Riding the Third Wave to Victory:

A new progressive strategy for a new era

by Steve Fox of The Progress Project

“I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human
mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new
truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances,
institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.”

-- Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Samuel Kercheval, June 12, 1816

“The…basic question, as we shall see, is not who controls the last days of industrial society but
who shapes the new civilization rapidly rushing to replace it.”

-- Alvin Toffler, The Third Wave

One hundred years ago, the United States transitioned from an agricultural to an industrial
nation. In response, the nation!s political leaders, led by the original band of progressives,
called for and enacted programs and policies appropriate for that new era. Today, we are in the
midst of a similar transition to a post-industrial, information-based era. While this has had a
dramatic impact on our economy and, to a growing extent, on our society, a corresponding
transformation of our government and evolution of our laws has not occurred.

The Democratic Party, instead of addressing the realities of this new “third wave” era,
continually attempts to cobble together an electoral majority primarily by conveying second
wave messages and defending second wave programs and policies. Democrats have no
coherent, progressive vision for the new era to convey to the American people. In turn, the
American people have been reluctant to embrace Democrats as their leaders.

While this determined adherence to the policies of the past by many Democrats is admirable
and well intentioned (and perhaps a necessary legislative strategy), it is clearly diminishing the
party!s electoral hopes. Worse yet, the methods party leaders are using to defend these
policies and maintain support from a diminishing share of the American people are tarnishing
the grand reputation of the party. Whereas one great party leader once said, “There is nothing
to fear but fear itself,” the motto of today!s Democratic Party could easily be, “There is nothing to
campaign on but fear itself.” Instead of developing a positive agenda for the future, Democratic
leaders over the past decade have devoted much of their energy to accusing the Republicans of
threatening Social Security, fostering a culture of corruption, endangering the environment,
undermining public schools, and proposing or enacting “risky” tax schemes.

As we continue the long but steady transition to the post-industrial era, the Democrats have two
choices: continue to scare the American people into supporting the policies of the past or lead
them courageously into the future. If the party chooses the former option, it will likely fall further
behind the GOP. For while the Republicans appear even less interested than the Democrats in
preparing this nation for the future, they are at least in synch with the public!s frustration with a
 Riding the Third Wave - 2

centralized, one-size-fits-all government. To voters, the Republicans have become the party of
change and, in a period of economic and societal transition, that is an attractive quality.

The good news for Democrats is that opportunity is still knocking. Should they choose the more
courageous route, they will actually be better positioned than the Republicans to dominate the
foreseeable future politically. In order to do so, however, they must enact an entirely new
agenda appropriate for the new era. This does not mean simply shifting from the left to the
center or from the center to the left. They cannot build a stable electoral majority by shifting
horizontally; they must make a quantum leap to another plane. Instead of worrying about
attracting 51 percent of the second wave electorate, they should be crafting and promoting an
agenda for the third wave. This means eliminating virtually everything modern Democrats know
and going back to basics. Standing up for less fortunate, hard-working Americans will always
be the motivating force of the party, but citizens of the third wave are ill-served by policies
designed for the second wave. The people need -- and will embrace -- a bold new vision for
the nation.

The times really are a changin!

As stated above, the underlying assumption of this article is that we are at another moment in
history -- analogous to the dawn of the industrial era -- when a true progressive movement is
needed. In other words, the transformation from an industrial to an information-based economy
is so dramatic that an entire reassessment of our policies is necessary. For many people, this is
a scary thought. There is comfort in believing that the world will continue to function in a
manner to which we are accustomed. This desire for comfort, in turn, can cause us to be
complacent and to ignore reality.

The reality today, for better or worse, is that the era in which industrial activity and organization
dominated and shaped our lives is over. This is not to say that there is not a continuing need for
industrial production and manufacturing jobs in this country; just as there is still a need for
farming. But in terms of how people work, how people live, and how communities are
organized, we are now in an era that is vastly different from what existed merely a generation
ago. We have, without question, entered the third wave of history.

The phrase, “The Third Wave,” made famous by Alvin Toffler!s 1980 book bearing that title,
refers to the three distinct waves of economic development that have affected the lives of
humans on this earth. As described by Toffler, each of these waves, while driven by
technological and economic developments, brought about changes that affected every aspect of
human existence, from family life to social networks to the environment. It is important to note,
especially for the purpose of this article, that government is essentially powerless to stop or
even slow these waves of history. The best government leaders can do is to understand and
appreciate the transitions when they occur, so that they can establish laws and systems
appropriate for the realities of the day.

