CPC: No Home for Tom Sawyer

No his mind is not for rent

To any god or government

Always hopeful, yet discontent

He knows changes aren't permanent

But change is

Nope; Tom Sawyer would never make it as a CPC candidate/MP.

Hell, he wouldn't even make it into one of Harper's rallies.

But he would feel right at home as a Virtuous Schemer.

New World Capitalism and the Open People

Increasingly the corporate world is concluding that business can’t succeed in a world that’s failing.

There are many narratives emerging in the world.  The negative ones dominate our headlines - corruption, abuse of power, frightening manipulation of the truth, our democratic system, the law, etc.  And of course, war, disease, the Zombie Apocalypse in the form of fundamentalist terrorism.

 

That's the dark winter threatening to overtake us - the collapse of civilization under the weight of its own failings.

 

It's not all storm clouds, though - there is, as always, a silver lining - points of light emerging where you least expect them.

 

What yesterday would have been revolutionaries, trying to burn the system down are today Virtuous Schemers, Hari Seldons of the 21st Century.  Like Irish monks or Islamic scholars of old, they are persevering the best of what came before and experimenting with new ways of thinking, communicating, organizing and thriving.

 

That bastion of stagnation, the bureaucracy, is a petri dish of civic disruption at all levels one finds dedicated, disruptive public servants who view what they do as a calling, but a comfort zone.  They are changing everything in slow fits and spurts, but aided from all corners of the nascent Open Community.

 

Some of the best ideas and most powerful voices for collaboration and shared solutions aren't coming from politicians or leaders of the not-for-profit or even religious sector, but from every day folk uninhibited by old standards of success.  These community catalysts are the Open People - they could be your neighbour, or your colleague, or your employer.  And that's a good thing.

 

It can look awfully bleak, our future - like the only way out is through fire and brimstone.  Such is not the case.

 

But then, it never is, is it?

Why @JohnToryTO should hire @MorganBaskinTO

The team that will help transition John Tory into his role as mayor includes key members of his campaign team, mayoral candidate David Soknacki, and non-profit, business and academic leaders.

 

 John Tory is a smart man with a background in managing big organizations.  One of the keys to any form of successful leadership is recognizing one's own strengths and weaknesses and building teams that fill out your capacity.

 

It's clear this is what John Tory has in mind as he builds his team.  It's also clear that he's not slacking off on the political acuity side, as he's made a point of saying he hopes to find ways to include his main rivals for the Mayor's chair, Doug Ford and Olivia Chow.

 

 While John Tory is a good man with right intent, he's decidedly old-school and upper-class.  His approach to management is equally grounded in a old-world, top-town mentality - this was reflected in past comments about the need for women employees to hustle more and his difficulty in accepting the concept of white privilege.

 

These aren't abject human failings on Tory's part so much as they are limitations.  We can't truly know what we can't experience - it's why the smartest urban planners in the world often neglect design-thinking pieces around accessibility, navigability, etc.  It's why we have a representative democracy in the first place.

 

John Tory has done a great deal of good for a great many communities, but he doesn't necessarily understand their day-to-day reality or have the capacity to see the world through their point of view. 

 

This is especially true of millennials. Of course, he's not alone in this - baby boomer managers and employers from every sector are struggling to recruit and retain millenials.

 

The problem they are facing is one of culture change.  Once at the forefront of social change, babyboomers have become the establishment.  They fundamentally don't get the priorities of today's youth; they have trouble seeing the modern forms of interaction and ideation that millenials practice as anything other than a lack of discipline.

 

This shouldn't be a problem for Tory - he's smart enough to recognize what he doesn't know and fill out his team with supportive players.

 

Which is where Morgan Baskin comes in.

 

If you haven't heard of Morgan Baskin, she's the 19 year-old who ran for Mayor.  Put it another way - she's a millennial that understands the motivations of modern youth who was gutsy and tenacious enough to hustle in an old-school way John Tory would be familiar with.  She also happens to be wicked-smart, well-versed on issues and an effective communicator.

 

As a result of having run for office, Morgan has amassed an impressive network of supporters and partners who rightly recognize her as a young leader to watch.  She also has an insider's familiarity with the political process that few youth - including those weaned on partisan politics and youth forums - can match.

 

Right now, Morgan is weighing her options of what to do next, which school to go to, where to dedicate her focus post-election.  Among the options she is considering is study in either public policy or urban studies.  She remains passionately committed to systems change in Toronto. 

 

Who better to lead or at least advise John Tory's youth employment/civic engagement push? 

