I am going to start this essay by stating, emphatically, that Black Lives Matter. I acknowledge that systemic racism and sexism exist, that systemic racism and sexism harm people of color and women (in general), and I support the agenda of fixing social systems to eliminate systemic racism and sexism affecting people of color and women. I want to make that perfectly clear at the outset because I am likely to say things in this essay that will offend many people. My goal is to be honest, because I believe honesty is the essential element of any solution to the challenges of racism and sexism.

I’m sure there are people already offended, so let me address the imaginary conflict between “All Lives Matter” and “Black Lives Matter” right at the outset. In business, we measure programs and processes by outcomes. And here we are, nearly 60 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed, and the outcomes, frankly, suck.  By every measure I can see, all the programs and processes designed to ensure equal protection of the law to people of color and women are failing. No where is that problem more severe in American society than with regard to the African-American community.

African-Americans were the only group enslaved in America, and today, in 2020, we find they are still disproportionately poor, disproportionately sick, disproportionately jailed, and disproportionately killed by law enforcement. For that reason alone, it is 100 percent appropriate to focus our efforts on making sure that every segment and every level of our society internalizes the message that Black Lives Matter. The outcomes clearly indicate we have not internalized that message, and the consequences of our failure to do so going forward will be fatal to the American republic, at least insofar as that republic is supposed to represent the fulfillment of the promise of the United States Constitution.

Some will say that the problems are all related to individual choices, and I think that is completely inconsistent with the evidence I see. I have a friend about my age who, like me, is a West Point graduate and a retired infantry officer. He went into a store in downtown Denver a few years ago and security stopped him on the way out so they could check his pockets for stolen merchandise. That has never happened to me, and I suspect it never will. He is black, and I am white. Remember Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr.? He was arrested on July 16, 2009 after police responded to a 911 call about an attempted burglary. Gates was just returning from a trip to China, and had enlisted the help of his cab driver when he found the front door of his house stuck. What should have been a three-minute conversation resulted in the arrest of a Harvard University professor. I can guarantee that would not have happened if Gates had been white. In these two cases, distinguished individuals with a record of making great choices were harassed unnecessarily because they were black.

Some will correctly point out that the two cases I cite in the preceding paragraph provide only anecdotal evidence for my thesis. Here’s some more anecdotal evidence: Watch the video of George Floyd being murdered by police. Watch the video of Terence Crutcher being murdered by police. Read about how Philando Castile was stopped for a broken taillight and then shot to death in the front seat of a car in which his girlfriend and her four-year old daughter were passengers. Read about the 2015 Charleston church massacre where nine African-Americans were murdered by a white supremacist during a Bible study. Read about the 2017 neo-nazi and white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. You could keep reading and watching for a long time, but at some point you should just stop and consider the statistics. What is clear is that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that we have a serious race-relations problem in the United States, that the policies intended to solve that problem have failed, and that we all—regardless of our race—have both individual and collective duties to do something to fix the problem.

This essay deals with racism at the individual level. The next essay will address the society-wide dimensions of racism. That essay will address issues such as how we should deal with controversy over monuments, the issue of reparations, and practices that disproportionately harm the rights of protected classes. This essay, in contrast, addresses  what racism is, our individual duty in combatting it, the concept of white privilege, and a brief discussion of the long history of racial inequality.

Racism

I begin this discussion of racism at the individual level by reminding the reader of what I have said in a previous essay about bias in general: we all have it. It’s part of how we are constructed as homo sapiens. A recent training on implicit bias cited a statistic from a Harvard University study: our brains process approximately 11 million pieces of information every second, and we can only process about 40 of those consciously. Daniel Kahneman’s excellent book Thinking Fast and Slow is a superb overview of how our minds use models to simplify what we experience and how our models are biased by experience and evolutionary factors.

Implicit bias does not have to cause racism. We can define racism as discrimination or antagonism directed against others on the basis of their race or ethnicity. Another definition that I like is based on outcomes: racism is whatever perpetuates inequality that persists on racial lines.

Our first duty as individuals in combatting racism is to force ourselves to consciously surface and interrogate our propensities, likes and dislike to try and understand our bias. Stanford social psychologist Jennifer L. Eberhardt, Ph.D., makes this point in her book Biased: Uncovering the Hidden Prejudice That Shapes What We See, Think and Do. Forcing ourselves to be aware of our bias is especially important when making decisions that affect others.

Building systems with checks and balances helps. We are social animals—we should seek the input of others to mitigate our personal bias wherever possible. This does not mean we cannot make individual decisions. It does mean we are likely to make better decisions when we consider the perspectives of others.

