But are we so advanced? Here’s a proposition — a thought experiment — to spark some consideration: The global economic system we have created is no less mythical than Zeus.

Granted, this market deals with (supposedly) real and tangible objects: but it doesn’t take a long conversation with an investor or futures analyst to discover that the value determinants of this system are completely and entirely human.

Just as our ancestors concocted supernatural beings and then ritualistically sought their guidance, so we too have created “the market” and seek its omniscient wisdom. Our mantra, our sacred chorus, sums it up: “Let the market decide! Let the market decide!”

Of course, we do not know if future anthropologists will commentate on our holy market system the same way we speak of the ancient gods, but it is evident that every society — past, present, and future — relies on shared ideologies that guide our collective culture-building. In our case, this particular shared ideology just happens to be a religious-like belief that the values of goods and services ought to be rendered by an ever-internationalizing network of trade agreements. My point here is not to moralize this belief one way or another, but simply to point out that it is nothing more than a transcendent assumption about the way the world should work, which a majority of us apparently hold in common.

If you don’t believe the market has wholly devoted, fundamentalist adherents, just try preaching against it to feel its fiery wrath. We virtually define the outcasts and the heretics around either by their refusal to accept the market’s will for their lives or by their status as rejects from the kingdom of the blessed. Great retribution awaits those who evangelize for other gods.

With the enthusiasm of a worshipping throng we declare that our market is free, free for all, free from us — free at last! — as if it exists apart from it’s human architects and engineers. No, like Zeus, our god the market has an inventor: it is not free at all, but rather governed by the prophets, speculators and politics that valuate commodity and negotiate trade. The market is an idol: after crafting it with our own chisels, we turn around seek its direction. Yet, like Zeus, the market is also real, for it has real, physical implications for life today — both civic and personal. Inasmuch as our resources, priorities, worries, and strategies reflect our deepest beliefs, we are all, today, disciples of the market in one way or another. (Even the greatest critics of the globalized market find themselves broadcasting their objections from their coltan-laden smartphones. The market is omnipresent. You are already a believer.)

Every now and again, great swaths of the human populace undergo radical reimaginings of their beliefs — revolutions and enlightenments — wherein we seem to collectively discover that sacrificing our lives to an idea wrought of our own imagination has potential downsides. That said, our belief in the market appears steadfast, despite its recent scandals. The market deity will doubtlessly be with us for many ages to come — bringing with it salvation for some and damnation for others — but what might replace it? For what or whom will we build our future temples? Around what edifice of human construction shall we gather next?

While watching this phenomenon of “leaderless movements” emerge, it appears that even if you don’t call them “leaders,” the influencers still do in fact lead. The critical question becomes this: what happens when “leadership” becomes a negative word? The “leader-free” group risks leadership abuse: wherein the “leadership” of the influencers becomes disguised under cloak of “equality” (and this equality is pronounced as the group’s trademark virtue) but eventually the strongest personalities will — unintentionally or not — usurp the intentions of the weak. Equality then becomes a value that is true only in rhetoric, but fails to be manifested in practice. A friend of mine put it this way: “Apparently some of us are more equal than others.”

No matter how much you suspect, decry, or abandon offices of formal leadership, rest assured that the most cunning, manipulative, clever and dominate personalities will eventually — no matter what you call it — lead the group. Seeking to get rid of recognized, formalized positions of leadership is to ultimately shoot one’s cause in the proverbial foot. If leadership is truly synonymous with influence, then leadership will never go away. Leadership structures, despite all their flaws and drawbacks, have the power to mandate egalitarian input and opportunity for a broader range of gifts and personalities.

The role, value, and skill of leadership is beautiful, intrinsically human, and indispensable. While I appreciate the Occupy Movement’s disdain and distrust of established leaders in society, I see no way it can have any longevity unless it somehow collectively come to terms with its own eventual need for centralized leadership and governance. Yes, leaderless movements can overthrow a dictator every once in a while: but eventually they themselves must grow to reinstate leadership in the vacuums they leave behind.

