The first and most important plank in the presidential platform is positioning in the marketplace:

1. The American Enterprise Model must be dedicated to positioning as Generator in the Global Marketplace.

For America, this means abandonment of the pre-potency of the Multinational Corporations (currently endorsed by this administration) and the return to the basic model of The Entrepreneurial-Driven Free Enterprise Model (see Figure 2). As may be noted, this model adopts the “Generative-Innovator” positioning in the marketplace.

Figure 2. The American Free Enterprise Model

As may also be noted, this Free Enterprise Model requires “Participative Governance” as instrumental to the success of generativity and innovation. This means the enlightened citizenry is empowered and dedicated to “Generative Innovation” in the global marketplace.

Finally, Interdependent Cultural Relating is dedicated to enabling Participative Governance to accomplishing The Free Enterprise Functions. In other words, Cultural Relating empowers Participative Governance to direct and support Free Enterprise.

Perhaps most important are the developmental and cumulative processing systems undergirding the phases of marketplace positioning:

• Attenuator bolstered only by S–R Conditioned Responding Systems;
• Commoditizer undergirded by S–O–R Discriminative Learning Systems;
• Commercializer empowered by S–P–R Generative Thinking Systems;
• Innovator empowered by S–OP–R Generative Organizational Processing Systems;
• Generator empowered by S–MP–R Generative Marketplace Processing Systems.

In summary, Generative Economic Positioning yields the Prosperity that the other components and processes support. In turn, Participative Governance engages the Participation and Cultural Relating insures the Peace required for Generative Free Enterprise Economics.

The real reason why the tax rebate has been agreed upon as an economic stimulus package is that it is good for politicians in an election year. Such a stimulus package has never worked before and will never work in the future. As economic conditions worsen, we must cease playing in “the baby pool” and return again to swim in “the adult’s ocean.” Welcome to my world of Generativity, something that I have proven to be vital to productivity and growth.

Generativity is a processing system that enables us to “think outside the box,” to “see beyond the high beams.” It emphasizes expanding and then narrowing representations that evolve from linear and two-dimensional information to multidimensional, curvilinear and changeable information. Generativity transforms raw data into preferred modes of representing information which are most closely aligned with the nature of the phenomena themselves. In short, generativity creates images of “something more” where there was only data in the form of “nothing but.”

The platform for Generativity Positioning may be viewed in Figure 1. As may be noted, it characterizes all elements of human endeavor with the “generativity” adjective: economy, community, organization, education, governance. In other words, the driving force is generative human processing.

The Generativity Platform begins with The Generative Economy. This is an Entrepreneurial-driven Free Enterprise Economy. It generates the Prosperity upon which the other Pillars of Civilization are based: Participation in Governance, Peace in Cultural Relating.

In this context, the Generative Economy is supplemented by the Prosperous Community. Within that community, interdependently processing productive organizations are implemented by creative thinking school graduates. Finally, our generative, growth-oriented governance is empowered by enlightened leadership (think “We the People”) who engage in Nation-Building.

What makes this Generativity Platform different from all other political proposals is that it is derived from “actionable architecture” and “operational technologies.” It is not simply conceptual: for example, candidates talking about taking finances from one pot (the war) and putting them in another pot (the domestic agenda). In other words, this platform is based on projects that have been validated and are, therefore, predictable in their effects.

Figure 1. The Generativity Platform

Generativity is the only stimulus package that will work for America! Generativity or creativity in all areas of human endeavor alone can bring America back to its leadership role. Generativity must be the backbone of the presidential platform which defines all leadership priorities for America now at the beginning of the 21st century.

This may not be the most strange presidential campaign in America’s history, even though it has the following:

• The first serious woman candidate;
• The first serious black candidate;
• The first serious ex-POW candidate.

Perhaps the strangest presidential campaign was the first; that of 1800, following George Washington’s retirement in 1797. Adams, the sitting president, and Hamilton, the self-appointed capitalistic heir to Washington, distrusted the “unchecked” masses and their populist leaders, Jefferson, Madison, and Burr who sought an agrarian democratic society and endorsed Paine’s “Rights of Man.” Sounds like our Democratic “Socialists” versus our Republican “Capitalists” in the current election, doesn’t it?!

