Evan McMullin was proposing himself as an independent presidential candidate when he wrote this “Letter to America.” He writes:
Even in times of economic crisis and war, our nation has been a singular source of hope for people throughout the world yearning for liberty, dignity and opportunity.
Then he adds this tidbit:
(Donald Trump’s) infatuation with strongmen and demagogues like Vladimir Putin is anathema to American values.
As shown above, those values would be liberty, dignity and opportunity. He ends with:
Leaders who will unite us and guide us to a prosperous, secure future, beyond the dysfunction of a broken political system.
Just as the American Revolution required men and women devoted to liberty and freedom to stand up and be counted, this moment calls a new generation to the same sacred task.
He admits that the current political system which is “broken” is the same system he actively participated in. Also, pointing to “leaders” to push for a second American Revolution obfuscates his real intention of attacking Russia.
This deduction may be wrong, so let’s look at (his) values proposed for (his) leadership, which in his mind would be anathema to Putin. The only values identified in a letter he himself wrote as pertaining to himself are “pride,” “quiet” and “renew[al].” The other values mentioned pertained to foreigners (opportunity and liberty) and universal values (dignity). In addition it was strange how he used the term “constitution” as if it were a value, while “law” or “justice” may have been better.
Clearly the above is disjointed as far as the concept of values is concerned. First of all he should have identified his own values (that he himself actually lives by). Then he should have compared his own values with the values of the American organization or bureaucracy that he intends to (directly) manage for the next four years. Two values were mentioned i.e. “limited” and “smart” which are strange words to use when effectiveness would have been better.
The reason people should separately identify their values (and the values of their organization) is to enable the electorate and employees to measure the performances of the candidate as well as of the organization. For example effectiveness can be measured, but “limited” cannot. You can measure “pride” and “quietness” to some extent while “renewal” opens a can of worms. For example, proposing a second revolution sounds awfully like Communist doctrine, which he claims to be anathema to.
The reason values are so important is that the electorate and employees find comfort in knowing on what basis the candidate makes his (own) decisions behind closed doors. Those values essentially reflect his personal survival technique meaning that if he survives, then we will too. If he succeeds, we will too. However, if he fails, we will know where to pick things up. In summary therefore; Value management reduces risk thereby increasing the probability of success (all by itself).
The candidate already drives the values which caused his own success and motivated his application as independent Presidential candidate. His own family knows his values motivating them on their own paths to success as well. In fact, these values were obtained from the grandparents and can in most cases be traced across generations. Then finally, he is so confident in his own values that he is attempting to bring that to the Presidential table.
How did that happen, you ask? The original settler in his family-line must have suffered a lot in a strange new world, causing him to develop a new set of survival skills. For example, hunting bison, eating strange tasty leaves for medicinal purposes, building a house with tree stumps and building a water channel. This skill-set became a family tradition and over generations finally morphed into specific values such as “prudence,” “volunteering,” “pride,” and “quietness.” What Evan McMullin is trying to say is that his family worked hard to attain these values, and being American all Americans should identify with that (automatically).
The problem though, is not his own understated values, but the total ignorance of values the organization he wants to manage require of him. Let’s say the organization needs to be effective. How would that help him to help the tax-payer? The idea is to identify metrics that would measure effectiveness (of the organization) every quarter. How would that help him to engage Putin? Well, he could engender some respect from Putin which could improve their relationship away from being “anathema” to “cooperative.” The interesting part is how a personal conflict of values between these “leaders” will affect a cooperative outcome (assuming it is actually contradictory). American (organizational) survival must improve despite any decisions made.
Therefore, it is possible to say that personal values improve the probability of personal survival, while organizational values do the same, but for the organization. It is possible and advisable to take the next step to Empire or Civilization, meaning that a third level of values would be required. This candidate missed this level as well and it is not like the topic of Empire or Civilizational decline is under wraps. On the contrary, the New World Order is well known but unfortunately over-valued in 2016 as the (somewhat) despicable Cathedral, thus requiring new “values” too.
From a values perspective, the deduction is that values should be aligned between ordinary people, their organizations and their empire so that (those) taxpayers can improve their survivability. This does not relate to drinking party wine, it relates to probabilities that an empire (such as the USSR or the NWO for example), can last longer than 40 years.
Think about that.