The agricultural era -- which started about 10,000 years ago and did not recede in its economic
dominance until less than 200 years ago -- was the first economic wave of history. During this
era, when living off the land was the prevailing way of life, commerce was primarily local and
government was limited. This all changed in the early part of the 19th century, when the
commercial use of the steam engine kicked off the massive second wave of the industrial era.
By the end of that century, large industrial factories and densely populated cities were prevalent
 Riding the Third Wave - 3

across the American landscape. The resulting concentration of individuals -- both at work and in
the urban areas -- required new organizational structures, from line managers to urban political
“bosses.” These structures clearly emphasized the importance of organization over
individualism. On the national level, steamboats, railroads, and, eventually, highway
transportation produced a thriving U.S. economy, while ships and airplanes delivered American
products around the world (and imported products to the U.S. from other nations). Of course, it
was not just the free market that spurred the growth of the industrial economy. There were
many critical actions taken by the federal government during this time, from the passage of the
G.I. Bill, which expanded access to higher education, to the decision, starting with the New
Deal, to make massive investments in the nation!s infrastructure.

The emerging “third wave,” information-driven civilization Toffler described in 1980 was
characterized by the breakdown of centralization and the re-birth of individualism. He presaged
an economy increasingly geared toward customized production, where individuals would have
the power to design products. He envisioned "a return to cottage industry on a new, higher,
electronic basis, and with it a new emphasis on the home as the center of society." He also
noted, "[W]e are moving toward a future economy in which very large numbers never hold full-
time paid jobs."

Today, we are fully immersed in this third wave and information technology is driving major
economic and social changes, many of which were predicted by Toffler. Whereas industrial
factories once drew people toward crowded cities, corporate satellite offices -- connected to
each other electronically -- are allowing executives and workers to move further and further
away from urban areas. Similarly, while industrial era forces led to the spread of large chain
bookstores, making survival difficult for small and used booksellers, today individuals can sell
used books competitively (and internationally!) through sites like Amazon.com. Of course,
information technology has also produced an interconnected globally economy that forces
American citizens to compete for work -- as “global free agents” -- with individuals around the
world.

Despite all of the available evidence, many members of society still question whether we have
actually entered a new era. This doubt is understandable. The transformation is not as visible
as it was during the birth of the industrial era, when factories and cities suddenly made flat
horizons jagged. Yet, viewed over time, the changes over the last 30 or 40 years are as
dramatic as those seen 100 years ago. They have not only altered the economic landscape, but
have caused a political realignment, as well.

The impact of the third wave on political power

“Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.”

-- President Ronald Reagan, 1981

“The era of big government is over.”

-- President Bill Clinton, 1996

Over the past few years, much has been written about how the conservatives have benefited
from the establishment of a powerful ideas industry backed by tens of millions of dollars from
 Riding the Third Wave - 4

wealthy individuals. The Right Nation by Adrian Wooldridge and John Micklethwait provided an
in-depth examination of this Republican revolution. The intricate and effective conservative
network was also the subject of former Clinton Administration appointee Rob Stein!s now
famous PowerPoint presentation, entitled “The Conservative Message Machine Money Matrix,”
which eventually helped convince democratic-leaning funders to commit tens of millions of
dollars to counter the conservative machine. According to both the book and the presentation,
the conservative movement!s financial infrastructure and its ability to train media-friendly
spokespeople played a major role in turning the political tide in their favor. Further, it is posited
that these investments enabled conservative principles, which were out of favor for so long, to
triumph over the liberal ideology. But this focus on infrastructure only tells part of the story.
Little noticed is the fact that the “conservative” agenda the Republicans have been advancing is
actually a progressive agenda that is resonating with today!s voters. Its basic philosophy is to
move the nation away from the era of centralized, expert-driven, big government and it is,
therefore, consistent with the nature of the information era society.

