Tag: community resilience

Featured

The Empire Strikes Back, or, Revenge of the Woke

This country is never going to move forward unless we end Republican rule in the House and Senate. ~ Bernie Sanders

In this series, I am presenting scenarios that represent possible Futures. In the last post of this series – the Triumph of the Trads – I laid out a “high resilience” scenario. This scenario was based on a resurgence of more traditional American values, and the muting of “woke-ness.” This post is thus the inverse of the previous ones.

In this scenario, President Biden and Vice President Harris are re-elected in 2024. Shortly after the election, a highly embarrassing on-screen moment leads the Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment. President Biden then resigns, admitting that his downward spiral is irreversible; within months he dies.

Harris becomes President at a difficult time. While the Democrats have won the White House and the House of Representatives, the Republicans have won the Senate, making it difficult to ram through legislation. The Russian-Ukraine war is dragging on. China has stepped up its provocations against Taiwan. While Hamas has been destroyed, Iran has found other ways to ratchet up its proxy war against Israel. And the border crisis rolls on.

The Sestercentennial celebrations in 2026 are marred by protests (many violent) and a variety of demands that all have some form of “social justice” in common. More disturbingly, in 2027, the BRIC counties band together to knock the US dollar off its perch as the global reserve currency. As a result, the cost of imports skyrockets, resulting in stagflation – high inflation and a jump in unemployment – in 2029.

The President counters all of this by

  • Colluding with the media to hide or obfuscate all of the potential bad news;
  • By Executive Order, directing federal departments to establish Offices of Information Management to “counter the flow of mis- or disinformation;”
  • Setting up a new office in the Department of Justice to aggressively pursue those who “knowingly spread mis- or disinformation.”

As a result, American free speech becomes something like that in Scotland under its Hate Crime Act. You can say anything you want, but it is likely that you’ll be prosecuted if someone is offended, especially if that someone is a federal bureaucrat.

In 2028, things take a turn for the worse – in a lightning raid, China seizes Taiwan before we can even mobilize our naval forces. This is barely mentioned by the mainstream media, but it is a rude awakening for our allies. NATO effectively splinters; Ukraine falls; in spite of US opposition, Israel bombs the Iranian nuclear sites touching off a major war in the Mid-east.

The 2028 Presidential election finds Governor Newsom of California against Governor DeSantis of Florida. In October, DeSantis suddenly withdraws because his wife’s cancer recurs. This means that the Republicans are not on the ballot in several states and Newsom wins. As a result, he begins to implement what had been done in California in the rest of the country.

Ballot harvesting becomes the Law of the Land. Illegal immigrants are given the right to vote in federal elections. In the 2030 elections, the Democrats win control of both houses of Congress. In 2032, Newsom is reelected, and the Democrats win supermajorities in both the Senate and the House, realizing Bernie Sanders’ Dream. As in California, only “woke” opinions are allowed – Congress passes and Newsom signs a law that makes it illegal to say anything that offends anyone of any protected class.

After being reelected, Newsom is faced with the potential insolvency of Medicare and Social Security. He solves the former by replacing Medicare with a new National Health System. He replaces Social Security with a Universal Guaranteed Income. He pays for the latter by seizing the bank accounts of everyone worth $400,000 or more.

This scenario is perhaps the worst for communities. They are under extreme stress. Those economies that have relied on exports find that their products are no longer cost-competitive. Under this scenario, any brakes on the federal bureaucracies are effectively eliminated. The federal government effectively decides what communities can and cannot do in the face of Wild Things. Instead of a Culture of Accomplishment, communities take on a Zero Sum mentality (like the South after the Civil War) – no one can gain anything unless everyone does. The quality of life in our communities tanks!

This is the “Low Resilience” scenario. Communities have few resources, much less say in how they can be used, and a polity best characterized as cynical and full of resentment.

My personal view? Our country now stands at a crossroads looking at signposts toward the Future. One signpost points to the Triumph of the Trads: a reaffirmation of the American Dream – a government and a society that functions as if people – you, I, our kids, all of us – matter. It points to a country that provides plenty of opportunities to achieve our dreams, and in return asks only that we respect each other’s aspirations.

Another signpost is toward a land of supposed equity – the Revenge of the Woke. No one can advance unless all do. A country willing to be mired in mediocrity that not only disrespects our aspirations but actually seems to fear those who dare to Dream.

There is another road leading off from the crossroads into a dark forest that has no signpost, one that finds us muddling through without a coherent direction. In the next in this series, we’ll look at a “Muddling Through” scenario.

Featured

Triumph of the Trads

The vision recurs; the eastern sun has a second rise; history repeats her tale unconsciously, and goes off into a mystic rhyme; ages are prototypes of other ages, and the winding course of time brings us round to the same spot again.

— A N Mouravieff

In this series, I am presenting scenarios that represent possible Futures. Each Future is not intended to be an end state. Instead, each is a possible way station in our country’s evolution about a decade from now. My goal is not to write a history of each Future but rather to point to plausible paths that could lead us to that Future – looking for its “mystic rhymes” in our history. Unfortunately, politics will impinge on each scenario, but I will try to be as non-partisan as possible.

I call this first way station the “Triumph of the Trads,” signaling a resurgence of more traditional American values: family, community, civility and hope. The voice of “woke-ness” is muted, not silenced. As in the late ‘50s and early ‘60s there is dissent, but it is now more couched in aspirational terms, echoing Dr King: calling on our better angels to surpass what we have been, calling for evolution not revolution.

