Building a Platform, Part I

While we’ve been working on the essay, “Renewing American Vigor: Transforming Consumption in Public and Private Life,” it’s become apparent to us that we needed to permeate the essay with an ecological perspective. This perspective should demonstrate the holistic nature of good governance, similar to the way our Constitution does. It should also set up a dialogue about design and function of government in the Connected Age.

In other words, to approach Center-driven government and move away from the edges, we need a tool from today’s “political” campaign, in a manner of speaking. To compete in the current culture, we need a “platform,” as the political parties call them, that provides a foundation and a framework that empowers Americans to Fulfill the American Promise in the Connected Age. This platform should be simple, interconnected like an ecology, and easy to implement through the existing political process.

Our colleagues working on A National Strategic Narrative have a “storyline” to integrate their proposals for America…so we’ll borrow and adapt that approach to FAPITCA. This is evolution, not revolution. The platform will help us grow our narrative.

Today’s post lays out five initial categories or “planks” that would make up a platform on which the Center can design and build our nation’s future. The platform and its planks do not try to reach out to any particular political constituency, but rather seek to offer a workable, “good enough” approach to Fulfill the American Promise. Some of the planks may better appeal to conservative ideals while some may seem to lean more toward progressive principles. To be sure, we don’t propose this platform as our own approach to a “political movement” but rather to inform the evolution of existing platforms.

After all, America has room for more than one perspective; in fact, it requires more than one perspective to remain a diverse and resilient home for freedom, security and prosperity.

This hopefully impartial, neutral bias is by design since we generally view FAPITCA to support and balance socially progressive thinking with fiscally conservative restraint. We propose this balanced state all while positioning America to be a leader and inspiration to the rest of the world. We look to move forward as a nation while minimizing and mitigating the financial burdens we face today.

The platform builds on a couple of main themes: 1), Individuals at all levels have roles and Governments at all levels have roles: America can’t succeed otherwise; and 2), government, business and academia must all work together to open up and build opportunity for all Americans, individually and collectively. Underlying all of this is the fact that our Constitution guarantees to our citizens the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, and other important rights critical to the function of our freedoms – these must be preserved. All of this is fundamental to the platform.

In introductory form, the following broad categories compose our platform. These five categories are the planks upon which we’ll build in future posts, consistent with the Principles of FAPITCA. All of these planks are active in the American political environment at some level of maturity today, although some have not been referenced in the halls of Congress for a while.

1. Ensure Equal Access to Opportunity: The United States is a capitalist-based economy that is supported by democratically-elected servants of the electorate to oversee fair and open competition for access to opportunity and resources to succeed. This does not imply a guarantee of success in competition, but does guarantee all Americans will have access to the same basic entry points for fair and open competition at the beginning. This must include equal access to a baseline income that provides a foundation to support the “pursuit of happiness” as our Declaration of Independence proclaims. This baseline income should offset practical living expenses while making it possible to pay reasonable taxes and to loosen ties to government support. Individuals must all have a level playing field to enter, whether they take advantage of that playing field or not. This is the first definition of the American Promise: “our people have freedom of access to an equal opportunity to succeed (or to fail).”
2. Transform Production and Consumption: We must not leave our children the tab for all that we’ve produced, consumed and wasted. Covered in more detail in the aforementioned essay, this includes addressing how we value material and intellectual goods and services, how we produce and market these goods and services and how we consume and dispose of them. It also includes developing an understanding of the relationship between “values-based” production, marketing and consumption in the light of changing demographics and resource bases. This emphasis on the transformation of production and consumption is also at the heart of any new or modified “social contract” between America and its citizens. This plank addresses one of the Principles of FAPITCA: We are borrowing this land, culture and governance system from our progeny; what we pay back to them reflects on our legacy and lays the foundation for their legacy.
3. Protect and Secure our Environment and Infrastructure: America is a rich ecosystem of diverse, interacting parts. Humans are the stewards of this ecosystem although all too often we fail to exercise that responsibility. Two of the most important interacting parts of our ecosystem are our environment, provided by nature, and our national infrastructure, designed and built by all of us: both need care and foresight to continue to nurture and serve Americans. Both must coevolve with each other in ways that protect their distinctive contributions to America so that they help provide maximum security to our way of life and economy. By security, in addition to national defense, we also mean “freedom from anxiety” in the words of our colleague Captain Wayne Porter of the National Strategic Narrative project. Equally important, we must protect and secure our environment and infrastructure for our posterity as our Constitution’s Preamble demands in order “to promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty…”
4. Sustain and Advance American Culture, Science and Education: Three of the richest interacting components of America that offer the deepest impact upon our future way of life are our amazingly diverse culture, our contributions to science and our educational systems. Clearly, these distinct but highly interconnected areas go through ups and downs in terms of local, national and global contributions, but they are at the center of all that makes America so great. These three areas deserve constant attention and investment to sustain our future as a nation. Both our citizens and our governments at all levels must work together to build these elements on behalf of America and indeed the world. This is our “seed corn” and must be protected for all future generations.
5. Restore Recognition for Public Service: America is indeed a capitalist-based economy, but it thrives because for the most part, American governance works and acts effectively as a “silent-partner” to commerce and industry. After all, who else protects intellectual property, maintains law and order, provides national security, builds and maintains our infrastructure and educates future leaders and workers? Government and other forms of public service are critical components of this partnership. We must restore and both improve and streamline the services governments at all levels perform on behalf of Fulfilling the American Promise in the Connected Age. Most importantly, we must restore the image of government and public service as desirable training grounds and potential career pursuits. We should also consider ways to incorporate public service as a supporting and sustaining entry point into any career pursuit regardless of sector; we should find ways to use this initial service as an investment opportunity for education and employment training, much like the GI Bill did for many veterans of military service. Finding success in restoring the image of public service may be one of the best ways to assist our younger generations in both the near- and long-term as they search for new careers and find themselves as Americans. Those that do choose public service careers must understand and feel good about themselves in their service and their contributions to building and sustaining the American Promise.

