Jim Moore’s blog: Innovation, Strategy, Public Policy

You have to love Paul Graham–this is one of the most thoughtful pieces I’ve seen on “the bubble”
as well as on how social movements deeply change society.  This is
also the sort of paper that is very effective when published on the
Internet–and such papers are part of how the Internet is changing
society.  The Second Superpower
does thoughtful analysis and reflection, and recognizes it when it sees
it.  The Second Superpower struglles to know itself, in order to
be more effective.  The reason this paper is powerful, methinks,
is because it helps us recognize things about ourselves that we want to
keep doing, and improve upon.  And these things are difficult to
identify clearly without contributions like this paper.  By the
way, this recursiveness is reminiscent of LISP, a language Paul has worked in and continues to develop with Arc.  Ah, plays within plays within plays.

Here is my favorite excerpt from the paper:

face=”arial, helvetica”>Notice, though, that even with all the fat trimmed off its market
cap, Yahoo was still worth a lot. Even at the morning-after
valuations of March and April 2001, the people at Yahoo had managed
to create a company worth about $8 billion in just six years.

I think the Internet will have great effects,
and that what we’ve seen so far is nothing compared to what’s
coming. But most of the winners will only indirectly be
Internet companies; for every Google there will be ten
JetBlues.

It seems obvious to most political commentators that focusing on swing
voters in swing states makes sense.  These people are going to
vote.   They are looking for input to their choice  In
our electoral-college-dominated process of national presidential
elections, these voters seem to hold the only key to success.

But consider this:  Non-voters make up about half of the
electorate. Studies of young people who are non-voters show that they
are often quite civically engaged–they volunteer time, they join
values-and-faith-based organizations, and they even contribute
money.  Perhaps this is true of many non-voters of all ages. 
Perhaps non-voters care very much about the nation, and about the
future, but they find no reason to vote or participate in electoral
politics.

Swing voters are about %5 of the total potential electorate nationwide, and non-voters are about %50.

Does anyone else see an opportunity?  If just %10 of the
non-voters became voters, their numbers would equal the current swing
voters.  If %20 of the non-voters became voters, we would have an
electoral revolution.  Hmmm.

This is a lot of people to influence, but on the other hand, the
behavior change we are asking for is not difficult.  It involves
filling out a small form in advance of election day, and then filling
out another form–an absentee ballot–or spending a few minutes in a
neighborhood poling place on election day.  We are not asking
folks to give up smoking, or even to use seat belts regularly. 
Physically, we are asking for a small change.

The current national campaigns of Republicans and Democrates together
are on track to spend about a billion dollars this round.  Most of
this expenditure has been focused on re-assuring swing voters that all
candidates share the same “center” position on issues, and then seeking
to differentiate these highly similar candidates in order that some can
defeat others.

Does any else see the contradiction here?  As a marketing manager,
how would you like to have the job of simultaneously convincing people
that Bud lite is just like Miller lite except that Miller light is evil
and Bud light is good?  Hmmm.

The two parties have just spent a billion dollars doing just
that.  For the first time in history, Democrats have spent almost
as much as Republlicans–but it has been spent likening and then
differentiating Bud from Miller.  Are we surprised that no headway
has been made?  Are we surprised that many citizens are confused
by the message?

What would have happened if Democrats had gone after the non-voters
with an authentic message and with creative approaches to our most
important problems? What if Democrats had invited people in?

Howard Dean and Dean for America did engage non-voters and turned many
of them into activists.  Our message was “you have the power.”
While we had our internal failings, the Democratic establishment killed
us. They killed in large measure by redesigning the primary process to
give extraordinary   power to Iowans.  This reward
campaigns that were focused on anything but the non-voter.  In
Iowa, the caucus process puts up a very high barrier to polical
participation–one that is daunting to most Iowa voters, and much more
to non-voter.  In Iowa a small group of very active
politicos–those who are willing to spend several hours on a cold
January night arguing publicly for their candidate–prevail. And these
active politicos represent members of  a rural state with an
aging, declining population.  Iowans are nice people–I grew up in
Cedar Rapids–but they are very different in lifestyle, age, and values
from most people in the rest of the nation.

