democracy – My Mental Model

Schultz 2020

A couple years ago I got involved with a cool little cannabis company. It was retail, and very early stage, but it had a ton of character and was being done really, really well. As I was preparing them for a capital raise, I had to create a quick comparison with an existing business that others would recognize. We landed on, ‘the young Starbucks of cannabis’. I figured that if I was going to make a bold claim of that nature, I had better know that company inside and out. Part of that was reading Howard Schultz’s book, Pour Your Heart Into It.

I actually listened to it while on a mini-road trip and I was immediately a fan of the guy. He had true humble beginnings. His path did not lack adversity. And his success did not cost him his humility. In hearing how he approached the obstacles he faced throughout his career, you could tell that he was a person of integrity and strong values. Not just a smart person, but the kind of person who uses their smarts to try and make life better for others.

When Donald Trump ran for president, a lot of people were saying that getting a business mind into the White House was a great idea and that Donald Trump was an ideal candidate. I think that someone who truly understands the fundamentals of business is capable of running an organization of any shape or size. I also think that those who are most capable of running a government are not in politics. I had actually been hoping to see a great business mind in the White House for years but I also knew that Donald Trump was not that person. His approach to building and running businesses (into bankruptcy) was not transferable to building and running a government. I still think that Hillary would’ve been a far more competent and far less corrupt leader than Trump, but it still shows that the American voter is looking for a change from the status quo. They can sense that the talent pool within the political system is thin and that our best and brightest operate in the private sector.

Over the last 3 years or so, I’ve paid a great deal of attention to American politics. Far more than I ever had in my life. And in order to keep up, I had to learn a ton about how things work. And like many of us, it led me to a place where I wanted help create change for the better. I think Howard Schultz has ended up there as well. He’s been asked about running for office various times over the years and in most cases, he’s suggested that he’s interested but not that interested. My impression is that he was motivated to make the world a better place but that he would rather do that through Starbucks and his charitable work than attempt to navigate the corrupt landscape of politics. But that all changed when Trump came along. Schultz sees what I see, and it means that his sense of responsibility to make the world a better place now weighs more heavily on him than his desire to stay out of politics.

When I say that both Trump and Clinton were terrible candidates, people ask me who I would vote for or who I would want to run. For the last two years, I’ve been saying Howard Schultz. The guy actually grew up in the projects so he knows what it means to come from humble beginnings and what it takes to rise up out of those circumstances. In Starbucks, he built a world-class organization that made a name for itself by treating its employees really well. As an individual, he’s demonstrated that he’s a person of character and integrity. And the bonus, if he ran, I was pretty sure it would be as an independent.

Well, a couple days ago, Schultz was interviewed on the news and he told the audience that he was considering a run in 2020. Fuck ya. Not just that, but that he was going to run as an independent and a centrist. He called out both parties for doing more politicking than governing and I expected no less from the guy. As a real life billionaire, he’s capable of funding his own campaign and doesn’t need to hitch himself to any special interests. And that seems to be ruffling some feathers.

First you had Trump that managed to embarrass himself more effectively in one tweet than any dig from Schultz would have. Trump started by saying that Schultz didn’t have the guts to run for president. Weird flex considering that if Schultz does run, he starts the game 1 – 0 against Trump. Then Trump takes a shot at Schultz’s intelligence, claiming that he himself is the smartest person in America. Meanwhile, what Trump was referencing was when Schultz said that he’s not always the smartest person in the room. From what I’ve observed, this is what smart people say when they’re being modest and it’s often because they’re smart enough to spent time with even smarter people. Finally, Trump tries to wrap it up by establishing dominance, asking if Schultz has paid him his rent for the Starbucks location inside Trump tower. Cringe-worthy.

What I saw from Trump was expected. Trump’s tactics are reminiscent of a bully on a playground. He starts with, “you don’t have the guts to play here”. Then he teases him and calls him stupid. Then he brags about something that’s clearly a lie. Then he makes play for his lunch money. Straight off the playground. And if Schultz has any political strategists already on board, they’re loving it. Trump plays the role of the bully well, but he’s a shadow of himself when it doesn’t work. It’s also why I don’t think you should protect kids from bullying as much as you should prepare them to overcome it. Schultz was no stranger to bullies growing up and has dealt with bullies of all shapes and sizes in the private sector. If someone of Trump’s character is easy pickings for someone like me, Schultz is going to eat him alive. I really do think that of all the potential candidates that may run against Trump, Trump would fear Schultz the most. Fortunately for Trump, there’s a good chance he won’t make it to 2020.