We’ll explore more about each of these planks in future posts, seeking to refine them into actionable objectives that could inform future policy-making and elections in our nation. Until next time…

Originally posted by Carl and Chuck Hunt, 5/23/2014.

 

 

The Promise of the Millennials

When we debated our definition of the American Promise, “freedom of access to an equal opportunity to succeed (or to fail),” we discussed at length how we could consistently apply this characterization of the American Promise to young Americans. We wanted to speak to all Americans about how Fulfilling the American Promise in the Connected Age is so important in such a special way to our progeny, the group we call Millennials.

There are a lot of blogs by and for Millennials; there are too many to even begin listing here. Ease and freedom of expression of a wide variety of perspectives has been one of the hallmarks of the Connected Age for people of every generation, but particularly the Millennials. These Millennial perspectives can form a vast resource of insight and inspiration while setting the stage for what America becomes…if we start realizing it and nurturing this emerging body of work now.

In The Next America, Paul Taylor of The Pew Research Center reports that the Millennial Generation began in 1981 and that the cut-off year has not yet been determined. [i] Whatever the actual dates may be, the Millennials are graduating from school and taking their place in junior leadership positions (when they are available) or other employment opportunities (when they are available). By Taylor’s calculations, this means at least 34% of the American population can be considered part of the Millennial cohort, using 2012 US Census data.

This also means that 34% of the US population that will be responsible for the future of America and running for elected office across the country is now starting to take its place on the American scene.

Boomers and Generation X cohorts [ii] have been responsible to prepare America for this up and coming generation. In light of the American Promise theme, it’s worth doing an inventory of what we Boomers and Gen X’ers are accomplishing on behalf of the Millennials, and indeed on behalf of the future of America. What have our earlier generations done to set the tone for growth and development of our budding leaders?

In terms of leadership, we’ve shown the Millennials the “productivity” of a starkly, edge-driven Congress and other federal, state and locally elected officials. We’ve demonstrated to our young people how to use politics to rig election district boundaries, solicit enormous sums of politically-motivated monies, fight against protecting our environment and exploit an all-too-willing media to further divide our nation. Pretty impressive examples, the edges might claim.

The senior generations have also overseen the significant escalation of education and healthcare costs while enabling the rise of wealth for a select few who have little regard for the principles of the American Promise. We’ve shown how our young people can “benefit” more by being investment bankers and stock brokers than becoming scientists, civil servants and educators. Again, this is another impressive list of accomplishments that can serve as examples on which to build the America of the next generation and beyond…well, no, not really. What in the world are we thinking?

From time-to-time, we’ll visit a very fine piece of work accomplished by Captain Wayne Porter, USN and Colonel Mark (Puck) Mykleby, USMC (ret) called “A National Strategic Narrative.” We’ll look at this document in increasing detail as we unroll the relationship of the Millennials to the future of America. But for now we want to emphasize the Narrative’s points about the youth of America and what they can do for all of us if we empower them. In speaking about young Americans, Wayne and Puck wrote:

By investing energy, talent, and dollars now in the education and training of young Americans – the scientists, statesmen, industrialists, farmers, inventors, educators, clergy, artists, service members, and parents, of tomorrow – we are truly investing in our ability to successfully compete in, and influence, the strategic environment of the future. Our first investment priority, then, is intellectual capital and a sustainable infrastructure of education, health and social services to provide for the continuing development and growth of America’s youth. [iii]

This is more than parents doing the right thing and setting good examples for our children…this is about investing in the children of all Americans to build the future of our nation. As Wayne and Puck note, these investments build on the most important infrastructure component we could possibly construct: our young people and the intellectual capital they will need to keep America going.

By cooperating even as a politically-driven body, our senior generations now in power can set the tone and framework starting today. By recognizing and being accountable for what we’ve done to our future generations, the rest of us can start electing responsible people who care more about America and our young people than themselves…who care more about our future than measuring a campaign coffer. Through the electoral process and a responsible political system, we can “sand” the edges from divisive office-holders and start building a system that rewards “competitive cooperation” and collaboration rather than simply “win-at-all-costs” politics.

The Millennials we talk to and read about want to step up and take their place, just like we did when we were their age. They’re not lazy and they’re not unmotivated…they are Americans who love their country but have to overcome college debt, healthcare costs and meager job prospects. Worst of all, they have to overcome less access to opportunity than many of our older generations faced.

Let’s start fixing that now, Boomers and Gen Y’ers…let’s cooperate and try harder to create access to opportunity for our young people – they have great Promise. Let’s empower all Americans to Fulfill the American Promise in the Connected Age.

Originally posted by Carl and Chuck Hunt, 5/8/2014.

 

[i] A claim in dispute in some circles based on the beginning of the so-called “Generation Z” in the mid-2000s.

[ii] 1946-1964 and 1965-1980, respectively, according to Taylor in The Next America.

[iii] Quoted from the section “Our Three Investment Priorities” from A National Strategic Narrative.

What Cliven Bundy Can Teach the Edges

We recently went back and re-read the Principles of FAPITCA and reflected on the recent episode regarding Mr. Cliven Bundy, a Nevada rancher who has held grazing leases for multiple decades and declined to pay grazing fees despite numerous court orders directing him to do so.

Some media sources have reported on multiple occasions that he does not acknowledge the legitimacy of the United States. Precisely, he was quoted as saying, “I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing,” in spite of the Nevada constitution’s clause (Article 1, Section 2) agreeing to “paramount allegiance” to the United States. Had certain American politicians, reportedly all of whom are conservative Republicans in this particular case, considered the Principles of FAPITCA, they, their party and our nation would have been better served.

And, perhaps these political figures would have been less embarrassed by other “news” on Mr. Bundy’s views about race in America that emerged since conservative media sources first began stirring this story up.