The Democratic party took the candidate that won Iowa–that won with
hard-core Democratic activists in a rural state–and planned a program
to go after middle-of-the-road swing voters in states ranging from
Florida to Maine, to Ohio to Washinton State. 

This campaign ignored by design most of the nation–including
non-voters.  It ignored “red states” as unwinable, and ignored
“blue states” as unloseable. 

The Democratic campaign’s strategy was to spend massively on a few
states–in order to win a large share of the small numbers of swing
voters.  Unfortunately, these swing voters were also targeted by
an even more powerful Republican campaign, on behalf of a sitting
president.  Democrats attacked a defended hill, and found
themselves in a war of attrition where neither side would win a
decisive victory.

I would have prefered to attack the undefended hill, particularly given
that the hill of non-voters is ten times larger than that of swing
voters.  I would have preferred to spend heavily to engage a small
share of this much, much larger population of non-voters.  I would
have prefered to flank the Republicans by engaging with citizens that
they too have ignored.

As a strategist, I believe such a strategy could have won the
election for Democrats.  Perhaps as importantly, this strategy would have
advanced citizen empowermennt, dialogue and political participation in
the country.  Win or lose, this initiative would have improved our
democracy.  Win or lose, this initiative would have improved our
party.  We would have created in the Democratic party the ability
to speak to new people, the ability to bring non-voters in and include
them, and the ability to learn from these people new ways to address
the challenges facing our country.  All of these things, by the
way, were at the core of the capabilities being developed in the Dean
campaign.

Even if the Kerry Democratic campaign succeeds, its strategy has left
out most of the electorate.  It has left out the “base” of the
Democratic party, which is to the left on the conventional
spectrum,.  It has left out the larger number of non-voters–who
live on spectra the Democratic establishment has not even tried to
understand.

Leaving out people is a poor way to prepare the ground for
governing.  Little relationship has been made with most citizens.
Yet political engagement is at the heart of what a democracy requires,
not only to pick leaders, but to be willing to follow them.  Tough
choices always have to be made by leaders, and people must be moved to
contribute to making these choices successful. Being left out of the
electoral process does not encourage such later participation.

Tonite seems to be critical to John Kerry’s campaign.  Or more
properly, tonight plus the next three days of spin will be vital. 
Kerry is far behind in electoral votes, his candidacy has not generated
excitement, and his message is unclear to most voters. 

I support John Kerry for president.  Unfortunately, the John
Kerry I know is not the one that has come through in this sad
campaign.  The combination of the Kerry Campaign’s drive to the
right and focus on the mythical swing issues of swing voters in swing
states–combined with well-targeted Republican attacks, has turned John
into a national caricature of himself. 

Tonight is John Kerry’s historic opportunity to show himself as he
really is.  Tonight is his time to show his true “being” and not
his “doing.”  Tonight is his time to make the case for
intelligence and honesty and care–real care backed by analysis rather
than ideology.  I truly pray he achieves this tonight, that the
American people resonate with him, and that the news media–feeling
this resonance–are willing to give it its day.

I have met with John Kerry and talked with him directly about difficult
issues, including his support for the Iraq war, with which I strongly
disagreed.  On the other hand, we have talked about intellectual
property rights and innovation policy, about bridging the global
digital divide and supporting human rights, and about helping the
capital markets correctly evaluate environmental risks facing companies
and thus reward good stewardship.  On these issues we largely
agreed–yet because John is smart and honest he carefully explored the
places where we differed.  This is a man who is willing to ask
tough questions, who is willing to challenge his allies, and who tries
to be guided by facts and reflection.

The John Kerry I know is lightning smart, courageous, and creative. For
example, John Kerry called me one day in 2001 and asked, “What would it take to buy out the coal industry?”  This
was a serious question.  Sometimes it is in the national interest
to have a particular industry slow down or shut down, and in a
capitalist society the way to do that is by buying out the companies
and the jobs involved.  For example, this year the US quietly and
for billions of dollars, bought out the tobacco industry.  Sweden
bought out shipbuilding many years ago, and retained the jobs in the
auto industry.

