The Politics Of Change

They say a change will do you good. And it seems like every presidential candidate is pounding furiously on the "change" drum. But even though I run an innovation institute at a major research university, I'm here to say that you can keep the change.

As novelist Ellen Glasgow said, "All change is not growth; as all movement is not forward."

What matters is innovation. And innovation is an entirely different matter.

What's the difference? "Change" is getting on a different horse. "Innovation" is riding a different race.

To be clear, when I refer to innovation I don't mean support for economic growth through technological progress and entrepreneurship — although that is important as well. I mean innovation in the way our political leaders approach tomorrow's challenges.

When it comes to political issues, I think of "change" as meaning we swap back and forth between two established and, at times, extreme positions. No new taxes vs. tax hikes. Deporting illegal immigrants vs. immigration amnesty. Mandatory minimum prison sentences vs. judicial discretion. If we just vote for change, we will merely set ourselves up for another four years of teeth-gnashing and cross-aisle bickering.

"Innovation," on the other hand, recognizes that the issue isn't a red vs. blue proposition. Often the solution is something entirely different.

To be sure, innovation can be difficult to embrace. And the current political framework makes it nearly impossible for politicians to put innovation into action. It requires that we abandon our recent proclivity for slogans and refusing to give the other side an inch.

Innovators in politics can be easy to spot. You just have to know what to look for:

Innovators imagine a better future (and enroll people in their vision). The Founding Fathers became innovators when they invented government by and for the people. Franklin D. Roosevelt innovated us out of the Depression by investing in massive construction projects that created jobs and infrastructure. John F. Kennedy was an innovator in the way he created programs like the Peace Corps and inspired thousands of Americans to consider public service as a career path. Innovative politicians inspire people to adopt a universally-beneficial vision. Neither The New Deal nor the Race to the Moon would have succeeded unless Americans believed in and supported those programs.

Innovators trust the other side and invite them on board. Instead of getting behind the candidate that attacks the other side the most viciously, what if we elected the candidate that wanted to collaborate with the other side? Even President Ronald Reagan, who reinvented conservatism, dined regularly with Tip O'Neill, the then-Speaker of the House and embodiment of the Democratic Party.

Innovators re-frame the debate to find win-win solutions. I had a recent lunch conversation about regional innovation and we lamented how the fear of losing health insurance can hinder risk-taking, entrepreneurialism, and economic growth. What if we thought of health insurance as a nationwide economic issue instead of a social issue? Would that open our eyes to possible solutions that would benefit all?

Innovators learn from their mistakes. In a recent Los Angeles Times interview, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger admitted that he has made mistakes in governing the nation's most populous state. He even admitted that his outsider view was a bit naïve when he first was elected. Those ever-present TV pundits might decry those admissions as flip-flops. But I see Schwarzenegger's admissions as the first step towards possible innovations that could lift California out of its current problems.

When my primary rolled around yesterday, I wasn't looking for change. I was looking for something bigger. And just think; if we could apply innovation to the Presidential election, perhaps the biggest innovation we'd see is putting the "United" back into the U.S. Because as we all know, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Krisztina "Z" Holly is the Vice Provost for Innovation at the University of Southern California and the Executive Director of the USC Stevens Institute for Innovation. This post originally ran on BusinessWeek.com.

Follow Krisztina Holly on Twitter: www.twitter.com/krisztinaholly

Comments

[belltor]

Question for Senator Obama,
Can you please explain or give an example of the change that you speak incessantly of and how up to this point in your political career you have utilized this change technique. Because you know it looks like you've been operating in the same way most politicians do. You have K street lobbyist running your campaign. You take a goodly amount of money from representatives of the pharmaceutical and insurance companies. You have questionable individuals like TONY REZKO that have given you campaign contributions over a 17 year period. And come to your aid when you desire to buy a high end home in Chicago that comes with a price tag that is difficult to swallow.
So speak to me.
What's different? Where's the change?

