every government/police system in the world wishes to prosecute Assange for his part in publishing these documents. I bet if they had their way, the US Congress, Interpol, etc. would also want to prosecute everyone who tweets or blogs, and possibly everyone who's under the age of 25 just on principle.

According to www.senate.gov, the average age of this, the 110th Congress is 57 years (55.9 House, 61.7 Senate). This is one of the OLDEST Congresses ever. The average Congressperson was born in 1953, when TVs had two channels, no remotes, and black & white pictures; they were teenagers before it was even possible to send telexes. They graduated from university five years before CNN was created, a decade before personal computers became commercially available, fifteen years before the fall of the Berlin Wall, and almost a quarter of a century before mobile phones were broadly available. The world's population has almost tripled since they were born.

Sadly for them, we are in the midst of the Communication Revolution. Going from the Industrial Revolution (their world) to the Information Revolution to this, the Communication Revolution, we have shifted from standardization (Ford Model T) to discoverability (Internet/Google) to transparency & immediacy. While foreign to these relicsleaders (many of whom have never even read email), the need to be transparent and expect to have anything be immediately exposed for all to see is today's reality. Keeping secrets like you did during the age of Leave it to Beaver, in a time where the latency between information capture and global distribution is measured in seconds is absurd.

Congresspeople: the good old days are over. The RIAA faced this with online music, the MPA is facing it with online films, and you are now facing it with pervasive (and unfettered) access to information. The systems you employed to safeguard your secrets are antiquated and designed for the Cold Warriors, not today's average 12-year-old. But like your much-vaunted HUAC and Senator McCarthy's demagogic anti-communist investigations, you have charged decrepit freaks like Lieberman to persecute these modern "evil-doers" in the name of National Security. Bravo.

History will judge you as it did McCarthy and HUAC - as a Congress unable to fathom a changing world, using its power in desperate ways to impose order, and putting its energy into holding on to the past vs. leading your country towards a brighter future.

Punctuating the 2010 US Government's reaction to this leak is their edict to all government employees instructing them NOT to read any of the WikiLeaks documents. Quoting MSNBC, the Department of Homeland Security sent out a strongly worded memo to all employees and contractors telling them that not only may they not “download or attempt to download” any of the classified WikiLeaks memos onto their computers, they also may not “discuss the content” of such “potentially classified” documents “with persons who would not otherwise be authorized access,” according to a copy of a Dec. 3 memo from the department’s Office of Chief Information Officer. NASA and the Library of Congress have blocked the WikiLeaks site from their employees.

As a Homeland Security employee put it, "So, my grandmother would be allowed to access the cables, but not me."

Remember - these same government leaders have publicly decried the Chinese Government for impeding free information flow to her citizens.

The modern world has left the aging US Congress and various government Ministries bumfuzzled.

How does one de-fuzzle? I don't think it's possible - with apologies to canines everywhere, you can't teach old dogs like Lieberman/Pelosi/etc. new tricks - they're simply too withered, and sadly too entrenched.

Giving them some credit, they do understand that the WikiLeaks episode portends an even more dangerous future - one where no secrets are safe, no back-room dealings are kept in the back room, and what happens in Vegas becomes a TV movie that everyone can watch. Their strategy is to delay that future as long as possible, not realizing that their very acts (which only serve to extend the story) are actually helping seal their fate.

That this is news to Congress is not surprising given their agedness, but it is surprising that one of the youngest (and most tech-savvy) presidents in history is behaving so much like his septuagenarian colleagues.

Or is it that the very act of joining the government not only bumfuzzles but also calcifies?

tax refunds

When money is exchanged for a good or service, the buyer and seller enter a contract where the product offered will meet expectations and achieve advertised results; and if it doesn't, some form of restitution/refund is expected.

In a market economy, providers of goods or services that do not operate with integrity should as a matter of course lose customers and go under. This behavior is enforced in America by the Federal Trade Commission. With all of this, one would think that the American consumer is well taken care of... but no.

In 2008, Americans spent almost $600 billion (via income taxes alone) on public education (or well over $10,000 per student per year). That's a lot of money. Where is the consumer protection? If a student doesn't successfully complete high school, fails to get accepted to college, or fails to get a job, shouldn't the "buyers" be entitled to a refund? What if the school doesn't do enough to educate a child? What then? How does one get restitution?

If we look at Education America as a business (EA.com), who are its customers? What is the product (how do they create value)? What does the model look like?

1. EA.com creates value by taking raw materials (students age 5) and machines (curriculum, exams, standards) them within its factories (schools) and with its workers (teachers) into theoretically actualized, independent, and contributing members of society (students age 18-ish) 13 years later.
2. A company's customers are the ones that pay for the good or service, or in this case, the American taxpayer. The customers are the ones that have already passed through the system, not the ones currently in the system. Their stake is in the "future value" of EA's product and not in the process. This is a pretty significant nuance, and rather convenient for EA.com as its customers are unable to judge the quality of the product until well after the product has left the factory, and the payments have been collected.
3. The model is brilliant - get paid to crank out widgets according to an external specification (curriculum) and measured based on an antiquated (standardized tests) assessment, which has no connection to the graduate's ability or likelihood to succeed per the customers' requirements (blue text in #1 above).

By the time you realize the education you bought your child didn't meet expectations, it's already too late 'cause they've already graduated. And since there are no refunds, EA.com is counting on the fact that you will recognize there is no value to airing your very legitimate grievance, and just give up.

This can't be allowed to go on. Since a bad-education-refund is not possible, what can we do??? Where is our Fair Education Commission???

In the spirit of my last post, to create change, we must identify the most influential constituency, pick the most provocative issue, and pour some Tabasco into that wound.

The only way to truly and sustainably change Education America is to mobilize most if not all citizens to vigilantly ensure #1 above for every child. Adults aren't doing this today because it's in their past, and they don't correlate it to their future. We need to reposition Education and make it much, much more viscerally relevant to everyone.

Education America is funded by American taxpayers, all of whom are current or future retirees. Every one of whom expects to receive Social Security and Medicare until they die. Social Security and Medicare (SS&M) are the political third rail - the one place where all political parties fear to tread. This is because both are at risk of bankruptcy, and more taxpayers are closer to retirement than ever before (i.e. they are going bankrupt faster). 

SS&M were designed on the premise that there will always be more employees than retirees (bizarrely, no-one counted on people being healthier, living longer, having less kids) and that the current employees' taxes keep the system afloat (unemployment = bad). So if I'm retiring in the next 10-20 years, I want to make damned sure that today's students are VERY employable and will pay a ton of taxes, otherwise all I've done is fund my parents' retirement, and I'm left holding the bag.

Strategy: Make SS&M the wound, a poor education the Tabasco, and push the masses to personally focus on improving Education America to ensure their retirement benefits.

Let's take a look at the "biggest" education change agent in America - the Gates Foundation. They are investing a TON of money (my guess: $1-3billion/year), but that's less than 0.5% of the total education budget - a relative pittance. They can't make a big enough impact with that - they need a bigger lever.

Rather than creating programs, they should stand squarely on the third rail (since they're not political), and use their $Billions to create a fervor among Democrats and Republicans alike. If the citizens of America want to ensure SS&M access for their own retirement, they need to make sure that EVERY student graduates and is very GAINfully employed very soon after. The Foundation should produce a clear, simple list of three things that the voters must expect from Education America in the upcoming election (step 1). In the following election round, they should specify the next three things that voters must focus on (step 2), and so on.

We can't get a refund on the misspent $600 billion - let's at least make sure all future money is spent well.

lesser evils

How do democracies work exactly? Churchill said that "Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." He also said "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

Watching the recent election in America, I imagine voters from both parties will agree with the second quote. Except for countries with an utterly homogeneous population (Scandinavia comes to mind), are there any democracies where political success doesn't require an opponent against whom you must incite passion?

