The New Power of Example

What exactly should the United States do about places like Syria, North Korea, or Mali?  What about Egypt, Afghanistan and Iran, or the Israelis and Palestinians?  How should we respond to all the other countries in various states of turmoil?  What is in store for us in the years ahead and how can we best influence the world in a way that facilitates peace and prosperity?

There is so much we don’t know, which means we must resort to what we do know.

First, we live in a world of unprecedented complexity.  Many of the conflicts occurring in the Middle East and Africa are seemingly unresolvable, and for the United States, the past 30 years have brought home to us the costs and consequences of oversimplified approaches.   Now we know that any political or military intervention on our part is likely to be far more divisive than it is unifying, altering relationships and adding layers to the complexity.  When we choose our allies, we also choose our enemies, and a ripple effect of polarization ensues.

Second, we know that our world has become hyper-connected.  Never before has so much information been so easily available and accessible.  While in the past, information would flow as if in a canal through clearly defined and controlled channels, today that flow is more akin to the Everglades, spreading in all directions and nurturing growth.  Information is flooding societies with the credible and the incredible.  But the sheer volume of it means that both control of it and the assignment of credibility have shifted irreversibly from those who generate the information to those who receive it.  Social media has made the world social in a way that we could never have imagined. 

Yes, the level of connectivity and complexity has increased dramatically in recent years, and while technology has changed the means of communication, the methods of influencing behavior have remained basically the same for centuries.

History tells us that great leadership is both measured and defined by one’s ability to get people to do what they want them to do.  There is a broad range of tactics to influence behavior, but all of them can be distilled down to three basic methods, each with varying levels of effectiveness.

The first method is Force, which includes not only the tip of a bayonet, the implementation of regime change, or the water boarded illusion of suffocation, but the threat of these as well, including all other physical, political or economic levers to generate the desired outcome.  At its simplest, Force applies the principle of negative reinforcement, better known as the “stick”. 

The second method is Persuasion, in which the leader does not need to resort to force because they are able to communicate the intimate connection between the desired behavior and the resulting reward with such clarity that their audience is compelled to follow.  This is positive reinforcement, also known as the “carrot”. 

And finally there is Example, in which the audience simply observes and reacts in response to model behavior that is visibly beneficial.  Through their observation, they are inspired and motivated to follow without any need for either force or persuasion.  The motivating factor is neither stick nor carrot, but the individual act of will to behave in a way that will achieve a similar outcome.

What distinguishes Example from the other two methods of influence is its ability to fully respect and rely upon the will of the follower.  This very human element is completely ignored when force is being used, and subject to various communication barriers in the case of persuasion.  It is only by following an example that the will is fully empowered and exercised through the unconstrained choices of the follower.  For this reason, Example is the most powerful and sustainable means of influencing behavior.  There is no threat of a violent backlash in the case of force, and no risk of being misled in the case of persuasion.  The power of Example is enduring because the resulting behavior is entirely consensual, both individually and collectively.

Because it is dependent upon the free flow of information, Example as a means of influence has gained extraordinary power with the advent of a hyper-connected world, and perhaps the best case in point is the Arab Spring of 2011. 

With the dramatic increase in access to information, the people of Tunisia, Egypt. Libya, Bahrain and Syria, to name a few, experienced a mass recognition of a universal fact:  the extent to which a society is free determines that society’s level of opportunity, justice, respect and dignity.  The flow of rich and resonating examples – among them, the election of a black U.S. President with a Muslim name, a seminal event regardless of one’s political beliefs - overwhelmed the barriers of conventional information control and solidified the convictions of many Arab peoples that they were entitled to nothing less than the same freedoms as other countries. 

No act of force or persuasion could have sparked the Arab Spring, and only the most brutal acts of force can impede it (as we are seeing in Syria), but not forever.  The lesson for the United States is clear and reassuring:  our greatest weapon for making the world a better place is neither sword nor sanction nor coercion.    

Our greatest weapon is our Example.

This is not a new concept.  We call it the American Dream because it is tangible proof of how our values connect with happiness and prosperity, and it continues to come true every day.  Social media has given the light of Liberty the equivalent of a new million-watt bulb, and from that, the virtues of freedom and opportunity – the Example of the United States - are reaching the world’s citizens with an ever-increasing degree of impact. 