[SShaw490]

Excellent post, Krisztina. So many of the issues that we go to war about are really easy to solve. Take abortion for example - both sides of the debate would agree that a woman getting an abortion is always a tragedy: Why is it that we can't agree that we'd love abstinence if that's possible, and we'd love contraception if abstinence fails, and we'd love the morning-after solution if contraception fails, and we'd love adoption of the morning-after solution fails, and if all else fails and the woman decides to terminate, we'd love her to do so at the earliest stage, and if that fails and she makes the most tragic decision of all, we'd love to have an army of people who would try to help her get on with her life - a life that's been interrupted by a series of bad decisions that led to a final, tragic one. Why is it that we can't meet in the middle and understand that we're all on the same page? Why can't we understand that these series' of tragedies is what we're trying to avoid, and arguing about lawyer-speak just keeps us from dealing with the problem as it is? Why do we have to go back to our trenches and just hope that our army invents a better mustard-gas shell or a better tank or a new machine gun that can deal death and mutilation better than the other guys can? Why can't we understand that we can walk across No Man's Land on Christmas Eve and meet our enemies and have dinner, so maybe we could do it other times as well?

[itsnotmyfault]

Funny you should mention Tip and Ron..."Eve­n President Ronald Reagan, who reinvented conservatism, dined regularly with Tip O'Neill, the then-Speaker of the House and embodiment of the Democratic Party"...J­ust like Obama...ye­s?--------­----------­----------­----------

So what did the Tipper think of the Gipper?"He knows less about the budget than any president in my lifetime. He can't even carry on a conversation about the budget. It's an absolute and utter disgrace." -- House Speaker Tip O'Neill after a meeting with Ronnie. 23 Nov 1980------­----------­----------­----------­----------

"He only works three to three and a half hours a day. He doesn't do his homework. He doesn't read his briefing papers. It's sinful that this man is President of the United States." -- Tip O'Neill exasperated after meeting with Ronnie. 31 Oct 1983------­----------­----------­-----
Or as Jimmy Breslin said about Ron (and does this apply to the innovation of Obama and his great oaratory?)"His answers to any questions about young men being killed for some vague and perhaps non-existent reason in Central America has been to smile, nod, wave a hand and walk on. And America applauds, thus proving that senility is a communicable disease." -- Columnist Jimmy Breslin explaining Ronnie's ability to "get away with it".------­----------­----------­----------­--Does Obama just get away with it?

[mwpeters]

OK, innovation can be good
But laying out detailed innovative plans far ahead of gaining office and actually being on the field.... can just create opportunities for opponents to raise fears and twisting words on this point or that. It just weakens the office holder

Lets look at things currently being run or being run in the past by candidates. Who's innovating or has been more innovating in their approaches to:

-political campaigning
-political message/co­mmunicatio­ns
-coalition building
-fund raising
-approaches to foreign relations
-approaches to military force deployment

I also don't think innovation should get priority over change as theme or goal. It is true that innovation may be very useful and sometimes essential for meaningful change. But change focuses on goals or results (peoples wants/needs), while innovation focuses on means (the mechanisms of change).

So an emphasis on innovation is fine, but I don't think its properly a main focus. Real and positive change is sometimes possible without innovation. But, innovation for the sake of innovations can result in either no change or change that is pointless, risky and dangerous.

Judgment and wisdom seem a far more important emphasis, as they allow one to understand the likely effects of both changes and innovations.

[jdm58]

So, lets remove all the chairs from the oval office and senate, and replace them with yoga mats. May be they'll all be able to "ideate" us out of the mess we're in.

[trentomac]

And here's another voice of reason, from a Obama supporter no less.

Kathleen Geier (TPM)

"That said, I'm getting increasingly weirded out by some of Obama's supporters­...
The Obama campaign's instruction to their volunteers to steer clear of policy questions. How can we truly bring about real political change if the movement the Obama people are building is devoid of ideological content, content merely to mouth gauzy generalities about "coming together" and "yes we can"? Such a movement becomes a cult or personality rather than engine for social justice and political transformation. And personality cults can be a huge turnoff to those who are not already drinking the Kool-Aid."

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/05/barack_obama_is_not_jesus/#more

[trentomac]

Finally voices of reason are beginning to emerge. Here's 1 from Joe Klein (TIME Magazine):

"And yet there was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism — "We are the ones we've been waiting for" — of the Super Tuesday speech and the recent turn of the Obama campaign. "This time can be different because this campaign for the presidency of the United States of America is different. It's different not because of me. It's different because of you." That is not just maddeningly vague but also disingenuous: the campaign is entirely about Obama and his ability to inspire. Rather than focusing on any specific issue or cause — other than an amorphous desire for change — the message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is."

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1710721,00.html?iid=336x280_ad3

[kash79]

Nice Try!!!! Now we're parsing words. By the way your point about Innovators learn from their mistakes- they first accept their mistakes.