Oddly enough, this scenario starts with the election of Trump to the Presidency (His braggadocio and bluster are perhaps a better reflection of our current state than we’d like to admit.). His 2024 Presidential campaign captures an unparalleled number of minority and blue collar voters, overcoming Biden’s advantage among college-educated voters. Trump immediately begins a concerted effort to trim our bloated bureaucracies. He proceeds with his now-customary chaotic fits and starts, punctuated by the media’s predictions of dire consequences. But there is a definite shift toward a leaner, more competent, federal government.

In 2026, we celebrate the 250th anniversary of our independence. Planning has gone on for over a decade for celebrations across the country. There is a veritable orgy of patriotic fervor, and a renewed dedication on the part of many to the principles enunciated so well in the Declaration of Independence. Although there are protests, the anniversary celebrations are wildly successful. This is in part due to a surge in religious feeling and churchgoer attendance. Overall, a feeling of something like hope starts to bloom across most of the country.

However, barely after the confetti has been swept up, ill health forces Trump to hand the reins to his Veep. His selection as Vice-President is very significant in this Future. Trump has chosen a younger person of color with an inspiring family story, emphasizing personal effort and grit. The now-President is almost an embodiment of the American Dream.

Seldom have the Man and the Moment been so well-met. The new President builds on the bursts of patriotism to begin to rebuild bipartisanship in Congress. Both parties follow his lead in consciously turning down the rhetorical heat. This stands him in good stead in his second term when he gets Congress to pass dramatic reforms to both Medicare and Social Security, assuring their solvency.

During his first term, non-college-educated workers regain the upward income trajectory they enjoyed prior to the pandemic. Inflation is tamed. His second election campaign signals the completion of the realignment of the political parties. The working class coalition that was so important in getting Democrats elected in the 20th Century is no longer a voting bloc the Dems can rely on. In fact, joining with small business owners, they tend to vote cultural issues rather their pocket books, reject “woke-ism,” and vote Republican especially in the 2028 and 2032 elections. The Democratic party is now led by Big Business (esp. Big Tech), academia, the cultural elites and those living in big cities (but whose populations continue to decrease).

The President also uses the Bully Pulpit as well as the Department of Education to advance policies aimed at encouraging diversity of viewpoints. The University of Chicago’s principles serve as the basis. Incidents of viewpoint discrimination are much less frequent, though there are pockets of resistance.

When the President leaves office on January 20, 2037, his successor rightly characterizes him as “everyone’s friend, but nobody’s fool.” Economically, the country is the strongest it’s been in the last quarter century. This is helped by demographics: as the Baby Boomers pass, less of our budget has to go toward their entitlements and pensions. In foreign affairs, the President has steered a careful course. His State Department has extended the Abraham Accords to include Saudi Arabia. China has continued to claim Taiwan, but his Cabinet has greatly decreased the nation’s dependence on China for precious metals and electronics. The standoff in Ukraine has been resolved.

Perhaps his greatest legacy, however, is a turn toward civility in the country. He is not a very flamboyant person, but after the Sturm und Drang of Trump-Biden people find that they kind of like “boring.” The positive economy and the downturn in the volume of political rhetoric also have important implications for communities.

In this scenario, communities find what is probably their most positive Future. The financial stress due to pensions is largely relieved. The economic gains of their members translate into increased business activity and tax revenues. The trimmed federal government empowers them to do more for themselves. The rebirth of civility in civic affairs means that they can actually accomplish more – compromise is easier when everyone can get something they want. For many communities this leads to an enhanced “Culture of Accomplishment” – a confidence that the people living there can make good things happen. As a result, the quality of life in a majority of communities is improved, though some still stumble (There’s no cure for bad governance!).

In short, this scenario is actually the “High Resilience” scenario – more resilient families and individuals living in more resilient communities. In a sense, this is sort of an outlier – probably a low probability of occurrence from where we are now. Many things need to break right for it to happen. But that’s one of the benefits of working through scenarios – we can take conscious action to go after those we deem more positive, and try to mitigate the more negative.

In my next post, I’m going to interrupt this series to look at some interesting data relating to corruption. Following that, I’ll resume this series with “The Empire Strikes Back.”

Featured

The Coming Crisis: A New Age Now Begins

What rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

William Butler yeats

In my previous “Coming Crisis” post, I presented evidence from a variety of sources that we are approaching a tipping point that will profoundly impact our lives and our communities. In this and the next few posts, I’ll provide a sort of answer to Yeats’ question: what the crisis (the rough beast) will be; what its aftermath will be.

Why do I say a “sort of answer?” Because I will lay out what they might be, rather than what they will be. Our communities and, indeed, our societies are complex adaptive systems. One of the great paradoxes of these systems is that while we can explain their past, we cannot predict their future very well. In general, the path a community takes is deterministic – if we know the cause, we can predict its effect and vice versa. However, a community’s interdependencies and path dependence prevent us from accurately predicting how a community may evolve in a time of turbulence – too many causes pulling in competing directions. And in this case, we cannot even predict the nature of the coming crisis very well. There are too many trends and counter-trends swirling around so that our crystal balls are permanently clouded!

What we can do, however, is develop scenarios representing possible futures and then gauge how our communities will be impacted. While there is an infinite variety of scenarios, there are some simple rules to follow in developing one. First and foremost, it has to be plausible: there has to be a clear path of cause and effect – “and then a miracle occurs” is not allowed. It also should be consistent with current trends; it may accentuate one or more, but needs to explain why the Conservation of Momentum has been disrupted. This implies that a useful scenario is based on (and acknowledges) a set of plausible assumptions about its starting point and the relative strength of existing trends.

