Introvert is not a Four Letter Word

I have a confession to make.  I am an introvert.

Some people I've admitted this to have a hard time believing it.  I jokingly refer to myself as a "high functioning introvert" in these instances.  If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.  And in a world dominated by extroverts, its best to at least fake it.  

Introverts Just Want to Have Fun...

However, truth be told, I'm the kind of person who gets slightly nervous in social settings.  The kind of guy who has trouble making small talk, and sometimes leaves the bar early because I'm just not in the mood to be social.  I'll usually say it's because I had a long day or I'm tired, because if I gave the real reason, namely that I just need some alone time to think and analyze, I get queer looks from my extroverted friends.

This confusion is exacerbated because I have a talent for public speaking.  I can get in front of a crowd of hundreds, and barely feel a butterfly.  I also love hosting dinner parties as often as I can.  Yet, when faced with introducing myself to a new acquaintance at the same dinner party, uncertain nervousness begins. 

I end phone conversations prematurely if there's an awkward silence because I usually can't think of anything to say.  Sometimes I just want to get back to thinking about something that popped into my brain -- and do so with no distractions.

I secretly usually want at least two other people with me on long car rides, because I know my ability to maintain conversation with one other person for extended periods is limited.  I'm good with silence -- but it unnerves a lot of people.  And that perception of another person being unnerved unnerves me.  Better to have two other people conversing so I can listen, and occasionally tune out to consider what's going on. This is also why I'll tend towards the back seat -- feigned by being polite and offering the other guy shotgun. 

Many people think that being an introvert is some kind of disease.  Especially extroverts.  But I'm here to tell you that I'm perfectly normal; millions like me just operate in a different way than much of our society.

For instance, at this moment, it is 12:30am on a Saturday morning.  A bunch of my friends are out raging in the Gaslamp.  I even contemplated joining them for a bit.  Instead, I've spent the evening catching up on reading I missed over the week and watching TED talks.  Alone.  And frankly, I'm about as content as I've ever been.  Giddy, even, as new ideas and avenues of creativity flash before me. 

I love the overflowing number of books I have in my condo.  The worlds that are within, real and imagined.  Worlds I can play out in my head whenever I want.  Ideas I can escape to and tear apart.  Characters I can converse with and learn from -- all in blissful silence.  

If you've got 20 minutes, I recommend you watch Susan Cain's TED2012 chat about the Power of Introverts.  She sums up the thoughts I've been battling my whole life.

This isnt to criticize extroversion -- far from it.  A world full of my personality type would be quite dull.  The girl who fills many of my waking thoughts is probably one of the most energetic and social people I've ever met.  And I love it.  Most of my closest friends are extroverts.  They're the ones who drag me from my contemplative den, and by the end of the night, I am usually thankful they did.  But they also have no idea how to deal with my occasional withdrawals.

I get asked quite frequently, "are you okay?"  And its usually when I'm in my most blissful state.  They see a pensive, emotionless face and can't imagine anything other than something quite awry.  I really am just fine...

So, what does all this have to do with disruptive thinking?  Nearly everything -- especially since many of our most disruptive innovators had this trait:  Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Bill Gates, Carl Jung.  A society biased towards the bombastic and charismatic would do well to foster other traits as well.

Especially in leading active employees, introverts perform head and shoulders above their extroverted peers:  they are often able to elicit unspoken ideas, and let everyone have their say prior to coming to a decision. Solitary reflection, when used by leaders, can have profound effects on organizational effectiveness. 

Additionally, while group work is quite effective and useful, its also good to understand the creative requirements of introverts.  Sometimes the best ideas come running forth in quiet contemplation.  

We celebrate diversity in nearly all its permutations.   Innovation increasingly depends on leveraging a multitude of interests and the cross-pollination of expertise.  Yet when it comes to personality types, our society prefers and encourages extroversion as the only acceptable interaction.  We can go that route, but we'll lose out on some incredible talent.

I'm more than happy to go out every Friday and light my hair on fire.  Just don't give me the stink eye when I demurely pass occasionally and instead read my Economist late into the night.  Sometimes I just need time to myself to make sense of this crazy world. 

How Do We Find Tomorrow's Energy Solutions?

Last Tuesday, Disruptive Thinkers of San Diego hosted a forum on the "Future of Energy."   We tried a different format than our usual roundtable discussion -- this was partly because the size of our group has grown, but also to draw out more interesting discussion. 

What's Next When (If?) Oil Peaks?

Tech entrepreneur Dave Porreca gave the introductory remarks, and laid out the intellectual challenges to defining effective energy policy.  His most provocative remarks came when he asked the crowd "How many of you think that nuclear energy can be safe -- without any possibility of meltdown or negative side-effects?"  One person out of thirty raised his hand.  He was the only one who got the answer right.

It was the investigation of forth-generation nuclear that piqued our interest -- along with revelations about Tata's Air Car and the use of biofuels derived from algae.  To be sure, some of these technologies are still in the nascent stages, and may prove to be unworkable.  But it was refreshing to hear a different story than Big Oil vs. Green Tech that the media and politicians seem to be wedded to.

In fact, the night was remarkable in that not once did politics come up -- and this in a room full of people spanning the political spectrum.  The discussions were focused on moving forward, and embracing the best solutions, regardless of who proposed them.

Earlier in the week, our board members contacted the campaign of San Diego Mayoral Candidate Nathan Fletcher, and his staff was interested to hear some of our solutions to local energy issues.  Nathan's desired motto for a future San Diego is the "World's Most Innovative City."  It speaks volumes that he is willing to listen to entrepreneurs to make this a reality.  This defined our discussion for the evening. 

So much for Green Solutions in CA...

Before we were able to come up with solutions, however, we first had to define the problems facing the implementation of disruptive energy solutions.  And while all three groups had the task of discussing local energy policy, the randomly assigned groups tackled the problem from very different perspectives. 

In figuring out the questions to ask, we also discovered that many of us had no idea where our energy comes from.  Is it nuclear?  Wind?  Indigenous to California?  Imported from other states? We also had no idea how effective much vaunted alternative sources really are.  These questions seemed glaring, even among "highly" educated and involved professionals.  

In the end, here are some of the questions we contemplated: 

1. Gas prices are likely to continue to rise. In the event of another conflict in Central Asia or the Middle East, prices could go well above $5/gallon. What is the breaking point for a city like San Diego? When do consumers/citizens have no choice but to fundamentally change behavior and how does that play out without chaos in public policy?  What incentive systems could be used to alter behavioral patterns?
2. Over the course of the past decade, the ebb and flow of gas prices has brought the “alternative energy” conversation to the forefront.  Rare, however, are substantial solutions.  What is required for fundamental social change? 
3. There are areas of our lives where energy consumption is readily displayed. Yet for the average citizen, they are usually not aware of how much energy they are consuming on a daily basis at home. Is there an application or technology that could simply make consumers aware?
4. What is the role of Governmental policy?  Can it ever be useful?  More importantly, why does the government have such a bad track record in determining appropriate solutions (ethanol, Solyndra, etc)?
5. How do we encourage established business interests, after buying up revolutionary innovations that threaten their markets, to grow them instead of shelving them?  
6. How can we educate the public about where their power comes from, and ways to "Get off the grid?"