Hillary never admits her mistake on Iraq- the most expensive mistake in blood and treasure. Loosing lives, and getting bankrupt.

I don't agree with everything Micheal Moore says, but her refusal to admit the mistake doesn't allow my moral consiousness to ever again support her.

While I support Obama, if he wins this nomination if its the unlikely Obama/Clinton ticket I will not vote for him;

[arielwire]

I'm noticing that throughout the campaign, a prominent Clinton supporter will toss out a divisive epithet towards Obama- like a 'race' comment, the stress on his middle name, his history. The Clinton campaign won't acknowledge it, the prominent supporter apologizes, then the Clinton supporters flood the internet with the epithet.
The latest one was likening Barack's supporter's to the Nazi's ( health care mailing). Now I'm starting to see nazi and Hitler comments all over the internet. Disgusting.

[Kungfublood]

I don't know that it's an innovation but be sure to call Finestine and Pelosi and any other inovative Cheney flunky war profiteering politician and wish them a happy Chinese new year! this is after all their year- THE YEAR OF THE RAT!
It was Cheney who directed Halliburton toward aggressive business dealings with Iran in violation of U.S. law-in the mid-1990s, which continued through 2005 and is the reason Iran has the capability to enrich weapons-grade uranium.
Halliburton's secret sale of centrifuges helped get the uranium enrichment program off the ground, according to a three-year investigation.
If the U.S. ends up engaged in a war with Iran in the future- Cheney and Halliburton will bear the brunt of the blame.

[OtayPanky]

Before I even read the post, I said to myself that this sounds like someone who's spent way too much time in b-school.

And that's what this article is, really. Her definitions of INNOVATION and CHANGE are a straw man - a distinction without a difference.

Let's discuss.

First, innovation isn't necessarily a good thing. When it came to the practice of genocide, the SS under Himmler were great innovators. We've innovated ourselves to the brink of nuclear war, and now to the brink of irreversible damage to the planet. And certainly a perverse sort of credit must be given to Bushco's innovative reading of the Constitution. And while we're at it, let's give props to Osama Bin Laden for his innovative brand of terrorism.

A lot of what this country (and this world) needs IS change - change back to an older set of values that defined society at earlier, better times.

Some examples:

We need to slow the hell down...tak­e time for both creative loafing and soulful introspection. What a change that would be.

We need to change our corporate focus BACK to what it was when CEO's and boards were deeply cognizant of their role as corporate citizens, and not merely driven to get quarterly results at all costs in order to drive stock prices.

Our politicians need to change BACK to a simpler, and more inclusive ethic - the kind of "old fashioned" values that defined the dream that began this country, that was re-articulated over and over again on behalf of the dis-enfranchised and dispossessed.

We need - whether we're religious or not - to return to the golden rule...som­ething we all know, but rarely practice. What a change that would be.

Absent these fundamental CHANGES, you can innovate all you want, and the world will not become the place we want it to be.

So my take is: I'll take fundamental CHANGE (in the direction I've discussed) with a side order of innovation.

[MyThought]

Good grief - the hypocracy continues. Obama was against the war in Iraq? Well, why did he continue to support funding it?

Obama toots judgment? He better be careful who he picks for friends then. Kennedys - the most scandalous family in US history - JFK brought the US into the Viet Nam War.

[Sundialsvc4]

Dr. Holly, you raise some interesting points that are urgently needed to re-frame the current pointless "politics show" into something that we badly need. We need to look again, and in a new light, at national policies and national politicking. What we are "watching" right now is not advancing solutions for any of the critical problems that face us all right now.

Spending hundreds of millions of dollars telling the public what they want to hear, but without a plan nor a resolve to do it, is useless chatter.

Framing a problem, such as health care or retirement or the woes of a deeply usurious and poorly-regulated banking industry, in a context of "finger pointing" won't solve that problem and won't even take the first step towards that objective.

We need more than uber-rich politicians; we need management. We need to face our own music. We need to manage our country as steadfastly as we seek to manage our own lives. For are they not one and the same?

[armadillious2002]

i'm personally ready for some change. Change in my pocket instead of Halliburton's and the medical profession's. At this point in time I feel Obama can best bring about that change.

[57andfemale]

What a great post. One of the most intelligent, cogent posts I've seen in a long time. Thanks