The Citizens Party “Had Enough? Vote Democratic!” Is NOT ENOUGH, We Need a New Dual Membership Party

Articles & Chapters, Civil Society, Collective Intelligence, Reform

greater democracy

April 29, 2006

The Citizens Party

“Had Enough? Vote Democratic!” Is NOT ENOUGH,
We Need a New Dual Membership Party

Robert David Steele Vivas A few days ago I was discussing strategy with Jock Gill. Both of us tried to help Dean, Edwards, and then Kerry, in that order, with a concept for winning over non-Democrats like me (a moderate Republican). None of the staffs had sufficient gravitas to realize that we were absolutely right when we said, over and over, that the Democrats cannot beat the Republicans on base, issues, or leadership alone. Last week, I conceptualized the concept of a “dual membership” party, the Citizens Party. This new party would not ask its members to leave their original party, but would, instead, serve as a second home, a unifying party, committed to one issue and one issue only: achieving electoral reform by electing a coalition government committed to the American Independence Act of 2007. Thereafter, the Party could serve as a second home for individuals, like myself, who are proud of what the Republican Party once stood for, but do not wish to consort with impeachable leaders or the extremists who have hijacked the party. Today, I read with admiration a really superb Op-Ed by Tim Roemer in the New York Times (Saturday, 29 April 2006) entitled ‘Enough Already,’ that suggested that all the Democrats need to win in 2006 and 2008 is the simple slogan, “Had Enough? Vote Democratic!.” This worthy gentleman is half-right. The Democrats, in my view, cannot beat the Republicans base-on-base or on the issues. Even a character debate will be a toss-up. There is, however, a major opportunity for a lasting revitalization of democracy if the Democrats will match up their most promising unity candidate with a new party, the American Independence Party, and a commitment to a Coalition Cabinet and Coalition Legislature committed to electoral reform. This new party would be unique in history in that it would specifically foster the concept of “dual citizenship” and respect the original political allegiances of the moderate Republicans, the conservative Democrats, the Independents, Libertarians, Greens, Reforms, and the newly mobilized from both the Latin and Asian immigration pool as well as the survivors of the Dean revolution. This new party would have ‘wings’ and leaders from all American political parties, and they would commit to support Democratic *and* Republican legislative incumbents or challengers who agree to dual citizenship in the American Independence Party, and its single reform focus: restoring the vote to *all* Americans. Electoral reforms, including instant run-offs, the end of gerrymandering and even physical districts, restoration of multi-party debates, and voting on week-ends so the working poor have a shot at voting without losing work, all need to be part of an American Independence Act of 2007 that will have it greatest effect in 2008. In addition, we need to end “party line” voting that forbids our elected representatives from voting for their district instead of their party, and of course end campaign financing while introducing publicly funded campaigns and higher salaries for representatives, teachers, cops, firemen, and preventive health care professionals and other public servants. Only one issue can unite all sensible Americans: ‘does your vote count?‘ The answer for most is a resounding ‘NO.’ If we were to establish a new party and an interim Coalition Cabinet now, even before a final candidate for President is chosen, and commit publicly to this single lasting “fix” on the system, everything else will fall into place — including wiser foreign and domestic policy, an end to the double deficit, and a restoration of the moral legitimacy of the Republic. We must restore informed, engaged, democracy (collective intelligence), honest public policy, moral capitalism, and America the Good — instead of America the Idiot Bully. In 2006 we must demand that incumbents and challengers commit to this unification reform idea. In 2007 we pass the American Independence Act that implements sustainable electoral reform. In 2008 we elect a President and a Coalition Cabinet and Coalition Legislature that restores America the Good, an American Republic that is Of, By, and For We the People. I have secured the domain name Citizens-Party.org. Shortly, we will open the web page, once we are as secure as possible. So I have a question for all of you: anyone interested in helping set this party up, register it in every state, and be ready to announce it on the 4th of July? Warm regards to all,
Robert

2005 Robert Steele: AMU Student Questions & Answers

Articles & Chapters

Career Research Interview: Intelligence Studies

DOC: Steele Interview with AMU Student.doc

1. What private industries or fields do you feel would most benefit from your experience and training within Intelligence?

