Monday, April 15, 2013

OpenSource National Impact Assessment Needed - To Evolve Democracy

Commentary by Roger Erickson

Various civic defense groups have been warning of the uncalculable consequences of vast policy experiments like NAFTA and the so-called Trans Pacific Partnership. You might wonder who is initiating this partnership, on who's behalf, and for whom, exactly? However, don't expect any adequate answers, except later on, from historians.

Example: TPP Will Undermine US Democracy

Will it? Will we know only in hindsight what happened to us? You don't even have to wade into the exact details of this or other, ongoing national initiatives, before arriving at a stark, fundamental question. Can we run national policy by the seat of a few, randomly oscillating, lobby pants? Isn't that rather like steering the Titannic while blind? As is, national policy is like a bar fight breaking out every 2 years, with the surviving drunks winning their opportunity to try to steer the Titannic. The underlying policy "paradigm" seems to be the naive assumption that the US Middle Class, unlike the Grand Banks, cannot eventually be depleted - or at least our assumption is that such an event is so far off that we needn't even think critically about it.

Yet if that event were not so far off, what would constitute the beginning of critical thinking in an electorate, about it's own outcomes?

How about an OpenSource, very public, 1-page "flow diagram" for every Bill that makes it through Congress, and for every ACT and/or Treaty signed by the Administration? To forestall and monitor the unintended consequences of large system-changes, such a simple step makes a lot of sense. It's an old idea, what makes it taboo to apply it to all our risky and uncertain process steps?

For 40+ years now, large engineering projects have required an Environmental Impact Statement. Why on earth shouldn't all outcome, goal and policy decisions require an OpenSource National Impact Assessment available daily to every citizen? (Note, not for ALL strategy, and certainly no meddling in tactics; just for major policy decisions.) The key part would be OpenSourced assessment, to get adequately diverse feedback, plus timely, distributed distribution of 1-page net assessments. Group agility can achieve miraculous outcomes, but only through disciplined practice of focused feedback-exchange & and message-passing. Maneuver Context Management, the basis for all Maneuver Warfare depends on prior preparation and practice. That's what agile Democracy means. Active participation and practiced tuning of feedback messaging is all that protects us from the ineptness of Central Planning by a declining proportion of isolated nitwits.

Practice at a National Impact Assessment would at least attempt to graphically show causality for policy decisions (on 1 page), including:
who requested it;
who initiated it;
who traded favors to get it;
who directly & indirectly benefits from it;
and who is directly & indirectly harmed by it, how soon.

Plus, we need an OpenSource model that at least tries to assess whether our national Adaptive Rate as a whole accelerates or decelerates because of that course of action. GDP as an outcomes guiding metric is nearly useless. We need to invent a better metric for assessing national outcomes, something closer to closing our Output Gap, so that it includes our imagination and other, uncapped, dynamic assets - not just increasingly more obsolete static assets.

We have endless mathematical models for where hedge funds best profit, but we use few if any similar public models to publicly assess where, when and how our nation adapts and benefits? Seriously?

If we did this, of course the game of narrow greed in politics would simply shift to strategies allowing "money" and power to hide behind further layers of front-men.  Yet at least that would keep everyone on their toes, ready for the next adaptive step. Sunlight is the best policy antiseptic, and practice using it is the best public health medicine.

Plus, it would alleviate the confusion over politicians not reading the Bills they vote on. All Congresspeople - at national to local levels - should be legally liable for signing off on the full meaning of Policy Impact Assessment statements.

Maybe peg Congressional pay, perks and pensions to general welfare of the people in current and succeeding decades? Then the public could hedge their electoral bets, and hedging wouldn't remain the private domain of banksters and gamblers.


9 comments:

Roger Erickson said...

received a great list of relevant activities, from Dan Flemming

Stop the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Bad for Jobs, the Environment, Labor and Consumers
http://itsoureconomy.us/occupy-the-tpp-stop-the-global-corporate-coup/

Citizens Trade Campaign
http://www.citizenstrade.org/ctc/

Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch
http://www.citizen.org/tradewatch

Eyes on Large-Merchant vs Small-Merchant Trade Wars
http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/

Stop the Trans-Pacific Partnership
http://itsoureconomy.us/occupy-the-tpp-stop-the-global-corporate-coup/

Arthur Stamoulis and Ben Beachy on the TransPacific Partnership versus Democracy
http://clearingthefogradio.org/arthur-stamoulis-and-ben-beachy-on-the-transpacific-partnership-versus-democracy/

Roger Erickson said...

A brave protestor shut a Senate Finance Committee hearing on Obama’s trade agenda. Join the call for transparency.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Nf2YYdHCCNA

Roger Erickson said...

600 official corporate advisors have the TPP text, while the public, press & even Congress are kept in the dark.
http://action.citizen.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=12152

Tom Hickey said...

C. Wright Mills addressed this issue in The Power Elite (1956) when the problem was developing post-WWII due to the ensuing Cold War and development of the military-governmental-industrial-financial complex that Ike warned of, although his speech only mentioned "military-industrial complex."

The book is summarized at Wikipedia here. Says pretty much all that has transpired since, other than now it is a global power elite calling the shots in its interest rather than that of the people.

Here is a short summary by MIlls.

Roger Erickson said...

Yes, a lengthy, if overly anthropomorphic description of institutional momementum.

This concept of institutional momentum is described as "phenotypic persistence" in biology.

The topic itself is old. What we're neglecting is what to do about it. That topic too, is old. Only the details change.

It's obvious what to do. We're just lacking enough people with the will to institute the obvious adaptations.

David said...

Yes, a lengthy, if overly anthropomorphic description of institutional momementum.

I guess I would have to ask why, in heaven's name, shouldn't a system made by men not be most appropriately considered in "anthropomorphic" terms? Most of us probably can agree how inappropriately ideas from physics and mechanics have been applied to human economics. Biological analogies may be somewhat more useful and suggestive than the physical ones, but human society and culture can't and shouldn't, in my view, be reduced to them either. Human societies do ultimately build upon a substrate of biological and physical laws, but in the end can best be explained in terms of themselves.

Giambattisa Vico put forward a rather radical idea in 18th century that ultimately the social sciences had a greater claim to being knowable by man than, say, physics, because man didn't create the world, but he does create the society he lives in.

Roger Erickson said...

David, It's called perspective. If you can picture your situation from OUTSIDE your limited personal view, then your options for system tuning enlarge infinitely.

It's not a question of not being human, only of being able to perceive the eco-system and/or net context you as a human are operating within.

The capacity for abstract thought? Try it out. It's liberating. :)

"There are three classes of [CBs :) ]: Those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see." Leonardo da Vinci
http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Quotations/Leonardo.html

David said...

Well, Roger, I don't think it goes to my, or your capacity for thinking abstractly, per se. Nor was I saying that the way you like to expand the perspective of thinking about human systems as "an eco-system or net context" is wrong or not useful. I happen to have a world of perspectives that I probably couldn't explain to you in just a couple of minutes, mostly from the humanistic side, broadly speaking. I appreciate your perspectives and try my best to understand them. I'm sure that as a biologist, you are trained to be concerned about inappropriate anthropomorphic interpretations of life systems. It just seemed rather telling to me that you would reflexively apply the term, in the pejorative sense, to what are, after all, human systems.

Roger Erickson said...

Insufficient does NOT imply perjorative. Lighten up.