There is one thing missing that was present until 1797. There was a “Thinking President,” one who modeled all of the conditions that have gone on to make America great. His name was Washington.

Before and during his terms in office (1789–1797), George Washington modeled all of the conditions of a “Thinking President:”

These were the principles that dictate our “Freedom Scores:” Cultural Relating, Participative Governance, Free Enterprise.

Regarding our Freedom Scores, we offer the following substantive dimensions of “The Free Enterprise Model” modeled by a “Thinking President” (see Figure 1):

• Entrepreneurial Enterprise,
• Enlightened Citizenry,
• Interdependent Relating.

Deductively-modeled, the Policy-Making Cell that is dedicated to positioning in the Global Marketplace is “The 5-5-5- Cell.” This is where enlightened Policy Markers generate the conditions that ensure “The Pillars of Prosperity.” Of course, there are requirements for Generative Processing Systems as well as Continuous Organizational Realignment Systems dedicated to accomplishing the Entrepreneurial Enterprise, Participative Governance, and Cultural Relating goals.

Figure 1. The Free Enterprise Model

In summary, the Free Enterprise Model ensures achieving, once again, global leadership in “The Pillars of Civilization:” Peace, Participation, Prosperity.

This, then, is “The Thinking President’s Positioning:”

Entrepreneurial enterprise functions are achieved by enlightened governance participation components enabled by interdependent cultural relating processes.

This is “The Freedom Mission:” it may be rotated for the different civilization functions of Peace and Participation.

For a “Thinking President,” this means that the current American Enterprise Model (see Figure 2) must once again implement Generative-Innovator Positioning. As may be viewed, American Enterprise leads in the GICCA Marketplace. In other terms, Generativity drives Free Enterprise Economics, requires Free Participative Governance, and is enabled by Interdependent Cultural Relating.

Figure 2. The American Enterprise Model in the Global Marketplace

Freedom Scores

The Freedom Scores for a Thinking President may be viewed in Table 5. He or she strives for the highest levels of Freedom (Levels 4.0 and 5.0):

• Interdependency-driven Collaboration in Cultural Relating;
• Enlightened Citizen-driven Representative Governance;
• Entrepreneurial-driven Capitalistic Enterprise.

As may be noted, while the highest levels are not always possible, they are always the drivers.

TABLE 5: Freedom Scores for the Thinking President

In summary, if you are unhappy with the ratings that we have published, then learn the scales in the earlier edition of “The Thinking President” (freedomblog.com, January, 2008, pp. 15–40) and analyze the candidates’ positions and platforms and formulate your own “Freedom Scores for Candidates.”

Better still, demand that the candidates deal realistically with the validated conditions of The American Experience: Cultural Relating, Participative Governance, Free Enterprise!

The “Darkest Hour” is upon us. This is an expression employed by both President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchhill at the beginning of The Second World War. It also applies to this campaign, for the “American Ship-of-State” has veered badly off-course.

The person who takes the helm will determine the future of America and the world:

• Whether we will actualize the brilliant “Promise of America?”
• Or be discarded on the “trash-heap” of history along with a multitude of other failed experiments in totalitarian control!

The final irony is this: McCain was trained by the military academies to protect and build up the American system that the Alinsky-trained Democratic candidates were trained to attack and tear down. It should be a confrontational campaign between Socialism and Capitalism!

John McCain is not considered to be a “true conservative.” Indeed, he is considered to be a “true anti-conservative.” And this comes as criticism from the “Right,” not praise from the “Left!”

For conservatives, McCain’s flirtations with the liberals are “sinful:”

• “Comprehensive Immigration” with Ted Kennedy, providing a path to citizenship for “illegal immigrants;”
• “Campaign Finance Law” with Russ Feingold, offering “incumbent protection” since it declared it a “criminal act” for citizens to use their free speech or advertising within 90 days before a federal election;
• “Global Warming” and “Energy-Rationing” sponsorship along with many liberals, including his campaign opponents.