Another duty in combatting racism is to confront it, peacefully and persistently, when we see it. We should all insist that the people around us show proper respect for others, in word and deed. We should never tolerate disrespectful language or conduct based on race, ethnicity, religion or gender.

Once, shortly after taking over management of a warehouse (and publishing my expectations for all employees), I discovered an employee had used a racial slur—directed at an Asian co-worker—on our hand-held radio network. I immediately contacted the supervisor to bring the employee to my office so I could fire him. The team arrived with the Asian co-worker as well, who insisted it was all a joke. He assured me he was not offended. I told him that the behavior was clearly against my policy, and that the behavior offended me. Then I fired the employee who had used the slur. All of us, especially when we are leaders (but even when we are not), must confront racist behavior. It is far too easy for people to rationalize bad conduct under the guise of friendship or teamwork.

White Privilege

In the introduction to my 2013 book Accountability Citizenship, I wrote “For both my father and myself, I see a combination of both hard work and luck as the main features of a tapestry spanning nearly one hundred years…. I am the American dream fulfilled.” If you would have asked me then what I meant by “luck,” I would have said that I was lucky to have had the parents and siblings that I have, I was lucky in my military career to have survived a few near misses, and I was lucky to have met the future CEO of the company where I would eventually go to work. If you would have then asked me what I thought about the role race played in any person’s ability to live the American dream, I would have said something about the Civil Rights Act and the progress that we have made since then. I would have concluded that racism was still a problem in some places, but, by and large, people of all races could achieve the same level of success with the same amount of hard work and luck. And I would have been wrong.

I now think that answer is incomplete, because I now believe that part of the “luck” that enabled my success was what people are now referring to as white privilege. I have rewritten that sentence a few times. I want to be absolutely clear that I do not believe any race is superior to any other race. I have never sought preferential treatment based on my race, and have always taken pride in earning my way based on my skills and merit. I would never have approved of a system that gave me an advantage because of the color of my skin, especially if that system disadvantaged others because their skin color was different. But regardless of all that, it is now clear to me that American society, in general, even in 2020, offers a multitude of advantages to white people that are not available to people of color. I have benefited from the white cultural orientation of American society. That is to say, I have benefited from white privilege.

I believe we all have a duty to work toward a society where no one is privileged based on the color of their skin. At the same time, given the failures of policies and programs designed to produce equitable outcomes for Americans of all races, I do not think we are anywhere close to a society that can function fairly without government oversight programs like Affirmative Action. In addition to the duties to combat racism mentioned earlier in this essay, it is my individual responsibility to articulate the need for such programs, to participate in the dialogue about how to make them effective, and to use my vote to support racial justice.

It is our duty to make a reasonable effort to understand diverse perspectives. We can do this by reading, through dialogue, voluntary exposure to cultural events sponsored by those with different backgrounds, and by sharing elements of our own heritage. These individual duties apply to people of every race. Even if kids are more comfortable sitting with other kids that look like them in the school cafeteria, all kids should make an effort to include people of all races in their social circles. The fact that this may be uncomfortable for some makes it even more important.

The Roots of Racial Inequality Are Much Older than the United States

Years ago, textbooks rationalized colonialism, conquest and exploitation of indigenous populations with the argument that the conquering powers brought technology and improvements to the quality of life of the conquered people. Buried in this proposition was the assumption that native peoples were somehow inferior to the conquerors, adding a racist rationale to the raw profit motive of economic exploitation. The racist notion that colonialism was a duty to lift up people of color was known as the “white man’s burden.”

The question of why technology and social organizations grew at different rates among different peoples is a reasonable line of inquiry. To paraphrase the words of UCLA Professor Jared Diamond, why did Europeans arrived to conquer the Incas rather than the Incas arriving to conquer Spain? In Guns, Germs and Steel—The Fates of Human Societies, Diamond provides an excellent description of how environmental factors shaped the speed with which civilizations emerged, developed various technologies, and projected their power on other peoples.

First, and most importantly, Diamond provides a clear rationale for why human societies developed at different speeds that debunks the racist idea that white Europeans developed faster due to inherent superiority. “In short, Europe’s colonization of Africa had nothing to do with differences between European and African peoples themselves, as white racists assume. Rather, it was due to accidents of geography and biogeography—in particular to the continents’ different areas, axes, and suites of wild plant and animal species.” (Diamond, p. 401) Guns, Germs and Steel offers a fascinating and comprehensive analysis of these factors across all regions and peoples.

