~synthesis~

followings

2009-12-23T03:13:37-08:00

If you were tasked with creating a following for your company, how would you go about it?

With most projects, I'd say you start by understanding the definition of success, perhaps asking questions like: Whom do we want to "follow" us? How will we know they're "helping" us? What's the budget? What is the first milestone and when do we need to hit it? (These are variants of "what are we trying to accomplish, and how will we know when we get there?")

But that doesn't really create a following as much as it creates a marketing outcome at a given point in time. Once the effort stops, will the following live on or does it just fade away?

I think a follower is someone who prioritizes the one thing over others in a meaningful way (i.e. I'll spend less (time, money, focus, whatever) on Y because I care about X and want to put my limited energy there).

If you are looking to get a following, your intention is not to do great things, but for others to applaud your doing of great things. Your intention is flawed. You might be successful in the short term, but you will be found out eventually.

If you're a company trying to create a following in DC, you go to the Capitol with hat (read: wallet) in hand to find someone to convince of your view/need based on what that politician wants to accomplish and how you can "help" them. Your goal is one of three things - policy advocacy (help change the rules in our favor); economic advocacy (help fund our efforts); PR advocacy (help us look good).

In all these cases, the company's currency is whatever is valued by their advocates - nothing more. Once that currency stops flowing, chances are the advocacy stops flowing as well.

There's a word for that - it's called a transaction. Ethics aside, you purchased an outcome - plain and simple.

Being followed is the same as being cool - by definition, when you seek it, or seek to emulate others who have "it" your effort is fruitless. If you are true to yourself, take pride in what you do, and take actions staying true to your integrity, you are cool.

Rarely do people or companies that have a true following begin with the goal of creating one. Their relentless passion is focused on whatever greatness is their raison d'être. It's not to say that you shouldn't be savvy about managing your political risk or ensuring market or political advocacy, but if you do it without a genuine passion for that which is you, you are at risk. As Seth Godin put it, you still need to create advocates, and "coordinating a tribe ... requires patience, consistency and a focus on long-term relationships and life time value."

A political example of this comes from one of our failed politicians - Al Gore - he achieved a following for the environment by doing what he believed in and putting all his effort into telling the story that he needed to tell. He was smart not to take the bait and run for office again - doing that would be akin to Ali actually throwing that last punch when Foreman was already going down in Kinshasa. It would have been inelegant, and offended the aesthetic (or coolness) of that moment. It was at that point that I respected Gore.

If a corporation wishes to create public advocacy for their cause in the form of a following (i.e. make politicians want to help them be successful), they have to counterintuitively avoid it - something very few CEOs have the cojones to do...

the calling

2009-12-22T02:50:07-08:00

If you were on a train about to cross a bridge, would you expect the engineers that designed the trestle to know how trains work? If you were about to go into surgery, would you expect that the doctors and nurses knew how the human body worked?

When you go into a school, do you trust that the teachers know how students learn?

Greg Noack a well-regarded educator tweeted: Why is it that, the more I learn and meditate on HOW kids learn, not what they learn. The less I have in common with other teachers. This prompted David Warlick to write a post that I read, and now here I go :-):

Greg's words scare me because they suggest a classic industrial age "I just work here" mentality that I didn't think was in teachers. I have to believe that no primary/secondary teacher went into this profession for the money or the work-life balance. They went because they were called. If teaching is/was a calling for me, I think I'd want/need to be as insightful as possible on the question Greg asked. I'd expect every teacher to be that way.

David and his commenters' takes are slightly different: when most teachers were students, there was a dearth of information, today there is overload; the world (comparatively) is moving much more quickly; teachers are preparing their students for a vastly different reality from the one they know and understand.

David (and team)'s words scare me - if they really believe this then they are not the great teachers I believe them to be.