Occupy must, to have any lasting impact, actually raise up leaders who will espouse and articulate the equality and solidarity pronounced by the group. To denounce leadership altogether is to merely denounce its own potential future.

However, we ought not forget this ageless proverb: Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. This saying, some say, is inherited from this passage by George Santayana (read it slowly):

Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.¹

Have you ever a exercised rigorous analysis of your biggest regrets? We generally try to forget and “move on” from the consequences of our worst decisions, not go back and revisit them. However, what would be the benefit of dissecting our own regrets in search of common (or casual) traits and patterns? What if we could, as Santayana said, “retain” the past? If we could breakdown our biggest regrets into manageable data sets, would we then not have a helpful tool to help avoid them in the future?

Could analyzing our past regrets be the one of the most effective way of avoiding future ones? Could our past regrets be one of our best assets for making successful future decisions?

I recently tried investigating my own regrets with this tactic in mind. My methodology wasn’t rocket science — nor were the results anything that could published in a peer-reviewed journal — it was just a simple, reflective question: what traits and parameters (if any) do my regrets have in common with each other?

Looking back, I get the sense that most of my regrets are strongly correlated with certain choice scenarios:

Choices made with limited input or based on faulty sources. Trusting the wrong inputs or failing to follow due diligence to verify assumed knowledge has landed me in more than a few situations that I would have rather avoided in hindsight. This reiterates the old adage about assumptions and a donkey’s anus. Failing to ask myself how I know what I “know” has often been costly.²

Choices made with minimal reflection. By reflection I mean something more than merely charting a cost/benefit analysis of an action (although reflection might certainly include this). For me, reflection entails considering a choice or situation beyond the surface of my first gut reaction (we could call this my IER — Initial Emotive Response). Reacting on the basis of my IER seems all-too-often associated with regretted decisions, far too consistently to be a coincidence. (Of course, some of my best best decisions have been driven by my IER, but virtually all of my bad ones have too. It’s complicated.)

Like I said, this is clearly not the stuff of higher academia. However, being cognizant and aware of these correlations might go a long way to avoiding future regrets. If, for instance, I realize that my regrets are more often than not accompanied by a lack of input and reflection, then disciplining myself to apply some knowledge verification and contemplation practice to future decision-making might avoid the kind of decisions I have hitherto regretted the most.

Bad decisions have been given a bad rap — usually deserved, of course, because of their negative consequences — but their importance is grossly abused when we try to repress them altogether. You see, bad choices are good: not only are they a necessary part of life, they’re experiments through which we learn.

Life is a laboratory. In life, as in science, it is important for us to recall, respect, and learn from our negative results.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Your biggest regrets contain a storehouse of wisdom — perhaps some of your most important discoveries — yet you still must dare to explore them.

1. George Santayana, The Life of Reason or, The Phases of Human Progress (London: Archibald Constable & Co. Ltd., 1906) p. 284, emphasis mine
2. I personally believe this realization ought to foster a disciplined accounting for one’s assertions, as highlighted in the recent post entitled, Cite the Source

At issue: an American company (Caterpillar) who owns a local locomotive plant (Electro-Motive Diesel) has locked out the unionized (Canadian Auto Workers) workforce who voted to strike if necessary⁴ against a renewed labor contract that would cut the worker’s wage in half and eliminate their pensions.⁵ Caterpillar asserts that the current wage levels are not “sufficiently flexible and cost competitive in the global marketplace.“⁶ The union argues that Caterpillar is highly profitable, with sales up 30% in the past three months⁷ — not to mention CEO Douglas R. Oberhelman’s compensation of $10,550,300.00 last year.⁸ But according to Caterpillar, the cost of wages and benefits at the plant here are already double the amount at the company’s facility in Illinois.⁹ Some union representatives are suggesting that Caterpillar’s plan is to simply move operations out of Canada altogether and into cheaper labor markets in the United States.¹⁰

In short: it’s the perfect recipe for a very bitter dispute.