Diamond makes the case that homo sapiens moved more rapidly from hunter-gatherer societies to agriculture-based societies in areas where there were higher concentrations of wild plants and animals suitable for domestication and food production. In turn, the ability to generate a surplus of food  in a reliable fashion enabled the rise of cities, classes of people who could focus on something other than survival, armies, and technology. Population-dense groups living in proximity with domesticated animals suffered from new forms of communicable disease, to which many developed immunity. All together, these factors gave farming societies the ability to expand, displacing or conquering hunter-gatherer societies in their path.

Second, Diamond points out that the pattern of expansion, conquest, displacement, enslavement and brutalization of conquered peoples occurs all over the world among all the races of homo sapiens. For example, the Bantu expansion in Africa, the empires of Mesoamerica and South America, and the expansion of societies in Asia and the Pacific all ended badly for the people who were conquered and displaced. Just as being conquered does not imply intellectual inferiority, neither does it confer moral superiority. Power corrupts, it seems. Across all races, people with the power to expand, conquer and dominate their neighbors have done so.

The differentiator, according to Diamond, is the original “luck” that accrued to peoples living in areas with sufficient biodiversity to give them a head start on the path to guns, germs and steel. These peoples moved more rapidly to the stage of expansion and conquest by virtue of the geographical and ecological factors of their original homeland. Therefore, we can say that “white privilege” has its roots in a much older “Fertile Crescent privilege.” Neither privilege was ever deserved, earned, or intended by most of the people they have affected (positively or negatively).

The problem with white privilege in the United States lies primarily in areas where we can see that privilege has been leveraged, extended and caused to persist through injustice and with intention. Those of us who have remained unaware of privilege, as well as those who have passively accepted it, are also at fault. It is far past time for a comprehensive evaluation of social systems and processes to achieve justice for all.

Conclusion

Racism—defined as either discrimination directed against others on the basis of their race or whatever perpetuates inequality that persists on racial lines—is evil. It arises from bias. We all have bias, and we should acknowledge that fact. But bias does not become racism until we either engage in or tolerate unjust behavior. It is our duty as citizens of the United States to ensure our personal conduct neither creates nor enables racism in any form.

The events of the past few weeks make it essential for each of us to confront America’s long and imperfect struggle to realize the promise of our founding principles in the way we treat each other. This is the first of a series of blogs that will focus on these issues. For this first blog, I simply reprint an excerpt from my book Accountability Citizenship, published in 2013. This excerpt provides a high-level overview of our Constitution, slavery, the Civil War, and westward expansion; I intend it only to set the stage for the next few blogs.
​
Excerpt:
“The first effort to structure a unified government for the new United States was based on something known as the Articles of Confederation, and it was a failure. Generally, historians agree the Articles of Confederation did not provide the central government with sufficient powers to administer the basic functions of a viable government. The Constitution was developed in 1787 to address the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution is not perfect either—it has been amended twenty-seven times. The first ten amendments were adopted in 1791 and are known collectively as the Bill of Rights.

Seventy-four years after the Constitution was formally approved, we suffered four terrible years of Civil War because we could not agree on the issues of slavery and the relative powers of the state and federal governments. From 1861 to 1865, the Civil War claimed the lives of approximately six hundred and twenty-five thousand Americans. Abraham Lincoln’s 1860 election on a Republican platform that included a pledge to keep slavery out of the western territories prompted the secession of several southern states. South Carolina seceded from the Union in December of 1860, followed by Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and Louisiana in January 1861. State militias in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida seized federal installations, arsenals, and armories in January 1861. The federal government refused to recognize the legitimacy of secession even as other states seceded and joined the Confederate States of America. By the time Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, Texas had also seceded and seized the federal arsenal at San Antonio. Confederate forces opened fire on Fort Sumter on April 12 and captured the fort on April 13. Lincoln responded with a blockade and a call for volunteers. The federal army eventually conquered and occupied the Confederate states. In April 1865, Lincoln was assassinated; Confederate military forces surrendered across the south and an armistice was signed. The Thirteenth Amendment ending slavery was adopted as part of the Constitution in December of 1865.

But the end of the war and the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment did not solve the problems of discrimination, human dignity, and civil rights. For over one hundred years after the end of the Civil War, African Americans and other minorities fought domestic terrorism, harassment, and discrimination. The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments ostensibly gave African Americans and other minorities the rights of citizenship and the ability to vote, but in practice these rights were systematically denied in many parts of the country. The passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 marked a significant milestone in the struggle for equality. The peaceful persistence of people like Dr. Martin Luther King and Cesar Chavez raised awareness of shortcomings in law and in behaviors. A series of important decisions by the courts have supported and strengthened the law.

