How to revive strategic thinking in the age of digital fury

For most of my adult life, politics and public affairs have been played out between the 30-yard lines. As a lifelong Democrat and practitioner of strategic communications, I often hear conservative friends and family members express grave concerns about a Clinton or Obama threat to our national security and economy. Liberal friends have expressed similar concerns about Bochen. These concerns seem strange now.

In a pre-9/11 world, pre-economic collapse, you knew what leaders of both parties would do in a crisis. They will defend America’s interests, keep markets calm, and generally adhere to rules and decorum. Like football, politics was essentially a game of controlled territory – three yards and a cloud of dust, advancing methodically.

This approach – cautious, methodical and strategic – served its purpose in its time. It helped overcome complex political challenges, build durable alliances, and maintain institutional stability. But in an era of unprecedented technological and social disruption, simply moving the ball methodically between the 30-yard lines is no longer enough.

As Los Angeles burns in January 2025, we face a moment that demands more than careful advances—but exposes the dangerous void between tactical reaction and true strategic thinking. The challenge is not that leaders drop long bombs; Some moments call for bold action. The problem is that these movements are increasingly driven by digital anger rather than strategic vision.

The game changes

Every viral moment requires an immediate response. Airport Mayor’s silence becomes trending content. Conspiracy theories drive crisis management Fire chiefs combat rumors on social media. Every tactical reaction creates new crises that require more tactical responses. The game has fundamentally changed, but our style of play has not evolved – we have simply replaced methodical progression with blind reaction.

The pattern we have seen for most of the twenty-first century makes traditional political analysis seem inadequate. That’s why I started to look beyond traditional frameworks to understand the moment we live in. I was astonished by what I discovered: The philosophers who grappled with humanity’s darkest hours—World War II, the Holocaust, profound social upheaval—were not merely observing their own turbulent era. They were providing frameworks for sustaining human purpose in times of fundamental turmoil.

Thinkers like Albert Camus, Hannah Arendt, and Simone Weil understood something crucial about maintaining human agency in the midst of chaos. Their ideas speak directly to the current challenges we face in artificial intelligence, social transformation, and institutional collapse.

The digital age, timeless ideas

This artificial chaos is not accidental. Marshall McLuhan warned us decades ago that the medium itself would reshape the way we think and act. He couldn’t imagine social media algorithms and AI language models, but he understood something fundamental: new forms of communication don’t just carry messages, they transform the messenger.

As the flames ravage Los Angeles neighborhoods, we see this transformation starkly through what philosopher Byung-Chol Han calls the “society of rage.” AI-generated images of the Hollywood sign burning have spread faster than the actual fire. Political accusations overshadow the strategic response. Every wave of digital anger requires an immediate reaction, leaving no room for strategic thinking or substantive action.

Hahn argues that digital communications have led to the disintegration of society and public space, eroding our capacity for meaningful political action and discourse. Waves of anger efficiently mobilize attention but lack “the stability, constancy, and continuity that are indispensable to civil exchange.” In the midst of this digital chaos, the strategic questions that really matter are lost: How do we build organizational resilience? How do we balance development and climate reality? How do we preserve human capacity amidst accelerating crises?

Think about how we respond to each new technological development. Whether it’s misinformation rapidly spreading about water supplies during fires or artificial intelligence tools generating false images of crises, our reactions oscillate between blind panic and blind enthusiasm in equal measure.

These are not just abstract concerns. We face two existential challenges that share a common thread: the collapse of strategic thinking. On the one hand, we are racing to implement AI and other transformative technologies without a clear vision of where we are headed or why. On the other hand, we watch democratic institutions strain under populist pressures, responding to every crisis with tactical steps rather than strategic understanding.

The connection is not a coincidence. Both challenges stem from our increasing inability to see beyond the present, understand complex patterns, and think strategically rather than simply react tactically. Whether it’s multiple agencies creating separate fact-checking websites instead of a coordinated response, or organizations chasing viral moments instead of building public trust, we’re losing the art of strategic thinking when we need it most.

Lessons from post-war thinking

Although the urgency of the challenges we face today may seem overwhelming, they are not without precedent. The post-war era, and the thinkers who addressed the massive societal changes that the world was witnessing, may provide an example of how bold strategic leadership can be in turning moments of deep crisis into opportunities for renewal.

Beyond immediate crisis management, the challenges Los Angeles faces require more than just tactical responses to viral outrage or disinformation campaigns. The city needs leadership with the strategic foresight to rebuild, not just react — echoing lessons from another era of profound turmoil.

