S2E4: Don’t Wait For Systems Change (The Spam Musubi Rule)

We rely on systems every day without really thinking about them: the banks that hold our money, the rules that keep our food safe, the agencies meant to help when things go wrong. These systems are so familiar that we hardly notice we're choosing to trust them. In this episode, Norma Wong and Ariel Jacobson talk about all things systems: why they're designed to be steady and reliable and what happens when the world starts changing faster than systems can handle. They also discuss why even the most well-meaning people who want to serve their community should stop relying on systems. 

In this episode:

• Why systems are designed for stability, not speed, and how that shapes what we can expect from them
• What it means that we no longer live in a cash economy
• Why good intentions aren't enough when systems have to work at scale, uniformly, in a fast-changing world
• The three to five competing worldviews fighting over what the future should look like, and why none can reach critical mass
• The Epstein files as a case study in what happens when trusted systems meet bad actors
• Are all systems broken? Not yet, but the pressure on systems is showing
• Why most fixes to broken systems make them more rigid instead of more flexible
• Is representational democracy still worth holding onto?

Find us: thehorizonstory.com | Substack | YouTube | wherever you get your podcasts

If this conversation resonated with you, share it with someone who's ready to hear it. And if you'd like to help keep this work going, consider becoming a supporter of the show.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Aloha. I know we've been in conversation for a while, but let me reintroduce myself. I am Norma Wong, and I am a policy nerd. Yes, it's true, that's who I am. And so, you know, in this moment of collapse, anybody who is like anywhere around policy would begin to think about whether or not why don't we just, why don't we just fix things, all these systems and institutions that are broken? Why don't we just go ahead and do that? And this episode of the Rise of Story is about, well, maybe that might not be the course of action that we should take. And also for everyday people who know that, you know, it's just like there are all kinds of things that are taken care of by government and organizations, and you know, like those guys, those guys, they take care of the stuff. And that that is how we think about how the world is built. And so when things are actually not working very well, we just say, well, you just go fix the things and fix the people that are supposed to be in charge of all of these things. And that would be the normal thing that a normal person would think about. Uh luckily I'm abnormal. You know, even though my name, normal, uh, in terms of its derivation, is supposed to mean normal. I think that that was like a cosmic joke when they named me. Because I have always thought a little bit off-kilter, which helps me to see what's next, not only what is happening right now. You know, it's like a little bit of a squinting of the way in which you think about things, see things right now for exactly what they are, but also see how all the things are changing. And it's in all the things are changing that we can then take a look at will it serve us just to tweak the entities and the people that are doing all the things? Is that going to be like the course of action we should take? Is systems change the appropriate path? Or, as I would argue, it's this more slow and more perilous path. But let's start with looking at what we're talking about in terms of systems and policies. What would be included? Okay, so uh let's say I get up in the morning, and uh what would be the first thing that you do when you get up? Okay, now if you go to your device, that's your problem. I would not go to my device because why would I want to go to my flip phone? It's not going to give me much information. So I do not go to my device, right? Uh I hope that one of the first couple things you do is you go to the bathroom. Okay. And you go to the bathroom and you use the facilities, you do number one or number two, or maybe number one and number two, and then you wash your face. Okay, boom. You've interacted with at least one and maybe two systems. The water system that brings you potable water, and the wastewater system that takes the things that you should not be drinking or eating, and nobody should be eating or drinking, and it takes this away and it treats it. And both of them are in systems. And what makes that makes makes that up? Well, if you think about the water that comes to your house, the water comes to your house that there are miles and miles and miles, tens of thousands of miles, millions of miles of pipes that are connected and connected to your house and connected down the street and connected to the nearest places where potable water can be brought to you. And that potable water has to be brought to you by uh people and by engineering systems that are either bringing it from uh under the ground or from a desalination plant or from a reservoir or from a river, right? And you're bringing that water and the entity, the utility company, whether it's or a private company that is uh bringing you that water has to make sure that the water comes in pipes that are operating all the time, that they are repaired and maintained carefully, that the water that you drink is safe, and that it is potable, meaning it can be drank. So there's nothing like turning on the tap and the water that comes out, which might meet some environmental rule. Oh, did I mention the environmental part of this? So the whole thing about the water, not only the water that is fresh, but the water that is wastewater, would all come under certain regulations. And those regulations would be both local and national. And local and national will be built on years and years and years, decades of rules and rules that are associated with science and facts, but also the lobbying that might go on by people, by utilities, by uh by local counties, by the federal government itself, around how it is that it would want to or not want to, or feel is too expensive, or that not enough regulation, or there's too little or there is too much regulation, all of that would play itself out as you're brushing your teeth and you're flushing the toilet. Okay, okay, what are you gonna do next? Okay, so you're gonna go, and usually, okay, I'm not sure what you do, but I still haven't gone to my device. Okay, I'm gonna skip the part where I'm doing my meditation and my nagong exercises because that's not included in this episode. And I would go basically to see what it is that I would prepare for breakfast. So I open the refrigerator and boom, what do I come across? There is an electrical system that would have to be