In this series of posts, I’m going to create four scenarios and look at their impact on our communities. As a foretaste:

  • The Triumph of the Trads. The current social war is eventually resolved in a return to more traditional values.
  • The Empire Strikes Back. The “Empire,” i.e., the Establishment, take away whatever victories the Trads have won, and the US becomes even more like Canada under Trudeau. The CCP succeeds in brainwashing our kids and the US becomes hyper-isolationist. The Common Man and Woman are faced with head-spinning changes depending on who’s being paid by whom. Our kids aren’t reading – but are living – 1984.
  • Muddling Through. We stay poised on a knife’s edge, “a bug looking for a windshield” (HT John Mauldin) but never finding it. No one really wins.
  • The Age of Scarcity. We’re way too close for comfort to this. Our depleted arsenals, our Woke military, and flabby (both physically and mentally) youth mean that a military loss (e.g., to China) would be too likely. Our unpayable debt will continue to eat up an increasing portion of our tax revenue. And the American Dream becomes something of a nightmare. Our kids get to relive the Depression like their Great Grandparents did. Social Justice Warriors starve along with the rest of us.

To set the stage for the following posts, I want to highlight the trends that will help to shape my scenarios (and potentially our future).

  • Millennials displacing Gen X-ers (and Baby Boomers), or in Neil Howe’s terms, Heroes displacing Nomads. The coming crisis is likely to have social, economic and political aspects. The Heroes will have to resolve them.
  • Underlying this transfer of power is a potentially more important trend – the passing of the Baby Boomers. The largest generation in history is slowly “shuffling off this mortal coil.” Our outsized impacts on everything from culture to the welfare state will live on. However, our outsized portion of the federal budget impacting Medicare and Social Security’s solvency will slowly disappear.
  • Our current “government by experts” is revealing just how inept its experts are. It is being assailed across the spectrum from the Far Left to the Far Right. Too many blinkered Hedgehogs, too few far-seeing Foxes. Adding to our political instability is the over-production of potential elites, each competing for power, leading to omni-directional distrust.
  • An underlying trend that is receiving far too little attention is the search for meaning. A result of each of the great crises of our past is some form of a spiritual revival, whether religious (after the Civil War and the Spanish Flu Pandemic) or cultural (the “Age of Aquarius” after Viet Nam). The unreasoning dogmatism of the climate cultists and of the Far Woke is similar to the Inquisition’s rigidity in their mindsets. I often think that Savonarola and Kendi would be kindred spirits.
  • Finally, I think it is important to recognize the similarities between the 1920’s and the 2020’s. The Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918-19 had profound impacts on the “Roaring Twenties” just as Covid had had on our own ’20’s.

Some of these will seem silly to some of you; they may all be unlikely (although Muddling Through seems quite possible). The important thing is that developing scenarios such as these can prepare us for the Future’s uncertainties; can point us toward safer paths; and can lead us, and our communities, to greater resilience.

Featured

The Coming Crisis

History does not repeat itself, but it sometimes rhymes.

Attributed to Mark Twain

Eighty years ago, our nation’s armies and the world were being savaged by World War II’s dogs of war. Eighty years before that, the country was in the midst of our Civil War. Eighty years before that – almost exactly 240 years ago – the Treaty of Paris ending our Revolutionary War was signed. Do you see a disturbing pattern here?

Mark Twain’s “rhymes” are the patterns that prophets use to foretell the future. Over the last few months, John Mauldin has collated predictions based on historical patterns that indicate that the next ten years may well be more tumultuous than any of us have seen before in our lives. These come from three very different perspectives: one demographic, one geopolitical and the other historical. Independently, William White has observed that we are passing from an Age of Plenty to an Age of Scarcity. A crisis is coming, with potentially profound impacts on our communities. In this post, I’ll look at the patterns that point to crisis. In the next, I’ll offer two different possible futures that the coming crisis might lead to. I’ll also offer some thoughts on how the coming crisis might impact our communities.

Neil Howe focuses on generations and their characteristics. He sees a cycle of 80 years, roughly corresponding to the human life span. A generation of Nomads is followed by Heroes, then Artists and Prophets. Each generation is born during a 20-year period; each dominates affairs in their later middle age (40-60), and then begins yielding to the next generation. This change from one generation to the next is called a Turning.

Heroes must deal with the great crises of their times. They are the ones who fought and won our Nation’s independence from Great Britain. They are the ones who preserved the Union and ended slavery. They are the Greatest Generation who won World War II. Artists watched their Hero-parents struggle through crisis, but are powerless to act. As a result, they are risk-averse conformists. Their times tend to be relatively calm and crisis-free. Prophets reap the advantages – and the disadvantages – of never knowing a real crisis. They tend to be focused on cultural and moral issues (e.g., the ‘60s), and – most importantly – set the stage for the next crisis. They are followed by the Nomads, pragmatists who are suspicious of bureaucracies of any form. Because they have few connections and trust only themselves, crises brought on by the Prophets tend to fester when Nomads are in power. It is up to the next generation of Heroes to resolve them.

According to Howe, we are now in the Fourth Turning – Gen X (Nomads) giving way to the Millenials (Heroes). It started with the Great Recession, and should reach its culmination around 2030. Going back to the 15th century, Fourth Turnings have been times of crisis and upheaval. They were often violent, but more importantly, have each resulted in social upheaval. To quote Mauldin, “This major upheaval doesn’t have to include war, or at least the calamitous shooting wars of past cycles. Hopefully. But anyone who thinks the current cultural antagonisms, rabid partisanship, unrealistic expectations, geopolitical turmoil, and the staggering accumulation of debt will end with a whimper isn’t paying attention.”

