Care Bear Economics + Pugilist Politics: This One's From the Heart

Here's the Post headline:

Justin Trudeau promises to grow the economy ‘from the heart outwards’ — whatever that means

Here's the quote, in full:

"We're proposing a strong and real plan, one that invests in the middle class so that we can grow the economy not from the top down the way Mr. Harper wants to, but from the heart outwards."

Folk are having a field day with this, mockingly referring to "Care Bare Economics" and calling this Trudeau's campaign-sinking flub.

All that's spin, of course - his opponents and detractors are always on the look out for the campaign-sinking line; the detractors of each leader and party are doing the same.  Hence the focus on Mulcair's eyes, or Harper's lack of personality; these are sound-bite simple things that ads can be based on.

Being politics, the emphasis is always on tearing down your opponents, not trying to understand what they mean, only what they're trying to convey.

I'm going to ask the question because I think it's an incredibly relevant one:

What does economy from the heart outwards" actually mean?

It actually surprises me that the spin class can't figure this one out all on their ownsome.  Really, they should be the first to glean the substance of the phrase.

So let's make this relatable for them.

Do attack ads work?  Of course they do - that's why partisans use them.  The gurus of spin and emotion-based advertising get that people think with their head but act with their heart - their emotions.  

We may not like attack ads, because they are intellectually offensive to us, but they work because they play on our emotions, going over the heads of our conscious, contemplative selves.

Put it simply - it doesn't matter how much the party spokespeople try to portray themselves and their leaders as logical, evidence-based communicators; the substance of their presentation is emotional, not factual.

The Kory Teneyckes of the world may put down Trudeau and his "Care Bear economics", but they're just as invested in emotionally-driven messaging and planning as anyone else.

People think with their brains, but act with their hearts.  Their actions are driven by emotion first, logic second.  It's basic behavioural economics.

Which is what Care Bare economics is; a cutesy way of referring to growing field of study that is reshaping the way we view everything from voting behaviour to innovation to motivating productivity.

Stephen Harper is an economist.  He's studied economic theory; he gets the math of economics.  That should make him an excellent economic manager, right?  Able to predict trends through simple calculations?

Yet like so many economists, he's gotten more wrong that he has right.  He has not managed to steer the country away from our latest recession and in fact, when you look at his positions on everything from cutting childcare cheques to stifling pension supports, he's piling on our socio-economic structural deficits.

How can this be?

It's because Harper doesn't get people; he doesn't get behaviour.  He's thinking about numbers, about markets and banks and purchasing power - not about human motivation.  That's not something he knows how to do.

Harper wanted to be leader because he wanted the country to look the way he wanted it to.  To him, being the leader equates with being the boss - when he's in charge, he calls the shots, full stop.  

Yet look at his litany of failures.  The US didn't tow his line on Keystone.  The provinces have essentially ignored his anti-national health care stance and are going it alone.  The Supreme Court has knocked down legislation as unconstitutional, his attempts at burying the Duffy Affair - one of his own making - have failed; the list goes on, and on, and on.

And on.

Why?

Two reasons.  The first is the easiest: Harper doesn't get people.  He doesn't know how to inspire, because he can't emotionally relate to what drives people to act.  There's a diagnosis in this, but the bottom line is that Harper uses the emotional equivalent of a sledge hammer (fear) because it's really the only tool in his motivational box.

Not everyone is afraid of him, especially when it comes to international partners.  Harper likes to be the smartest, most unchallenged person in the room, and that doesn't happen on the global stage.  He fails at achieving his goals.  

Some people are more committed to what they do than they are to themselves, something else Harper doesn't get; so when staff go rogue or stakeholders he can completely undermine stand against him, he can only see these actions through the lens of "why don't they get it?"  

Harper consistently fails to understand the behavioural consequences to his actions and, as a result, walks into one political rake after the other, from Prorogation to pension reform to corrupt Senators.

The second reason spins off of the first; because Harper doesn't get people and doesn't get motivation, his starting point is way off the mark.  His "vision" of Canada is of a static, neo-con box that he wants to stuff all of Canada into.  It's a completely unachievable goal that will never happen, because people aren't all the same; the world is more complex than the Platonic Cave of Harper's dream Canada.

Stephen Harper is a great tactician, but he sucks at complexity theory.  He understands numbers, but he is clueless about people.