Slowing down the coal industry for a few years might have very positive
effects for the US.  It would reduce the plague of acid rain that
has ruined lakes across America.  It would save the coal for
future generations, when it will be needed to replace
diminishing oil supplies, and when technology will be available to burn
the coal cleanly and efficiently.  It would stimulate the
development of energy conservation and alternative energy.  It
would accelerate business development in the energy field, and might
set the stage for US global technology and product leadership in this
important future industry. This general argument, for the long-term
industry and job creation payoff of envoronmental investments, has been
convincingly made by Mike Porter of the Harvard Business School. 
Finally, slowing the coal industry would
also be a huge plus for the environment of the coal-producing
region, allowing healing and regeneration of the regional
ecosystems. 

I made some quick calculations.  The coal industry is concentrated
among a few big players. The approximate cost to buy out the companies
was $7 billion, and the cost for severance and retraining people for
new jobs, estimated to equal total industry wages and benefits for one
year, was another $7 billion.  So for about $15 billion or so, one
might make this bold intervention.  Interestingly, just prior to
George W. Bush becoming president, the combined market capitalization
of the largest coal companies was closer to $3 billion.  The
capital markets more than doubled the value of the industry with the
installation of a Republican president.

$15 billion dollars is a lot of money.  Energy costs would also
rise temporarily across our economy.  But in the long run, an
energy policy based on buying out the coal companies might generate
powerful benefits for out nation.  The direct cost would be about
that of the “Big Dig” road and tunnel project in Boston.  The Iraq
war has so far cost 13 times as much, and may have fewer long-term
benefits, and more long-term costs.

Now I want emphasize that John Kerry in 2001 was not yet anywhere near proposing
buying out the coal industry
as policy.  He was exploring options, he was testing visions.  What is terrific is that John was doing a bit of
creative big thinking, and asking
friends for their help in fleshing out the idea to the point where
it might be serously considered.  And overall, what he was mulling
about was how to save the environment and establish long-term
conditions for American leadership. 

This is the kind of creative long-range thinking that our country needs
on a whole range of issues.  We need thinking that is bold and
fact-based, and non-ideological.  John Kerry is a person who could
lead the nation on such a course.  We are blessed with some of the
most advanced thinking in the world on a range of questions–and we
need to engage our best resources on our major problems.  As Kerry
said at the Democratic Convention, we need a president “who believes in
science.”  I thought this was Kerry’s best line.

 “People tune in these debates for the same
reason they watch NASCAR races on TV,” said Larry Sabato, a University
of Virginia political scientist. “They hope to see a crash. That’s the
whole mystery. And there’s always something.”

1. Is it desirable and practical to base US foreign policy on
consistent support for human rights? Might this help in the struggle
with terrorism, by taking away some of the rationale used by terrorists
to recruit–and by enhancing respect for the United States among
ordinary people around the world?

2. We now have the “Bush doctrine” of preemptive strikes on sources
of threat to the United States, wherever in the world these are lodged.
Would it make sense to have an equivalent doctrine in the case of gross
violations of human rights? The Genocide Convention would seem to have
been an attempt at promoting such a doctrine among the signers–of
which the US is one.

3. The Iraq war has shown the cost of intervening in other nations
alone and–it seems–the Sudan genocide has shown the cost of trying to
work through the UN. Both have run into problems. What is the right
formula for effective action? What are the right uses of unilateral and
multilateral action–given that unilateral action can leave us
isolated, and working through the UN can tie our hands? Are there
alternative institutions and networks that would be more effective than
either approach, such as working more closely with the African Union
and other regional organizations?

4. Secretary General Kofi Annan is proposing to reform the United
Nations and especially the UN Security Council. Do you have confidence
in this process? How should such a reform be carried out? Will the
United States be able to exert its leadership on the reform process
effectively?

5. The UN has been notably slow to take action in Sudan. In
particular, Secretary General Annan is seen by some observers to be an
ineffective leader of the United Nations, more interested in pleasing
all sides than in taking principled action. Do you agree or disagree
with this assessment? If you agree, what should the US do about this
problem in the short and long term?

6. Syria is the head of the UN council on human rights. Sudan has
been strongly supported in its human rights violations by a number of
members of the UN. What would it take to reform the UN so that it
supports other values than simply national sovereignty of each member,
and continuous discussion?