George Friedman, one of the preeminent observers of the geopolitical scene, has observed an 80-year institutional cycle and a 50-year socioeconomic cycle in our nation’s history, starting in 1783. A crisis occurred at the peak of each cycle; for the first time, those peaks coincide. That implies the coming crisis will be both an institutional and a socio-economic one. Again, to quote Mauldin, “it seems likely we will face social crisis, economic breakdown, and structural political change—all at the same time.”

Friedman sees our increased longevity and reduced reproduction as fueling the crisis. We have an increasing number of elderly consumers, spending their own savings (and pensions – in some cases) as well as their Social Security benefits, and Medicare for health care. In principle, Social Security and Medicare are supported by taxes on workers, but fewer births means that the number of workers supporting each older American has almost halved – falling from 6 in 1980 to slightly more than 3 now. And the ratio is continuing to decrease – this is not sustainable!

Friedman points out that the last institutional crisis – dealing with the post-World War II world – was solved by transitioning to “government by experts.” In the post-war world, our experts were truly heroes. George Marshall shepherding Europe’s economic recovery. Lewis Strauss forming the “Atoms for Peace” program. Eisenhower championing the Interstate Highway System, and many others.

However, we currently are awash in “experts” seemingly more adept at bureaucratic gamesmanship than solving our problems. As I’ve previously noted, the economists at the Federal Reserve are largely responsible for the widening gulf between rich and poor. It is clear that the masking and lockdown “guidance” from the “experts” at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was, at the least, misguided. And the remote learning foisted upon us by the “experts” in the educational establishment will continue to wreak havoc on the futures of our disadvantaged youth, perhaps for generations.

Peter Turchin is a Ph.D. zoologist, who founded the field of cliodynamics. He and his colleagues have focused on the study of state formation and collapse, compiling a database that spans virtually all of recorded history. Using mathematical models to test trends, he concluded that

“when a state, such as the United States, has stagnating or declining real wages (wages in inflation-adjusted dollars), a growing gap between rich and poor, overproduction of young graduates with advanced degrees, declining public trust, and exploding public debt, these seemingly disparate social indicators are actually related to each other dynamically. Historically, such developments have served as leading indicators of looming political instability. In the United States, all of these factors started to take an ominous turn in the 1970s. The data pointed to the years around 2020 when the confluence of these trends was expected to trigger a spike in political instability.”

Turchin has noted that as societies age, they naturally evolve into a state of inequality. An elite forms, based on wealth and education, which directs the actions of the commoners. Turchin sees this as a power imbalance. Over time, the gap between the two widens leading to the commoners becoming what Turchin calls “immiserated,” no longer able to work to achieve the advantages of being in the elite. As an aside, before the pandemic, data indicated that social mobility – the rate of socio-economic “churn” – had significantly slowed, consistent with Turchin’s slowly building crisis. The decreasing life expectancy of lower middle class white men is also in line with Turchin’s view of immiseration.

According to Turchin, over time the elites over-produce – a group of educated potential elites, who are without power, and in danger of slipping into immiseration. It is at this point that the crisis arises as there is a competition between the elites and these counter-elites. As Turchin points out, the crisis often turns violent and rarely turns out well for the society as a whole.

One more negative pointer – William White sees the global economy moving from an Age of Plenty” to an “Age of Scarcity.” He believes that its systemic instability (high public and private debt, geopolitical turbulence, declining workforce worldwide, restricted energy supplies due to fears of climate change, …) are leading to political instability, that is being exacerbated by the distrust in established institutions.

To add my personal viewpoint, this omni-directional distrust seems to be the one “belief” that currently unites Americans of all political persuasions. A Turchin might point to the CDC’s botched handling of the pandemic. A Friedman might point to Biden’s timid attempts to prevent the Russo-Ukrainian War. A White might point to the Fed’s fiddling with the economy that has exacerbated the wealth gap between rich and poor. But universal distrust in our institutions has become the hallmark of our age.

None of us can predict how all of this will play out. we can only postulate a range of futures. It may be my own personal idealism, but I believe that our future path will depend on how we resolve this lack of trust in our institutions and ourselves. In the next post, I’ll spin out two scenarios of how these crises might be resolved, and their impacts on our communities.

Featured

Five Pillars of Community Resilience

Optimism is a strategy for making a better future. Because unless you believe that the future can be better, you are unlikely to step up and take responsibility for making it so.

Noam Chomsky

The other week, Claire Rubin sent me a link to an article from Beaumont resilience training – Here’s How to Use Resilience to Move out of Your Comfort Zone. The author – Laura Ponting – focuses on the personal growth of the individual, but her “five pillars” seem to fit well with my own conception of community resilience as a springboard for growth – development or strengthening – of a community, i.e., for making a community more Future-fit.

I apologize to Ms Ponting – I’m reorganizing her order to suit my [sometimes – often?] warped logic. I’ve also taken some of her words out of context, to help make my points. I’m also couching this in terms of systems; after all, communities are first and foremost complex adaptive systems (CASs). I’ll also use the Seven Community Capitals as a way to clarify some of my points.

First Pillar: Purpose. Future-fitness – growing in strength and capability – requires not just action, but purposeful action. Action — to strengthen the individual or the community. Since a community is only successful if it provides the quality of life its members want, the purpose of becoming more resilient is to safeguard that quality of life, and to improve it if possible. This is often called a vision; the community’s conception of what that stronger community will be. The community as a whole has to buy into that vision, or else it is likely that it won’t be realized.

In particular, this requires cultural capital. A common language to describe and understand that future state. A common self-confidence that breeds optimism. As Chomsky implies, without that confidence and the optimism it engenders, the community won’t work together to achieve it.