This is why he consistently falls short of his objectives.

Back to Trudeau.

From all indications, Trudeau is no less an egoist than anyone who runs for high office; from words he chooses to some of the positions and messaging he approves, he's not directly in line with the average Canadian either.

One thing that's emerging about Trudeau as the campaign gets underway, though, is something we kinda knew already.

To sum it up with an analogy; 

If you're in a fist-fight, the objective is never to hit your opponent; it's to punch clear through them.  

If you're giving a concert, or teaching a class, or delivering a speech, the goal is never to project to your audience - it's to captivate them, own them.

This is a thing that Trudeau gets, regardless of whether his execution leaves something to be desired or not.

His debate close is evidence of this.  Many people who don't like him didn't like it, but many people who are neutral about him were moved by his words, and that was the whole point.

The goal of leadership isn't to force people into your box, as Harper has consistently tried and failed to do; the purpose of leadership is to inspire people to be full partners in the realization of a vision that everyone relates to, but you have taken it upon yourself to articulate.

When people put themselves first, collective action is short-sighted.  Tragedy of the commons scenarios ensue:

- people rush the yellow light to get ahead and slow down all traffic by crowding intersections

- Senators will take whatever they can get, because they can, without consideration to the broader consequences for their teams

- employees will do the bear minimum and offer no insight, because that's all that's on offer

When people believe in something, they can be more than the sum of their short-term interests; they can be a community.

This concept of communal drive and inspired action is referenced heavily in modern business classes, at economic forums like the Toronto Global Forum and is a core principle of incubation spaces, social innovation leaders like CSI and any good User Generated Content campaign on social media.

Government policy is increasingly moving in the crowd-source direction.  Millenials are motivated at least as much by what they can contribute, when inspired, as what they can take away, carrot-and-stick style.

His wording might not be perfect, but Trudeau's general perception of Care Bear Economics is in tune with broader societal trends as we shift from the 20th Century Industrial economy to the 21st Century social capitalism.

Which of course means nothing in the heat of an election campaign.  If you can't explain all of this in a bumper-sticker sized quote and a hashtag, you're wasting your time.

Big picture, though, it doesn't matter.  

Whether led by Trudeau or, as is more likely, led by a coalition of grassroots activists, virtuously scheming public servants and heart-based leaders from the corporate world, Care Bear Economics is on the rise, and that's a good thing.

It's a generational thing; if you don't get it, don't panic.  I guarantee your grandchildren will.

Fear Not AI

"Whereas the short-term impact of AI depends on who controls it, the long-term impact depends on whether it can be controlled at all."

Oh, come now.  Rational actors that we are, surely we can get the best of any fool AI or ET that crosses our paths?

We've done so well so far.

The Demise of Civil Canada

And they worry it could lead to the end of candour in federal politics, with wary politicians reduced to mouthing platitudes and reciting carefully scripted talking points.

But the Conservatives are making no apologies.

Or saying nothing at all, while paid spokespeople or dropped ads become the only vehicle for message to be sent, with no equivalent existing for input to be received.

This not to say it's a shift unique to the Conservatives; the "contact sport" that is politics has become increasingly aggressive and mean-tactic heavy.  Contact, by the way, refers to hitting opponents, not engaging with constituents.

Of course there are no apologies; apologies are for the weak.  Real men, or mannish women, hit hard, take no quarter, and as they are always in the right, are justified in doing whatever it takes to beat back the heathens at the gate.

If anyone calls into question their tactics, it's simply an indication that those self-same tactics are effective.  

Call Team Harper Nixonian all you want - they'll think of you as sore losers.  Nixon didn't get away with it, they'll say, but we did.  Clearly, we're better than he was.

This is not a democratic approach.  This is not about "exposing true feelings" or even about policy.  What's pushing these increasingly aggressive political players is the desire for power, not love of the leader.

Leaders look to their own self-interest, collect teams that do the same, and so on down the chain it goes. That's what a sociology-free government looks like; Sun News in the House of Commons.

Lest you think that's a universal condemnation, there are many who see that as a positive.  It's only in angry reaction, don't you know, that true selves are revealed, right?

Here is the heart-breaking, maddening irony.  When anything you do is right, and any attack that comes from opposition is only evidence of how powerful you truly are, you lose sight of the big picture and your place in it.  The tactics you use become increasingly shocking, simply because that's the nature of escalation.