It’s also a perfect recipe for churning up some juicy political rhetoric. When so many jobs are on the line in a fragile local economy (9.6% jobless rate¹¹ in December) tempers tend to bare their political stripes quite clearly.

The standard Conservative message from the federal government, as articulated by MP Susan Truppe: “We don’t have jurisdiction over this…Because this is a private company, it falls between the company and the union.“¹²

Not so fast, says NDP MP Irene Mathyssen: “It was only three years ago Stephen Harper used this very plant as a backdrop to announce a $5 million federal tax break for this already profitable company.” ¹³

Well, yes, but that was different, replies Harper spokesman Carl Vallée: “The Prime Minister’s [2008] announcement related to the government’s tax policies for all companies. A low tax environment is the best way to ensure job creators come to Canada and stay in Canada, as proven by the nearly 600,000 jobs created in Canada since July 2009.”¹⁴

The Conservatives have a double-standard, says Ken Lewenza, president of the Canadian Auto Workers union.: “The federal government certainly had no problem interfering in bargaining between Air Canada and the CAW last year,” What’s more, “Caterpillar declared a gain of $1.3 billion in assets on its books following the takeover of EMC. The federal government now says that the takeover did not meet the threshold of $299 million for a full review, or to seek legally-binding commitments to Canada.“¹⁵

Frustrated? No matter what your political predispositions are, you found an argument above to support your case. Whether you think corporate tax cuts are positive or negative, whether you tend toward protectionism or wide open markets, whether you are for or against unions, whether you want a hands-off government or a governing mediator — whatever lens you look through — you’ll see this whole dispute through your ideological filter.

And damn it, this whole debacle just goes to prove your point, doesn’t it?

So is there really such a thing as objectivity? I hope there is, but I can’t imagine any other way to find this allusive perspective apart from sitting together in issue-centric, non-personal, mutually respectful arenas of discourse… and I don’t see many people doing this in the civic sphere. Federally, provincially, municipally, we all seem to have our minds made up already. We do not have arenas of discourse, tragically — but we seem to have quite a few arenas of dogma, wherein predetermined ideologies pummel each other like moral inquisitions.

At the root of democracy there must be a space where we are allowed to change our minds, alter our opinions, and try out some new lenses on the world. If we lose this space to experiment and learn then we are left with no option than to polarize and attack one another.

Somewhere between proselytizing our assured ideas and excusing ourselves for our flippant uncertainty is a sacred middle ground.

I still choose to believe we can go there together.

I am still a dogmatic moderate.¹⁶

1. Caterpillar Locks Out Workers in Canada, By Ian Austen, New York Times, January 2, 2012
2. CAW seeks strike OK at Caterpillar plant, Lynn Adler, Reuters, Thu, 29 Dec, 2011
3. Caterpillar, Rio Initiate Lockouts in Canada, Wall Street Journal, James R. Hagerty, Caroline Van Hasselt, January 3, 2012
4. CAW Members at Caterpillar vote 97 per cent in Favour of Strike Action, if Necessary, CAW, December 30, 2011
5. Unions face new fiscal reality, Scott Taylor, The London Free Press, January 6, 2012; also see: CAW seeks strike OK at Caterpillar plant, Lynn Adler, Reuters, Thu, 29 Dec, 2011
6. EMC Update page, accessed on January 7, 2012, at 12:09 a.m.
7. Caterpillar’s three-month global sales rise 30%, Bob Tita, MarketWatch, Dec. 19, 2011, 11:05 a.m. EST
8. Douglas R. Oberhelman Forbes Profile
9. EMC Update page, accessed on January 7, 2012, at 12:47 a.m.
10. UPDATE 1-Caterpillar unit rejects CAW contract extension request, Reuters, Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:56pm EST
11. Jobless rate drops but …, Hank Daniszewski, London Free Press, January 6, 2012
12. On the political hot seat, Scott Taylor, London Free Press, January 5, 2012
13. CATERPILLAR LOCKOUT REQUIRES GOVERNMENT ACTION NDP MPs SAY, 2012 01 06, Irene Mathyssen
14. Tories mum on lockout at plant Harper used to tout corporate tax cuts, Globe & Mail, Bruce Cheadle, Wednesday, Jan. 04, 2012
15. CAW Questions Government Claims Regarding Electro-Motive Assets, Calls for Full Disclosure of Sale, Canada NewsWire, Jan. 5, 2012
16. James Shelley, Creed of the Dogmatic Moderate, April 25, 2011