Hugh Hewitz, a radio talk-show host, summarized conservative criticism succinctly:

“McCain is a great American, a lousy Senator, and a terrible Republican.”

With friends like this, who needs enemies? It is a wonder that he is still in the race!

Nevertheless, McCain marches forward with an agenda that might be characterized as “Fortress America!” “Security is Job One!”

“The first responsibility of the next president will be to keep this country safe from (the) enemy.”

There is, indeed, good reason to expect that our enemies will attempt to strike once again on our homeland.

Aside from our terroristic enemies, McCain has sought relational solutions with other cultures. Witness the “Comprehensive Immigration” proposal that provides “amnesty” for Mexicans seeking American citizenship.

Regarding government-centered economic development, McCain stands in direct opposition with his campaign opponents:

“The sad failures of government-centered economic development have proven that private markets are the only hope for sustained prosperity.”

Regarding taxes, McCain has proposed that the “tax code” should be more “pro-growth” in order to enhance our international competitiveness. Relatedly, he expresses a profound commitment to true fiscal conservatism:

“Congress just passed another omnibus appropriations bill stuffed with nearly 10,000 earmarks costing about $10 billion. Washington needs to get the message. No Earmarks.”

McCain has delivered the message.

In this context, McCain looks to market-driven solutions to social benefits ideals:

“This means reducing spending on healthcare programs, and reducing the threat that higher healthcare costs present to our businesses and families—while maintaining the quality of our medical science.”

Relatedly, McCain’s platform speaks in sharp relief about entrepreneurial leadership:

“Hard work, ingenuity, and entrepreneurialism are a proven route to meeting one’s goals and providing for children and family. (We are) committed to preserving their freedom, ensuring that they are not shackled by excessive regulation, starved of risk capital or taxed into submission.”

Freedom Scores

In summary, we may view the Freedom Scores for McCain in Table 4. He is rated as follows:

• Independent in relating which appears to be McCain’s lifestyle—competing or cooperating depending on his discriminations of performance (3.0).
• Independent in governance because McCain believes that the government should do its job in supporting the private sector and should use less of America’s money in doing it (3.0).
• Entrepreneurial in enterprise because McCain believes “entrepreneurs lie at the heart of innovation, growth, and advancing prosperity (5.0).

TABLE 4: Freedom Scores for McCain

Overall, McCain’s Mean Freedom Score is 3.7, rounded off to “4.” Driven by Entrepreneurial Enterprise, he seeks to Align Government Resources with private sector initiatives and Cultural Relating according to their ability to contribute to the American Prosperity Mission.

In the final analysis, McCain appears to be positioned at the “extreme middle” rather than the “far right.” McCain is dedicated to what a patriot believes America needs—not necessarily what Americans want. He continues to emphasize American security and supports extensions to wars as his highest priorities. These priorities may be summarized in the terms of another, earlier Arizona Senator:

…extremism in defense of liberty is no vice!
…(And) moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!
– Barry Goldwater

No one has been enabled more than Barack Obama by the Bush administration’s incompetency. Indeed, “enabled” is the signifying verb, for Obama has an addiction—a very large addiction—a “tax-and-spend” addiction.

Somehow it seems appropriate that Obama’s “Virtual Opportunity” is attractive to the “Virtual Generations”—X’ers, Y’s and Z’s. Many of them live a schizoid existence “online and in-line.”

It also seems appropriate that Obama’s “Community Organization” specialty would motivate these seemingly marginalized and forgotten generations. He will excite them with words of a revival meeting: “It is our turn, now!” And they will be picked up and taken to vote (if they’re old enough): “Going my way?”

To his credit, Obama preaches “Community Relating.” So long as you embrace his process, he will engage you in the community. If you are individualists as are many Americans, he will simply impose the community’s will upon you—“Alinsky Style!”

In short, Obama’s organizations will march to open or close any offices and elect or defeat any office-holders. There is no place for freedom impulses let alone Libertarian attitudes of individual freedom!

