Intentional Consequences

by Charles Harris

  During the flight, they talked about Rakesh’s reunite America project. Rakesh showed Eva the pilot videos and a static version of the repaintamerica.com website. He outlined the new JPAC Crystal tools.

  Eva was impressed with the videos and the marketing message. She offered a few design suggestions for the website to make the historical material more interesting. “How are you doing in attracting corporate sponsors?” she asked.

  Rakesh said, “Based on my focus presentations to groups of senior executives, I’m concerned about getting the corporate support we need. I’m worried companies will decide what we’re doing isn’t worth the risk in today’s politically charged environment. The executives understand the issue. They like the message and the pilot videos. But they’re worried about getting hammered by activists and progressives who will claim we’re trying to protect the status quo. Some of the executives have already received calls from presidential candidates warning them not to participate.”

  Eva said. “Could you narrow your approach and focus less on specifics and more on the underlying values? Work on re-creating mutual respect and pride in America. Play to teamwork and cooperation. Go after the underlying social stereotypes. Not just in politics, but in everyday life, too. With all the frustration and bitterness out there, and all the demands for radical political change, I think there’s a backlash brewing that you might be able to tap into.”

  “Go on.”

  “If you took this approach and limited your initial efforts to social media, using the new Crystal tools to leverage your impact, could you get started without needing corporate support?”

  “Those are interesting ideas. I could fund that myself. The question is whether it would be effective without corporate support.”

  “If you do this under the radar rather than making a big announcement, I’m not sure you really need the corporate participation to be effective. Think about what JPAC knows about effecting political persuasion. Think about the additional capabilities you’ll have with Crystal. Corporate support could be a distraction, especially if it adds controversy.”

  “So, I defer the specifics about reuniting our country and preserving our democracy. Instead, I go underground and work on influencing social stereotypes that affect how we think about our democracy and America—and each other, for that matter.”

  “That’s right. Politicians always talk about things being a battle for the minds of the people or the party or whatever. You’re in—we’re all in—a battle for social attitudes. Valerie’s taught me enough about that for me to understand we’re losing trust in the traditional institutions that have provided our social stereotypes, and someone or something is going to fill that void. I think the internet is already a big part of that. With JPAC and Crystal, you can influence public opinion in ways people only dream about.”

  Rakesh said, “What you’re suggesting could make sense--going after the building blocks that influence the ideals we have, the things we value. If we can get that moving under the radar, as you say, we might be able to attract support from other individuals and maybe businesses. The Crystal tools could be a huge asset here. We’ll probably need to tweak the algorithms and retrain the AIs, but that shouldn’t take much time. The big question will be how long it takes to impact our national conversation, especially in an election cycle.”

  Chapter 63

  After spending five long days in New York with his parents, Andy flew to Boston and went back to his job at the Sentinel Observer. Listening to Andy’s story about his time in Austin, his editor said he was sorry they didn’t have any war correspondent positions open.

  “I’m kidding,” the editor said, “but that’s a hell of a story. You’re lucky to be here. You probably have a few article opportunities with this. If we’re going to talk about your assignments, I want to understand who some of these Austin people are. Tell me more about this Eva Johnson person. Who is she and how did she get involved?”

  Andy filled him in.

  “You’ve told me about Valerie Williams, the professor at UT-Austin, and the social media attacks on her integrity. She’s married to Rakesh Jain, the tech billionaire, and he’s working on some program to reduce the anger and divisiveness in American politics?”

  “Right. They’re both straight arrow people. He wants to launch his project by July 4th. He’s lining up corporate support and planning to spend a lot of his own money, but he’s going to need help positioning and spreading the word. I’ve thought about a story explaining why he’s doing this, maybe with an exclusive interview.”

  “That’s not bad,” the editor said. “So Bernbach is dead?”

  “Yes.”

  “And Dan Johnson, the CEO of JPAC, is in some kind of trouble with his wife and his boss, which is this Rakesh Jain?”

  “Right. The wife’s issues are based on marital infidelity with some woman Dan Johnson met when he was with Bernbach in Westport. The issues with JPAC are less clear, but my guess is they involve some betrayal where Johnson was feeding information to help Bernbach. I need more information there.”

  “When you called me from Austin, you said the FBI had questioned you after Eva shot the two guys who were chasing you in the car. Did you tell the FBI who you were targeting?”

  “No, I wouldn’t tell them. I keep expecting to hear back from them, but so far, I haven’t. We need to talk about how I should handle that.”

  “Who else is on your list of players?”

  “There’s Fred Billings, the former chemical company billionaire who’s been one of Bernbach’s political buds for years. He apparently died recently. I haven’t had a chance to check on the details. He was in his eighties. There’s also the Chinese side of the story. A company called CnEyeco Tech and whoever else Bernbach was working with. I still need to figure out the connections PaprW8 had with China. I think Susan Ward, the PaprW8 COO, is the key to that.”