 

Hiring Morgan in some capacity (ie, a paid position) would be a smart move on the part of Team Tory.  She can do the job, she can communicate Tory's message (and bring the message of youth back to him) and beyond that, it's good optics. 

 

A big challenge old guard employers/policy makers face is that they are seen as tokenizing youth rather than taking them seriously.  Giving a millennial a significant, paid role on his team with a clear mandate is a great way for Tory to send the message to Toronto's youth that he's serious.

 

Would Morgan be interested, though?

 

Morgan's nobody's pasty; she wouldn't take on a token position, nor would she be content to be a one-way messenger.  Morgan is a quintessential millennial; she's diplomatic, but not willing to push messages she doesn't believe in.  Engagement, not sales, is her focus.

  

If Tory were to consider adding Morgan to his team, he'd have to make sure the position offered was one she could relate to, grow in and find fulfilment through.  That's just the way it is with millenials.

 

I think it would be a great match; Tory would gain a fresh face, powerful communicator and a bridge to millenials.  Morgan would have a great opportunity to hone her skills, build her brand and facilitate the kind of change she knows is required. 

 

Plus, doing so would be a clear, early indication that Team Tory is serious about doing a better job engaging the City's youth.  Figuring out how to bring Morgan on to his team would also be a useful exercise in millennial engagement for Tory himself. 

 

Introductions made - I look forward to seeing what happens next.

 

Thinking Outside the Partisan Box with @GHoakz + @ZPaikin

 

We live in an era in which centralization around party leaders has made it less evident to the public what potential prime ministers wish to do with power.  After nearly 15 hears of hyper-partisanship and absence of big ideas, national coalition governments could reinvigorate our country at a time of major global change.

 

Now is an opportune time for both the Canadian people and its political leaders to ask themselves whether we want to do what it takes to become a serious global player in an evolving world order, and whether we believe it is time to reject politics as usual in favour of something better.

 

 

Full confession - I consider both Zach and Greta to be friends (though one of them still owes me a non-coffee). 

 

The first time I had a serious chat with Zach, we ended up talking philosophy, politics and occupational mental health - in about four different languages.  I consider myself a polyglot, but Zach's facility with language (right down to regional accents) is awesome to behold.

 

I've got a particular soft spot for Greta.  I first met her on the last Ontario Liberal Leadership race, where we both were part of Team GK.  17 at the time, she first walked into the campaign office with wide eyes and a bright smile, dressed in a school uniform.  It didn't take me long to realize that behind those bright eyes was a burning intellect, a passion for positive change and a wicked organizational mind.  It wasn't 'til later that I learned she'd been an entrepreneur since she was 13.

 

Both Zach and Greta are part of a growing movement that doesn't see gaining power through the existing system as the only means to effect change; they see the as-is system as part of the problem to be addressed.  You can see this movement reflected in organizations like Samara, civic engagement groups like Why Should I Care and of course, all things Open Government.

 

I love the fact that they're willing to challenge the status quo and present an idea that transcends partisan politics.  I would argue, however, that they need to dig a bit deeper to discern the core problem and then work out from there towards a viable solution.

 

A couple of key quotes that stood out to me:

 

- centralization around party leaders has made it less evident to the public what potential prime ministers wish to do with power.

 

- a theoretical Liberal prime minister would have a tough time explaining to his caucus why he was putting a handful of Tories and New Democrats in cabinet in place of some of his fellow Grits.

 

- A theoretical Liberal prime minister would have a tough time explaining to his caucus why he was putting a handful of Tories and New Democrats in cabinet in place of some of his fellow Grits.

 

- establishing a coalition-government norm would reaffirm the fact that we elect Parliaments, and not governments, in this country.

The role of Parliament is to hold government to account on the people's behalf - such has been the case since Magna Carta.  Government is the Crown and the Crown's Ministers.  It's not part of our constitution that Ministers need to be selected from among elected Members of Parliament; that's convention, not law.  The Party system evolved as a way to ensure broader interest groups had sufficient voice for their collective concerns to impact policy.

 

Understanding where we came from helps in seeing why things have gone so screwy.

 

When politicians elected to represent specific, geographic constituencies become subservient to the interests of political parties as a means to ensure support in their riding, but also to build the brand necessary to get "promoted" from the Parliamentarian side to the Crown's side - who is serving who?

 

As Samara's MP exit interviews demonstrated, Parliamentarians don't know who they're supposed to answer to or even have a clear sense of what their role is.