To be sure, these questions have been asked many times.  Yet, the institutional answers seem insufficient to the challenges at hand. 

The next post will delve into the answers to these questions, and what Disruptive Thinkers believes is the way forward. 

Developing a Disruptive Mindset

The rebel secretly quite wants the world and the system to remain as it is.  Its permanence, after all, is the guarantee of his continuing ability to "rebel."  The revolutionary, in contrast, really wishes to overthrow and replace existing conditions.
-Christopher Hitchens, via Jean-Paul Sarte

Before you can be Disruptive, you must embrace a Disruptive mindset.  This is one of those things that takes concerted effort and time.  It also is not a widespread trait in general society.   Yet even the most iconoclast of us can think in this manner if we truly want to.

My own journey began senior year of college.  Before this, I was your standard strait-laced Midwestern kid.  I grew up with a conservative, established religion. I never rebelled against my parents.  I always did what I was told.  I supported the establishment and felt uncomfortable around "rebels" and unorthodox thinkers.  I never smoked anything, didn't drink until I was 21.  These things served me well.  But I was missing something fundamental about the world.

Two things started this Disruptive transformation in 2003: I met a girl who showed me new opportunities, and met a mentor who introduced me to the habit of challenging established orthodoxy.  In the former case, fundamental questions I had never considered reared their head.  In the latter, I was exposed to leaders that shaped our world, but only because they willingly challenged the incumbent powers -- often at great professional risk -- and because they believed they were right.  One person with a right opinion outvotes a majority.

Nine years later, Disruptive Thinkers was born over a beer as a buddy and I complained about the outdated military pension model.  I'm the last person any of my high school peers would have expected to be a Disruptive personality.  Yet now, it's pretty much all I think about.

Here's what I've learned along the way:

1.  Never Stop Questioning Core Beliefs.

Simply stated, and to once again quote Hitchens: "In order to be a 'radical,' one must be open to the possibility that one's own core assumptions are misconceived."  This is the most important element about being Disruptive.

This does not mean that your assumptions are in fact misconceived, only an acknowledgement that they may be.  In doing so, you can begin the process of learning, and potentially discovering something revolutionary.  You may find you need to alter your outlook as new facts emerge.  You may also find your beliefs are true -- and more strongly held.  In either case, as Frank Herbert notes, "Knowing is a barrier that prevents learning."

Those who knew monarchies were Divine couldn't fathom democracy.  The French along the Maginot Line who knew the Germans would resort to trench warfare just prior to World War II never imagined Blitzkreig.  Americans who knew that housing prices would never fall failed to learn from past bubbles.  Those who know that blind allegiance to a Party will give them success miss the joy and opportunities of being a free thinker. 

Learning opens us up to people and philosophies we had never considered before.  It leads us to question why anti-immigration and pro-life policies must be inextricably linked, or why being pro-union means a person must also be against voter-ID laws.

To learn best, however, we must embrace the next element as well:

2.  Be Extremely Well Read -- Especially of Those You Disagree With

If you are a conservative, Paul Krugman should be on your daily reading list.  If a liberal, Charles Krauthammer.  If you are a Christian, you should read Brian Greene on Cosmology.  If an aethiest, Lewis' Mere Christianity.  If a Socialist, Milton Friedman's Free to Choose.  If a Capitalist, The Communist Manifesto.

The crazy thing about this is that there will be moments, if you are truly objective, when you find yourself nodding in agreement with the opposition.  I am a professing Christian, yet Hitchen's diatribe against religion in "Letters to a Young Contrarian" hit home.  This is where we grow in our beliefs, and even adapt them to new understandings of the world.  It also allows us to defend them more adeptly when they come under attack.

The more we read, and the more diverse the opinions, the better we become at discerning logical arguments from specious ones.  Furthermore, if you want to really be Disruptive, read about subjects well beyond your expertise.  Communications majors should probably learn a bit about physics.  Engineers about behavioral psychology.  You'll soon pick up patterns and cross-over applications you never imagined  You may even find yourself questioning assumptions you never thought possible. 

3.  Never Miss an Opportunity to Travel Outside Your Home Country

When I was first assigned to the West Coast, I was devastated for a number of reasons -- not least of which was that my deployments would be to Asia and not Europe.  But after seeing Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Guam, Dubai, Bahrain, Thailand and Malaysia, I was hooked.

Sure, there are differences in cultures and religious traditions.  But many things remain the same.  Muslim, Jewish, Christian or Hindu, all people want what's best for their kids.  They walk them to the park, gather for family picnics, want good schooling and opportunity.  Men everywhere like fighter planes.

You also gain a greater appreciation for the deficiencies, but even more so, the advantages of your home country.  You see your culture from the perspective of others, and can evaluate it more objectively -- pinpointing the elements you want to improve upon, those that deserve bolstering.

4.  Make Friends with People You Wouldn't Normally Associate With

I was once manning a static display at an airshow in Bahrain.  A man approached, wearing the uniform of an Iranian Air Force officer. We struck up a conversation, and in the course of a few minutes, discovered we had much in common.  This was an "enemy." Yet, somehow we got along and learned from each other.  Surprising things happen when you reach out.

One of the core tenants of the Disruptive Thinkers group in San Diego is that it is strictly non-partisan.  Politics is not allowed to be mentioned.  This facilitates friendships between people with good ideas regardless of political affiliation.  Some of our most brilliant members are diametrically opposed to my core beliefs, but their ideas make sense.  It shouldnt matter who gets the credit for a good idea.  Simply implement it, be gracious, and work to improve on concepts cooperatively.   

5.  Recognize That Change is the Only Constant

Daniel Ford notes that "the fundamental, unavoidable and all-pervasive presence of uncertainty is a starting point" for understanding the world.  I've learned over the past few years that adaptability in the face of uncertainty is one of the most valuable skills anybody can possess.

I used to have a grand plan.  No longer.  Too many opportunities pop up that require considering possibilities outside the way "things are supposed to be."  Do I have goals and aspirations?  Of course.  But to limit possible outcomes because in the past I had a desire to be one thing instead of another is absurd.  Some say luck is when preparation meets opportunity.  You have to be ready to jump on board, whether you think you are ready or not.  