  “Eva Johnson’s tech company, Daneva, is also involved,” Andy continued. He told his editor about the VADS image editing software and its ability to detect altered photos. “There are a lot of facets to this story. I think the Chinese got ahold of that image editing technology in a cyber-attack that included a drone and a physical home invasion at the Johnson’s house earlier this year.”

  “Are you planning to make a career of this? You don’t need a story; you need the movie rights.”

  Andy laughed. “Maybe so. But we do need to decide what my priorities are.”

  They agreed Andy’s first piece would focus on Rakesh’s reunite America project. “Let’s get that one out before word gets around about his program,” his editor said.

  “The real challenge is going to be what to do with your conspiracy story,” the editor said. “The biggest weakness I see is the link to the Chinese. Give me a story proposal that defers the Chinese angle to a second part we may or may not publish. In the meantime, keep digging on the facts. If you hear from the FBI, talk to me before you give them anything.”

  “OK,” Andy said. “But let me ask you something. If I can pull this story together, will you run it? I don’t want to waste my time or get in another fight with you. I’m not sure I’ll survive another two weeks leave.” He smiled.

  “Yeah, we’ll run it, or we’ll both be out of here. Just be sure it’s well documented and well written. I’m not sure what all this means, but you’re on to something big. You’ve just got to prove it.”

  Part Three

  Two Weeks Later

  Betrayal can be extremely painful,

  but it's up to you how much that pain damages you permanently.

  Emily V. Gordon

  I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts, and beer.

  Abraham Lincoln

  Tech isn’t inherently good or evil; it’s simply a tool. Our job is to use it wisely and to be far more vigilant when it comes to our data, privacy and personal freedoms. In
the immortal words of Thomas Jefferson, ‘The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.’

  Monica Eaton-Cordone, “We Need an Internet Bill of Rights,” Entrepreneur, August 7, 2018

  Chapter 64

  On Memorial Day, the Sentinel Observer published an Op/Ed by Valerie Williams about structural change in American democracy. She read the piece to Rakesh and their two children as they were having breakfast at their mountain house in Aspen.

  As we move into the 2020 election cycle, Democrat presidential candidates are talking about the need for structural changes to American democracy. Making changes to improve our democracy is a pastime almost as old as our country itself. We adopted the Bill of Rights just a few years after our Constitution was established. Including those 10 amendments, 33 have been moved toward ratification. Of those, 27 have been finally approved and one, Prohibition, has been repealed. Although some of the amendments are boring, many are essential to the rights, equality and diverse democracy we all enjoy today. Amending the Constitution is difficult by design, but as these amendments demonstrate, improvements can be made as we move toward our Founders’ goal of creating a more perfect union.

  Much of the current discussion about changing the structure of American democracy comes from people who are frustrated at being unable to get their way. To protect the rights of the minority and avoid outcomes driven by short-term passions, our Constitution and the procedural norms used by Congress intentionally provide mechanisms that can slow things down. These circuit breakers are especially important—and frustrating—when partisanship is high and political compromise is absent. This is where we are today.

  People who support structural change typically use one of three arguments.

  Some people argue the checks and balances set up more than 200 years ago are out of date because they fail to recognize how our population and economy have grown. When these people fly over the American heartland, they see relatively-empty states with two Senators—the same number that states with far more people also have. They see House members who stand for election every two years, while only a third of our Senators get elected every six years. They see an Electoral College that requires presidential candidates to campaign state-by-state across America instead of just collecting the popular votes they need in our most populous states. They also see states that are predominately Red, contrasting with the more populous Blue states on the east and west coasts. To these critics, the current structure gives undue weight to conservative voices. They want more direct, national democracy, which would lessen the ability of conservative voters to block or slow down liberal and progressive programs.

  Others take these thoughts a step further. They argue structural change is necessary and justifiable to achieve revenge, both for years of conservative refusals to approve liberal initiatives and, more importantly, for conservatives’ ‘theft’ of presidential elections that otherwise would have put Democrats in the White House and liberals on the Supreme Court. Much of the anger fueling the desire for revenge goes back to Bush v. Gore in 2000, when the Supreme Court settled the ‘hanging chad’ recount dispute in Florida to give George W. Bush the presidency. Trump’s surprise victory in 2016 rekindled the outrage and curated the belief that the Russians or James Comey or someone must have enabled Trump to win an election he didn’t deserve to win. Trump’s election exacerbated the anger resulting from the Republicans’ refusal to consider President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court earlier in 2016. Like the first group, these people want to get their way on domestic policy issues. But they also want more aggressive changes that would lock Republicans in permanent minority status.