7. Could the world’s nations create a new world institution that has
a value base, and that requires members to meet certain standards of
behavior, including in respect of human rights, in order to join and to
remain in good standing? Would you support this if the United Nations
cannot be improved? Would you support this in any case, to provide
competition to the United Nations? How might this be accomplished?

8. There has been talk by National Security chief Rice of
establishing a new source of peacekeeping forces with rapid response
capabilities, under the auspices of the G7 group of nations. What do
you think of this proposal? Would it have been more effective in
responding to the genocide in Sudan?

9. China has been a major source of support for the government of
Sudan, and China has blocked US-sponsored action in the UN Security
Council. China has been joined in this by Pakistan. Egypt and Saudi
Arabia have taken up the cause of the government of Sudan in the Arab
League and other forums. All have gained stature in the Arab world at
US expense, by siding with Sudan.

China is a large US trading partner, and both Pakistan and Egypt are
recipients of US military and other forms of aid. Saudi Arabia is a
major trading partner. Why have we not been able to gain the help of
these nations in putting pressure on Sudan? What more should be done to
ensure that they help stop the genocide in Sudan, rather than enabling
it and raising their own political profiles by showing themselves
allied against the United States?

Check this out and link to it!

Truth and ridicule may be a powerful combination…this “blog” could make history.  In any case it sure is fun…

BUT WILL IT HAVE ANY EFFECT?

On the other hand, a lot of “red state” folks figure that anything George W. Bush did before he was born again is irrelevant.

And while I am a die-hard liberal, I must say that I think that in the
long run this is probably true–for George and for the rest of
us.  If there was a general amnesty on what folks did before they
were, say, 35, there might be a lot more interesting people in
politics. 

As it stands, those who get close to the presidency always seem to have
started working toward it when they were at Yale.   Now, I
have nothing against Yale, and I know some fine folks who began running
for president, at least in their own minds, in high school.  But
on the other hand I also know some damned-well creative folks who were
so passionate and engaged in their lives that they detoured mightily
from the straight and narrow.  A signal, if not completely
uncontroversial, example is Bill Gates, who dropped out of college and
took off to New Mexico,,,

At Rebecca McKinnon’s
session at BloggerCon II  a number of us pledged to work on
developing what I call “information activist communities” to help bring
attention and reflection and action to parts of our world that tend to
be forgotten by the media, and/or inaccessible to conventional
media.  Lots has happened in the five months since then:

On uncovered dimensions of the crisis in Iraq, the Middle East and the Arab political world, there is “this is rumor control“

On Sudan and the crisis in Eastern Africa, there is “Passion of the Present“

On Africa in general, there is “BlogAfrica“

On Nepal there is “the global and the local“

On North Korea there is “North Korea zone“

And no doubt there are more.  Send me links!

And there are oppotunities for focusing on the “underside” of countries
and cultures that are less closed, but still authoritarian.  For
example, there must be someone working on aggregating the vast and
fast-emerging underground of Chinese blogs..

style=”font-family: times new roman;”>Chinese government chart

and Parthenon Graphics Timelines “

style=”font-family: times new roman;”>Your source for the largest collection of Laminated > style=”font-family: times new roman;”>History Timeline posters in the world.  Since 1997″

e.g. Computer languages history

This afternoon, diplomatic negotiation is intense in New York at the
UN Security Council. US Ambassador John Danforth is working toward a
new resolution on Sudan.

Pressure is on for a resolution that will perhaps finally enable
African Union troops in large numbers to enter Sudan, and limit air
strikes and bombing raids in Darfur by the Sudanese government. Of
course this is after months and months of delay at the UN and among
world governments.

A public relations and diplomatic-process time window is in effect
this weekend, because all side hope to have an agreement in advance of
next Tuesday’s opening of the UN General Assembly. The only way to
achieve this is to have a successful resolution vote either today or
tomorrow–Saturday. Expectations are the vote will come tomorrow.

It is a shame that events on the ground in Darfur don’t set time
windows, though this week developments in Sudan seem to have raised the
concern of Secretary General Annan. Again, this seems very very late in
the game.

