politics

The Future Isn’t What You Expected

by

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, Steve’s Tumblr, and Pillowfort.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

So as of this writing the Iran War ended. Or restarted. Or is under negotiation. I have no idea what’s going on and anything I do say may be irrelevant. Anyway it’s August 11, 2026 so you can remember how wrong or right I am.

You know I’d like to discuss what an absolute humiliating mess this was for America. But plenty of people far more qualified than me are discussing it. Actually people less qualified are discussing it too. Welcome to the modern age, and because it is the modern age, let me discuss two things that surprised me which is what I DO want to talk about it.

“War never changes,” is the quote from the Fallout games. Well, guess what, it damn well changed, and that’s a good reminder that we’re usually living in the future and don’t know it.

First, let’s talk drones.

We’re well aware of how effective drone have been for the Ukraine in their battle against Russian aggression. We know Iran has deployed both missiles and drones to definite effect, and everyone I read seems concerned about the drone part. A $10,000 drone can cost you an expensive missile and do plenty of damage if said missile misses.

Now Ukraine’s work with drones, it’s innovations, has been a diplomatic and economic boon thanks to relations with Middle Eastern states. Ukraine innovated on drones because it had to, and now that’s given it power and prestige, further giving it allies against Russia (or what’s left of it).

How much change did we miss, or not take into account, or figure was a localized issue? How much drone tech is out there we haven’t payed attention to as a society? Maybe it’s just me, but I feel that a whole lot of war changed, and a lot of people haven’t adjusted their mindsets? In turn this means Iran surprised people and Ukraine has leveraged their experience to become an even more major player.

It’s multiple world-powers getting ju-jitsued. It reminds me of a recent joke about people who played games like World of Tanks missing that their games were irrelevant.

Next, let’s talk memes.

I did not expect Iran’s social media game to be this good. From memes challenging the president to mockery using Lego aesthetic, they had a good game. I didn’t expect a repressive theocratic republic to be this good at social media, not going to lie. In a Mastodon discussion, someone noted they found the dry Iranian sense of humor was known, but not to Westerners.

As I understand it the team is probably a subcontracted group that’s not even in the country. But who knows what the story is. Anyway, whoever they are they’re playing to win.

Honestly, where was America’s meme game? What little I saw was Trump ranting, some strange propagandist stuff, and that was about it. Where was the humor? The fun? The meme potential? The Iranian social media folks seemed to be having fun, which is not something I associate with the Iranian government who are, let’s be honest, a bunch of religious a-holes.

And I saw it get mentioned all over, amplified. I have to ask how much are memes part of modern warfare. I wish I knew because I expect it’s a lot more than I would have guessed.

So here we are in iran. It’s a fluid situation as I write. I don’t know what’s happening. But what I do know is I saw two changes in warfare, and we need to pay attention. I’d like a future without warfare, but until we get there, we need to understand how they work.

And apparently it’s drones and vicious mockery. Well, that’s what I missed and some others missed – what else are we missing?

Steven Savage

Book Review: Politics Without Politicians by Hélène Landemore

by

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, Steve’s Tumblr, and Pillowfort.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

A second book review in a row? Well, yes it is! I just finished reading Politics Without Politicians by Hélène Landemore and it’s one you should definitely read. But let’s talk why.

Landemore’s thesis is simple: democracies in history had often used “lotteries” to select people for civic duties, along with citizen councils (often random too), rotating positions, referenda, and so on throughout history. Politics with less politicians or without politicians as we know them. It not will surprise you that someone writing a whole book in this is of course in favor of the idea that we can replace a lot of our politics with random selection and councils/parliaments.

The book is thus a breezy read as Landemore establishes her premise with historical example, then goes into a mixture of actual experience, actual implementations, research, and philosophy to justify her thesis. Her statement is simple – essentially reviving some elements of Athenian Democracy, then examining why she thinks it’d work, when it was tried, and what she’d do.

So spoilers, it’s actually very convincing, and in some ways surprising. If I were to compare it to something, it actually reminds me of my much-beloeved The Unaccountability Machine. It’s both obvious and not, and once you read it, you see things very differently.

Landemore describes our current crises and the idea of more randomized democracies as seen in Athens and in other states and societies, not necessarily democratic ones (a random council of nobles is still random). Random selection requires citizens to step up, reduces corruption, and requires building functional infrastructures to get things done. Our current political crises of modern times are, in her thesis, the result of a kind of “Electoral Aristocracy” that is clearly not responsive to people’s needs and is very disillusioning. And yes, she brings receipts on much of our dissatisfaction in our times.

Despite her cynicism about a lot of our current politics, Landemore is a passionate believer in democracy and citizenship. She wants more democracy, more power in the hands of people, and for voices to be heard. Indeed, ensuring people who are not currently engaged in politics can and will be engaged, is part of her thesis. Even when I find critiques (and I have a few) it’s clear she cares about the results and the people.

Landemore also looks at cases where randomized citizen councils were used in various countries to address issues – some of which she participated in. Coming from this direct viewpoint, she also describes experiences and why things worked – and didn’t – mostly focused on her native France. Landemore takes you into what it would be like, say, for twenty citizens to suddenly be asked to come up with policy for a referendum.