6.  Take Risks -- Ask for Forgiveness Rather than Permission

Here's the thing about risk:  the word implies there is a possibility of failure.  And most humans hate failure.  But in my experience, risk leads to more success.  It exposes you to more types of people, more opportunity, and an increasing appetite for further risk.  You can test your assumptions, change them, even strengthen them.  It takes iron to sharpen iron -- and a mindset of calculated risk sharpens our ability to effect change.   

Taking risks slowly acclimates your body to reacting calmly in stressful situations.  Landing a jet on a pitching deck at night with no visibility makes virtually everything else in life seem like a cake-walk -- even combat.  Take that leap, fight the urge to run and hide, and everything else becomes easier.  When you've faced down your greatest fears, it's a lot easier to speak up at a board meeting when your boss is about to make a horrendous decision.

7.  Encourage and Learn From Failure

We live in a very risk averse, no-defect culture.  But our greatest lessons are learned when we fail.  When we fail, it means we probably took a risk -- did something outside our comfort zone.  Yet even in that failure, we grow.  We reassess, recalibrate, try a different method.  We learn perseverance, and sometimes, as with the discovery of something like penicillin, accidentally save the world in the midst of failure.

Thinking Disruptively is not a process that takes place over night.  These habits need to be ingrained daily, over the course of months and even years.  But one day you wake up, and are able to call shenanigans on those in power.  You find yourself going from a mere rebel to an actual revolutionary, with the tools necessary to effect real and lasting change. Most of all, you discover things about yourself you never thought possible, and get addicted to the discovery of the unknown.  

Being Disruptive has costs.  You may lose friends.  You may upend an institution.  You may find yourself an outcast.  But at the very heart of this mindset is being true to one's own self.  Fight for what you believe in and never stop learning.  Push the envelope, experience new adventures and see what happens.  It will probably pleasantly surprise you. . 

Love in the Information Age

And think not you can
Direct the course of love,
For love,
If it finds you worthy,
Directs your course.
-Khalil Gibran

Our world is changing; the velocity of ideas is accelerating.  It's hard to keep up with all the innovations sometimes. Yet, occasionally, the oldest technologies are the most potent.

Last week, I wrote a true letter for the first time in ages.  It's one of those arts that is quickly dying,  particularly missives to the objects of our affection.  In an age of instant communication, it doesnt seem very efficient to put pen to paper and trust an antiquated mail system to deliver a message.  But there is something timeless about the act.

Churchill the Charmer

When my sister and brother-in-law were first married, Nick was deployed to Iraq for nearly 18 months.  And while they had email and occasionally a connection good enough for Skype, they still composed handwritten notes to each other.  Upon returning home, the Army managed to lose the trunk that held those heartfelt letters from home - it was nothing short of devastating for them.  Losing a batch of emails just isnt the same.

There is something ethereal about pouring your soul onto paper.  The ink blots, crossed out words, smashed in additions; all part of a revelation that is more than mere turns of phrase.  It takes an act of concentration not common to our easily distracted modern minds.  Once inked, a phrase cannot merely be deleted and re-written.  Determined diligence must be employed.  It is almost a sacred act these days to devote time to such an effort.  (For those of you men who could use some tips, The Art of Manliness has some very useful guidance...)

I think a lot of us, when getting the mail, somewhere deep inside, still harbor some small bit of hope for a letter in chickenscratch addressed just to them.  The anticipation of walking from the mailbox inside, wondering what it holds.  The act of tearing the top off, reaching inside, and feeling stationary between the forefinger and thumb, then scanning those initial loops of cursive. Simply sublime.

Prospero, the Economist blog on books, art and culture, has a marvelous piece on the power of the pen.  It being Valentines Day, the review is on a book of historical love letters, but the sentiments conveyed are unalterable across time and culture.  Heartbreak, unending distance, passionate discourse between intertwined souls, all elements that bind the human experience together.

Letters of Note, predictably, features a missive between Anne Lindberg and her husband Charles.  

But to get to that stage of being committed enough to actually send a letter, you've first got to find the right person.  In ages past, friends, parents, and priests took care of this.  Today's age relies increasingly upon the Wild West of internet dating.

Both The Modern Matchmakers and The Dubious Science of Online Dating explore this phenomena.  Unsurprisingly, the marketing claims of the major sites falls short.    The study both articles reference basically confirm a lot of what we already know, and amplify some of the more interesting elements of behavioral economics.

The most interesting element is in the area of choice.  It makes sense to assume that a wider pool means better options, thus better results.  But as the Economist notes:

The difficulty of choosing from abundance seems to apply to choice of people, too. Dr Finkel could find no study which addressed the question directly, in the context of internet dating. But speed-dating once again provided an answer. Here, he found studies which showed that when faced with abundant choice, people pay less attention to characteristics that require thinking and conversation to evaluate (occupational status and level of education, for example) and more to matters physical. Choice, in other words, dulls the critical faculties.

Anybody who has spent time on places like Match.com, eHarmony or OkCupid knows that the first thing that goes out the window is actually reading the profile.  Looks matter when you've got 376 profiles that meet your search criteria.  And while Malcolm Gladwell may still claim that the instant "blink" of an initial decision is best, in the online dating world, it hardly seems sufficient.  

Despite unsubstantiated claims of success, going through dating sites is a fascinating psychological look into human sexuality -- or at least what people think they want and apparently look for.  Again, though, the data for knowing what we want is not good:  In studies on speed dating, "people's stated preferences at the beginning of the process do not well match the characteristics of the individuals they actually like."


Each of the sites seems to have their own demographic.  And while much of this is anecdotal from discussions with friends, I think the stereotypes are accurate.  Match is for the hookup crowd.  eHarmony is for the marriage minded folks. OkCupid, while the most fascinating of them all, is for the anything-goes clique.  And I mean eh-ne-thing. 

Wait, People Lie About Things on Dating Profiles?

That said, OkCupid has incredibly insightful relationship metrics on their blog, OkTrends.  It's certainly not for the prudish to read, but at least its honest.  They've basically culled all the data from the myriad of questions their patrons have answered, and come up with eye opening stats.  This is what happens when nerds like me think about dating.  I spent more time reading through that thing than I did actually looking through potential matches during my online dating days.  Its the perfect social experiment.  No doubt its what Facebook is doing with everything we post, but they don't share it.

So, while we try to plan everything out, and fit love into our brilliant ten year plan, even the internet age doesn't make things any easier.  Especially if you're an educated woman trying to find an equally matched man.   As with everything in life, a willingness to be adaptable and open to unexpected situations creates the most opportunities. Even if that involves ending up in a place you never expected.  It's also best if you know how to communicate in elegant prose on that old standby, the printed letter.  

Sometimes one person is worth the upending of our entire world.  It's just a matter of figuring out who.  That will never be quantified by algorithms or academic studies. 

Military Procurement Is Not A Jobs Program

For those of you unfamiliar with National Journal, and I'm assuming many of you are not unless you reside in the Beltway, it is the ultimate publicly available insiders guide to what's occuring in Congress.  It's also one of the most disgusting and blatant examples of everything that is wrong with the military-industrial-congressional complex.

