Trump’s Value-free Presidency

Good news (sort of)!  There will be something for everyone to like in the Trump presidency, decisions that comport with your own particular political disposition or interests.  Bad news: there will also be many things to dislike, and many more things—perhaps greatest in number—that will be just plain mystifying.  President Trump promises to be a one man wrecking ball who will dramatically expand the effects contemplated in Edward Lorenz’ chaos theory. (Butterflies beware!)  How can this be?  Why?  The answer resides in Trump’s cognetic profile[1] that is, by my assessment, completely devoid of a value system that assures coherent decision-making.

From weird, to weirder, to weirdest, off we go!  As columnist Gerald Seib suggested in his recent Wall Street Journal column,

It’s nearly impossible to identify a clear ideological bent in the incoming president’s early moves … the definitions of left and right, liberal and conservative, are being scrambled right before our eyes.[2]

Similarly, Christopher Buckley was asked to explain whether or not his father, the late William F. Buckley, would have considered Trump a conservative.  The son demurred, observing that

it’s difficult to discern any identifiable ideology, philosophy, or politics behind his curtain; instead, only an insistent, clamant narcissism that one hopes will come to an inflection point and re-purpose itself in the service of those who have installed him at the center of our democracy.[3]

Yes, “one hopes,” but my expectations follow a different maxim: take him at his word and plan accordingly.

So what are values and why are they important?  Values are the principles we embrace that are essentially our interpretations of concepts, norms, and ideas that allow us to simplify the world and make decisions.  In my development of cognetics, they act like a box of filters and impellers that sort out the myriad of variables we must consider to make decisions; some information is blocked while other information is sent forward for further consideration.  I further argue that without this set of values that allow us to reconcile dissonance in our world—too simplify it and make decisions—we would go insane.  It is unlikely Trump is insane (at least not in the clinical sense), but his many inconsistent incoherent statements and behaviors are precursors of insanity.  He is definitely on the spectrum, somewhere right of delusion and left of insanity.  The inherent pressure of the presidency—the volume and velocity of decision-making—will most certainly exacerbate this condition, pushing him further toward insanity and potentially even physical, emotional, and psychological collapse.

To be fair, many, including Trump himself, have suggested that he has clear values.  Suggestions include values like winning, money, his children, and especially himself.  However, these are not values.  Winning is an outcome, money is a means, and the others are, well, people.  They are not values; they are not durable interpretations that provide fundamental beliefs and convictions that predict future behaviors and decisions, which is why Trump can be confounding and appear reckless.  None of which is particularly concerning in his role as real estate developer and reality TV star, but when combined with the power of the presidency disaster is a near certainty.

Presently, Trump is best described as a conundrum.  Many have already recognized his recent decisions are a product of whom he spoke with last.  This presents problems in domestic affairs, but the most dangerous effects are in foreign affairs since other world leaders must (nearly always) consider what the United States, the world’s lone superpower, will do on an array of issues.  Trump’s value-free presidency increases risk in foreign affairs exponentially.  He has already declared his foreign policy will be “unpredictable starting now.”[4]  Misinterpreting what one state or another may do in an anarchic international system is profoundly dangerous, as we saw in the outbreak of violence that escalated into World War I.

Recently, Trump decided it was best to blow up our forty year-old “One China” policy by engaging directly with Taiwan.  Although as an isolated issue this may not appear to be dangerous (his supporters view it as enlightened and powerful), policies like One China comprise the foundation of stability in a unipolar, one-superpower, world.  Trump may never launch a weapon first, and his bluster may be confined by other realities, but other world leaders may act first, and violently, in anticipation of what he promises to be “unpredictable” behavior.

Sugar-free and gluten-free may be good for you, but buckle up, value-free is going to be one hell of a ride.

[1] See my explanation of cognetics in William Steding, Presidential Faith and Foreign Policy:  Jimmy Carter the Disciple and Ronald Reagan the Alchemist (Palgrave Macmillan, 2014), p.3.
[2] Gerald F. Seib, “Trump Shuffles the Ideological Deck” in “Capital Journal” section, wallstreetjournal.com, 5 December 2016.
[3] Christopher Buckley, “What Would William F. Buckley Have Made of Donald Trump?,” Vanity Fair, 5 December 2016.
[4] See, Nick Wadhams, “Trump’s ‘Unpredictable Starting Now’ Foreign Policy,” Bloomberg, 5 December 2016.

 

By |2017-06-05T21:51:01+00:00December 6th, 2016|General|0 Comments

From Hope and Change to Fear and Change: a Letter to My Children

There are certainly more questions than answers this morning after Trump’s stunning ascension to the presidency of the United States. I cannot recall a more troubling political outcome during my lifetime. As you know, I view Trump as an utter incompetent and vainglorious ogre. Trump has destroyed the Republican Party and has defeated the Democratic Party creating unprecedented political uncertainty in America and the world. The fundamentals of his support are, however, not surprising. The same yearning for change that swept Obama into the White House in 2008 gave us Trump today. The difference is Obama’s appeal was denominated in hope, while Trump’s is based in fear. When the voting data is analyzed I expect to see many Americans—especially white suburbanites and exurbanites—to have voted for Obama in 2008 and Trump in 2016. It seems weird, but it underscores just how fed up we all are with our political leaders and institutions.

In the short run, expect the uncertainty that swirls around a Trump presidency to produce a significant amount of economic, political and social stress. Trade, foreign policy, healthcare, the Supreme Court; there are many places to expect him to exercise his power in nefarious ways. But remember this, a president is deeply constrained by the institutions and markets that surround him and, in the case of Trump, by members of both parties who abhor him. And, America remains the most powerful and resilient nation in the world. We’ve had bad presidents before, but the creativity and perseverance of Americans has always survived.

In the long run, this may just accelerate the pathway I described earlier this year in my lecture, Is it Always this Weird? Trump’s missteps, which promise to be numerous, may actually cause Millennials (you) to get active and get organized, turning Trump’s “take our country back” slogan around to expel him in 2020. I still believe the cyclical trends I outlined in my lecture will hold; that we will evolve as a country from a “superpower” identity to one best described as “global stewards.” President Trump is a messy way to get there, but historical rhythms have a stubborn way of prevailing.