One of our basest instincts is fight or flight; we act when we perceive a threat. Politicians have figured this out (Karl Rove is probably the best) and know that the only way to "rock the vote" is to get people afraid enough of the "other guy" so that they donate $$ and vote for you.

Surowiecki, in Wisdom of Crowds argues that "under the right circumstances, groups are remarkably intelligent, and are often smarter than the smartest people in them." Now try to imagine the wisdom of 46% of the American electorate that wanted Sarah Palin (now a reality TV horror show) to be Vice President in 2008. The ONLY way this happens in a "wise crowd" is if the alternative (Barak Hussein Obama) is portrayed as so vile and horrific that it raises your righteous indignation to the point where you're able to stomach the lesser evil.

Politicians want voters to do three things - donate money, vote, and convince others to vote. They accomplish this by appealing to the basest instincts and fears, and by counting on the fact that the electorate has a very short memory when it comes to promises vs. actions.

There is a fourth social/constitutional expectation, which is to care, be discerning, and make intelligent choices; but let's face it, that's asking a lot, and you know that politicians would prefer you let them do the thinking...

The election process is no longer an assessment of a candidate's past performance, intentions, and ability to create value for their electorate; it is instead an exercise in emotive herding. Look at either side's campaign in any election around the world and you will see that most if not all of their "voice" is aimed at your gut and your heart, and NOT at your head. Most if not all of their voice is also not about their candidate, it is about how bad their opponent and his party are. A good campaign manager (Rove et al) knows the issues that will incite their base, and more specifically how to spin them to achieve maximum enragement. The better the manager, the more sustained the effect of the spin.

The best way to move a community is to find or fabricate an enemy. People only coalesce when they have something to oppose. I do not believe it is possible to sustain a mainstream movement based solely on a peaceful or positive intention. If you have no opposition to rail against and vilify, you will not be able to keep your audience.

For example, Palin = plain spoken, apple pie, maverick, god fearing, gun-toting, hockey mom. Anyone who is NOT this (Obama) is evil - "she's one of us," and he's not. You can't trust him, is he even American, his name sounds Islamic, he's... Politics today is more about creating caricatures than it is about addressing issues. With the prevalence and reach of media, the voters' connection to the caricature (or the idea) is more profound and more long-lived than their connection to the person.

These days democratically-elected candidates can't be mainstream, they have to be fringe, and they have to establish and nurture a polarized constituency. Once in power, the majority pushes their agenda; and the opposition/minority needs to do everything possible to not just impede that agenda, but to inflame their constituency into a rage against the incumbent. That's the only way they can raise enough money and rock enough voters to win next time.

The effect? Unless one party has a massive majority across the entire government, nothing of substance will happen - the citizens' lives aren't materially improved. The legislation that does get passed is rife with compromise and a pale shadow of what was promised. The spinners happily point the finger at the "enemy," and the citizenry's belief that the real cause of all their ills is at the other end of the spectrum (government and voters alike) is deepened. And the government oscillates between extremes - nothing gets done.

Think of how most advocacy groups function; they don't talk about the rightness of their cause, they create momentum by promoting the wrongness of their opponent. Do you think the Pro-Choice community would survive over time without extolling the threat that the Pro-Life movement represents and vice versa?

Now think about YOUR feelings - is your reaction stronger to an anti- message or a pro- message? Are you more like to vote or contribute or participate because of a fear of what might be if those other idiots get their way, or because you feel passionate and positive about your candidate and their platform?

I think the Tea Party movement in the US began because they wanted to change this dynamic, to see a government and citizenry closer to what the Founding Fathers intended. But in the end, they sacrificed integrity to pander to the media, grow their membership, and raise money, and ended up becoming a fringe instead of a mainstream voice.

If the byproduct of a democracy is that half the citizens hate the other half and wish evil upon them, how is this civilized? How do we claim to be civilized?

The opening Churchill quote has given us permission to be complacent, to concede that there is no better government than a democracy. That's not acceptable. Our imperative should be to prove him wrong, and not acquiesce to democracy simply because it sucks less than the alternatives.

clarity

Our governments (especially elected ones) are mired in the never-ending cycle of getting reelected. This leads to the never-ending cycle of creating polarizing issues that place candidates on the side of a cash-rich and moron-filled fringe who will donate $$$ to the campaign; and even more insidious, the never-ending cycle of creating ever more pointless laws, oversight, and pandering to feign congressional value-add.

Lest this be a rant on the depths to which politicians have sunk, let us take another tack. How does one help government be less ...pendulous?

Why not reboot the country every century or so to eliminate incumbency, any laws written by Congress, the tax code, all departments, etc.? Let us revolt and create a new system with a clean slate!

Whether we like it or not, some governments are already there with bankruptcies, and others are close behind. If the US national debt continues to grow by more than $4 billion per day, it's seems pretty certain that a reboot is impending.

I would design the next government around very clear and specific boundaries; being explicit about what government will and won't do for its citizenry. Here are the five things my government would do (and NO more):

1. Education - Free, and starting at age zero (yes, zero), to where the student has completed their undergraduate certificate (2-year/4-year), or until about age 22.

   You start organized education at birth because we know it makes a HUGE impact on a child's development. You also do this to ensure that every child is well cared for and nurtured. The fruits of this are more independent (economically, physiologically, and psychologically) children/adults; less youth crime and hopefully less adult crime; healthier kids ('cause they'll learn about health, eat better food in school, etc.); and hopefully things like less teen pregnancies, gang activity, etc.

   This will require more teachers, more classrooms, etc. It will also require an education system that imparts knowledge in practical facets of life (how to prepare for and participate in a job interview, communication skills for the workplace, diet, fitness, banking, parenting, birth control, etc.) - these must all be mandatory for every student. It is through these last that we make the rest of the system less expensive.

2. Healthcare - full coverage for all residents from pre-natal to death, including medicines.

   Prioritizing diet, preventative care, and a mindset of quality service for all is fundamental. The system should be completely free to all residents of the country (IMO it should be free to anyone that needs it, irrespective of status), and include medical, vision, dental, prescriptions, etc. Elective work for purely cosmetic reasons will not be covered. This implies there will no longer be a health insurance industry, physicians, nurses, etc. will likely make less money as most will be federal employees.

3. Security - from creating laws, to enforcing laws, to civil and national defense.

   First - the primary motivation for Congress should NOT be to create new laws, but rather to ensure that the existing Code be well-adhered to, and that the citizenry be incented to better behavior. There should be one law-enforcement body in the country spanning local, regional, transportation, organized crime, etc. There will be an emergency response system that includes fire departments, ambulances/paramedics, nature-related calamities (weather, volcano, earthquake, etc.), and any other type of civil support. All of these capabilities will be linked and operate as one unit.

   National defense will focus on protecting the nation from others, not proactively engaging any nation in armed conflict. Since the system is rebooting, there will no longer be mandatory minimums, or idiotic wars (drugs, etc.) on anything.

4. Civil Service - core professional/infrastructural services plus employment for those that aren't easily employed in the private sector.

   This is the most complex organization, and one most at risk of untamed growth. It delivers all national services to the country, including infrastructure (roads, rail, , airports, ports, etc.); utilities (energy, water, etc.); foreign and economic policy; and things like election systems. It also includes an employment machine aimed at those unemployable in the private sector; the work done will span a variety of public service/peace-corps/disaster relief-type services. If you wish to earn a living, you must contribute. There will be no welfare system.