…many of us have taken to fighting for individual initiatives in efforts to gain the attention of governments, media, corporations, and other citizens. But where has it gotten us? The inherent problems of the larger issues remain unaddressed…¹

Pearson advocates a re-imagination of democracy outside of the narrow lines of partisan positioning and ideology. What I find infectious about his vision is that it posits a framework for civic, democratic involvement dripping with immediacy: it does not primarily focus on electing specific leaders or articulating campaign platforms, rather “political engagement” means driving society forward, quantitatively, through a coordinated civic infrastructure:

Such a group won’t be made up of special interests, but of individual citizens who form alliances with others – citizens, researchers, bureaucrats, media, etc. – to support the well-being of the entire community. It doesn’t require staff, per se, but learns to depend on expertise already present in the community and a strong volunteer spirit – citizens do the work. It encourages people to join forces, by creating networks and partnerships. In a phrase, it builds a civic infrastructure as a complementary support to the political infrastructure already in existence. The whole of its efforts will be greater than the sum of its individual parts or issues.²

Simply: being a good citizen means partnering and collaborating with your neighbors to make your community better. It is not particularly complicated.

Sadly, I fear, many of us who dwell in Western democracies have lazily concluded that “civic democracy” is synonymous with “right to vote.” Not so. In Pearson’s model of citizenship, formal political engagement plays a vital role to be certain, but the kernel of genuine civic participation will relentlessly and pragmatically work for a better society (regardless of who the elected officials happen to be at any given time).

Democracy is not simply about elections: it is about collectively exerting our collective influence for our collective good. If we neuter democracy so that it simply becomes about making check-marks on ballots, we are — to use a less-than-eloquent but extremely appropriate word — screwed. Our most direct and profound influence comes not from voting, but from simply getting organized enough to engage in some actual civic participation. To assume that democracy is going to legitimately function without the driving ingredient of civic participation is an enormous miscalculation.

Last month I had the opportunity to hear Glen lecture at a local community event on the topic of citizenship and subsequently interview him. His presentation and our discussion is posted on the podcast.

1. Glen Pearson, Citizenship – “41,654 to 10″
2. Glen Pearson, Citizenship – “Not Leaders, But Leadership”

I honestly describe myself as “part” of the movement. To clarify: I am still happily living in my house, paying my mortgage, and my camping gear is still in storage in the basement. I am not an “occupier” of a physical space, but I do occupy a mission for societal equity. I do not speak for (nor seek to represent) the group of activists and demonstrators protesting in front of our local banks, but I do speak as one citizen who cares equally about social justice. I am personally seeking change through policies and research, instead of through megaphones and cardboard signs.

I live in London, Ontario, a city writing its own unique narrative about the occupy movement. A sordid affair be sure: while among the first cities to exercise police force to expel demonstrators,¹ our municipal government potentially finds itself under pending investigation for a protocol breech in the process.² An attempt to draw the protestors and the civilian population into dialogue was met by the occupiers with warranted (if not also perhaps overbearing) suspicion and distrust.³

On one hand, London currently looks like an ideological stalemate. On the other hand, we are smack dab in the middle of historic opportunity. On Thursday morning I contributed to a press conference alongside a diverse group of fellow citizens.⁴ Our announcement: we are committed to engaging our entire population on the issues of income disparity, growing poverty, corporate irresponsibility, and the ecological consequences we have wrought on our earth. We are hosting a City Symposium on December 13⁵ to learn from some high calibre economists, policy experts, and sociologists; we are forming citizen committees to do some hard research and make policy recommendations to our municipal government; we are seeking to partner with anyone in our community who cares about the issue (regardless of whether or not they are “demonstrators” for the cause).