 

While I commend the idea of increasing the plurality of voices and views at the decision-making top, I wonder if opening up all Parliamentarians to compete for higher position would make them more, not less subjective to centralized power (the PM and the PMO).  From a real-world perspective, if I'm the guy/gal making choices about who's in cabinet from a broader range of players and I know that "getting the promotion" is a key motivator for MPs, I'm playing them off one another to get more of what I want across the board.

 

That's the opposite direction of where we need Parliament to be heading. 

Knowing how clever and committed Greta and Zach are to strengthening our system of democracy, I would encourage them to turn their energies towards Open Government, participatory budgeting, etc.  Also, the emerging field of workplace culture change is worth considering; the House of Commons is all-too-often a toxic environment that hinders rather than supports the development of shared solutions as we focus on stopping what we don't like rather than collaboratively creating things we do like.

 

That, and civic engagement.  Perhaps the best thing that bright, engaged and thoughtful leaders like Greta and Zach can do is share their passion, networks and understanding of the system with other Canadians of all rank and file.

 

The kind of structural change we need isn't going to be flowed from top to bottom; it's got to be grown from the bottom up.

 

 

Andrew Coyne, Radical Visionary

Vision is radicalism that sells.

  - Andrew Coyne

I always get the feeling that if we were ever to chat one-on-one, Coyne and I would disagree on a lot of policy minutiae but agree on big-picture stuff about what makes a dynamic, participatory democracy great.

Coyne is a cynical idealist - he recognizes the system for what it is, but wishes it could be less.  Less expenditure, less a focus on sales and marketing techniques and more a discussion about policy, with actively engaged citizens making informed choices between policy suites and personalities they feel best able to implement their visions.  What matters is whether the policy is suited to the task, whether the change proposed is the change required.

The left-right political dichotomy frustrates him, especially in its arbitrariness.  The centre is what lies in our line of sight, largely determined after the fact rather than during an electoral race.  Always in motion, the centre is.  More appropriately, it's Parties shooting at the wall with the winners being the ones who get to paint the target around the holes they shot.

Meanwhile, the cost of public service continues to escalate.  It seems to me that, in Coyne's mind, it shouldn't - spending should remain as it was; the public service should remain stagnantly the same size as time moves on.  It's the cost of services that really command his attention.

Me, I'm a rational optimist.  I accept that, in politics as in all industries, more energy invariably gets focused on sales than on ideation.  It's almost like we're hard-wired to judge books by their covered - can you blame political Parties for playing the game?

It's less that politics is a blood sport than it its a mating contest - the winner doesn't get a trophy, so much as the chance to sew policy ideas for four years.  In this scenario, Political Parties are the bucks locking horns and the peacocks spreading their plumage while we, the voting public, are passive peahens.

Since Politics is such a game of sales and government is about service provision - not service evolution - there's precious little bandwidth for structural change.  This was a great model to have when the world changed at a more, shall we say, incremental pace, but that's not the case any longer. Infrastructure is ancient, demographics are swelling and changing and technology, of course, evolves faster than institutions can keep up.

The model that kept government contained is now chafing against our need to adapt with the times. We're rubbing to the left and right, finding ourselves constrained and yearning for change, without knowing to what.

It's a Plato's Cave thing - we are limited in our ability to define what we want by the vocabulary we have.  

This is where behavioural economics comes in - what is it truly that people need to succeed in the current social context?  What are the challenges we can't avoid, the opportunities too good to miss up and the positions worth taking now so that we're well-adapted for changes two or three steps down the road?

It's hard to figure any of that out if you're not actively looking down the road, sussing out the nuance of the present in full and projecting out potential scenarios.

Winning coalitions isn't about looking at the big picture any more than delivering a static suite of services is.  

I don't think we should be focusing on the cost of government and trying to reduce service expenses to what they were in some arbitrary position in the past.  To me, that's like trying to feed an adult based on the diet they had when they were children.  What we need to do - not just government, but society as a whole - is think through what it is we need to sustain ourselves individually and systematically.  

Government services might cost more, but result in less out-of-pocket expenses for things like transit or healthcare.  Government may cost less, but with more services being provided at lower cost by the private sector.  Or people might take more ownership of their lives, businesses engage in greater corporate social responsibility with government serving more of an executive function/coordination role.  

Of course, this sort of structural framing requires a radical change in how we perceive ourselves and the role of institutions in our lives.  It's a vision less focused on sales and individual gain and more committed towards optimizing a system of individuals in collaborative fashion.

Perhaps that is how you win elections.  The point is not that there are more important things than winning.  It's that it matters, surely, what you win for.