Of the many values articulated by FAPITCA, simply embracing a respect for the “Rule of Law (and Respect of the Law)” would have been very helpful. By refusing to comply with—

Cattle grazing on public land in Nevada. Courtesy of BLM.

• The laws of Congress (Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 among others),
• Executive branch regulations (43 CFR 4100), and
• Multiple court orders,

Mr. Bundy showed contempt for all three branches of our government and, more importantly, by extension, contempt for the people of United States.

As FAPITCA’s key principles offer, “We think as Americans before acting as Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Independents, etc.” The Senators of Kentucky, Texas, Nevada and other elected officials would have also been well-served to be a bit more “American-centric” before they rushed to defend this individual.

There is nothing “American” about refusing to pay just bills (to the American public) for decades. Politicians’ failure to embrace this principle also likely emboldened numerous other people to come to the defense of this person without regard for the fact that he actually owes all of us these grazing fees. Perhaps even certain reporters for Fox News would have been better served to consider the principles of FAPITCA as well before describing Mr. Bundy’s exploits in such glowing terms.

Some readers may appropriately express concern about the tactics of the Bureau of Land Management’s effort to gather up Mr. Bundy’s cows. We don’t know directly what circumstances led to BLM’s apparently significant show of force, but given that violence had been threatened against the government, and the agency wanted to make sure the operation was conducted without exposing agency personnel to unacceptable risk, BLM’s preparations may have been fitting.

Whether BLM calibrated the size of the operation properly can be debated, but the overall situation offers no excuse or even a remote parallel for the decades of Mr. Bundy’s disregard for the laws of this nation. Had BLM conducted the operation with modest personnel resulting in injured employees, then the agency could have been criticized for underestimating the potential violence of the operation. On the face of it, it appears BLM’s actions were in fact measured and responsible.

The support for Mr. Bundy has now subsided in most quarters due to his remarks concerning race. It is curious that it was “patriotic” to show disregard for all of us and the laws of our nation, but problematic to show disregard for African Americans. We suppose that demonstrates that even the conservative politicians supporting Mr. Bundy wished to avoid being labeled “racists.” Perhaps that should give us a ray of hope that there are limits at least to certain types of political behavior.

We post today’s piece not to point fingers. This blog is about unifying Americans, not adding to the partisan rancor that is harming our nation. Indeed, many conservatives expressed reservations about this situation due to the legal issues involved. As usual, voices of reason received little attention from the media. Likewise, the vast majority of BLM’s client-ranchers pay their grazing fees on time and most probably aren’t terribly sympathetic to Mr. Bundy. No, we simply post this piece to urge our elected officials to proceed with caution and not view every situation as an opportunity to “score political points.” Please think as Americans first.

More than a few politicians and a major media network wound up looking pretty irresponsible at the end of the day. Even Jennifer Rubin’s normally conservative blog substantiated that point recently!

People interested in restoring the voice to the Center should be loath to support candidates who “run to the microphone” in support of extremist causes—right or left. The “edges” would do well to think about this next time such an “opportunity” arises.

Originally posted by Chuck and Carl Hunt, 5/1/2014.

A Narrative for our Nation and our Promise

In 2010, I had the privilege of participating in the first of two Highlands Forum meetings I attended that year. This first meeting was in Newport, RI, and hosted a small group of remarkable thinkers and professionals from diverse industry, academic and government organizations. You won’t find much about the Highlands Forum from the official website, but there is a publically accessible site that talks about its background and purpose when it was first established.[1]

One of the government folks I met in Newport was Captain Wayne Porter, United States Navy. At the time, Wayne was serving as a personal advisor to Admiral Mike Mullen, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I had several intimate chats with Wayne, including a marvelous breakfast in which we shared our thoughts about the effects of cyberspace and emergence on the nation and the rest of the world. During breakfast, Wayne shared with me some of the initial thoughts he and his office mate, Colonel Mark “Puck” Mykleby, United States Marine Corps, were working on in a paper they were crafting for the Chairman.

The title of the paper Wayne and Puck created was illuminating. Wayne called it “A National Strategic Narrative.” He explained that they decided to call it a narrative rather than a “strategy” because the nation had plenty of strategy documents (e.g., National Security Strategy, National Military Strategy, and a host of others). What America really needed, Wayne said, was a narrative (a coherent story) that served to remind us of who we were and how we should think about going forward in the future as a “whole of nation” (or government) to maintain the essence of what made America great.

Wayne’s ideas really resonated with me at the time and thanks to a new project to which I’ve been invited to participate, it’s more meaningful than ever. Add to that the work in which Chuck and I collaborate with Fulfilling the American Promise in the Connected Age, and the narrative becomes greatly relevant and compelling.

The “final” version of A National Strategic Narrative is available on the web, along with other supporting information about the project, but I’m reserving the remainder of this post to describe the priorities of the effort and compare it to some of the objectives of FAPITCA as we’ve presented them in this blog.

Wayne and Puck, originally writing under the pseudonym of “Mr. Y” (in memory of George Kennan),[2] assert that their foundation is “built upon the premise that we must sustain our enduring national interests – prosperity and security – within a ‘strategic ecosystem,’ at home and abroad….” This notion of a strategic ecosystem is also compelling and forms the basis of the remaining narrative. An ecosystem, as we’ve mentioned in a previous blog post, is energized by coevolution and emergence, and is another appealing way of expressing FAPITCA.

The Narrative proposes three “Investment Priorities” that align with FAPITCA. The first priority is “intellectual capital and a sustainable infrastructure of education, health and social services to provide for the continuing development and growth of America’s youth.” This priority is perfectly matched to the basis for achieving the American Promise: “freedom of access to an equal opportunity to succeed (or to fail).”[3] Investing in the social “infrastructure” of America empowers greater access to opportunity.