Second Pillar: Self-awareness. “Know Thyself” is not just an inscription on a Greek temple; it is the zero-th step for any community plan. For the community as a system, self-awareness means knowing who its members are. It means knowing how they are connected – or not. It means knowing the “balances” in each of its capital accounts, and the constraints or limits on the use of each capital. Most importantly, it means that the community’s leaders know how to make decisions and take action (human and institutional capital).

Third Pillar: Mindfulness. “Mindfulness” for a community equates to situational awareness. Communities as systems are in dynamic environments, with trajectories conditioned by both internal and external forces. “Mindful” communities recognize not only where they’re headed, but the forces that are driving them. The fine people at ResOrgs in NZ consider situational awareness one of the four enablers of effective crisis strategic planning.

Situational awareness rests on the community’s social capital. It requires “ears to the ground” within the community to gauge the community’s mood and its ability to move. Situational awareness also requires linchpins keenly tuned in to sources of information outside the community. They can warn the community about new sources of stress and alert the community to unexpected opportunities.

Fourth Pillar: Self-care. As individuals, we know we have to take care of ourselves. We exercise (well, some of us do). We have physicals to tell us whether we’re overweight, have high blood pressure, are pre-diabetic or any of the other warning signs the doctor looks for. And if we’re wise, we take action to avoid further damage to our vitality.

The same holds true for our communities. We know that if we fail to maintain our homes or our physical and natural infrastructure, they may be damaged in a severe storm, or even collapse from neglect. But the same holds true for our “softer” infrastructures.
• our community’s culture that, at its best, brings us together and gives us the confidence to act;
• our community’s social networks that enable us to communicate with each other, and – in times of crisis – tell us where resources are needed;
• our community’s economy that provides us with the financial capital to take action.

And just as we as individuals have physicals to point out where action is indicated to strengthen us, so too should we in our communities be aware of those signs that point out that action is needed. More frequent maintenance of physical systems, rising crime, a fraying social fabric, or growing poverty each are indicative of the need for “self-care” for our communities.

Fifth Pillar: Positive relationships. Ms Ponting couches this in terms of finding people to support us, esp. as we strive to better ourselves. The same holds true – in spades – for communities. It is simply a reflection of the economy of scale. The more resources we can bring together, the more we can do. If we work smartly (after all, two heads are better than one) we can make our communities more functional and better places to live for all of us.

But there are also traps for the unwary in this. First, “working smartly.” If we let ideology overrule reality, in other words if we don’t couple Purpose and Mindfulness/Situational Awareness, then we may actually harm our community. The debacles that so many of our big cities have become – crime, filth in the streets, the ugliness of the hopeless homeless – are monuments to failed ideologies not rooted in reality.

The second trap seems to be endemic in our age of “engagement.” Even the best of ideas can die the death of a thousand cuts in a committee. When egos are engaged, everyone wants to see a little of themselves in what’s done. That leads to inefficiencies and sometimes even alters the idea so much that it no longer supports the Purpose.

A third trap is the difficulty in overcoming the distrust and mistrust that seems to be endemic in our not-so-civil civil life. It sometimes seems that no one has the authority to act but everyone has veto power over any action. Relationships ultimately are grounded in trust. In our age, however, Trust has become a rare commodity. Thus, building positive relationships particularly in our polarized polity is not for the faint of heart.

Five Pillars for strengthening us as individuals; Five Pillars to move our communities toward a better and more secure future. That should be our Purpose. Achieving the Purpose has to be grounded in self- and situational-awareness, so we can set a realistic path from today to that better tomorrow. As we advance upon that path we must maintain those strengths we rely on to move forward – self-care. And if we can find willing partners to support us, these positive relationships can help us to advance more rapidly.

Featured

Our Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –

Declaration of Independence

This week the US celebrates its founding. The date chosen commemorates the signing of our Declaration of Independence from Great Britain. This document is arguably the most important written in the English language in the last 250 years. Its ringing words sparked our own and the French revolutions. It voiced the aspirations of the voiceless around the world yearning for a better life.

And let there be no mistake – it is truly an aspirational document. It articulates a vision of what our nation should be. Our Founding Fathers were all too aware that government formed by Man cannot be perfect; our Constitution with its checks and balances is their attempt to protect our “inalienable rights.” I believe all of them recognized their society’s failings; Slavery – America’s original sin – chief among them. Three quarters of a million died as part of our national penance to expiate and exterminate this sin. The Declaration and the Constitution established an aspirational culture in our country that continues to be a magnet attracting those from other countries who want to have a piece of the American Dream.

However, we now live in a world in which many Americans are questioning those aspirations and would have us deem the American Dream a nightmare. Some want to subvert our aspirational culture and deny the importance of the rights so many have sought and so many have fought to ensure.

This battle of conflicting visions of our future is being fought at the national level, in our state capitals, and in our communities. It has profound implications for our resilience at each of these levels. And while Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Livingston and Sherman didn’t use that term, I think it’s important to examine the impact of the Declaration on our resilience.

First and foremost, the Declaration is about “Rights.” In our highly polarized politics at the national level, both sides claim to be for “Freedom,” although they seem to be worlds apart in what they think Freedom is. To me, our Bill of Rights – inspired by the Declaration – lays out an excellent definition of our Rights, especially in the First Amendment. We must be free to believe as we wish and to express those beliefs. We must be free to peaceably assemble. In the Constitution, these are couched in terms of prohibiting the federal government from denying these rights. But it is just as important that we recognize that no individual or group has the right to abridge those freedoms either. “Cancel culture” does not exist in a society that values freedom.

But – in more subtle ways – the Declaration also speaks to Freedom’s homely twin – Responsibility. In the Declaration, the Founding Fathers talk about the duty of the people to “take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them” (to wax Shakespearean). The Declaration also states that the colonists have reached out to their fellow citizens in Great Britain, implying a responsibility of citizens to support each other.