A friend of mine worked for them a few years back, and would send me their magazines.  While I appreciated all the "Insider" polls and what things were on the mind of lobbyists and elected officials, the first thing I noticed were the number of ads from established defense firms.  Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, BAE, you name it, they all had full page spreads hawking their programs and "national security solutions." 

I recently came across the National Security Insiders Poll, and was disgusted to see not one, but FOUR ads for the Joint Strike Fighter, built by Lockheed Martin.  They are all the same, and dominate the page.  Brilliant placement, considering that those who would read that article are probably the same influencing those who vote in Congress.  Interestingly, the main focus of the ads is not combat effectiveness, but the number of jobs it "supports."  Here are the highlights:

-127,000 American Jobs
-1300 Suppliers in 47 States
-Security and Jobs for Decades to Come

In Lockheed's defense, a focus on jobs is a lot more likely to garner the attention of an embattled Congressperson than the theoretical threat of a rising China.  Unsurprisingly, defense firms tailor these ads the way they do because they work.  Highlighting the fact that 47 different states have a stake in the JSF's ultimate fate means that nearly every elected official has skin in the game.  In a recession, this is not lost on our enlightened Representatives.  It would be interesting to have National Journal publish an ad from Operators highlighting the JSF's deficiencies.    

I can guarantee that there is probably no good business reason to have so many sub-contractors spread throughout the country.  This only makes sense if your firm derives over 80 percent of its revenue from government contracts.  In Lockheed's case, this is the case.  It pays to have Congresspeople with constituents employed by their firm.  After all, Congress authorizes most of Lockheed's annual allowance -- to the tune of $38.4 billion in 2009.   

This comes on the heels of a report, published by National Journal itself, that backers of the Joint Strike Fighter receive much more cash from contractors involved in the project than those that don't support it.  This is common in our democracy, and isn't necessarily indicative of corruption. After all, firms should be able to support who they will.  But it does show how money to incumbents preserves the status quo and make it extremely difficult for innovative firms and solutions to break into the game.  These contributions do, however, raise eyebrows when a top DoD buyer accuses the F-35 program of "acquisition malpractice."

I'm beating up on the F-35 mostly because its the biggest and most visible of our current acquisition projects.  It has been rife with delays and cost-over runs, as I've detailed before.  But this is not a new phenomena in defense procurement.  The B-1 bomber was notorious as a program built in many Congressional districts throughout the country, making it difficult to ax when its tactical usefulness was questioned.  It's not hard to figure out which Congresspeople and Senators are front and center in support of a particular weapons system.  Republican or Democrat, if its built in their district, they'll be the first to support its perpetual and unquestioned continuation.

For the past ten years, Defense has gotten a blank check to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  While much of this was necessary to combat our enemies abroad, not having any constraints also inhibits discipline.  This is especially true when creating budgets.  The Silver Lining to a projected Defense drawdown, as outlined by Arthur Herman, is that "maybe the Pentagon will have to clean up its weapons procurement mess."

These Mickey Mouse acquisition games that harm the warfighter go on all the time.  The US military has been trying to buy a new Air Force aerial refueling aircraft for the past ten years.  And every time the government makes a decision one way or another, the losing party sues.  The Senator from either Washington (where Boeing builds their airframes) or South Carolina (where Airbus would have assembled theirs) raises a huge stink, claims national security is in peril and demands a new look at the decision.

Meanwhile, aviators over Afghanistan are tanking off of 1960s technology from planes much older than they are.  At this point "Buy American" is manufactured political BS.  Nearly every product is built in a variety of overseas locations, regardless of where the parent company locates their headquarters.  In the past ten years, we could have built and put into service these new platforms -- either one.  Instead, warfighters suffer while politicians wrestle for pork.

This shell game has most recently played out after the Air Force bought Brazilian made Super Tucano close air support aircraft for the fledgling Afghan army.  In what should have been an easy procurement choice, American-held Beechcraft has complained that their US-built competing platform was given short shrift.  The planes are virtually identical in their capabilities.  Choose one.  Move on.  Get it to the battlefield. 

Defense firms and their Congressional surrogates will not go softly into the night.  With potentially hundreds of billions of dollars at stake, the established interests have great incentive to push for their cherished projects.  And the new tack they will take will emphasize American employment, especially amidst our soft economic recovery.

Our electorate should not be duped into accepting this state of affairs.  Defense procurement is for one purpose only: to equip our men and women in uniform with the best possible kit, regardless of political considerations.  If a piece of technology is truly desired and tactically significant, it will stand on its own merits.  There will be no need to build it in 47 states when it could be more efficiently built in far fewer.  If it provides American jobs as an ancillary benefit, great.  But that should not be the primary consideration. 

Additionally, our Congressional representatives must look towards the greater needs of the Union and not parochial, local interests when allocating defense dollars.  They only insult our servicemembers by extolling their virtues while only supporting programs that bring money and jobs to their districts, rather than those that truly make warfighters more lethal. 

The status quo will remain in place unless we hold our representatives accountable at the ballot box.  Defense procurement is not a jobs program.  It is, instead, a sacred requirement to purchase the best and necessary technology free from political influence. 

Decoding Anti-Establishmentarianism

When we look at Disruptive Thinking and changing the status quo, one big question jumps out: Is it better to do so within existing institutions, or advocate for change from outside those structures?

My Disruptive Thinkers co-founder and I have been wrestling with this issue since we started hashing out our concept last August.  There is so much that's seems unworkable within current power structures, yet the solution eludes those who would bring about change.  Most of what follows is his, with a few added thoughts of my own as occasional amplification:

[The solution] is there, I know it. It’s not just that video: “Why I Love Jesus but Hate Religion”--it’s the Arab Spring, the 99% movement, the Tea Party, even the angst that you and three others expressed at the Naval Institute Junior Officer Panel.

You Know Things are Bad When...

In short, people have a sense that institutions today aren’t working.  They aren't necessarily in agreement about what is wrong, yet see pervasive rot.  I think what’s given them that sense is access to information: an ability to better understand one’s own environment in the context of other people’s environments. And, as you note, people today can more easily express those sentiments in public forums without necessarily having a plan for improvement or real change. That is, of course, all due to technology and social media.

While I could not agree more with what Brooks argues, especially as it relates to having an education that spans the ideological spectrum, I think his conclusion falls short. He fails to address WHY there is so much rebellion against institutions and more importantly, where those multitudes might find an outlet for their frustrations.  His solutions very much remain within the confines of the ‘establishment.'  He would prefer that people in reform movements think not for themselves, but instead join grounded, intellectual movements that have been around for decades or centuries.

