Connecting from the Bottom-Up to Solve Problems and Save the Union
A recent policy report from Cato voices concern that politics increasingly resembles civil war. To stem the forces pulling us apart, they suggest classical liberals must unite around strategies to ratchet down tensions, such as federalism and pluralism. Irina Soboleva argues for a “buffer zone” around apolitical aspects of life and suggests that decentralization is key. But what are those aspects of life and how can they be insulated from politics? How can decentralization be realized? What are the strategies to achieve it and who can act on them?
In Believe in People: Bottom-Up Solutions for a Top-Down World, Charles Koch and Brian Hooks note that innovation is grounded in the combination of preexisting ideas to create something new and better. (p. 73) They cite Thomas Kuhn’s assertion that major transformations “are inaugurated by a growing sense … that an existing paradigm has ceased to function adequately.” (p. xvii) However, recognition of the problem with politics is hardly new. George Washington cautioned more than two centuries ago that partisanship is corrosive.
To change that dynamic, Koch and Hooks argue for partnerships, building nonpolitical coalitions in pursuit of shared objectives. (p. 14) They observe that synergy is required for success both in communities as well as nations. They also note that Abraham Maslow predicted the formation of societies in which people automatically benefit others while pursuing their own self-interest. (p. 37) Toward that end, they argue breaking down barriers requires many more creative problem solvers. Moreover, unless such Social Entrepreneurs become more effective, the crises afflicting our cities, towns, and neighborhoods cannot be overcome. (p. 120)
Yet they suggest many Social Entrepreneurs are failing because they tend to view the people as problems to be solved rather than as the source of solutions. Such efforts are based on top-down control, the antithesis of bottom-up empowerment. That’s what William Easterly has called the “tyranny of experts” -- a mentality of control, leading to efforts to impose “solutions” on others. (p. 130) How could such elitist conceit not foment resistance, if not outright revolt?
Speaking of tyranny, socialists, including so-called “social democrats,” may think they know what’s best for everyone and believe they are fighting unfair advantages enjoyed by big corporations. However, socialism is surely not the solution to corporate welfare. It is actually the opposite, i.e., the “fullest expression” of corporatism. (p. 199) The big government and big business elite comprising The Politics Industry are naturally allied against everyone else.
Moreover, we are unwittingly abetting the trend of creeping statism. When we see problems, we may look first to government to solve them. Rather than pursuing cooperative solutions based on individual empowerment, we separate into warring political camps. Instead of highlighting points of agreement, we focus on divisions. (p. 207) Not only is that counterproductive for society but it also leaves the little guys in the lurch, in favor of companies and bureaucracies deemed “too big to fail” and thus zealously guarded by the political elite.
Indeed, by its very nature, partisanship is a form of tribalism. The mission of political parties is not to work together but rather to gain and maintain control. (p. 208) And that is no secret. Citizens are well aware the system is broken. The large majority of Americans (83%) believe tribal divisiveness is a “big problem.” Even more -- in excess of 90 percent -- want to stop it and find ways to bring people together. (p. 222)
Moreover, although about two-thirds think others view the world as a zero-sum game, the great majority are actually primed to contribute synergistically. If they realized they’re not alone, Koch and Hooks say they would be much more likely to voice their true beliefs. And when they do so en masse, progress can occur quickly, on a massive scale. (p. 245)
The first step is to recognize that we can do better. The second is to show what’s possible. When that occurs, the result can be compelling, impossible to ignore. In that event, millions of people will want such innovations for themselves, their families, friends, communities, and countries. (p. 246) Better yet, bottom-up progress can begin anywhere, with anyone, and then ramp up rapidly. (p. 224)
Koch and Hooks suggest that institutional change entails three parts: finding and supporting worthy causes, catalyzing widespread action, and celebrating success. (p. 165) At the level of individual action, the process also essentially boils down to three steps:
- Discover opportunities.
- Determine what works.
- Connect with others, focusing on the tasks to be accomplished rather than differences of opinion on largely irrelevant matters. (pp. 146, 230 & 231)
With respect to the opportunities to make a difference, however, they suggest that movements cannot be manufactured. Those likely to succeed have already begun and are waiting to be discovered. They simply need a boost to coalesce around common goals. (p. 243)
It is also noteworthy, however, that none of those three steps is necessarily easy to accomplish, much less routine. In essence, as currently practiced, they are Capability Maturity Model (CMM) Level 1, Chaotic, processes. The opportunity for improvement abounds and that movement has already begun. Indeed, a significant part of its essence is already captured in an internationally approved data standard, Strategy Markup Language (StratML, ISO 17469-1).
While word-of-mouth, social media postings, and Google queries are perfectly acceptable ways to discover opportunities, they are far from optimal. Furthermore, if efforts are poorly documented and fail to report performance metrics, determining what actually works is virtually impossible. Anyone’s biased opinion is as good as anyone else’s and the lack of measures that can be objectively evaluated invites disagreement and dissension. Finally, while social media offer opportunities to “connect” and to become “linked-in” with others, they are poorly equipped to help prospective partners discover and productively engage each other in pursuit of clearly defined objectives.
Koch notes that many Social Entrepreneurs labor in obscurity and his goal is to change that. (p. 103) However, it remains to be seen whether Koch Disruptive Technologies will be up to the challenge of reframing the market and empowering innovators to outperform the social media giants by enabling goal-oriented connections. (p. 60)
While the perceived need to reduce the power of the tech monopolies may be one issue on which many members of both sides of the partisan divide can agree, would it not be wiser to build a better future from the bottom up, through new and improved services, rather via evermore top-down, politically motivated controls? With respect to the long-term interests of We the People, aren’t partisan controls ultimately self-defeating? Doesn’t control inevitably beget the need for still more of it, effectively blowing away any buffer that may have existed around previously apolitical aspects of life?
To reverse that trend while solving problems and saving the union, might you be a superhero Social Entrepreneur willing and able to innovate the necessary transformative services from the bottom up?