How to revive strategic thinking in an age of digital outrage

For most of my adult life, politics and public affairs were played between the 30-yard lines. As a lifelong Democrat and strategic communications practitioner, I’d often hear conservative friends and family members express grave concerns about Clinton or Obama threatening our national security and economy. Liberal friends voiced similar fears about both Bushes. These concerns seem almost quaint now. 

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

This approach — careful, methodical, strategic — served its purpose in its time. It helped navigate complex policy challenges, build lasting coalitions, and maintain institutional stability. But in an age of unprecedented technological and social disruption, simply moving the ball methodically between the 30-yard lines is no longer sufficient. 

As Los Angeles burns in January 2025, we face a moment that demands more than careful advancement — yet reveals the dangerous void between tactical reaction and true strategic thinking. The challenge isn’t that leaders are throwing long bombs; some moments demand bold action. The problem is that these moves are increasingly driven by digital outrage rather than strategic vision. 

The game changes

Each viral moment demands instant response. A mayor’s airport silence becomes trending content. Conspiracy theories drive crisis management. Fire chiefs battle rumors on social media. Each tactical reaction creates new crises requiring more tactical responses. The game has fundamentally changed, but our approach to playing it hasn’t evolved — we’ve simply replaced methodical advancement with blind reaction. 

The pattern we have seen for most of the 21st century makes traditional political analysis feel inadequate. That’s why I began looking beyond conventional frameworks to understand our moment. What I discovered surprised me: The philosophers who grappled with humanity’s darkest hours — World War II, the Holocaust, profound social upheaval — weren’t just observing their turbulent era. They were providing frameworks for maintaining human purpose during times of fundamental disruption. 

Thinkers like Albert Camus, Hannah Arendt, and Simone Weil understood something crucial about maintaining human agency amid chaos. Their insights speak directly to our current challenges with artificial intelligence, social transformation, and institutional breakdown. 

Digital age, timeless thoughts

This manufactured chaos isn’t accidental. Marshall McLuhan warned us decades ago that the medium itself would reshape how we think and act. He couldn’t have imagined 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 flames consume Los Angeles neighborhoods, we see this transformation in stark relief through what philosopher Byung-Chul Han calls our “outrage society.” AI-generated images of the Hollywood sign in flames spread faster than actual fire. Political recriminations drown out strategic response. Each wave of digital outrage demands immediate reaction, leaving no space for strategic thinking or substantive action. 

Han argues that digital communication has led to the disintegration of community and public space, eroding our capacity for meaningful political action and discourse. Waves of outrage mobilize attention efficiently but lack the “stability, constancy, and continuity indispensable for civil exchange.” Lost in this digital chaos are the strategic questions that actually matter: How do we build institutional resilience? How do we balance development with climate reality? How do we maintain human agency amid accelerating crises? 

Think about how we respond to each new technological development. Whether it’s rapidly spreading misinformation about water supplies during fires or AI tools generating false crisis imagery, our reactions swing between blind panic and equally blind enthusiasm.

These aren’t just abstract concerns. We’re facing two existential challenges that share a common thread: the collapse of strategic thinking. On one side, we’re racing to implement AI and other transformative technologies without a clear vision of where we’re heading or why. On the other, we’re watching democratic institutions strain under populist pressure, responding to each crisis with tactical moves rather than strategic understanding.

The connection isn’t coincidental. Both challenges stem from our growing inability to see beyond the immediate, to understand complex patterns, and to think strategically rather than just react tactically. Whether it’s agencies creating multiple separate fact-checking websites instead of coordinated response, or institutions chasing viral moments rather than building public trust, we’re losing the art of strategic thinking just when we need it most.

Lessons from post-war thinking

While the urgency of today’s challenges may feel overwhelming, they are not without precedent. The post-war era, and the thinkers who addressed the massive societal changes the world was experiencing, may offer a model for how bold, strategic leadership can turn moments of profound crisis into opportunities for renewal.