As you allude to, the Founding Fathers had to break with the establishment to get what they wanted: While they were among an intellectual elite of their time, not one man, by himself, had a complete grasp of political philosophy, law, etc. to originate the movement. As with any change, it developed slowly over time as a group of individuals became disillusioned with an institution and banded together to figure out a solution. In their case, that solution came over the course of more than a decade, countless intellectual debates and armed rebellion.  The solution they enacted was fundamentally different from anything else the world had ever encountered.U

Up to this point in history, institutions have typically been the drivers of organizational coordination, ideas, and change. Today however, because of technology, trends are now driving institutions. The future is only getting ‘exponentially faster’ as per [Ray] Kurzweil’s arguments.

 

The problem is that institutions are rooted in history and tradition (as Brooks notes) and completely ill-equipped to handle the rapid acceleration of innovation. That video of a guy rapping about Jesus, posted on You Tube and shared (which is an indicator of positive reaction) by nearly 20 million people is a prime example. Even 10 years ago, to relay a message that globally challenged the nature of religion to 20 million Christians or potential Christians would have been almost impossible.

Anti-establishmentariani

It’s far easier for people to attach themselves to ideas today. Accordingly, individuals who don’t have a comprehensive grasp of intellectual tradition can still very easily access ideas and movements. I don’t think this makes their movements or counter-culture irrelevant, it just makes it much harder to formally organize and understand. And that brings us back to square one, where we’re still trying to understand what all of this anti-institution stuff means.

I am increasingly of the mindset that the 21st century requires some sort of ‘Tectonic Event’ to allow our institutions to align with our ideas. I don’t mean to be an apocalyptic thinker, but something major—good or bad—will have to force this change because in politics and government, our current structures are failing and falling behind faster each year. As crazy as John Robb seems sometimes, he’s onto something with his resilient community ideas. In a post ‘tectonic event’ world, it may very well be small self-sustained communities that leverage global technology and ideas for local prosperity.

There you have it.  This will be an ongoing topic of conversation.  I'd be interested to hear what insights our readers have into this puzzle.  And how they themselves have effected change, both within and without established institutions.

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

As many of you have discovered recently, I've been in a Disruptive Mood over the past few months.  Challenging old political allegiances, being critical of establishments I'm a part of, looking for unorthodox solutions to intractable problems.  There's a vague sense that something Needs To Be Done! But what exactly that is can't be wholly envisioned.

David Brooks brilliantly addresses this paradox in How to Fight the Man.  It got me thinking about what exactly it is I'm trying to accomplish with this blog and our Disruptive Thinkers group.  The fact of the matter is that it's easy to throw stones, but much harder to build up a structure with those stones.  Heaven knows I've got a lot of criticisms, but far too few solutions. 

Running Where?

The board members of Disruptive Thinkers have been grappling with this for a while now.  There is a palpable sense of excitement during our monthly seminars, but one of the things were having difficulty capturing is the "action" side of the equation.  It's one thing to get smart people in the same room, but quite another to see direct results from the same.

The thing about establishments is that they exist for a reason. Sometimes that reason may have come and past, but there are groups that gain great benefit from the status quo.  The stability of the known also plays into resistance to reform.  And in many instances, those looking to disrupt that stable system operate from within it because it provides a platform to do so.

Brooks talks about two things that young people face in reconciling their desire for change with the realities that entails:  Perhaps our generation lacks the "oppositional mentality necessary for revolt."  Brooks himself contends that "[v]ery few people have the genius or time to come up with a comprehensive and rigorous worldview."

As much as we might complain about the status quo being insufficient or inefficient, our society makes it very easy to make those complaints.  There is almost no cost in doing so.  Sure, some fear repercussions for speaking their minds in America, but the worst that happens is that you lose a job -- maybe.  Or potentially get "blacklisted" from some promotion opportunity.  But we aren't imprisoned, hurt or even killed for our opposition.  Indeed, a savvy keeper of the establishment pays lip service and lavishes praise on Disruptive Thinkers while doing nothing of any substance to assuage their concerns.  We said our piece, got our 15 minutes, and forget we ever complained because we got the gold star for "unique thinking."  Never mind the remaining incumbent power. 

Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death

With this in mind, I reflect on how momentous our own Revolution was 235 years ago.  The "oppositional mentality for revolt" was alive and well in our Founding Fathers.  On the negative side, slaveholders in the South had it when they precipitated the Civil War.  Civil Rights advocates used it to great effect during the 1960s.  Those in Poland and Czechslovakia in the latter days of the Soviet Union possessed it as well.

Maybe the Innovation Generation has been so coddled that we do think merely bringing up an issue means we've done our part to "change the world" as we go back to our lattes and Facebook stalking.  Or perhaps literal revolt has been replaced with the more passive forming of non-profits and think tanks that we can claim entrepreneural ownership over without truly risking our hides.

I'm just as guilty as the next person of thinking I've done a great work by posting an indignant Facebook status update, and believe real change will come of it.  Clever turns of a phrase may gain praise, but they hardly count as effecting change. 

Where's My Participation Ribbon, Gramps?

This in turn plays right into the formation of Brooks' "comprehensive and rigorous worldview."  What do we believe?  Why do we believe it?  How many of us could stand before an inquisitive audience and truly defend those things we believe to be true with both passion and hard evidence?  And if we cannot do so, how can we expect to exert any influence on the world around us?

The men and women we hold in esteem all had a driving sense of purpose, a defining ideology that shaped their actions.  From this they saw society's ills, drew the logical conclusions from their worldview, and stopped at nothing to implement their ideas.

Rebels who win always become the Establishment eventually.  They would do well to recognize this when they first set out.  This is the very theme Brooks ends with:

If I could offer advice to a young rebel, it would be to rummage the past for a body of thought that helps you understand and address the shortcomings you see. Give yourself a label...Effective rebellion isn’t just expressing your personal feelings. It means replacing one set of authorities and institutions with a better set of authorities and institutions. Authorities and institutions don’t repress the passions of the heart, the way some young people now suppose. They give them focus and a means to turn passion into change.

Disruption within a wider context is a helpful thing to be mindful of.  Destroying the foundation without a plan for a better one is folly.  I shall be more diligent in this.

Junior Officers Take on the Establishment

Last Thursday, I had the chance, along with three other of my fellow military junior officers, to take part in a panel sponsored by the US Naval Institute and AFCEA.  It was in conjunction with the annual WEST 2012 Conference held at the San Diego Convention Center.

All of the members of the panel, including the moderator, Mr. Dan Moore, are members of Disruptive Thinkers.  Yes, it's not just a blog.  Disruptive Thinkers is a think tank we've started to bring military officers together with successful entrepreneurs in the hope that we can bring the best practices from each into our respective worlds.  Things like this panel are what our group is endeavoring to accomplish: Firm guidance from the innovation generation towards established interests that don't always know how (or want) to move forward.