Obama has now revealed his plan for “BIG GOVERNMENT:”

• A “Green-Energy Agency;”
• An “Infrastructure Investment Bank;”
• Expanded “Universal Health Care;”
• “Reopening of Trade Deals” to raise the barriers to Free Trade;
• “Regulating Profits” for Pharmaceuticals, Health Insurers, and Energy Corporations;
• “Establishing Mortgage-Interest Tax Credits;”
• “Expanding Numbers of People Receiving Earned-Income Tax Credits (EITC);
• “Tripling the EITC Benefit for Minimum-Wage Workers.”
• With more to come once he advocates on behalf of his community groups!

The Obama projections are already approaching one trillion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000).

Two questions:

1. Did anyone you know participate in helping to formulate his agenda?
2. How do you feel about having the costs imposed upon you and your progeny for generations to come?

Again, “This Economics Thing” is simple for Obama: “Just close down the military operations and shift the funds to the community.”

Regarding the peace dividend, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded that the costs for maintaining a military presence in the Middle East “would total $1.055 trillion over the 2008–2017 period.” (Check it out!)

The other source of funding for Obama is raising the taxes on the wealthy: According to a December 2007 CBO study, the top 20% of households paid over 86% of individual federal income taxes and nearly 70% of all federal taxes. (Check it out!)

In this regard, entrepreneurism is given “short shrift.” Entrepreneurism apparently is viewed as a government-subsidized, affirmative-action initiative to transform the unemployed into profit-making entrepreneurs (“subsidized risk-taking” is the oxymoron). Nothing about learning to think, having an idea, or even studying something—anything! Can’t get there from here!

Freedom Scores

In summary, we may view the Freedom Scores for Obama in Table 3. He is rated as follows:

• Collaborative relating with the caveat that Alinsky’s “Community Organization” dictates collaborating to manipulate for the benefit of the righteously-deserving underclass. (4.0)
• Authoritarian in governance because his plan reflects the failed Social Engineering Programs of the past. (2.0)
• Control in enterprise because there is not one iota of evidence for his comprehension of the private sector’s contribution to community well-being (this is a handicap for a person who never held a “real job” in the private sector). (1.0)

TABLE 3: Freedom Scores for Obama

Overall, Obama’s Mean Freedom Score is 2.3, rounded off to “2.” He is dedicated to Collaborative Cultural Relating which he seeks to achieve by employing Authoritarian Governance and “Controlled Free Enterprise” (an oxymoronic idea).

Once again, we return to the simple theme of Socialism versus Capitalism:

“You cannot distribute what you did not generate; e.g., wealth!”

To sum, Obama is going to bring to America what he brought to his communities: “Virtual Opportunities.” (Check his record out!)

How about “Data-Based Policy” as an alternative?

In the final analysis for Obama, Community Organizing is all about him getting elected. There is no sense of any respect for the effective ingredients for making America the greatest country in the history of civilization.

No one has done more for the candidates on the left than the president on the right. His failures have emboldened all of the left’s socialist causes.

Hillary Clinton is running for president to bring to the White House the voices of the victims of a “wasteful capitalistic system:”

“Simply put, since 2001, our economy has failed the shared prosperity test, and we need decisive, experienced leadership to get us back on the right track.”

To her credit, at least, she claims to relate across cultures to “tune-in” on their needs:

“If we listen to the voices of the American people, we can find a common ground on solutions to provide economic security, fight poverty, and move toward balanced budgets.”

Has she no knowledge of life before 1993? Does she not understand the ingredients of socioeconomic success of the Reagan administration? Does she not know that her economic proposals violate those ingredients and replicate the mistakes of both Bush administrations (increasing taxes, G.H.W.) and uncontrolled spending (W.)?

The other thing about listening is the way Clinton listens. This is no open-ended “Get, Give & Merge Images” session. This is adversarial, take-sides, “Ends Justify the Means” ideology conceived by Clinton’s guru, Saul Alinsky, a Communist Ideologist.