While that was Trump’s reaction, the republican reaction has been more muted. I don’t think they know what to say just yet. The republican national committee seems to have thrown their full weight behind Trump which seems a bit suspicious given his current poll numbers and impending proceedings. I guess we’ll see how that turns out. But either way, right wing media has been more focused on the democrats response to Schultz’s announcement than anything.. and perhaps rightfully so.

The Democrat’s response to Schultz looking into a 2020 presidential run has been a giant, steaming pile of horse shit. Every democrat that I’ve seen speak on this, including some top brass, has been strongly against Schultz running for president. As they’ll tell you, it has almost nothing to do with his policies or his credentials, and everything with him running as an independent. As they put it, the greatest concern is defeating Donald Trump and by introducing a popular independent candidate, you risk ‘splitting the anti-Trump vote’. They’re afraid that Donald Trump has 40% of the voter base on lock, and that if you split the remaining 60% of voters between Schultz and a democrat candidate, you end up with another 4 years of Trump. Fuck that.

From what I understand, one of the biggest flaws in American politics is a 2 party system. It’s an effective duopoly of American democracy. One in which *both* parties have demonstrated that they are deeply corrupt and beholden to special interest groups. One of the best things we could do for democracy is to have elected representatives who voted exclusively on what their constituents want, rather than voting along party lines or voting for special interests on promises of future campaign contributions. This change isn’t only grass roots, in large organizations, it happens from the top down. But how would we accomplish that it costs a billion dollars to run for president and most people can only access that kind of capital as a democrat or republican candidate? 99.9% can’t, and that’s the point. That’s why it’s a duopoly. That’s why every president in the last however many years has been produced by one of two organizations. It’s why no matter who’s in office, nothing ever seems to change. And we’re now at a point where it all desperately needs to change. And the democrats are now the ones trying to stand in the way.

This isn’t the first time it’s happened either. This is literally what happened with Bernie Sanders in 2016. Bernie was a better candidate than Hillary and he was certainly a better candidate than Trump. The democrats thought Hillary was a stronger candidate and did what they could to give her the party’s nomination. Considering that Bernie is an independent, I wonder if someone from the democrats approached him before he decided to run and encouraged him to run as a democrat instead of as an independent. You know, because of how important it was to not split the anti-trump vote.

Things are a bit different this time though. Trump is the dumpster fire that everyone predicted and it’s left the republicans in a tight spot. Trump has solidified about 20% of voters into a cult of personality who, right now, would follow him off a cliff. As long as Trump stays out of jail, keeps yelling at immigrants, and the economy keeps growing, he’s probably their only candidate for 2020. Meanwhile, democrats had their blue wave during the midterm, and bunch of new blood in congress, and Pelosi is just starting to flex her muscles. They’re primed for a big comeback in 2020 with a broad selection of candidates from career politicians to career politicians. As far as they’re concerned, 2020 is theirs to lose. The problem with that though, is that this isn’t about them. It’s about the country. And the people. And the democratic process. And they’re treating it like trying to win a big, 4 year government contract. Fuck that.

Right now, my full weight is behind Schultz. This notion that we should avoid putting our best leaders forward because it might reduce the chances of a democrat candidate beating a republican candidate sound remarkably undemocratic. First and foremost, both political parties are playing divisive politics and catering to the more vocal and extreme ends of their base. Most of us are not represented by these individuals and together, we represent the silent majority. We are people who might lean left or right, but generally speaking, hold a balanced view. It’s people who are here that realize that good and bad ideas can be found on either end of the political spectrum. And that despite all our differences, we have far more in common with one another. Someone needs to step up for the silent majority.. and represent reason.. and common sense.. and community.. and being good to one another again. Right now I think Schultz is our best chance at giving those people a voice.