The video is a bit long (1 hour, 7 minutes), but should give you an idea of the things on the minds of those fighting our nation's wars from the front lines.  The main themes? Place more trust in capable subordinate officers, and allow for a culture of innovation.  The last post on this site showed how the SEALs have done so very well.  We need every branch to emulate it. 

How the Navy SEALs Fight Smarter, Not Harder

Many Think Disruptively.  The following is the first in an ongoing series featuring guest bloggers with personal perspectives on things upending the status quo.  

This essay was written by someone who works closely with military special forces. John Boyd had it right when he said "Men, not machines, win wars.  And they use their minds."  The SEALs do this better than anybody.  Enjoy.

-------

If you are Jessica Buchanan or her family, it has been one damn good week. And for the public face of the US Navy SEALs, another significant, well-executed operation is added to a string of impressive successes. 

The Face of Innovation

The capabilities and combat precision of the SEALs is increasingly on display in print media, books, and soon, a major motion picture.  For the men within the SEAL community, however, this publicity is antithetical to their culture.  The mantra of “quiet professionalism” serves as a guiding principle from day one in the quest to become one of the world’s most elite warriors. 

That said, it bears looking into what is behind these triumphs.  Without a doubt, the special operations world is comprised of the most capable, intelligent warriors in contemporary history.  But why over the past decade have the SEALs experienced such noteworthy accomplishments, even when compared with other services Special Operations forces?

This question is especially important since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been primarily land-based, and as of late, often fought in the mountains. While SEAL stands for SEa, Air, and Land, these operators are traditionally associated with maritime engagements.  So how does a seagoing force gain such pronounced land-based prominence?

To those who know these units and their impressive sub-cultures, the most significant aspect to the SEAL community is their unique culture of innovation.  Indeed, SEALs model many of the themes that dominate modern theories of innovation:

• Lean: Even compared with other special operations forces, SEAL units maintain a small number of operators.
• De-centralized: While the military hierarchy remains the central tenant of running any SEAL unit, there is an implicit element of autonomy expected of all special operators.
• Agile: Even SEAL Teams have bureaucratic elements required to exist within the national security establishment. Yet the small, lean, and decentralized nature of the SEALs enable an ability to adapt and reposition themselves seamlessly as conflicts evolve.

These elements exist throughout all branches of special operations forces, but the aggressive training and constant desire for improvement speak loudest from Naval Special Warfare. 

A much more exclusive ingredient in the DNA of SEALs is that innovation and creativity are carefully ingrained in these men throughout their careers. It’s an axiom clearly articulated in the US Navy SEAL Ethos. And while the Ethos is worth the read for every American, here are three particularly insightful paragraphs:

We expect to lead and be led. In the absence of orders I will take charge, lead my teammates and accomplish the mission. I lead by example in all situations.

I will never quit. I persevere and thrive on adversity. My Nation expects me to be physically harder and mentally stronger than my enemies. If knocked down, I will get back up, every time.  I will draw on every remaining ounce of strength to protect my teammates and to accomplish our mission. I am never out of the fight.

We demand discipline. We expect innovation. The lives of my teammates and the success of our mission depend on me - my technical skill, tactical proficiency, and attention to detail. My training is never complete.

The Only Easy Day Was Yesterday

For those who have served in the military or know its strict hierarchy, these statements are profound. Although they have been part of other units' success, they are the bedrock of SEAL operations. Every man, not just officers, is expected to be able to lead if necessary. Moreover, in understanding that failure is not an option—as learned through the rigors of 18 months of SEAL training—innovation is expected.

The above lifestyle, only shared among those men who live and work in “the brotherhood,” when combined with the organizational structure of the SEAL Teams, makes for an astoundingly innovative culture. Men are expected to be thoughtful and have the self-discipline to seek constant improvement.  Most importantly, they endeavor to harness those assets for new and better approaches to warfare.

SEAL operators are constantly questioning, constantly brainstorming, and always looking for ‘a better way.’

A SEAL acquaintance recently shared a telling anecdote. During a cold-weather training mission, his unit had inserted onto a beach through arctic waters. As they began ascending a nearby mountain, the snow conditions changed so dramatically that it made their intended route virtually impassable without snowshoes. As the unit stopped to work through their options, one man cut down pine branches, used some excess rope (550 cord), and built a pair of workable snowshoes.

This sparked an idea in a teammate, who built off this thought by using his swim fins.  Once required for the water insertion, they now served as a foundation for impromptu snowshoes. The makeshift device worked, and within 20 minutes, the entire unit was moving up the mountain using their swim fins as improvised snowshoes.

It Pays to be a Winner

Since the beginning of the conflict in Afghanistan, the SEAL Teams have mastered this adaptive capability. The wealth of knowledge that returns from battlefield ‘lessons learned’ is applied to new training methods, tactical specialization, and force structure. Again, every unit in the American military does this in some form, but the SEAL’s competitive advantage is that they can do it so quickly and effectively.

This trend and its surgical effectiveness are being noticed by US policymakers. As the Pentagon painfully works to eliminate $500 billion from its budget over the next 10 years, hard choices have to be made.  However, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced this week that while many major defense programs would either be trimmed or completely eliminated, US special operations forces will continue to see increased funding. 

This past week’s rescue again proves that the United States remains a nation committed to, and capable of, protecting its citizens in even the most unseemly of places. Yet behind the scenes, the more subtle lesson is the importance and value of a culture steeped in innovation. 

Warfare, and world history, has always been shaped by those who best understand how to exploit and create new innovations.  The SEALs success is a direct result of this, and by inherently embracing it, will continue to lead the way for others to emulate.

Taking on the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex

Albert Einstein once noted that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.  If this definition is in fact true, then count the procurement of military fighter aircraft as insane.

When I was a wide-eyed and optimistic college senior, my honors thesis compared the procurement process of the F-22 Raptor with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.  I was naive enough to believe the latter would be better conducted than the former.  My beliefs were rooted in nothing more than vague government studies littered with various "data" and Lockheed promises of keeping on schedule and timeline.

Looking through this paper is rather amusing in 2012, particularly the JSF timeline, as outlined by the Government Accountability Office in 2004:

2008: First Operational Aircraft Delivered to USAF and USMC
2010: Navy receives first delivery of aircraft carrier capable JSF's

As those of us in aviation know, these dates have come and past, and still there is no firm promise as to when our new planes will be delivered.  The best estimate is 2016 for the Navy and 2015 for the USAF.  The Marine Corps Short Take-Off, Vertical Lift (STOVL) version may never actually be procured.  Appallingly, the carrier version of the JSF suffers from a rather significant engineering oversight:  the thing can't actually land on an aircraft carrier.   And despite the Marine Corps touting the ability for the STOVL version to operate from austere locations, they ignore the fact that stealth material doesn't hold up well in sandstorms (or even rain for that matter). 