So anyone trained in the Alinsky Approach will listen for key words that signal “Relate or Manipulate.” Carefully guarded, probably in one of the vaults at Wellsley University is Clinton’s Senior Thesis extolling the virtues of her guru: “There is Only the Fight… An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.”

What is so sad is that Clinton does not confess to her immaturity in choosing this simplistic guru.

In this context, Clinton eschews measures of economic success as “dry statistics:”

“Rather, success means an economy that allows those at the bottom to work their way into the middle class, without pushing anyone out.”

Does she not know the data from the last decade?! In one decade, 91 percent of wage earners have risen from the bottom five percent into the lower middle class!!!

Nowhere have the failures of the current Bush administration “teed up the ball” for the democrats more than Clinton’s now-standardized social proposals—health care, education, job creation.

Clinton’s advisors seem to assume that there is a one-to-one correspondence in transferring funding from the War Chest to the Domestic Chest. (Check it out: They will be lucky to obtain ten cents on the dollar!)

Clinton assumes that rescinding “the tax cuts for the wealthy” will enrich the treasury. (Check it out: The top 20% pay over 86% of the taxes.)

Perhaps the greatest failure of Clinton’s proposals is the neglect of the entrepreneurs who historically drove the American Free Enterprise System. (Once again, the Bush administration’s sponsorship of Multinational Corporations has already severely wounded American-style entrepreneurial-driven capitalism.)

While paying passing attention to controlling waste and corruption and restoring fiscal responsibility, Clinton neglects the taxation, regulation, and starvation (of risk capital) of entrepreneurs. (Check it out: Entrepreneurs account for well over 80% of all innovations as well as a similar percentage of new job creation.)

Freedom Scores

In summary, we may view the Freedom Scores for Clinton in Table 2. She is rated as follows:

• Independent in relating indicates that she can choose to be cooperative or competitive (3.0).
• Authoritarian in governance reflects the “We Know What’s Good for You” of “Momma Governance!” (2.0).
• Command in enterprise reflects the Command-and-Control Economic Systems of benefits-driven enterprise (2.0).

TABLE 2: Freedom Scores for Clinton

Overall, Clinton’s Average or Mean Freedom Score is 2.3, rounded off to “2.” She is dedicated to accomplishing social good through Authoritarian Governance and Command-and-Control Economics empowered by Cooperative Cultural Relating.

To return to the Socialism versus Capitalism theme:

• A well-run Socialist System (Clinton) is probably as good as a poorly run Capitalist System (Bush).
• Even a well-run Socialist System requires the generation of the wealth that it is distributing.

That is the caveat in “The Clinton System:”

“We cannot share what we did not create!”

It is traditional to contrast Europe and the U.S.A. on socioeconomic principles:

“Europe knows where it is going and is in no hurry to get there!”

“America does not know where it is going and is in a great hurry to get there.”

There is now a significant mutation: Two of the candidates would like to adopt the European model for socialism and still get there in a hurry.

The results of the Freedom Scores for candidates are in:

• The Democrats—both of them—want to adopt the European model of socialism. They believe that they are generating new wealth when they expand old federal agencies and create new ones. They point to the new jobs “created” by government financing in “infrastructure-building” and “greening.” They do not understand that government only redistributes wealth which was generated by the private sector. You cannot distribute wealth that you did not generate!
• The Republicans, in turn, while concentrating upon Internal and External Security, have emphasized Entrepreneurial-driven Free Enterprise. Viewing government-centered economic development as “sad failures,” Republicans believe that private sector initiatives are the only hope for sustained prosperity. They believe “that government should do only those things that we cannot do individually, should tax no more than is necessary, and should spend only on genuine national priorities.”

Freedom Scores

The Freedom Scores are based on extensive research of the conditions of The American Experience which have demonstrated positive and significant relationships with “The Pillars of Civilization:” ^{1, 2}

Here are the Freedom Scores for the Bush administration (see Table 1). All are Level 1.0 Scores:

• “His secretive and enigmatic style of relating has produced a dependent rather than an interdependent culture!”
• “His authoritarian governance has produced an intimidated rather than an enlightened citizenry!”
• “His chain-of-command economy has enabled the multinational corporations to displace our tradition of entrepreneurial enterprise.”

