don't be realistic

I got this video in my email inbox this morning. The basic message of the video is to stop being "realistic" and stick to your big, impossible dreams. I enjoy this.

baby with the bath water

A lot of theorists have been writing about the declining influence of government. In fact, this was the subject of one of my major papers during law school ten years ago. The argument goes something like this:

• Security is being taken up by private bodyguards and gated communities amongst those who can afford not to rely upon the police
• Non-state militia groups wage war outside of the guidelines of the Geneva Convention and international law
• Public policy decisions are increasingly taken by judges - whether on issues like gay marriage, abortion, or labour disputes...leaving elected officials off the hook
• Professional lobbyists - whether lobbyists-for-hire or representatives of civil society organisations - effect more influence on government decisions than the civil servants on the inside
• NGOs and community organisations deliver services, shape public debate, and collaborate with partners overseas - directly
• Non-governmental organisations also deliver government-esque services directly overseas. For example, War Child contributes towards cleaning up after the devastation of military operations, Amnesty International shines light on government abuse, and Doctors Without Borders delivers healthcare instead of local health authorities overseas

Governments are obviously becoming less and less relevant - "A perfection of means, and confusion of aims, seems to be our main problem," Einstein said. And so why should we care about them?*

Well...call me Pollyanna, but I still have faith. The infrastructure of government is still in place; here in Canada we generate $10 billion annual surpluses federally, and taxpayers don't seem to mind. So we have an opportunity to use the system and the funding that's already in place if we can figure out what to do with the networks we have.

We could be actively trying to create an economy of care - incentives to business to support civil society. Government as direction-setter instead of implementer, providing the overall guidance structures and funding for regional and local organisations to do their thing. Government as think tank to generate data about how certain programs are working and what international (or obscure, local) group is already doing it better.

I've mentioned experimental pilot projects like harm reduction drug clinics, daycare on site at business centres, investment in research & development, construction of community-focused public spaces and innovative public buildings, and reducing poverty overseas before.

But I'm sure there are lots of people saying this, and when pilot projects do sprout up, the average citizen is often unaware of the opportunities that exist.

So how to make a stronger connection between government and community...any ideas?

*Of note, last night I bought World Inc, which explores the question of whether now that companies are more powerful than governments, they have an opportunity - a responsibility? - to make social responsibility part of their mandates. Will report back with thoughts.

too cool for school

In his 1957 essay "The White Negro", Norman Mailer argued that:

"If the fate of 20th century man is to live with death from adolescence to premature senescence, why then the only life-giving answer is to accept the terms of death, to live with death as immediate danger, to divorce oneself from society, to live without roots, to set out on that uncharted journey into the rebellious imperatives of the self. In short, the decision is to encourage the psychopath in oneself. One is Hip or one is Square, one is a rebel or one conforms."

So far, I've met one super over-achiever who also has that kind of crazy hipster cool. Usually, the "psychopath within" tends to overshadow the productive side of the crazy cool people I meet.

Just in April I'd been pitching to a group of people that the truly gifted and avant-garde - the innovators - are hardwired differently. And that, as a consequence, they are often a little crazy too. That was before I'd read the Mailer quote, and I know the people I was talking to thought I was strange.

I feel vindicated now, if at a loss, because the leap from crazy-productive to crazy-subpar may be all too short.

Take Montreal, for instance, the city of my undergrad youth. I've always admired its graceful seediness. The way its people continue to sneer in the midst of its decay. And I've always preferred it over the bigger, richer, more sanitised Toronto as well.

But despite its beautiful people, it's superior fashion, its local arts scene and quirky pockets of tight knit communities, Montreal never beats the Vancouvers and the Torontos for the "Top City to Live In" in the global awards. Perhaps the continuum from haunting beauty to just plain ghoulishness is too close a spectrum for the average citizen to bear.

Still, I remain optimistic that the balance can be made. I think that sometimes simply being innovative, alternative, or daring in one's thinking, is what is seen as crazy. As Einstein quipped:

"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions"

and

"A question that sometimes drives me hazy: am I or are the others crazy?"

no, my first name ain't baby

Remember Janet Jackson’s Rhythm Nation (get the point? good. let’s dance). Straight up hard on civic issues, then she brings the beat back.

Today I spent the afternoon in the park, reading, people watching, counting marathon runners go by. Summers are always good in Ottawa, but today was the first time I’ve considered it could be home.

No coincidence these thoughts coming once the snow is gone, and particularly while I’m in the park. I could see the Hill over my left shoulder, open and accessible by foot, the national art gallery in front of me, boasting displays of Renoir, modernist photographs and the Governor General’s (our first black, female head of state!) picks. And to my right the steel and concrete gated façade of the American Embassy, an architectural statement of everything our country is not.

Then a random man approached me. I guess during the winter he’d seen me reading at Chapters every week. He wanted to know if I’d like to join him this evening at a church concert. It seems my sister might have taken me to his congregation once when she was in town, cuz he thought he'd also spotted me in a pew.