   Limits on the size and scope of this organization will be one of the most critical and contentious pieces of legislation that the new government will write. The core set of services performed will be enumerated in the new Constitution, along with a mechanism to control budget and organizational size. Amendments to this part of the Constitution will require a mega-majority (at least 75% of Congress).

5. Taxation+ - a simplified (progressive flat income tax mechanism to cover the costs of #1-4, basic government operations, and a bit extra for an emergency fund. There should be no sales tax, state tax, or local tax - just a simple income tax. The "+" connotes other forms of economic oversight like the SEC.

Yes, these are expensive and complex undertakings. Fundamental to this is a Constitution that rewards government (and government officials) for being as small as reasonable and no smaller.

To help rein things in, the government is NOT allowed to give money away (bailouts, unemployment benefits, social security, welfare, etc.), it is also not allowed to pay for things like food and shelter. It encourages a simpler service delivery model - one police force across the country; one school system; one healthcare system, etc.

Human nature is such that when a thing is given, it is expected (entitlement); and when you get one thing, you also expect related things. For example - if you get food stamps, you aren't as desperate to work because you know it's available; then you wonder why there aren't "home stamps" so that you can "afford" better accommodation. Thus begins the dependency-cycle.

A system where people willingly abdicate responsibility to society is not acceptable.

If you've read this blog at all, you know I believe a fundamental precept of society is to care for those that can't. But every parent knows that you also have to teach your children certain lessons; they have to fend for themselves, not always look to others to bring them food from the kitchen, or walk them to school, or whatever. At some point, they must be pushed out of the nest and allowed to fly on their own. This is also a form of caring for those that can't. It is more difficult to do, so society instead throws money at it. Wrong.

People need to take responsibility for themselves and their destinies; if you're living hand-to-mouth now, why bring a child into the world? Why not heed what you were taught about family planning and contraception, and take advantage of the healthcare system (free contraception) to prevent bringing one more child into your already difficult reality? Today you might want to have children because Social Services is more likely to care for you - that's the wrong incentive.

Similarly, if you have a job and are worried about how a disability might prevent you from keeping food on the table and a roof over your head, invest in insurance to reduce your risk. If you wish to change careers and need training and some help tiding you over, save or borrow what you need - it's not the government's role to help you with that.

Systems that promise everything for everyone are not sustainable. Almost every government on the planet is facing a significant budget squeeze; whether we like it or not, a reboot is in order. Let's not repeat the same mistakes in the next cycle.

If there is absolute clarity about what government will and won't do, people will use what's given (education, healthcare, security) and find other means bridge any gaps - this too is in our nature.

local heroes?

The US Department of Defense can't account for $8.7 billion out of the $9.1 billion intended to help rebuild Iraq. Bell, California city officials were forced to cut their salaries by 90% because they were found out (the worst offenders were the city manager ($787,000/yr) + assistant city manager ($376,000) + chief of police ($457,000/yr) were all forced to resign). Also in California, while spending for K-12 education rose 22% over five years (from $45.6 to $55.6 billion), actual classroom spending fell from 59% to 57.8% of the budget, and 38,000 school teachers have lost their jobs; California has a $20 billion deficit. Where is the money going?

There is profound inefficiency in the American education system - California alone has over 1,000 school districts. First - why are so many districts required? Surely one is enough? With 1,000 separate district organizations (each of which has an average $55m budget), surely there is waste, fraud and excess staffing? With 1,000 districts, surely a percentage of them have leaders that are abusing the system, and siphoning money away from students and teachers? With 1,000 districts, surely there would have been a way to fire 38,000 bureaucrats, retain 38,000 teachers, and give tens of thousands of students a better education?

"They" say that we should keep the Federal government small, and leave as much work as possible to the states and below. Most politicians will argue that this is the key to success, but where's the proof?

While local government is theoretically more in tune with local needs, the price you pay is significant. By definition, a decentralized model with redundancy at every level is actually more government not less. Look around the world today and you see a dearth of great leaders and great managers. The more distributed government is the more leaders and managers and honest people it needs; and let's face it, there just aren't enough of those to go around. The result - bad management, shortsighted thinking, poor budgeting, massive inefficiencies, wasted money, wasted time, wasted lives, wasted air...

When the system is this fragmented, it is also impossible to ensure accountability - imagine how big, how pervasive and how resistant to "influence" the oversight organization would have to be to police the whole country's fiefdoms? The theory that local elections serve as the "cops" is laughable - just look at the "wonderful people" that keep getting reelected in local and regional (and federal I suppose) elections). It's too easy to hide, and people are too disengaged to pay attention. In the end, elections are not the best way to do anything other than win a popularity or fear-based contest.

The 8.7 billion dollar throwaway by the DOD means this isn't just a local problem; there are massive failures at the Federal level as well (this is but one).

Is there a way to prevent fraud and abuse and just plain stupidity? No - being unscrupulous is part of human nature (or better said, trying to get away with something you know to be wrong is human nature); and you only have to look at the Darwin awards to know that there are a whole lot of less-than-bright people that grace this planet, and many of those seem to be drawn to politics.

The arguments against federalizing everything are many - too much distance from people and local issues, too much bureaucracy, too much excess spending, and my favorite with budgets that big, any screw-up is sure to just as gigantic (at least locally it's only hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions, and not billions).

I don't buy that. Saying that this alternative sucks less so let's do it is not the way government should work, and it's certainly not the way citizens should be served.

My first instinct was to say we should accredit government workers - they must be trained and pass an exam to be judged "Competent to Spend the People's Money" (or CSPM ;-)). But that's a non-starter - just look at the fact that 90+% of politicians are lawyers (who had to graduate from university and pass the Bar), and how incompetent they are.

I wrote something a few months ago that I think might have merit - I was talking about how we incent or mandate a balanced budget:

Quid pro quo. If we're punishing Congress for excessive spending, we should also reward them for good behavior. Every year that there is a budget surplus, all Federal employees will receive a bonus of X% (1 or 2%?) of the total surplus, divided equally (same percentage of salary). When they've also retired the gross deficit, the percentage should double. There should be no cap on this - the better they do, the better they do.

But how do we prevent fraud? Two things - first, if everyone's pay is dependent on a more efficient system, maybe that creates an incentive to play better. Second, if the number of agencies is reduced profoundly (reducing the 14,866 school districts to 50 + 1 (for Washington DC) for example), then maybe it's possible for the GAO to police all of them? And what if the GAO is also similarly incented to find bad behavior and eliminate it? For example - one incentive I might consider for the GAO is they're penalized if a behavior is reported in one year, and remains just as bad in the next, and they're rewarded if it improves (their bonus pool could increase by a percentage of the improvement).

It should be noted that there are a ton of federal organizations that do have a local presence, and are able to tune their efforts according to local needs - it's just a matter of policy.

The three steps to reduce bad behavior - consolidate so that fewer more qualified people are doing the work; create a pay structure that rewards fiscal responsibility and improved service for the citizens; and motivate the oversight organization so that it wins if the citizens win.

Sadly - the easier way to do it - trust the citizens to vote well - hasn't worked...

lunch

"If someone is going to eat our lunch, it may as well be us." This is an oft-quoted phrase in the business world. Its meaning is simple - we have a successful product in the market, the competition is after us; rather than allowing them to usurp our position in the market, we should do it ourselves with our own newer/better or altogether different products. Or put another way, better to cannibalize our own revenue streams and hold on to them vs. letting others take them from us.

However you say it, this sentence points me to one, very powerful truth: be more defined by what you will do than what you have done.

I'm not saying forget your past (though that's sometimes a huge temptation!), but rather that we can only control our future actions, that embracing paradigms that got us to a place may only serve to hold us back, and not allow progress.

