Fences, politicians, tradition and ambition

Aren’t these interesting times? Between an assassination attempt and a presidential campaign abandoned, former President Trump named a new VP candidate, J.D. Vance, who deserves a prize for political inoculation. The millennial Vance made himself the hero of his own autobiographical drama while confessing to multiple crimes long before he entered politics. It all seems a bit too perfect, and perhaps it is.

At first glance, it would seem that Senator Vance may have made the jobs of the DNC opposition research team irrelevant, but the exposure of multiple name changes bespeaks a raw, calculated ambition that undermines any illusion of a humble “common man” candidate.

Other revelations are sure to follow, and it will be interesting to see if Vance’s efforts to preempt criticism fare any better than those of South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, who unsuccessfully tried to get ahead of the story surrounding a dog-shooting incident. Her account did little to impress American dog lovers and effectively removed her, at least for now, from any aspirations for national office.

Against this national drama, I found myself engaged in a conversation about a venerable institution in Southwest Nebraska, and at least a part of that discussion considered trade-offs between preserving tradition and progressive innovation. As I walked away, I recalled the old business school lesson of “Chesterton’s Fence.”

That may sound a bit like “Schrödinger’s Cat,” which has been creeping into the cultural lexicon lately. Schrödinger’s Cat describes a concept in quantum mechanics where a particle can exist in multiple states simultaneously until it is observed. It seems to be popping up everywhere lately, likely related to quantum computing, but I have been hearing it from outside the physics world, including comedic analogies.

Chesterton’s Fence, on the other hand, is more of a business or organizational concept introduced by the English writer and philosopher G.K. Chesterton, advocating for understanding the reasons behind existing structures, systems, or norms before making any changes. It serves as a metaphorical reminder to approach reform with caution and comprehension, ensuring that the wisdom and purposes embedded in current practices are fully appreciated.

In his 1929 book “The Thing,” Chesterton describes a scenario where two people encounter a fence in the middle of a road. One person suggests removing the fence because it seems purposeless. The other argues that they should first understand why the fence was put up before deciding to remove it. The message is that existing structures or rules likely have reasons for their existence, and those reasons should be understood before making changes.

The principle of Chesterton’s Fence has been applied to various contexts, including legislation, corporate structures, environmental policy, and technological advancements, guiding informed decision-making for nearly a century.

A historical example is the Parliament Act of 1911 in the United Kingdom. Before the act, the House of Lords had the power to veto legislation passed by the House of Commons, serving as a check against hasty decisions. As democratization grew, the act limited the Lords’ power to a delaying function rather than an absolute veto. Reformers understood the reasons behind the Lords’ veto power and designed a solution that maintained checks and balances while allowing democratic progress.

In the corporate world, companies often change organizational structures in response to market dynamics. For example, shifting from a hierarchical structure to a flat, agile organization can foster innovation. However, before making such changes, it is crucial to understand why the hierarchical structure was initially established—perhaps to ensure clear authority lines and accountability. By comprehending that reasoning, leaders can design new structures that retain essential controls while achieving desired agility, exemplifying Chesterton’s Fence.

A classic example in environmental policy involves wetlands, often viewed as unproductive lands but providing vital services like flood control, water purification, and wildlife habitats. Draining wetlands without understanding those functions has led to severe ecological damage, as seen in the early 20th-century draining of the Florida Everglades, resulting in significant environmental harm and costly restoration efforts.

Chesterton’s Fence encourages a thoughtful approach to change. By understanding the reasons behind existing structures before making alterations, we can ensure changes are informed, effective, and considerate of embedded wisdom. Whether in legislative reform, corporate restructuring, environmental policy, or the advancement of established institutions, Chesterton’s Fence reminds us to approach change with respect and reasonable caution, leading to more successful outcomes.

As for young Mr. Vance, manipulating a politician’s public image relates to Chesterton’s Fence in that both involve understanding the reasons behind an existing structure before making changes. In politics, a politician’s public image is often shaped by established narratives, historical context, and public expectations. Before attempting to alter or manipulate his image, our self-mythologized veep candidate might have given more thought to the underlying factors that attract American voters to candidates with modest backgrounds.