The Compass and the Navigation

Note: This is an older essay that was on the old blog but never published on The Reframe, as a reader recently reminded me. I'm replicating it here with some slight changes to the examples.

__

I’d like to talk about what leadership is and what governance is. I’d like to talk about the compass, the navigation, the travel, and the corrections.

Let me begin by proposing ‘movement’ as a metaphor for coordinated human activity. Sometimes the metaphor actually involves movement: The Apollo Mission moved from the earth to the moon. Sometimes the metaphor is figurative: The United States moved from legal chattel slavery to emancipation.

When people decide to leave the place they are and move to a different place, there’s an observable order to it. The order is very important.

So, in movement, there is the moment of arrival at the destination.

But before that moment, there is the actual journey. We began here. We moved until we got there. We put one foot in front of the other. We set sail and kept going until we arrived. The aircraft cut its way across the sky. This is the journey.

But before the journey, there was a plan. We are here. We will go there. Here, after study and research and consultation and testing and training, is how we’ll do it. This is the navigation.

But before even the navigation, there was a determination to move in the first place. We are here. We should be there. We will go there, in that direction, as opposed to all other directions.

This is the compass.

Coordinated movement begins with a determination to move in one direction over all other directions. Then comes the plan. Then comes the actual trip. Then the arrival. In that order.

However, the trip may turn out to be something quite different than the plan. Sometimes the trip is smooth and easy, and goes exactly to plan. More often, especially if the destination is an ambitious one, or the path is long, there are challenges and setbacks and unforeseen difficulties. The route went off-plan, requiring delays and divergences and detours.

These are the corrections.

We thought we would be here. Instead, we are here. But we are still going there.

We don't allow obstacles and detours and setbacks to change our destination, because we have set our compasses. Instead we make a correction to our plan, and then adjust our navigation, and then return to the journey. A successful correction requires the same tools that motivated the original trip: the determination to arrive at the destination, then the plan to do it, then the actual travel. In that order.

The compass determines direction.

The navigation determines the route.

The route leads to the destination.

In that order.

The order is key.

As long as you’re determined to end at your destination, and know the direction, and have the ability to chart your course, and the ability to actually move from one place to another, your original plan can absorb any number of corrections. You may even learn of a better destination on the way. But first you have to actually decide to move.

You wouldn’t make a plan before you knew where you were going.

You wouldn’t begin travel before you’d figured out how to get there.

It wouldn’t work.

So now let’s talk about leadership and governance, and the magic trick that gets played on us over the difference. Say we humans have a problem. It could be anything. Like 50% of the wealth in the hands of a few hundred people among billions. Or a medical system that only cares for those who can pay. Or millions of people without homes in the world’s richest country.

It could be anything.

But I don’t want to be controversial, so let me make up some more speculative and abstract premises.

Thank you for doing the thing that encourages writers most, which is reading! If you want to do the thing that encourages writers second-most, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. The subscription model is ...

Let's pretend that there was a country whose ostensible law enforcement institution was actually a militarized gang, staffed by white supremacists, designed to deliver racialized authoritarian brutality to citizens on behalf of property, and was sucking up all civic funds that might otherwise go to creating a sustainable and peaceful society. Or let’s pretend there was a climate disaster that threatens extinction of life on the planet. Say the evidence was incontrovertible. Say the early effects were present and observable. Try to imagine these things.

Now, let’s say the remedies were known, but very challenging. Let’s say they would require a major restructuring of the political and economic and social order, both domestically and globally. Let's say they would require a complete restructuring of how funds were allocated, and a complete restructuring of priorities of both the government and population. And let’s say that, as a result, there were a lot of people who didn’t want to do this, even though in both cases, the remedies were desperately needed and the threat was immediate and growing. Again, try to imagine.

Let’s pretend that the people most resistant to changing the world order were the people who had gained the most power and wealth within that country and that world order. Again, try to imagine.

Let me locate us in this scenario.

We’re not yet at the point to start enacting a plan we haven’t yet decided to make. We’re not at the point to argue about the specifics of the plan—though we need a plan! What we need is the determination to move.

We need the compass.

Leadership is the compass. Leadership is the thing that says, “even though it is controversial, even though it is disruptive, even though it is hard, we are going to move from here to there.”

Leadership statements are compass statements.

Once we’ve determined we are going to move in a direction, we will need a plan, and a good one. The nuts and bolts of how it’s going to happen—the navigation. The actual logistics of doing it—the travel. That’s governance. It’s very important.

It doesn’t come first.

“Net Zero Emissions” is a leadership statement. It’s a compass statement. It’s a declaration about coordinated human movement. "Defund the Police" is a leadership statement. It’s a compass statement. It’s a declaration about coordinated human movement.

You might disagree with these statements. If so, you have some options regarding how you might respond. You might claim that there is no reason to move. You’d say something like, “this is a hoax.” You might claim that it’s too early to move. You’d say, “the science is uncertain.” You might claim it’s too late to move. You’d say, “human activity isn’t causing it.”

Those are the direct responses.

