The news recently has been full of China, from that country's latest economic woes to the military parade held in Beijing to commemorate the end of World War II to the appearance of 5 Chinese military ships conducting operations in the Bering Sea.  The general tone of the recent news coverage has been to portray all of these actions as part of some sinister, comprehensive, and monolithic strategy on the part of China to establish a global empire.  Having been blessed to spend a significant amount of time in China while leading the international division of internet retailer Overstock.com from 2008-2014, I wanted to take a few minutes today to offer a slightly different perspective.

My experience of China is an experience of wonderful, hard-working people very much like Americans.  I remember visiting Shanghai during the World Expo.  After spending the morning polishing a briefing with my colleague, a Chinese ex-pat, we were hoping to visit the China Exhibit at the Expo during the afternoon.  When I mentioned this to the concierge, he shook his head.  He told me that hundreds of thousands of people were visiting the China Exhibit each day and we would have had to stand in line from before sunrise to get tickets for today.  He did say we could visit the rest of the Expo, though, so I bought two tickets and arranged transportation.

My friend and I arrived at the Expo just after noon, showed our tickets and entered the grounds, all under the watchful eye of some conspicuous PLA guards.  I felt the energy of the place, and was regretting not have tickets to the China Exhibit, when I had a Madison Square Garden moment:  a middle-aged Chinese man sidled up next to me and asked me if I wanted to buy tickets to the China Exhibit.  With the help of my friend, we confirmed that the tickets were real and were for this afternoon.  Thus assured, I paid what I am sure was an exorbitant mark up, and happily got in line to see the Exhibit. Wow, I thought.  My second "aha" moment of the day:  of course there are ticket scalpers in China.  Ticket scalping is more a reflection of human nature than a unique facet of capitalism.  

I think I was the only non-Chinese person in the line during the forty-five minutes or so it took us to get to the entrance to the Exhibit.  It felt like I may have been a rare sight for some of the people in the line, many of whom seemed to be from other parts of the country.  I kept catching the eyes of some of my neighbors in line looking at me in curiosity, usually accompanied with a smile when they saw me see them.  A little more than halfway through the line, I felt a tug on my sleeve.  I looked at the person connected to the tugging hand:  he was a middle-aged fellow who looked like he spent a lot of time outside.  He pointed at the ground near my feet at a wad of Chinese money I had accidentally dropped. It was a lot of money, and I was grateful to recover it.  The man didn't act as if he had done anything special, and it felt like it would have been offensive to offer him anything, so I thanked him and resumed my wait.

The Exhibit was well worth the wait.  It was an amazing display of Chinese history, culture and technology in a specially designed, five-story venue like something we would see in Disney World.  There was a canal--a big one--on one of the upper floors in a part of the exhibit representing the importance of the Yangtze River.  All in all, visiting the Expo was a great adventure, well worth the effort and price.

It is a mistake to accept the view that events involving any country as large as China are somehow the product of a central, monolithic strategy orchestrated by the Chinese Communist Party or its leadership.  China is enormous, and enormously complex.  There, like here, all politics is local.  More than is generally understood here, China's leaders have their hands full enforcing Chinese law and maintaining order.  They struggle to achieve these goals in a historical context where elites have been above the law and order is preserved by the party's control of the People's Liberation Army (PLA).  Because of technology and a rising middle class, social and economic reform are more than ever necessary to preserve stability.  Recent reports of a government crackdown on market manipulation by individuals and bank officials reinforce the notion that a lot of what happens in China, just like here in America, is the product of individuals pursuing their own agendas to enrich themselves, both legally and illegally.

Today, President Xi of China arrives on an important visit to the United States.  I am sure the news here will play up the China threat.  There is merit to the notion that we should be wary of Chinese nationalism, just as they are wise to be wary of the nationalism of the United States.  We each tend to see the best of ourselves when we look in the mirror.  We each tend to see the worst in our neighbors when we look through the window.  We are wise when we realize that what see of ourselves and of others is only part of the truth.  We are wise when we seek common ground, because, at the grass roots level, I believe the Chinese people and the American people have a lot in common.  Our challenge is to make our governments interact in a way that makes us partners rather than rivals.

One of the uplifting moments in the science-fiction book The Martian is the willingness of the Chinese to try and help rescue the American astronaut stranded on Mars.  This effort fails because the two countries can't make their equipment work together under the tight time line necessary for the rescue.  Fortunately for Matt Damon, there are other options.  In the real world, we should work to find ways we can be partners with the Chinese rather than rivals.  If we are willing to work at being partners with the Chinese, and if they are willing to work at being partners with us, then we are more likely to be able to resolve our differences peacefully and solve global problems more effectively.  

For my part, I would love to see the American and Chinese leaders agree to work together on a joint mission to Mars, and to invite the participation of other nations as well.  Certainly we would have to address security concerns on all sides, but these concerns are not insurmountable.  American astronauts have ridden to the International Space Station in Russian spacecraft.  