So while the Democratic Party has been mired in the past, the Republicans -- based on either
shrewd political strategy or historical serendipity -- have taken control of Washington by
presenting to the American people a philosophy consistent with the new era. This is not a very
detailed philosophy, mind you. In fact, it is based almost solely on the notion that individuals
should be free from taxes as well as free to pursue their economic goals without interference
from the government. But in an era in which people have seen the virtual end of mass
marketing and have become accustomed to having a much greater range of options available to
them in their personal lives, making a scapegoat of a large, one-size-fits-all government has
been an effective tactic for the Republicans.

* * * * *

The debate over second wave, centralized government has dominated the political landscape
since 1980, coincidentally (or perhaps not) the same year that The Third Wave hit the shelves.
It was in that year that Ronald Reagan rode his “smaller government” themes to victory over
President Carter. In his inaugural address the following January, the former New Deal
Democrat declared to the nation, “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is
the problem.” For the next twelve years (at least until the attempt by George H. W. Bush to
work with a Democratic Congress to reduce the deficit), calls for tax cuts and a reduced role for
government -- aside from defense spending -- dominated domestic politics thematically.

Aided by a weak economy and the presence of a strong third party candidate, Democrat Bill
Clinton managed to win the presidency in 1992. Significantly, however, the dominant theme of
his campaign was that he was a new kind of Democrat, literally a New Democrat. He did not
propose major new government programs. Instead, he sought to convince Americans that he
would produce a better government, not a bigger government -- a promise he kept, at least in
part, by reducing the number of federal government employees during his eight years in office.
He also struck a chord with the electorate by adopting a campaign slogan -- “Putting People
First” -- consistent with the third wave notion that large structures are breaking down and power
is devolving to individuals.

For those who misread the meaning of Clinton!s victory as an endorsement of 20th century
Democratic policies, a rude awakening was on the horizon. Within two years, the public!s desire
to move beyond the second wave era of big government and big bureaucracy exploded onto the
 Riding the Third Wave - 5

political scene when the Clinton Administration famously attempted to revamp the nation!s
health care system. Congressman, rabble-rouser, and soon-to-be-Speaker Newt Gingrich --
himself an admirer of Alvin Toffler -- seized the opportunity to portray the Democratic Party as
second wave thinkers in a third wave era. Although the messages conveyed were usually more
vitriolic than academic, the professor-turned-politician taught the Democrats a powerful lesson in
history.

The most damaging sound bite was probably the description of the health care plan as a
“government takeover of one-seventh of the economy.” For an electorate that had already
started to lose confidence in the idea of a large, second wave government, this became the final
straw. In November 1994, with the failed health care plan serving as an albatross around the
neck of the party, Democrats across the country, from Governors Mario Cuomo and Ann
Richards to U.S. House Speaker Tom Foley, were thrown out of office by a band of “angry white
males.” By the time President Clinton kicked of his 1996 campaign with his State of the Union
speech in January of that year, he was forced to concede, “The era of big government is over.”

President Clinton!s declaration should have been followed by a movement among Democrats to
shape a smaller, smarter, and perhaps even more active government. But teaching these old
dogs new tricks has proved extremely difficult. This largely explains why the Republicans
currently control both bodies in Congress as well as the White House. Given the choice between
outdated policies and potentially misguided policies, the voters have thrown caution in the wind
and have simply voted for change.

Political analyst Michael Barone alluded to this development in the aftermath of the 2000
election, when he described the Bush-Gore contest as a battle of more choice vs. more
government. While this may have been a slight exaggeration -- since Gore was not really
proposing any major new programs -- it was, at the very least, accurate to label the contest a
battle of more choice vs. more of the same. Either way, the contrast did not favor Gore. By
allowing Bush to become the candidate promoting freedom of choice on major issues such as
social security and education, Gore ceded a defining characteristic of the information era to his
opponent.

As the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, Senator John Kerry failed to absorb this
important lesson. An analysis of his campaign Web site in May of that year revealed that he did
not use the words “choice” or “choose” anywhere in his leading issues summaries (although a
nod to public school choice was part of an expanded section). He did, however, include some
striking second wave, big government rhetoric. Without describing any proposed changes with
respect to the way our children are taught, he talked about “fully funding education, no questions
asked.” On the health care front, Kerry promised to “expand” coverage to nearly 95 percent of
Americans.

