Because I Use the Analytic Spectrum

In today’s world of 24/7 news, too many of us are willing to offer an opinion before knowing the hard facts. In cognitive psychology, this is called coming to Premature Closure. Other pitfalls include the Vividness Bias and Relying on First Impressions (See Pherson and Pherson’s Critical Thinking for Strategic Intelligence for descriptions of these biases and intuitive traps.)

One way to minimize your vulnerability to these traps is to follow the steps of the Analytic Spectrum (see graphic). The Spectrum was developed by Globalytica President Kathy Pherson to illustrate the different stages of analysis and how one stage can build on another. The four stages are Descriptive, Explanatory, Evaluative, and Estimative. The four stages also correspond to the four types of analytic products, ranging from Factsheets to National Intelligence Estimates.

The next time a national news story breaks, discipline yourself to work your way through the four stages before announcing your conclusion. Let’s see how this works using the attack on the Westminster Bridge and the Houses of Parliament in London on March 27, 2017 as an example.

Descriptive: What are the facts?
The perpetrator sped across the Westminster Bridge killing 4 people and injuring more than 50, crashed into the fence around the Houses of Parliament, and then stabbed one of the security guards to death.

Explanatory: What do the facts mean?
The perpetrator appeared intent on causing considerable human damage, knowing that his actions would probably result in his death. Was he inspired by ISIS to conduct the attack or was he simply mentally deranged?

Evaluative: Why is this important?
Is this pattern of attack becoming more frequent? Does this incident suggest I may be in more danger when I travel or whenever I am in public spaces?

Estimative: What next?
Will this type of attack become more frequent? Is the ISIS radicalization program becoming more effective in inspiring lone wolf attacks? Do we need to commit more resources to combating ISIS-type social media or to dealing with mental disorders in society?

I walked across the bridge one month after the attack and watched repairs being made to the fence around the Houses of Parliament. Life in London had returned to normal, and tourism had not been affected. Most media outlets reported that the popular response to the attack was that business should continue as usual and such aberrant attacks should not be allowed to affect personal behavior. But those using the Analytic Spectrum might be more inclined to argue that attention should be given both to combating the power of the radical extremist propaganda and to providing more effective mental health care.

Designed by Globalytica’s analytic experts, the Analytic Spectrum Quick Look is a 30-60 minute, self-paced professional development session utilizing online activities and exercises that will save the analyst time and create a more focused product for the client.

For more information on how you can access the Analytic Spectrum: Quick Look and other online learning resources, click here.

Solve the Problem with Adversarial Collaboration

Summer is the season for barbeques and poolside gatherings with family and friends, but some of us may be concerned that unintended arguments may erupt at these events. Have you ever found yourself part of a conversation that heated up quickly and accomplished nothing? Have you ever witnessed how a divisive comment sparked conflict at a family gathering? Do you feel as if it is becoming impossible—even dangerous—to talk about politics or current events in mixed company? You are not alone! The art of reasoned dialogue seems to be dying, and we need help finding a way to revive it.

One solution is to employ Adversarial Collaboration techniques. They were first developed by Richards J. Heuer, Jr. when he was working as a counterintelligence officer for the Central Intelligence Agency. At the time, Heuer found himself immersed in several highly contentious debates, and it prompted him to develop and refine some simple techniques, including:

Key Assumptions Check:  Ask your friends what basic assumptions they are making about the issue before discussing the merits of their positions or the policy options currently under consideration.
Mutual Understanding: Get your friends to agree to describe your position—and why you think that—until they get it right, and then try to describe their position—and their line of reasoning—until they say you got it right. You may be surprised by how hard this is. One key benefit is that you quickly learn what facts or “alternative facts” each side is using to buttress its case.
Joint Escalation: If the issue is of utmost importance, take some time to jointly develop two short position papers that present both points of view AND that each side can accept as an accurate rendition of their position. Then present the papers to a neutral “referee” to evaluate.
The Nosenko Approach: Build a case for your position and have your friends build a case for their positions. Then stipulate which evidence each of you believes is of critical importance in making the case, and require the others to address it when compiling their argument. Share your position papers and vote on which one makes the most sense.