A variety of reports out of Sudan indicate that violence continues
to generate new “internally displaced persons” and refugees. For
example, several thousand arrived recently in El Fasher, capital of the
Sudanese state of North Darfur. A UN spokesperson said,

“They arrived about a week ago from villages south of El
Fasher and we are trying to find out what happened,” Abrahamson said.
“It is estimated that nearly 1,000 households - roughly 5,000 people,
have fled into the town.”

This and other reports indicate that the Sudanese government is not
disarming or reigning in its militia surrogates, but is continuing a
scorched earth “counter-insurgency” campaign. Diplomats and nations who
argued for trusting the Sudanese government to fix its own problem now
look foolish or (in the case of China and Egypt) possibly complicit. My
sense is that the discomfort of this perception will finally press the
Chinese and other allies of Sudan to agree to force Sudan to accept
African Union intervention.

Meanwhile, Kofi Annan continues to lead at a turtle-like
pace–appearing to respond forcefully to events, but doing so only with
meetings and reports.

In New York, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan announced that he was sending the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour,
and his Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, Juan Méndez, to Darfur to recommend what could be done to protect civilians there from attacks by local militias.

[more]

One wonders why these experts were not sent to Sudan months ago.

One also wonders, by the way, what was the significance of Annan’s statement earlier this week that the US invasion of Iraq was “illegal?”
Was this in part intended to warn the US and the African Union not to
get ahead of the UN on Sudan? How can Annan justify this, when the pace
of his own organization is so slow, and its processes so clearly
ineffective?

Oh, right, perhaps Annan’s criteria for success is not how
effectively the UN can respond on the ground, but how effectively it
can maintain its primacy as an institution.

It so, this is a tragic inversion of priorities. The world needs
effective international institutions, not just established ones.

September 17, 2004 | Permalink
|

For some time I have been emphasizing that the Chinese are in the
process of establishing deep relationships with the more authoritarian
leaders in the Arab and African world.  My now many months of
study of the situation in Sudan has helped me see that the Chinese are
powerfully exploiting the opportunity provided by an Arab world
frightened of the US, and wishing to preserve its authoritarian social
structures and abusive human rights practices.  For China these
alliances solve a big and rapidly expanding problem: how to supply
itself with oil, and do so in the face of increased demand from other
nations as well.

Here are two stories from Al-Alwah, the independent English-language
newspaper based in Egypt.  This is not a radical paper, nor is it
a propaganda organ. These pieces are important to understand and
absorb. 

The first is a news report on the recent meeting of Arab League foreign
ministers, and how all the nations are so afraid of the US, and so
split in how to respond, that nothing could be done in concert at the
meeting. United in fear, by Dina Ezzat

For this official and many Arab diplomats the pacific nature of this
week’s meeting of Arab foreign ministers, and of the meeting of Arab
ministers of economy — under the umbrella of the Arab Economic and
Social Council — which preceded it, should not be read as an
indication of a new-found unity of purpose.

“Not at all. It is just that we have given up hoping to do
anything, or for that matter to say anything,” said one permanent
representative to the Arab League. He elaborated that rather than
attempt to bridge the deep chasms dividing them, the Arab states seem
to have conceded that these are insurmountable.

The dividing line, he went on to explain, is delineated by the
nature of relations with the US. “Some of us have more than strategic
ties with the US while some others are still being viewed by the US as
enemies. And at the end of the day we are all afraid of the US, either
out of fear of military intervention and economic sanctions, or because
of the military and security dependence that some Arab countries have
on the US.”

Such caving in to a regional Pax Americana is ominous, suggest a
number of Arab diplomats, one described it as “disturbing and
indicative of the disintegration of the Arab regional system”.

Here is one of many fascinating examples of diplomatic signalling at
the meeting.  Syria seems to be trying to figure out how to come
to positive terms with the US, or at least to be working hard to avoid
provoking the US:

On the eve of the Arab foreign ministers meeting Kuwaiti Foreign
Minister Mohamed Al-Sobbah, speaking on behalf of the GCC, made an
unprecedented call upon Syria to pull out its troops out of Lebanon.