Parties don't win elections by focusing on why - they win by focusing on how.  They win by narrowing their audience, picking fights and designing policy suites that appeal to targeted voter blocks.  Parties are constrained by these rules of the road; when they cease to play the game as is, they either fall off the map or we cease to have a democracy.

Which is why I'd encourage Coyne to look outside the political box a bit, get away from the usual suspects and take a look at the emerging Open Community, this generations Acquarian Conspiracy. There are virtuous schemers out there looking not to change the system for change's sake, but to align what we have with where we are already headed.

Most of these folk don't hold positions of power, nor do they wield fancy titles or have massive bank accounts.  They aren't catalyzing change because of what's in it for them, but because they are inspired by what we can be.

Leadership from the front - now how radical a vision is that?  The best part is, Coyne doesn't need to wait for someone else to get the ball rolling - he can be part of the change himself.

@AndreaHorwath and @TimHudak: Open By Default

What we're not hearing about - government's plan to open your data!

We haven't heard a lot about Open Government this campaign.  It could be that the NDP and PCs see it as a Liberal thing - which is odd, seeing how OpenGov is being championed by the Conservatives federally.

Open Gov and Open Data aren't a Liberal thing - it's being spearheaded by the bureaucracy.  It's also not limited to Canada, Ontario and Toronto; literally, Open Gov is a global movement, which is very cool.

There's more than a passing chance that they really have no idea what Open Government is about, though, or why it's both common sense and a job creator.

They can't be blamed; as of now, there are really passionate, smart, engaged people speaking in complex technical terminology at events called hackathons.  

While the concept is about engaging, the message still needs refined and designed to become a conversation.  That is, however, the goal.  Makes for a great, already-built opportunity that political communications pros could capitalize on, don't you think?

I wouldn't want to think that either the NDP or PCs are shy about embracing Open Government because, well, it's open; after all their smack talk about the Ontario Liberals, they could be extra cautious about creating opportunities for their own selfish plays or examples of mismanagement getting out.

Thing is, this is a genie that's out of the bottle.  

People are more disaffected than ever with government and politics.  Those who've been inside the system for a while are assuming the disaffection is the same as it always is and are therefore continuing to play by outdated rules of engagement.

They don't realize the game has changed and that there's a new player at the table.

In the very big picture, it doesn't matter who forms the next government - the challenges faced are the same and the solutions are all variants on the same theme; open, authentic engagement, from top to bottom.  Nothing less has the capacity to deliver the shared solutions we need, nor empower people from every walk of life to be part of their implementation.

People are sharing their lives online.  Leaks and FOIs are revealing the inner lives of politics.

It's simply good planning to get out in front and be open first.  

As every pol knows, it's better to define yourself than let someone else do that defining for you.

The Problem with Competitive Politics: Why Position is not the same as Power

It's true, too.  Politics is sort of the opposite of real life.  In the political game, you are measured not so much by the quantity of friends you have, but by the quality of your enemies.  If you want to be adored, and see your name chiseled onto the side of a schoolhouse some day, become an astronaut.  Politics is a vocation for losing besties, not gaining them.

This isn't just Kinsella's opinion - it's common sense in political circles.  I cannot count the number of times I have been told by senior Liberal and Conservative advisers (I don't know any NDP advisers, but have seen them operate this way, too) that to be effective in politics, you need to pick fights.

Not pick your fights, but proactively go out and start fights.  It's the whole "define or be defined" thing - if you wait until foes come at you, as they inevitably will, then their line of attack will shape your public image.  On the other hand, if you go out and pick fights yourself, you will define yourself by making it clear who it is you stand against.

Mike Harris stood against teachers, nurses, First Nations groups.  Vying for a seat in Kitchener-Waterloo, the last iteration of Team McGuinty decided picking a fight against teachers would brand them the right way, too.

People who have been friends and colleagues, when they find themselves in different camps, will burn their bridges and end friendships because that's simply how they see the game being played.  You have to stab a couple people in the back to make it to the top of the heap, right?

After all, in the game of thrones, you win or you die - and there are only so many chairs at the top.

I will argue, as I have always done, that these die-hard political scrappers are mistaking power with position.  

If you want to be Premier, or a right-hand adviser, or a pundit on TV, yeah - you tend to make your name by breaking others.  Attacks make good headlines, etc.  If it's your goal to have the car and driver, the "Honourable" title before your name and access to the most exclusive events, by all means, go be a political warrior.

When you commit to defining yourself by your enemies, though, you've just handed them the keys to your brand.  They will define you in perpetuity, not your own achievements.  

That's not power - that's dependence.

During my time at Queen's Park I worked for a humble, hard-working MPP who was loved and respected by all.