Learn more about these techniques in the Adversarial Collaboration chapter of Heuer and Pherson’s Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis, 2^nd ed., available from our Analyst’s Bookshop.

If you want to know more about the man who developed these Adversarial Collaboration techniques (and many others), check out the recently-published memoir Rethinking Intelligence: The Life and Public Service of Richards J. Heuer, Jr. The 86-page memoir chronicles Heuer’s ground-breaking contributions to the intelligence profession and provides insights to the following questions:

• What makes someone susceptible to recruitment as a spy?
• How do I know I am being deceived?
• What inspired Heuer to develop the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) methodology?
• How did Heuer come to recognize the implications of cognitive bias for intelligence analysis and write Psychology of Intelligence Analysis?
• How have Structured Analytic Techniques (SATs) emerged as a new domain in intelligence analysis?

June is here – for many, it marks the end of a college career and preparation for the “real world.” Looming decisions can overwhelm a new graduate – or any of us.  For example, many new graduates must decide: Which job should I seek or choose? Which new housing arrangement works best for me?  Should I drive, bicycle, or take public transport to work? Other key decisions many of us may need to make include: Where should we go for our vacation? What options are best for my elderly parents? Using a Decision Matrix will help you, the decision maker, weigh your options analytically.

Use the Decision Matrix when you have multiple criteria for making a decision or you need to maximize a specific set of goals or preferences. The technique deconstructs a problem into its component parts and lets you see in one display all aspects of the decision process. The steps are:

1. Create a matrix and list your options across the top of the matrix.
2. List your criteria for making a decision down the left side of the matrix.
3. Assign a weight to each criterion by dividing 100 percentage points among the criteria.
4. Work across the matrix row by row distributing 10 points among the various options. The options with the most points best satisfy the criteria; the options with the fewest points least satisfy the criteria.
5. Add up the total points in each column. Your best choice should be the option with the most points.

Let’s try a simple example. You would like to get a job as an analyst, especially at an intelligence agency, and wonder what books you should read to be more competitive. You heard that many IC analysts use Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis, but it costs $70. What other options should you consider and would they be a smarter choice?

1. Purchase the most authoritative book on structured techniques that analysts often reference for $70.
2. Make yourself a better analytic thinker and writer by buying Critical Thinking for Strategic Intelligence and Analytic Writing Guide for $61.
3. Purchase a set of Guides that focus on key functions: Analytic Writing Guide, Analytic Briefing Guide, Handbook of Analytic Tools and Techniques, and Psychology of Intelligence Analysis for $73.
4. Build your network to gain access to those who may hire you by registering as a student member of two intelligence community associations (e,g,. IAFIE, INSA, AFCEA) for $70.

With four options under consideration, it is time to fill out the Decision Matrix. If you question some of the values we have provided in the matrix, change them and calculate your own personal scores.

Analysis of the Decision Matrix would reveal:

• If you want an IC job, you probably should pay the $70 for the SAT book.
• If you want any job as an analyst, either the SAT book or the Critical Thinking package would serve you well.
• If you just want to be a better analyst, you probably should buy the Guides.

Indicators are a pre-established set of observable phenomena that are reviewed periodically to track developments, identify trends, and warn of unanticipated change. They provide an initial, objective baseline that enhances the rigor and credibility of any analysis. They can also be used to validate existing hypotheses or viewpoints and assess whether a forecasted scenario is emerging.

When President Trump took office, predictions of what would occur under his Administration varied widely. Globalytica saw this uncertainty as providing an opportunity to conduct an Indicators exercise in January to assess the accuracy of our associates’ forecasts about how extensive the changes brought by the new administration might be.

The Method. Three days before President Trump was inaugurated, we surveyed 30 associates. We asked them to identify whether they are Trump Supporters or Trump Non-Supporters and to answer the following two questions:

• What three things (Indicators) would you expect to see—and would like to happen—in the first 100 days of the Trump Administration?
• What three things (Indicators) would you expect to see—and are afraid will happen—in the first 100 days of the Trump Administration?