Global cooperation is essential if we are to build the best possible future for all our children.  A mission to Mars seems the ideal venue for such cooperation.  Although it is probably too much to expect from President Xi's visit this week, I hope at least that leaders in China and in America are considering such a venture.

The Republicans are having their second televised debate this week, while the Democrats, with a smaller field of candidates, still haven't had their first.  There will be 11 candidates in the main Republican debate this time around. Carly Fiorina has surged into the top ten.  Governor Chris Christie has dropped out of the top ten, but, for some odd reason, CNN has decided to keep him in the main debate.  I think there were rumors all the traffic lights around the CNN building were going to experience "software failures" if Christie didn't keep his spot.  Those darn Iranian hackers are everywhere.  Here are the debate lineups: http://www.vox.com/2015/9/10/9308571/republican-debate-candidates

The point of today's blog is not to emphatically declare I have chosen the candidates for whom I am willing to vote next year.  We are fortunate to have many opportunities ahead to evaluate the candidate field and make our final choices.  But the nominating processes for both major parties generally do not select the candidates I feel would be best for our country--that is part of my frustration with the major party machines.  I think my frustration is shared by many, and explains why 44 percent of registered voters identify themselves as independents. So I want to share my thought process on the current candidate field with you at this early point.  I encourage each of you to consider the candidate you would select from each party if you were to vote today for a candidate from that party.  

Since the Republicans have already had one debate and are about to have another, let's start with them.  I am happy that former Ohio governor and congressman John Kasich is still in the line-up.  He is my preferred Republican candidate at this point for three reasons:  (1) my research shows that former governors are more likely to perform better as president than people without that experience (What Makes A Great President), (2) Kasich was a key player in Congress during the Clinton administration and played an important part in balancing the budget during his tenure as Chairman of the House Budget Committee, and (3) although he has spent most of his life in politics, he has demonstrated the ability to rise above party and interest group pressure to act on his values--a key characteristic of a career citizen.  A Kasich ticket with Fiorina as Vice President would be compelling in my view.  Fiorina is the quintessential career citizen, but I think she needs some experience inside government before she is ready to be President.  Her track record as a senior business executive shows me that she took a while to come up to speed as CEO of Hewlitt Packard, and we can't afford that kind of learning curve in our next Chief Executive.

On the Democratic side, I would like to see Martin O'Malley nominated.  Again, he has the experience of being a governor (What Makes a Great President), and he is more credible than the other Democratic challengers to Hillary Clinton.  He has a solid track record of winning major elections to secure multiple terms as mayor of Baltimore and as governor of Maryland.  In these executive positions, he has been accountable for his actions addressing real problems.  He secured re-election in both offices--a much more concrete record than any other Democratic candidate.

The obvious distinction of my favorites from both major parties at this point is that neither Kasich nor O'Malley have the widespread financial support and public relations hype of Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton.  Bush and Clinton are thought by many to be the most likely major-party nominees once the parties complete the winnowing process of the next several months.  I don't think either of them are suitable to be our next president.  There are other qualified people without the baggage of another Bush or another Clinton who can lead our country with a focus on issues and solutions.  That is what we need more than anything, in my opinion--someone fresh, who has not been damaged by the national political food fights of the past twenty years.  I would be happy with either Kasich or O'Malley as our next president.

Wait!  How can anyone say that, you exclaim?!  How can anyone possibly say they would be equally happy if either a Democrat or a Republican won the next presidential election?  If that is your thought at this moment, I humbly request you read some of my recent blogs about voting for character rather than for party alignment.  If we elect a president with the right kind of leadership skills, then their political party won't matter.  Either Kasich or O'Malley could do the job, in my opinion. 

We have major structural problems in our republic.  The inertia of the political system in the United States has effectively disenfranchised the middle of the political spectrum through a destructive cycle that proceeds from the economics of information marketing to filter bubbles to excessive partisanship to passive acceptance of policies that erode the foundations of our Constitution.  As counterintuitive as it may seem, the answer is not more partisanship, but less. 

Let me use a physical analogy to illustrate my point.  In 1940, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapsed four months after its completion.  The bridge was the third longest suspension bridge in the world at the time, and had been designed by some of the best engineering minds in the world.  While there has been some disagreement about the technical specifics of the collapse, the basic explanation is pretty simple:  wind created a reinforcing pattern of oscillation in the bridge that ultimately tore it apart.  The designers knew about wind and designed for it, but they did not foresee the magnifying effects of resonance.  In my analogy, the evolution of information technology and the economics of information marketing are like the resonance in the bridge. Sound bites and filter bubbles magnify partisanship, creating a reinforcing pattern of excessive partisanship in our republic.  We have to stop this excessive partisanship or it will eventually destroy our country.  Prophetically, although he could not have foreseen the evolution of information age technology, George Washington warned us in 1796 that partisanship was the gravest threat to our republic.