The second reason, which should be obvious, is that Schultz has just as much of a chance to take votes off of the republican candidate as it would with the democrat one. Most people who voted for Trump did so because he was a challenge to Washington’s status quo. They wanted an outsider with a background in business to come and shake things up. They wanted it so desperately that they didn’t bother looking too close when Trump said he was exactly what they were looking for. If Trump goes down in flames, which I bet he will.. his base sure as hell won’t be voting for a rank and file democrat.. but I could certainly see them voting for someone like Schultz. Someone who isn’t afraid to stand up to the ridiculous politics of the left, I think that’s going to mean a lot for them. Someone who can go on to Fox News and lay down the boom as a self-made billionaire who was the CEO of a fortune 500 company. I think there’s a strong contingency in the Trump base who would love a guy who did all that. And if they had someone they trusted to root for, who was also telling us that we all gotta get along with one another if we’re going to make any progress… I think things get a lot better.

Third, and perhaps the biggest reason.. is dishonesty. You have the democrat brass coming out of the wood work sternly telling Schultz not to run because it’ll improve the chances of Trump being elected. Bullshit. You don’t want Schultz to run because it’ll decrease the chances of a democrat candidate taking office. And not just in 2020. If Schultz gets in there and does a good job, he’s getting another 4 years. And within that 8 year period, as we learn the lessons of identity politics and learn to embrace our individuality… what happens to the relevancy of the two-party system? How many others run as independents? How many of us in hindsight want nothing to do with the political tactics of the democrats and republicans? Howard Schultz winning the 2020 election could quite possibly be the death of the 2 party system in America and that could easily be the best thing to happen to American politics in the last 100 years.

Compelled Patriotism

There have been times where I’ve felt more patriotic than others, but generally speaking, I find it a little strange.

The times where I identified as a patriot, were times where I felt good about how my country was impacting others, and felt aligned with the values my country had displayed. That doesn’t happen so much these days. These days, it’s difficult to understand what a patriot really is and whether anyone should want to be one.

The NFL looks to have passed a new anthem policy. From what I understand, if you’re on the field, you have to stand for the national anthem. The president’s remarks were something to the effect of, ‘if you don’t want to stand, maybe you shouldn’t be play. Maybe you shouldn’t be in the country. If you’re not proud of the country, you shouldn’t be here.’ I’ve often said that Trump was going to be one of the best things to happen to this country. Not because he leads or inspires, but because he’s forcing us to ask questions which weren’t being asked.

What if you’re not proud of the country?

Google defines a patriot as a person who vigorously supports their country and is ready to defend it against enemies or detractors. Seems pretty straight forward. So where’s the nuance? I suppose it would be in how you define supporting your country, and who you determine to be the enemies or detractors.

Some people support their country by displaying the country’s branding as often as possible. Maybe I should’ve said flag or colors instead of branding, but which is more accurate? Some people support their country and defend it against enemies by joining the military and fighting overseas. But how did you know who our enemies were? Some people defend the country against detractors by protecting the commander and chief. But what do you think the commander and chief should be protected from? It seems as though patriotism has more to do with manipulation than it does with national pride.

I’ve struggled with the concept of pride recently, When to have it, why to have it, and when it’s too much. I grew up around ‘Azn Pride’.. it was kinda like white pride but Asian. More often than not, it was about screen names and gamer tags but from time to time, it meant more than that. It reminded people not be ashamed of where they were from or what they looked like, and gave them a sense of confidence and community among their peers. But there were also times where Azn Pride was about showing dominance over other groups. But what are you really proud of at that point?

Personally, I don’t think you can have patriotism without nationalism and nationalism never seems to work well out for anyone. Nationalism really is a game of us versus them on a global scale. Not only did we not have a say in where these lines on the map were drawn, we have no choice as to which side of the line we’re born to. Yet these lines are enforced vigorously. We are told that the people inside those lines are our brothers and sisters, and that the people outside those lines are potential threats. And yet our country was built upon those who came from outside the lines. And is under attack from those who were born here.

Perhaps patriotism is inherently flawed. Right now, it encourages us to protect our enemies and betray our communities. We’re told that we’re not patriotic when we don’t follow the direction of our president. When the values of our people, country, and president are no longer aligned, who deserves our loyalty? If patriotism is defined by a loyalty to a country, is that better understood as the people of that country, or those who are running it? People in government demanding loyalty sounds awfully undemocratic. In a democratic country, where democracy literally means government for the people by the people.. the answer seems rather obvious.