Jordanian Foreign Minister Marwan Al-Moashar, whose country shares
the GCC’s close relationship with the US, took a similar line. In a
statement he made before arriving in Cairo, he said Amman was expecting
Syria to respond to the demands made by UN Security Council Resolution
1559. The resolution calls on Syria to pull its troops out of Lebanon.

For their part, neither the Syrian nor the Lebanese delegations
asked for the Arab foreign ministers meeting to adopt a stance against
this resolution.

The joint Syrian-Lebanese demand was for an Arab resolution that
indicates support for both countries in the face of any potential
aggression.

Syrian diplomats were “working very hard to structure a new
relationship with the US on the basis of mutual cooperation on regional
security matters in Iraq on one hand and Syria- Lebanon-Palestine, on
the other” said one Arab diplomat. Damascus was not expecting Arab
foreign ministers to take a stance against the harsh US anti- Syrian
rhetoric.

The second is an op-ed that discusses the potential of the emerging
Chinese-Arab relationship as a counter to the “Zionist-American”
threat.  I do not put these articles up to be provacative at all,
but only because I think they represent a kind of thinking, a political
reality, that we need to understand as we address issues in the Arab
and African world–such as the genocide in Sudan.  China’s message to the Arabs, by Anouar Abdel-Malek

There is light at the end of the tunnel. The ideas, sentiments, and
interests of the Arabs and China have come together at last, under the
auspices of the Arab League. Sino-Arab cooperation can release the
potential of two of the world’s greatest civilisations. The visit to
Cairo by Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing has opened the way for a
great partnership, one that may influence the course of our progress,
one that may save us from the buffeting winds of this increasingly
perilous world. But what do the Arabs and Chinese have in common? Why
is it that we need to forge close ties with Asia, and particularly the
Chinese? And do the ancient countries of the Silk Road have much in
common?

Later in the piece he gives his answer:

…With the Zionist-American aggression besieging, and haemorrhaging, our
nations, one is tempted to think of where we have gone wrong with
strategy. At a time when aggression follows aggression, when our
independence and unity are at stake, one is tempted to acknowledge the
message China has for Egypt and the Arab world. The message is best
conveyed in the words of Sun Tzu, China’s leading political and
strategic writer of the fifth century BC. In The Art of War,
the world’s oldest military treatise, Sun Tzu has this to say: “To win
one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill.
What is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy’s strategy.”

This is the message we have to keep in mind. It is a message that
is inherent to our freedom, to our quest to resist the waves of turmoil
and bloodshed coming our way, to our inherent revulsion at an
international order controlled by a single power. The Zionist- American
quest is wreaking havoc on the Arab world, from Iraq to Palestine and
beyond. And it is not armies alone that we have to worry about. It is
the thinking that sent the armies, and the strategy that lies behind
that thinking.

We have to remember the word of Sun Tzu, and “attack the enemy’s
strategy”. This is what the Arabs and Chinese have in common: the need
for a strategy of their own. There is great potential here and in Asia,
and this potential does not have to remain unexplored. If we want to
survive the Zionist-American quest we have to reformulate our own.

There is a tremendous strategic opening right now.  It seems to
me that on the one hand, US action–reckless though it has been–has unfrozen situations
that have been static and unyielding, such as relationships with Syria, as
indicated by talk at the Arab League meeting.

On the other hand, into this “unfrozen” and amorphous situation the
Chinese are moving quickly, offering an alternative to the US.

And the US mechanism of unfreezing–war–has led to fear becoming
the main response to the US, with respect following.  On the other
hand, it seems that many in the Arab and African world have a new
respect for China, and do not particularly fear her.  This bodes
well for China in creating alliances, obviously, and not so well for
the US.

I do not believe that either US presidential candidate, or either US
administration, is adequately paying attention to this situation. 
And yet China is clearly the second most powerful nation on earth
now–and gaining.    The combined Arab and African worlds
contain vast oil reserves.  These worlds also are controlled by a
number of the world’s
most authoritarian governments.  If we care about any of the
following–US economic and political leadership, US access to oil, or
the promotion of democracy and human rights across the world–we need
to be paying attention.  All points on the political spectrum will
find important issues in this situation: “nationalists,” “realists,”
and “idealists.”