Besides the struggle of African Americans and other racial minorities, women also struggled against inequality from the earliest days of our republic. In fact, it wasn’t until the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified in 1920 that women were given the right to vote. The path to the Nineteenth Amendment was long and arduous. Women leaders such as Lucy Stone, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and Alice Paul led a peaceful movement for change and persisted in the face of ridicule, harassment, imprisonment and brutal treatment. Legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender and providing penalties for sexual harassment have greatly improved conditions, but behaviors undermining equality persist.

The expansion of the United States westward across the continent came by seizing lands originally occupied by Native Americans. The campaigns to subdue these tribes were brutal. Both sides committed atrocities. The United States government broke treaty after treaty with Native American tribes. In the aftermath of the wars and forced migrations, the government generally failed to provide adequately for the people we had conquered and displaced. Our Native American peoples have had their own unique struggle to address the legacy of this period and to gain their civil rights.

The United States was not the first nation to lay claim to much of the territory we occupied in our march westward. During our colonial period, France had claimed much of the interior lands west of the Mississippi. Spain had claimed the area now covered by the states of Florida, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado. Russia held what is now Alaska. The United States purchased the territorial rights claimed by France in the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, effectively doubling the size of the country at that time. In 1819, the United States purchased the rights claimed by Spain in Florida. Two years later, Mexico won its independence from Spain. Under the Treaty of Cordoba, Mexico assumed sovereignty of all territories claimed by Spain in the American southwest. In 1824, a dictator suspended the Mexican Constitution and rebellions erupted in several places in Mexico. Texas gained its independence from Mexico in 1836, existing as an independent republic until it was annexed by the United States in 1845. The United States fought a war with Mexico from 1846 to 1848. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the war in 1848 with the United States paying Mexico $18 million and taking control of all territory north and west of the Rio Grande including California. In 1867, the United States purchased Alaska from the Russians for $7.2 million. The Kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown by American and European businessmen in 1893. The United States annexed Hawaii in July of 1898 despite the opposition of a majority of native Hawaiians. Both Alaska and Hawaii remained territories until 1959 when they became the 49th and 50th states respectively.

An unvarnished view of the history of the United States forces us to confront many unpleasant facts. In our treatment of citizens as well as others subject to our laws and powers, the people of the United States have frequently acted no better than the people of other nations, and our government no better than other governments. The founding principles of our country were a unique expression of individual dignity and liberty in 1776, but our [244] year struggle to realize in practice the ideas implied by these founding principles teach us that we cannot accept a romanticized view of our republic at face value. The words of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are only as good as the sum of our individual efforts to make the policies and practices of our government conform to the spirit of those words.

Accountability citizenship requires that each of us accept responsibility and accountability for all that our country does or fails to do. It is not enough to blame dysfunctional government as if it were a thing apart: our government is designed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people. Even when we disagree with the chosen course, we are responsible and accountable for registering that disagreement with our votes and with our persistent and peaceful engagement with elected officials.” [Accountability Citizenship, 2013, pp. 46-49]   

General Mattis has always struck me as a creature of duty and a true patriot. Proud to share his opinion piece calling out the President for his divisive rhetoric and poor leadership:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/james-mattis-denounces-trump-protests-militarization/612640/

Great Memorial Day tribute from General Mattis... the whole article (attached here​) is concise and worth reading, but my favorite part are these last few paragraphs: 

"We are most indebted to our veterans who fell, and their families, for the survival of this experiment. They can never be fully repaid, but we begin to do so by respecting one another in this land of boundless possibilities, because those who faced down danger and paid the price on our behalf deserve no less.

Many of us enjoy America's freedom by an accident of birth, yet we all live free in this land by our own choice. It is our responsibility to show respect and genuine friendship to each other as fellow citizens--including those with whom we sometimes disagree--by unifying around our radical idea [government of the people, by the people, for the people]. That is how we can meet our ultimate responsibility: to turn over to the next generation a republic in better shape than we received it.

Those who fell while wearing our nation's cloth in defense of freedom, and the Gold Star families of their survivors, paid an everlasting price. Every American owes them a commitment to keeping vibrant the experiment for which they died."


​https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/james-mattis-social-distancing-cant-stop-the-closeness-we-feel-honoring-the-cost-of-freedom/2020/05/22/b4a1be16-9c47-11ea-ac72-3841fcc9b35f_story.html

There is certainly a lot going on these days. I hope this post finds you all well.  I want to remind you that census day is April 1st, and to share some information with you about how to complete your census requirement, or get answers to your questions about what your requirement is. At the end of the day, the census is the method we use to allocate resources to meet the health and welfare requirements of our society.  One of the six purposes of government, as listed at the beginning of our Constitution, was to promote the general welfare.  The census informs social decision-making on where we need more hospitals, more schools, more roads and infrastructure.  This week you have a once-every-ten-years chance to help bring resources into your community. Please don't miss your chance!  Here's some information:

Responding To The Census
1. The 2020 Census Is Happening Now. You Can Complete Your Questionnaire Online, By Phone, Or By Mail.