So, what to do? First, focus on your own physical, psychological, economic, and intellectual strength. Protect and strengthen those four cornerposts. Second, focus on the well being of your family and friends. Their welfare is your direct responsibility. Finally, get politically active and organized. Your generation has more voters today than mine. The reality, however, is that we vote and too many of your peers ignore this solemn duty. Do not allow my generation to continue to damage America. You have the power. Do not squander it through apathy or neglect. In the end, we all—individually and collectively—are responsible for Trump and what happens next.

By |2023-12-01T15:33:34+00:00November 9th, 2016|General|0 Comments

The Certainty Trap

In decision making at all levels—personal, business and government—it appears there is one pitfall everyone succumbs to at one time or another: the certainty trap.  Stated simply, the certainty trap occurs when decision makers grant inordinate meaning to apparent ‘knowns’ that are subsequently revealed to have had little or nothing to do with the outcomes produced by the decision.  The effects of the certainty trap on our failures range from marginal opportunity costs to the catastrophic—from a missed business opportunity to waging ill-conceived wars.  The certainty trap yields fatuous decisions, however carefully justified by ‘knowns’.

Although we seldom conduct a post-analysis on our victories (after all it was our brilliance and hard work that produced the triumph!), it also seems logical to assert that the certainty trap is outcome agnostic; whether we are successful or not, the certainty trap may have preceded both our wins and our losses.  The decision itself is dependent on the ‘knowns’ but the outcome may prove to have been quite independent of the same ‘knowns’.  Former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld often jousted with reporters over his seemingly magical matrix of knowns and unknowns, focused somewhat fatalistically on those combinations that included ‘unknown’.  But what if the real problem was not with the unknowns, rather it was with the knowns that, in reality, did not matter (or, in Rumsfeld’s case were not actually ‘knowns’ at all)?  More importantly, how do we avoid the trap of granting inordinate weight to factors that are visible and immediate, but ultimately inconsequential?

The first thing to realize is that the certainty trap is a naturally occurring phenomenon.  We need little if any help to fall into it.  After all, upon what are we to base our decisions if not those things that are known?  Here is where the wisdom born from failure can be critical.  While it is natural to point at visible and tangible factors and data to justify our decisions, and equally unnatural to point at the same data and call it into question, doing so may be extraordinarily valuable if the ‘knowns’ are irrelevant (or worse).  It takes an exceptionally confident and wise person to discount the obvious knowns in favor of the possibilities lurking in the unknowns.  It takes confidence born from intelligence and experience and a wide-open mind to make judgments instead of decisions.

And yet, we can observe many ‘unnatural’ judgments that created enormous successes, while there are many more ‘natural’ decisions that resulted in failures.  Steve Jobs made judgments that resulted in the largest and arguably most culturally influential corporation in the world, while Steve Ballmer made decisions that set the incumbent software giant Microsoft on a glide path to mediocrity.  Tesla and SpaceX’s Eton Musk made judgments about the future of travel on roads and in space, while at the same time General Motor’s former CEO, Rick Wagoner, made well-justified decisions that led to GM’s bankruptcy.  President George H.W. Bush made judgments after the collapse of the Soviet Union that prevented chaos in much of the world while his son, President George W. Bush, made decisions after 9/11 resulting in tragic losses of life and treasure and little, if any, meaningful gains.  The outcomes speak for themselves and point to a new rule to observe: worry as much or more about the knowns as the unknowns.

The mindset of the executive who makes judgments vs. those who make decisions is worth exploring.  All the executives listed above are intelligent and well-intentioned human beings.  They vary in experience levels, but that alone does not assure judgment-making over decision-making.  We must look at the cognitive nature of each executive.  Do they view the world as a zero-sum game where limits define options, or a world awash in possibilities?  Do they see issues as black or white, good or evil, or are they intrigued by the nuanced spaces between?  Do they have the ability to see and argue different sides of an issue—possessed of an opposable mind—or do they easily dismiss other options in favor of their predispositions?  Are they deliberative or impulsive?  Do they surround themselves with people who can replace them, or with those who see them as irreplaceable?  Are they curious, or are they certain? Are the unknowns a source of fear, or a venue of creative opportunity?  These are the questions we should all ask of ourselves and of those we choose as our leaders.  These are the considerations that produce judgments over decisions and protect us all from the certainty trap.

By |2017-05-23T17:32:32+00:00July 31st, 2014|General, Leadership|0 Comments

All-American Assholes

I am an asshole.  Perhaps a recovering asshole, but as the saying goes, “Once an asshole, always an asshole.”  If you are a white male whose life began in the United States between World War II and when Kennedy was slain in Dallas, you might be an asshole too.  If you’ve got a few bucks in your bank account, a respectable title after your name, a house or houses paid for, and a family that mostly tolerates you, then you are probably an asshole.  Add to that a membership at a country club, a seat on someone else’s board (and yes charitable boards count too), and money contributed to political candidates or Super PACs, you are most definitely an asshole. But, “Wait!” you say, “You’ve just described what a successful American man is supposed to be!  You are talking about what Tom Wolfe celebrated in his 1998 book, A Man in Full.”  Yes, but success, or being “full,” doesn’t make you likeable; rather, it probably assures your membership in an unprecedented and oversubscribed club of assholes.

Just look around you if you think I am exaggerating, or if you think I may be spiraling into a dive of self-deprecation.  Ask yourself, is that older white man you know really all that nice?  Does he listen when spoken to, or is his mind occupied by what he is going to say or do next?  Does he care for his spouse, children, and friends as well as he cares for his many possessions?  Does he actually do charitable work, or just write checks and show up at the ball?  Does he yell at other white male pundits on TV, or stare at the charts and crawl on CNBC?  Does ESPN stream on his smartphone on weekends during the only significant time he has to spend with you?  Does he have the answer for everything?  See, we assholes are everywhere.  But, it is not all our fault.  We became what we were expected to become, and damnit, it was easy.