Andy Zaky wrote a great post on the irrelevance of the iPod to Apple's future. In it, he includes two graphs - one showing the decline in iPod as a percentage of Apple revenue, and the other showing Apple's overall revenue growth.

The lesson - while the iPod was HUGE in resurrecting Apple (at its peak representing 55% of all Apple revenue, vs. 8% in the last quarter), and while it remains a significant contributor to revenue (and margins), Apple has moved on. They no longer count on the iPod as a growth engine, indeed, much of the decline in iPod sales is the direct result of the success of newer Apple products (iPhone, iPad). This is why new announcements from Apple are so well attended - people want to be connected to the next new thing, knowing that instantly the last (now old) new thing will be utterly outmoded and boring.

Of course there are many organizations that don't take this approach, and sometimes for good reason. If you have a cash cow that's amazingly productive, why stop milking it? Why not get every last drop out, especially when the latter "drops" are so much more profitable than the former. After all - new products are always risky, and may never come close to the potential of existing. Whilst these companies might not have the "innovation aura" that Apple has, they can be just fine, enjoying steady and predictable revenues and plodding growth.

It is possible though for this approach to lead to a state of strategic entrenchment, where an organization is so committed to a past formula for success, that it loses sight not just of future opportunity, but also present and future threats.

This behavior isn't confined to corporations; it also applies to other industries, education and government to name but two.

In education proposed change must be proven and peer-reviewed before it is accepted; we can't afford to do something untested to our children - a reasonable concern. (The problem of course is that you can't test innovation at scale without implementing it.) Consider for a moment how the current system was established - there was very little analysis, brain science didn't exist, and of course there was no research at the time that said learning was best accomplished in an authoritative, homogeneous, teacher-in-front, instructivist system. They just decided to do it that way.

I can understand not wanting to change if things are working really well (much like strategically-entrenched companies), but let's face it, education in America is not a success - dropouts are on the rise, and those that do graduate aren't learning nearly enough to be competitive with the rest of the world.

In education "historical success" is also something of a tautology - the "successful" graduates happen to be running the current system, and by definition, since it got them to this place, their education and the system they had was successful. Therefore innovation is less of a priority vs. "back to the old ways," and therefore there is very little open-mindedness to change. Sure they're willing to tweak things slightly, but real change ...no. There's no external motivation either because the parents are a product of the same old system, and there's no competition that is anywhere near the scale of the American public school system.

Change is therefore unlikely or even worse, impossible.

Governments face the exact opposite problem. Politicians measure success through action (at least that's how they promote themselves to the voters). Action = creating laws or setting up commissions, or I suppose, going on "fact-finding" tours. But because their goal is not a better society, but rather to get re-elected, success is merely passing laws, not passing good laws, or indeed enforcing existing laws; commissions only needed to happen, not resolve or repair anything.

I'm reminded of a West Wing episode where, among other things, the discussion is about the Republican vs. Democratic view on laws. Here's an exchange between Sam Seaborn and Ainsley Hayes (with my emphasis):

AINSLEY: I'm a Republican ...I believe that every time the Federal Government hands down a new law, it leaves for the rest of us a little less freedom. So I say let's stick to the ones we absolutely need in order to have water come out of the faucet and our cars not stolen. That is my problem with passing a redundant law.

SAM: You know, you insist that government is depraved for not legislating against what we can see on the newsstands or what we can see in an art exhibit or what we can burn in protest or which sex we're allowed to have sex with or a woman's right to choose. But don't you dare try to regulate this deadly weapon I have concealed on me for that would encroach against my freedom.

AINSLEY: And Democrats believe in freedom of speech unless you want to pray while you're standing in school. And you believe in the freedom of information act except if you want to find out if your 14 year old has had an abortion.

SAM: We believe in the ERA. ... How can you have an objection...

AINSLEY: Because it's humiliating. A new amendment we vote on declaring that I am equal under the law to a man? I'm mortified to discover there's reason to believe I wasn't before. I'm a citizen of this country. I'm not a special subset in need of your protection. I do not have to have my rights handed down to me by a bunch of old white men. The same Article 14 that protects you protects me. And I went to law school just to make sure.

So like the commercial and education sectors, politicians can't resist the "tried and true approach" to governing. They will therefore make spurious, ill-conceived laws to try and look good to naive and frankly stupid voters. Like education, government has no competition, they know that most new politicians are just as dumb as they are, and follow the same traditions; they know this because enough of them will get reelected to ensure continuity. Yet again there is no sufficiently credible perceived competition to create a change in behavior.

Most corporations, school systems and governments are afraid to do something new or interesting; they are afraid to go beyond their self-imposed limits, and will therefore diminish whatever is connected to them. Is it any wonder so many parts of the American fabric are in decline?

Competition is crucial; it creates pressure and the urgency to outperform. When there is no competition (or perceived competition), you rest on your laurels and stagnate. This is less important for corporations - you only risk money; but when the stakes are as high as they are with education and government how can we afford to be sloths? There is competition in the tall grass, and it's not lazy.

We must seek to be defined by what we will do and not what we've done.

good business

If you hire someone to do something for you, how do you control quality and outcomes? Do you outline the expectations, milestones, and deliverables explicitly? Do you track progress regularly? Are you careful to negotiate well but equitably?

If you're the vendor, would you rather the definition of success was in your hands or those of the people that hired you?

Say someone came up to you and said "I want you do this job, I'm not going to tell you how, I'm not even going to tell you what success looks like, you have to figure that out for yourself, but I will pay you a ton of money. Oh and by the way, I'm almost never going to check up on you." Would you be interested? Well - duh!! You get paid and you get to say what you have to do get paid, and they may not even check that you actually did the work - how sweet is that!

Does this happen often? Yep, and especially in governments and other ultra-large organizations. Two examples come to mind - first, the use of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan:

According to a recent Wartime Contracting Commission report, there are about (the exact number is not known) 240,000 contractors in these two theaters.  The commission states that the greatest opportunities for improvement include focus on the "leadership, culture and accountability" of the agencies that do the hiring, the process for defining contractor requirements, performance and cost-effectiveness, and visibility into and accountability of subcontractors. This can't be good...

This NY Times article on a Pentagon-funded Afghani warlord is classic - the US military has anointed an illiterate highway police officer with more wealth (gets paid $2.5 million/month!!), and more power than any democratically elected or appointed official in the region! First, I'd put money on this guy and his army going against his current "benefactor" at some point very soon. Second, how does accountability work when your vendor has more power than the local government, and is protecting your employees (soldiers) and property?

Literally $ billions are spent on these contracts, an untold number of random people become wealthy and powerful, and yet there is almost zero oversight and hardly any expectation of actual performance. Let's not even think about what happens to these "made men" a few years hence (think: Taliban, Saddam Hussein, etc.).

The second example is the No Child Left Behind Act - while conceptually a good thing, it is hampered by the weird jurisdictional dance that the Feds have to play with the States and local governments on education. The concept was good - let's figure out a way to push schools to graduate every student, and also improve what is taught.

Using the only power they had (money), the Feds paid for outcomes, but left it to the States to define those outcomes, define their baseline, and define how to measure progress. The results speak for themselves - students got dumber, money got wasted, everyone was more frustrated.

When the measure of success is a specific test, and all the actors (school administrators, teachers, parents, students) know it; then with their short-term brains in full gear, they also know that passing that test (vs. actually teaching/learning anything) is all that matters, nothing else "counts," helps them get paid, and all else falls by the wayside.

Another classic example of wanting to do something, having the best intentions (as with the Pentagon above), but making an absolute mess of execution.

To their credit, though they haven't rescinded No Child Left Behind, the present Department of Education has implemented a new approach (Race to the Top), though again the performance measures are flawed. Measuring teachers based on student outcomes is a failed strategy, and will ultimately create poorer graduates - let's hope they fix this before it creates irreparable damage.