Beyond immediate crisis management, LA’s challenges demand more than tactical reactions to viral outrage or misinformation campaigns. The city needs leadership with strategic foresight to rebuild, not just react — echoing lessons from another era of profound disruption. 

The Marshall Plan, forged in the wake of World War II, is often remembered as an economic recovery package. But its true power lay in its vision. American leaders didn’t just throw money at the ruins of Europe — they crafted a strategy that rebuilt trust, stabilized institutions, and fostered collaboration among deeply divided nations. They understood that to overcome despair and division, the solution had to go beyond immediate relief to lay the groundwork for long-term resilience.

This kind of renewal resonates deeply with Hannah Arendt’s reflections on the mid-20th century. Arendt argued that true political action arises not from reacting to chaos but from the deliberate creation of new public spaces and institutions where people can come together to address shared challenges. She warned against the “rule by nobody,” a phenomenon where bureaucratic systems obscure accountability and leave people feeling powerless — a dynamic we see today in LA, where leaders are paralyzed by the pace of digital outrage and misinformation

In the face of the LA fires, these lessons are clear. The crisis isn’t just about extinguishing flames; it’s about reimagining how the city confronts its vulnerabilities. The challenge is to go beyond tactical firefighting — both literal and metaphorical — and take bold, strategic steps toward building a city that can withstand future crises.

• Foster collaboration: Just as the Marshall Plan required nations to set aside their differences and work together, Los Angeles must rally diverse stakeholders — government agencies, community leaders, and private industries — to develop a cohesive climate resilience strategy. This must cross city lines, and artificial divisions that are the relic of days gone by. 
• Rebuild public trust: Following Arendt’s call for public spaces, LA’s leaders should focus on creating forums where residents can meaningfully engage in decisions about their city’s future. Transparency and collaboration can counteract the alienation and distrust amplified by disinformation. The long-overdue effort to update the City Charter must address the needs of a county with over 10 million residents 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 the realities of today.
• Balance pragmatism with vision: Like the architects of the Marshall Plan, LA’s leaders must recognize that pragmatism doesn’t mean abandoning moral responsibility. Addressing the fires’ immediate devastation 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. LA has the opportunity to do the same: to lead not just in responding to a crisis but in demonstrating how cities can thrive in an era of disruption. 

Putting strategy first

In my political work, I watched as data analytics and instant polling began replacing the human insight that comes from understanding community dynamics and reading a room. In my strategic communications work, I’ve watched organizations rush to adopt AI tools without first understanding their strategic purpose. It’s like calling plays without understanding the game. 

But here’s the irony — and the opportunity. The very human capacity for strategic thinking that we’re in danger of losing is exactly what we need to address these challenges. Real strategy — the kind that comes from experience, insight, and understanding human dynamics — is what separates successful crisis response from digital chaos, and effective governance from populist reaction. 

What we need now isn’t just better plays within the old rulebook — or wild throws hoping for miracle catches. The game itself has fundamentally changed, and with it, our need for a different kind of strategic thinking. The methodical advances between the 30-yard lines might have made sense in a more stable era, but they’re inadequate for today’s challenges. At the same time, the reckless long-bomb approach — whether from populist politicians or tech billionaires casually disrupting democratic institutions — threatens to burn down the stadium itself. 

The strategic thinking I learned in those early campaign days wasn’t just about careful advancement — it was about seeing the whole field, understanding the human dynamics at play, and recognizing patterns that others missed. Today, as my city burns and institutions strain under 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 maintain human agency and purpose amid profound disruption.

The philosophers who wrote amid the chaos of the mid-20th century weren’t just documenting their moment. They were providing frameworks for navigating fundamental change while preserving what matters most. Their insights remind us that strategic thinking isn’t just a set of tactical tools — it’s a fundamentally human capacity that becomes most crucial precisely when the old rules no longer apply. 

Our challenge now is to cultivate this kind of strategic thinking before it’s too late — not to play between the 30-yard lines or throw desperate long bombs, but to reimagine the game itself while preserving its fundamental purpose: advancing human flourishing in an age of unprecedented change.