We came of age in the final and glorious ascent of America, when the U.S. became a superpower that defeated godless communism, and then ushered in the digital age.  We helped create more wealth than the world has ever seen (even though much of it proved illusory in 2008).  We were taught to play to win, not to collaborate.  We sought promotions even if we only met half of the stated qualifications.  Our lives became a series of objectives without any end in sight.  Our mantra is “More!”  Sometimes also “Better!” (in deference to fellow asshole Steve Jobs), but always “More!”  More money, more power, and more toys.  Confident? Damn right we are.  We view successor generations of American males as narcissistic pussies, if and when we consider them at all.  Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Chris Matthews, Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart are all assholes (even though the last two are much more clever assholes).  Presidents Clinton and Bush? Yup.  Donald Trump? Duh!  Collectively, we institutionalized the American male asshole.

To be sure, women can be assholes too, but they usually need a book to tell them how.  Recent contributions to this field to train female assholes include Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In, Arianna Huffington’s Thrive, and Katty Kay and Claire Shipman’s The Confidence Code.  It is worth noting that the best-trained female assholes achieve aptitudes that meet or eclipse the Trumps and Limbaughs, but it is not a natural disposition; it is learned.  Sadly, too often in an irreversible manner.  Unlike male assholes, female converts are unlikely to return to a more reasonable or graceful state.  Just ask their female cohorts upon whom they direct most of their acquired asshole skills.

There are some things, however, that we male assholes can do to affect our liberation.  While those like Trump and Limbaugh are clearly beyond help, the rest of us run-of-the-mill assholes can escape more or less intact, and we might even enjoy our lives a great deal more.  Here are six suggestions.

  1. The first step is to realize that if your life is all about, or mostly about, yourself, it is a life of no significance whatsoever. I don’t care how much money you have, or houses, or places that have your name on the wall, your family and friends will likely be quietly pleased when you are gone.  They may even do what they can to accelerate your departure.  (Be careful when signing that power of attorney.)
  2. The next step is to realize that yes, my aspiring Buddha buddies, less is more.  Get rid of all your crap.  Downsize your footprint on the world by living smaller.  Introduce yourself to the Goodwill Donation Station and slip a Benjamin in the pocket of that Brioni suit you donate to the next poor schmuck who wants to be like you.  Trade complexity for simplicity.  If you do, you will have time for what follows below, rather than spending your day acquiring and maintaining more stuff.
  3. Next, take a lesson in humility and go back to school.  It has probably been years since you had your butt kicked, and seeking an advanced degree will do that and more.  Study something well beyond your current knowledge or skills.  The ultimate goal is to unlock your head and become a whole-minded person again, like you were when you were a boy.  Then once you think you know something new, apply or teach that knowledge to something or someone else.
  4. Serve and share. Stop writing checks to charities and showing up with your newly bleached teeth for the social pages photo-op.  Pick a place in your community and actually volunteer your time and energy.  Get dirty in the reality of the lives of non-assholes.  There won’t be a new plaque on the wall with your name on it, but you might actually like yourself better in the process.  And, express gratitude for the opportunity to serve.  Trust me, you will get more out of it than they will.
  5. Create rather than optimize or maximize.  As I have written here before, Rembrandt claimed only beautiful things are truly durable.  Aesthetics are as important as function.  (Jobs understood this.)  Leave your optimizing and maximizing skills behind and focus on creation for the sake of creation.  It doesn’t matter what it is, as long as it appeals to your senses first, and your analytics last.
  6. Slow down, dude.  Breathe.  Speed is no longer your friend. Enjoy movement frame by frame—as a set of still photos rather than high-def video.  You’ll be amazed by what you have been missing, and it just may add years to your life.

Follow these steps and you may just make it out of the club.  Moreover, people may actually, genuinely, like you again.  Or, stay on the path you are on and get thick, frail, and even angrier than you are today.  After all, the Senator McCains of the world need someone to listen to them.

 

 

By |2017-05-23T17:42:41+00:00April 21st, 2014|General|0 Comments

The 21st Day

As it is often said this time of year, “‘Tis the season,” but for what? That is where the debate begins, which for most of us is contained by a sense of inclusion and tolerance, allowing each our own varied beliefs and expressions of glad tidings. For others who subscribe to the paranoid delusion of the great “War on Christmas,” this season is probably much like the rest of their year: wrapped in anger toward, and suspicion of, those unlike themselves. Regardless of such dispositions, however, the holidays are, once again, being faithfully celebrated according to our particular ritualized mysticisms and traditions whose origins are often unknown or forgotten, but always pursued with a genuine spirit of conviction.

In spite of our different interpretations and traditions, everyone in the northern hemisphere can enjoy the slow walk toward the light; that turn on the 21st day of December when the days reverse their slide into darkness and emerge, once again, to light. It is the day when our southern neighbors send the sun back our way; no doubt reluctantly, but with the certainty of the universe providing every assurance that the cold days will continue for now, but that spring will arrive once again. This is our distinct advantage: we get to ring in the New Year with a sense of promise accompanied by the ascent of light, rather than a slide toward darkness.

Over the millennia the relationship of the sun to the earth has provided its own spiritual compass. In the history of upright humans it is easy to argue that more have worshipped the sun than have worshipped modern gods and icons. And, notwithstanding the recurring invocation of certain apocalyptic endings tied to the winter solstice by modern Biblical soothsayers (as we observed in 2012 with the prediction of such finality on December 21), the planetary/solar marriage has served its true believers well. This marriage once guided whole civilizations and, perhaps because of the sun’s reliable behavior (save a few threatening eclipses), observances of the sun and other planets found humans in a relatively peaceful toil without nearly as much judgment, condemnation, or violence as modern religions have spawned.

And so this we northern-earthers share in late December: a turn toward the light (lower case “l” intended). Whether our chosen spiritual leaders teach us to believe in one god or many, whether we light candles or believe a fat guy with a beard makes it down our chimney, none of our practices can affect the long shadow cast by the sun and the power it holds over our lives. Everything else is a matter of reason and faith formed in the pathways of education, experience, socialization, and indoctrination, which as resolute as they can be are no match for the earth and the sun and their durable dance. There is, however, one more thing you can count on as this solstice heralds the beginning of a new year: yourself.