People often remember the Marshall Plan, drafted in the aftermath of World War II, as an economic recovery package. But her real power lies in her vision. American leaders did not simply throw money into Europe’s ruins, they crafted a strategy that rebuilt trust, stabilized institutions, and strengthened cooperation among deeply divided nations. They recognized that to overcome despair and division, the solution must go beyond immediate relief to lay the foundation for long-term resilience.

This kind of renewal resonates deeply with Hannah Arendt’s mid-twentieth-century reflections. Arendt argued that real political action arises not from responding to chaos, but from intentionally creating new public spaces and institutions where people can come together to confront common challenges. She warned against “rule of no one,” a phenomenon in which bureaucratic systems obscure accountability and leave people feeling powerless — a dynamic we are seeing today in Los Angeles, where leaders are paralyzed by the pace of digital outrage and misinformation.

In the face of the Los Angeles fires, these lessons became clear. The crisis is not limited to putting out fires only; It’s about reimagining how the city confronts its vulnerabilities. The challenge is to go beyond tactical firefighting – both literally and figuratively – and take bold, strategic steps toward building a city resilient to future crises.

• Strengthening cooperation: Just as the Marshall Plan asked states to put aside their differences and work together, Los Angeles must mobilize various stakeholders — government agencies, community leaders, and private industry — to develop a coherent climate change adaptation strategy. This must go beyond the city lines and artificial divisions that have become a relic of bygone days.
• Rebuild public trust: Following Arendt’s call for public spaces, Los Angeles leaders should focus on creating forums where residents can meaningfully participate in decisions about their city’s future. Transparency and cooperation can counter the alienation and mistrust amplified by misinformation. The long-awaited effort to modernize the city charter must meet the needs of the province of more than 10 million people and finally eliminate the Balkanized system of outdated city lines and fragmented municipalities. Now is the time to restore effective governance and build a structure that reflects today’s realities.
• Striking a balance between pragmatism and visionLike the architects of the Marshall Plan, Los Angeles leaders must realize that pragmatism does not mean abdicating moral responsibility. Addressing the immediate devastation of fires is critical, but so is investing in systemic changes – better urban planning, renewable energy infrastructure, and robust emergency management systems.

The Marshall Plan succeeded because it confronted existential despair with a vision of renewal, and Arendt’s philosophy reminds us that this vision must be rooted in collective action. Los Angeles has the opportunity to do the same: lead not only in responding to crises but in showing how cities can thrive in an age of disruption.

Put the strategy first

In my political work, I have watched data analytics and real-time polling begin to replace the human insight that comes from understanding community dynamics and reading the room. In my work in strategic communications, I have watched organizations rush to adopt AI tools without first understanding their strategic purpose. It’s like calling plays without understanding the game.

But here lies the paradox, and the opportunity. The human capacity for strategic thinking that we are in danger of losing is exactly what we need to meet these challenges. True strategy—the kind that comes from experience, insight, and understanding of human dynamics—is what separates successful response to crises and digital chaos, effective governance, and populist reaction.

What we need now isn’t just better plays within the old rule book – or wild throws in the hope of a miracle. The game has fundamentally changed, and with it our need for a different kind of strategic thinking. Systematic progression between the 30-yard lines may have made sense in a more stable era, but it is insufficient to meet today’s challenges. At the same time, the reckless long-bomb approach – whether by populist politicians or tech billionaires disrupting democratic institutions – threatens to burn down the stadium itself.

The strategic thinking I learned in those early days of the campaign wasn’t just about precise advances, it was about seeing the entire field, understanding the human dynamics at play, and recognizing patterns that others missed. Today, as my city burns and institutions strain under the weight of multiple crises, we need this kind of strategic vision more than ever – not to return to some imagined past of political moderation, but to forge new paths that preserve human agency and purpose in the midst of profound turmoil.

The philosophers who wrote amid the chaos of the mid-twentieth century were not just documenting their moments. They were providing frameworks for dealing with fundamental change while maintaining what matters most. Their insight reminds us that strategic thinking is not just a set of tactical tools, but a fundamentally human ability that becomes even more important precisely when old rules no longer apply.

Our challenge now is to cultivate this kind of strategic thinking before it is too late – not to play between the thirty-yard lines or throw desperate long bombs, but to reimagine the game itself while maintaining its core purpose: to promote human flourishing in an era of unprecedented change.