President Bush, on the other hand, championed choice as a centerpiece of his governing
strategy on his campaign Web site. The three-paragraph summary of his health care plan
included the words “choice” or “choose” five times, including once in the title. He asserted,
“when people have good choices,” it will lead to higher quality and better care. In addition, he
continued to promote choice in the Social Security system and in education. For good measure,
Bush trumped Kerry!s use of the big government term “expand” to describe his health care plan
by using progress-oriented words such as “improve” and “modernize” to describe his own.
 Riding the Third Wave - 6

So for all of Clinton!s talk about “building a bridge to the 21st century,” we appear no closer to a
21st century democratic agenda today then we were 14 years ago. Instead, the Republicans
have used third wave rhetoric to build a bridge to the past. Just like 20 years ago, we have
deficits rising as the wealthiest Americans enjoy massive tax breaks. Corporations are writing
energy and environmental laws. In addition, defense spending is increasing, despite the fact
that no other nation in the world comes close to matching our military strength. The Bush
Administration has also adopted policies that, while not representing a return to past, are
potentially disastrous for the future. Most notably, the Administration!s emphasis on unilateral
action in the international arena could have a long-lasting negative impact on the nation.

Sadly, the current Republican dominance of government likely could have been prevented with
a true progressive, future-oriented agenda. The failure of Democrats to put forth such an agenda
opened the door for the Republicans, who have been more than happy to take advantage of the
opening. In fact, the Republicans are excelling at using future-oriented language to sell their
policies. This was on prominent display in the opening of President Bush!s speech at the 2004
Republican National Convention:

"The times in which we live and work are changing dramatically. The workers of our
parents' generation typically had one job, one skill, one career, often with one company
that provided health care and a pension. And most of those workers were men. Today,
workers change jobs, even careers, many times during their lives, and in one of the
most dramatic shifts our society has seen, two-thirds of all moms also work outside the
home.

"This changed world can be a time of great opportunity for all Americans to earn a
better living, support your family, and have a rewarding career. And government must
take your side. Many of our most fundamental systems – the tax code, health
coverage, pension plans, worker training -- were created for the world of yesterday, not
tomorrow. We will transform these systems so that all citizens are equipped, prepared -
- and thus truly free -- to make your own choices and pursue your own dreams."

Interconnected Individualism: The foundation of a progressive agenda for the new era

The key to reviving the progressive movement and building the support necessary to dominate
the political debate of the future is the development and promotion of a compelling narrative that
conveys the progressive vision to the public. It is not enough to tick off a list of issue priorities. It
is not enough to “have a plan” for every problem the nation faces. The American people need to
understand exactly what progressives believe, what kind of future they envision for the nation,
and how their policy priorities will help make that vision a reality.

So the question becomes, what should the progressive priorities be in the information age? In
order to make this determination, it is necessary to understand the essential nature of the
society for which they are being developed. By “essential nature,” we are not referring to
external realities, such as greater use of computers or increased international trade -- although
those factors are part of the determination. Instead, we are trying to boil down the entire era
into one overarching theme that is pervasive throughout the economy and society.

As it turns out, the driving force of the information age -- and the philosophy that should serve as
the basis for a third wave agenda -- is actually a synthesis of the dominant aspects of the
 Riding the Third Wave - 7

agricultural and industrial eras. The agricultural era, with its abundance of land and limited
government, was based on individualism; the industrial age, which produced big business, big
government and big cities, was defined by physical and financial interconnectedness. Not by
design, but by evolution, the information era!s overarching theme is “interconnected
individualism.”

There is no question that this nation is experiencing the demise of centralization and the rebirth
of individualism. No longer do people spend their entire adult lives in one firm, receiving reliable
benefits and a gold watch at retirement. Instead, most citizens are either modern-day workers-
for-hire, shifting constantly from one job to another, or entrepreneurs, working for no one but
themselves. There has also been a tremendous shift from physical labor to intellectual labor,
which, along with technological advances, has allowed companies to spread their operations, to
the point where some employees are even able to work from home. This decentralization of
employment has produced corresponding demographic changes, as evidenced by the
significant movement away from the cities and toward suburbs and (formerly) rural areas over
the past few decades. Most of all, as alluded to earlier, Americans today are enjoying an
explosion of choice in their lives, which serves to enhance their sense of individualism. From
hundreds of satellite-delivered channels on their televisions to telephone-ordered, customized
computers to Web sites and blogs on every conceivable subject, people are discovering the
satisfaction associated with having options and making decisions for themselves.