working in order for me to get consistent refrigeration. And that electrical system would be tied into a grid, and that grid would be maintained and owned and operated by a utility company. And that utility company would be large and vast because it's not only about the distribution of electricity, it's about how it is they generate the electricity. So they'd have to have a power plant somewhere. In Hawaii, that power plant would be fueled by conventional fossil fuels, but you may be in a place that has hydropower or solar power or wind power. And we have a few of those in Hawaii, not so much hydropower, but we have a few. But most of our electricity is still by uh by uh fossil fuels that would have to be brought in Hawaii by a ship and another ship and another ship. And all of that would be part of a vast system of fuels that would make its way across the globe. And right now, not so much making its way across the globe because they're stuck in the Strait of Hormuz. And so they're all tied into not only the local utility, but reaching back and reaching back and reaching back and reaching back. Okay, I haven't prepared my meal yet. So I'm going to uh I'm gonna make some food. Okay, now as it turns out, I'm a pretty simple breakfast eater, but let's say I want to make it a little more elaborate because um it's a it's a Sunday, and I'm going to uh make food uh for my sister that we don't have time to make in the morning. Okay, so I'm gonna use produce, and boom, as soon as I use the produce, I'm in another system. It's a system that grows all of this stuff. Okay, the eggs, okay. I need actual eggs, not the egg that the feral hen is going to lay in my uh in my garage and then uh hide it, and then I find out that it is an egg because you know it's a rotten egg. So I need good eggs to eat. If I need good eggs to eat, then because I don't have hen, I don't have egg-laying hens, say that quickly, then I have to buy it from a store. And I try to buy local. And I try to buy local not only for freshness, but to support the local producers. And boom, I'm in another system. Not only a system in which grows these things, the the eggs, the um the vegetables that I'm going to use, any meats that I'm going to use, the fruits and all of that. But there's this whole thing around how it is that a farmer makes their way in life, how it is they're going to make a living, where it is that they're going to be able to get the feed, are they going to have to bring it in? Or are they growing it themselves? How are they regulated? Will the local government, will the state government support agriculture? Will they support certain kinds of agriculture, but not other kinds of agriculture? All of this is happening in the long string in the background every day, every month, every year. And as I take my eggs out of the refrigerator, as I take my locally grown arugula out of the refrigerator, as I take my locally grown tomatoes that are sitting on the side. And as I take my seasonings and I begin to assemble my omelet, and oh, maybe, maybe I'll want to put some chicken lap chong in there, but that's a different story. Okay. All right, now I'm gonna get in my car and I'm gonna go down the street. And boom, I now have a few other systems that I interface with. There is a system that has made sure that I have a road to travel on that is maintained, or has not been able to maintain it, and has not been able to maintain it for any number of issues that they might have in terms of whether they can fill the vacancies within the Department of Transportation, whether or not their matching funds from the federal system and the state system and the local system match up so that there's available funds, whether or not the material that they use for the streets are available for the streets, or whether it's being siphoned off for some other kind of construction. And all of this is going on as I come down on that. And I am in a car, and boom, there's another system. There's a system of like the manufacturing of it, which is now engaged in a huge tariff war about where it is, the car that will be built, where it will be built, will be built in Canada or in the United States or in Mexico. It's not going to be brought in from China because we're not allowing the cars in to be brought in from China. And all of this, right, in a factory system that is the case, which takes a long time to build up, it is a system of its own. Whew, I haven't even gotten to other parts of the day. But even as we make our way through even just that part, okay, you can see all the many different kinds of systems that we actually live with, live under, and some of us work in those places. We work for the utility, or we work for the organization that is fighting the regulations that govern whether or not it will be this standard or that standard for our potable water, whether or not forever chemicals will be taken out, whether or not we will clean up the water after it has been polluted by this thing or that thing. And we are dependent upon all of this, but it is good to be able to see all the things and then to ask the question: how well are they working these days? How well are they working? Thank you, friends. We'll be right back. You know, I just told a kind of a long story, but my long story didn't even include things like the educational system, whether it's public or private, or the healthcare system, whether it's public or private, or that whole system that is about whether or not you're going to be able to afford healthcare or not, not just the system that provides healthcare. All of the various insurance operations, the ones that we have counted on for many years, but that have become too difficult or people are unable to be eligible for insurance. And so there is a way in which the government has had to come into it. And we've had decades of debate with respect to what it will work or what it is that people will want to work. And, you know, and then we have other kinds of things, not only that. There's a, I haven't even touched the political system per se, which is the system that is about how in this country we choose the people who make the decisions and who argue and who debate the possibilities of this or that, and allocate resources for this or that, for all of the various systems and institutions that we count on in everyday life. It's a vast array, a vast array. There is almost no part of American life that we could say is not only touched, but interlaced with a policy system or institution or program that has in behind it other organizations, uh resources, rules, uh long histories of how they operate and how they don't operate. So when you talk about if things are like falling apart, and they're falling apart on multiple bases, then you put actually a lot of burden and also responsibility, but more than that, we put your expectations on the