The Democrats’ conclusions: “We can do as well as he can!”

The truth is that they can. Anybody can!

Table 1: Freedom Scores for Bush

The 2008 Campaign can only be viewed in the context of Bush’s “Failed Conservatism:”

Against this dark record, amateurs as well as pros may look good transitionally. Be assured of this: The solution must be as extreme as the crisis—and in America it cannot be socialistic!

Perhaps the most powerful illustration of “Reasoning with Images” occurred in the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman in the late 1930s and early 1940s. In this case, it was not so much their direct thinking as what these appointed executives set into motion.

“The Manhattan Project” was a great undertaking which, if successful, could set the world free of tyranny and totalitarianism. Stimulated by initiatives of Baruch and Einstein, the project was dedicated to beating the Axis Powers, initially Germany and ultimately Japan, in a race “to explode the atomic bomb.” All manner of explosives scientists and technologists were engaged. Indeed, all manner of experts were engaged—unsuccessfully, we must add!

It was not successful until Robert Oppenheimer, director of the project, was approached by a marginal junior scientist who suggested the following: “We must learn to implode the atomic bomb!” Because Oppenheimer was a Talmudic scholar, he was able to reconsider the methodology of the mission.

“The Manhattan Project” took a “U-Turn” in the road. The world was made safe for cultural relating, participative governance, and entrepreneurial enterprise. We are once again at such crossroads!

For thinking people, this means that the current model of American Enterprise must once again implement Generative Innovator positioning.

The march of civilization is the march of freedom. Free enterprise has brought us entrepreneurial capitalism and free markets. Participative governance has given us democratic governments and individual rights. Cultural relating has yielded human rights, meritocracy and social security. The human benefits are awesome to calculate.

And yet the march of civilization is not without costs to its promulgators. The treatment of the U.S. in the global marketplace is consistent with the adage, “No good deed goes unpunished!” Until the 21st century, America has been the source of more than 90% of the generative breakthroughs in science and the innovative variations in technologies. Still, its citizens are not the beneficiaries of their intellectual processing.

Take the case of Intel’s $2.5 billion semiconductor chip fabrication plant being built in China. “Innovated in America—Commercialized Elsewhere!” is the new trade paradigm. There are as many possible manipulations to ensure the benefits of creativity as there are criminal machinations to steal intellectual property. But there is only one enduring leadership paradigm: Generativity! This is the fuel for “The Roadmap to Freedom.”

American Enterprise leads in the GICCA Marketplace. In other terms, Generativity drives Free Enterprise Economics, requires Free Participative Governance, and is enabled by Interdependent Cultural Relating.

Figure 4. The American Enterprise Model in the Global Marketplace

If we generate entrepreneurially, we can drive markets commercially. This means that we are continuously changing the marketing paradigm and the playing field on which it is enacted. Remember, Generators are aligned with change! We can “Reverse any ‘U-Turn’.”

In order to continue to exercise Generative Leadership, we must follow the “Roadmap to the Freedom Functions—Peace, Participation, Prosperity.

• Interdependently-driven Cultural Relating to generate Peace;
• Electronically-driven Participative Governance to generate Participation;
• Entrepreneurial-driven Free Enterprise to generate Prosperity.

The cost of “The Roadmap to Freedom” is high: Continuous Generative Processing for Continuous Peace, Participation, and Prosperity requires “Skilled, Generative, Thinking People.”

Our “Voyage of Discovery” has yielded our roadmap.

Our “Human Brainpower” will implement it.

We can create our own “Changeable Destinies.”

Freedom is thinking—Generative Thinking!

The thesis of our work has been simple:

1. Research the effective ingredients of Freedom.
2. Rate the presidential candidates on their positions on Freedom.
3. Design the model to save the country that is in danger of losing her Freedoms.

Regarding the effective ingredients of freedom, we have found them to be robustly related to “The Pillars of Civilization:”

• Cultural Relating → Peace
• Participative Governance → Participation
• Entrepreneurial Enterprise → Prosperity

Regarding the freedom ratings of the candidates related to Peace, Participation, and Prosperity, there are none:

• “Zeroes!”