Can you think of a generation that was less complicated than the one that preceded it? Think of each successive decade from say the 1950s (I presume most practicing teachers were born in or after 1950) - can you name three things that made each decade complicated, difficult and more fraught? How about (in no particular order) the Cold, Vietnam and Gulf Wars, the Swinging 60s, the Kennedy assassinations, women's rights, civil rights, gay rights, telephones, television to name but ten? Each of these was pretty socially cataclysmic, each foretold a future dramatically different from that present. Yet we survived, and thrived.

Every dissenter is going to use the "ya-but" defense, in most cases saying that this time it's different, but let's face it - life is change, life requires change, and life relishes change. If it were not so, we'd still be living in caves.

David used these words: "We are recognizing that our students will be moving from their formal education into a world that we can hardly imagine." The future today is just as uncertain as it was yesterday; the only difference is that we know how yesterday turned out.

Sure we're all susceptible to bouts of doubt, but really, there has never been a time when teaching was not about learning, nor has there been a time when teachers knew exactly what the future held for their students.

This is the reason that we send our children to schools - to prepare them in the best way possible for whatever tomorrow comes their way. Our teachers have always done this and will need to always keep doing this. In every time there will be uncertainty - we have to prepare every child for their destinies in the best way we know how.

I think it's important to worry about whether we're up to the task for anything; but we don't make excuses, we don't just aspire to do it better, we actually work on doing it better. That's why it's a calling.

shibumi

2009-12-16T14:56:03-08:00

Shibumi is one of my favorite books - it was written by Trevanian, a brilliant author of among other things, spy stories. "Shibumi" is described on P74 of the book:

"Shibumi is understanding, rather than knowledge. Eloquent silence. In demeanor, it is modesty without prudency. In art, where the spirit of shibumi takes the form of sabi, it is elegant simplicity, it is articulate brevity. In philosophy, where shibumi emerges as wabi, it is spiritual tranquility that is not passive; it is being without the angst of becoming. And in the personality of a man, it is... how does one say it? Authority without domination."

I was in my teens when I first read this book, and like the protagonist, was immediately captivated:

"How does one achieve this shibumi, sir?"
"One does not achieve it, one ...discovers it. And only a few men of infinite refinement ever do that. Men like my friend Otake-san."
"Meaning that one must learn a great deal to arrive at shibumi?"
"Meaning, rather, that one must pass through knowledge to arrive at simplicity."

I've never been able to let go of this idea, or more appropriately, this ideal. I'm rereading the book for the nth time on a flight to Washington DC, where I will have the honor of meeting some amazing people in the world of education. As I contemplated that, I recalled a post by Scott McLeod entitled Never going to happen?:

True statement by a teacher (said with all sincerity) in one of my workshops this semester:

We’re so far behind our students. How do we catch up and move past them so that we can then teach them things they don’t know?

I don't know this for a fact, but think many teachers feel this way - implicitly behind the curve because their students have the ADD to grab at seemingly infinite sources, and empty enough minds to hold on to much of what they've found.

Great teachers, dare I say senseis, have attained shibumi. Their wisdom is not founded on the ability to store ...data. It is founded on a depth of essential understanding and a capacity for humbleness (read: open-minded acceptance) that allows them to grasp, interpret and illuminate.

I couldn't disagree more with the sentiment of Scott's post. Any teacher that views their sole ...asset as data is hopeless. Worse, they're harming their students by valuing rote over understanding, regurgitation over insight. These teachers (hopefully just victims of NCLB-mentality) must be redirected or re-schooled to properly serve their students.

The Scott McLeods (respected and visible educators) of the world need to aggressively advocate teaching proficiency - there are no other voices for this.

Teachers should not be paid based on student outcomes, instead they should be paid based on their own attainment of core and advanced teaching skills. I wrote about meeting Deborah Ball a while back, she taught me that like any profession, there are objective, clear, and assessable gradations of attainment in teaching proficiency.