Are there ways to avoid these outcomes, or at least improve one's odds of success? There are no absolutes, but here are some things to consider:

1. Think before you act, and then think again. If your first (and only) thought is "I'm going to pay someone else to do this," you're going to fail. Before the "how" you've got to know "why" you're doing something, and then "what" you will do. The "why" helps you clarify the goal and the desired end-state. The "what" helps you map your approach to the goal, and test to make sure it does get you there; then you can worry about "how."
2. Own the outcome. Just because you've hired a vendor to do the work doesn't mean you don't own it anymore. No matter what happens, you own the "why," the "what," and the choice of this particular "how" as it relates to the goals you need to achieve. The larger the organization the more likely the people who made the decision will be in different jobs when there is a reckoning - that doesn't absolve the organization of responsibility.
3. Separate performance from measurement. This should be obvious but it isn't. If the people you're paying are also measuring the results and reporting them back, there is NO realistic expectation that you will ever get the truth. Consider the simple fact that they get paid if their results look good, and they get paid more if their results look better...

These are pretty universal, and any well-run business will operate this way. It seems though that the bigger you get, the dumber you get...

head games

Are you open to trying something new? Are you open to learning something new? Are you open to a new idea, or to overturning a closely-held belief? Before change is possible, a society must be able to say "yes" to these questions, otherwise enacting change is like pushing a rope uphill.

I attended the Games for Learning day of the Games for Change Festival at NYU last week. Brilliant people spoke on the role of games in learning, approaches to assessing efficacy, and how to build great learning games. It was hosted by Ken Perlin and Jan Plass, who are the co-directors of the Games for Learning Institute. There is a lot happening, I learned a ton, and was privileged to meet and hang out with some very cool people.

One facet that wasn't a focus at the Festival is how to ingrain games more deeply within mainstream education. This is a tough, tough challenge, one that will take some careful thought, mostly because the deck is so stacked against change in education.

I recently had lunch with a ~29 year old mother of a 5-year old boy (both were born and raised in the Seattle area). She believes strongly in the authoritarian approach to education, where the teacher is in front, the students listen quietly, write down what the teacher says, do their homework and pass their tests. This is what she wants for her son. I wonder how much of the population she represents?

I've also been talking to a friend about intellectual divides; she sent me two links that shouldn't have surprised me, but did. First, Charles Pearce's treatise on the a segment of America that disdains "smart" - one payoff quote comes from Pastor Ray Mummert of Dover, Pennsylvania, a leader in Intelligent Design community: "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." That says it all, doesn't it?

But there's more! The second link is to a survey in National Geographic measuring the relative belief in evolution in Western Countries. Just 14% of Americans believe that evolution is "definitely true"; over the last 20 years, uncertainty about evolution has grown from 7% to 20%; and now fully 1/3 of Americans (more than 110 million people) outright reject evolution. Less than 50% of Americans can provide even a basic explanation of DNA. This ranks America #31 out of 32.

These stories illustrate something of the current state of education in America, how science is regarded, and how deeply-held the idea of "old school" and "traditional" education might be in this country.

I have no data to back this up, but my guess is that the people more likely to believe in creationism are also likely to support "traditional" education approaches. I'm also guessing that a direct "innovation" message will NOT resonate with this audience or help affect change.

How then is something as "radical" as the use of games in learning going to achieve broad use across the American public school system?

Socio-politically, there are two ways to achieve (relatively) rapid, widespread change - brute force (e.g. 9-11/terrorism and security; or H1N1 and the obsession with hand-sanitizer), and guile (e.g. the $billions America spends fruitlessly on dieting).

How is this guile? Most diet-related advertising says something like: "try our new quick, easy and safe approach to losing tonnage without sacrificing the foods you love." The people who buy the product or service keep buying and buying and buying, always seeking that quick, easy fix. The $$ spent on trying to get thin keep increasing despite the fact that the number of obese people in the country is also increasing. People are relentlessly gullible.

Call it guile or preying on stupidity - either way, the lose-weight industry is literally and figuratively making a killing.

I believe that transforming education will require the same mercenary, exploitative approach that the weight-reduction industry has perfected. If we want to see pervasive change, we have to create a marketing groundswell that preys on the gullibility and quick, easy fix-obsessed nature of Americans. The message has to come from a united front - the Department of Education, (some) universities, and foundations, all of whom must be willing to put their money where their mouth is.

I would also focus my "magic pill" on lower grades - say Kindergarten through Grade 3, prioritizing core skills like literacy, numeracy and the sciences. Parents tend to get less involved in school as their kids get older; to make them an effective change agent, they must be at their most passionate, most susceptible to external influence, and most able to influence their school board/district.

Once you have achieved success in the lower grades, you train these same parents to expect and demand innovation as their children grow. If all goes well, you do the same thing with the next generation of K-3 parents, because by then, whatever we're changed will now be the new "old school."

To teach in a changing world, we must ourselves be ever-open to change; today it's games, tomorrow - who knows.

madiba

I saw Invictus again on my flight home yesterday. In the film, President Mandela is called "Madiba" by the people of his tribe; I equate its meaning to something like sensei + wise man + father, or sensei:). "Invictus" (below) was a companion to Mandela during his 27 years in jail. The spirit of this poem (Latin for "unconquered"), combined with his belief in all the people of South Africa, helped make Madiba Madiba.

Most boards and recruiters don't seem to believe a Madiba is needed for success; in most organizations - public, private, or government, the leaders I've observed are much more pragmatic. Their focus is on specific, measurable, and externally-acknowledged outcomes. These are important, and certainly one outward measure of an organization's performance, but if you think this is the only thing, then your true and long-term success is at risk.

Mandela inherited an incredibly complex country - one with angry (but victorious) black people and nervous white people; one where the economy was in the tank; and one where crime and violence were rampant. In the commercial world, this might be akin to management/union acrimony + a recently-merged company (perhaps former competitors) + impending lay-offs + a very competitive marketplace with shrinking margins. Of course Madiba needed to focus on the economy, on crime, and on justice, just as the companies need to focus on their metrics - you have to keep the boat afloat.

But Mandela approached his presidency in a particular way - symbols meant something, honor meant something, and the people (all the people) meant something. Sure there were measurable outcomes, but they weren't meaningful if they weren't underlied by the symbols.

This reminds me of a recent experience: someone I know is in the job market; in the opening section of her resume, she introduced herself beginning with the word "passionate." Her mentor urged her to remove it, saying - "'Passion'? Really? Is that what you want to lead with? Employers will dismiss you outright. Instead write about the quantified and documented things you have done, and the skills you bring to the table. That's what matters."

Sigh...

Of course skills and experience are important, but they're just table stakes. They might allow you to play the game, and perhaps even win on occasion, but to achieve real, sustained, and enduring success, you need heart; you must feel it in your stomach, you must care, and you must have profound passion for your "cause." I would hire one person with genuine passion vs. ten with skills - ask any true leader (government, commercial, or sport) and see what they say.

Just as a great corporation is first the people and then the product, Mandela needed to do more - he needed to galvanize a country - bring together violently opposed people to form one country, one people. He needed to instill the shared spirit, intent, and integrity that is South Africa in every South African.

Mandela knew that metrics alone weren't going to renew South Africa; he knew that speeches alone would not unite the country; he knew that foreign investment alone wasn't going to stop violence. He needed his people (all his people) to be ONE in the cause of their country, and he needed a symbol through which to do this - in his case it was the 1995 Rugby World Cup. He needed to create, as Seth put it, True Fans of South Africa among her citizens.