This theme is also hidden in the famous phrase “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” This was originally the more prosaic “Life, liberty and property” borrowed from John Locke. Jefferson changed this based on another of Locke’s essays in which the pursuit of happiness is seen as the antithesis of today’s “don’t think twice, it’s all right” culture. Rather, in Locke’s (and apparently Jefferson’s) view, the pursuit of happiness was not chasing whatever “feels good now,” but rather thinking in terms of what is best overall. In other words, seeking the timeless rather than the timely. In the Federalist papers, both Madison and Hamilton referred to this as social happiness.

Today, many question the Declaration and its worth. They assert that the Founding Fathers’ conceptions were necessarily corrupted by their owning of slaves. They assert that so much has happened – so much more has been learned since then that these simple principles should be effectively abandoned. But what they fail to realize is that the Declaration is indeed timeless; that the flawed men who wrote it were all too aware of their own flaws. Those who would modify the Rights the Declaration so powerfully asserts ignore the role that these words played in bringing an end to slavery. The role that they played in the French Revolution. The role they more recently played in the UN’s Charter. The role these words continue to play in drawing immigrants to America so that they can pursue their dreams, so that they can create and pursue their own happiness. Calvin Coolidge said it well:

If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward … Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

Only free men and women can take purposeful action to better themselves and their families, whether in adversity or in good times. Only free men and women can truly be resilient. Our Declaration is the fundamental statement of both the Rights and Responsibilities of that freedom. It is thus the basis – the foundation – of our resilience.

Featured

Embracing Complexity

… actually a complex, adaptive system (CAS) which is constantly evolving, never in equilibrium.

Wiliam White


William White has been called the “Central Banker for Central Bankers.” I first became aware of him when I read the transcript of a speech he gave in Philadelphia. His understanding of practical macroeconomics is probably second to none.

Many of his writings in the last few years have been focused on the global economy as a complex adaptive system (CAS). However, his insights apply just as well to communities as economies. As some of you know, I’m hip deep in a book-writing project on systems thinking for community professionals. One of its themes is that communities are CASs, and have to be understood as such. What distinguishes “complex” from the merely (!) complicated is that the system’s behavior can’t be predicted from that of its parts. CASs web of interdependencies and their open-ness mean that their behavior can be spectacularly non-linear. CASs – as their name implies – also have the ability to adapt. They can change their structure and thus their behavior in response to stress.

In the following, I’ve provided excerpts from White’s “Simple Lessons for Macro Policymakers from Embracing Complexity,” and suggested what they mean for community leaders.

Policymakers’ multiple objectives make trade-offs inevitable. Ultimately, the job of a community leader is to provide their community’s residents with the quality of life they want. Without infinite resources community leaders must make choices – balancing priorities.


Policymakers can affect structure, and structure matters. As I’ve posted previously, “Form Follows Function.” But the converse is true, as well. Changing “form” – how the community is wired – leads to changes in what the community can do. When some new problem arises, one of the knee-jerk reactions of community leaders is to add a new organization to deal specifically with the problem. Unfortunately, that makes the community as a CAS more complex, and even less predictable. Whether recognized or not, this creates new interdependencies and a high likelihood of unintended consequences. This is what I see when I look at a city like New Orleans where it seems that no one is responsible anything but everyone has veto power over everything.


Policymakers should minimax not maximize. When we want to introduce new policies (e.g., “Defund the Police”) we need to think in terms of the Hippocratic Oath: First, do no harm. We can’t predict how a system may adapt to a change, but we can foresee negative ways it may do so. Community leaders need to find ways to protect against them.


Policymakers should act more symmetrically. Simply put, avoid both the high highs and the low lows. Build up rainy day funds in good times to tide the community over in bad times.


Policymakers should expect the unexpected. Stress can come from the darndest places. And its impacts can resonate throughout the community’s web of interdependencies.


Policymakers should focus on systemic risks more than triggers. Quite simply, “follow the trend lines not the headlines.” Rather than trying to guard the community against every possible stressor, focus on inoculating the community against changes in its environment, loss of community capital, changes in demand for its common functions, new constraints imposed by state or federal governments, and, of course, against entropy – the ravages of time.


Policymakers should be guided by multiple indicators. Communities adapt by a “Learn-Plan-Do” process. An important part of learning is gathering information about potential stresses. Since there are many sources of stress, community leaders need several ways to look for them.


Policymakers can’t forecast. Community leaders are as unlikely to accurately predict the future as economists. What they can do, however, is to use trends to develop scenarios of what the future might be, and then shape their communities to be Future Fit.


Policymakers should be prepared for breakdowns. Crises are built into the DNA of a CAS and a community. Communities in which leaders work through various scenarios to minimize pain and eliminate suffering are the ones which are truly resilient. It’s not so much that they develop specific plans to deal with each scenario but that they build the collective experience of working together for the community. This is cultural capital of the highest order!


No policymaker is an island. In the modern world, every community is connected to others. Every community is embedded in a state or province, and that in a nation. Every community is made up of neighborhoods and other community systems, many of which are also complex. Ultimately, each of these is a group of people bound together for a common purpose. Thus, when community leaders take action in their community – hopefully to improve it! – the impacts may be felt in their residents’ homes, in neighboring communities, and up to the halls of government. Thus, evaluation should be part of action, especially looking for unintended consequences.


A community’s resilience resides in its ability to adapt – both to the stresses inherent in its connections to the rest of the world and to the Wild Things it faces – those extreme events that can permanently alter a community’s quality of life. White’s “Lessons” make the point that communities as CASs may be unpredictable, but that policymakers – community leaders – can devise means to see where the community is going, and to influence the outcome. Ultimately White’s most important lesson is for community leaders to embrace the complexity of their communities. His “Lessons” provide community leaders with a practical playbook they can use to build their communities’ adaptive capacity and to make their communities more resilient.