While I don't expect every teacher to attain shibumi, I sure as hell expect each to understand the difference between information and learning, the difference between a capacity to spout data and the ability to find, discern, interpret, create, and communicate insight (or as my friend Larry would put it: observation, reflection, documentation, exhibition).

the war on peace

2009-12-12T12:52:36-08:00

One of our (Americans in particular) most powerful motivators is winning. From its inception, America has had to fight for what she believed, and keep fighting to achieve progress. More often than not, America won - the economy grew, its role on the world stage grew, its contribution to the sciences and entertainment grew, its ego grew, etc. It is therefore clear why this competitive instinct is so deeply-rooted in the American "system," and how it is fundamental to her approach to life, the universe and everything.

From birth to school to work to love to death, Americans view life as a zero-sum game. At birth we're competing for cutest baby, baby closest to the XXth percentile of development, etc.; next it's getting in the right schools; then the best jobs; the best girl/guy; etc. In every instance, keeping score is about besting someone else - the pie is only so big, and for us to win, others need to lose.

The competitive instinct can sometimes lead one astray - there have been many American declarations against rather unlikely foes. Some of these "Wars" include: Poverty (Johnson, 1964 - winner: poverty); Drugs (Nixon, 1969 - winner: drugs); Terror (Bush, 2001 - winner: terror); Greed (US Congress 2008/9 - winner: greed); ...

Even corporations have gotten into it - one recently declared War on Cost. If they actually win, price = free; success = bankruptcy. Not sure the shareholders will approve.

It is pretty hard to spot(!), but did you notice a trend among all these wars? Each has cost a ton of money, wasted a ton of lives, burned a ton of energy, and in every case, resulted in more of the "bad" thing than before the "war" was declared.

Hmmm...

"My fellow Americans there is a cancer among us, it is evil, it is insidious, and it is fomented by those will not stop until they have found the best in every one of us. I call upon every red-blooded American to stand with me, and in the spirit of our founding fathers who prevailed against a superior foe armed only with the power of their ideals, rise as one to combat what is surely the most diabolical axis of evil that has beset our glorious nation.

My fellow Americans - I stand before you today with pride and purpose to declare War on Peace. Peace is the most powerful foe America has ever faced, but I am confident that our relentless pursuit of failure will once again restore our faith and ensure our prosperity.

This is just the beginning - lead by Peace, this axis of evil contains two other collaborators that must also be quelled. Immediately upon losing to Peace, and in the spirit of all that is great, we will first declare War on Wellness, and then War on Education.

Thank you, God bless each and every one of you, and God bless America."

Yes we can!

redemption

2009-12-10T09:14:34-08:00

In September 2002, President Bush established a Doctrine, which among other things, stated that America will not only wage war on countries that directly and immediately threaten her, but also wage war on countries or organizations in countries that might at some point threaten her.

In December 2009, President Obama endorsed this doctrine when he announced that he would send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. Despite the fact that Afghanistan or the Taliban pose a direct or immediate threat to America. Some argue that Al Qaeda is a threat, but the consensus is that they are based in Pakistan, not Afghanistan.

So much for a different strategy with the new administration.

But this isn't really the problem. The problem is the absurdity of a "superpower" declaring war on a few hundred disaffected criminals (it's the equivalent of Apollo or Zeus or Poseidon declaring war on the four guys that maliciously starched their chitons). America didn't stop there - they called "them" evil. Intentionally or not, both Presidents Bush and Obama created a much larger "them," one spanning both a whole race (Arabs) and a whole religion (Islam). It gets worse - unlike the superpower who lords her wealth and excess over the planet, these millions of "thems" happen to be among the more impoverished on the planet - so it's kicking sand in the faces of people who are already buried up to their necks.

If you're a sports fan and someone from a rival team thoroughly insults "your guys," are you angry? Do you want to get even, pray that your team beats the crap out of theirs? Yes, but you're not going to take a gun and actually attack their players, you've got too much to lose.