Our associates provided about 70 anonymous responses (Indicators) to each question; the responses were sorted into two groups based on whether they were generated by Trump Supporters or Trump Non-Supporters. In Figure 1, we have captured the key Indicators generated by the survey—limiting each category to the twelve most representative responses.

Now that the Trump Administration has passed its 100-day mark, we have reviewed the four lists generated by our January exercise and scored each Indicator using a 5-point scale to reflect the degree to which the Indicator happened in the first 100 days. To ease readability, different shades of color represent high and low scores.

The Results.

• All of us saw a lot more things that we hoped would happen than things we were afraid would occur. This would suggest our levels of anxiety were too high.
• Trump Supporters saw more things they were afraid would happen actually occur than Non-Supporters.
• Trump Non-Supporters saw more of their indicators come true than Trump Supporters.

These findings are preliminary: most of the Indicators have yet to play out fully, and future developments could reverse these trends. Globalytica plans to review the Indicators at every 100-day milestone of the Trump Presidency. The Analytic Insider will track and publish the results at each milestone which will enable you to monitor the progress of this project.

For a fuller description of Indicators, order your copy of Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis, 2nd ed. here. To learn more about our associated online training opportunities, including the two-week online Critical Thinking Fundamentals course we teach monthly, visit our training page.

With FBI Director James Comey’s recent testimony confirming an active FBI investigation into whether associates of President Trump were in contact with Moscow, allegations continue to swirl around the true nature of the President’s relationship with Russia. Some see this as “sour grapes” posturing by supporters of Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton who still cannot accept the fact that Trump won the election. Others contend that a serious national security vulnerability may exist.

Advocates of either position believe there is nothing they can say that will get the other side to agree with them. But do not despair. One structured analytic technique—Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH)—has a proven record of convincing one’s adversaries to admit that they are wrong.

The traditional approach to deciding who is right is to list all the evidence and arguments that support each position and then decide who has made the strongest case. With the ACH technique you flip this approach, focusing instead on how much of the available information is inconsistent with each explanation of the behavior being observed. You then reject those explanations that have compelling inconsistent evidence. The remaining explanation—or hypothesis—that best fits with all the relevant information is most likely to be right. Usually, when people who have different positions on a given issue work the problem in this manner, they will often be persuaded that they were wrong when confronted with compelling inconsistent information—e.g., information that just should not be there if your favored hypothesis were to be correct.

Now it is your turn—How Tight is Trump with Russia?

Step 1: Generate a set of possible explanations of President Trump’s behavior—a comprehensive and mutually exclusive set of hypotheses that would explain his interaction with the Russians.

A: Strategic Vision. Trump’s pro-Russia stance reflects his strategic vision of the utility of forging a strategic alliance with Moscow to counter the threats posed by mutual antagonists such as China and ISIS.

B: The Bromance. Trump’s pro-Russia stance is a product of his genuine admiration of Russian President Putin and his no-nonsense style of governing.

C. Financial Vulnerability. Trump’s pro-Russia stance is driven by a desire to protect his financial investments in Russia and possible substantial indebtedness to Russian kleptocrats.

D. FSB Recruitment. Trump’s pro-Russia stance is evidence that Russian intelligence has recruited Trump to serve either wittingly or unwittingly as an agent of Russian influence in the West. The FSB has developed sufficient leverage over Trump (or has sufficient material to blackmail Trump), hence he is strongly inclined to promote Russian policies and support Moscow’s positions.

Some of these scenarios might look familiar. Charles Krauthammer in a 17 February Washington Post column offered two scenarios that defined the ends of a spectrum: 1) Trump as the great dealmaker who charms Putin into a Nixon-to-China bargain to destroy the Islamic state and relieve some of the financial burden of the European partnership, and 2) a Trump leadership team that is compromised by tainted business or other activities known to the Russians to whom they are now captive. Krauthammer says: “I believe neither of these scenarios, but I’m hard put to come up with alternatives. The puzzle remains.” A good strategy for solving the puzzle is to apply the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses technique.