So what does democratic patriotism look like? Maybe it’s not necessarily an oxymoron. I think it looks like a celebration of the people. It’s a celebration of our diversity rather than a celebration of the red, white and blue. It’s building monuments to the people who are making the world a better place today rather than arguing over old civil war statues. It’s marching together for no more wars, and it’s marching together for no more police violence. It’s not just about celebrating our accomplishments, but about acknowledging our darker moments in arriving here. And you’re damn right that it’s about being able to take a knee during the national anthem to show your support for those the country has failed.

So what does patriotism look like when the lines between us and them disappear?

Let me try something..

Anyone remember that scene from Old School where Will Ferrell steps up to debate ‘The Ragin’ Cajun”, James Carville?

Curious enough, something similar happens to me from time to time. Some people say that I’m articulate and well spoken but I may just be well rehearsed. When I’m discussing something that I’ve given a lot of thought to, I’ve already had those conversations numerous times in my own head. Perhaps that’s why my mind wanders when I’m giving speeches. Perhaps even more curious, it’s often this state of mind which tends earn me that ‘mic drop’ moment.

Anyways, I had one of those moments in the shower earlier and I thought it might be worth writing down. The debate question is:

What’s the real issue in American politics today?

Going into blackout mode…

This isn’t a black versus white thing, this isn’t a rich versus poor thing, and this isn’t a left versus right thing. This is what happens when politics becomes more important than governance. This is what happens when a duopoly of power prioritizes the short-term success of their party over the greater good of the people they’re supposed to serve.

The American people have democracy, but in a democracy where you’re asked to elect someone you don’t know to run a system you don’t understand, what exactly are you asking of your people? In an election process that requires billion dollar campaigns, who do you expect to be influencing those candidates? In a system with such obvious fundamental flaws, why do we keep expecting different outcomes?

When we start to notice what’s happening though, rather that acknowledge our mistakes and work to solve our problems, we’re given someone to blame. If you’re rich, blame the tax raising democrats. If you’re poor, blame the heartless republicans. If you’re middle America, blame the coastal elites. If you’ve lost your job, blame the immigrants. If you’re a liberal millennial, blame the white man. It’s all utterly ridiculous because when someone understands how interconnected we all are, it’s very easy to see that we’re all in this together.

The American people want freedom. That’s the freedom to be whoever we want to be and love whoever we want to love. That’s also the freedom for businesses to compete without unnecessary regulations. The American people want lower taxes, but don’t mind paying them as long as they’re spent well. The American people want someone working 40 hours a week to earn a livable wage. The American people want to stop invading other countries. The American people want affordable access to health care. The American people agree on almost all major issues, but through the spin cycle of politics and media, everyone’s divided without even really understanding why.

The universe always finds it’s equilibrium. Just after Trump was elected, I said this may be a good thing. Not because he’ll be any good at his job, but because he might just be catastrophically bad at it. Just maybe he’ll lie more than any politician ever has. Maybe he’ll flip flop all of his policies. Maybe he’l have temper tantrums so frequently that people question if he’s mentally fit enough for office. Maybe he’ll let his racist undertones influence policy. Maybe all the shady stuff that he’s done in the past will come to boil over during his presidency and we can finally have a complete meltdown of the confidence in our government.

Maybe that’s when we stop paying attention to them, and start paying attention to each other. Maybe that’s when we start to drive our own rhetoric around the values that got us here in the first place. Maybe that’s when we’ll finally open our minds to what government could be.

Using Google’s Algorithm to Solve Democracy

So I don’t sleep much. My issue is that when the lights go off and I climb in bed, instead of my brain thinking that it’s time to sleep, it think’s that it’s now time for an un-interrupted thought session.

Last night, at about 2AM I turned to the other person in my bed and announced that I might have solved democracy with an application of Google’s search algorithm. Fortunately for me, I wasn’t greeted with a pillow to the face and I was given an opportunity to explain what I meant.

When defining democracy, it’s essentially a system of government by the people, for the people. I don’t see a fundamental flaw in that regard, but I do see a fundamental flaw in our application of democracy to the election process. Even with variations like the electoral college system, democratic elections are still determined primarily by the popular vote – and that’s the problem.