The second priority of the Narrative is “ensuring the nation’s sustainable security – on our own soil and wherever Americans and their interests take them.” According to Wayne and Puck, this requires us to think about American “power” as more than just defense and security, although these are vitally important areas. We should also think about America as a source of inspiration to our nation and the world for “domestic and foreign trade, agriculture and energy, science and technology, immigration and education, public health and crisis response….” This enables us to also observe national security through the lenses of our economy, the environment, our willingness to help other people and nations, and indeed our social fabric. This perspective can also link the Center of America to the rest of our world through Connected Age technologies.[4]

Finally, the third priority of the Narrative is to “develop a plan for the sustainable access to, and cultivation and use of the natural resources we need for our continued wellbeing, prosperity and economic growth in the world marketplace.” This priority has a clear connection to the second priority and speaks to sustaining a global ecosystem of natural resources that supports not only America but the whole world. In this way, America reemphasizes its role as a truly exceptional nation both in terms of leadership and stewardship of human and natural resources. This is consistent with one of FAPITCA’s key principles: “We are borrowing this land, culture and governance system from our progeny; what we pay back to them reflects on our legacy and lays the foundation for their legacy.”[5]

There’s quite a bit more to A National Strategic Narrative that deserves mention in this blog, and we’ll revisit it from time-to-time. Having the privilege of chatting with Wayne and Puck in years past makes this Narrative more personally meaningful as Chuck and I undertake our work with FAPITCA. I’m glad I recently rediscovered it and have a chance to cite it as an additional source for our effort. If the FAPTICA project makes sense to you, please read the National Strategic Narrative and understand where it could take us in Fulfilling the American Promise in the Connected Age.

Originally posted by Carl Hunt, 4/24/2014.

 

[1] The Highlands Forum is a remarkable effort that has informed the development of US strategy, research and development for over a decade, and is superbly managed by Dick O’Neill, Captain, US Navy (ret.). Some of the presentations at Highlands Forum meetings are also available on the public website.

[2] As a National War College alumnus, I appreciate the nod to George Kennan, who was a professor at NWC in the mid-1940s when he was forming thought about maintaining a balance of power with the Soviet Union, a paper called “The Sources of Soviet Power” which he authored in Foreign Affairs in July 1947, under the pseudonym of Mr. X.

[3] As quoted from the Principles of FAPITCA.

[4] As proposed in the FAPITCA Principles.

[5] As articulated in the FAPITCA Principles.

A More “Democratic” Democratic Republic

Connecting to the Principles, Part 5

In the months of discussions leading up to starting Fulfilling the American Promise in the Connected Age, we debated a lot about what to say and how to say it. As much as possible, we wanted to avoid specific political positions. We wanted to expose and discuss in detail the problems we faced as a nation when we allowed ourselves to be governed from the extreme edges, whether right or left. Also, we didn’t want to rely on one party’s interpretation of the “correct way” to govern and develop policy.

It would have been easy to criticize attempts to close the government over fringe-led positions against health-care, just as it would have been easy to criticize the very methods used to create the current health-care law. The various factions of media (red, blue, “neutral”) have all presented their versions of critiques of Congress and the Administration. Rather than piling on more criticism, we wondered about the effect these critiques had. We wanted to know how they resulted in productive change in our system of governance.

Admittedly, we haven’t introduced a lot of insights on issues like that, other than try to expose both sides of the extreme edges for what they often appear to be: power-loving men and women seeking to serve themselves before the nation. We have recalled a few instances where our nation’s leaders could actually get along and sufficiently agree to create and maintain America (e.g., the Continental Congress). We also highlighted what is possible when Americans emphasize unity, shared sacrifice and progress rather than division (e.g., the United States in World War II and NASA from the 1960’s through today’s time).

Regardless of a given party’s dogmatism and over-confidence about “being right” that pervades the fringes of at least two political parties, no one person can know everything. We can think and do the best we can, leveraging a proper dose of humility, and try to move our nation forward. And it appears we do that best when we connect with each other and keep the communication lines open. That’s why the Connected Age part of this website is integral to the blog.

With this post, we are going to start focusing on the Connected Age side of FAPITCA for a bit. In keeping with the title of this piece, we want to look at ways to create a more inclusive “democratic” way to do politics and policy development in America. We want to explore techniques and tools that bring us closer together as a nation rather than pull us further apart…ways that expand access to opportunity.

A recent article in the NY Times, Web Fiction, Serialized and Social, got us thinking about web-based governance. This is hardly new, as E-Government and Web-Based Government Services have been discussed and implemented to varying degrees in recent years. Anyone who has visited My Social Security knows how much access to information Americans can have concerning their own individual role in the economy, for example. This type of access relates to personal information and is typically subscriber-based at an individual level.

We all subscribe in different ways to the success of America, however, and most of us don’t have a lot of individual and collective input to the process…yet. Next time, we’ll tell you how we think we might enhance the opportunity we have of Fulfilling the American Promise using the Connected Age tools available to us today. We think this approach might actually minimize the extreme edges, incentivize better politics and policy development and make us all better citizens at the same time.

If you’re into homework, take a look at the kind of technology that a tool like Wattpad offers (from the NY Times article) and see what you think. Hint: look at the title of this post again! Until next time…

Originally posted by Carl and Chuck Hunt, 3/25/2014.

Editor’s Note: Also starting with this post, we intend to take Harold Morowitz’s advice from a couple of weeks ago and start writing shorter pieces. If the Message is the Medium as Marshal McLuhan noted, we want to help our readers get the message through a more accessible medium!

Reflections on Normandy

A few years ago, I had an epiphany of sorts that helped lead me to want to collaborate on a project like Fulfilling the American Promise in the Connected Age. It was a beautiful spring morning in Normandy. It was brisk, but the rising sun cast a warm glow across the Normandy countryside and on Omaha Beach (yes, that Omaha Beach).

I was at the Memorial in the Normandy American Cemetery doing my morning routine before the cemetery opened. As usual, I was all alone. I walked the perimeter of the cemetery plots to make sure all was in order—grass perfect, headstones clean and no limbs or–heaven forbid, trash–and then tested the carillon to make sure it was functioning properly by playing the National Anthem of our country.