  Other people take a less partisan view of the need for structural change. As they see it, technology is changing the world faster than ever, and the pace of change is accelerating. The internet is driving the impact of that change with effects we don’t yet appreciate. But government and social institutions are falling behind in their ability to respond to change. It’s a global problem but it affects different forms of government differently. Centralized economies like China can theoretically move more quickly than democracies. In their view, we must improve America’s ability to manage change if we want to stay competitive in the global marketplace. Whatever their political persuasion, the people in this group want structural change that reduces legislative bottlenecks and promotes objective, bipartisan analysis and action. (I am one of these people.)

  The list of potential structural changes runs the gamut. Because Constitutional amendments are hard, most progressive activists focus on changes that can be implemented (at least arguably) without amending the Constitution. Political scientist David Faris has championed several aggressive changes popular with the revenge camp in his book, It’s Time to Fight Dirty. These include establishing statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico, breaking California into several states to gain more House members, granting voting rights to millions of undocumented aliens and packing the Supreme Court. Democrat presidential candidate Andrew Yang supports reducing the voting age to 16. Eliminating the Electoral College has been advocated over several election cycles—whenever the party that wins the popular vote loses the presidency in the Electoral College.

  Congressional rules offer other opportunities for structural change. Filibuster rules can be devastatingly effective in slowing down or defeating legislation and killing presidential appointments. Rules allowing Senate and House leaders and Committees to block legislation from floor votes can have similar effects.

  The risks of tinkering with our founding documents are high, especially if they favor one party over another or make revenge easier for the party in power. We must judge any structural changes through a two-way mirror. Changes we like when our party is in power may seem tyrannical when our party is in the minority. Even the most passionate change advocates admit it’s dangerous to start making partisan structural changes unless you can make sure your dominance will stick. If the party you’re trying to suppress gets back in power, you’re not going to like the results.

  The peril of structural change is higher today than in the past because of fading public trust in our traditional social institutions and the rise of the internet as a replacement source of information about how we should think and act and vote. We are losing trust in our schools, our religious institutions, our government and our community news sources and looking to the internet and its mob of influencers, social media manipulators and social activists.

  As we’re increasing our reliance on the internet, we’re also becoming less disciplined about seeking the truth. We expect quick, easy answers and emotional satisfaction in a matter of seconds. We’re happy to defer to our identity groups, elites and other echo chambers to determine what is or isn’t true or good.

  The critical danger is this: We’re talking about making structural changes to speed up our democratic processes, to reduce or eliminate the speed bumps and checks and balances that currently buffer us from the emotional effects of short-term passions. We’re doing this at a time when the internet is driving us closer and closer to mob opinion. If we strip out the structural buffers from our democracy, we could easily end up with mob rule.

  Where does that leave us? We could reduce a lot of the impetus for structural change by returning to an era where our politicians are willing to work together and compromise to move our country forward. If structural changes seem necessary, tweaking the Congressional rules could be a good place to start. Changing filibuster requirements for some appointments has already had some favorable effects.

  Another option worth looking at in our world of hyper-partisanship is ‘ranked choice voting’, or RCV, which tends to elect candidates who are acceptable to a wide swath of the electorate, regardless of party. Australia has used this for decades. Maine adopted it for federal elections in 2018. With RCV, voters rank candidates in order of choice. If a candidate receives more than half the first choices, they win, just like any other election. If not, the candidate wi
th the fewest votes is eliminated, and voters who picked that candidate as ‘number 1’ will have their votes count for their next choice. This process continues until a candidate wins with more than half of the votes. To learn more, check out www. FairVote.org.

  Whether we’re playing softball or politics, Americans value fairness and equal treatment. FDR found that out when he tried to leverage his landslide victory in 1936 into legislation packing the Supreme Court. Congress and the public saw it for what it was: an undemocratic power grab. Despite FDR’s popularity, it failed miserably.

  If we abandon our commitment to fundamental American values in an effort to achieve political advantage, if we trade our existing checks and balances for new structures designed to achieve revenge or permanent partisan dominance, we will cross a line that will irretrievably change the face of who we are and how we are governed. In the process, we will increase our exposure to the dangers that the internet poses to our democracy—dangers that we still largely fail to understand.

  America is a nation of immigrants. We have built this country together, making plenty of mistakes along the way but generally advancing toward more tolerance, more inclusion and more equality. Structural change designed to create a permanent political underclass—a minority, an enemy, whose interests can be trampled, insulted or ignored—goes against everything we have worked to overcome.

  Instead of focusing on structural changes to achieve partisan advantage, we need to focus on how we can encourage collaboration and assimilation to bring our country together and move us forward as one nation. Looking back at America’s failures is good if it helps us understand how we can do better. But we also need to remember the achievements we’ve accomplished by working together and use those past successes as momentum to accomplish even more.