Even when he frustrated people in the Premier's Office or on Opposition benches - which, rest assured, he did - Jim Brownell was always his own man, committed to one clear purpose.

That purpose wasn't power - it was empowering his constituents.

Jim was never a Minister, never had a car and driver, was never a sought-after pundit.  He never worked for those trappings of position and therefore never got them.  In traditional political terms, you could say Jim never amounted to anything.

Yet Jim's record stands head and shoulders above most of his colleagues, whatever their title or position.  His accomplishments aren't a laundry-list of things the Centre decreed for his Riding, as is the case for many pols; these were things he fought, negotiated and charmed his way into delivering for his constituents.

A couple of my favourites:

- Downtown loan forgiveness for every municipality in Ontario that had a loan to pay back

Jim wanted the Province to forgive Cornwall's loan to give them relief after some prominent mill closures; the Province replied they couldn't just do it for one community.  Therefore, Jim personally advocated on each municipality's behalf to get it done.

- Early Works development for the Cornwall Community Hospital

There was a five-year hospital development plan, and the CCH wasn't on it.  Instead of fighting or yielding, Jim found a third-way solution that created wins for everyone.  

- Eastern Ontario Development Fund

Not just Jim's accomplishment, but one he worked on with Eastern colleagues that continues to support economic growth in Eastern Ontario today

- The Premier's Gravesites Program

Jim was ridiculed for thinking history and recognizing Ontario's past leaders mattered, but he did.  Now, there's a program that ensures each burial place is recognized with a plaque and a flag.  Every future Premier of Ontario owes Jim for that.

- Riding Days at Queen's Park

Jim hosted the first Riding Day at Queen's Park by bringing community partners up from Stormont Dundas and South Glengarry for a day of meetings, attendance at Question Period and a reception at the end of the day.  It was a great hit; people at QP really got a sense for the culture and vibrancy of the region at the same time as Jim's stakeholders got to see just how much clout their MPP had at Queen's Park.

It's no surprise that many a Member have since copied Jim's model.

and finally - Brownell Night

This last might seem strange, but to me is none-the-less important.  Jim started a monthly gathering of Liberal staff, the first time such a thing had happened.  Suddenly, people who'd known each other by phone alone got to know each other as individuals.

Brownell Night became an opportunity to build community, cohesion and a sense of team within the Liberal Party of Ontario - something which, from what I hear, doesn't exist any more.  As the man who knew staff in every Ministry, he unsurprisingly became very popular.

Jim never once picked a fight, but he ended several.  My favourite also goes back to John Tory, who was accusing him of inactivity on hospital development in the riding.  Within minutes of Tory blasting Jim in the Legislature, he had a hand-written note from Jim on a picture of the development project at CCH on his desk.

People quickly learned not to misrepresent Jim's activity.  That didn't earn him enemies; it earned him respect.

Maybe Jim's name won't be recorded in the history books or ignite conversations decades hence - but he will be remembered fondly by each and every person he interacted with.  People still seek him out for advise today, and tend to regret it when they don't mind his wisdom.  Not because he attacks them, of course, but because he's got a habit of being right.

Oh - and he does have a road named after him.

This is the lesson that too many political pros don't want to hear because, truth be told, they enjoy the fight.  They see power as something to be held over others and relish bringing others down to increase their own stature.  In their minds, they're front-line soldiers, keeping the other tribe at bay.

Perhaps the most "successful" political people want to be judged by the enemies they have made. That's their choice.

Leaders, however, are judged by what they accomplish.

Note on the picture topping this post - it's taken from a Swerhun consultation.  

Haven't heard of Swerhun? That's probably because they're not big on the self-promotion thing.  They, like a growing number of virtuous schemers, are quietly working behind the scenes, building community, creating partnerships and establishing trust where none previously existed.

These people don't really care if you know who they are - they know they're changing the system regardless.

What Do We Call Futurists These Days?

Thus, rather than view individuals as rational actors with free will (more), we will move towards viewing ourselves as heavily influenced by emotions, conditions and many other biological, genetic and chemical functions.  Employers making this jump early will have a distinct advantage.  So, if you're looking for a new frontier to tackle, try examining the one between your ears.  No one else really knows what else is there.

Cognitive Labour, motivating increased productivity, the combo of political disengagement, entitlement and how to address our democratic deficit, mental health - I've been all over these emerging fields for years now.  

It's nice to see others staring to see the world for what is it - truths wrapped in biases that can be stripped away, with the right accommodations, discipline and mindfulness.

