'Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or an age; posterity are virtually involved in the contest, and will be more or less affected, even to the end of time, by the proceedings now.
- Thomas Paine, Common Sense
Those readers who studied the details of Technidigm-2000 understand that mankind's "evolution" is compatible with "creationism." This single understanding illustrates the power of the Technidigm-2000 problem solving process. It is wise to trust in facts, but it is also wise to address issues synergistically at level four. Using Technidigm-2000, the rest of mankind's problems can be greatly simplified. Politics and government are at the core of many of mankind's problems. The U. S. Founding Fathers recognized human deficiencies and the corruption that invariably emerges in government and politics. They dealt with these human problems within a context that was valid 200 years ago. They recognized that dictators can control government system resources to suit their own system's principles and objectives. This is why the U. S. Constitution solution system provides for separation of the basic governmental powers among the three branches -- the legislature, the executive, and the judicial.
The future of the United States and other developed countries is dependent on how well the constitutional solution system performs in the future. This performance can be significantly improved through Technidigm-2000. The legislative branch provides resources, the executive branch provides the components that implement the programs, and the judicial branch provides feedback. The feedback is supposed to ensure that government programs conform with the intent of Congress by requiring the executive branch to recognize the legislative objectives and principles.
All three branches must conform with constitutional principles, but this must be enforced by well-informed and conscientious voters. The U. S. Constitution's checks and balances are intended to provide government controls not government direction. The controls are simply constraints that keep one branch from having too much influence on system functions. While these checks and balances are good controls, the government still needs to have a basic sense of direction if it is to achieve its objectives efficiently. It is principles that provide that basic sense of direction.
The Founding Fathers, based on overwhelming historical evidence, realized that some people are motivated by greed and power and, thus, can be neutralized somewhat by a goverment system that limits the control of individuals. Even if nobody in the federal government had any integrity, the constitutional separations and controls serve to neutralize self-serving objectives and to minimize the amount of damage that can be inflicted before the next election.
Under Technidigm-2000, all successful candidates for government positions must have basic redeeming qualities, including an identifiable level of integrity. If the voters merely focus on voting for candidates having integrity (i.e., those who are on-the-level), most of the task will be accomplished. The immediate problem is that the current political paradigms have not emphasized integrity, so there are minimal expectations in this area and, thus, few candidates for office who have an identifiable level of integrity. The best that can be done initially is to assess integrity on a comparative basis.
If all the candidates in a political race are viewed by the voters as being off-the-level, the key question is what evidence exists that at least one of the candidates has at least a bit more integrity relative to the others. If that approach does not result in a distinctive difference, or if all of the candidates are believed to be on-the-level, we can go into their relative experience and their level four leadership effectiveness. Those readers who studied the details of Technidigm-2000 are invited to submit their candidate evaluations to Technidigm using the form provided under Political Applications.
The U. S. Constitution relies heavily on the integrity, common sense, and good faith of average, hardworking citizens for solution system leadership through the ballot box. Elected officials are expected to reflect grassroots leadership in a sophisticated but selfless manner. As such, it is more important for candidates to ask the people what they want done than to simply tell the people what they will do if elected. If the candidate has integrity and adequate experience, the candidate can be expected to do whatever is in the best interest of the people, even when this is not clear to the voters. Without integrity and experience, the candidate may not want to do what is best for the people or may not be able to do what is best. It is not enough just to have good intentions.
Using the integrity approach to get politicians to be on-the-level is only the first step. Once we overcome the integrity deficit, we can raise the standard. Even when political party systems manage to make it to level one, they seldom elevate themselves to level two status (a complete set of relevant facts) and almost never achieve level four (i.e., informed leadership) status needed to produce good decisions and valid solution systems.
One reason for this is that political parties have found level one (and incomplete level two) arenas to be adequate battlegrounds to achieve their objectives, and they can still resort to off- the-level arenas when they are needed. The presence of opposing candidates of integrity and voters who insist on integrity reduce their options since going off-the-level is no longer acceptable.