overall web of the various systems to be able to stand up and perform in a moment that's not built for systems. And so, what do I mean by that? Okay, so let's take the financial system. Okay. Uh, what we count on for banks, uh, so do you have do you have some money in the bank? I have some money in my bank. My um my uh maternal uh grandparents, you know, my Popo and my Gongong on my mother's side, uh, they didn't believe too much in banks. So they might interface it once in a while. But clearly they were more about people who would take the check and they'd cash a check, and then they'd hide the money, and then they'd use the money. Okay, so they did not have a credit card between any of them. And the only reason they'd have a checking account is really so they'd have a place that would uh cash the check. Okay, whether it's a social security check or through their life, they might have gotten a few checks as part of employment, but they live mostly in a cash economy. We don't live in a cash economy. Nobody lives in a cash economy these days, not in this country in any case, the country called America. So we have a vast way in which the financial institutions, which by the way are heavily regulated, uh, do their work so that we can uh borrow money, uh we can pay back loans, uh, that we can do debits, that we can do the thing called Venmo, right, which is different than Waymo, okay, and we do those things, okay, knowing that we can count on it. We count on financial institutions to be extraordinarily stable and regulated entities that will be accurate about the transactions that they make on our behalf. Okay, and we have that, right? We know that there's a problem when an institution cannot, and all of that system is buttoned down to the point where it is intended to be stable. As it turns out, systems actually are uh they're born to be stable, they're not born to be shaken up all the time, they're not born to be, oh, okay, well, today you want to do that? Fine, we'll do that. We'll just like do a few tweaks and we'll do that. Systems were set up deliberately to be the things we could depend on, which means that, among other things, they take a very, very long time and a very deliberate process to change, any kind of changes, very slow, very deliberate, on purpose, not because they're trying to screw us, but because we count on systems to be reliable. That's what we count on them for. Okay, so even those systems that we want to shift, you know, so for example, food regulation that we want to shift. Like, you know, for example, almost nobody in Hawaii would say that it's a good idea to put a spam usually under a heater for 12 hours and then you buy it, right? Okay, nobody would say that that's the case. But until there's some shift in the food regulation, that's the way it's going to be. And so we adjust on our part. It's like you know that that spam usually has been under the heater for like, oh, maybe. More than three hours, and if you are a picky person for whom spamusubi uh makes a difference in your life, you will not buy it. You leave it for the other suck, or the other person who is going to do it in the other way. But there's the regulation that is stable. And even though the regulation may mean the food is not that great, we know that we will not die when we eat the spam mussubi. Okay, all right, so stable. Therefore, in a time that is very unstable, and we need things to change rapidly, systems are not going to be able to respond. They're not built that way. They were not intended for that purpose. They're going to have difficulty. They're going to strain. No one can say, for example, well, you know, what we have here is a situation. Let's say you are a large philanthropic organization and you're in a state of California, which is larger than many nations in the world, and you know that there are going to be cuts in Medicaid, and you said you make a decision. As a philanthropic organization, you're going to try to meet that need, and you're going to try to meet the need that cannot be met by government. And so, therefore, what you're going to do is you're going to loosen up X amount of money, and it's very significant. Okay. Now, how are you going to use that money? And I will predict it will take months for you to figure it out. And then it will take months to put in a system in place that would mean that fund, those funds will be used in a way that will be useful to the people that you care about. And in the meanwhile, policies will shift and people's needs will shift, and there will be a gap. Even under circumstances where the most well-meaning people who want to meet the need are standing up every single day, there will be a significant gap. And there will in particular be a gap if you're trying to do it the way that systems do it, which means at scale, in one system where the rules are pretty uniform, not a whole set of exceptions. And that's how systems work the best. And if you're going to do that at scale, uniformly, the same rule applies everywhere, everybody does the same thing, and you're doing it at a time when the terrain shifts almost by the hour in some places, then systems are just going to have a hard time. Now that doesn't even count that there might be different opinions about what those systems should do. And right now, all across the globe, there is a very significant fight between three to five major ideas about what the world should be like and what we should believe in. About three to five. And they're very tightly held and vigorously fought. And that means that there is a very short cycle between political changes. Nobody has enough critical mass of people and thought and time and resources and strategy to be able to be the people that will prevail for a period of time in which you can put into course an implementation of any strategy at scale. Okay? That is a fact. It is an observable fact. And so, therefore, if you're counting on systems change, and that's what you're advocating for, you're counting on trying to shift things that are not intended to shift quickly by systems that are overloaded in terms of trying to respond within the decision-making process that is being tightly litigated, tightly fought, in opposing directions, about three to five, and therefore not even not even about black and white, right? Not even about this or that. And so, therefore, I asked the question again, is systems change the way to go? Even if that is what we know, even if that is what we've been good at before, even if that is what we call what democracy is about, is systems change the way to go? Okay, friends, we're gonna take a break. I'm gonna drink some water that has ginger and lemon in it, and we'll be right back with Ariel. Thank you so much. Hello friends. We're back at the Horizon Story with my friend Ariel, you know, in the browfering conversation about policy.