Step 2: Make a list of all the information, key assumptions, and absence of evidence that are relevant to the issue.

Make a list of all relevant information such as all statements by Trump or his close coterie about issues that are of direct interest to Russia including NATO, the coherence of the EU, the status of Crimea, the failure of Moscow to retaliate when sanctioned by the previous US administration, etc.

Step 3: Assess each item of information to determine if it is Consistent or Inconsistent with each hypothesis. The hypothesis with the most compelling set of relevant information that is Inconsistent is the least likely to be true. The hypothesis with the least Inconsistent data is most likely to be correct.

Evaluate each item of evidence against each of the four hypotheses. Ask yourself: “if this hypothesis is correct, would I expect to observe this item of evidence?”

• Count up all the Inconsistent items of relevant information for each hypothesis and rank the hypotheses from most to least likely reflecting how many Inconsistents each hypothesis has.
• Starting with the hypothesis with the most Inconsistents; assess whether the Inconsistents make a compelling case for dismissing that hypothesis.
• The most likely explanation for Trump’s behavior will be the hypothesis with the least—or no—Inconsistents.

More information on the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses technique can be found in Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis, Chapter 7, available here.

It is becoming harder and harder to know what you can believe on the news. Advances in information technology and the explosion of social media postings have created a news environment that is exceptionally easy to exploit for both profit and political advantage. The best way to protect yourself is to adopt this three-stage approach:

Identify. The best question to ask yourself when reading a news story is “Is this report too good to be true?” Stories emanating from a less practiced deceiver almost always fall into this category. Other Deception Detection questions to ask when dealing with a more sophisticated deceiver are:

• Was the information received at a critical point in my decision making process?
• Would accepting the information cause me to extend or divert significant resources?
• Does believing the information require me to alter a key assumption or change a judgment?
• Would the originator have a lot to win or lose should I decide the report is true?
• Does the deceiver have a feedback channel that would illuminate how successful the deception was?
• Does the information conflict with other reporting on the topic?
• Does this source have a history of generating questionable or biased reports?

Categorize. Fake news comes in many flavors.  If you want to distinguish fake news from real news reporting, a good question to ask is “What is motivating the author?” The identity of the author usually is a good indication of how much you need to worry:

• Fake News is usually generated by individual entrepreneurs to mislead a reader for personal or financial gain; the purpose is to attract the viewer to ads thereby generating revenue for the originator of the story.
• False or Fraud News is purposely intended to mislead the reader, most often for partisan political purposes. The objective is to provide incorrect information that confirms the readers’ biases and further hardens mental mindsets.
• Deception is the intentional action by an adversary to influence the perceptions, decisions, or actions of the recipient to the advantage of the deceiver. The better the deception the less likely you are to detect it.
• Active Measures are Russian deception operations intended to manipulate the perceptions or actions of individual decision makers, the public, and governments to influence the course of world events. RT (Russia Today) is a global news network based in Moscow which is a good example of this type reporting.

Avoid. What can you do to avoid being deceived?  Here are some Deception Detection steps you can take:

• Avoid relying on only one source of information or stream of reporting.
• Seek reporting from those closest to the event.
• Do not rely exclusively on what someone says (verbal intelligence). Look for material evidence that would back up the report.
• Consider a full set of hypotheses that could explain what is occurring.
• Look for a pattern where a source’s reporting initially appears to be plausible but consistently turns out later on to be wrong.

The chances of being deceived by fake news are growing every day. Facebook, Google, and other social media sites are busy developing ways to screen out fake news, but the task is daunting. Until such algorithms are perfected, the best strategy is to stop and ask yourself the questions listed above before retweeting or forwarding a “really great story” to a friend or colleague.

For a fuller description of Deception Detection, order your copy of Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis, 2nd ed. here.