No further commentary is needed!

We do not have a Thinking President!

We do not have Thinking Candidates!

Regarding the design of our “Freedom Model,” we offer the following substantive dimensions of “The Free Enterprise Model” (see Figure 3):

• Entrepreneurial Enterprise,
• Enlightened Citizenry,
• Interdependent Relating.

Deductively-modeled, the Policy-Making Cell that is dedicated to positioning in the Global Marketplace is “The 5-5-5- Cell.” This is where enlightened Policy Markers generate the conditions that ensure “The Pillars of Prosperity.” Of course, there are requirements for Generative Processing Systems as well as Continuous Organizational Realignment Systems dedicated to accomplishing the Entrepreneurial Enterprise, Participative Governance, and Cultural Relating goals.

Figure 3. The Free Enterprise Model

Summary and Transition

In summary, the Free Enterprise Model ensures achieving, once again, global leadership in “The Pillars of Civilization:” Peace, Participation, Prosperity.

In this instance, we dedicated our functions to The Free Enterprise Mission:

Prosperity functions are achieved by participation components enabled by peaceful relating processes.

In turn, this “The Freedom Mission” may be rotated for the different civilized functions of Peace and Participation.

For thinking people, this means our historic successes are exceeded only by our current failures in freedom-building. Building upon the fundamental assumption that governments derive “their Just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,” our Declaration of Independence dedicated our governance to the achievement of growth “ideals” for its people.

With this foundation, We the People created a Constitution to pursue Life, Liberty, Safety, and Happiness. Over the course of a little over 200 years, We the People have built the greatest nation in the history of the world, The United States of America:

• Its 50 states, some of them larger than most countries, have lived together peacefully and productively over nearly 150 years, thus reflecting the freest political system ever known.
• Among its 50 states, the GDPs of several number among the top 30 countries in the world, thus reflecting the freest and most wealth-generating system in the history of the world.
• Perhaps most important, the citizens of its 50 states have been designated by the Constitution as the policymakers of the freest representative democratic governance in the history of the world.

So what’s the problem? The U.S. has truly demonstrated itself to be The Great Experiment—nay, The Greatest Experiment in the history of humankind.

We reached from the “real” to the “ideal.” We climbed the highest mountains in the history of civilization. We viewed the “peaks” ahead of us. Then we retreated!

The problem is that we are now abusing the very truths we have established.

1. We the People have erected the most culturally related society ever, both within our national boundaries and between ourselves and other nations, even enemies—witness the collaborative Hoover Plan after World War I and the Marshall and MacArthur Plans after World War II.

   The First Problem, then, is This: We the People no longer collaborate culturally. We the People compete independently!

2. We the People have erected the most productive and profitable economic system ever, both within our borders and between and among those of the rest of the world—witness the continuing initiatives to generate Free Enterprise Trade Relationships throughout the world.

   The Second Problem, then, is This: We the People no longer sponsor entrepreneurially-driven Free Enterprise! We the People, now support the totalitarian command-and-control market systems of Global Multinational Corporations, corporations which have no loyalty to the American freedoms that bore them.

3. We the People have erected the most representative democratic governance system ever—witness the historic flow of democratic changes within and between generations of our representatives and administrations.

   The Third Problem, then, is This: We the People are no longer the policy-makers our Constitution empowered. We the People have been reduced to the dependent minions of the authoritarian edicts of our now-evolving “Chain-of-Command Society.”

On these dimensions alone, We the People—We the Policy-Makers—have failed to elect leaders who serve the “ideals” that ensure our Life, Liberty, Safety, and Happiness. Indeed, we have elected representatives who have intentionally undermined these ideals in our time.

We simply cannot raise generations of people with First World Freedoms, and treat them with Third World Tyranny.

On this topic, The Declaration of Independence has its own recommendations:

But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Objective, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

In 1776, The Declaration of Independence told us this: “If you don’t like it, fix it!” This admonition still stands today.