Maximizing individual potentials.  It's been that way for a while now.  Thank god the chasm is being breached, because we can't wait much longer.

 
After all, those waves of troubles lapping at our shores aren't letting up.

Finally, Cognitive Labour is on The Agenda!

Starting Monday, TVO and The Agenda will be presenting Mysteries of the Mind, an exploration of the many surprising things about the human brain being revealed by the latest science.

Hosting the series is psychiatrist, psychoanalyst and best-selling author, Dr. Norman Doidge.  As a part of this, Dr. Doige will join Steve Paikin every night next week to discuss topics including: how to make your brain smarter, the hidden potential buried in the unconscious brain, technology and the brain, and how to ensure brain health from cradle to grave.

It was two years ago that I sat down with Diane Mckenzie and Cortney Pasternak to talk about mental health.  I told them, as I had previously told mental health professionals, politicians and the consultants who woo them from across Toronto that a number of distinct trend lines were starting to merge into one emerging reality.

The main threads I wove together were as follows:

Mental Health Crisis:  Countries around the world were starting to identify, by name, a mental health crisis of massive, expensive proportions.  As we'd done away with the institutionalization of "crazy people" (much as we'd done away with leper colonies) were rejoining a society that simply wasn't set up to accommodate them.  Even worse - we really have no idea what mental health looks like.  By and large we still focus on the need for people to "act normal", essentially identified as an outlook and approach to life that properly supports economic functioning.

But there was the rub; mental illnesses like depression and anxiety were popping up in the workplace at an increasing rate.  In fact, it was starting to look like some work conditions/expectations/management norms were causing mental illness, much as poor physical labour conditions can result in physical injury.  

Presenteeism and Canada's Innovation Deficit: Presenteeism is on the rise across Canada, and not because people are catching more colds.  For some reason, we are not as productive as we could, should and truly need to be.  Common management wisdom was (and is) trending towards a problem with employees - they have become needy and are demanding more recognition, more ownership of work and the like.  Silly employees - that's not how the world of work functions, they'll say.  Work hard, work your way through the ranks from assembly line to front-line management to middle management and who knows, you may make partner one day.

A big part of the blame for this needy-employee syndrome is being placed on the shoulders of unions, who have gotten too big for their britches and are making unsustainable demands from employers around things like wages and benefits.  Work is a carrot-and-stick business; employees need to be more productive, resulting in a more productive company, which will then allow for increased wages as incentives to keep up the good work.  That's simple economics, right?

But cognitive science has demonstrated clearly that traditional wage carrot-and-stick motivation doesn't work when it comes to motivating innovative productivity.  If you're making widgets or digging in mines, yes, the promise of more cash can incent you to work faster, but when you want employees to be developing, selling and implementing new products and services, carrots and sticks literally fire up the functional part of the brain, not the creative one.

Instead what you get is de-motivated employees, inclinations towards micro-management and overall corporate stagnation.  When financial times are tight and your firm isn't growing, what do fiscally-minded bosses do?  They cut jobs, cut wages and shrink the overall pie - moving their company (or country) in the opposite direction of sustainable growth.

Yesterday's Policy Solutions For Today's Problems: At the time of our chat, there was a widespread belief that the Political Right was on an unstoppable trend towards success, with expectations that the progressive movement in Canada had ground to a halt.  

Policy focuses seemed to reflect this reality; unions were in everyone's political cross-hairs, corporate tax cuts and de-regulation were favoured tools and the path to economic prosperity was largely defined as harvesting and exporting natural resources courtesy of trade deals that had to emerge.  There was some lip-service paid to innovation, social enterprise and the whole Knowledge Economy thing, but Canada's strength had always been in resource exports - if it ain't broke don't fix it, right?

A Shift in Global Consciousness:  While Canada was increasingly focus on hard-nosed sales and labour efficiencies, the rest of the global village was grappling with a changing reality.  More and more citizens were accepting the notion of detrimental climate change due to industry-induced environmental degredation.  

While Canadian politicians worked to shore up their traditional manufacturing economic base and woo back those who had fled to cheaper pastures, the countries we were reducing our labour supports to compete with were facing backlash due to illness, injury, loss of life and unbalanced profit-sharing.  Folk in places like Bangladesh were demanding better treatment and work conditions and, thanks to social media and a trend downwards in working conditions in the Western World, were gaining international support in their demands.

Civic Unrest:  Occupy, Idle No More, Arab Spring, so on and so forth - in fits and spurts, the have-nots were finding there voice and doing it so in increasingly global fashion.  An underlying theme was that something in the current model must not be working, because it was clear far too many people were working hard or trying hard to work but barely making ends meet while others seemed to have a better deal.  In countries like Canada and the US, the 1% have been identified as the problem; in places like Greece, there's a trend towards blaming immigrants.  Whatever the root cause, consensus is building that something's gotta give.