Once the trappings of celebration and traditions find their way back to their boxes and closets, you will be left with that person staring back at you in the mirror. Society has taught us to dislike what we see, so that we might respond to the deluge of resolution-based advertisements and advice vendors and endeavor to change who we are to fit today’s idealized version of humankind. There is, however, another choice: start 2014 by liking that person in the mirror. After all, you have to live with you whether you like you or not—why not like yourself? Then, seek mastery over your life on your own terms while limiting your engagements to those that allow you a sense of humility, peace, and grace. Do not pretend. I promise you that this practice will serve you well. Its own spirit is captured in my favorite poem, penned in 1875 by the British poet William Ernest Henley.

 

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll.
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

 

Best wishes to all in the New Year.

 

 

By |2017-05-27T17:40:49+00:00December 25th, 2013|General|0 Comments

The Silent Coup

If you are a fan of the maxim “no news is good news” then you are probably having a delightful summer.  Compared to the screeching vitriol of the summer of 2012 that preceded the presidential election, this summer is one of the quietest I can remember. So far we have had Morsi’s ouster in Egypt which, lets admit it, is little more than a summer sequel to Egypt Spring: Bye-bye Hosni.  Zimmerman’s acquittal in the death of Trayvon Martin is the only thing people have been truly vexed about, and that is because journalists (both accredited and faux) twisted the story in so many directions that everyone was able to be furious about something.  Then there was NBC’s recent lead news item: “‘Rip Van Roker’: Al oversleeps, misses a show for first time in 39 years.” Yawn.  Pun intended.  The lack of exciting news may, however, be an illusion.  More, much more, may be going on than the newsers know (or are capable of discerning).  A coup—albeit bloodless and silent—may be underway.

What is newsworthy and largely unnoticed by those who continue to masquerade as journalists, is what is not happening in Washington DC.  Here I pick up on the themes and observations in my posts “American Empire (?): The Way Forward” (December 27, 2011) and “The Re-emergence of Personal Sovereignty” (June 25, 2012).  Evidence of what I described as big “workarounds” that, I argued, were the key to the successful reinvention of America and Americans, is now everywhere, except Washington DC.  The 113th Congress is no better than the 112th, today’s Supreme Court has proven a parody of judgment, and the Obama administration is largely wandering about with a map that has no roads, no contours, nor even a compass rose. The three branches of our Federal government are gnarled and withered—unable to bear even the lightest load.  And yet, the rest of America is rising, slowly but steadily, from the peril that George Packer so brilliantly illustrated in The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2013).

Most families, many communities, some cities, and a few states have figured out their futures without the prospect of relying on the Federal government.  The Feds aren’t even a part of the conversation (which should scare them to death if they had even a modicum of awareness).  On the fiscal front, Americans (but not America) have cleansed their balance sheets of debt and are re-establishing principles of self-restraint and prudence.  The days of avarice are fading in the rearview mirror.  Self-reliance, generosity, and community are verbs again.  Bloomberg reports “Americans … have more readily available funds to cover what they owe. Household liquid assets—financial assets excluding pension and insurance reserves—rose by $10 trillion in the past four years, and the ratio of coverage for liabilities is 2.43, the highest since 2000.”[1]  In another comprehensive study by Bruce Katz and Jennifer Bradley of the Brookings Institution, they find that

A revolution is stirring. In the face of supersized economic and social challenges, American cities and metros are stepping up and doing the hard work to grow jobs and make their economies more prosperous. With Washington and many states mired in partisan gridlock, networks of metropolitan heads – elected officials for sure but also corporate, civic and university leaders – are reaching across partisan and jurisdictional divisions to reshape their economies, remake their places and prepare their workers for a more competitive world.[2]

Further evidence is found in communities all across America where “Community Supported Agriculture” and “Community Supported Arts” are generating even more “Community Supported _____” organizations that promote the production and consumption of local goods and services.[3]

Unbeknownst to our national leaders and the media that manically follow them, the same type of individuals Tocqueville celebrated in Democracy in America in the early 19th century are in the process of reinventing America from the bottom up—at the local level.  They are the real and viable alternative to the concoction of platitudes and vicissitudes our national leaders spew to convince us of their indispensability. Those national leaders, who believe they are the technocrats and plutocrats in whom we should trust our welfare, might want to look beyond the Beltway.  When they do, they will realize they are being quietly subverted by a once, and now again, powerful people.  People who march forward every day beyond the sightline of the everywhere-yet-nowhere media.

[1] Shobhana Chandra and Steve Matthews, “Americans With Best Credit in Decades Drive U.S. Economy,” August 5, 2013, www.bloomberg.com.
[2] Bruce Katz and Jennifer Bradley, “Embracing the Metropolitan Revolution,” July 16, 2013, www.metrorevolution.org.
[3] Randy Kennedy, “’Buy Local’ Gets Creative,” August 4, 2013, www.nytimes.com.
By |2017-05-23T17:54:27+00:00August 7th, 2013|General|0 Comments

Six Words to Write on the Wall

Scholars identify crises as periods when outlier economic events (extreme data points) and social and political polarity (absence of a center or consensus) prevail over what had been considered the normative state.  Economic, social, and political order is in peril.  Stated otherwise, weirdness reigns.  As an Eisenhower baby I am old enough to remember a fair amount of tumult, but the outliers and polarity today seems more pronounced and durable.  Someday historians will turn the current noise blaring at us from all directions into something melodic and lyrical, but when you are in the midst of the milieu it sounds more like a kid performing at their first violin recital. We grit our teeth and brace ourselves until the tortuous fraying of the bow ceases.  What does this chorus of noise mean?  What do the various crises emanating from the political, economic, and cultural spheres portend for you and me?  How should we respond to these events?  What should we expect of others and ourselves?  Even more importantly, what does it suggest about how we should conduct our lives vis-à-vis the purposes and aims that define who we are? Is our destiny still even ours?

To assure that our destiny remains in our control we must first embrace the notion that crisis is good.  It is like the fire in the forest that is both devastating in the moment and essential for the future of its eco-system.  Crisis on a systemic level allows a cleansing of the detritus that has built up from years of traditional thinking codified to protect the status quo and, unfortunately, compromise our future.  What once was thought to maintain stability—like a money supply untethered from the gold standard—may mark the next tipping point toward systemic entropy.  Crisis, however, creates new spaces and resources for new actors to create and innovate.  It is like rebooting your computer: the operating system remains intact while the application software is disentangled from the remnants of prior tasks.  That is not to say crises are thoroughly cleansing; some of the rubbish remains, and that which does will fight mightily to do so.  We need look no further than some of the blowhards in politics and media to recognize this.  Yet, to succeed in our particular purposes and aims, we must take what space and opportunities arise and run through newly opened doors toward our future.

