Inhabiting the Middle is a Privilege - and a Competitive Advantage
tl;dr I’ve advocated for moderation for a long time. My nature and lived experience have sharpened these instincts, all the more uncommon in an increasingly polarized society. Yesterday’s election made this acutely pertinent. We are speaking past each other in destructive ways. As a citizen, I feel compelled to cry out for centrism and help bridge the divide. And as an investor it has informed my judgment, in ways that I hope will move our economy and environment forward and deliver outsized returns.
Two decades ago I had the idea to start a news organization based far away (Australia?) staffed by the most heterogeneous mix of people to try and remove bias from the media.
In 2017 (and again in 2021) I proposed starting a website that would deliver weekly summaries of the most compelling writings from “the other side” (as determined by the other side) to encourage folks to understand the world outside their bubble.
This past summer I wrote about the urgency to return to centrism — not as a way to “split the baby” but in support of liberal democratic values and recognition that the majority can find better ways forward by listening to each other and working together, rejecting the fringes.
And then yesterday happened. My intimate WhatsApp groups spanned the gamut. “MAGA Moms celebratory lunch!!!” and “what a relief with Trump’s win!” interspersed with “may need some days to grieve”, “this country is misogynistic and racist” and “I’m feeling punched in the gut, deeply sad for our children and country”.
Immediately, the interpretations began. And the concern is that we take away the wrong lessons. From my vantage point, often the conversations are completely orthogonal. The sides are not disagreeing per se but rather speaking completely past each other. This is because of our inability to see the world outside of our own frame of reference, creating completely different perceptions of reality. I feel grateful that I am continuously forced to experience many frames of reference. When people say diversity leads to better outcomes, I believe this is what it truly means — understanding the world outside of a narrow bubble.
My view is that while disinformation is a problem, the bigger problem is punctuation, i.e. how much weight we give to different issues. Prior to the internet, the news came in a holistic product in which editors allocated real estate to ensure a comprehensive worldview. Today, an article that might have gotten 2 square inches of real estate on page 20 can become the central headline for many. Add this up thousands of times and its hard to find common ground (if you are reading this and think this only applies to the other side, news flash — this applies equally across the political spectrum and is not limited to low-information folks).
On a very small number of issues, the sides actually understand each other and simply disagree (I’d put abortion rights and gun rights in this bucket, for example). In these cases, compromise driven by the moderate majority is required to move forward. But in the majority of cases (immigration, economic policy, education, healthcare, etc.) the understanding and prioritization of the issues is preventing us from recognizing that there is much more commonality than disagreement.
There will be many theories of what happened on November 5th. And the truth, while unknowable, is likely complex and multifactorial. But I believe the voters that tipped the results from an even heat to a clean sweep voted for Trump despite Trump. They would have preferred a different messenger and disapprove of many of his words and actions, not least those leading to January 6. But they did so as a rejection of pervasive identity politics and a fear by moderates that the fringe of the Democratic party is gaining ground. Trump’s sweeping win, as odd as it may sound, is a cry for moderation and common sense.
As it relates to investing, my worldview has always been informed by this moderate perspective. In venture, investment judgment requires a decades-long view on where the world is going in order to be “early and right”. As the world becomes more complex and investments scale in size and impact, understanding the world as it is rather than as one subset prefers to see it is a meaningful edge. Nowhere is this clearer than in climate.
Rather than the ideological battle around climate change, the pragmatic approach to sustainability investing recognizes that the energy transition is necessary and already happening, but will not accelerate without a focus on abundance and price competitiveness. The super-cycle of spurring energy efficiency and clean energy sources can get buy-in from both sides of the aisle, and thus focusing on that approach will yield much better results than pitting ideologues against climate deniers.
There are enormous profits to be reaped as we develop solutions to support continued economic growth without destroying our planet. At Avila we focus on the ZOPA (“zone of possible agreement”) rather than vilifying the other side. Putting a clueless teenager on the cover of TIME to encourage climate activism led nowhere but to backlash. The right approach is to recognize that energy consumption and economic development are inextricably linked, just like carbon emissions and a warming planet.
As literally trillions of dollars are invested in infrastructure to support economic growth, pursuing solutions that consider both is the only way forward. And this ethos of pragmatism and recognizing others may have valid perspectives that improve the path forward will behoove us in sustainability and beyond.