But remember I told you there’s a magic trick.

Some might realize that the danger is real, and the moral call of movement is absolutely uncontestable. They might decide the best way to oppose is to perform some slight-of-hand. They’d say things like “Net Zero Emissions is unrealistic.” They'd say "Defund the Police is a terrible slogan." Or they might say, "we'll never solve the problem, because whenever we try, we encounter obstacles." Or they might say "we started the journey and we aren't there yet, so we'll never get there."

Realistic? That’s a matter for navigation. We’re not there. We're talking about where we need to go. When that sort of thing happens, the atmosphere changes, and unrealistic change becomes not only possible but inevitable.

Slogan? This isn't a slogan. It's a statement of purpose. We’re making compass statements here.

Obstacles? Of course there are obstacles. We are determined to overcome them, whether they were anticipated or not.

Not there yet? Have you ever taken a journey?

“Net Zero Emissions is unrealistic" or "who is going to pay for that" or "Defund the Police is a terrible slogan" or "the latest progress wasn't enough to solve the problem" all sound like governance statements, navigation statement. They aren't. They are leadership statements. They are compass statement. They say “actually, we will stay where we are” just as much as “climate change is a hoax” does. They say it with more subtlety, but they still say it.

I want to be careful, because even as we talk compass, we want an eye on navigation. It’s OK to point out that the navigation is off. But when one does so to close off or delay discussions of coordinated movement to a place where we desperately need to go, then it’s the magic trick; leadership disguised as governance; a compass statement for non-action disguised as an interest in navigation.

Say there has been in the recent past a policy proposal called The Green New Deal.

If one wants to critique The Green New Deal’s policy, it needs to be within the larger context of a firm commitment to a robust and prioritized response to climate change, and a willingness to engage in the significant disruption that will cause. Otherwise it’s just using the challenge of the problem as a reason not to start.

Say there has been a recent and growing energy in the public around defunding and abolishing the institutions of policing and incarceration.

If one wants to critique the messaging around defunding the police or our for-profit prisons, it ought to be within the larger context of a firm commitment to removing funds from policing and the carceral state in order to fund all the social programs that are now being managed with brutality and punishment rather than repaired and healed with compassion and community. Otherwise it’s just using the challenge of the problem as a reason not to start. And if that's somebody's position, that's their position, but it would be preferable if they just said that.

The thing of it is, unrealistic change happens all the time. The list is endless of things we now take for granted, which were once not only unrealistic but impossible, unthinkable, unimaginable.

People who tell us that needed change is unrealistic or that the messaging isn't exactly right know this.

Votes for Women? Terrible slogan. Abolish slavery? Unrealistic. Unpopular. Besides, who's going to pay for that?

Abracadabra!

It’s one of the slyest tricks of opposition there is, to deny a clearly needed solution to an obvious problem, not because the need for a solution is great, but because the route hasn’t been charted thoroughly enough, because all of the potential problems haven’t been identified, because every last correction hasn’t been made, because we haven't yet defined how we will pay the price of a repair to a brokenness that is far more expensive than any repair ever could be.

If you are opposed to necessary human movement, it would be preferable if you simply defend the institution of policing and the status quo of fossil fuel more openly and honestly, rather than to hide behind prestidigitation.

Governance is important. We will need to decide how to repair the brokenness. We will need to decide how we are to pay the cost, because repair always carries a cost.

But leadership comes BEFORE governance.

The compass determines the direction.

The direction determines the navigation.

The navigation determines the travel.

And corrections can be made on the way.

What I have noticed is that whenever someone arrives who actually makes bold and needed compass statements, people respond. And, it reveals all the people who have been refusing to make them, because the person who does make them exposes the trick of refusing to.

Once you know the trick, you can see it everywhere.

Who’s going to PAY for Medicare for All? Magic trick. “Medicare for All” is a compass statement. We will care for everybody’s medical needs, because that is what a civilized society does.

The country won’t accept gun control, it can’t happen here. Magic trick. We will minimize gun violence. Letting our schools become war zones is unacceptable.

A 70% marginal tax rate is socialism run amok! Magic trick. We are going to address the scourge of wealth disparity, hording and corrupt billionaire welfare.

The Green New Deal is flawed! Magic trick. We are going to drop literally everything else to address a potential extinction-level crisis, because of course we are, my god, what the hell is wrong with you?

Remember that leadership is the compass, governance is the navigation. Both are important, but one comes ahead of the other, and you can make adjustments on the way.

And watch everyone’s hands closely.

The Reframe is totally free, supported voluntarily by its readership.

If you liked what you read, and only if you can afford to, please consider becoming a paid sponsor.

Looking for a tip jar but don't want to subscribe? Venmo is here and Paypal is here.

A.R. Moxon is the author of The Revisionaries, which is available in most of the usual places, and some of the unusual places, and the essay collection Very Fine People. You can get his books right here for example. He is also co-writer of Sugar Maple, a musical fiction podcast from Osiris Media which goes in your ears. He crash through shale and splash in oil.