The just-published Guide is written for analysts and managers in the government and the private sector who want to enhance their interpersonal communications and briefing skills. Policymakers and business executives are showing a growing preference for oral presentations and digital displays on tablets. The Guide takes a practical and experience-based approach to teaching briefing skills. Key features include the Effective Briefer’s Checklist, the four traits of a successful briefer, how to brief officials with fixed mindsets, and tips for communicating over the Internet.

Much has been asserted—and little yet proven—about alleged Russian efforts to develop both witting and unwitting agents of influence and collaboration in the United States. If you were Russia, what strategies would you employ? How would you evaluate your prospects for success? Try using Red Hat Analysis to answer these questions. This technique consists of putting yourself in adversaries’ shoes and asking how they would behave.

As an adversary, your first step is to learn everything you can about your targets and their business. This can most easily be done when they travel to your country. Any government official traveling to Russia, Cuba, or North Korea has been warned that their movements and hotel room will be under watch. My wife and I have observed this surveillance first-hand; she during her many trips to Moscow and me in my travels to Cuba—including a surprise visitor to my room by a Cuban intelligence agent. I awoke at 2:00 a.m. to find a man going through my open suitcase next to my bed; he smiled at me and then exited the room. Castro had communicated his message effectively. (Note to readers: For these reasons, always travel with a “clean computer” and store your information on a removable thumb drive that never leaves your possession. Assume people will access your room—and can access a hotel safe as well.)

The second tried-and-true strategy is to find a way to compromise your target so that he or she can be subtly cajoled—or even blackmailed—into cooperating with you. This can take the form of asking targets to write a paper to make you smarter about their subject, to set up an “exchange of information” as part of a mutually beneficial partnering relationship, or getting them to engage in illicit acts that are videotaped.

If you approach this from the perspective of Red Hat Analysis, you quickly learn that the process of making someone an unwitting or witting collaborator involves a lot more than just offering them money. Richards J. Heuer, Jr. notes in an unclassified study he undertook for the Defense Department some years ago that most people who provide information to a foreign power appreciate monetary rewards, but their driving motive usually is different. His research shows that espionage is also a means to satisfy compelling emotional needs; many are drawn to it as an expression of power to influence events, an outlet for anger, a means of revenge, or a source of excitement.

Heuer documents that people who become agents of a foreign power usually have more pressing emotional than financial needs. History has shown that if you are using Red Hat Analysis to think like an adversary, you would want to recruit people who possess many of the following character weaknesses:

• Anti-social behavior. Lack of respect for commonly accepted rules of society.
• Impulsiveness/immaturity. Actions are motivated by quick, easy gratification of desires and failure to consider the consequences of one’s actions.
• Narcissism. The tendency to view the world only from the perspective of how it affects them, with related traits of grandiosity, a sense of entitlement, and a lack of empathy.
• Inability to make and keep a commitment. The inability to form enduring emotional commitments.
• Paranoia. A pervasive distrust and suspiciousness of other people; can easily come to view his employer or the US Government as the enemy.
• Vindictiveness. Someone who seeks revenge for real or imagined wrongs; a trait found in narcissists whose self-esteem is based on a grossly inflated opinion of their own abilities.
• Risk seeking. Impulsive or irresponsible behavior that leads someone to gloss over risks or think they do not apply to them because they are so clever or talented.

For a fuller description of Red Hat Analysis, order your copy of Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis, 2nd ed. To learn more about how adversaries target people for recruitment, click here to access the DoD Adjudicative Desk Reference, 2014.

2016 was a year of surprises for many of us, including the Brexit vote, election of Donald Trump as US President, the impact of Fake News, and a barrage of terrorist attacks. In the wake of these events, we can’t help but wonder what the coming year will bring.

What do you THINK will happen? Will your hopes be realized or your fears be confirmed? When you make New Year’s resolutions, you write them down so you can remember exactly what you thought on January 1. Let’s see how accurate your predictions are by writing down this week what you expect the next six months will bring, and then track what actually happens.