Embracing crisis as a liberating force also allows us to learn from past crises so that we might identify words, themes, and modalities we should employ to survive and prosper, or at least find a measure of tranquillity, if not a state of grace.  Reviewing the history of past crises while also surveying the current political, economic, and cultural landscape leads me to suggest there are six words or themes to write on the wall to guide us in answering the question, how should we conduct ourselves today?[1]

  1. Authentic.  Keep it real, and keep it true. During recovery from crises there is not enough slack in the system to reward work that is almost right.  Only the real stuff wins.  Like most people, I appreciate irony, but too often today irony is worn in much the same way as a teenage girl wears eye shadow; more comical than alluring.  Yet when properly considered the object of irony—exposed in relief—reveals authenticity. The question is, what is the fundamental value expressed in its simplest form?  Seek to produce values that are pervasive and durable throughout the system, product, policy, or personal regimen.  Once identified, set them like cornerstones to support everything you do.
  2. Resilient.  Here is a not-so-newsy flash: you, your family, your company, your community, your city, and your country will suffer a blow or blows as we unwind from the current crises in the chaotic and messy climb toward a new more settled state.  Crises, like forest fires, are indiscriminate.  Even if you avoid catastrophic damage, collateral damage is a certainty.  Many herald schemes of sustainability and independence, but they are just part of this larger objective of resilience.  To survive we must have the ability to bounce back.  In our personal lives, this means we have to be mentally and physically fit, and have access to sufficient financial and human resources.  On the human relations aspect, trust others as Machiavelli might: expect them to consider their own interests first—always ahead of yours.  But, have go-to folks that can bolster your efforts in those areas where they are stronger than you.  Take personal responsibility for your lot, however you define it.  When the blow comes take the hit, dust yourself off, and get ready to hit back.  Make yourself a hard target.
  3. Gonzo.  Just when you thought this was going to be a treatise on conservative realism, I invoke the late Hunter S. Thompson.  In shorthand, gonzo means that you should write all the rules down so you know what not to do.  Channel your inner Hunter, er Gonzo.  The vast majority of rules, frameworks, policies, and structures were adopted to protect those in power, not to protect or serve you.  Moreover, in a post-crisis world, they don’t work in your favor even if you were one of their yesteryear authors.  In the ascent from crisis, those who set aside tradition and define their world in their own terms will be profoundly successful and yes, much happier.  When you face the inevitable admonishment “you can’t do that” or “that isn’t allowed,” simply respond: watch me.
  4. Transcendent.  Rise above the rabble.  Don’t be drawn into the muck of ignorance that is so-often the marker of organizations and factions whose survival depends on the condemnation of opposing perspectives.  This is the basis of my objection to organized religion—particularly monotheistic religions—that advocate intolerance as a by-product of their own survival impulse.  The prevailing principle of these groups is, “if you don’t believe as we do you are wrong and will be subjected to our wrath.”  Political parties employ the same thinking.[2]  Be wary of ideologies and theologies that practice judgment and condemnation.  They are debilitating.  Retain your free will.  Read often and deeply; look for character, structure, and meaning.  Pursue knowledge beyond your comfort zone.  What does the artist know or do that might benefit the scientist?  This is the best way to nurture the power of an opposable mind.  An opposable mind is always open to new ideas that create solutions no one else has thought of.
  5. Stealth.  Several years ago I wrote an essay wherein I argued the next frontier—after my father’s frontier of space—was the frontier of anonymity.  It was based on the notion of harnessing the benefits of digital technologies, in particular, networks, to operate in a seamless and borderless manner to master the theoretically endless benefits of globalism.  All of this would be conducted in an anonymous manner where code and avatars replaced our traditional analog identities.  In many respects today, we are headed exactly in that direction as the anonymity of 1s and 0s dominate our commerce and communications.  Aliases have become the norm.  However, there are other aspects of anonymity—of a stealth existence—that have value beyond the ability to tweet your every thought behind an opaque hash tag.  High profiles are dangerous in periods of crisis and in the period of objectivism that follows in America’s historical four-phase life cycle (crisis—objectivism—radicalism—idealism).  Humility and self-restraint are clearly preferable to hubris.  There are many people who enjoy health, wealth, and happiness who never stick their head in front of the camera. Be like them.
  6. Grace.  There are many definitions and interpretations of grace, so let me start by suggesting the grace I write about here is when the proper balance of virtues are combined with other elements and resources to produce something beautiful.  A state of grace then is the modality that produces beauty, whether it is an object, product, service, idea, or writing.  Pierre-Auguste Renoir often argued that the most durable things in the world are those that are beautiful.  Grace is the capacity to bring everything together in such a way that people say wow that is beautiful, or amazing, or just plain cool.  I am suggesting here that grace is when you bring authenticity, resilience, gonzo, transcendence, and stealth together in just the right way to assure your destiny—which is indeed a truly beautiful thing.  Then, you are in a state of grace.

As we emerge from this period of crisis and enter a new period of objectivism, I expect those who seek grace through the careful application of these ‘six words written on the wall’ will retain a handhold on their destiny.  The fate of others will be chosen for them.