Of course, every dream does not come true and we are far from perfect.  Deficiencies like torture, decreasing educational standards and Jersey Shore are not American points of pride, and we certainly have an unacceptable share of poverty and gun violence, but no nation in the world better exemplifies the universal value of freedom and opportunity than ours. 

In contrast, when we employ force or persuasion to change behavior – as in the case of drones and sanctions that hurt the innocent, or nation-building through extended occupations – the power of Example is obscured and the resulting polarization has the unintended consequence of strengthening our enemies.  The collateral damage of a drone attack includes not just the innocent who are killed, but the suddenly indoctrinated youth who survive and vow revenge.  Our culture and values are unable to penetrate the modern day medieval societies that become increasingly isolated and fortified as a result of our use of force. 

Through Example, we can instead lay the groundwork for many of the world’s conflicts to ultimately resolve themselves.  It won’t work everywhere and it won’t work overnight, but those who cling to barbaric ways of life will inevitably be displaced by a new generation that will seek, if not demand, the basic human rights of freedom and opportunity.

This is not a pacifist strategy, but in fact an upgrade of our weapons of war to match the times.   We must recognize that the conventional methods of force and persuasion are ineffective at influencing large numbers of people.  Our global connectivity demands artillery more suited to the conquest of hearts and minds rather than land and resources, and in a complex world with intricate layers of conflict, our Example is still the best weapon the world has ever known. 

It's Time for a New NRA

Let’s call it the AFA – The American Firearms Association.  

American as a testament to American values that are embodied in the entire Constitution, not just the Second Amendment.

Firearms, rather than “Rifle” – a term that better describes the organization’s scope of responsibility. 

And as an association, the AFA would be a well-regulated non-governmental organization that is financially unaffiliated with any gun manufacturers or political parties. 

The primary purpose of the AFA would be to represent the many millions of moderate and reasonable gun owners – people whose beliefs and interests are no longer aligned with those of the NRA.  The AFA, like its predecessor, would still be a strong advocate for the right to bear arms, but with equally strong support for the types of gun control laws and limitations that promote the general welfare of the nation and ensure domestic tranquility. 

By balancing the principles of individual rights with the common good, the AFA would become the true vanguard of safe, civilized and knowledgeable ownership of guns in our country and exemplify the personal and shared responsibility that is at the heart of the Second Amendment.

Safety and responsibility would be the governing core values of the AFA, but unlike the NRA, the application of those values would extend beyond the individual gun owner to the community as a whole.  While the NRA has chosen to serve as the political proxy for the gun industry, the AFA would instead serve members and non-members alike, as a responsible stakeholder in the shared mission to reduce gun violence.  By declining donations from gun and ammunition manufacturers, the public interest of reducing violence would take precedence over the private interests of these corporations..

All gun control legislation has the potential for overreach and ineffectiveness.  Ironically, the NRA disqualifies itself from participating in the legislative process through its absolutist position – it has concluded that any and all gun control is unacceptable.  As the rational alternative, the AFA would fill this seat at the table and represent the spirit and intent of the Second Amendment on behalf of its membership throughout the process.  A moderate, reasonable and collaborative participating body is essential, and because gun owners are a broad cross section of America, the AFA’s input should be welcomed.

Of course, extremists equate “collaboration” with conspiracy, as if there isn’t already a profit-driven collaboration between the NRA and the gun industry.  The AFA is certainly at risk of corruption – particularly with the government - and managing this risk will be the job of the membership.  The association will have its best chance of becoming an effective and uncorrupted organization by relying entirely on membership fees and donations, and strictly prohibiting any financial affiliations with corporate, political or government entities. 

A consequence of this purity:  the AFA will not have enough money to spend on ads that attack the President and other gun control advocates.  But as a pragmatic representative of a major voting bloc, it won’t need to because it will already be part of the conversation.

The AFA could also serve as the facilitator and monitor of valid, meaningful research on gun usage and gun control.  With the introduction of new gun control laws, it is essential that we understand the impact of legislation through data that is unfiltered and actionable.  Unlike the NRA, the AFA would be better positioned to provide objective oversight of research that is free from the influence of companies who have a stake in how the results are presented (or whether it is presented at all). 