Featured

Form Follows Function, Except …

Whether it be the sweeping eagle in his flight, or the open apple-blossom, the toiling work-horse, the blithe swan, the branching oak, the winding stream at its base, the drifting clouds, over all the coursing sun, form ever follows function, and this is the law.

Louis Sullivan

We’ve all heard the old rubric, “Form follows function,” apparently first coined by Sullivan discussing the design of large buildings.  But it is just as true of our bureaucracies.  As I’ve ranted discussed in a previous post (see Bureaucracy and Community Resilience), “bureaucracies exist to carry out routine functions efficiently and in a consistent manner.”

What I didn’t say (and probably should have!) is that bureaucracies usually are tuned to be efficient under normal conditions.  Thus, the bureaucracy’s structure – its form – reflects business as usual.  The bureaucracy works because its structure is consistent with the tasks it must perform.

Sullivan goes on to say, “Where function does not change, form does not change.”  But what happens when a bureaucracy is faced with a significant change in its working environment – during a crisis, for example – that forces changes in how it functions?

The short answer, of course, is that it tries to handle the unusual in its usual manner.  Its organizational structure – the bureaucracy’s form, hopefully well-tuned to normal conditions – now governs its functioning.  If the organization’s form does not change, then its ability to function efficiently and consistently may well suffer.  On the other hand, if the bureaucracy adapts quickly to the new set of conditions, it may find an opportunity in change to reach a higher level of performance.

Let me look at some very disparate examples to illustrate this.  Hurricane Katrina had a major impact on the forest enterprise in the impacted regions (esp. in lower Mississippi).  In the most affected areas, 40% of the forests were damaged.  According to the Forest Service, the downed or damaged timber could have produced 800,000 single family homes and 25 million tons of paper products.  The EPA and Mississippi’s Department of Environmental Quality had no plans for dealing with this massive amount of solid debris.  It took several months before the owners of downed timber could gain permits for wet storage areas to preserve their timber, primarily because the regulators involved did not change their bureaucratic structures (and thus not their processes) to deal with this unusual situation.  While the permit process was expedited, this was accomplished by simply adding more people, not through restructuring to better handle the problem.  As a result, over half of the timber was lost with major repercussions on the entire forest products enterprise.  In addition, the downed timber led to a situation in which there was literally a new forest fire in Mississippi every day during the spring, summer and fall of the following year.  In short, regulatory functions were dictated by organizational structures tuned to “normal” circumstances; i.e., form dictated function, and resulted in poor performance.  Unfortunately, the regulators have not really learned anything from this – in the face of another Katrina, it would still take months before storage sites for downed timber would obtain permits.

Waffle House provides a very different example.  It plans for surprises, and is organized so that it can function under almost any set of circumstances.  It clearly has learned from past experience and has adapted itself so that restaurants impacted by disasters can open with restricted menus.  If workers can’t get to a Waffle House location (as happened to my community in January, 2014, because of an ice storm), workers can be temporarily brought in from other locations to minimize service interruptions.

WalMart provides an excellent example of finding opportunity in change.  In the ‘90’s, virtually every corporation in America spent huge amounts on information technology.  For most companies, the gains in productivity (i.e., the return on investment) were modest.  However, WalMart used this technological change to reorganize its supply chains so that it quickly gained a tremendous competitive advantage.  In other words, it altered its form to improve functioning.

Form follows function, except when changing circumstances demand changes in how an organization functions.  In the earlier blog on bureaucracies, I pointed out the factors that determine how rapidly an organization can change:  its history, its age, its ability to collaborate, its ability to innovate, and, most importantly, its leadership.  The resilience of an organization, or a community, is manifested in how rapidly it adapts – how quickly it changes its form – so that it can function effectively in a new environment.

Featured

Bureaucracy and Community Resilience

The purpose of bureaucracy is to compensate for incompetence and lack of vision.

Jim Collins

Bureaucracies are inherently anti-democratic. Bureaucrats derive their power from their position in the structure, not from their relations with the people they are supposed to serve. The people are not masters of the bureaucracy, but its clients.

Alan Keyes

I’ve had way too much experience with bureaucracies in my almost fifty years working with the federal government.  In the next couple of blogs, I’ll be looking at bureaucracy through the lens of community resilience.

First, a word of disclaimer.  My view of bureaucracy is well summarized in some of Moore’s laws of bureaucracy:

  • Bureaucracies have no heart.
  • Bureaucracies are perverse.
  • Bureaucracies will thrash about, causing much cost, pain and destruction.

If I (and so many others) feel this way, why do we still have bureaucracies?  There are two reasons for this that more or less mirror the quotes above.

  1. Most importantly, bureaucracies exist to carry out routine functions efficiently and in a consistent manner – bureaucracies are the wheels that keep organizations (governments, businesses…) running more or less smoothly.  But this also implies a more fundamental role for bureaucracies.  Their rules, regulations, and procedures encapsulate the organization’s corporate memory of what works, at least within a bureaucracy’s domain.  However, the more rigid this procedural structure, the more resistant the bureaucracy is to change.
  2. Bureaucracies tend to be self-perpetuating.  As formulated in Jerry Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy:  In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely.  In other words, in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representatives who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.