Imagine if you were one of "these people" (poor, without education, without hope) and you were dissed as roundly and viscerally as America just did - the insult wasn't just to your sports team, it was to your religion, your very way of life, your family, and your heritage. How would you react? How would you react with literally nothing to lose?

Now imagine you're a well-funded ~200-person organization looking for recruits to help reassert "our pride and honor against those arrogant infidels that have called our race and religion a cancer, and maliciously killed our women and children." Don't you think that if you offer them a chance for "respect" (not unlike what gang bangers offer young children in many American cities), and give them money to feed and educate their families, that they'd happily join up even if it was (literally) a suicide mission?

For the last eight years, America has wasted more than $210 billion vainly attempting to "eradicate evil" - an evil (Taliban) she helped create and arm when the Soviets invaded not so long ago. Now they will double down with new troops, and activate a strategy of, are you ready for this - training and arming local militias!!!

Jeez! Can we be any dumber than this??

Has anyone ever successfully created peace, democracy and good will by training and arming small communities of testosterone-filled destitute, tribal warriors??

What if instead of giving them a reason and capacity to kill, we gave them a reason and capacity to live? What if the United States worked with other developed nations to create a multi (say 10)-year trade agreement with Afghanistan where their crops (all but opium) were bought by "western" countries at premium prices - one that made it worthwhile for Afghans to put down their guns and ammo, and pick up their hoes and fertilizer? What if we provided them with tools and resources to create more arable land (irrigation, soil improvement, seeds, etc.)? What if we helped each community that was interested build a local cooperative from whom we would buy products?

The next two years are expected to cost Americans ~$100+ billion/year. Let's instead spend that money (along with $$ from other wealthy countries) to overpay for agricultural products. Let's help Afghanis develop the means (over time) to sell their products competitively. Let's give the people of Afghanistan a reason to live and a means to care for their families, and a sense of self-worth that makes it impossible for any terrorist organization to lure new recruits.

Surely this is a truer path towards peace and a self-determined society?

Y-shmy

2009-12-01T10:14:18-08:00

I've been reading a lot lately about people who are trying to figure out ways to connect with and engage the Gen Y demographic (I've been reading even more about "consultants" that are "available" to "help" with this). Managers and business leaders (certainly HR people) are worried about recruiting, creating effective working conditions, making them happy, etc. There is a projected shortfall of millions of teachers with more than 40% expected to retire in five years (other industries have similar data); Harvard Business Publishing posted an article on low-cost approaches to motivating employees.

I wasn't around then, but was this type of thing discussed (albeit not blogged or twittered) when the baby boomer generation was about to hit the workforce? Were employers at the time worried about how that generation would be recruited, create outcomes and be happy? Were they worried at that time about potential staffing shortfalls in some industry? I think so.

In the end, what happened to all the Gen-Hippies? Did they fundamentally alter the work environment or recruiting or employee morale?? Not so much.

If you're employed (like I am), there is only ONE reason you go to work every day. This one reason is universal to everyone who is employed - whether its is at Microsoft or GM or McDonalds or the White House. And we all know for a certainty that if this one thing stops, we stop working - no ifs ands or buts.

We work because they pay us.

I don't care whether you are Gen Hippie, Gen X, Gen Y, or Gen Purple - if you don't have money and want to earn some, a job is required, and money is conveyed in exchange for work done. That's the bottom line.

If I were "consulting" employers on how to lure any candidate (irrespective of demographic) to come work for me, I would offer this employee perspective:

We go to work because we're paid. We enjoy work because we care. We thrive in the workplace because you care.

If you have the cash flow to make payroll, the first is easy. The second is self-selection combined with a belief that good work is being done. It is about the purpose of the organization and how it is conveyed - a barista at your local coffee shop has purpose, as does the assembly line worker at an auto manufacturer, as does a software engineer at a high-tech firm. It boils down to having a clear link between the mission of the company and the actions of each employee; it boils down to clarity about each job and its contribution. If a company is well run, one of the signs is employees that care about what they do.