I'm too sexy for...actual combat.

The projected flyaway cost in 2001 for the JSF was $69 million per aircraft.  This number is now $133 million -- and if you include the research and development costs, $156 million.  A doubling in one decade.  Furthermore, in 2004, over 2,900 planes were to be purchased -- the number has now declined to just a tad over 2,400.

This pretty much mirrors the F-22 Raptor glideslope.  Initially conceived of in April 1991, the program called for 880 planes being built at a cost of $45 million each.  By the end of its production run in 2009, only 187 had actually been built, at a per unit cost of $411 million. And according to the acolytes of John Boyd (the father of modern fighter tactics and design), a platform that failed to meet its ambitious promise. 

Fighter procurement was nicely summed up by Norman Augustine, the former chairman of Martin Marietta when he outlined his 16th law:

In the year 2054, the entire defense budget will purchase just one aircraft. The aircraft will have to be shared by the Air Force and Navy three and a half days each per week, except for the leap year, when it will be made available to the Marine Corps for the extra day.

Hyperbole to be sure, but sadly, derived from the trendline in decreasing overall acquisition numbers and rapidly increasing per unit cost. 

It would be nice if these over-promised, under-delivered platforms were relegated to aviation.  Alas, ship building (Littoral Combat Ship), Army kit (Future Combat System [FCS] and Comanche Helicopter), and space programs have all far exceed initial Congressional authorization timelines and budgetary constraints.  In many of these cases, promised technological advances have rarely been achieved.

So what is driving our accelerating defense outlays, reduced inventory and poor procurement record?  Established defense firms with strong Congressional backers and a bureaucratic acquisition process that inhibits innovative upstarts from making their mark.

Part of this goes to overall strategic aims: Organizations tend to gravitate towards things they do well.  The US military does state vs state warfare, with a defined adversary, incredibly competently:  look at Desert One and the March to Baghdad in 2003.   So the services want to buy whiz-bang gizmos that enable us to preserve this advantage.

In doing so, however, we neglect the fact that our enemies have adapted to neutralizing our technological and strategic advantages.  All but two of our conflicts over the past 50 years (the aforementioned ones...) were very different:  Insurgencies and police actions against sometimes hard to define foes.  The tools required in this type of fighting are 180 out from the massive land and sea battles Generals and Admirals salivate over.  They are usually less expensive, more singularly focused and definitely not sexy. 

Ugly, but Useful

But they work.  The Mine Resistant, Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle was fielded in a matter of months at a cost of $500,000 per vehicle, to adapt to a foe that we hadn't anticipated: the Improvised Explosive Device (IED).  Initially, it was innovative young Marines and soldiers bolting steel plates to their Humvees.  Eventually, industry caught on and created a suitable product.  Contrast this with the FCS, which was initially conceived of in 2000 and projected to cost $340 billion.  It prevented no losses to IED's and was cancelled in 2009.

Similarly, private industry has come up with effective, inexpensive solutions for providing Close Air Support.  The US military currently deploys $60 million F-18s, F-15s and F-16s into the skies over Afghanistan at a cost well above $20,000 per flight hour.  A more capable CAS platform, the Brazilian Super Tucano, can carry nearly the same weapons load, provide more on station time (4+ hours vs. 1 hour), and can operate from rugged, short, dirt strips. It costs about $15 million fully loaded, but more significantly, costs only $1,000 per flight hour.  Permissive airspace is required, but since that is what we find in most counter-insurgency situations, it is a great solution.  The US military just bought some for the Afghan military -- but refuses to do the same for our own warfighters. 

The Future?

In a professional aside, many of my fighter aviation peers, knowing what CAS looks like from above, would prefer to fly a Super Tucano type aircraft in Afghanistan.  Many ground controllers would prefer to have the on station time and weapon variety afforded by the Super Tucano, but not provided by traditional fighters.  Unfortunately, most of the procurement officials are so far removed from the battlefield, they don't understand this.


These rapid, adaptable procurement decisions are more in line with the evolution that occurred during WWII.  The United States created one of the most successful fighters in warfare, the P-51, in four months.  When the JSF finally comes online (still projected, of course), it will have been 20+ years since its initial inception.

We have a bloated defense budget that has been given free reign to expand as much as "needed" over the past decade.  This inhibits discipline, and fosters complacency.  Only well established firms know how to navigate the procurement labyrinth, and are wedded to maintaining the status quo of billions in profit each year from antiquated strategic visions.  This is not sustainable, and should not be acceptable to the American electorate.

There is a tendency to dismiss as unpatriotic anybody who questions the need for unlimited military funding.  Indeed, many of the same people who decry throwing good money after bad in education turn a blind eye to the same in the defense budget.  This must end.

We should hold companies and Congressmen accountable for their budgetary blunders.  The F-22 may bring tens of thousands of jobs to Georgia, but it has done nothing in fighting the War on Terror. Defense procurement is not a jobs program -- and anybody who thinks it is needs to spend more time on actual battlefields.

There is small progress that has been made on this front.  The Chief of Naval Operations has instituted a speed-to-fleet program, but it only applies to small procurement decisions.  More must be done. 

Until our country takes a good, hard look at the pernicious relationships between members of Congress, established defense firms and what it is we want our country to do in the realm of military responsibilities, we can expect the unwarranted influence of the military-industrial complex to continue unabated.  We need technologically capable kit; but we must also have a procurement system that reacts to reality, not Goliath's fed by Uncle Sam.

Swarms: You Can Run, but You Can't Hide

One of the most fascinating sights in nature is to see a massive school of fish maneuver en masse. Hundreds of minimally intelligent beings coordinating their actions in the blink of an eye (clicking that link on 18 Jan will lead to the wikipedia blackout site protesting SOPA, fyi), surrounding an object or projecting strength against an otherwise superior foe.  The Genius of Swarms by National Geographic is a marvelous look at this phenomenon.

This is not a skill humans have yet mastered while in close proximity -- 9 out of 10 times during a four-plane flyover at a football game, its pretty easy to see which dude(tte) is out of position (especially if you're in the Air Force...). 

As warfare has evolved, we've gone from the strategy of massed fighters to a more distributed and decentralized model.  This allows for greater freedom of action, and more adaptable responses available to subordinate commanders.  The evolution in warfare has also gone hand-in-hand with greater technological advancement, and the primacy of the individual unit.

Something Seems Wrong with this Picture

The downside to this is cost -- namely that each fighting unit we purchase is better than the last, one v. one, but costs significantly more.  So we buy fewer of them.  For instance, during World War II, the US bought 16,500 P-51 Mustangs at an average unit cost of about $600,000 in today's dollars.  We have recently purchased 187 F-22 Raptors at a cost of over $350 million per.  Hypothetically, that money could have bought six F-16's.  Is one F-22 worth more than six F-16's?  Read on...