Intelligence is not about secrets. It is about advanced decision-making that makes the most of all available sources, in all languages, in near-real time but also including a complete grasp of history going back 200 years (e.g. all Chinese statements on the Spratley Islands, or energy), and down to the neighborhood level where the real action is. Consequently, understanding the process of intelligence, and how to blend sources, softwares, and services to reach the most informed decision possible, is relevant to every industry and field. With the exception of oil companies and pharmaceutical companies, both of which practice intelligence at an advanced level but with a complete lack of ethics, most industries, and most governments, are stupid. The U.S. Intelligence Community, to take one prominent example, is costing us roughly ten times what it should, and has access to less than 10% of the relevant information needed for national security and national competitiveness—not because that information is not accessible, but because the community is led by people who are intellectually and culturally handicapped.

2. What are the career prospects for an analyst working outside an intelligence agency?

The last place an intelligent intelligence analyst should want to work is within an intelligence agency. By definition, such agencies are catastrophically and pathologically unfit places of employment. Think of throw-away cameras as an example. Instead of trying to sell your brains to an agency that thinks it knows it all (a high end photography shop), make a real difference in the private sector by bringing your intelligence cycle skills to a normal business (the grocery store that does not put on airs, just wants an inexpensive camera for normal people). Your influence as a thinker will be inversely proportional the budget and secrecy of your employer. Higher budget, more secrets, less influence.

3. How mobile do you feel you were in the region you specialized in? For example, if your duties required you to primarily focus on issues and topics within the Middle East, do you feel you could later transfer to another region such as Central Asia or Europe? Would such a transfer require extensive re-training?

It is not about knowing specifics anymore. It is about “knowing who knows,” as Stefan Dedijer, the Swedish-Croatian father of business intelligence said at my conference in 1992. I continue to be amazed by the intellectual decrepitude of National Intelligence Council officers who do not know how to use citation analysis to identify the top 100 published people in the world on any topic, and then through them the top 100 unpublished people on the same topic. I also marvel at the moronic logic of CIA security officers that choose to investigate CIA analysts—including NIOs—that try to talk to real experts who are not US citizens, most of whom do not have a clearance and do not want a clearance, because a clearance is like drugs—it disconnects you from reality.

4. How much does intuition, or gut feeling, become involved when deciding to trust or ignore information obtained through various collection methods?

This is your best question. Intuition is extremely important, but only if you are well-versed and have full access to all sources in all languages. You need to speak at least one foreign language, you need to be able to interact with individuals who are fluent and read-in at a native level, and you need to have an open mind. Under those conditions, intuition is vital and can fill the 5% “gap” in what can be known by normal methods. It is not possible to do good intelligence from archives or written sources. Only by talking to as many people as possible, can you “intuit” the truth. When you are at the top of your game—something that will take 20-30 years to develop—you can “know without knowing.”

5. How do you feel computer technology is changing the Intelligence field in regards to information collection and analysis?

The current IC investments are a waste. Google, Amazon, IBM (DB2 with OmniFind, and Radio Frequency Identification or RFID, not Web Fountain) will, when combined with CISCO AONS (Application Oriented Networking System), change the face of the planet. We are creating an alternative commercial global multinational multiagency multidisciplinary multidomain Open Source Information System – External (OSIS-X) in the private sector, and the US IC has no clue what is about to hit it. $30 Motorola cell phones with cameras in the hand of billions of new capitalists in China and India and elsewhere, are changing the intelligence paradigm (see my Op-Ed).

6. Do you feel that the rapid spread and easy accessibility of Information Technology makes Intelligence/Counterintelligence easier or more difficult to perform?

As Peter Drucker said in Forbes ASAP on 28 August 1998, we have spent the last fifty years on the T in IT, we now need to spend the next fifty years on the I in IT. Morality matters more than technology. We are beyond connecting the dots (which US IC stinks at). This is about connecting dots to people and people to people. This is about collective intelligence, wisdom of the crowds, common sense, bottom up multi-cultural consensus with long-term shared values.