It's the exact same spectrum that ISIS is on - they too are about power, instilling fear in their foes through harsh tactics and taking what they want simply because they can.

What happens when powers equally focused on destroying their foes and with no introspection about their purpose and the social impact of their action come head-to-head?  

Massive amounts of money gets spent on the weapons of war, ranging from robocalls, troll armies and attack ads to real troops throwing real grenades.  The severity of collateral damage follows suit.  The basics of italicization fall away, because they are all matters of sociology.

War is the worst time to commit sociology, right?  Your opponent isn't to be understood, but eliminated by brutal force, full stop.  This is the mind-set of the people wielding power who can't be bothered to understand their enemy and are so trapped by their egos they are incapable of understanding themselves. 

And so the only option they know and embrace is escalation.

That's where we're at, internationally.  That's what we're creeping towards, domestically.

These folk haven't won.  They've set fire to our common ground without realizing that wherever their heads are at, their feet stand on the same earth.

Hope exists in unlikely places, but there's a creeping darkness overtaking our politics.

Fall's coming and, as always, winter isn't far behind.

Stephen Harper: On the Wrong Side of Sociology

Last year, the premiers unanimously agreed an inquiry is necessary.  Selinger said Harper is offside with how Canadians feel about the situation.

"Most Canadians believe vulnerable people of any kind should be protected," he said.

Stephen Harper doesn't think there's ever a good time to commit sociology - especially not when it comes to reverse-engineering criminal activity.  

For him, criminal acts are criminal acts; they don't have context, they aren't the result of pre-mitigating factors - they just are.  It's like Vincent from Collateral; it wasn't his pulling the trigger that killed the guy, it was the bullet and the fall.  

No connection whatsoever, see?  There are no venn diagrams in Harper's world.

Harper believes people are rational actors motivated by financial self-interest - except for those who aren't. Considering how statistics suggest that ethnic minorities make up the bulk of prison inmates and social service users, it's a good thing he doesn't make generalizations - he'd end up being one of those guys who thinks Islam is evil or black protesters in Ferguson are animals.

When PM Harper talks tough on crime, reduced regulation for corporations, etc., he's simply trying to create a fully-functioning free-market economy where rational, self-interested actors compete through their labour and pricing to achieve a balance of consumption and cost, supply and demand.

It's a political narrative that helps distinguish him from his foes, but it's also a perspective he is functionally fixed on, unable to waver from.  

Yet his position is full of holes.  Was Mike Duffy a rational actor?  How about Nigel Wright?  Was Kouvalis in the right with misleading phone calls, or Peter MacKay with his political truths?  Is trying to portray your chief rival as a feminine poof a rational and financially-motivated, or is it relying on what his team has identified as social perceptions?  

By theorizing that Canadians don't care about the workings of Parliament, is he suggesting Parliament - the engine of democracy - isn't rational, or in the interests of the people?

Harper is incapable of lateral thinking, incapable of understanding his foe - he's a bully, and that's his ultimate limitation.  The reason he's so adverse to meeting with all the Premiers at once is that in that type of scenario, he's Prime Minister among many rather than the top dog in the room.  Harper needs to be the most authoritative person in the room - he's simply uncomfortable with the notion of peers.

In this, he's like the folk on Wall Street - they figure that power is theirs and the kids they want to hire are in it for the money.  Pay people enough and they'll do whatever; the more you pay, the better the talent you can attract, plus afford to weed out lesser talent.

Thing is, Wall Street is losing the battle for talent and innovation.  The sorts of people they should be attracting are more interested in growth, empowerment and contributing to something of social value than they are in their personal financial interest.  

It makes sense; in an increasingly interconnected world, most of us are seeing quite clearly how connected we all are.  The broader impacts of our action or inaction are more and more clear, meaning that we're getting that to commit sociology is the best way to promote our own self-interest.

Altruism is selfishness that plans ahead, after all.

Yet Harper and Wall Street both seem to think there's a general ignorance among the general public that serves as a natural resource for their consumption.  In practice, both act as though people aren't rational, but rather, easily manipulated.  Both are paying the price as a result.