We the People have yet to speak!

It is axiomatic that the “breakthroughs” of one generation often become the “depressor variables” of the next generation. In other words, the generative thinking that got us “outside the box” then serves to put us “inside the box” now.

This is the case with our thinking based on the “Binary Function” of the adherents of Information Technology or IT. What was an asset for America’s leadership in generating the “Tsunami of Socioeconomic Growth” over the last half of the 20th century has become the deficit of America’s generative leadership in the marketplace.

What makes the “Binary Function” problematic is not its contributions to the marketplace. The “branching systems” it has discriminated have produced an incredible array of products and services, culminating in a multi-trillion dollar global IT business phenomenon.

What makes the “Binary Function” a “depressor variable” is its impact on American leadership in the global marketplace. Our retreat to lower-order, “pedestrian processing” has made discriminative learning available to everyone and transformed America’s generative leadership into “also-ran, back-in-the-pack” positioning in the 21st century marketplace.

For thinking people, this means retreat to Innovative Commercializer positioning. Unfortunately, the historical “GIC Relationships,” Generator, Innovator, Commercializer relationships, no longer exist. This is due in large part to the American business reaction to the Japanese “blind-siding” of the 1980s and the Chinese “blind imitation” in the 2000s. In order to defeat imitating, American businesses retreated from generating to innovating. There are no longer any R & D centers of any consequence: there is little scientific search, let alone any research, to explicate the unknown; only developmental trials and focus groups to prepare “pilots” for commercialization.

Moreover, by abdicating systematic “GIC” leadership, the U.S.A. has slowed world Generativity down to a random trickle. Not only has the U.S. suffered from short-term stasis, but the nations of the world will now suffer from long-term paralysis as the wheels of Generativity grind to a halt. Concurrently, both leader and followers are surrendering to Multinational Corporations that sponsor no Generativity and have no alignment with American Civilization other than capitalistic profitability.

Indeed, the Multinational Corporations have dropped the “R” in “R&D.” For them, Generativity is a huge expense that places burdens upon dividends to stockholders. They assume no social responsibility and are dedicated only to development which translates directly into capitalistic profitability.

In this context, the Multinational Corporations are “dead-set enemies” of the Entrepreneurial-Driven Capitalism of the Watson era. To be sure, they have adopted the philosophy of Microsoft, Inc. and its leaders: “The only thing that we are afraid of is two guys in a garage.” (Think, Wright Brothers!) Accordingly, they have huge staffs of scientists and engineers scouring the garages of the world to discover the Generators who might create new markets and the Innovators who might create new “playing fields” for the applications and transfers of technologies.

All Asian countries aspire to the Innovative Commercializer Positioning in the marketplace (see Figure 2). In this positioning, Innovative Initiatives are “nested” in the Commercializer Phase. This is the positioning which Multinational Corporations find most profitable and, therefore, most attractive: it emphasizes legacy contributions modified or customized by innovative technological initiatives.

Figure 2. The Innovative Commercializer Positioning in the Global Market

This is “The Microsoft Model:” to appear “slightly innovative” while becoming maximally profitable. The long-term problem is that this apparently “risk-free” course is very vulnerable to both Generators and Innovators as when the U.S. retaliated against Japan, Inc. for “dumping” in the 1990s by pitting “True Innovation versus False Imitation.”

Most important, America has abandoned the source of its dominance throughout the 20th century: “Free Enterprise through Generative Innovation!” Historically, we have dominated by generating R & D “breakthroughs” and discovering new markets and servicing them.

It is uncomfortable for a nation of builders to work for Multinationals that chant “Second to the market and proud of it.”

We are a people who are committed to the front of the market curve: “First to the market and free!”

In transition, American Free Enterprise has dropped from its pre-potent leadership of Generative Innovation to a “Slightly Innovative Commercializer Positioning” which places her “back-in-the-pack” with all of the other “Wannabe Commercializers.” The U.S. has done this in large part due to her deference to the Multinational Corporations which satisfy stockholder demands on profitability and fail on creative leadership values.