Baseline your expectations by making a list of things (observable events or Indicators) that you believe are likely to happen over the next six months. For example:

• The interest rates will rise by 1 percent by 30 April.
• All of President Trump’s Cabinet appointments will be confirmed.
• Two senior Trump appointments will leave office in three months.
• Marie Le Pen will win the first round of the 2017 French presidential election on 23 April but lose the run-off election on 7 May.

Make a list of five Indicators with five positive outcomes (what you hope will happen) in the next six months. Next, make a list of five Indicators(observable events) with five negative outcomes (what you are afraid will happen). At the beginning of every month, go back and see which indicators came true and which did not. If most or all of your Indicators came true, more people should be listening to you. If you were wrong, then go back and challenge some of the key assumptions you are making today.

Make your lists this week—it will only take a few minutes. Review them on 1 February; are they still valid?  Review them again on 1 March and on 1 April, etc. Compare your projections to what actually is happening. I can guarantee that several months from now you will be surprised by what you wrote down in early January!

To learn more about how to use Indicators, check out our classes or order your copy of Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis, 2nd ed.

New Year’s Resolution: sharpen your analytic skills in 2017!

Globalytica is launching its new analytic training program with the two-week online course: Critical Thinking Fundamentals from February 7-21. This course introduces learners to the most common cognitive biases and intuitive traps, various critical thinking processes and structured analytic techniques, and how to use these techniques in the production process. 25% off registration with code: New25Insider

Click here for details.

Globalytica wishes our worldwide network of clients and partners a very Happy New Year! To date, nearly 30 government organizations and universities, a dozen Fortune 100 companies, and several global banks have tapped our expertise in building analytic cultures. In 2016, Globalytica conducted Strategic Foresight Analysis workshops around the globe. We have taught courses in universities in the US, Spain, Germany, Denmark and the UK. Our book sales continue to grow; we reached 22 countries last year, including Greenland, Singapore, Brazil, Austria, Haiti and New Zealand. Globalytica looks forward to expanding our outreach even more in 2017.

The primary task of an analyst is to help policymakers and other decision makers make good decisions based on the best available information and most compelling logic. This task becomes much more challenging, however, when the recipient of the analysis bases his or her decisions on pre-established, firmly held, and often immutable precepts or world views. Such individuals are usually more interested in imposing their view on the world—or on the environment in which they operate—rather than trying to better understand it. They see data as useful ammunition they can cite to demonstrate the correctness of their approach or predispositions. Information that contradicts their view is usually quickly dismissed or simply ignored.

When asked to provide analytic support to such individuals, many of whom could be described as ideologues, what is an analyst to do? When dealing with individuals with strongly held views or even “the answer,” successful analysts take the time to develop multiple strategies for communicating their analytic message.

1. When an official asks for specific information or intelligence to justify his or her position, frame the request in a broader context, providing the recipient with the data directly relevant to the request as well as any associated information and analysis that is contradictory. In essence, the task is to tee up both the pros and the cons in a comprehensive framework and then allow the decisionmaker to act based on a fully informed set of facts and analysis.
2. Take the initiative to generate “stand-back” strategic looks at a situation, identifying key drivers and establishing an overarching framework for understanding the dynamics at play. Once such a framework is established, the tactical disagreements over how to interpret specific items of information become far easier to resolve.
3. Rely more heavily on structured analytic techniques—such as Indicators, Argument Mapping, Deception Detection, Analysis of Competing Hypotheses, and Premortem Analysis—that can be used to demonstrate in a compelling way why the official’s analysis is flawed.

An analyst should never refrain from providing hard-hitting, objective, and well-supported analysis, even when the message is likely to be poorly received. Engaging a decision maker with an entrenched world view in a policy debate, however, is both inappropriate and almost always counterproductive. Often such conversations only make the client more obdurate and less likely to seek analytic support.

One of the worst mistakes an analyst can make is to self-censor. Self-censorship can take two forms. First is tweaking the analysis to make it more acceptable to the client in the hope of retaining access and sustaining a dialogue. Second, and more pernicious, is not sending the analysis to the client—or even not doing the analysis at all—because you believe it will be ignored or dismissed. Analysts should never discount the possibility that a combination of hard facts and sharply drawn analysis that competes with a decision maker’s views may over time allow the policymaker to “discover” on his or her own the merit of a contrary view.