While other governments are committing sociology - through education programs, through behavioural insights and the like, Canada is an innovation laggard.  While the US military is the biggest North American consumer of Positive Psychology, Team Harper refuse to accept their own findings around mental health and social-emotional resilience.

So focused are they on the notion that they are history's actors, they are willfully blinding themselves to just how quickly they (and as a result, we) are falling behind at social evolution.

In the Knowledge Economy, it's people who think and work in the exact opposite way Harper does that will succeed, attract the best talent, build the strongest brands and have the greatest impact on society. Companies are pursuing more employee-sensitive onboarding practices and becoming more Open with their information at the same time Harper's government is moving to become more closed.  

User-Generated-Content is being encouraged at the same time as all political parties are pushing canned messages.

The truly innovative providers are looking at differing cultures not as threats or irrelevancies, but as idea mines to be tapped for new solutions, services and products.  As we're focused on structural wellness and whole-person health that bridges the work/life divide, First Nation practices ranging from the talking circle to the medicine wheel are being explored.

Meanwhile, Harper's numbers aren't as great as they once were.  Clearly, there's no connection between his fall in popularity and the inability of his party to adapt to the times.  They just need to stick their head in the sand on internal conflicts/systematic issues and keep poking civic fears about the zombie hoard, and they'll come out on top again.  Then they'll have to tweak the rules again to keep those crazy sociology-committers from succeeding under the existing, democratic rules of engagement.

Which brings us neatly back to Sellinger's words.  

From Ferguson to the Middle East to murdered Aboriginal Women and at-risk youth, we are all aware that increasingly closed and top-down governments are fuelling civic unrest and allowing structural issues to exacerbate.  We worry less about seas of troubles then potential domestic collapse.

We want the confidence of knowing our leadership shares our views and is prepared with a vision and a plan to do something about this burning platform.

At this stage in the game, it's almost criminal not to be committing sociology.  Such are the pitfalls of not thinking ahead, I guess.

On @jandrewpotter's Response to #Ferguson and War Room Politics (UPDATED)

9. Enforcing the law and maintaining the civil order in a constitutional democracy is fundamentally different form forcing a political outcome upon a foreign power through the use of violence and deadly force.  They are so different that the very notion that the equipment, training methods, culture, and norms that govern them should be shared is insane.

I don't know if Potter quite intended to make this point, but there it is.  When he talks about the increased militarization of society on the whole, he could just have easily pointed a finger directly at War Room politics.

Partisan politics is all about forcing a political outcome.  It tends not to involve violence and deadly force, lately, at least in some countries - but that wasn't always the case.  As Potter hints at, we've seen a slow debasement of standards in politics, a subtle shift that has allowed more and more questionable tactics to be used.

Destroy your opponents?  Hate, step on their throats, etc?  How is this a healthy way to engage in policy debate in a democratic country?  Yet that's how war-roomers frame the battle between them and the barbarians at the gate, or in office.  

Only we can save you from them.

It's not much different from the mentality that produces lines like "bring it, you fucking animals, bring it."

They will eat your babies and salt your land out of sheer malice, given the chance.  Heck, they're trying to do both already, aren't they?

Truth be told, plenty of partisans are just like the cops Potter describes; they relish the combat and want to rack up wins, whether it's for bragging rights or for career advancement.

Instead of guns, though, they use robocalls, Nationbuilder and behavioural economics to force their wins and defeat their foes.

As I've written before, though, this is the sort of slow creep from which actual shooting wars always start. We're seeing that play out right now.

Potter makes another crucial point, though, that has been lost in the fog of pseudo-war:

7. What gets lost in all of this is the extent to which the military is a distinct culture, and you can't simply give its gear and its training methods to police and expect good results.

Police officers serve and protect.  They are keepers of the peace who, by the nature of their work, face extraordinary risk to life, life and mind.  Soldiers are different.  Soldiers are trained to walk into the line of fire; there job isn't to preserve peace, but to fight for it.  It's a completely different enterprise.

Funny enough, we're seeing a strange shift in behaviours; friendly neighbourhood cops are being replaced as the cliche by heavily armed, tough-talking cowboys in SWAT gear while the US military has become the biggest consumer of Positive Psychology in North America.  

Soldiers are learning about social-emotional learning and communication at the same time as how to survive in the war zone.  There are some police I know who get this stuff and are committed to using the positive tools available to do their job - to serve and protect - better.  Having said that, there are lots who simply love the power of wearing a badge and carrying a gun.