To make matters worse, this reality is playing out against a backdrop where a privileged few are being exposed as playing by a different set of rules than everyone else.  When big C Conservatives like Mike Duffy or Peter Shurman extol the Calvinist virtues of jobs being the best social program, but are quietly taking their own share of gravy, people get upset.  When politicians break the law - drunk driving, drug use, so on and so forth - without punishment yet minority groups are subjected to racial profiling even when they are following the rules - again, something's gotta give.

Political Staff:  To an increasing degree, politicians caught in lies or misdeeds or simply not properly informed of a given issue are passing the buck to their staff.  In a sense, you can't blame them - in as hostile a political climate as we have, no politician can risk been seen to be prone to human error, so somebody has to go under the bus.  Staff fit the bill nicely; they're easily replaceable, by and large young and untrained.  It's easy to blame them for mistakes and discard them as a way to demonstrate to the public action taken.

But the undercurrent reality is that political staff are subject to some of the most impossible labour expectations out there.  They receive precious little training that isn't partisan in nature, are expected to function as soldiers but are treated like servants and by the nature of the business, have to be available at all hours and mindful at all times of how they present the Party brand.  The boss mentality is rampant in politics, from the top down - disgruntled MPs and MPPs are expected to protect and promote their leader first, their own ridings second; political staff are expected to keep their bosses happy, ensure their win yet do all this while ensuring they are towing the Party line, with information flowing from the top down only.

Poverty, Justice and Back to Mental Health:  So, we have people with significant mental illness on the street, unable to function without proper accommodations and unable to fit the narrow expectations of employers.  We have employees who are worried about their jobs, upset at their bosses and trying to find a square deal; if it isn't in wages, it comes through things like printing out their kids' homework on company paper or stretching coffee breaks to the max (i.e., presenteeism).  

You have political staff realizing that the only way to do what's expected of them is to break the rules - which has led to scandals ranging from deleted emails to Senate follies to kids fraternizing with drug dealers at the boss' behest.  Then you have those individuals who, seeing no hope of entering the modern workforce and succeeding in the way the 1% does turning to alternative avenues, like crime.

Enter the justice system and social service providers.  More people on the street, unemployed, ill, agitated and breaking the law from within the system or on the streets adds more pressure to anyone charged with keeping society healthy and orderly.  Police are a good example of this.

With some prominent police suicides, incidents of excessive use of force (like in the Sammy Yatim case) it's becoming clear that those front-line service providers who end up managing all this mental mayhem are suffering themselves.  The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police have taken this big picture so seriously that they're holding an all-encompassing mental health conference in March, trying to bring players together to discuss how we can fix all these disjointed but socially (and economically) taxing realities. 

Which brings us to our last thread - 

Cognitive Labour and the KISS Paradox:  Canada says it wants integrated solutions for complex, multi-lateral problems, but in reality it doesn't want to have to think to understand them.  Politicians have recognized the value of simple, repetitive sound-bite messaging to trigger emotional reactions (and donations and votes) from citizens.  Employers expect their employees to wrap their heads around complex details, but only communicate the bare-bones essentials in almost pictogram simplicity for them to understand.  They're busy, doncha know.  

The Keep It Simple Stupid premise ties in neatly with the corporate So What mentality - if you can't make me care, i.e. trigger an emotional response in the way politicians do with their base, then whatever you had to say wasn't so important anyway.

But this extends beyond mere explanations; it extends to the whole business culture.  Bosses of all stripes aren't looking to be challenged, they want to be obeyed and supported.  Potential employees have to earn the right to work for them by having the right personality, the right track-record and that ability to "speak their language" - sometimes at the expense of an ability to speak their clients' language.  

A subtle result of this trend is a spread of traditional bureaucratic culture to all areas of the Canadian economy and a dumbing down of process, which again impacts both presenteeism and innovation.  Low-hanging fruit has become the staple of our economic, political and policy diet.  You'd be shocked at the number of successful people and their teams who have no idea how to organize a database or create a phased implementation strategy.  

Actually, you probably wouldn't.  Because from misspelled signs at conferences to ill-conceived cover-ups or mismanaged businesses ranging from RIM to Canada Post, we're seeing the consequence of this dumbed-down approach unfold daily in the news. 