SPEAKER_01 28:40

So yes, glad to be back. And thank you for bringing us through those examples of all the many systems that we interact with and maybe why system change isn't the best strategy. But are we today gonna get to the part of the conversation about what other path we might take? Or because I have a lot of questions about systems that we could talk about too.

SPEAKER_00 28:59

Well, we should actually get all the questions out with respect to systems, and you know, like just let's sort of get it out of our system. Right, okay, to use a word. Right. Yeah. And that uh in the next episode, we're actually going to tease out if not systems change as the best strategy for change, then what? Okay, right, then what? But my experience is that because systems is even for people for whom that's like mostly invisible, right? It's the thing we know.

SPEAKER_01 29:37

Right.

SPEAKER_00 29:37

Right. And so then we have to actually get a good sense of why that might not be the best strategy right now.

SPEAKER_01 29:45

Okay, that sounds good. So let's start with a question I was pondering because I happen to be one of those people who does think a lot about systems in that camp. And you know, one of the things I know about systems is that they've never been neutral, right? They whether they function, they don't function, that's right, but they always provide um services and functions to people, um, but in disparate ways, right? That's correct. So I think one of the things that you were alluding to in talking about systems change also with the you know, three to five different positions, is that there's a sense that that has almost been intensified or heightened the degree to which um systems are being wielded in certain ways. And so the example I wanted to kind of delve into a little bit more with you is public health. Oh, okay. Because I I think that's one, especially since the pandemic, that a lot of us got a very real lived sense of how public health systems and all the different levels, right? One of the features of a system may be the bureaucracy of that system. So you have how your city school system handled the pandemic, you have how the county public health department handled the pandemic, and then you have the you know extreme politicization of the question of vaccines, right? That's right. But I think in large part there's also this sense of um, you know, for the most part, while there are disparities, vaccines are working, the the actual um delivery of vaccines, and that's a system um that we can still rely on. So, how do we think about in this moment of collapse um why systems change may be unfolding differently in this moment for something like public health?