Soldiers accept that sacrifice is part of their job; they, as people, come second to the cause they serve.  Both sides will have guns, both sides run risks which have often been mitigated by codes of honour like bushido or chivalry.  Omerta is not a code of honour - it's a defense for the Prisoner's Dilemma.

Cops don't have the same level of skin in the game; they could and probably should expect to punch out form their day job and have a regular life at home, same as anyone.  As such, risk doesn't play the same way for police as it does for soldiers.  

Which is partially why we've seen an escalation of weapons and tactics among police, especially in light of 9/11, but even in response to situations like G20.  They want to be in control of any given situation, but they don't want to be at risk.  More guns, armour and the like helps mitigate their risk as crowds grow in response to an increasingly disengaged decision-making class and the consequences of armchair policy making.

The truth is, folks, you can't take the risk out of war - certainly not against your own people, not without becoming a doomed-to-fail tyrant.  Trying to do so unilaterally and without a willingness to honour your opponents as you'd like to be honoured yourself is a sure-fire way to escalate tense situations into shooting conflicts.

Something that also holds true for political parties, by the way.

I hate to say it, but things are likely going to get a lot worse before they start getting better, which bodes well for none of us.

UPDATED 20/8/14

Reflecting on Potter's piece this morning, another strand stood out:

6. That is why the real problem with what we are seeing in Ferguson is not the equipment, but the culture. And by that I don't just mean the culture of policing, but our culture as a whole. Over the past decade, the dominant themes and motifs of our culture have become increasingly militaristic.

Why is that?  Why are we developing into an increasingly militaristic culture that is so focused on being able to compete and score wins?

A couple thoughts on this.

We live in a consumerist culture that pushes the notion of entitlement for all.  You deserve to have the latest phone, or sneakers, or whatever; if you're not part of the latest franchise craze, well, you're being left behind. 

It used to be that only elites felt a sense of entitlement; either by birth, luck or in some cases, actual talent, they got more access and the means to control access to others.  That control of stuff like money and policy led to a sense of social divinity, that they could do no wrong by virtue of being who they were.

We still have a highly entitled elite; one of the messages they and others are conveying is that, in a supposedly flat world, there should be no redistribution of resources, no sociology - just pure free market capitalism.  To get ahead, people need to be competitive.

What do we tell our kids?  They have to be number one.  What do we tell people on the job market?  They have to be expert salespeople, in addition to whatever else they used to be.  No longer do we have sellers who seek out services to sell; now, we have a neofeudalism, where the front-line is supposed to be master sellers, pay their own way and provide for the elites.

If you're going to survive in a competitive world, you need to be tough, aggressive, have the best tools, right? 

That's the culture we have; each to their own, success through aggression.

Explains a few things, doesn't it?
 

Rob Ford, the Poor Man's Segregationist

 

 

 

"One thing that I think is universal about this design, no matter where you go in the world, is it has the effect of separating majorities of the population from relatively small affluent elite minorities of the population," Steven Flusty, who documented interdictory space in Los Angeles in the 1990s, tells Co.Design. "You can't have anything like a just or equitable society it includes spatiality."

 

Does spatiality include transit?

 

"Because if you haven't got a job, you won't need transit."

 

"If you cannot leave your house to go to work or look for a job, what's the sense of having transit?"

 

- Toronto Mayor Rob Ford

 

Rob Ford, as always, is good intentioned - but woefully ignorant and elitist.  It's like that time he tried to get Oxycontin for some random guy.  Or those days when he framed himself as the only hope for football players to avoid a life of drugs and crime, much like the one he was simultaneously living.

 

It's beneficial to explore Ford's position to understand where he's coming from.  What does he mean by suggesting people without jobs don't need transit?

 

Remember - this is the pro-car guy, the pro individual-freedoms guy.  When he says transit, he's not talking about broader infrastructure like roads, street signs, lights, etc. - he strictly means public transit.

 

Ford is also the anti-social assistance guy; he feels people need to stand on their own two feet and that social assistance is burdening the masses with carrying for the lazy.  This perspective doesn't imply that Ford doesn't recognize that some people simply can't work; like Tim Hudak, he's all roses and empathy for the really sick, though in his mind it's largely up to their families to take care of them.