To read more about the techniques described above, order your copy of Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis (2nd Ed.) here.

Introduction to Intelligence Analysis 101

With the surprising result of the US Presidential election, a fundamental question is whether the American system of governance will undergo a major transformation. One tried-and-true technique for addressing such a question is Strategic Foresight Analysis. This article applies the Alternative Futures method to identify major drivers—forces, factors, or trends that will determine how the system will evolve—and pair these drivers to generate alternative scenarios of how the future will evolve. In this case, two key drivers are identified and displayed on a 2-by-2 matrix. For each quadrant of the matrix, a unique trajectory can be identified defined by the two ends of each spectrum.
When analyzing the current US political landscape, several drivers appear to have played a major role in the presidential campaign:

• Increased popular anxiety over social change, the pace of globalization, and introduction of new technologies
• Decreased trust in institutions and news reporting
• Heightened focus on personalities rather than issues
• The impact of big money in the wake of the US Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling
• The diminished influence of political parties
• The growing influence of social media as a political mobilization tool

These forces and factors can be represented in large part by two independent spectrums:

• Who is best positioned to leverage political capital?  Institutions (to include political parties and Congress) or personalities (to include rich candidates and major donors)?
• How will decisions be made and future conflicts be resolved? Through democratic processes or by more authoritarian means?

Arraying these spectrums on an X and a Y axis (see graphic below) enables the generation of four mutually exclusive stories or scenarios represented in each quadrant of the matrix. Each scenario represents a mind-stretching but plausible potential trajectory representing how the US political system of governance could change radically in the next ten or more years.

Established Multi-Party System:  Over the next decade or so, the Republican Party could fracture into two or three parties, the Democratic Party could split into two parties, and new political movements could emerge. Because political parties are not mentioned in the US Constitution, a move from a two-party to a multi-party system would not require a Constitutional Amendment. The Electoral College, however, will certainly come under increased scrutiny now that two Presidential candidates—Al Gore and Hillary Clinton—have won the popular vote but were denied the Presidency in the Electoral College balloting. If multiple national parties emerged, each would have to develop independent political machines and sources of funding, and many longstanding administrative procedures for conducting elections at the state level would be revised. Pressure could also emerge to move to a parliamentary system of governance.

One Party Rule.  If only one of the two dominant parties fractures, the dominant party would increasingly win elections against a fragmented opposition. Over time, it would gain unchallenged control over most political processes and budgets. Mexico offers a good historical example of this when the PRI used to dominate the state. As this scenario develops, the ruling party would become more and more susceptible to corruption, but the populace might prefer a more autocratic—yet still “democratically” based—approach to today’s increasingly dysfunctional two-party system.

Fascism. Growing levels of social discomfort and increasing political polarization accompanied by outbreaks of anti-administration violence could open the door for the emergence of a “political savior” to impose stability on the system. Such a candidate would tap nativist sentiments, offer simple solutions, undermine or even subvert existing institutions, and create new vehicles for promoting a cult of personality.

Celebrity Democracy.  As the influence of political parties wanes, candidates for political office would increasingly be drawn from the ranks of millionaires, celebrities, or charismatic individuals supported by extremely rich donors. Political campaigns would reflect increasingly sophisticated advertising techniques. Democratic processes would be retained, but political parties would no longer orchestrate who runs for high elective office. Success would be measured mostly by a candidate’s “popularity” as reflected in polling before the election and his or her approval rating after the election.

A simple analysis of the matrix reveals that the more the key forces and factors of change drive US politics to the top-right corner of the matrix (and away from the bottom-left corner) the healthier the political system. The other two quadrants represent less optimal alternative paths that may not have been previously considered but merit serious exploration. They could be seen as either temporary way stations in a move toward a multi-party system or as stepping stones to an authoritarian or even fascist system of governance.