As the Star-Spangled Banner was playing, I stepped out from the basement of the Memorial, stood at attention, facing our nation’s flag and then looked down upon the beach and the seemingly endless crosses and Stars of David before me. It was just me and the remains of 9,387 Americans, many of whom died on the beach below in June, 1944.

As the sun began to illuminate the beautiful chapel which sits in the middle of the cemetery in its warm but soft yellow glow, something hit me pretty hard. It was an image of our nation, strong and incredibly magnetic, pulling my very being into its grasp even more than it ever has before. I deeply felt how my nation is so important to me. I intimately felt what it stands for and that no election or policy would ever break that bond, that allegiance, that love that I hold for America.

It was just as the Affordable Care Act was creating a stir and a few people had raised the notion of seceding from the United States based on opposition to the Act and the federal overreach they perceived it to be.  I realized then how far some Americans had gone astray.  As a native Texan, I was concerned that some people in my home state would dare to suggest secession for any reason, much less their belief that somehow America wasn’t worth holding onto and holding together. Worse, the Governor of Texas had used a bit of reckless language which was further inspiring others to feel that secession was worthy of consideration.

In the humbling presence of thousands of our war dead, I self-affirmed that there were very few things that could ever lead me to wish to seriously question my allegiance to the union that is America. These wonderful brave soldiers died on this beach in 1944 to ensure America could stand in the future, in the face of any threat, foreign or domestic. I pondered what would tip me over that very precarious edge to even hint that a state of this nation withdraw from America.

The only things that came to mind that morning were material damage to the sanctity of our elections, pervasive violations of our right to freedom of speech or religion, or perhaps significant censorship of the press or acts of violence on the part of the government to innocent citizens. Perhaps these or other concerns would raise to this level if I thought more about it…but disagreements about tax policy or healthcare?  How could anyone, particularly an elected official, make this suggestion, even in jest?  How could people even suggest that Texas be a party to ripping apart the greatest, most glorious experiment of self-governance over a difference in how to approach healthcare?

I wanted the people advocating this extremist approach to come and stand before these men and women buried in this cemetery and to explain why these soldiers’ sacrifice was great but not great enough to deal with disagreement over our nation’s healthcare system. It might seem to some that there was an expiration date on the value of the blood spilled here, but I knew that couldn’t be the case. That would mean these soldiers’ deaths would only be worthy of inspiring us for a few decades. That would mean that now that the expiration date had apparently passed; we were free to disassemble our nation over differing opinions over healthcare or other policy differences.

Perhaps the advocates of this extreme approach were just letting off steam, but as I stood overlooking that beach in Normandy, it was alarming.

Have some of our citizens lost faith in their fellow Americans to use the system our forefathers gave us? To his credit, unlike many leaders in our nation, this Governor honorably served our nation’s military as a pilot in the United States Air Force and has widely recognized the value of our “great union,” but it would be helpful if he and others could more carefully exercise their leadership role.

We need our leaders to help Americans come together and embrace the truth that our system is strong and resilient enough to temporarily indulge or tolerate inopportune policy. We must recognize, providing we maintain confidence and competiveness in our electoral system, that a policy will either succeed or fail and that free elections will either result in continuance, improvement or discontinuance of the policy.  We even survived prohibition!

To be sure, both political extremes can fall prey to this…recall the many Americans who threatened to leave America after President George W. Bush was elected?

But here’s the essence of the American approach: it’s still an experiment. Play by the rules, the “ruling party” makes its best and most considered policy on behalf of the American people, and we all see what happens. The side that is closest to right will ultimately succeed…we have elections to ensure that happens. Perhaps the Connected Age technologies we’ve been talking about in this blog will help us make more sense of the electoral process as we continue with the American experiment, but in the meantime we’re doing pretty well honoring the commitment and sacrifices so many Americans have made throughout our history.

As I looked out over our fallen American heroes, I realized that advocates of this “my way or the highway” approach must be either reckless, ignorant, or just plain “not thinking.” They fail to appreciate and respect the history of the founding of our nation. Many unfortunate policies have been adopted, but we corrected them without rendering asunder the nation (with one obvious, thankfully temporary exception).

The new American Center needs to always listen and respond to legitimate concerns, but guide extremist solutions to the margins so we can devote our energy and creativity to responsible solutions that have the potential to unite us rather than divide us. We owe this to the men and women I had the honor of safeguarding that beautiful morning in Normandy.

Originally posted by Chuck Hunt, 3/18/2014.

Editor’s Note: From time to time, we will post pieces that reflect deeply personal experiences that demonstrate why we feel it is so important to take on the effort embodied by Fulfilling the American Promise in the Connected Age. This post is one of those pieces. The comments in this post specifically discuss the author’s perspectives and are not intended to convey those of any organization with which he is affiliated.

Compliments to the Complements

Connecting to the Principles, Part 4

Millennials have sought to build a social life that is more visible, more networked and more transparent than any generation before them. To be sure, Gen Y’ers and even Boomers have used online social networks in numbers that would likely have surprised anyone 20 years ago…some might say “everybody’s doing it!” Millennials have grown up connected, however – that’s why they’re also called digital natives. The effects of all that connectivity compose the basis for one of our main premises in Fulfilling the American Promise in the Connected Age.

There are some important questions to ponder about all this though. What are the effects of an online social life? Are we over-connected? What are the consequences of the new forms of connectivity in terms of the future of collaboration? How do we make collaboration work better in the connected age?

These are some of the questions we posed to ourselves as we articulated the Principles last month. We thought long and hard about collaboration when postulating that competition and compromise are key complementary components of our political process. We also thought about collaboration’s effects on capitalism the way it’s practiced in America. We were driven to think about this because our current Congress seems to have forgotten how collaboration works, even though we see business succeeding more and more through collaboration in the connected age.