 

This frame isn't a Conservative thing so much as it is an economic thing - if there were an Economic Party, it would have as it's slogan "it's the economy, stupid."

 

Under this frame, the only system that matters is the economic system.  The flow of money and the capacity to generate revenue/spending power is what matters.  Money is the fuel that keeps the economic beast churning.  That which generates revenue is good and should be rewarded; that which does not is a burden.  You want more of the former than the latter.

 

The only interaction between people that matters, from an economic perspective, is one that generates wealth and keeps money flowing.  People are the cogs in this economic machine; their job is to work. 

 

We're slowly getting to transit.

 

For folk like Ford, there are two kinds of people - those who can work and those who can't.  It's simple, which is what communication is supposed to be in their view, and it's also all about the economy.  The work and the revenue it generates matters most; people matter only in as much as they contribute to the economy.

 

For those who can make revenue, there are more categories; the more you make, the greater your status and privilege should be.  The Alpha Earners have less restrictions, because their capacity to earn validates them; whether they text and drive, drink on the job or whatnot doesn't matter, because they're still generating revenue. 

 

Those who earn less have less entitlements, because their economic value is less.  You don't get the corner office just for showing up, after all - ya gotta earn it, and earning is determined by ability to earn money.  So, while the wealthiest are entitled to break the odd rule, have homes in cottage country and dictate to lesser people what they should be doing, middle-income earners get away with less and have a more constrained level of spatiality (the ability to move) and space (property).

 

This brings us back to transit.  Cars are freedom - you can go anywhere, it's property you yourself own; public transit is shared, limited in where it can take you and worst of all, it gets in the way of cars. 

 

Of course, in Ford's mind, we all want cars - cars are status, freedom, tools and symbols of economic activity, which is all that matters.  Public transit, or simply transit in his world, is for people of lesser means.  For him, bicycles aren't transit - their leisure tools, like a crochet set or a badminton racket.  You ride a bike for fun, not for transit; it can't take you as far as a car, nor is it big property and it's not public transit in that you can't squish more people of lesser means on them.

 

To Rob Ford, the idea of bikes on roads is a non sequiter; they don't belong, because they don't contribute.  Roads are the veins of the economy; public transit blocks the flow of bigger earners in their cars; bikes are clots, clogging the system.

 

Put all this another way - if the economy is the system, than movement is about economic activity.  That which does not produce economic activity shouldn't be moving.  The more you earn, the more status and freedom you have to keep earning more - hence cars, or more plan traffic on the island airport.  The less you earn, the less need you have to go anywhere, because your movement does not serve a purpose.

 

Back to the people who work and the people who can't categories.

 

Those who can work, must work.  They're burdening the system if they don't.  Work is tied with movement - to and from work, to and from other economic activity, like the purchase or sale of goods including food, clothing, entertainment, etc.  These aren't activities that are about individuals and social living - they're about the economy.  Duh.

 

So what of those who can't work?  Well, if they can't work, then something must be really wrong with them.  Like, they're in a wheelchair or braindead or something, i.e. mobility isn't something that's available to them.  If they could move, after all, they would be capable of working in some form or other.

 

The ability to move equates with the ability to work.  The more work you do - or rather, the more economic activity you're able to generate - the more movement and space you're entitled to, for the good of the economic system.

 

If you're poor, well, you simply need to work harder, earn that car, gain the freedom wealthier people have by contributing more to the economy.  Public transit is a courtesy, really, one that should be buried away where it doesn't muck up the flow of car people.

 

If you can work, you should.  If you can't, it clearly means you're unable to go anywhere and therefore don't need transit, period.  Why would you?  Your movement doesn't contribute to the economy; allowing you movement will interfere with those who can.

 

This is how I see Rob Ford's frame on society, jobs and transit. 

 

Again, he means well - he's only thinking about the economy.  He wants more jobs for people so they can contribute to the economy and maybe get to a point where they're as entitled to do what they want as he is.  Transit must be all about supporting economic activity, otherwise what's the point?

 

From a very narrow frame, this makes sense in the same way John Tory's insistence that women need to be more demanding for raises and promotions does; might makes right, the ability to sell (oneself) has primacy, because the economy is all about pushing sales.

 

It's a common frame, an historically common frame, but also a dangerous one.