He came across as courteous and respectful, but also possibly trying to flirt. Alas, I’m not born again, nor interested, so I didn’t take the bait.

Still, between the sun on my face, the political theory in my lap, the national icons in the distance, and the friendly courage of this man, I left at sundown with a renewed faith in the potential of the city, and good feelings about how great the country is overall.

It was like listening first to “people of the world unite/strength in numbers we can get it right/one time”, then skipping tracks to “as I was walkin’ by/saw you standin’ there with a smile.”

Looks like my girl Janet knew what she was talking about. (you might think i’m crazy but I’m serious. it’s better you know now.)

wtf?

So I'm walking home yesterday after work and there's this skater dude following along the same path.

Next thing I know, he's shouting insults, obscenities, and finally WHITE POWER!!! WHITE POWER!!!

For a full block.

ummm...it was 31 degrees with humidity yesterday. could he not deduce that we don't need any more hot air?

can governments still inspire?

My boss' father, who is from India, says that "the problem with Canada is that there are no problems."

Perhaps this is why government is less ambitious now than it was in the Trudeau Charter of Rights era...or even the Mulroney era of Free Trade.

With the exception of the disparities in income, health and education between First Nations communities and the rest of Canada, these days the most urgent social problems to be addressed are most often found overseas.

But what is the role of a national government in helping to solve the problems of people who don't live in the nation? How can we engage citizens in supporting foreign aid? And how can we offer foreign aid in a non-paternalistic fashion or without inappropriate strings regarding the recipient country's domestic policies?

National governments are hard pressed to focus on initiatives that won't score political points. But the political system - the way individual candidates are nominated, elected and keep their parties in power - isn't really built to focus attention outside the country. And once a government is in place, does it really have the tools to effect meaningful international change? Military action has been used as one piece of the puzzle, but the military isn't designed to cultivate grassroots support.

A few weeks ago I was at a Facebook party comprised of political staffers and bureaucrats where I met a feisty woman who is a lawyer with the feds on First Nations issues. She had been a political staffer for a cabinet minister before the Liberal government fell.

We spoke at length about how well government is equipped to improve the socioeconomic status of First Nations communities. She was pessimistic about the government's ability to be an effective catalyst on its own. But she was equally adamant that economic advancement in the absence of self-government, improved infrastructure, and social programs would do little as well.

If an insider sees such challenges in working to resolve a domestic policy issue, what kind of tactics are needed to generate support, mobilise resources, and partner with the private sector and civil society for initiatives overseas?

Aside from funding (and perhaps managing) existing social programs, infrastructure and healthcare - can national governments set (and achieve) loftier goals in the modern age?

lessons learned, revisions made

After three days of reading, reflecting, dancing, and socialising, I have the following revisions to previous thoughts, musings, and posts I've published about a) effective activism & b) socially responsible lobbying.

This morning I read an article in the NY Times about the tactics behind the campaign to end partial birth abortions, and potentially many more types of abortions down the road. It seems that the activists appealed - not to rhetoric about morality, values or religious suasion - but rather to empirical data that they say shows abortions are not in the best interest of women in terms of physical or mental health.

I found this interesting as an example of how the pro-choice movement got outmanoeuvred. It used to be that when you (am I the only one?) thought of pro-choicers, you thought of feminist intellectuals, perhaps offering reasoned rationales for why the tough decision to have an abortion should be left to individual women, and not the state. And you maybe thought of pro-lifers as placard-waving protesters outside of health clinics.

Now, the roles have switched.

It's the pro-choicers who are the (impotent) protesters and the pro-lifers who are successfully changing law and potentially public policy through the traditional tactics of strategic lobby plans.

But having said that, I have an edit to my earlier assertion that more social cause activists should hire lobby firms (in addition to using our tactics). At the Make Poverty History meeting we talked about how having equal rules is not enough if there are discrepancies in resources between the players.

In the context of lobbying world, the issue is not precisely whether you can afford a blue chip firm like mine; it's that by virtue of being so big, my firm is better able to cultivate relationships with decision-makers.

When I call a political staffer or government official, I can call with the policy concerns of five clients, knock off multiple birds with one stone. Which makes it more (worth the official's time) efficient for the decision-maker to speak to me than to each individual social cause activist who might be pounding at their door.

As a result - I have more access. Which leads to an imbalance in the overall democratic objectives of the lobbying system. So. Potential solutions? Big firms should (be required) feel obligated to do pro bono work for resource-poor organisations.

Luckily, last year my firm provided pro bono services to Ashoka, an organisation that provides three years' salary to social entrpreneurs. Other offices/sister companies offered pro bono work to other orgs. Globally we gave away 3.4 million pounds and we have staff volunteer programs in each office to get individual employees engaged in the communities where they work. So. That's not bad.