Who Is Required To Respond?
2. Everyone Living In The United States And Its Five Territories Is Required By Law To Be Counted In The 2020 Census.

3. You Should Respond For Your Home In One Of Three Ways: Online, By Phone, Or By Mail.

Who To Count?
4. Before Completing The 2020 Census, You Need To Know Where To Count Yourself And Who To Count With You In Your Home   

Where You Are Counted
5. The goal of the 2020 Census is a complete and accurate count of everyone living in the United States and its five territories. You should count yourself at the place where you are living and sleeping most of the time as of April 1, 2020 (Census Day).

6. Please count everyone living in your home. Where there are more people, there are more needs. An accurate count helps inform funding for hospitals, fire departments, schools, and roads for the next 10 years.

7. You have the option of completing the questionnaire by phone. To begin, call tel:844-330-2020, or call the number associated with your preferred language.

8. You can get more information at www.2020census.gov

The path from the Articles of Confederation [1] to the ratification of the United States Constitution was hindered by widely shared distrust of any powerful central authority. Having fought for freedom from an overbearing monarchy, many American leaders were wary of any form of government that might usurp power and constrain their liberties. The fact that the Constitutional Convention produced, and the states ratified, a Constitution featuring an executive branch co-equal with legislative and judicial branches seems an unlikely outcome. George Washington was the person everyone expected to serve as the first President, and the universal high regard Washington enjoyed was probably the most compelling reason that many Americans supported the Constitution’s provisions for the executive branch.

Any attempt to outline what differentiates our greatest presidents from the rest must, therefore, begin with an examination of the character of the man who shaped the American Republic’s expectations and hopes for the presidency. If you, like me, came out of high school with a picture of Washington as a genteel colonial aristocrat whose selection as commander of the Continental Army and, subsequently, as the first President, was a natural progression in a life of privilege, then you are mistaken. On the contrary, there was no easy path to success for young Washington. His father’s death when he was only eleven years old denied him any formal education beyond about the eighth-grade level and left his future uncertain. By his own initiative, the future president—ambitious, charismatic and a bit of a rogue in his younger years—carved his place in society as an adventurer, a warrior and a ladies’ man.

A Young Man Finds His Way [2]
Washington’s father left most of his “modest property” to his two oldest sons, who were George’s half-brothers. One of these men, Lawrence, fourteen years older than George, became a substitute father of sorts, at least for a few years. Lawrence’s share of the inheritance included the property that would later be named Mount Vernon, and George lived here with his mother and four younger siblings after his father’s death.

The move to Mount Vernon brought young George into contact with the prominent Fairfax family, whose American headquarters was just a few miles away at Belvoir. William Fairfax, a minor relative of Lord Fairfax, served as the American agent of the powerful British Lord. Coincidentally, Lawrence Washington married one of William’s daughters. William’s son, George Fairfax, and George Washington became friends. It was this Fairfax connection that enabled sixteen-year-old George Washington to participate in his first wilderness adventure, surveying Fairfax lands across the Blue Ridge in the Shenandoah Valley. In love with the wilderness and in need of a way to earn a living, George set himself up as a surveyor across the Blue Ridge the very next year. In a short time, he was able to begin speculating in land on the frontier. But just as this part of his life was gaining momentum, his half-brother became ill. George accompanied Lawrence to Barbados to help care for him, but the disease did not abate. The two returned to Mount Vernon, where Lawrence died in 1752.

Lawrence had been a natural role model for George even before the death of their father. When George was just nine, Lawrence had secured an officer’s commission in an American regiment that participated in an ill-fated expedition with British regular forces against the strategic Spanish outpost at Cartagena. The excitement of his older half-brother’s military adventure undoubtedly inspired George to pursue military appointments to further his own career when he came of age. His half-brother’s marriage help George secure the patronage of the powerful Fairfax family. In 1752, a 20-year-old George Washington sought and attained his deceased brother’s post as the Adjutant General of the Virginia militia. Thus, Major Washington had his first military post without any experience in the responsibilities that post entailed.