To occupy such a time as this is to realize that every issue before us is bigger than any particular brand of protest or strategy. If these are indeed the greatest cultural challenges that we and our children will face, then we do not only need the direct action of demonstrators to activate our collective consciousness, we also need to coordinate some practical, actionable strategies for addressing the issues themselves.

The city of London is a long way off from writing the final chapter on our “local history” of the occupy movement, but some of us are moving ahead, parallel to the protests and occupations, under the conviction that sustainable progress is ultimately solidified through the modalities of discourse, quantifiable research, and thoughtful understanding.

My greatest hope is that our humble city can be a model to the world of such creative collaboration and civic dedication.

1. Protesters screamed as cops moved in, London Free Press
2. Secrecy of eviction draws broad fire, London Free Press; Council’s ‘confidential’ Occupy vote, Patrick Maloney, London Free Press
3. Protesters cool to olive branch, London Free Press; Identity Crisis, Glen Pearson
4. Public invited to discuss Occupiers’ issues, London Free Press; Occupy Movement Sparks Citizen’s Task Force, AM980 News; Pearson pushes ‘Occupy’ concerns, London Free Press; Task force aims to sharpen, spread Occupy London’s voice, London Metro
5. City Symposium V — Income Disparity. December 13, 2011

I’ve gotten into some trouble in Silicon Valley for saying that the patient in the bed has almost become an icon the real patient who is in the computer. I’ve actually coined a term for that entity in the computer, I call it the iPatient. The iPatient is getting wonderful care all across America; the real patient often wonders, ‘Where is everyone? When are they going to come by and explain things to me? Who’s in charge?’ There’s a real disjunction between the patient’s perception and our own perception as physicians of the best medical care… The discussion is taking place in a room far away from the patient, the discussion is all about images on the computer, data, and the one critical piece missing is that of the patient.¹ (Dr. Abraham Verghese)

1. Abraham Verghese, A Doctor’s Touch, TEDGlobal 2011, Filmed July 2011

I went to chat with the demonstrators about their personal agendas for protesting. Above all, I had a simple question: “When are you able to go home? What needs to be accomplished for this occupation to be a ‘success’?”

To listen to the responses, download the MP3 of the interviews.

As is patently characteristic of the occupy movement, there was nothing even remotely resembling a singular, unified agenda (at least not among the individuals I interviewed), and little to no consensus on a metric for success. This aimlessness is puzzling to many observers (including myself) who expend so much effort trying to define concise parameters by which to quantify the effectiveness of our actions.

However, it is clear that this lack of a sole “focus” is only a logistical “problem” for outsiders. To those within the occupation, the fact that people are gathering around the simple notion of change and equality seems to be all the invigorating incentive they need to sleep in a park at the end of October. Broadly speaking, the response to my question, “What qualifies as ‘success’ here?” was answered by a sentiment: “Success doesn’t matter — what matters is that people are coming together and supporting one another.”

The occupiers exist to announce a collective frustration with the status quo; they do not exist to present objective, rational solutions to the problems and inequities they decry. This is simply not their purpose — at least not yet. Trying to derive an agenda from Occupy Wall Street is similar to reading a Harlequin romance like a psychological research paper. These are not politicians, strategists or consultants: they are just people who are fed up with the way things are and “found” each other. To “understand” them, we must listen to their message on their own terms, not through our filters of logical productivity.

First of all, I’ve never had a job. I did the commencement speech for my oldest daughter’s graduation, and it was at a time when I knew that seventy percent of U.S. graduates weren’t getting jobs. So I looked up the origin of the word ‘job’ and it comes from the old medieval French word devorer, meaning to devour. And the word ‘work’ comes from the beautiful Angelo-Saxon root meaning to celebrate, create, empower — so my lesson is never have a job but work ferociously hard.¹ (Wade Davis)

1. Wade Davis, on ABC Big Ideas, October 20, 2011