Could the NRA and AFA co-exist?  Of course, because the AFA would have a different mandate than the NRA.  The AFA would serve as the true guardian of the rights and principles of the Second Amendment as envisioned by our founding fathers, while the NRA will likely remain the guardian of a multi-million dollar industry. 

It is telling that the NRA had a great opportunity to provide leadership on the issues of gun control, but they chose not to.  Through cowardice, they have attributed gun violence to everything but guns, with solutions that are inevitably (and financially) tied to more guns.  Through courage, the AFA would join us in confronting gun violence with rational, meaningful advocacy and comprehensive solutions.

In this capacity, the AFA would strengthen our Constitutional right to bear arms and affirm this fundamental value – one that is and will continue to be an integral part of our history and culture.

President Obama Should Hire Newt

In the wake of the latest national cliff hanger, our shared relief is tinged with a good amount of exasperation.   We have again been caught in the crossfire of politics and endured yet another close call with impending disaster, or so we have been told. 

Either way, the dysfunction of our governing process, characterized by sometimes rabid and destructive partisanship, should serve to unite all of us in at least one belief:  we can’t go on like this.  Whether the political class can ever respond to this bipartisan sentiment is an unknown, but it is up to President Obama to lead us toward some version of a functioning government.

How to do this?  Radical change is called for, and it must begin with the elevation of pragmatism over politics.  Bringing a moderate Republican like Chuck Hagel into the inner circle is a start, but Obama should push the limits further.  He should assemble a modern-day team of rivals that challenges all conventional wisdom and diffuses the partisanship that has poisoned Washington.

He should hire Newt Gingrich

Before my fellow liberals disown me, let us first remind ourselves that we on the Left like to claim the moral high ground because we believe in placing the collective good of the country ahead of our own self-interests.  Pragmatism takes precedence over partisanship, and with that in mind, we have an obligation to consider whatever options are available to shatter the most formidable obstacle to national progress:  government inertia. 

To put it mildly, I am one of many who have been viscerally displeased with the actions and beliefs of Speaker Gingrich through the decades, but that is now irrelevant.  We are, after all, a nation of diverse perspectives and one in which no party has a monopoly on moral behavior.  The pragmatic and realistic approach dictates that we put the best minds to work on the biggest problems.  As a world-class wonk, Gingrich is poised to serve his country like never before, both in the public eye and behind the scenes.

As a special advisor to the President, Newt Gingrich could resume the work he began through his Center for Health Transformation by overseeing the nationwide standardization and migration of health records to digital formats.  His network of public-private relationships is formidable and his vision for the future of health care on several fronts is worth serious consideration by all sides.  With no political battles to wage, he can return to the policies that he has advocated in the past - those of developing comparative effectiveness research and implementing the health care mandate – approaches that are well-aligned with the current administration.

Perhaps more important are the behind-the-scenes benefits of a Gingrich-Obama collaboration.  Many of us recall the days of mutual respect across party lines, whether it be between Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan, or, to a lesser degree, Bill Clinton and Speaker Gingrich.  In both cases, progress was made, compromise was reached, and legislation passed.  Government, whether you liked it or not, worked, and the relatively collegial tone between sometimes bitter political rivals was one of the things that made our country great and powerful.  Somehow, that statesmanship must be restored, and although the irony of it is historic, Newt Gingrich, with the direct personal experience of an opposition Speaker, may be just the person to help wind down the dynamic that elevated him to national prominence.

We also can’t underestimate the symbolism and example that will be set by such a dramatic breach of partisan barriers.  President Obama would be laying claim to the moderate middle and establishing the groundwork to build alliances with other Republicans, many of whom are silently fed up with toeing an orthodox party line that has no tolerance for compromise. 

For the Speaker, the inevitable price of serving his country by going to the “other side” would mean banishment from the Tea Party and other right wing orthodoxy.  But the truth is, when it comes to our universal dissatisfaction with the workings of our government, there is no “other side”.  At least on this issue, we are all on the same side, and this is exactly the type of bold move – one that is both pragmatic and symbolic - that can shift the conversation and begin the restoration of a functioning, competent government.