This personal experience, combined with her research, did help me understand why these kind of randomized councils and other approaches can work. If you have a diverse group of people and give them experts who respond as needed you can get a surprising amount of good ideas – something I’ve seen in my own management work. People who are responsible for results and dealing with each other as people will surprise you and probably break more than one of your stereotypes and assumptions.

Landemore did something very effectively – reminding us that our fellow citizens are probably more capable than we give them credit for. It’s just that they may be capable in different ways than us and that people coming together change. Some of her experiences made me understand my gaps, and in a few cases my arrogance. This, again, reminded me of my own worn in Project Management when people came together with just a bit of facilitation – and when I had my own assumptions proven wrong.

All of this of course reminds me of Agile, the productivity/project method I’ve used for years in various forms (sometimes inside other methods). A lot of Agile is “make it obvious, make it visible, make people responsible.” Though Agile usually lacks randomization, I see echos in Landemore’s writing.

It is clear from her writing Landemore has soured on the political classes, and even filtered, both the research she shares and the experience she has make a good case. Attempts at citizens councils often saw career politicians want to put on their own stamp, experts expect to be right all the time (thinking as experts, not impacted citizens), and so on. I finished the book with a better opinion of my fellow citizens, and a worsened one of our political class. Politicians can be distortive people, even if well-meaning, as things warp around them.

Ladenmore finishes with ways to implement more direct Democracy, and her thoughts of were to go next. She’s ready to go, clearly passionate, though I wished she’d done more to provide “next steps” and ‘who to talk to” that was more clearly spelled out. Still, I found some resources to investigate my own interest.

Ultimately, it’s hard to fault her case – we need more citizens and less politicians. Indeed, having more “governing-by-lottery” would mean people have to step up if called – and step up to help neighbors and friends and family who might be called upon. Certainly I’m a believer in her method because I am a believer in citizenship and this is a way to cultivate that.

As for flaws, there are moments her humor or references, especially about American figures, seems a bit off. There are a few cases where I wanted her to address some truly vile things we see like racism and religious fanaticism. But these are minor – she has a thesis, she justifies it well, and she takes us into the experiences and mechanics of it.

Much like The Unaccountability Machine, Politics Without Politicians is about why things are obviously wrong, how we probably had the solution, and what to do next. It’s also about giving a damn, which makes both books passionate. Maybe Landemore and Dan Davies should team up, so I have yet another book to go on about until people are tired of it.

A recommended read. Perhaps you’ll want complete rule-by-lottery, perhaps you’ll become a booster of citizen referendum, but I think you’ll have a lot to think about. Best of all, you’ll become a better citizen, and we need all of those we can get.

Steven Savage

Political Fanfic

by

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, Steve’s Tumblr, and Pillowfort.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

OK folks, I said I will discuss politics more, albeit in my own way so don’t assume this is going to be typical ranting. It’ll be my ranting, so it’s from a source you can trust.

So let’s talk the Iran War. A lot of people are talking about the Iran War of 2026, and everyone is wondering what will happen and in a lot of case telling us what is going to happen.

Now me I am going to say that I think the war is a bad idea, done under multiple questionable circumstances, with multiple unpredictable factors. There’s a can of worms, then there’s this, and know what, we don’t need this.

But am I going to say exactly what will happen? No, because:

  1. My skills relevant to this are Project Management, Technology, and a slight bit of economics.
  2. My knowledge of the Mideast is mostly “oh, gods, not another war” when other people know it far better than me.

I’m not exactly the guy to predict things. I am the guy to go “oh, not again” and “hey, remember how things went for the Kurds before?” but not laying out probabilities. In fact I’m suspicious of people who seem sure how things are going to go, because my PM instincts say a lot of people don’t know what they’re talking about.

Whenever some political event happens like the Iran War people start making very solid predictions about things. It’s not academic predictions (many an academic seems to be more in the “oh, no” category). It’s stuff that I’ve seen christened Political Fanfic, stories spun of wishes, dreams, hallucinations, agendas, and possible substance abuse.

I love that term, because it’s accurate.

It’s not hard to find politicians, pundits, preachers, and a lot of people on social media who have too much time on their hands writing political fanfic. They’re sure what’s going to happen. They spell it out in excruciating detail that sets off my Project Manager senses (if people can’t agree on fonts, you can’t predict the next ten years, bub). They’re very sure and very elaborate.

If your response to a war is to do some Game of Thrones level description, you are, as the kids say, “sus.” Also I will try to drop no more slang in the rest of this essay as it makes me feel old.

I see this all over and have seen it for so long. People just weaving tales for whatever reason – to feel smart, to get attention, to get social media clicks, or just plain arrogance. When it gets to actual politicians it’s potentially fatal, but when it’s just someone with fourteen Instagram followers it can still become a force multiplier for B.S.

It’s really starting to wear on me. The world is quite messy before the Iran War, and as this all can get very bad and fatal I’d like to focus on actual goals and solutions. It’s not reality TV here, even if the Iraq War seemed to kick that politics-as-reality TV into overdrive further all those years ago.

We don’t need political fanfic. We need to be asking what kind of world do we want and how do we get there. It’s two very hard questions! They’re so hard and so revealing that maybe it’s easier for some people to create their political fanfic.

But take it from a Project Manager – something I am qualified to speak on – we need people who show us goals and ways. Not political fanfic. If I want fiction, I’ve got plenty of that, and the plots are more sensible than whatever the heck people are spinning about Iran.

Steven Savage