If there is no "WHY" in your organization or community, you are at risk; the "what" or the "how" will only take you so far. He understood this instinctively, and he also understood that the worst thing in the world was for him to use his electoral victory as a black man to create a new separateness with a reverse apartheid. That's why he honored the Springboks and their colors (something deeply tied to the whites) vs. getting a new name with new colors. And that's why he needed to turn the blacks around, and have them, along with the whites, all become true Springbok fans.

Madiba's stubbornness in fighting his fellow blacks on this was critical. For organizations (political or otherwise), their leaders MUST have this kind of wisdom, this kind of strength, and this kind of resolve. As he said in the film, whilst arguing with his advisers, "This country is hungry for greatness [and this is how I will help them achieve it]."

Shosholoza

all for one...

When something becomes too big, it is or is perceived to be domineering and dictatorial. America was formed in response to an overbearing Britain. To quote the Declaration of Independence: But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Brilliant.

In writing the constitution, the framers were mindful of this, and built a structure intended to prevent a federal government from ever getting too big. They did this by separating power in two ways - federally with three "independent" branches (executive, legislative, judicial), and overall with federal, state and local governments (or more appropriately - federal and not federal).

But today these layers are so tightly connected that they can't really act independently - the state and local governments are so economically beholden to the Feds that there is no practical checks/balances capability (biting the hand that feeds gets toothless pretty quickly).

I favor a (benevolent) central model vs. a local/state/federal model. The American system is redundant, inefficient, and with a dearth of great (even good) leaders (but a surplus of great egos), suffering from bad management and egregious excess. In tough time, the more layers you have the less revenue each layer is able to collect; the less each layer is able to raise, and with bad management, the more the whole system (not to mention the citizens) are at risk.

Creating a central government would of course require a serious Constitutional amendment, but is closer than you might think. If this had been a slightly deeper and more protracted recession/depression (Detroit plans to literally shut down parts of the city because it's too expensive to service them (street lights, police patrols, trash pickup, etc.); elsewhere schools are closing, teachers laid off, hospitals are cutting back, state employees are furloughed, it's endless), I bet a dozen States would have declared bankruptcy and ceded control to a higher power, ultimately creating the United State of America (note the singular).

It's not just America - Greece, Spain and Portugal in the European Union are all struggling. The "Northern" Eurozone (Germany, France) and their taxpayers will bear the brunt of bailing them out, and while they agree the bailout should happen, there is also resentment. "Why are we always sending € billions to them?? All they ever do is go on strike and take vacations!" In the United States we have angst against Wall Street, the automobile manufacturers, and even consumers who can't manage their own debt; think of how New York and Texas will feel if they have to bail California out.

What happens if the United States or European Union fails? What then?

We need a different approach to government.

Most people don't like centralization, believing it results in bloat, bureaucracy, declining services to the citizenry, and worst of all, the risk of an unchecked power running roughshod.

I agree :-) -- BUT - I'm pretty sure we already have this in our current Federal/State/Local government model???

The Constitution delineated Federal responsibilities based on specific portfolios (foreign policy, treasury, military, etc.) combined with omission (what's left is state or local). This was fine when things were easily separable, and there was physically no way for a central government to reach and connect to every corner of the land. Neither is true today. Not only are there overlaps in purview, but the physical portfolios are so intertwined that changes in one have ripple effects on others, and most critically the citizens.

Is there a way to create a government system that achieves both the efficiency and equitability of centralization with the effectiveness, local empathy, balance and accountability of de-central? I wrote about federalizing education, where the Feds were responsible for "the what" and the schools (local leadership) "the how." Extrapolating this to the larger context:

The What - Centralized Laws, Mandate and Funding. This body will set:

1. Rights - create the fundamental laws and principles that should govern the land
2. Vision - define success, identify the "customer," the desired outcome, and how it will be measured, and most critically, have a long-term perspective
3. Funding - raise money and provide financing; $$ per outcome, penalties for non-performance, bonuses for exceptional performance
4. Oversight - policy and remediation; clear process to track performance, and manage poor performance
5. Synchronization - look across programs to create leverage, economies of scale, manage interoperability

6. People-focused - they serve at the pleasure of the citizenry

The How - Decentralized Service Delivery. These bodies will be:

1. Focused - suited to one task (middle school, building bridges, public transportation, hospitals, etc.)
2. Public or Private - could either be government owned with federal employees or private
3. Local, regional or central - organizational structure and span based on need (TSA = central, road builders specializing in cold weather = regional, school = local or regional or national)
4. Outcome-driven - compelled to deliver per the metrics and oversight above
5. Creative - not constrained by "tried and true;" free-market approach to problems and opportunities
6. Customer-centered- their customer is the central government, whose customer is the citizenry

Is it this simple? No - but I think simplicity + decoupling funding and oversight from execution is how a government should be run.

plight and prejudice

How many public school teachers can you name who are only in it for the money? I struggle to name one. Are there bad eggs in the system? Of course, and here's an example of a more insidious variant (plus it quotes one of the more choice movie lines of the 1980s!). But most of the three million+ teachers in America teach because their stomachs and hearts demand it of them. It is a calling and their intentions are good.

I have been told of places in this country where being a teacher is a "way out," and people go into it because it's one of the very few choices available to them. I'm willing to bet that most of these teachers view it as a path to earning a living, being respected in their community, and helping future generations transcend.

Last night I was talking to a good friend about teachers in America; we talked about these two amazing teachers I had dinner with last October, and about Tyler Hester - a rather academically accomplished TFA teacher who was laid off recently from his school in Pasadena, CA; he was a victim of their policy of layoffs based solely on tenure.

There is a lot of talk about teachers being the most influential factor in a child's education, and that because student achievement is declining, they must be the point of failure. This type of scapegoat hunting is easy - it's not about solving a problem, it's about finding someone to blame - that's politics. As Aaron Sorkin put it in The American President (with my emphasis):

We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle age, middle class, middle income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family, and American values and character, and you wave an old photo of the President's girlfriend and you scream about patriotism. You tell them she's to blame for their lot in life. And you go on television and you call her a whore.

The "problem" is a failing education system, the "President's girlfriend" is the public school teacher, and rather than "whore" it's incompetent. Good politics is about establishing ONE enemy that is easily understood, easily vilified, and where a simple fix (student testing - something they have also admitted doesn't work!) can be applied.

Like Bob Rumson in the movie, none of these "complainants" has a viable solution for the problem. None recognizes that students are only in school for seven hours a day, and that learning also happens in the other seventeen. None speaks of the role of parents and parenting in education, none recognizes that the most formative learning happens before a child is even of school age!!

This is the plight of teachers in America and the prejudice fomented against them. Look no farther than the rhetoric of Presidents Bush and Obama, their respective Secretaries of Education, many "lesser" politicians (Governors, Superintendents, Congress people, etc.), and even major foundations (the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to name but one) to find the same story played over and over again. These are people who in one breath speak of dramatically increasing investment in our futures, and in the next of budget cuts that require teacher layoffs, cutbacks in classes offered, and even the closing of schools.

Phooey!

As Elizabeth Bennett (Jane Austen's Pride & Prejudice) had to overcome her tendency towards hasty judgments and headstrong approach, so must American teachers overcome their first reaction - the raising of hackles.

As Seth said today that you must choose what of the myriad ...stuff that comes your way to accept; teachers need to focus not on a tide of disaffection, but what they would want to see in the system in order to improve it; some of this will require change on their part, and they can't shirk that. They must view being in the cross hairs as an opportunity and not a threat.

Like Elizabeth they must realize that beneath the prejudice their Mr. Darcy has a genuine desire to improve education, he just doesn't know how. In the book, circumstances contrived to help Mr. Darcy demonstrate his innate goodness and win Elizabeth. In reality, teachers must take the bull by the horns and create their own destiny.

spastic knees

Humans are competitive. We can't help it, it's a genetic and certainly Darwinian response to our environment. We compete for damn-near everything, and imbue this spirit in many things we create, including the businesses we build. Even non-profits compete with each other.