[1] The words and themes presented here all have their basis of research and argument found in prior posts at ameritecture.com.  Please peruse the archive for more substantive material on these six ideas including references to reading material.
[2] In my recent reading of memoirs from members of the George W. Bush administration, I have found an overwhelming sense of certitude that appears to have been the proximate cause of what I call sclerotic decision making.
By |2017-05-23T18:00:35+00:00April 24th, 2013|General, Leadership|0 Comments

In Praise of Disorder

Although we humans have an inherent need to reconcile the world we live in so that we might ameliorate any measure of maddening dissonance between our beliefs, our aspirations, and the brutal realities thrust upon us, the truth is our world is a messy and chaotic place that progresses through random events.  Many of those events are originated by the few among us who engage in what Yale’s James C. Scott recently described as thoughtful disobedience.  Anarchism, he argues, is alive and well throughout both the developed and developing world and can be credited with much of the progress we herald as great.  At times, Scott illustrates, anarchism is expressed as acts of insubordination—both large and small—that alter our world.  Small, like students tromping a new path through the well-groomed grass of a university quadrangle that is later made ‘official’ by being paved with concrete once grounds crews realize that reseeding the preferred route is a fool’s task, and large like Rosa Parks act of defiance on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955 that gave rise to the civil rights movement, which resulted in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Official order, largely conjured to protect those in power, is no match for what Scott describes as “vernacular order” that is claimed, expressed, and maintained by the “petty bourgeoisie.”[1]

Disorder, in Scott’s interpretation, is the necessary condition of progress; without it we would be staking our future on official committees that at birth lack the necessary chromosomal attributes to produce anything at all that might be considered new or better.  For example, as we reflect on great accomplishments in education (KIPP Academies), technology (iPhone), and medicine (stem cell research), each were advanced by one or a few people working against official order including well-funded adversaries with access to seemingly overwhelming political power.  And yet, working in the ether of disorder, they have prevailed and created new models of success for others to follow.  Scott’s message is worth serious consideration while our politicians, corporate titans, central bankers, Davos elite, and the jester-pundits that dance in their vaporous wake fight over the microphone in a gratuitous attempt to persuade us that our future flows through them.  Disorder, not the order inferred by institutions, norms, and opinion polls is the incubator of greatness.  Although many of us, myself included, appreciate President Obama’s recent clarion call for togetherness in his second inaugural address, the quest for the benefits of common interest and collective action—rooted (as he argued) in the words of the Declaration of Independence—must be preceded by the inspirations of the few among us who find no trepidation in ignoring official order that is guarded by the vapid sentries of banality.[2]  Indeed, those who penned the Declaration itself rejected the order of the day.  The togetherness that followed and gave birth to a new nation was also courageous, but absent the impetus born of inspiration and insubordination in the oft-maligned chaos of disorder, the United States would have never come into being.

The benefits of disorder are further substantiated in the work of Nicholas Nassim Taleb.  His thesis, which has been developed in his books Fooled by Randomness (2001), The Black Swan (2007), and Antifragile (2012) argues that the world advances largely by events that no one – especially those who live in the trappings of official order – see coming, but which have profound effects on financial markets and the societies we call our own.  The strategic implications are, he argues, quite obvious: seek an antifragile state of being in order to gain from volatility and disorder, which is predominant (and always has been) in the world in which we live.  The great model, which both Scott and Taleb use as a referent for their monikers of anarchism and antifragility, is nature itself, which is the most antifragile system in the world, constantly adapting to, and benefiting from, volatility and disorder.  How to become antifragile starts with accepting that the world does not function according to the theories and models taught in most academic institutions that seek to provide their students with tools to fit the world inside of a box constructed from magical (and tenured!) thinking.  Then, structure an autonomous life disconnected from systemic risk by, for example, eliminating debt.  Seek not just resilience—the capacity to recover from the inevitable shocks that occur—but aim to benefit from the volatility and disorder that crushes the fragile.  In effect, win the game before others even realize it has begun.

The great work-arounds that I wrote about here in December 2011, and regaining personal sovereignty, which I wrote about in June 2012, are emblematic of disorder-friendly modalities.  One must simply ignore the silliness of those who claim that by virtue of their position or birthright they are worthy of our attention … that we ought to follow them without questioning first the very source of their presumed power.  If it originates from beyond their own personal intellect and character, we should turn our faces away and treat them as a nuisance of distraction while we pursue our own ambitions and dreams under the counsel of our own hard-won sensibilities.  There exist innumerable stories throughout history of how individuals changed the course of history while there are very few (if any) that can be credited to those who claim the mantle of official order.  It is in our power—as antifragile anarchists—to change our world.

[1] James C. Scott, Two Cheers for Anarchism (Princeton: Princeton University Press), pp. 30, 84.
[2] A transcript of Obama’s second Inaugural Address can be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/01/21/inaugural-address-president-barack-obama.
By |2017-05-27T17:42:13+00:00January 23rd, 2013|General|0 Comments

Sandy’s Last Victim: (President) Romney

In August at the Republican National Convention, Candidate Romney mocked President Obama when he said: “Obama promised to slow the rise of the oceans and to heal the planet” which drew groans and laughter from the Party loyals festooned in elephas regalia.  While Romney followed up his mocking with a reasonable pledge to instead concern himself with the American family as opposed to the sophomoric “Drill, Baby, Drill!” chant of four years earlier, he may have offended more than Obamians and human-hating environmentalists. He may have offended Mother Nature herself who sent the ambiguously gendered climate changer hurricane Sandy to submerge Romney’s campaign in its final days.

I may be proven wrong four days from now, but after studying the numbers posted at Real Clear Politics yesterday afternoon, it appears that Obama will win reelection.  There are too many ways he can win, and really no plausible pathway for Romney.  What was new and somewhat startling, however, was what appears to be Sandy’s effect on Florida; a state he/she rained on but passed on his/her way to slam the Northeast.  Florida, recently seen as a Romney certainty, may swing to Obama.  If Obama gets those 29 electoral votes he can lose every other swing state to Romney and still be reelected.

The Sandy effect on Florida is fairly easy to understand.  Floridians know a thing or two about hurricanes and are very sympathetic to their victims.  Obama has received great praise for his handling of the aftermath, which has, among other things, produced a November bromance-a-trois between himself, Mayor Bloomberg, and Governor Christie.  And remember, millions of Floridians either came from the Northeast or have family there today. Finally, Floridians are also aware—and were reminded again this week—that Obama appointed their former head of emergency management (a Jeb Bush man), William Fugate, as his head of FEMA who is also being (mostly) lauded for his handling of the Sandy aftermath.  Obama reached across the aisle to avoid a W/Katrina/Brownie disaster.