Seth Godin said you have to watch the money to gauge a person's belief in the work they do - that's a great "indicator" of genuineness. When you're a leader, you have to go further.

The third sentence is about management's authentic commitment to greatness. You can smell that a mile away, and you can absolutely tell when it's being faked. You know when it's proxied through HR practices, and you know when the "all-hands" communications sent out by the leader are crafted by HR and PR.

Authentic commitment to greatness requires leaders to care - it requires leaders to be transparent and accountable, and it requires absolute integrity.

If you need HR and predatory consultants to "help" you understand people - perhaps it's because you've stopped being one yourself.

overclocked

2009-11-30T01:35:08-08:00

Have you noticed how much e-stuff you have? How much you depend on all that e-stuff? How much the e-stuff dictates your behavior?

I was giving a speech recently and among other things, talked about how significantly electronicization has altered power consumption. There was this article I read in 2003 that said the average freshman at the University of Miami needed 18 power outlets in their dorm room! As part of a renovation of residences, the University actually had to add new power substations to accommodate the students' hunger!

I'm guessing today's student may need less plugs but more power - if it were me, I'd need 6 - iMac (music, video, work), external speakers, laptop, iPhone/iPod (shared), headset, oh and my toothbrush.

Overclocking is the equivalent of giving your computer steroids to increase its throughput. If you go too far, you can harm the circuitry, and potentially trash the PC. What's the human equivalent?

You know you're overclocked when you're wishing you had your phone so you can check email or play a game while waiting in line, or at the gas station filling up your car. You know you're overclocked when you have to check texts and emails when you're having a drink with a friend and they've popped off to the bathroom. You know you're overclocked when you dim your phone so you can play without disturbing others while watching a movie.

I admit to the first two, but not the third :-).

Are our bodies able to cope with the increased electro-magnetic radiation? What about our minds? We now have many (too many) business processes but not enough time to process things. There is value to reflection - it is how we change minds, grasp concepts, and create a shared vision. Reflection is also how we question things; it is how we are able to look at things from alternate perspectives; it is how we move from reacting instinctively (which is all you can do when you don't have time) to reacting purposefully, to changing outcomes ...profoundly.

We intentionally create pressure situations - in the corporate world they call these "forcing functions" - creating faux crises that require rapid response. The result has no choice but to be evolutionary, gradual if any improvement and largely the same old thing in a new PowerPoint template - because there's no time for anything profound. Without the time to change minds, new ideas can't gel, be socialized and convince others.

There is absolutely a place for rapid-fire reactions and quick decision-making - this is a big part of getting things done. BUT you can't expect every decision to be made this way. Briefly overclocking a business is good when reacting to a crisis or capitalizing on an opportunity, but like any computer that's treated this way, the longer you do it, the greater the risk of burnout.

The obvious damage is falling ever deeper in a rut and ironically losing that very competitive edge; the collateral damage is people burnout - you only have to look articles like this or this to see that the American worker is overclocked - they're afraid of being viewed as redundant so they don't take vacations; they don't have time to reflect and be energized so they can't conceive to catalyze revolutions (or even evolutions); and worst of all, they make big decisions rashly, and end up paying the piper at some point in the future. Constraining broad thinking (or as Seth Godin put it, getting meta) is what prevents us from really grasping a situation and doing something about it.

In the end though, I think the e-stuff is a red herring; we've overclocked ourselves in response to a ...desperation to get things done, to build and sell more widgets, and to own more crap. This ideal is not ideal. It is impales us in a self-imposed rat race, and removes us from the social, reflective, connected (dare I say actualized) world in which we ought to live. We've lost our ability to exercise a modicum of control over our own actions, and achieved an inability to exercise the instinctive urge to sit back and think...

republican prime - reinvention

2009-11-26T00:22:55-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

anti ex parte party

2009-11-22T19:39:28-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

spoiler alert

2009-11-19T01:16:50-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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