So with this post we’re looking a little more closely at the complementary relationship of compromise and competition and the resulting outcome of improved collaboration in the connected age. We’re also examining how this improved collaboration is exploited by Millennials. Focusing on connectivity, a look at collaboration through this lens helps us better understand why competition is good, and so is compromise. If we learn how to balance the two, in collaboration, we can rebuild the American Center and perhaps even draw more from the extreme edges back to the Center.

Just to review, a complement is “something that completes something else or makes it better…or makes perfect.” While we’re not describing a perfect relationship in our thinking, we are proposing that competition and compromise work together…complete each other…to make it more likely for collaboration to succeed. If we only rely on competition of ideas or ideology to improve our ability to lead, and in the process avoid compromise altogether, we are destroying the potential for collaboration to work…that’s not leadership.

Since we’re all human, none of us can get it right all the time, no matter how strong the ideology behind our beliefs. There aren’t even two sides to most arguments in Congress so how is it even possible to be right all the time? How is it possible to think only in terms of the “other side is wrong” and has nothing to contribute? How did the concept of compromise become a negative? If we could answer these questions collaboratively we might find a way forward. Fortunately, at least two US Senators are trying to address these issues…that is leadership.

The “normal” way of doing business in Congress in recent years appears to be built on only competition, spurning compromise because that is allegedly some sort of sign of weakness, or failure to be responsive to a particular voting base. But that’s not how our nation came to be. In 1775-1776, ideas competed but the Continental Congress recognized that compromise made those competing ideas stronger when effectively blended. The Founders inherently understood that successful collaboration requires that compromise and competition work together to improve the chances of achieving good policy and valuable outcomes.

This isn’t just the case in government, either. In the FAPITCA Principles, we proposed as an objective that “American capitalism is largely based on the complementary functions of competition and compromise between buyers and sellers in the market.” This means that one party, sellers, provide value to the other party, buyers, through a complementary relationship that brings together a market that might not otherwise exist. This happens in the normally collegial world of academics, as well. Value is added through the synergy of compromise and competition.

The Millennial generation leverages their digital native nature through their online social life and has benefitted from the effects the synergy of competition and compromise has on collaboration. At any early age, they began to play online games together and discovered the power of cooperation and compromise to overcome the big “Boss” adversary in each level of the virtual world in which they played and interacted. Typically, they never even met their playing partners.

Millennials have friends, by their definition, on Facebook that they’ve also never met and yet still share ideas and learn from each other. The same is true to a considerably lesser degree to the older generations but it was tougher since it was like learning a new language at an older age. Millennials grew up with speaking this language!

Competition and compromise are the effects of the digital age that the digital natives have accepted and in which they now thrive. The consequences of this life (the life of the generation from which we’ve borrowed the Boomer and Gen Y environments, as we discussed in the last post) are leading to fascinating findings that will soon be informing the growth of the American Center.

An appreciation of this change is happening everywhere but the halls of Congress, apparently. The Boomers squatting on the edges of that hallowed venue have just not sufficiently learned enough of the lessons of connecting in this age. They have not learned the value of compromise as a complement to competition to make it possible to collaborate on issues like healthcare, employment, immigration, the environment, redistricting, campaign finance, military missions and expenditures, social welfare and almost anything else we could imagine. What collaborative tools they have at their disposal if only they could truly immigrate to the connected age!

Unfortunately, we’re not prepared to say that any effects or consequences the digital natives are experiencing in the connected age will flow into the halls of Congress and State Houses anytime soon. They all think they are connected and doing the peoples’ business using the tools of social media like the Millennials. The problem is they’re primarily using these tools to get reelected, and all too rarely to take care of the nation and their constituents. That’s the biggest difference between those so-called political-digital immigrants and the digital natives of the Millennial generation. That’s where leadership will come in, but that’s for another post – we’ll get to that soon!

Next time, we’ll be publishing our first guest blog post…from a real Millennial! We’re delighted to highlight the perspectives of the real future of America, and hope it opens the door to more posts from the generations younger than the Boomers who are currently the “caretakers” of America. It’s time that the learning and sharing flow both ways.

Originally posted by Carl and Chuck Hunt, 3/11/2014.

Fresh Look, Younger Perspectives

This post heralds a new look for Fulfilling the American Promise in the Connected Age. Carl redesigned the former look after his 22-year-old son told him he half expected to see images of a cigar in an ashtray and a glass of single-malt scotch accompanying the stodgy leather notebook motif of the original site. He was right – it’s time to freshen up.

Fresh new looks don’t imply we didn’t believe in what we’re doing, however. All the things we wrote about our current Congress, political extremes, equal access to education and opportunity, and the effects of the information age are still relevant. The implementation of our governance system is still broken and it needs freshening up too.

As previously, the New American Center will be the principle focus of our project and we’ll still emphasize leadership, opportunity and the connections that both bind and separate us. Just as a brief review of our definition, the New American Center is “the core of America that distances itself from extreme outlooks of ‘right’ or ‘left’ and embraces competition and compromise as normal ways to get things done.” That’s still our position as we go forward with the new look.

Enough of our readers have expressed in personal emails that we must continue to address the benefits of integrating compromise and competition, just as the Founders did. We’ll take that advice but we’ll try to more frequently look at our topics through the lens of the upcoming generations…those young Americans who did not really have a role in creating the current narrow-minded, walled-off environment.

Many of our readers may be familiar with what may be a very old quote: “We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.” This statement has been claimed by many, including Native Americans, Australian politicians, and a host of others you’ll discover if you do a web search for its origins. Anthropologist/ethnologist Jane Goodall was quoted a few years ago as saying that we don’t even appear to be borrowing it any longer…we’re stealing it, since it seems we have no intent to pay it back.

