In Assessing Change v. MOTS, Start with Putting Consensus Ahead of Coercion

In fact, the United States is a nation constructed on a foundation of dynamic tension; when it comes to politics, Dynamic Tension is just another way of saying Balance of Powers. Having successfully broken free from the world's most powerful monarchy, our forefathers understood the need to have checks and balances against unfettered political power, so they built into the Constitution a system of government that had the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches watching and controlling each other. They also designed a system of federalism, whereby individual states maintained significant authority on some matters, and the federal government reigned in other areas where it was more appropriate. Finally, the private and public sectors have been locked in a system of dynamic tension ever since the first regulatory body was formed.

This structure has served us relatively well until recently, when it came under a strong challenge by the current occupants of the White House, who've sought to make the executive branch supreme under an argument labeled the Unitary Executive Theory. But as my topic today is the dynamic tension we face from a rapidly changing society, I'll leave discussion of this tangled mess for another day (see Unitary Executive v. Constitution for more on this topic, if you have the stomach for it.)

I mention the wisdom of the founding fathers, because the flexible government structure they gave us has served us well, with a few notable exceptions, the Civil War principal among those. The march of time puts all kinds of pressure on society, as the forces of change pull the nation forward, raising challenges to the status quo. But resisting that pull to change, the forces of inertia claim a hold on the present, challenging it to justify how the change would make things better than they are currently.

Inevitably, those who have less tend to favor change. While things can always get worse - never forget that one! - those who have little see change as an opportunity, hoping for a better world for their kids. Let's take a quick look at the forces of change.

Immigration is driven by this force, as immigrants physically relocate to find better fortune for themselves and their families. When they move into new spaces, they bring change with them and as their numbers grow, they challenge the status quo, transforming work forces and neighborhoods.

Entrepreneurialism has a similar impact on the business community, where entrepreneurs, like immigrants, take advantage of holes and gaps to solve problems, make a better world, and with any luck, create new fortunes. When they do what they do, they challenge the status quo in order to find a foothold for their new ideas.

Innovation is the lifeblood of technology and business. Evolution involves incremental technology advances, making familiar tools faster, more productive, more efficient. Revolution, on the other hand, changes the name of the game and rocks the playing field. In radical innovation we see the seeds for major change.

Complementing these three drivers of change are open societies and open access networks, the infrastructure that complements the open societal component. In his Creative Class series of books, Richard Florida writes about the three Ts (Talent, Technology, and Tolerance) that drive regional economic development, setting these forces for change in a receptive environment. (See also Wi Fi Mesh + the Birds and the Bees = Creative Class Attraction, What's Municipal Wireless Good For? The Whole Enchilada, and Chasing the Key Demographic for a Sustainable Future for more insight on how a hospitable environment can harness these drivers for positive change.)

The challenge of this debate between the Progressive forces of Change and the Conservative forces of MOTS is that they see the world in fundamentally different ways. Where Progressives tend to see Opportunities, Conservatives tend to see Threats. The challenge is that they are both right, and the healthiest societies embrace both and find harmony in the middle. I'm an Episcopalian, a member of a global church that trumpets the Middle Way between Catholicism and Protestantism.

Contrast if you will the balancing of Consensual Change and Consensual MOTS, a la the Episcopal Church - gradual and inclusive, with a focus on preserving the body while still moving forward - with Coercive Change a la the Bush, Cheney, and their unilateral move to a Unitary Executive and Coercive MOTS a la the actions of incumbent telecoms and cables and the FCC and their unilateral move to gain an Internet society via existing companies.

Consensus values the inputs of all parties at the expense of rapid change, while Coercion values the inputs of the few who are powerful, at the expense of the many who lack power AND ironically, at the expense of optimal progress (those who coerce are fine with moderate progress, or even regression, as long as they stay in charge). Those who would coerce Change or MOTS place more value on their own Wins than they do on those of the society or body at large, so coercion by definition provides fewer benefits to society in the long run.