7. How do you typically deal with the stress of the type of work you perform?

CIA has the highest suicide, divorce, alcoholism, and adultery rates on the planet. My personal list of suicides now numbers 17. I keep myself strong with sushi, sailing, and reading. I am blessed with three children, and every day I try to live my life with two thoughts in mind: what will help these three children, and what can I do to earn the Nobel Peace Prize. The really important part of dealing with stress is to not buy in to the bullshit, not let morons with authority screw up your world view, and understand that simply by being alive, being able to think, and being able to adhere to a personal moral code, you are a man with God-like capabilities. What you think, how you behave, can change the world for the better. We all have our demons and burdens to bear, but man is the only beast with both a historical memory and the ability to envision alternative futures. Do not obsess on getting a job with clearances—focus instead on being the most open-minded and most ethical person you know. Brains are over-rated. Ethical constancy is more valuable. If I have one regret, it is that I was not as tolerant in my lifetime as I should have been. I allowed stress to lead to shouting, and shouting disconnected me from important alternative viewpoints. Be tolerant. The Golden Rule (“do unto others as you would have them do unto you”) is still the single best precept for living your life. When you do have authority, and power over people, try to be humble and not abuse your authority. My single greatest crime against humanity as an ass-chewing I gave to professional who I later realized did not have my knowledge level and also had no money, and no authority—he was blameless. I am ashamed to this day for my mis-treatment of that person (I subsequently apologized three different times, but the it does not eradicate the stain on him or on me).

8. How do you handle friends and family who ask about your work at the Central Intelligence Agency during and after your tenure?

In the old days, we were not allowed to tell our wives what we did, and this destroyed marriages when late night operations were confused with infidelity. CIA today is largely a joke. Clandestine case officers are largely messenger boys to local liaison, and “non-official cover officers” are widely derided for their stupid cover (with a few glorious exceptions). I am out from under cover, with permission, and here I want to give CIA high marks: their personnel system and their Publications Review Board are among the sanest and most gifted elements of that organization. Analysts are not under cover. The morons that prevent them from having business cards and reaching out to society should be fired. Case officers, who are under cover, should live that cover, with one exception: their spouse. If you cannot trust your spouse, find a new spouse. I do want to emphasize that being a case officer, or a special operations officer, is the highest calling in life. As screwed up as CIA is, there is no greater life-affirming means of serving your country than being a case officer or a special operations officer, followed by being an all-source analyst or intelligence science & technology officer.

9. How did you discuss your day at work with family who may have known you worked in the Intelligence field?

Boring is always good. “Paperwork.”

10. How does your work affect conversations you may have about politics or current events with friends and family? Does the secret nature of your work cause you to avoid conversations regarding politics or current events?

Get this through your head: secrets are generally stupid. If you get caught up in the secrets, you are disconnecting from reality. I learn vastly more from books and conversations than I ever learned form any codeword document. Indeed, as a young lieutenant honored very early in my career to be the S-1/Adjutant for a 1,500 man Battalion Landing Team the first thing I did every morning was shred the SI/TK. The dirty little secret in Washington DC is that most SI/TK is not worth the paper it is printed on. Listening to the street, and having an open mind, are vastly more important than access to secrets. If you read my 550 plus reviews at the below URL, you will be vastly better-educated than most CIA or DIA or NSA analysts. You do not have to agree with my views—think for yourself—but read widely. There is no substitute for reading widely in the open literature.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1S8AJIUIO6M9K/103-6312380-1748652

UPDATED to provide current link for 1,900+ review:

 

2005: Intelligence Reform – More Needs to Be Done

Articles & Chapters

Commentary & Reply

From Parameters,  Summer 2005, pp. 135-40.

Intelligence Reform: More Needs to Be Done

To the Editor:

There are no simple answers when it comes to intelligence reform. The debate on this issue has suffered from decades of policy manipulation, congressional neglect, media ignorance, public inattention, and professional laziness. Senator Saxby Chambliss’s Parameters article, “We Have Not Correctly Framed the Debate on Intelligence Reform” (Spring 2005), merits consideration and a complex response.

Continue reading “2005: Intelligence Reform – More Needs to Be Done”