Any parent, whether a member of a governing body like our Congress or not, should be concerned with the role our older generations have in paying back the future debt we owe our children. Our words claim we do worry about it…a significant portion of political speeches reference the burden we’re placing on our future generations. Yet from the “actions” that come forth from our legislative bodies, these are just words designed to make the speaker feel good. Somehow, these words don’t seem to inspire any kind of collaborative effort, however. That sad state of affairs is what drove us when we talked about the pathetic state of legislative leadership in past posts.

Our blog posts in the future will capitalize on the original FAPITCA themes as presented in the Principles but we will try, based on feedback from some younger readers, to present them in a more encouraging light that better reflects the perspectives of the so-called Generation Y and the Millennials. They are our future and they have children to consider now also. We should support these younger generations and leave to them a system of effective governance, access to opportunity and a bountiful natural environment that’s even better than what our forefathers left to us, not worse.

We must find ways to lead from the Center in ways that minimize conflict between political, commercial and academic worlds so they can focus on preserving and conserving an America for which our children will praise their elders rather than condemn them. You may notice a shift in tone and style from time to time as we seek to share a message that also resonates with a younger generation, for they are the future of our Republic.

We want to help ensure we pay back our lenders the best possible return and provide them an even better nation to borrow from their children.

Originally posted by Carl and Chuck Hunt, 3/8/2014

Editors Note: We updated the Principles of FAPITCA on 3/8/2014 to reflect the new perspectives addressed in this post. This is in keeping with our intent for the Principles and Objectives to be dynamic and to mirror the Values we set forth.

Resisting Demography: Then and Now

Connecting to the Principles, Part 3

In the introduction of a new book, The Next America: Boomers, Millennials and the Looming Generational Showdown,[i] author Paul Taylor notes “Demographic transformations are dramas in slow motion. They unfold incrementally, almost imperceptibly…”

Thanks in part to the connected age, we see changes differently than we did before. We now see that more minorities vote more often, we observe greater acceptance of social change than was possible even 25 years ago, and of course, the widening gap between the very rich and the rest of us is increasingly evident.

One wonders if King George III and the British Parliament of the 1760s – 1770s experienced this same phenomenon of changing demography that our nation’s government is experiencing today. Without the benefits of the connected age, it was far more challenging to process the changes that were occurring. Clearly, George didn’t understand the price he would pay for failing to grasp the shifting demographics of the time.

There are many statistically-based reasons for the demographic impact Taylor describes but in the end it is about change. America has experienced a great deal of change throughout its nearly two-and-a-half century existence. Fortunately, we usually dealt with change sufficiently well to maintain our global reputation as the Land of Opportunity. Even today, we still offer an environment for new opportunities available nowhere else in the world…so far.

Why only “…so far?” Up until the last couple of decades, we had a more resilient political system that could normally, somehow, cope with change and bounce back without long-term, systemic dysfunction (the Civil War was one glaring example). We were able to generally cope because we tended to embrace America as a platform for freedom, security, opportunity and growth (even if we were less than universal in application). Politics, money and personal power were somehow sufficiently mitigated to allow the “public interest” to generally prevail.

We, by design or by a wonderful accident, made sure (at least in theory) that almost anyone who was born here or came here from another land could have the same opportunity to succeed (or to fail). Obviously we sometimes fell short of that mark, but at least we were better at it than other nations. Of course, that was back in the day when competition and compromise could stand as complements instead of opposites!

Here’s a question, though: Has America of the last 20 years or so begun to look like King George III’s England? The American political system and too many of its voting citizens have been clinging to a time that existed before America’s current demographic transformation began; they have been pining for the “good old days” that can no longer exist. So did George.

The strategy to cling to this past can damage our nation. It creates a vast internal conflict between our political leadership that threatens to cleave us the same way America broke away from England…where one side took an intransigent position from which the other side had to no choice but to rebel and go their own way.

It was a different time in the 1770s, of course, and the America of the 21^st Century should wake up every morning thankful that our forefathers had the courage and creativity to break away from England and form a “more perfect union.” But the lessons we should learn from England letting America slip through her fingers should help us understand what could happen to a future America if our leaders don’t behave more like our Continental Congress than the Congress of 2014.

Lest we mistakenly think that it was easy to make this change and revolt from England in 1776, we should remember that a same, or even greater, level of disagreement existed between members of the Continental Congress who wanted independence and those who wanted reconciliation. It was not an easy decision, nor was the outcome confirmed until the final vote was cast.

In an earlier blog post, we referred to a recent work by Richard Beeman, Our Lives, Our Fortunes and Our Sacred Honor,[ii] recounting the years 1774-1776 leading up to the July 2,1776 resolution vote for independence from England. While we haven’t started doing book reviews in FAPITCA, this one would be a good one with which to start.

Even though we all know the outcome, Beeman recounts as a good mystery writer might, how the final vote took place on the heels of great differences existing only a month before. He shows how a group of dedicated, well-meaning elected colonial representatives finally agreed to step forward and build a new nation. In the end, the two sides set aside their differences, came together in the real meaning of congress (e.g., “make decisions”), and decided that American unanimity was more important than any other alternative.

This was perhaps the most important decision America has ever taken, and the two sides figured out how to get the job done. In a meaningful way, Beeman actually describes a model for our own reconciliation between disagreeing parties today – the representatives of 1776 sought to build a nation and we need our representatives to seek to preserve a nation.

The primary inhibitor to change today is our politics and the people we elected to lead us. Rather than look at demographic change and diversity as an opportunity, they choose to see it as a threat. This is just what King George III and the Parliament of England did in the mid-1700s. They clung to the remnants of a world that was changing all around them and chose to defend that way of life rather than exploit the opportunities that diversity and change were bringing to them and indeed all of Europe at that time.

The revolution we face today is one of demographic challenges to the old ways, as Taylor notes. On the surface, we seem to have one party that is at least open to the changes, but still clings to the old ways of lobbying and lust for power and money. Further, its legislative intent is typically viewed with suspicion in terms of whether it is advancing what is good for America or only the party. They are opposed by a party that almost systemically avoids change unless it benefits a core constituency; it too is subject to the same distractions of lust for power and enrichment. In either case, power and money appear to be at the root. While not all change may be good for us, there must be national debate about change, without a power and money agenda, to intelligently discuss rather than reject it out of hand.