I would argue that as we start to talk more openly and often about National Broadband Policy, we'll be forced to adopt a consensus model in order to move forward. It will take time to resolve differences and chart a path that is workable to all stakeholders - how much time will depend on the willingness of stakeholders to be open to others' viewpoints. And it must start by discrediting coercive means that exploit power positions, which are by definition inefficient, as they leave valuable contributers on the sidelines.

Any student of sports knows that a winning team must play both Offense and Defense. I learned from coaching Pop Warner football that good offense is about taking advantage of your own strengths, while good Defense is about exploiting an opponent's weaknesses. But you need both to win consistently, and especially, you need a good Defense to win championships. And, you need a team attitude to harness all the resources of the team, to get them to work together. We lack a team attitude in the United States right now, as we see our opponents within, instead of focusing on other regions in the world as our true opponents.

If Economic Development is a globally competitive arena (and it is), then shouldn't these sports metaphors hold true? Every region in the world competes with every other for location of jobs, industry, and talent. Some lucky regions have inherent cultural and geographic advantages, while most others don't.

In this analysis, then, Broadband Infrastructure becomes an enabler for regional economic development. With the best infrastructure, a region can offer those it seeks to attract something they can't get elsewhere.

Logic argues then that regions and stakeholders that fall in the Progressive camp, seeking change and new opportunity, should take a look at the potential of Broadband Infrastructure to advantage them over the competition, the sooner the better, and they should actively and loudly promote Consensus and Initiative.

Conversely, regions and stakeholders that fall in the Conservative camp, wishing to preserve what they have and keep the forces of change at bay, have alternatives:

1. They can fight to maintain the status quo, preserving current value equations - which not only has short-term advantages but also long-term consequences.
2. They can relax and let the status quo proceed as it will, which will result in moderate, slow change, but will inevitably put them behind in Broadband Infrastructure.
3. Or they can actively pursue consensus amid open discussion of alternatives, and investigate the use of more advanced Broadband Infrastructure to build incrementally on their current strengths and moderate the forces of change.

I would argue then that the forces of Conservatism, whether they be the US GOP, or repressive governments worldwide, or repressive religious regimes, are on the wrong side of history. They fight for short-term gain at the expense of their long-term future. Technology energizes the disenfranchised of the world and promotes change like never before.

Progressivism is on the rise because there is a need to react to changes and embrace a new world view. And, the forces of Conservatism have enjoyed a long reign in the US. If you believe in cycles, it's worthwhile to note that we've been in this particular cycle since Reagan ascended in 1980, that's 27 years, or a whole generation, if anyone is counting. Sure, we had a brief hiatus under Clinton, with glimpses of progressive change, but the GOP Congress mitigated any progressive ideas they sought to launch - see the Hilary Health Care Plan, for instance, ridiculed for its faults, instead of embraced and improved as a model for change - the problems have only worsened in the ensuing years, however flawed the first model for change was.

If we accept that Change is inevitable when it comes to technology in general, and broadband infrastructure in particular, then the Middle Way of Consensus between Progressives and Conservatives will lie in the former accepting slower more moderate change and the latter accepting change as a necessity, making it into a positive instead of a negative (see Option #3 above). Progress in this area will start with each side acknowledging the need to engage in dialogue in pursuit of consensus and the right of the other side to have a seat at the table.

That's a first step role tailor-made for governments, by the way, a better way for them to lead than is to engage in what some may see as risky adoption of new technologies and business models. I fully support cities moving when ready to adopt new technology, and some cities are more ready than others to take this next step. But I'm promoting public sector leadership in forging consensus and collaboration, above all else, because all local, regional, state, and federal governments are ready for this role. Such working together will naturally lead to new technology adoption, in time and in ways appropriate for each region.

The winds of Progressive change are blowing - how it will unfold remains to be seen, but we'll get a clearer picture with the first Primaries in 2008...When it comes to Broadband, stay tuned to this website and raise your Network IQ, because at some point, if progressive trends continue, they'll start to influence the broadband equation and we'll see more movement in these areas as well.