We cannot, however, confuse this new information age individualism with the more pure
individualism of the pre-industrial era. In a world of interconnected individualism, citizens --
often employing technological advances -- enhance their quality of life by networking, sharing
ideas, and discovering common interests with others at work, at home, and at play. Among
younger Americans this feeling appears to be especially strong. A recent “Youth Monitor”
report, based on polling conducted by Greenberg Quinlin Rosner Research in conjunction with
Politmetrix concluded, “[Today!s youth] are individualistic, but still want to be completely
connected.”

An example of how youths are connecting -- but according to their own tastes and interests -- is
the growing number of high school and college clubs today, which was the subject of an article
in the Washington Post in October 2005. Here is how the Post described the development: “At
a time when sociologists bemoan how disconnected Americans are from one another and how
traditional associations are withering, young people in the so-called millennial generation are
showing new interest in forming bonds through clubs and other organizations, said
administrators, teachers and students.”

American adults have also made tremendous strides toward the creation of a society based on
interconnected individualism. It is evident in the popularity of Web sites like Meetup.com, the
millions of individuals involved in political groups like MoveOn.org, and in the growing number of
Internet- and network-supported small businesses. It is now time for our political leaders to
embrace this spirit and enact policies that support and strengthen it.

Once the essential nature of society is identified, government has two responsibilities: helping
the nation and its citizens thrive under the given circumstances and enacting additional policies
consistent with the spirit of the day. In preparing citizens for the interconnected individualism of
the information era, it is important for our elected officials to recognize that the networks
enlivening and energizing the nation will only be as strong as the combined skills and
 Riding the Third Wave - 8

confidence of its members. Therefore, in order to provide the greatest benefit to our economy
and our communities, citizens should be encouraged and enabled to reach their personal
potential, nurture their unique talents, develop their interpersonal skills, and make decisions for
themselves. This will require a major reexamination and overhaul of our nation!s early
childhood and education policies.

A far more challenging task is to determine what other legislative acts will further the spirit of
interconnected individualism. This will require finding a balance between individualism and a
belief in progressive reforms that assist society broadly. Again, it is important to note that this
formula is not timeless. From the founding of this nation to the dawn of the industrial era, the
spirit of rugged individualism was predominant in this nation. Now, with the industrial era
receding, the spirit of individualism -- although perhaps a less rugged brand -- has returned.
Similarly, during the first 100 years of this nation, there was a minimal sense of
interconnectedness among citizens. But the industrial era, for better or worse, caused the lives
of Americans to become intricately intertwined. Today, while physical interconnectedness has
diminished, it has been replaced by a self-directed and often electronic interconnectedness. All
of these trends should factor into legislative decision-making.

The following excerpt from a publication from The Century Foundation is a good example of how
a legislative proposal -- or at least the theory behind a legislative proposal in this case -- can
offer a balance between individualism and interconnectedness. Of equal importance is their
critique of President Bush!s Ownership Society proposal. As they describe it, Bush!s proposal is
all individualism and no interconnectedness. This may have appealed to Americans in 1806,
but it will not resonate 200 years later.

“The privatized ownership society proposed by President Bush reduces social

insurance, exposes each of us to greater personal risk, and removes the certainties of
protection against life!s worst outcomes. This ownership vision is that of the frontier
days when each person rose or fell individually and at the virtual whim of the
marketplace. If smallpox strikes, tough it out. If you have no job, keep looking. If your
family is hungry, try grass soup. If you are too old to work and have no family, beg. The
vision that could reintroduce us to such levels of risk clearly is not a real ownership
society. It is a risk society, one in which a few win big at the cost of the security and
happiness of us all. The very concept reeks of the incredible inequalities and risks of
the robber baron era.

“The other version of an ownership society, the one that has built the great American
middle class, is that of social investment. In this version, we all pitch in to protect one
another against life!s vagaries, and to promote meaningful opportunities for each of us
through policies and programs that enable us to build the assets we need for security.
Hard work and personal betterment are still required, but government policies serve to
help make opportunity meaningful and fair, and federal programs provide guaranteed
protections in the face of tragedy or at the dawn of old age.”