Military Misadventures, Legendary Courage and A Reputation Secured [3]
As fate would have it, Washington’s military education would be through the hard school of experience. Britain and France were engaged in a global competition that was about to erupt into full-scale war, and the Ohio Valley—the wilderness beyond the Virginia frontier—was one of the regions where the two powers were to clash. Between 1753 and 1759, Washington commanded several expeditions into the contested territory and served as an advisor to the British Regular Army on others. Raised to the rank of Colonel and Commander in Chief of all Virginia militia, he sought to defend the Virginia frontier against raids by tribes allied with the French. Through a series of failures, Washington earned for himself a hero’s reputation for his courage and skill as a frontiersman. He also earned praise for his attempt to get the British regulars to adopt tactics more suitable to the wilderness, and his energetic efforts to protect the Virginia frontier with insufficient resources.

In late 1753, the Lieutenant Governor of Virginia sent Washington with a small band on a dangerous and sensitive mission. Washington was to travel into the Ohio Valley to find and warn the French that they were trespassing on land claimed by the English crown. The mission required moving nearly 500 miles through unbroken wilderness that was home to a formidable array of native tribes. The journey would have been hazardous in good weather, but the party had to fight through snow both ways. Washington found the French, but they were in significant strength and well on with plans to increase their presence and fortify the strategic area where the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers join to form the Ohio (modern-day Pittsburgh). Waterways were frozen enough to force a return journey through snow and ice. Washington was nearly shot by a turncoat guide, and, later, nearly killed by exposure when a small raft overturned while crossing an icy river. His journal of this adventure was immediately published by the Lieutenant Governor in an unsuccessful effort to raise forces from the Virginia colonists to fortify the Ohio Valley.

The very next year, the same Lieutenant Governor gained the approval of the Virginia legislature for a 300-man force, and Washington, now a lieutenant colonel, became the de facto commander. A small force of about 33 people were sent ahead to fortify “the forks of the Ohio.” Washington followed with 159 more. The advance force was quickly surrounded by a vastly superior force of French and Indians, but the Virginia men were merely escorted a short way back and told to go home. When they encountered Washington, he decided to continue westward to link up with his own Indian allies. Together, the combined force launched a surprise attack on a small party of French, killing several of them. Warned that the French were sending hundreds to avenge this attack, Washington built a fort in an open meadow dominated by wooded heights. His allies abandoned him, warning him that the fort was poorly sited, which indeed it was.

The French took advantage of the wooded heights when they attacked on July 3, 1754. Washington’s men were exposed, and only the inaccuracy of the muskets used by both sides prevented a worse catastrophe than what unfolded. The return fire from the fort was ineffective. It started raining in the afternoon. The trenches around the fort began filling with water, and the powder stored in the magazine was in danger of being spoiled due to a leaky roof. By nightfall, over 100 of Washington’s men were either killed or wounded. The French, however, offered a cease fire. In exchange for a surrender document signed by Washington, they agreed to let the garrison withdraw to Virginia. The whole affair was a disaster by British standards: the Frenchmen Washington’s force had killed in their surprise attack included a diplomat on a mission to warn the British away from land claimed by the French. On top of this, Washington’s signed surrender was an embarrassment. To Virginians, however, Washington emerged in a heroic light, having won one victory and then led a courageous defense against a superior force. Washington expected his troops to be absorbed into the regular British Army, and to receive a regular commission himself. When this did not happen, he resigned.

The next spring saw two regiments of British regulars, under the command of Major General Edward Braddock, arrive in Virginia with the mission of capturing the now-finished French fort—Fort Duquesne—at the forks of the Ohio River. Advised that no one was more knowledgeable about the wilderness between Virginia and the Ohio Valley than George Washington, the general took Washington on as a volunteer advisor. But Braddock refused to listen when Washington tried to persuade him that European tactics would not work in the wilderness against the French and their Indian allies.

The British force was ambushed about ten miles from Fort Duquesne, suffering horrendous casualties. Washington’s horse was shot with him on it. Bullets tore his clothes. But he was not wounded—all the other mounted officers were either wounded or killed. Washington led the evacuation of the wounded, which included Major General Braddock. Braddock ordered him to ride for reinforcements, which he did. Braddock died of his wounds. The British Army withdrew to Philadelphia. Once again, Washington was looked on as a hero by Virginians, and he gained a favorable reputation amongst Americans in other colonies as well. The surviving British officers praised his courage. But the British military establishment blamed Washington for Braddock’s defeat. The British abandoned the defense of the Virginia frontier, leaving Washington and his militia to try and fend off incessant raids by tribes armed and encouraged by the French.