In today's America, neither Jeb Bush nor Hillary Clinton can be effective as president for reasons that are mostly structural, not personal.  Either one of them will make the problem of partisanship worse because they are too connected to the political baggage of the past 20 years.  I like Jeb Bush a lot more than almost every other Republican candidate.  I regret he deferred to his brother in 2000.  Unfortunately, in 2015, there is a serious structural issue with having the last three Republican presidents come from the same family.   Regardless of his personal merits, a Jeb Bush presidency would undermine America's vision of itself and add to the class and racial division already buffeting the structural supports of our republic.  It would reinforce what many already suspect about the relationship between money, privilege and access to government in the world's greatest democratic republic.  For her part, Hillary Clinton is a lightning rod for partisan critics.  We can debate the justification of the attacks on her over the years, but the fact that she has been demonized by right-wing Republicans is indisputable.  Even if a Hillary Clinton administration could avoid ongoing controversy over Benghazi and her personal emails as Secretary of State, it is a sure bet that opposing every Clinton initiative will be more important to Republicans at every level of government than solving America's problems. Electing Hillary condemns us to another four years of the partisan warfare we have experienced during the Obama administrations, and that is unacceptable.  Therefore, for reasons bigger than either of them, we would all be better off if both Bush and Clinton simply walked away now.

The most important criterion for our next president will be the ability to forge consensus.  Unfortunately, the primary process and the news cycle tend to support candidates who either cater to the extremes of their parties or who come with an entrenched army of party supporters.  Neither of those tendencies will produce a candidate that can forge the consensus we need.  There are candidates, however, with the experience and ability to lead with a focus on issues rather than personality and division.  In my opinion, John Kasich on the Republican side and Martin O'Malley on the Democratic side are both capable of such leadership.  They are the nominees I am hoping to see survive the party selection process.

I was in Las Vegas a few months ago for the Society of Human Resources Annual Conference (#SHRM15).  I like Vegas.  My girlfriend and I went a little early and made a mini-vacation out of the weekend preceding the conference.  We found our way to the blackjack tables on Saturday.  

Blackjack is a simple game.  The dealer deals herself one card face down and one face up while also dealing all the players two cards face up.  The idea is to hit--request an additional card--as needed so you wind up with a hand that is closer to 21 than the dealer's hand.  If you go over 21, the dealer wins.  If the dealer goes over 21, the player wins.  I was holding my own, basically just following the standard rules most people follow in blackjack and watching what cards the dealer and the other players were showing.  The people next to me were losing a lot, and they seemed to be betting simply on gut feel, without any consistent behavior that I could see.  My girlfriend instinctively made a few observations in my ear about possible outcomes given the card showing for the dealer.  

That's when it hit me--the people next to me were playing as if the goal was to get as close as they could to 21, but they weren't paying attention to what was possible for the dealer or how other players'  cards affected what was possible for themselves.  Gambling is not a money-making activity under the best of circumstances, but your chances get much worse if you are playing your cards in isolation, without consideration of what you can see and learn from the other players' cards.  So much of being successful at anything comes back to how well you can visualize what the world looks like from the other person's perspective.  In fact, the ability to put yourself in the other person's shoes is even more important in cooperative ventures in organizations than it is in zero-sum activities like blackjack.  

Every first-class leader I know looks for and cultivates people who can "think two levels up".  Thinking two levels up doesn't require that you have all the knowledge and skill to perform the function of the leader two levels up--that is unrealistic.  But it does require a certain kind of imagination, or at least the willingness to think about what the world looks like to the boss' boss.  Who does she report to?  What questions does she have to answer for her boss?  What would your priorities be at that level?  You can be sure that the answers to these questions have a direct bearing on tasks that will eventually reach your desk.  You will be more successful at work if you cultivate the ability to think two levels up.

Organizations should not leave the development of such "strategic imagination" to chance.  In other words, senior leaders need to understand how the world looks to employees throughout the work force.  Leaders should communicate to help employees understand and value their role relative to the rest of the team. HR professionals should coach senior leaders to ensure clear mission statements, statements of organizational values, and other organizational "cards" encourage play that supports company goals. Such communication, used appropriately to unleash employee initiative within strategic boundaries, can improve employee satisfaction while also improving productivity.  It can help employees think above the level of the daily tasks that make up their job.

In previous blogs, we've considered the tools we need to be amazing citizens.  We've talked about the importance of seeking unbiased information to help us understand the reasons supporting views with which we disagree.  We've talked about the role political leaders should play in encouraging participation by all of the people they represent, not just those who share their party affiliation.  As we continue to observe the political drama surrounding next year's local, state and federal elections, perhaps we should consider ways to identify candidates whose behavior reflects appreciation for all the cards on the table, as opposed to those who insist on simply playing the game as if theirs are the only cards that count.  

Go to Vegas.  Play blackjack.  It's a training activity.