SPEAKER_00 31:32

Okay. So, first of all, there is uh there is extreme pressure in terms of the need side. So let's just take like, you know, if we say a system, we say uh if we we talk about it neutrally, you know, like my mug here. Okay, right, okay. So the mug is having to respond to much more need, okay, and it uh and emergencies that arise uh in very short order, right? Okay, so Ebola, boom, right? Okay, all right, hantavirus, boom, right? And so this this aspect about whether or not uh any any entity, right, or in this case, like many, many entities that are tied together in one system would be able to actually respond to things that are much more vast and unpredictable than they were in the past. Okay, so there's just that the the pressure on the system by the conditions of the time. So that's that's one, okay. The second is that um when there things don't work, people have opinions about, right? They have opinions, and then as it turns out, those opinions are now revealing what we think about these things at a more uh guttural level, right? Uh like for example, whether we believe in science, right? Okay, right, is now uh not only called into question, but a flash point. So it's like not it's it's not like okay, let's debate it here. No, it's it's a flash point, okay. Uh uh another thing in the health system is whether or not you uh are putting your uh belief in a private system, right, or in a public system. Okay, so what uh what should public health include and what should it not include? We've been creeping in a particular direction that for those people who have a particular view of what government should be doing and not doing, okay, uh, where does the commons sit? Okay, and uh there's that fundamental notion, well, where the common sits is it sits in the free marketplace, for example, right? Okay, and then there's the view where the common sit is is is by the people, for the people, for the common good, okay, right? And it's like different philosophical views and tightly held, and in both cases, I would say, not a very good uh complex notion of then how would you play any of those notions out? Okay, if you're gonna believe in one or the other, how would you play it out? How would that work together? And how much would it cost and what would it take to implement? Okay, so it's like we're a little sloppy around the policy edges, actually, and we're more about the pronouncements of what we believe and what we don't believe.

SPEAKER_01 35:14

Right. Yeah, yeah, it's interesting. Another example that comes to mind as you're talking about that is, you know, I think I mentioned when I first came on the show that I'm a soccer mom. And so I spent a lot of time on the road and um interstate rest stops, right? Are something we spend a lot of time at. And, you know, it was only within the last few years I started to notice vending machines with Narcan available in the vending machines, right? And you can request uh Narcan kits from our library system. From uh you can get trained in how to administer Narcan in the event of um encountering someone who's experiencing an um opioid overdose. And um, you know, it's an interesting, I think, direction in may even be producing real evidence of results. I think it's one of the first couple years, the last couple years where the fentanyl epidemic has taken a turn and and leveled off and even decreased significantly. Um, so how do we take that example and understand, you know, what parts of the system are we working within and how are we playing that out in that example?

SPEAKER_00 36:23

Yes, yes. So, first of all, uh like uh let's say Narcan, or let's say tobacco use, right? Tobacco use uh continues to go down in this country among adults. Now, they're watching the evidence of whether kids are taking up smoking, right? Uh, and they're watching that, but among adults, right, it's continuing to go down. In both the case of opioid use and in tobacco use, it would be about years of advocacy and then putting into place in the public sector and in the private sector, right? And then among people generally, in terms of public education, okay, that um like the uh how you interface, how do you get the information, uh, what is your accessibility to all of these things, and then the individual choices, right, that people would make uh um living in a community and living with people, right? Okay, what's good for you, what's good for the community, all these things, right, are interlaced with each other.

SPEAKER_01 37:33

Right.

SPEAKER_00 37:34

So, and you say, like, if when I talk about uh uh so let's take the question are all systems broken? No, not yet.

SPEAKER_01 37:47

Okay, okay, right?

SPEAKER_00 37:49

Are there parts of systems that are still operating and operating well? Yes. Okay, right. And the ones that uh are um actually are utilizing uh various means in order to do the one thing you want to do. Okay, so let's take the Narcan. You can get it in the vending machine, there are public service announcements, there are trainings that a community space will offer. There are some workplaces actually that have it on site, yeah, right? Okay, um, and that that notion actually is while we are working on uh uh lessening the use of opioids, can we save people's lives? Right? That's it's built on that notion, and at some point we had enough agreement among most people that that's what we would do. So there's there's the deal, okay? Right? It's like what are the things where we have agreement among more people than not, then that's what we would do. And then how can we implement that right that would not depend on a single source or a single entity to be able to deliver it?

SPEAKER_01 39:20

Right.

SPEAKER_00 39:21

And that's part of the circumstances under which uh not only do systems uh count, right, but they work better than most.