For the next two years, Washington served as “Colonel of the Virginia Regiment and Commander in Chief of all Virginia forces,” engaged in the impossible task of defending the isolated homesteads of the Shenandoah Valley with resources—funds, troops, wagons, horses and supplies—totally insufficient for the task at hand. He attempted to garrison the valley with a series of small forts that were only one day’s distance from one another. With full responsibility for all appointments of officers and matters of supply, Washington—already legendary for his exploits in battle—earned praise for tireless and skillful administration of his small force. He was largely unsuccessful at defending the settlers in the valley, yet they respected his efforts enough to elect him as their representative to the Virginia Assembly.

By 1758, the strategic situation had tipped in favor of the British. Formal declaration of war between France and Britain in 1756 allowed the British Navy to block French supplies from reaching the French in Canada and their allies in the Ohio Valley. Washington was unaware of this development, which finally created conditions favorable for the British to capture Fort Duquesne. Perpetually involved in bureaucratic wrangling with both his civilian leaders in Virginia and the British authorities, George Washington’s experience in the wilderness nevertheless made him valuable to both. Thus, when the new British commander, Brigadier General John Forbes, launched an expedition from Philadelphia northward, Washington was given command of the advanced brigade. When British forces reached the forks of the Ohio River in late November, they found the French had abandoned and burned their fortifications. Moreover, the tribes that had supported the French cause by raiding the Virginia frontier now made peace with the British. With the Virginia frontier secure, a 26-year-old George Washington resigned from his military position and returned to Mount Vernon.

Throughout this period, surviving correspondence paints a picture of young Washington as a ladies’ man. From flirtatious letters exchanged with women around Mount Vernon to notes from his fellow officers commenting on exploits in frontier saloons, Washington’s love of dancing, drinking, and romance is clear. Biographer James Thomas Flexner writes that “Washington was in love with love.” He notes that one romance held a special place in Washington’s heart even when he was much older. Ironically, the object of this long-lived affection was the wife of his close friend, George Fairfax. It is not clear whether there was more to their relationship than flirtatious correspondence. Whatever their relationship, it never interfered with Washington’s friendship with Fairfax. Indeed, that Fairfax connection was important in the social advancement of young George Washington. [4]
​
By 1759, despite his young age, Washington was widely known throughout the colonies for his prominent role in the defense of the Virginia frontier. There are reports that Benjamin Franklin praised some of his exploits. Although criticized by some for his drinking, gambling and romantic exploits, Washington was also known for his courage, administrative skill, and leadership ability. His survival during many close brushes with death lent him a mystique of invulnerability. The officers who served under his command were intensely loyal to him. Upon his resignation, the Virginia legislature passed a resolution praising his service.

Sources:
[1] * the first attempt at a federal government for the victorious states after the American Revolutionary War
[2] This section is a summary of information found in Flexner, James Thomas; Washington, The Indispensable Man; Back Bay Books; New York, NY; 1969; pp. 3-9.
[3] ibid., pp. 9-38.
[4] ibid, pp. 7-22.

First, let's be perfectly clear--any information system can be hacked if enough time and resources are available to attack it.

Given that fact, the only attainable objectives when securing an information system are (1) to make the time and resources required to break the system greater than than the value gained by breaking the system, and (2) to make any breach visible to the system's owners. In the context of electoral processes in general, the potential "value" of the attack could be to demonstrate the capability to disrupt an election in order to extract ransom from an unprepared government. Alternatively, the motive could be political rather than monetary, and the value in this case would be to undermine faith in the electoral process, to deny a government the ability to declare a valid outcome, or to change the outcome without anyone in the target country being aware of the hack.

Protecting the validity of election outcomes is, of course, fundamental to the viability of a republic such as the United States. Famous rulings by the Supreme Court in the 1960s established that equal protection of the law, guaranteed to each citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, applied to the individual's right to vote.  In Baker v. Carr, the Court ruled that the Tennessee legislature had to redistrict on the basis of population, with the intention of ensuring that each individual's vote counted equally. Attacks on electoral systems that favor one party over another, besides being prima facie illegal, threaten this principle of equal protection of the law. Protecting electoral processes that provide a valid outcome wherein each registered voter can be certain their vote was not tampered with or discarded is therefore essential to protecting the right to vote.
​
Proper information security protects the confidentiality, integrity and availability (C-I-A) of the information in an information system. Safeguarding confidentiality means we keep secret things secret, allowing only authorized people to see data that has been restricted from public view in some way. Protecting the integrity of information means keeping the data safe from changes caused by any unauthorized person or process. Ensuring availability means that all authorized users can access the systems and information they need at designated times and places without interruption. In a well-designed system, information security professionals use a layered approach of physical and procedural safeguards in conjunction with dedicated hardware and software resources to detect and defend against attacks.