Nevertheless, many voters still prefer to vote for business as usual, not wanting to take a chance on integrity. They will vote for a political candidate who has a nice smile, effectively relying on appearances to decide how to spend their tax dollars. If they had to personally hand over their tax contribution (nearly half their salary) to one of the candidates to invest, they might decide differently.
Political party systems have an extraordinarily important position of trust in a representative government system, a position that increasingly requires candidates for political office to have advanced education and broad experience. Such candidates do not want the job or, under the current political paradigm, they can not compete with professional politicians. The voters are still struggling with the basic issue of integrity, wanting it but not voting for it.
Prospective employees, employers, bidders, or business clients provide a Technidigm Community membership statement as part of their résumés, on their business cards, or other promotional material. A prospective employee or contact who is a community member readily communicates using Technidigm-2000 terminology.
Also, each member can easily achieve Technidigm-2000 consultant status. Claiming to be a Technidigm-2000 consultant implies a notable familiarity with and expertise in using its 12 elements. Such an expert need only, at the most, present a portfolio that supports this claim. Potential clients assess Technidigm-2000 qualifications much as they would assess other parts of a résumé.
Each Technidigm-2000 consultant's portfolio may be hyperlinked on the Internet from Technidigm to the consultant's homepage or to a home page provided and maintained by Technidigm. Such links can be refused, dropped, and reinstated for individuals as deemed appropriate by Technidigm. Links to pages that are not Technidigm-2000 based are not accepted.
Being a Technidigm-2000 consultant is not constrained by one's self assessment score. A high school student with a self-assessment score of only 30 can be an effective Technidigm-2000 consultant and can apply the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements to many topics, issues, and situations. Specifically, this person might be effective in minimizing unsubstantiated opinions (level one), developing facts (level two), and supporting research (level three). Final solutions (level four) might require using people with more experience. Even then, a consultant with a score of only 30 is still able to plan the level four activities needed to achieve good solutions to problems. The value added by this Technidigm consultant is that the consulting activities are being accomplished within a comprehensive context, applying an understandable framework of principles, objectives, timing, and feedback.
Just as anyone can be an effective Technidigm-2000 consultant, each member of the Technidigm-2000 community, regardless of his or her self score, is continually challenged to strive for a higher score, particularly by developing a higher level of integrity, either as perceived by the member or as perceived by others. This singular, positive societal influence makes Technidigm-2000 worth supporting. Of course, there are many other personal and societal benefits beyond simply encouraging the development of integrity.
Also, anyone can easily be assessed to be off-the-level and not eligible for Technidigm-2000 membership, or they could be dropped out of the Technidigm-2000 community. For example, if a candidate for political office (member or not) does not choose to follow Technidigm-2000 oriented campaign financing guidance enthusiastically, the community members have a reason to vote for the opposition, assuming that the other candidate supports the guidance. Similarly, political candidates who are observed by Technidigm-2000 voters to be less polarized are also more likely to be supported by the community. While such voter criteria have always been available to voters, under Technidigm-2000 they are key issues.
Importantly, Technidigm-2000 guidance simply provides one of many possible creative ways to address an issue, stimulating the thought process and encouraging principled debate among people of integrity. In the political campaign financing example, each community member could personally apply the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements as needed to understand and assess proposed campaign finance guidance in terms of their own personal values and interests. The need for such an arduous undertaking is reduced when the candidates themselves either demonstrate conformance or debate the nature of their conformance in terms of the 12 Technidigm-2000 elements.
Political candidates from different political parties might be Technidigm-2000 community members, but any important differences in integrity are clear during debates. If integrity is absent in all the candidates, new challengers will be motivated to participate. Only people of integrity should enter politics. Since integrity is a lot easier to lose than to find, the polarity of politics will shift to those who have integrity and those who do not rather than the vague polarity of party politics!
Return to Technidigm.org Home Page