Last Thursday in the New York Times, Timothy Egan opined, “in the election of 2012, it looks like nature votes last.”  If it does, its deciding vote may leave Romney wishing that Obama had succeeded in his quest to “slow the rise of the oceans” that put the sunshine state on the tally sheet of President Obama.

 

 

 

By |2017-05-23T18:09:23+00:00November 3rd, 2012|General|0 Comments

Is the Doctrine of Common Interest Dead?

The concepts of general welfare and collective action are core elements in the Constitution of the United States, which I collectively refer to here as common interest.  Although common interest has been with us since the birth of our nation, and has been a fundamental component of social order since the days of hunter-gatherers, it appears to be in peril today.  The phrase itself draws ire from all political corners: some deride the invocation of common interest as a dangerous slide toward socialism, while others argue it marks the deceitful rhetoric of plutocrats who wish to extract wealth from the middle class.  Yet, our history suggests when our common interest is served—when we work together toward mutually beneficial ends—America is at its best; we are all better off.  President Kennedy’s ambitious objective of “landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth” launched one of the most successful programs of political initiative and private enterprise in the history of the United States.[1]  Among other gains, the miniaturization of computing power necessary to accomplish this feat is why we have laptop computers today.  There are many other examples of the benefits of common interest, but the point is this: the security and prosperity of America has never been won by the few, it has been assured by the many with the support of both private and public entities.  So why is common interest being attacked from all sides?  What follows here are some possible contributing factors.

  1. The Ascent of Me-ism.  While doing my doctoral research on the rise of religion in the political sphere by the mid-1970s I came across a monograph on the 1960s by Mark Hamilton Lytle wherein he argued (much to this baby boomer’s chagrin) that “many people in the sixties passed off self-indulgence and arrogance as moral and political commitment.”  In other words, while we traveled in the clothing of righteous liberation, we were actually just enjoying the hell out of ourselves.  Lytle continues, “by listening to Dylan, smoking dope, marching for civil rights, wearing long hair, and protesting the war in Vietnam, anyone could claim to have joined, though what they belonged to was far from clear.”[2]  More recently, Kurt Andersen at The New York Times joined Lytle in boomer bashing when he suggested that the late 1960s marked the beginning of individualism run amok.  Andersen argues, “‘do your own thing’ is not so different than ‘every man for himself.’”[3]  He further finds that the “Me” decade of the 1960s expanded to encompass the entire last half of the century giving rise to a super-selfish culture that has lost its capacity for considering the interests of others.  Recently, this selfish hyper-individualism has been cloaked in a veil of self-deterministic rhetoric most often conveyed by those who identify with the Tea Party.  These are the folks who live in the fantasy of self-sufficiency, while often disproportionately relying on government support programs like Medicare, agricultural subsidies, mortgage interest deductions, federal mortgage guarantees, and Social Security.  They suffer from what philosopher Firmin DeBrabander calls the “delusional autonomy of Freud’s poor ego.”[4]  For Tea Partiers (unless they are the beneficiaries) all government programs are evidence of toxic socialism.  The questions are, how has this selfish impulse been generalized in American society, and how is it sustained?  Part of the answer lies in three largely exogenous variables: affluence, technology, and the collapse of the Soviet Union.
  2. Affluence, Technology, and Hubris.  Three structural events have occurred since the 1960s to fuel our selfishness and contempt for common interest: we’re rich, we suffer the illusion of ‘connection’ with others, and a force equal to ours no longer threatens us.  Let’s start with affluence.  Don’t get me wrong, I love wealth, but it can produce nefarious effects.  Since Saigon fell and we retreated “with honor” as President Nixon often claimed, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has increased sixteenfold.  By most any measure there is no wealthier nation than the United States, and money (and the debt capacity it supports) has been a significant sustaining force of our selfishness.  If we wanted something, we were a swipe of a credit card, or another issuance of US Treasury bills away from getting it.  Even though the US is fast approaching technical insolvency, the rules of financial prudence do not apply to us since the dollar is (for now) the world’s reserve currency of choice.  Next up: technology.  Again, I love it, but I also recognize it has produced its own deleterious effects.  Humans need to be connected to form a sense of empathy, which is the foundation of many things including our subscriptions to human rights and common interest.  Technology has tricked us into thinking we are connected and that we are bonded by common interest.  We are not. We suffer the illusion of connection and common interest.  Just because someone ‘friended’ you or ‘follows’ you does not mean they know you, or care about you. Just try reaching out to your so-called friends and followers when you are in need.  Absent an established sense of empathy, those cheerful beeps, ringtones, and vibrations that signal friendship quickly fade to silence.  Finally, there has been no other state since the collapse of the Soviet Union to keep the US from imperial overreach; the natural boundaries of power collapsed as well. The result: we, like empires before us, risk decline at our own hand.  Hubris is deadly to both people and states and we Americans have been quite full of ourselves in the last twenty years, as we have sought to remake the world in our own (selfish) image.  Other contributors to the threat to common interest include what I describe here next as the twin delusions.
  3. The Twin Delusions: Free Markets and Big Government.  Both sides of the great political debate of this presidential season—those who hold fast to their belief in free markets and those who believe with equal certitude that more government is better government—are wrong.  Neither thesis alone has any chance of solving the problems we face, yet to even suggest a middle ground that includes elements of both ideological extremes is met with hatred and hostility.  The Affordable Healthcare Act (aka Obamacare) has been one lightening rod of these twin delusions. Healthcare is not a right, nor is it a privilege (as it is most often debated by adversaries); rather, it is a classic example of a public good.  When we are healthy individually, we are also collectively better off.  I often ask: do we really want those who teach our children in school, or prepare our meals in restaurants, to be without healthcare?  Public goods like security, financial stability, and clean air and water are only created out of a subscription to common interest.  As Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel argued persuasively in his new book, What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets, markets alone are an ineffective tool in the production and sustainability of public goods.  He cites our slide from a “market economy to being a market society” as a dangerous illustration of the moral limits of markets.[5]  Public goods, like landing a man on the moon, or healthcare, or addressing the onset of climate change, are accomplished with a blend of market flexibility and centralized governance. All public goods rely on competitive and innovative markets as well as centralized command and control.  Healthcare should be addressed in the same manner.  The good news is there is more than enough money in the system today to make it work for more people at a level of service unmatched in the world.  However, common interest must be established once again or issues like this will continue to be hijacked by small thinkers and powerful interest groups, which endangers the future of America.  (In the case of climate change there may not be enough interest or resources to address it, but that is another story.[6])  The next factors that threaten common interest include those related to cognitive degeneration.
  4. The Demise of Critical and Integrative Thinking.  The now notorious decline of the American education system—particularly in math and science in our secondary schools—means that other nations will soon (if not already) exceed the United States in developing the critical thinkers who will produce tomorrow’s innovations to address our most urgent needs.  Through a combination of neglect, unintended policy consequences, and disengaged parenting, the education our children receive today is inferior to the education we boomers received that was achieved with fewer resources and analog technologies.  This condition has been further exacerbated by xenophobic attitudes toward immigrants who are educated in our superior universities, but who are then forced to return home when they would prefer to become the next generation of American innovators.  I am not sure whom we believe we are protecting with this backwater thinking, but it is most certainly not the future of America.  The other cognitive victim to the bipolar, zero-sum, us vs. them mind-set that has developed in the United States over the last few decades is integrative thinking.  Complexity, which is the nature of the globalized world we live in, requires multiple disciplines that each provide a piece of a solution that must be combined, or integrated, into an option that had never been thought of before.  This skill, or predilection, is what Roger Martin calls “the opposable mind.”  Martin suggests that, “integrative thinking shows us a way past the binary limits of either-or.  It shows us that there is a way to integrate the advantages of one solution without cancelling out the advantages of an alternative solution.  Integrative thinking affords us, in the words of poet Wallace Stevens, ‘the choice not between, but of.’”[7]  Integrative thinking has, however, fallen victim in part to the hubris mentioned above, and also from the application of cognitive constructs that have their roots in absolutist and universalistic thinking, which emanates from different places; preeminent among them today is religious-based certitude.  In short, the religious righteousness that has ascended unabated since the early 1970s has closed our minds to options that reside in the relativism and complexity of the real world.  Moral certitude has placed absolutism right where we need it least: in addressing complexity.
  5. The Rise of Religious Certitude.  For the last four years I have studied the impact of religious beliefs and convictions on presidential decision making in foreign policy.  I am often asked if religion is a good or bad thing when it comes to policymaking.  For me, the question is moot; it doesn’t matter.  What matters is that religious beliefs and convictions are a factor that we need to understand much better than we do.  Depending on the individual, religious beliefs contribute with varying emphasis on decision-making and, of course, the beliefs themselves differ both inter- and intra- faith.  When I construct the cognetic profile of a president each is as individualized as a fingerprint: no two are the same.  What applies more broadly here however, is that the level of religiosity in any given era matters, and in the contemporary era religion matters a great deal.  Since the mid-1970s, religion has been fully ensconced in the private, public, and political spheres in the US.  Throughout history this condition is not unprecedented, but the crescendo that has occurred over the last four decades matches if not exceeds other periods of high religiosity in US history.  During these periods—for better or worse—faith-based religious cognitive constructs find higher expression in all decision making.  While all religions purport a number of common values including tolerance, inclusion and, moreover, an expectation that we would all like to be treated well by our neighbors, the monotheistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam)—the dominant religions of the Middle East and the West—produce a dangerous irony: they demand of their followers a strict adherence to their particular traditions that (by their monotheistic subscription) does not allow room to consider other religious traditions as theologically valid or worthy.  This sets up a cognitive construct of absolutism and universalism (black and white thinking applied to everyone and everywhere) which compromises the values of tolerance and inclusion that are necessary to form the empathy that is the foundation of common interest.  Absolutism and universalism may arguably be appropriate in establishing moral foundations, but they are ill-suited to deal with the complexity of those issues that effect all people—where common interest must be established and where integrative thinking is required to succeed. In effect, these cognitive constructs get too much playing time in periods of high religiosity that has a chilling effect on common interest.