If we want better and more effective government at every level, we have to embrace demographic change and turn it into an energy that lets us elect and influence leaders that can see as far as the Continental Congress did.[iii] We must change ourselves and elect leaders that will guide our nation and communities towards a less divisive path that learns from the past while looking towards the future.

Where England and its political system misunderstood the demographics of the late 18^th Century, we need to learn and transform our politics to better cope. This transformation, enabled by far greater connectivity than the 18^th Century, can lead to a stronger, more diverse nation, with even greater equality of opportunity.

Originally posted by Carl and Chuck Hunt, 3/4/2014

Notes:

---

[i] PublicAffairs/Perseus Books, Philadelphia, 2014

[ii] Basic Books, New York, 2013

[iii] The authors recognize that not all members of the Continental Congress shared the same vision of the future, particularly given their disagreements. Beeman does a very nice job explaining those differences and exposing the lack of foresight of many of that original Congress. Nonetheless, the representatives possessed enough honor and commitment to the new nation that they converged on the common cause that created our nation and created a means to eventually perpetuate our nation through the next important event: The Constitutional Convention 11 years later.

Thomas Paine on Honor and the Congress

Connecting to the Principles, Part 2

Almost a year before Thomas Paine published Common Sense, he served as the editor for The Pennsylvania Magazine. He was still known as Thomas Pain, his family name, when he published a brief piece in May, 1775, about the use of titles among the aristocracy called “Reflections on Titles.”

Pain, recently emigrated from England, soon changed his name to Paine to distinguish himself as a new “American” free to write about topics that would become increasingly important to the cause of independence from Great Britain. From personal readings in high school and college of Common Sense and his other works, as well as 1776 America’s reactions to Common Sense, most Americans today know how vital Paine was to the cause.

About titles, Paine wrote “Virtue is inflamed at the violation, and sober reason calls it nonsense.” He went on to note “for when men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon” discussing what he considered to be unthinking and unchallenged acceptance of traditionally granted but unmerited title and rank.

There was one exception Thomas Paine noted about titles and their uses in “Reflections on Titles.” His words, published well before he was known in America as a writer for the cause of independence, praised one specific group in particular. “Reflections on Titles” could serve well to motivate that group’s progeny 239 years later. Paine’s observations honor the body of our nation’s founders who invested so much to create America. Note Paine’s thoughts that should inspire even today:

Modesty forbids men, separately or collectively, to assume titles. But as all honours, even that of Kings, originated from the public, the public may justly be called the fountain of true honour. And it is with much pleasure I have heard the title of Honourable applied to a body of men, who nobly disregarding private ease and interest for public welfare, have justly merited the address of The Honourable Continental Congress.

Paine wrote this brief but timely piece along with a number of other important (or at least interesting!) works that led up to Common Sense. In contrasting those who aspired to titles, mostly from his native country, he of course referred to the assemblage in Philadelphia who eventually pledged “Our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.” The words with which he praised the Continental Congress in 1775 should have inspired generations of Congresses and even state and local assemblies.

Sadly, this admiration from our nation’s past seems less fitting today.

Paine as a Connector to the Public

Paine also noted that the “public may justly be called the fountain of true honour,” an observation that suggests that it was indeed the public who must be responsible to bestow the title of “Honourable” to the Congress, then and now. As a matter of precedence, this would also suggest that the public must be intellectually capable of determining upon whom it would bestow the title of “Honourable”.

It is the general claim of Fulfilling the American Promise in the Connected Age that the public, particularly the Center, is in fact capable of bestowing this title. But one must wonder how many members of the Center today would in fact apply Paine’s definition to the current governing body of this nation.

Part of “qualifying” for the title of Honorable, to modernize the term, is an adherence to a set of principles based on our Constitution, as well as an application of “common sense.” The Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) provides an exceptional framework for governance and serves as a foundation for the principles of honorable governing.

It seems fair to say that all Americans, and certainly the Center, want the people they elect to represent them to be honorable servant-leaders of our nation. The gulf that exists between our political parties today precludes effective governing. The term “honor” is not even part of the dialogue when discussing contemporary politics at the national level. We proposed an initial set of Principles and Objectives in a recent FAPITCA piece that we feel could resolve the current dilemma, enhance the vocabulary and add value to a quest for the return to eligibility of the title “Honorable” to our governing bodies.

It’s worth noting that Thomas Paine was also a master of the connectivity of the 1770s: the accessibly readable pamphlet. He connected by delivering content that appealed to a great many people while still maintaining its intellectual essence. Paine used the language and network of the time to stimulate people to think, share and yes, be inspired to learn more and to intelligently lift America from the “Monarchical tyranny” of the British King and Parliament.

We believe the Center must also become masters of the tools of communication and learning in the current world: the Connected Age. As we noted in the Principles of FAPITCA, as “leaders of America in the 21^st Century, we must leverage the technologies of the ‘connected age’ on behalf of our people to connect and bind us rather than to divide us.” We must apply the principles and lessons from honorable men and women who have gone before us.

When the Center connects to our electoral process and ensures responsible outcomes that help unify us instead of divide us, we get closer to enabling the honor in our elected bodies Thomas Paine praised in 1775. When the Center engages and pressures elected officials to stop listening to the extremists and their lobbyists, honor returns to our political process. At that point, our elected bodies return to being of the people…for the people, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address. Our elected officials become leaders once again.

It’s our responsibility as the Center to help our leaders achieve this greatness. It would just be “common sense” to Thomas Paine.

Originally posted by Carl and Chuck Hunt, 2/28/2014

Editor’s note: The next-to-last paragraph of this post was slightly edited on 3/1/2014 for clarity.