-- “Building a Real "Ownership Society,!” The Century Foundation, 2005

This discussion of individualism and interconnectedness raises an important misconception -- or

at least a semantic problem -- among many progressives who see the debate between
themselves and Republicans revolving around the issues of individualism and community. The
 Riding the Third Wave - 9

simplistic frame is that progressives believe in community and care about one another, while the
Republicans are purely individualistic and think the American people should just fend for
themselves. Consistent with the frame, “individualism,” to many progressives, has become
synonymous with a kind of heartless Darwinism. This has left many progressives fighting
against individualism in an age of individualism. Of all of the faults on the Democratic side of
the spectrum, this may be the most damaging with respect to its ability to craft an agenda that
resonates with the American people.

Individualism and community are not mutually exclusive concepts. When coaches say that
there is no “I” in T-E-A-M, they don!t mean that the unique talents of certain players should not
be utilized and celebrated. They mean that the team will suffer if a player puts his or her own
individual interests above the interests of the team. The same theory applies in society. We
should appreciate each person!s innate strengths and abilities and create an environment in
which individuals can flourish, but we should not accept behavior by individuals -- or
corporations -- that undermine the strength of our communities. Government can and must play
a role in shaping such a society.

Accordingly, instead of fighting the tide of individualism, progressives must offer their own
version of individualism. Not a selfish and uncaring individualism, but rather an individualism
based on ensuring that every American has the opportunity to reach his or her God-given
potential and live a personally fulfilling life. This is what was meant by “life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness.”

Embracing individualism will not blur the line between progressives and Republicans. On the
contrary, a progressive, third wave agenda -- based on interconnected individualism -- will draw
a clear distinction with Republicans. In a society becoming increasingly based on individualism,
progressives will be seen as the champions of an empowering and enabling individualism. The
Republicans, by contrast, will be left defending a cold and perhaps naïve individualism in which
taxes are cut, people are left to their own devices, and leaders cross their fingers and hope that
religious institutions pick up the slack where government is unable or unwilling to act.

A progressive, third wave agenda

The purpose of this article is not to provide a detailed policy platform for progressives. We will
leave that to the many top-notch policy experts affiliated with the Democratic Party. We do,
however, want to offer readers our broad vision of a progressive agenda for the new era. We
believe these 16 policies demonstrate how progressives can address the needs of the people
and society in an age of interconnected individualism. We hope that they serve as the starting
point for further discussion and debate within the Democratic Party.

Proposed policy priorities for progressives in the new era:

• Implement a 21st century economic growth strategy that emphasizes investments in

intelligence and infrastructure, and prepares Americans for an era of increased
independence and interconnectedness.

• Help “raise a new world” by making the nurturing of the nation!s youngest children our
highest priority.
 Riding the Third Wave - 10

• Reform our K-12 education system so that it truly serves the needs of young people in the
new era and is more compatible with the lives of families today and into the future.

• Support policies that encourage a more rational balance between work and family, and that
create an economic environment in which a far greater proportion of Americans enjoy a
decent standard of living.

• Give individuals the freedom to explore and the courage to pursue economic opportunities
by enacting systems for health and retirement benefits that are not employer-based.

• Steer the forces of globalization so that they improve the quality of life for citizens in this
nation and around the world.

• Emphasize diplomacy over force, and multilateral – over unilateral – approaches to

international affairs.

• Concentrate on environmental matters that are also public health matters, so that citizens
fully appreciate the importance of corporate responsibility in an interconnected world.

• Push for energy independence in a manner that creates jobs related to the development of
renewable energy sources.

• Encourage states to become, once again, laboratories for democracy, so that we may all
learn from experience what kinds of policies are effective in the new era.

• Harness science and new technologies to better our lives, while preventing them from being
used to undermine our freedoms and liberty.

• Decentralize government decision-making so that states, localities, and individuals have

more control over their own lives.

• Restore democracy in the country by reforming election and lobbying laws so that citizens
have more options and power in the voting booth and so that elected officials are more
responsive to voters.

• Develop a greater sense of community in the nation by emphasizing the fact that, despite
the growing sense of individualism in the country, our lives are unavoidably interconnected.

• Respect the rights and the privacy of individuals and their desire to be free of government
interference in their lives.

• Undermine latent international public support for terrorism, thereby slowing its growth, by
spreading the values of democracy, freedom, love, and community around the globe. At the
same time, fight existing terrorist organizations by maintaining a strong, intelligent, and
flexible military force.

© Steve Fox, April 2006. All rights reserved.