While James Madison warned us of the danger of factions in his Federalist Papers, and Thomas Jefferson worried about the role of the church in the affairs of state, Tocqueville also observed the curious synthesis of individualism and community that he surmised was fundamental to the success of Americans.  These concerns and observations all point to the importance of common interest and to its preservation at all costs.  Today’s political discourse too often threatens the doctrine of common interest espoused by our Founding Fathers and memorialized in the Constitution.  Selfish hyper-individualism, affluence, technology, the absence of a formidable foe, the twin delusions of free markets and big government, cognitive degeneration, and absolutist thinking that emanates from religious certitude, all contribute to the peril facing the doctrine of common interest today.  It is time for our leaders to find the center again and to set aside notions of absolutism and exclusion in favor of compromise and integrative thinking.  We must once again embrace the concept of ‘the many’ over the idiocentric beliefs and needs of ‘the few’.

[1] John F. Kennedy, “Special Message to Congress on the Nation’s Urgent Needs,” May 25, 1961, www.jfklibrary.org.
[2] Mark Hamilton Lytle, America’s Uncivil Wars: The Sixties Era from Elvis to the Fall of Richard Nixon (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), p. xiii.
[3] Kurt Andersen, “The Downside of Liberty,” The New York Times, July 3, 2012, www.nytimes.com. See also, Letters to the Editor, “Sunday Dialogue: Are Americans Selfish?” The New York Times, July 14, 2012, www.nytimes.com; and Frank Bruni, “Individualism in Overdrive,” The New York Times, July 16, 2012, www.nytimes.com.
[4] Firmin DeBrabander, “Deluded Individualism,” The New York Times, August 18, 2012, www.nytimes.com.
[5] See Michael Sandel, What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2012), p. 10.
[6] For a (reasoned) skeptic’s view on the climate change debate, see Bjorn Lomborg, “Environmental Alarmism, The and Now,” Foreign Affairs (July/August 2012), pp. 24-40.  For a decidedly unsettling account of climate change, see Bill McKibben, “The Reckoning,” Rolling Stone (August 2, 2012), pp. 52-60.
[7] Roger L. Martin, The Opposable Mind: How Successful Leaders Win Through Integrative Thinking (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2007), p. 9.

 

By |2017-05-27T17:44:52+00:00September 3rd, 2012|General|0 Comments
Go to Top