Larger organizations – and communities – tend to be more bureaucratic because they tend to do more things on a routine basis. All too often, however, their bureaucracies are rigid and resistant to change. But resilience is all about managing and adapting to change.  Achieving resilience thus means tearing down the walls between balkanized bureaucracies that are busily making their silos into fortresses.  This leads to a paradox:  if a community is working to become more resilient, it will try to take action through its tried and proven bureaucratic channels, the ones least prone to change.  Further, since adapting to major disruptions (e.g., pandemics, recessions) generally does not neatly fit into a single bureaucracy’s purview, it forces bureaucracies to interact with one another in non-routine ways.  If the community’s bureaucracies are flexible, the community is likely to be more resilient; if not, any efforts to enhance the community’s resilience become much more difficult. 

Of course, these are general thoughts.  However, they lead to some specific things to consider in determining whether a community’s bureaucracies will help or hinder efforts to become more resilient.

  • History.  If a bureaucracy is a sort of corporate memory container, then look at the challenges the community, esp. the bureaucracy, has faced.  Were they varied?  Were some of them relatively recent?  Were they successfully met?  “No” answers may indicate that the bureaucracy is too rigid.
  • The age of the bureaucracy.  Just like people, a bureaucracy can get “hardening of the arteries” with age.  It can accrete documentation requirements, for example, that continue on long after the need for a document has disappeared.  In a crisis, these will sow frustration in both the public and the bureaucracy and slow down recovery.
  • Collaboration.  Has the bureaucracy worked with others outside their domain to solve crosscutting problems?  City governments such as San Diego and Baltimore that are managed in a fashion that forces bureaucracies to work together toward common crosscutting goals are likely to be more resilient than ones that are managed in a more stovepiped manner.
  • Leadership.  Is the leadership of the bureaucracy open to new ideas?  Does the leadership have experience working outside the bureaucracy?  Has any of the leadership come from outside the bureaucracy?  Again, “No” answers raise red flags.
  • Innovation.  Has the bureaucracy periodically changed how it does business?  Is continuous improvement a part of its culture?
  • Number.  More bureaucracies imply more organizations that must be aligned to actually make something happen.
  • Accountability. Do community leaders hold their bureaucrats accountable for how they have served the people?

Bureaucracy can be a boon or a bane to community resilience. It’s up to the community – through its leaders – to determine which it is to be.

Featured

Community culture and community resilience

Culture outperforms strategy every time; culture with strategy is unbeatable.

Quint Studer

A community’s culture is one of the most overlooked – and misunderstood – contributors to its future fitness. A community’s culture is primarily its history – not the one in books but the one embedded in its mind, its heart and its soul. A community’s culture shapes its shared values, and how its residents expect each other to behave. It thus conditions how a community approaches its problems, and whether the community can even recognize its problems.

A community’s culture is related to but different from its social capital. A community’s social capital resides in its connections – how the community is wired, and how effectively those wires enable the community to share information. A community’s culture conditions which connections are made, how messages are framed and even which information is shared. Thus, a community’s culture is a sort of skeleton supporting its social connection and directing where they form.

One of the ways that a community’s culture is manifested is in whether or not the community has a “can-do” attitude. Some time ago, I read an interview of the CEO of Fluor, focusing on his move of the giant construction company from California to Texas.

[When the 2006 move became known] “California made no attempt to keep us… things started to happen quickly [in Texas], without us initiating them. The Irving Chamber of Commerce did orientation sessions for employees and spouses, even helping with new-house searches. Or ‘little things:’ Irving on its own renamed a street Fluor Drive, which in California or the Northeast would be laughable.”

This sort of attitude implies a community self-confidence that results in decisive action.

A community’s culture also reveals itself in how – whether – it recognizes its problems. When working with the Navajos, one of the striking features of their culture is the implicit prohibition against talking about bad things that might happen. This was based on the fear that talking about them would lead to them occurring. This sort of “whistling in the dark” makes it very difficult to prepare for or mitigate against disaster.

So how do I know whether my community has a culture that makes it future fit, that makes it resilient? There are several signposts.

First and foremost, the trajectory of the community. If the community’s quality of life is improving, that’s a sign of a proactive culture, indicating a self-confident community. If the community’s quality of life is deteriorating, the community is going to become less confident and less able to tackle its problems. Its future fitness is questionable.

Next, the unity of purpose within the community. As Paolo Freire has said: One cannot expect positive results from an educational or political action program which fails to respect the particular view of the world held by the people. Thus, if a community’s leaders are pushing programs that negatively impact a large swath of the community – that, in fact, are counter to their cultural values – the community has a culture that is in conflict with itself. It cannot confidently attack its problems. In fact, it may not even address them until they balloon into a crisis.

Then consider how tolerant the community’s culture is. As Joel Salatin says: The stronger a culture, the less it fears the radical fringe. The more paranoid and precarious a culture, the less tolerance it offers. If one part of a community refuses to let other – different – voices be heard, then the community effectively is limiting its approach to solving its problems to only those “approved” by the intolerant. Effectively, it’s like a general stubbornly concentrating on taking the hills in front of him while refusing to look at the mountains behind. Whether it’s banning books or refusing to listen to parents’ concerns, this kind of community culture will impair a community’s fitness to face the future.

Finally – and closely allied to its tolerance – look at the community’s open-ness, its willingness to accept new people and new ideas. The quote from Fluor’s CEO about Irving, TX, indicates a culture that knows how to adapt to new people and to accept new ideas. In solving their problems, “open” communities will be open to innovations, whatever their source. “Open” communities will also be the most likely to see and seize opportunities brought on by changing circumstances.

Most importantly, “open” communities are the ones most likely to have some sort of strategic vision for their community. They know what they want to become. They may even have mapped out a plan for their future. These communities – their actions compounded from culture and strategy – will be the ones best able to cope with change and to seize the opportunities inherent in change. They will be the most future fit, the most resilient.