They think they do, because what they communicate or have communicated to them is simple to understand, but therein lies the problem - Canada has declared war on complexity and is suffering the consequences.  Its the law of diminishing returns; you get what you pay for.

Which brings us back to The Agenda.

The Agenda is one of many institutions that, over the past couple of years, have taken a real interest in mental health - how it's diagnosed, how it's treated and what it really means for society.  Steve Paikin has interviewed Psychiatric Survivors like Don Weitz and "mentally ill" geniuses and social disrupters like Jacob Barnett.

Jacob Barnett is autistic (and yes, he is autistic, rather than has autism, much as a deaf person is deaf rather than has deafness - it's genetic and forms a part, if not the totality, of who the person is).  He has trouble focusing on the sorts of things society would probably rather him pay attention to - sports and sales and trades skills.  He talks fast and uses maddeningly big words and concepts.  

By all rights, he should be on the street, because he isn't doing his part to fit into our economic model.  And yet, because he's had supportive parents and some great mentors along the way, Jacob has harnessed his "illness" and is already being touted as the next Einstein.

To any student of history and mental health, there's nothing surprising in this.  Our greatest leaders, thinkers and catalyzers have all been different shades of crazy.  Were they not, they would have been like everyone else and we'd still be using Plato's Desktop as a table.  There have been times in the past when what we now call crazy people were labeled prophets and oracles and were both revered and feared.  Where the fear has been the greater reaction, we've called these people witches or worse.

Today, though, we don't believe in magic, nor mystery - we pretty much assume we have it all figured out and that history has ground to a halt.  We need only keep on keeping on as we've done throughout the Age of Industrialism.  Of course, this is nonsense; the truth is that the majority has become complacent in our comfort levels and is prepared to ignore warning signs of our decaying social model because we'd rather things stay as they are.

The problem is that the world has changed and our stagnant, complacent selves are falling behind.  Try as they might to ignore this reality and shore up the past as a bulwark against the future, conservative-minded leaders are losing ground, as are the countries they lead.

Subjects that periodically come up for discussion on shows like The Agenda, too.

Which brings us right back to where we began - the hidden potential of the brain and the fostering of life-long mental health or, as I like to call it, maximizing personal potential and nurturing a conscious society.

There are a lot of smart, "unusual" people out there - introverts, egoists, fast-talkers and deep-thinkers who have never stopped being exceptional, but have learned how to mask it.  They are bureaucratic staff in the federal Treasury Board or in Ontario's Cabinet Office; they are thought leaders in companies like Optimus SBR, Enivronics or any number of social entrpeneurs connected to MaRS or the Centre for Social Innovation.

These virtuous schemers are looking ahead as only they can and seeing what the elephant in the room looks like - a global social shift from our current burning platform to a new foundation for growth.  As global civic unrest grows, these folk are recognizing the reality - we can no longer afford for them to stay in the background, thinking.  We need for them to start organizing, to start figuring things out.

As Big Idea, landscape-changing innovations ranging from Twitter to the Open Government movement take hold, there will be a slow shift from the Innovators to Early Adapters in this new mentality that stops penalizing lateral thinking and starts trying to harness, emulate and capitalize on it.  As that process continues, we'll see a shift from Early Adapters to the Early Majority, but that won't be an easy process.  It never is.

Which is where The Conscious Revolution comes in to the picture.  At the same time as we see a general degradation of the status quo, the average person will grow weary of fighting against and start looking for something to believe in.  This shift from reactive fear, anger and despair to hope and vision will, in no small irony, require the very cognitive processes folk like Dr. Doidge are talking about - social-emotional literacy, self-regulation, mindfulness and positive psychology are part of this picture.

To frame it much more simply - we'll experience a gradual shift from seeing all things mental as illness-based to wellness-based.  Whether we choose to call it such or not, mental fitness will come to the fore, as will all the things that support it - changes to the education system, work-life balance, accommodations and social interactivity.

None of this will be an easy process; social change never is.  In fact, every major shift we've experienced, from The Renaissance to the Industrial Revolution has taken a great deal of cognitive labour to achieve.  

The difference this time is that we'll be conscious of what we're doing and, as a result, can hopefully do it better.

I'd be interested to see how many people read this through in its entirety - feel free to leave your thoughts in the comments.  In the big picture though, it doesn't matter how well we understand the trajectory we're on, because it's an incredibly long-term project.  We might not get all this conscious cognitive stuff but I guarantee that for our great, great grandkids, it'll all be intuitive.

UPDATE:  I'm worried that I'm not going to be able to communicate fluently if I don't catch up.

There's something to that, but if you aren't prepared to question yourself, you won't see it coming.