Strategic Alzheimer's--coming to a grand strategist near me!

Just got off a conference call with about 40 people attending Don Beck's annual (or semi-?) "spiral dynamics" conference in DC.

I've done these conference calls for a while now, and I really love them, because I can totally riff off the top of my head, jazz-like, knowing I can keep the audience easily, this being such a smart, forward-leaning bunch and also a crew that knows my stuff intimately, thanks to Don.

So, it's a group I sort of trying out summing-up Grand Unifying Theory definitions.

Anyway, one question was about my critique of the aging Boomers' strategic leadership (14 years and counting now in the White House) and my hopes for a JFK-like jump to the next generation (that sliver I and so many others occupy between the tail end of the boom and the beginning of the X-gen demographic bust), and it amounted to challenging my assumption that all the long-term trends (huge pulse coming in Asia for global economy, accessing that infrastructural build-out gives us the knowledge to sell to the bottom of the Gap pyramid, my usual arguments on demographics in the Middle East and the various Islamic reformations already in the works) favor us on globalization's continued advance. And this guy's question was a bit defensive because I went on and on previously about the conformity imprinting the Boomers got in the 1950s and how ultimately it limits their strategic imagination terribly--despite all the bullshit about free speech and free thinking from their coming-of-age Sixties experience), and he said--in effect-- that I was assuming the whole world wanted to get globalization and become Americans.

Of course, that's the old bugaboo that Thomas Friedman's brilliantly portrayed in "Lexus": the Egyptian who asks him, Does globalization mean we all have to become Americans?

And so I responded, as I always do on this point, that the future of globalization's cultural face is increasingly Asia, not the West, so I wasn't assuming any uniformity whatsoever, but one helluva diversity by our narrow standards (recalling my old joke on Rhode Island: "Diverse, hell yes! We've got both kinds of Catholics here: Irish and Portugese!).

Anyway, after the talk, I realized that if the Boomers' strategic imaginative moment was historically limited, that's no different from any generation, including mine and Obama's.

I got this first from Karl Marx himself, who said that any theoretician/visionary/whatever is always limited by his generational experience (actually, Marx's argument was about stages of history relating to capitalism's emergence), the simple concept being: we all eventually lose it.

I will lose it, probably in my early sixties. I know this, and my sense of a timeline forced by events beyond my control is no better or worse than Osama bin Laden's. I know the clock is running on me, and that soon enough, I'll lose the ability to think beyond the conventional wisdom, so infused will I be in it myself.

So another good reason to get Vol. III ("release the inner grand strategist in you!") down in print at the height of my powers, before the strategic Alzheimer's kicks in.

Comments

[gringoman]

Of course, that's the old bugaboo that Thomas Friedman's brilliantly portrayed in "Lexus": the Egyptian who asks him, Does globalization mean we all have to become Americans?

Alt Friedman to Egyptian: "Of course not, silly. Become Chinese. Try it, you might like it."

[Robert Worstell]

You may be accepting a limit on your personal ability which isn't there. Conclusions are a summary of data and as long as the data is kept refreshed, there is no such generational limit. Practically, the best thinking usually occurs after 50, for various reasons. But consider B. Franklin and your Friedman, who wrote their best works well after 50.

The next work is to then figure what comes after Globalization is (mostly) complete. One possible input here is that science and religion are starting to find common ground, so the two forces responsible for great expansion of global civilization (the Green Revolution and Protestant American Revolution) are starting to meld and work together.

This goes way beyond our current Western limited political stances. But once we solve the distribution problems, it is completely possible for everyone on this planet to have sufficient food, clothing, housing, and jobs (and Wal-Mart is well on the way to solving this) - then what are we going to do with all our spare time? Golden Age, anyone?

[Thomas Pamelia]

This post is surprising. However, anything that lights a fire under Dr. Barnett to churn out some more good reading is OK with me.

Is it safe to assume that Sean M. is Dr. Barnetts protege? Does he have a protege? According to his post, he better hurry up!

What's going to be the title of Vol. III?

[TM Lutas]

Here's a thing you are already missing. There is no conventional wisdom anymore. The number of people in the connected Core are already so great that it has fragmented. If you put away your current bookmarks and engage in a 2 week period of reading new voices, you will find at least one and perhaps several semi-isolated communities complete with contradictory conventional wisdoms. If you do not permit yourself to sink into one or a limited number of such intellectual ghettos, you can stave off strategic alzheimers at least until the biological version kicks in.

[Anonymous]

i think calling me Tom's protege is a little strong. unfortunately, i do not have the educational background to aspire to that title. i DO have the educational background to be his chaplain ;-)

[Michael]

I have to go against you on this one, too. If my dad can be enjoying new bands (Evanescance comes to mind) and studying new subjects while pushing 60, there's a real chance you'll be able to stay on your game too.

[Chap]

First thing I thought of was this fellow Galenson mentioned in the post referring to a Wired article. It's not exactly what you articulate, but worth considering since it matches some of the same fears.

I have not had the benefit of a Big Achievement, and may well not. I have, however, seen enough people who did their best professional work as young men and had lots of time left in their lives to try again, or come to terms with their obsolescence.

It may also be you're visualizing someone we both know and seeing a similar fate for yourself as an increasingly irrelevant guy in a cubicle. Which is a comfortable enough fate, but not so good compared to what could be.

I recently had to change career paths, and I also know I'm changing yet again within several years (Navy doesn't tend to let everybody stay in till sixty). Perhaps one thing to consider is riding this wave as far as it will take you somewhere you want, while keeping abreast of alternate paths the whole time, then shifting when it's appropriate to do so. You may want to shift from Big Picture Manufacture and Sales to leadership or something similar.

The world will change in personal ways you might not expect, so why not take time to consider what to do if this decade is the time of your big idea? What branches and sequels fit this plan?

[Paracelsus]

But I want my government to protect me and its borders only. I don't care about Egyptians and Iranians. I don't care about efficient world markets. Government is there to maintain my standard of living not that of a foreigner's.