This traditional layered approach is the best defense against attacks aimed at the confidentiality and availability dimensions of an electoral information system. While voting machines, by definition, must be accessible to the public, the physical security of these machines should include inspection and certification that each machine functions properly and has not been tampered with prior to election day. From the point of certification, election officials must ensure  proper chain of custody and protection from unauthorized access to the machines until the polls open. During the election, proper access control ensures only registered voters touch the machines and only for the purpose of casting their individual vote. Other nodes in the electoral system should be protected with the same physical security measures used to protect sensitive data centers--access only by authorized people with appropriate credentials for specific, official purposes. Information must be encrypted at rest and in transit, with hardware and software firewalls along with appropriately hardened network infrastructure protecting access to the transmissions and storage locations for the encrypted data. Technology staff access should be segmented, monitored, and guarded by appropriately complex multi-factor authentication and authorization protocols.

Traditional defenses remain important for the integrity of information in information systems. So-called ransomware attacks modify data in an information system by encrypting it, compromising the integrity of the data in a way that denies availability of the system to authorized users until some sum of money is paid to the attackers. To protect against this type of attack, systems must not only prevent unauthorized access, but also must ensure that authorized inputs to systems and software are validated to screen out malicious code that could alter system data.
​
For electoral systems, protecting the integrity of information requires even more. Voters must have confidence that their vote is recorded accurately, and that the ballot is not altered after it is recorded. The best way to ensure votes are recorded accurately is through some kind of audit mechanism. Then, use of blockchain technology provides a nearly foolproof way of ensuring ballots are not altered once recorded. As a final step, election officials should empower designated third-party services to audit and certify the blockchain implementation.

In recent years, blockchain technology has surged onto the scene as a leading method for ensuring the integrity of transactional systems of all types, including electoral systems. West Virginia, Utah, and Colorado have all successfully implemented Voatz, a blockchain solution, for their absentee voting solution in recent elections. Understanding the mechanics of blockchain technology will clarify the potential of this new way to preserve voter confidence.

The "blocks" in a blockchain are basically payloads of encrypted information tagged with complex hash values. A hash value is a digital fingerprint for an electronic file--the unique result of running the file through a one-way algorithm. There are many different algorithms to produce hash values. Once a file has been hashed, any change to the file--no matter how small--will produce a radically different hash value. Therefore, when an encrypted file is sent with its hash value, the receiving station can confirm that the original file has not been changed by running the received file through the same hash function and comparing the hash value produced at the destination with the hash value that accompanied the file. 

Inside each block are other hash values. There are individual hash values for some number of encrypted transactions, some metadata, a function called a "nonce" that is the trigger for closing out the block, and the completed hash for the entire contents of the preceding block. As each transaction is hashed and added to the block, all of the participating nodes in the blockchain system calculate the current hash of the entire contents of the block at that instant. When one of these calculated hash values reaches the trigger point designated by the nonce, the hash of that entire block is transmitted to the entire network. When the majority of participating nodes confirm that the block hash satisfies the requirement for completing the block, the block is added as the next block in the chain.

Even blockchain solutions must be audited. When the network of participating nodes is sufficiently centralized, as we might expect it to be in a state voting system, it is technically possible to insert one or more counterfeit blocks into the chain if a majority of the nodes concur. So, for instance, in my home state of Utah, with 29 counties and a finite, relatively small number of precincts, it is possible for some number of pre-built counterfeit blocks to be seeded by compromised nodes in a manner that would preempt legitimate blocks if a sufficient number of nodes were involved in the conspiracy. The only way to ensure that the election results are valid is an end-to-end audit that can tie specific election results to specific ballot transaction id's. 

Given recent efforts by rogue state actors to create doubt about electoral processes using social media, the ability to perform an end-to-end audit of the voting process in a way that allows officials to certify election results in a credible manner is increasingly important to maintaining voter confidence. Systems to enable this type of audit by establishing a transaction id for each ballot were challenged several years ago on the basis that they violated voters' right to privacy. But a 2012 ruling in federal district court (Citizens Center v. Gessler) held that there is no constitutional right to a secret ballot. Given the need for an audit mechanism to protect the systems that guarantee our right to vote, it seems appropriate to me that the individual voter's right to privacy should be subordinate to legitimate mechanisms for providing a credible audit. It also seems to me that, beyond what is absolutely necessary to create a credible audit mechanism, the secrecy of the individual's voter data should be protected to the greatest extent possible.

​In the context of election security, traditional information security combined with blockchain technology and  appropriate auditing protocols can provide credible assurance that votes are accurately counted and protected from tampering. Given the demonstrated threat, it is important for all Americans to insist that the state officials responsible for the administration of elections take aggressive actions to implement comprehensive election security and auditing solutions.

​