There are many schools of thought on "how to win" - most favor forceful and immediate action. "Shock and awe" is a phrase I hear all too often in the corporate setting. The belief is that a perceived threat should be squashed immediately, before it grows stronger and becomes harder to overcome. This is true in medicine, sports, business, politics, warfare, etc.

Is shoot first and ask questions later always the best way to go? If time heals all wounds, does it also heal conflicts? Does patience mitigate threats? Does looking at the whole chess board help you decide the best move, or is it better to just focus on the pawn that's being attacked?

Seth Godin's Rights and Responsibilities post makes a great case for stopping and thinking about your ultimate goal and sustained success vs. the short-term preservation of status quo, or worse, a knee-jerk and ultra-myopic negative reaction to what is really an opportunity.

Seth's story about how corporations react is classic, and typical of micro thinking - something that, yep you guessed it, I attribute to the profusion of MBAs, PR people and lawyers. Enough said.

But there is another example of jerky (or spastic) knees that has been prominent this week, and for many months now - the Republican Party. I was happy when Barak Obama was elected President, but was worried about what would happen, because the Democrats also won majorities in the House and Senate. I was worried because the Democrats are horribly inept and factional - they have a proven inability to get things done; from the outset, rather than focusing on governing effectively and with dignity, they strutted and preened like unattractive peacocks.

What should the Republicans have done in response to an overwhelming loss and a bunch of preening Dems? If you combine the thinking of Machiavelli (my interpretation: power through cunning and guile) and Aikido (my interpretation: convert negative energy into something that is a conflict-free, positive outcome for both), what do you get that might be worthwhile?

Rather than form a strategy (be smart, focus on serving the citizens of the country (your employers), and think about crafting a situation that would demonstrate your mettle and leadership, and allow the others to inevitably screw up), the Republican Party chose to pout. Rather than govern, they chose to obstruct, and follow Vince Lombardi's "Winning isn't everything; it's the only thing." I can imagine a conversation like this among the leadership: "we only measure success in one way, in this game, at this hour, with this play. We will start now, and we can only win by thoroughly destroying those godless Democrats - damn the collateral damage. Let's go!!"

Lao Tzu once said: "Do you have the patience to wait till your mud settles and the water is clear? Can you remain unmoving till the right action arises by itself?”

Western companies and certainly the political parties have never read this, or hear of Lao Tzu - more's the shame.

As the mud settled they should have realized that to win, they needed to transcend their very conservative base and win back Reagan Democrats (or perhaps in that moment, Obama Republicans). They needed to look at history and their knowledge of those on the other side of the aisle to know that the Dems are simply incapable of being one team and working effectively. Instead, they chose and continue to choose to focus solely on vilifying those rightfully elected to govern, obstructing any kind of governing, further polarizing the country, and moving relentlessly to the right.

It eludes me - they made themselves look just as bad.

And if you watched any of the recent Southern Republican Leadership Conference, did you hear anything about what a Republican leader would do if they were in charge? All I heard (and have heard for months) is how evil the "other side" is (again - these are not terrorists or drug lords or even Communists, but fellow Americans), and how they intend to do everything to stop them on behalf of all that's righteous in America. There is no plan other than "stop them." Not what we will do, but what they mustn't do.

For America (and Americans) to be successful in this century, her leaders must forsake their primal desire to win. Her leaders must be able to think clearly and deliberately, and take on the mantle of responsibility to the citizens of this country (ALL the citizens, not just the ones that voted for them).

Stop and think about how many times you've swung at a pitch in the dirt (knee-jerk reaction to someone doing something perceptually bad to do you or yours), and regretted it.

Think about stopping for a moment, taking a deep breath, and then doing the right thing.

blast off

There is something in our make-up that makes us dislike the incumbent or “the man” or anyone else who is in a dominant, authoritative position; we are much more likely to root for the underdog than the favorite (whom we generally view as arrogant, overbearing and well, not nice). As an employee of a corporation that was the subject of a government investigation of behavior due to noteworthy market success, I know this all too well.

While the United States government actively pursues those commercial entities that might or do have a monopolistic position, it has exactly the opposite view when it comes to its role as a nation among others on this planet. In the latter, it relishes being the superpower. Oddly, Americans are surprised when citizens of the “lesser” nations vilify them and perceive America (and Americans) to be an arrogant bully.

I was listening to Warren Olney of NPR’s To the Point talk about nuclear disarmament, America’s stand, possible strategies, etc., and got to thinking: why does the USA care about any other nation’s nuclear arsenal? The Nuclear Nations are America, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel; does anyone really believe that any of these nations intends to nuke the US? If so, to what end? If there was an "end," how would a treaty of any kind prevent them from doing it? Even if they had signed a treaty, what real assurance does anyone have that they are doing what they said they would (especially if we believe they’re bent enough to want to nuke someone)??

For those nations that aren’t officially in the “gang” but might have weapons (many think Iran falls into this camp), not only is a treaty meaningless, but no intervention has worked so far. If one of them were to nuke anyone else, the risk of profound socioeconomic retribution from the rest of the world would be enough for "thinking" leaders to re-think. For non-thinking leaders, well - they are really terrorists and not sovereign leaders, and that's a whole other kettle of fish. With the end of the Cold War and Détente, I don't believe a government screwed up enough to use the bomb would view the threat of nuclear retaliation as a real deterrent; and most of these nations, as NATO and the Warsaw Pact found, would view the cost of creating and maintaining a nuclear arsenal prohibitive.

Some argue that we should ban nuclear weapons altogether, that no nation should have these weapons. I think that’s naïve – there’s no way to enforce it (just look at how difficult it is to assess (forget control) Iran’s nuclear posture), nor is there a realistic expectation that mere words and signed documents will result in disarmament – if that were possible, then the armistice following The War to End All Wars would have, and the last century would have seen ZERO demonstrations of military force.

A new "we can now kill each other less" treaty between the US and Russia was just signed; besides a strong statement of improved relations (a good thing) between the two countries, there's no real change that I can see. Does it, as President Obama said take us closer to global nuclear disarmament? I suppose, but not in a way that will ever actually get us there.

Historically, the most successful approach to eliminating a class of weapon has been to invent a better, more effective replacement. The Neutron Bomb was one attempt (lots more radiation but less physical damage), but it didn't do so well. The Strategic Defense Initiative was another attempt, but let's face it - every time someone claims they've "secured" a thing, people will take up the challenge to prove them wrong, and even the threat of SDI sparked innovation in warhead delivery vehicles.

It seems to me that most "productive" replacement for nukes is biological weapons - they create no physical damage, but could result in pandemic-proportioned human havoc. These weapons of mass destruction flaunt any current definition of preventative security (consider a suicide "bomber" who is infected with a dormant but highly contagious virus, and invisible even after they've put their shoes back on, shown security their laptop battery and verified that they only have little bottles of liquid in the one plastic bag). But once on the plane or upon arrival, the contagion wakes up and bad stuff happens. How would you detect or prevent this?

I ask you - would you prefer this or nuclear weapons? Clearly the latter is better-understood and more defensible, but I'd sure as hell start thinking about measures to protect us from the former!

So what ought America do about all this? I think the first step is to stop being a self-declared superpower and stop being a unilateral, self-righteous voice in global policy. Take the bull's eye off your back (or front) as it were. It is true that any nation can be a victim of terrorist acts, but why willingly put yourself in their cross hairs?