 

When the ability to work and generate revenue comes first, those who can generate money gain special status.  They get to bend rules.  Those who can't generate money, however, lose status - they become seen as impediments to the system that need to be pushed to work, isolated from the majority, etc.

 

What happens when an employer decides an employee isn't worth their salt?  They get terminated - removed from the system so as not to be a burden to those who are generating revenue.

 

At the start of the Industrial Economy, lower income earners like factory workers were housed close to where they worked and lived only to shuffle back and forth between work and home.  Illness was seen as an excuse, a deterrent to economic activity.  Kids ate, so they had to earn their keep, too - that's still the case in far too many places all over the world.

 

What of those who weren't able to work, either physically or mentally?  They were segregated so as not to impede the functioning of the economic system.  Burden that they were, as few resources as necessary were expended on them.  In extreme cases, these undesirables (for their inability to contribute) were terminated, too.  That, too, still happens.

 

Where those with power and money are entitled and those without have less access and less mobility, you don't tend to find a lot of democracy.  In fact, democracy is a system designed to balance out the economy with a dose of engagement, i.e. sociology.

 

Do jobs matter?  Yes they do.  Is the economy important?  Of course it is, but in a supportive role.

 

Rob Ford is wrong to downplay the importance of transit and access, but it's very telling that he does. 

 

Be thankful we don't have a Strong Mayor system in Toronto.  Worry that we have an increasingly unaccountable PMO.  And the next time you here someone say "it's the economy, stupid", be wary.

 

A Fiscal Truth for #cdnpoli

One, Justin Trudeau is no flash in the proverbial pan.  His popularity endures.  And millions spent on attack ads haven't changed the reality: in the 50-odd polls that have been conducted since he became Liberal leader, Trudeau remains Canadians' favourite choice to be Prime Minister.

 

 

From Warren Kinsella's non-blog.  His piece is all about why the Conservatives should be worried and why Stephen Harper may be thinking about retirement - a bit of nudging, as War Rooms do. 

 

That's not what interested me.  The millions spent on ads that haven't worked did.

 

Think about this for a second.  Stephen Harper and Canadian Conservatives in general are all about efficient use of the tax dollar.  If a public program failed as miserably as the CPC attack ads have done, they'd axe it.

 

The same holds true in the private sector - that which doesn't perform gets culled.  It's as simple as that - except when it comes to advertising and the boss' pet projects.  If anything, we can expect the Harper Tories to up their ad spending as they try to take Trudeau down.

 

What's wrong with this picture?

 

How can fiscal conservatives so wantonly waste their donors' dollars on failing initiatives?  How can they similarly waste taxpayer dollars on massive ad campaigns for things like Canada's Action Plan that produce no demonstrable value for their cost?  How can the Private Sector drop $200 K on consultants with nothing more than brand and bluster in their corner, yet refuse to give raises to hard-working front-line staff or invest in Corporate Social Responsibility programs like youth training?

 

The answer is an easy one.  We're not rational.  Even the fiscal conservatives are hypocrites, when you scratch the surface just a little.  We waste, because we have no clue what we're doing; we just try to sound confident while we're doing it.

 

I never trust tough-talking sales folk who stick to their "I am the best at what I do" messaging and invest heavily in their brand.  I know from experience that the more gets invested in image, the less is invested in substance.

 

It's too bad the people with actual capital and influence don't see this.  Society could be so much less wasteful and business so much more productive if they could just get out of their Cave and see the light a bit.

 

Partisan Indulgences

 

These emails are the main way political parties today are reaching potential donors, and experts say the missives are carefully crafted and targeted to get average Canadians to open their wallets and give.

 

"It is a psychological effort to try to get people to give money," says former Conservative strategist Tim Powers, now vice- chairman with Summa Strategies.

 

 

Once upon a time, Communist-related insurgent groups around the world engaged in kidnapping for political purposes.  These organizations, largely funded by the USSR, had distinct political agendas.  When the USSR died and their funding dried up, these groups realized that kidnapping was also a great way to make money - hence, the K&R business was born.

 

It's a dirty, cruel, manipulative business that can justify itself any way it wants to, but at the end of the day, it's about making money.  Kidnappers employ brutal tactics to subdue their captives and frighten their targets into paying ransoms.  It's psychological sales, with the well-being of actual humans ending up as collateral damage.