SPEAKER_01 39:31

Yeah. So does that mean that in a time where there's a lot of uh disagreement, many opinions, or I think you know, these three to five represented in three to five positions, does that mean that um that being a condition for systems to work well, that's shaky ground to be on?

SPEAKER_00 39:49

Yes, it's very shaky ground, right? It's very shaky ground. Okay. So most of environmental regulation, for example, is built on a whole system of uh process and rules in which science is involved. And what we have is we have now uh like a disagreement as to whether or not science is to be believed. Now that's pretty fundamental, right? It's pretty fundamental. By the way, I don't quite understand that we would say that's true with environmental regulations and vaccines, but not true as to whether uh rockets will go up in the air. Okay, we somehow uh you know don't have disagreement that that is the case, and we will send rockets up in the air, right? Okay, but let's let me set that aside. Set us that aside. Okay, so if there's a fundamental disagreement as to whether science matters, okay, or we would say maybe science has mattered too much and is making decisions for us, okay, will be one school of thought, right? Okay, but in any case, when it destabilizes science, then upon that destabilization, all kinds of things interact with that. And the things that interact with that that had held science as being the bedrock of how it is you would make a decision, right? Whether or not that plant gets shut down, whether or not uh that water is safe or not, whether or not uh even whatever it is you might feel the weather is, this is what's actually happening on a uh on a longitudinal basis, right? Okay, right. When you pull that one out, that's very fundamental to many systems, okay. And that then destabilizes other things. It's you know, it's like a uh a like a 5D domino situation. Right.

SPEAKER_01 42:09

Yeah, so it it sounds like you're naming some of the features of systems that um made them reliable and dependable in a certain world that is no longer, right? And some of it is about um different worldviews as to the fundamentals, some of it is about the physical conditions, right? So I think in a previous season you made reference to the hundred-year storms affecting the potholes, right? Right. Um, what other things should we see as strains on the systems right now that we need to be aware of in order to maybe let go of some of the ways that we are trying to tinker with systems in this moment?

SPEAKER_00 42:53

Well, I would say that we have become very, very dependent upon uh rules and procedures as being the like central features of systems. Okay, right. And what that does is it makes um these systems a little brittle. Okay, it's like it's like uh we've taken out most flexibilities in order to uh be able to uh deliver everywhere in the same way, you know, so for uniformity, right? But also for things like you know, like what we said is fair. Okay, and what we would say uh would be uh efficient and uh unimpeachable use of resources, right? Right. So we we like we've we do that, we have a tendency to do that. By the way, um most fixes to systems tend to lock it down more rather than open them up and become more flexible. So let's just take that.

SPEAKER_01 44:02

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 44:03

Okay, let's just take that. Okay. So uh that it it puts a strain on ways in which we actually need more flexibility in a fast moving environment.

SPEAKER_01 44:17

Okay. Are you saying when you say lock it down more, do you mean like systems inherently have a characteristic where they're trying to preserve themselves in a kind of steady state? Or what does that mean, lock it down versus open a system?

SPEAKER_00 44:33

Yeah, so not only in a stated state, but uh steady state, but in a predictable state. Okay, right? And a state that can be audited in 400 different ways. Right. Right? Okay, in order to measure whether or not it is, you know, doing the right thing, like whatever we think the right thing, okay. Which increases when people are more suspicious about systems, okay. And ironically, makes the systems more opaque. You know, so even like uh freedom of information is like if you wanted information, like there's a vast process that you go through, okay, and which is only as good as the people who are processing it, okay. And so now we have like that whole thing, right? Congress passed a law by overwhelming votes, which never happens in a time of political right uh fights, right? Okay, where it's like it tightly held in a binary. Okay, almost never happens, but they passed a law with respect to the release of the Epstein records and files that they believed very explicitly said what the government needed to do and how to do it, and what should be re-redacted and what should not be redacted, and all of that kind of thing. And we see the myths, right, the fallout of all of that, right? Okay, um, you know, which is to say that bad actors coming into any system will wreak havoc. Okay, that's a deal.

SPEAKER_01 46:23

Yeah. Well, and since you brought it back there to this question of political systems, I think that's one of the ones where it's like almost everybody can agree now the political system isn't working. Yes. Um, and we experience that on many different levels in daily life. But I think then I have a question like, is representational democracy a system unto itself that we are reaching? Some sort of, I don't know, turn of the tide around?