Back in grade 9, I ran for student council. I was the representative for the grade 8 class, so why not. I was one of two people who were voted in. The second was a classmate named Collin who was egged on by the popular crowd to run. The problem is that Collin had very few intentions of actually participating on the council. He was elected, partly as a practical joke and partly as an act of defiance. This was the first time I had experienced a failure of a democratic election and certainly wasn’t the last.

If we agree that the purpose of a democratic election is to collectively select the leader most capable of leading, then we have a fantastic starting point. Where that falls out of line with the democratic process though, is that all votes are counted equally. That makes the assumption that everyone is equally capable of selecting the most capable leader. Effectively, someone who has put no effort into understanding who’s most fit to lead has an equal vote to someone who’s put in a tremendous amount of effort. That’s strikes me as an efficient process.

Imagine if a company’s CEO was determined by the popular vote of its employees and customers. Sounds fun, but how qualified are those individuals to make that decision? A search for a major CEO is a highly strategic endeavor in which significant resources are dedicated to finding the absolute best candidates, and vetting them to the nth degree. Would it not make sense to apply a similar strategy to electing a president or prime minister? For most companies, the CEO is elected by a board of directors and the board of directors are elected by the company’s shareholders. Effectively, you have people who are highly educated on the operations of that business, have had a chance to review all the candidates personally, and have selected the person who’s best capable of leading that company – in theory.

I certainly wouldn’t be the first person to suggest applying business principles to government, but I think this approach falls short of the end goal as well. Let’s use the states as an example with a 320 million person voting base and let’s say that this hypothetical board of directors that would be responsible for selecting a president was 20 members deep. So the 320 million Americans would elect those 20 board members and those board members would elect the president, but this doesn’t solve the issue of people choosing someone they don’t know, whose policies they don’t understand, for a role they don’t entirely comprehend. That board of directors becomes another exercise in the popular vote, but now they’ve also been given the autonomy to select someone who may not be in the public’s best interest. Somehow, the elected leader needs to be reflective of the general population’s best interests, but be selected by those who are capable of making such decisions. Enter Google.

I suspect that the majority of people who use Google know that it’ll do a fantastic job of helping you find something, but they might not understand what’s happening behind the scenes. The way it was explained to me was with a soccer team. How do you determine the best player on the team? Is it the player who scores the most goals? Is it who the crowd cheers loudest for? Probably not as defense wins championships and fans are fickle. Based on the Google Algorithm, a player’s value is determined by the passes they receive. Effectively, if they receive more passes than the average player, they’re simply identified as a more important player. The best player is simply determined by which player receives the most passes from the most important players.

Makes sense right? Well let’s take that one step further and recognize that what Google has really done is created an algorithm that identifies and then prioritizes trust. The best player on the team receives the ball more more often from other top players because they trust that player to be more capable. This trust factor is important when discussing the relationship that most voters have with their candidates. Most career politicians seem to have issues with integrity and keeping promises, yet every cycle, millions of voters talk about how they trust their preferred candidate. Personally, I think it’s unreasonable to trust someone you’ve never met, let alone seen how they behave when their morals and integrity are challenged. The reality is that it’s unfair to expect these individuals to choose a leader simply because they’re not equipped to do so. Another unfortunate reality is that the political system and media are fully aware of this and it’s why every few years, the circus comes to town and the status quo is maintained.

In order to make an educated decision for the leader of a country, you need to have a deep understanding of how government works and you need to have a deep understanding of who that candidate is. I think I’d be safe in assuming that 99% of Americans who participated in the last election were unqualified to vote by those standards – but they absolutely still deserve a voice. Time to deploy Google’s algorithm.

The idea is that you may only vote for someone you know and it would be encouraged that you simply prioritize character, integrity, and vision. Neighbourhoods all over the country would then put their trust behind a few key individuals who would then put their trust behind other key individuals. Through 6 degrees of separation, this algorithm would include just about everyone. Eventually, the algorithm would produce a group of peers who are effectively the most trusted and capable individuals in the country, and through their votes, they would elect the individual who they deem to be the most capable and trust worthy.

Earlier we agreed that the purpose of a democratic election was to collectively determine the individual most capable of leading. Democracy solved.