 

I thought about this as I read my email this morning and received this little message:

 

If you've been thinking about being part of the 5,303 who contributed $270,561 to this campaign, follow these instructions...

 

You may be surprised how good it feels to give - and be part of something this big.

 

If, by "something this big" you mean the industrial political complex, than yeah.  How much of this money trickles down into the Canadian economy, resulting in more jobs for youth, under and unemployed Canadians?  How much of it goes into the pockets of well-heeled advertising or polling consultants, who then spend it on renovations to their summer home in the Bahamas?

 

Political Parties are streamlining staff, consolidating their operations and trying to be as "businesslike" as possible.  That means earning more and spending less - except on all things marketing-related, including data-mining and behavioural insights-informed manipulations like these.

 

While raising money has always been a big deal for political parties, increasing restrictions on corporate donations has changed the game in fundamental ways - just as the death of the USSR did for the K&R industry.  

 

We still see high-priced, closed-door fundraisers where privileged access to policy makers is exchanged for ridiculous sums of cash, but now there's an increasing effort to target those Canadians who don't have as much money to donate.

 

The stakes are high, we're told - they have raised more money than us this quarter; if left unchecked, they will use their funds to manipulate even more Canadians than just those on their email lists and unleash the Zombie Apocalypse. 

 

Forget donating to your kids' summer camp, the Red Cross or some food bank or whatever - all those donations are wasted if they are left unchecked.  Feel the pressure?

 

Ah, but our souls aren't entirely forfeit - not if you put a few sheckles in our coffers, and do so regularly in small sums that add up to big sums in annual aggregate.

 

Only our leader can save Canada from them, restore peace and prosperity to the land; not your local charities, or even your local church, unless by church you mean political party, i.e. us. 

 

Every party is guilty of these sorts of manipulative tricks that are designed to hit social-emotional triggers, compelling donations in the way a moth is driven to a flame.

 

Let's put it another way; those pols who smirk and tell Canadians not to care about what happens in Parliament and suggests they fend for themselves when it comes to saving and sustainable living?

 

Those are the exact same ones that are condoning the use of sophisticated techniques of psychological manipulation designed to make Canadians feel the only way they can "fend for themselves" and invest in the promised land (where you, your friends and your family have a real and fair chance to succeed) is by giving their money to political institutions that won't visit a single dollar back to the benefit of those Canadians or their communities.

 

Remember that division between Church and State?  Well, now we have political parties setting themselves up as the Church, offering political indulgences and communion with the Leader at BBQs and what not in a way to fill their coffers. 

 

Here's the real deal, folks, that we periodically need to be reminded of:

 

We are already part of "something big" - something bigger than any institution, something that doesn't require a payment to contribute to.

 

It's called society.  By extension, it's what democracy is all about. 

 

They hold no power except what we let them assume through laws, manipulative ads and by outsourcing responsibility to them.

 

We remain as we always have been - the problem, when we disengage and the solution when we choose to work together, to listen, to bridge gaps and build collaboratively.

 

It's not a message you're going to hear from the people at the top - they're too reliant on compliance and psychological tricks to see how trapped by the game they themselves have become.

 

Leadership, folks, never comes from the top of a tower; it always comes from the ground up.

 

That nugget of wisdom is yours, free for the taking. 

 

You have to want to get engaged but when you do, you can make a difference.

 

Hudak's Virtue: At Least He's Consistent

By Wednesday morning, he was speaking with theological certainty: "I stand by my numbers.  It's going to create the jobs that I say."  "I know I am right."

Of course he knows he's right - he feels right.  People who disagree with him make him feel frustrated, angry, agitated.

In the back of his brain, Hudak is certainly wondering why these people don't get it - but doesn't much care, because he feels like a steam-roller, like one of history's actors.

There's no surprise in this - Hudak has always displayed the same functional fixedness, the same animosity towards opposing viewpoints and the same urge to punish those who challenge him.

He's like Rob Ford this way - we know exactly how he'll govern, because he'll govern in the same way he's always operated.  Like a boss.

For this, he is to commended - he's being who he is rather than trying to present himself as something he's not.  Which means, if he's elected Premier and voters have buyer's remorse, they'll have no one to blame but themselves.

Caveat Emptor, folks - be careful what you wish for.