SPEAKER_00 46:50

Oh my gosh. Okay, two minutes to go. And you asked me a question like that. Or okay, like maybe maybe that's too big a question.

SPEAKER_01 47:00

We can we can tease uh, you know, sprinkle pieces of that into future conversations, but okay. Well, it's it's okay.

SPEAKER_00 47:09

So let me start down the road and then let's basically say, okay, all right. Okay. Um, governance is absolutely necessary. In a place as large as this country, representational governance is one of the few ways that we have, right, in order to uh actually have the people's voices, right, uh, both heard and responded to, right? Okay, it's one of the few ways. Uh is that best done in the way that we have set it up? I think it's an open question, right? But that doesn't mean that we should scrap right governance or scrap representational democracy. Okay, now will tinkering with the system fix all our woes? No. Which is to say, right, that there is a different kind of action required on the part of people, not just showing up at the polls. Okay, we actually have to do some of the work together. We have to care for each other. We will shortly have to feed many of us that will that no system will be able to do so, but for which we have enough food in this country if we redistribute it.

SPEAKER_01 48:42

Right.

SPEAKER_00 48:42

Right? Okay, yeah, and so there will be like some aspects of functions that we had counted on systems to deliver that is leaking out at the sides, right? Right, okay, and as it leaks out at the sides, okay, what parts of it would be useful and fruitful and necessary for us to take up. I think that's gonna be fruitful ground.

SPEAKER_01 49:12

Yeah, yeah. I was confident, Norma, even if I threw a big question in there, you could land it. You stuck that landing because I I think that was a question that was, you know, was emerging, and I think that's a good place to go from here. Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 49:26

Well, um uh so letting you know that I was not good at gymnastics in high school, but there are some, you know, like uh ways in which navigation is a thing. Okay. Okay. All right, we're gonna put somersaults down for now and see whether or not we can actually uh land us before we move on. Okay, we'll be right back. Hello friends. So, you know, all of this policy geek stuff, you know, might actually make you feel a little uh tense or twisted. And when you like just massage that forehead and relax a bit. You know, just take a deep sigh. And in that, uh, what you want to do is you want to understand: look, do we still need to interact with systems? Yes, we do. We need them to be around for a while. We also need to understand that there's straining. And in their straining, when we interact with those systems, we need to bring like the practical responses that we believe that we can implement together. And implementing it together is part of the key. What can we as citizens or organizations or institutions that sit in the private sector, what parts can we play in interaction with the systems in order to move whatever it is that we need to move? We did that, we know, during the pandemic, where vaccinations effectively would not have been able to have occurred if it was only the government systems that were delivering it. It took all of us in neighborhoods, it took all of us to be able to carry out that big, big lift. And so it may not be in a pandemic now, but that doesn't mean that we're not in crisis across the board. And so in this moment, as we interact with the policy systems, you know, may we look for the practical ways forward. Don't bring a complex thing to a system. Right now, it won't be able to do it. Look for the simple steps forward, simple steps forward. And in the meantime, it's time to write a different story. It's time to actually think about the practical things that we as peoples need, communities need. How might we do it in a different formation, where we're not just the people who are dependent upon something that is straining, that has difference of differences of opinions, in which no group of people are able to be an implementation around whatever change it is that we want for a long enough period of time for that system in order to bear fruit. Understanding those circumstances, what might we begin to put into place as peoples and as communities in relationship to the various systems inside and outside, and inside and outside, and inside and outside again. So that's what we'll explore. So I hope you'll come back for the next episode in the Horizon Story. The Horizon Story podcast is produced by Bryson Hole and Sarah Demareste Rivera. Hosted and written by me, Norma Waugh. Executive producer, Naaleho Anthony, featuring Ariel Jacobson, for Collective Caceleration, Kelly Miller. For OEV TV, Ken Sato, Wesley K. Courtney Leon, Jeff Lee, and Ivy Lagavaga. For Paakai Communications, Jimmy LaSilver, Diana Hahn, Pearl Thule, Christine Matsuda, Hair and Makeup by Melody Levy, Mahalo to Kalihi, the land of my birth, ancestors, teachers, collaborators, and friends, Rosie Abrium for the support, and Scott Nine and Todge James for the encouragement. The Horizon Story is brought to you by OEVTV, copyright by Collective Acceleration. Follow us on social at the horizon story. Questions to hello at thehorizonstory.com. Visit us where you find your favorite podcast or at thehorizonstory.com.