America is like the New York Yankees or Dallas Cowboys of geopolitics. Both have rabid fans ("their" people), but everyone else (by far the majority) just plain hates their guts. I'd want to be more like the friendly and benign Minnesota Twins or Green Bay Packers; or in geopolitical terms more like Bermuda or Canada or Finland - strong countries to be sure; independent, successful, but not vilified and never does one see their people or leaders burned in effigy by screaming hordes on CNN...

American interests are not served when America is a bully - more often than not, these actions (immediately or eventually) result in more harm, more risk, and more wasted money and energy. About the only example I can think of where America's military created a positive outcome is Japan following World War II - ironically an act that ended with the Enola Gay dropping Little Boy on Hiroshima. Compared to pre-WWII, the US and Japan are friendly and mutually supportive states. I don't recall any American military intervention that has led to net improved relationships other than this one?

America Green Bay Packers-style would unilaterally reduce nuclear arms (just to save money and reduce military complexity) to a handful or even nothing; it would stop calling other countries out and instead work with developing countries to build friends and form sustainable economic relationships; it would reduce the number of off-shore bases; it would not worry so much about being a world presence (or enforcer) and instead focus on being a world citizen.

This could result in taking the air out of other, angry sails that today are powered by a shared dislike of America vs. any higher purpose. In effect, the most powerful defense for America is to be less offensive.

balanceation proclamation

"Who's responsible for this mess!?!"

This question makes most people except politicians and psychotics (hmmm...) nervous - they are impervious to the concept of responsibility; they're good at laying blame, but have this remarkable ability to shake accountability.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a landmark moment in American history - it recognized the rights of a people theretofore viewed as property. Just as America has a human rights framework (based in part on the Emancipation Proclamation and the Declaration of Independence), surely there should be a more rigorous governance framework for the country?

I can think of three (vain) efforts at Federal political governance - the voters (elections and term limits for the President); the players (separation of powers); and the outers (GAO and the media). But each has failed - the voters are simply not smart enough to know what's going on, too partisan to vote based on actual performance, and too removed from the failures to "get it"; the players are overly self-centered and inbred; and the outers are in the former, employed by the politicians, and in the latter, too obsessed with sensationalism to make a difference.

What is the legislative equivalent of the Emancipation Proclamation? I was having a conversation about changing the mission in Afghanistan with some friends and the proposed 1% increase in income taxes to cover war costs. I think this is good, but not enough - let's take it further:

As of 2009 the gross (cumulative) American national debt is just under $13 trillion - or just over 90% of the country's entire GDP!! By the end of 2010, it will roughly equal the US GDP - this is horrible! Worse, Congress feels ZERO accountability; and since virtually NONE of their equally guilty predecessors have ever been spanked, and many actually rewarded by being reelected, they are convinced they will never have their feet held to the fire.

What if we changed that - what if we created another proclamation - the Balanceation Proclamation, which mandates a balanced budget? Simply, if the budget exceeds income, Congress must raise income taxes to cover the overage. Every taxpayer/voter must immediately feel the pinch their representatives cost them (the IRS should document your hit in your tax return). This would help the voters more directly tune into and respond to bad behavior, require Congress to proactively defend their actions within their constituencies, and generally make Congress pucker just a little bit.

But what about economic depressions, when only the Feds are in a position to stimulate the economy, and taxes will impede growth? The easy answer might be "tough," but society is responsible for those that can't help themselves, and we can't ignore that. My compromise is that the Proclamation have a clause requiring a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and Senate to secure debt-financing solely to stimulate the economy and avert or mitigate a depression - it cannot be used for any other purpose. Subsequent budgets must set aside funds to pay back the debt as quickly as possible. In the ideal case, this would be funded by the federal surplus emergency fund, but given our current debt, that won't be a reality for many years.

To help the outers, legislators (and political parties) may NOT receive contributions from anyone (individual or organization) that benefits from the spending that caused the deficit. For example, if the budget included new subsidies or credits for oil exploration, or if there was a new war, Exxon or Chevron, and Halliburton, Blackwater, Lockheed or Boeing, etc. would respectively be banned from any political donations for the duration of the benefit plus six years (Senators serve six year terms).

Quid pro quo. If we're punishing Congress for excessive spending, we should also reward them for good behavior. Every year that there is a budget surplus, all Federal employees will receive a bonus of X% (1 or 2%?) of the total surplus, divided equally (same percentage of salary). When they've also retired the gross deficit, the percentage should double. There should be no cap on this - the better they do, the better they do.

Today Congress exhibits the worst kind of partisan behavior, with almost zero focus on the electorate, and excessive focus on self-aggrandized power brokering. This is so because the incentive system is broken - success is getting funded and reelected, not actual public service.

The Balanceation Proclamation would reward good behavior and punish bad. If the country does well, they get paid; Congress will be incented to serve the citizens and fight for programs that help their constituents; but they know that excess spending will directly harm their electorate.

This just might be the way to help them "focus."

fatheads

I was listening to Weekday (on NPR in Seattle) this morning - the show was about healthcare, obesity and economic status. In Seattle for example, there are six times (5% vs. 30%) more obese people in the poorer neighborhoods than wealthy ones! Even if this number is slightly off, there's no arguing this correlation.

According to the guests on PBS, if you have less money, you have less to spend on food; fatty foods are cheaper and more plentiful than non-fatty foods, and if you only have a few dollars, surely you're not going to want to waste it on boring flavors (like raw vegetables and whole wheat bread), you're going to want tasty food that fills you up.

This is related to something called the Lipstick Effect, which was first documented during the Great Depression, where people who had very little disposable income still bought small luxuries as a treat during tough times (mood management if you will). Some people might buy junk food, others cosmetics, yet others see a movie, and even others will go to a tanning saloon.

So our worthy (and wealthy) legislators who have their own healthcare, gym, and lobbyist-funded condos in the sun have decided that it's appropriate to "help" the poor fat people in America by taxing soft drinks and tanning saloons to help pay for the new healthcare bill that still ignores between 18 (House) and 23 (Senate) million of the poorest Americans.

Why? Like students, poor people don't fund lobbyists to fight on their behalf. They are victims of the false assumption that society's job is to protect the weak and defenseless.

Neither healthcare bill considers the idea that increasing the focus on healthier living in public schools could dramatically lower healthcare costs. There is nothing in these bills that requires standardized tests to include knowledge about personal healthcare and fitness; there is nothing in these bills that mandates the quality of food that must be served in schools, or that students must exercise every day while in public school; or anything else that could create behavior that helps the next generation actually be more healthy.

If I had been in Congress, rather than hold this bill hostage to get the pork that ensured my reelection, I would have traded my vote for a bill that prioritized healthier Americans vs. assuaging any lobbyist. I would have demanded:

1. Public schools - curriculum on healthcare and fitness, and phys-ed in all 13 years (K-12), standardized tests must include literacy, numeracy and personal healthcare and fitness (including sex education), only healthy food in the schools (no pop, candy, junk food, etc.).
2. Doctors and hospitals/clinics get paid based on the health of their constituency - not by procedure or visit; i.e. a hospital gets paid based on the healthiness of the entire community it serves; doctors get paid based on the aggregate health of their entire patient load (*** doctors can not choose to only serve certain (healthier) patients).
3. Government + insurance companies must create a pool of funds available to any doctor or hospital to be used to provide basic healthcare services (per #2) to uninsured patients.

There is a direct correlation between level of education and economic status; there is a direct correlation between economic status and fitness; there is a direct correlation between fitness and healthcare cost. There is also a direct correlation between the way doctors and hospitals get paid and the type of work they do. These facts are not disputed.

If the White House and Congress' goal is a healthier nation, the path forward is incredibly obvious - only a fathead would see it otherwise.

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?