Ironically, the technology that allows for distributed tactics also necessarily implies a degree of consolidation as well -- we do more with less.  Take an aircraft carrier.  $6 billion to develop, it can carry an air wing of over 50 strike/fighter aircraft.  Problem is, our adversaries know this as well, so they've endeavored to develop systems to overwhelm our defenses: anti-carrier ballistic missiles and more interestingly, swarms.  Why take on the 50 when you can focus on the One?

Similarly, in the air, an F-22 is at least a generation in capabilities ahead of the venerable F-16.  Yet, there being very few of them, they necessarily cover less ground than would a force that could blanket a battlespace.  Sure, a Raptor could defeat a division of 4 top of the line Chinese fighters (assuming it had enough missiles...), but what if a foe sent 250 1960's era MiG-21's across the line at once from all different directions, impervious to losses? Could all of them be stopped?  All it takes is one missile to get through, and there goes your carrier...

Warfare has a funny way of repeating itself.  Perhaps Fifth Generation warfare will resemble First Generation massing more than Third Generation maneuver or Fourth Generation insurgencies.  Or maybe it'll be a hybrid of swarming insurgencies maneuvering around nimble, but quantitatively inferior technologists.    

This is not just a fantasy -- its been played out time and again in wargames.  We just have a tendency to sweep it under the table when the results don't confirm our belief in the military-industrial technological marvels.  I've written about this before -- see Millennium Challenge 2002 and Gladwell's How Underdogs Can Win (midpage).  You've been given command of the bad guys in a training exercise?  Throw as many cheap and independent units at the good guys as possible, and see how quickly they are overwhelmed. 

As drone technology has grown, and as their numbers have as well, most of our strategists still use them as if they were manned fighters.  Same tactics, same formations, same uses.  We should be thinking completely outside the box with this new technology. 

John Robb, one of the most brilliant military minds of our age, has talked extensively about this.  Drone tactics go hand in hand with the growth in artificial intelligence.  Computers inside small drones have the brain power of an insect -- and while this doesnt seem significant, when massed as insects do, this can cause real havoc.  Would you rather be one human with a machine gun or a thousand angry bees?  

This is Unexpected...

But Robb goes farther and looks to one human controlling many drones.  One of my favorite books, Ender's Game, has exactly that as its premise (with some other spectacular leadership and societal lessons thrown in as well).  We're even "training" civilians to manage this -- video games like Starcraft are the perfect simulation for how the battles of the future may be fought.

So how do we counter this?  Focus on decentralized, distributed solutions.  Create our own swarms.  Study and understand the phenomena.  Build a couple hundred, few million dollar assets instead of only a few, billion dollar ones.  Utilize technology, but don't limit it to existing orthodoxies.  Create ad hoc innovation cells to determine unique solutions. 

Technology is a great tool, but human ingenuity matters more.  "Machines don't fight wars, men do -- and they use their minds."  We're seeing that in response to pervasive technology, quantity when massed can have a quality all of its own.

"I've Been to the Mountaintop. And I Don't Mind."

There is no disputing the impact Martin Luther King, Jr. had on the direction of the United States and the world.  His biography is well known, his struggles part of American lore.  He took on entrenched interests, fought in an insurgency focused on non-violence and rallied a generation behind his words and dreams.  He disrupted the world, and our nation is the better for it.

Winning.

His words did not sit well with the incumbent powers.  Even today, some of his rhetoric is uncomfortable as we are forced to look deep within ourselves.  But his thoughts had an impact few have matched.   He was but one man in the march towards deeper freedom, but spoke for those without a voice.

Before I let his words take the stage, one note about his life.  We tend to mythologize our American heroes -- putting them on pedestals that no mortal human could ever hope to sustain.  We imagine them as perfect beings, never tiring of the fight, always shining beacons of integrity.  None of our Founding Fathers met this standard, nor have our war heroes or civil rights lions.  MLK had his own foibles, his own demons he fought.  These are sometimes ignored when talking of his legacy. 

Yet, acknowledging these failings makes his work that much more meaningful.  He was a fallen man, first and foremost.  As a preacher, he understood this, as such acknowledgement is the cornerstone of redemption.  Furthermore, in the retelling of history, it makes his accomplishments that much more meaningful.  Instead of being an unattainable role-model, we too can fight injustice amidst our own failings.  Imperfection isn't an impediment.  We are all works in progress.

I've chosen to focus on quotes most applicable to the theme of this blog.  He was a champion for the impoverished, a leader in Civil Rights.  But he also knew what it meant to think disruptively -- and used that knowledge to win the battles he fought.

------

“The question is not if we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. The nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.”

“On some positions, Cowardice asks the question, "Is it safe?" Expediency asks the question, "Is it politic?" And Vanity comes along and asks the question, "Is it popular?" But Conscience asks the question "Is it right?" And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right.”

"Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time; the need for mankind to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Mankind must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love."

“A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. ... A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.”

“Now there is a final reason I think that Jesus says, "Love your enemies." It is this: that love has within it a redemptive power. And there is a power there that eventually transforms individuals. Just keep being friendly to that person. Just keep loving them, and they can’t stand it too long. Oh, they react in many ways in the beginning. They react with guilt feelings, and sometimes they’ll hate you a little more at that transition period, but just keep loving them. And by the power of your love they will break down under the load. That’s love, you see. It is redemptive, and this is why Jesus says love. There’s something about love that builds up and is creative. There is something about hate that tears down and is destructive. So love your enemies.”

“One of the great liabilities of history is that all too many people fail to remain awake through great periods of social change. Every society has its protectors of status quo and its fraternities of the indifferent who are notorious for sleeping through revolutions. Today, our very survival depends on our ability to stay awake, to adjust to new ideas, to remain vigilant and to face the challenge of change.”

“Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well-being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way.”

“If a man is called to be a street sweeper, he should sweep streets even as a Michaelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, 'Here lived a great street sweeper who did his job well.”

Light in the Darkness

“Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable... Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals.”

“You may be 38 years old, as I happen to be. And one day, some great opportunity stands before you and calls you to stand up for some great principle, some great issue, some great cause. And you refuse to do it because you are afraid…. You refuse to do it because you want to live longer…. You’re afraid that you will lose your job, or you are afraid that you will be criticized or that you will lose your popularity, or you’re afraid that somebody will stab you, or shoot at you or bomb your house; so you refuse to take the stand.
Well, you may go on and live until you are 90, but you’re just as dead at 38 as you would be at 90. And the cessation of breathing in your life is but the belated announcement of an earlier death of the spirit.”

"A lot of people are waiting for Martin Luther King or Mahatma Ghandi to come back — but they are gone. We are it. It is up to us. It is up to you."
-Marian Wright Edelman

-----

Inspire.  Innovate.  Change the World.