The author did a good job of explaining this new breed of "players" who 'toy with official rules and not only get away with it, but often make decisions about policies that affect us all---in areas ranging from the economy and foreign affairs to government and society---while fashioning new rules of the game to benefit themselves.'
This is about people in power who have their "own" agenda, and get involved in many organizations and then blur the lines of who they are representing when they act, and bring up the question of, are they even representing anyone or anything at all, or just THEMSELVES?
Quotes:
The new system of power and influence and the players who thrive in it have transformed our world. The consequences are well illustrated by the global economic meltdown that became incontrovertible in the fall of 2008. At the root of the crisis and the heart of the new system is a decline in loyalty to institutions. This decline is reflected in the proliferation of players who swoop in and out of the organizations with which they are affiliated---who operate in them, but are not of them---and create "coincidences of interest" that serve their own goals at the expense of their organizations and the public. The greed that Wall Street high fliers symlpolize is merely an egregious expression of such lack of loyalty and disdain for the public good---outcomes fo the four transformational developments at work. ... In such a moral universe, ehtics becomes a matter of individual choice, with the only real control being social pressure exerted by the network. Ethics are
disconnected from a larger public or community and detached from the authority that states and international organizations, boards of directors, and even shareholders once provided. With the players removed from the input and visibility of these institutions, not to mention that of voters, the consequences to the public are multiple and serious.
Moreover, few have the power and influence to bring the new players of power and influence to light. The authority of journalisn is waning. Investigative reporting is dying a swift death, as the institution of journalism itself undergoes massive gutting, newspapers fold right and left, and dwindling resources are available for investigative reporting of the kind that enabled the Washington Post to break the Watergate story. To make matters worse, flexians and their networks are skilled at warding off efforts to illumunate thier methods or activities. They respond immediately and aggressively to criticism by putting out their own stories, attacking the messenger, and enlisting all possible allies in the antimessenger campaign to highlight their integrity and good works.
The flexians' success is greatly enhanced by the fact that no one is minding the store as a whole---even as we can't answer the most basic of questions: Who does the player represent, who are his associates and sponsors, and with whom is he affiliated? Where do his loyalties lie and to whom is he ultimately answerable? when these questions are difficult, if not impossible, to answer for so many of today's influencers, it follows that the prevailing means of keeping them in check are outmoded.
The rise of the shadow elite warrants revisiting age-old thinking on corruption. In the New Testament, the author of the Gospel of Matthew wrote, "No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other". (Matthew 6:24) This is corruption at its most basic---a violation of public trust. Flexians and flex nets pursue the ends of their own idealogical masters, which often contradict the other masters they supposedly serve. The challenge for policymakers and readers, not that the problem has been laid out and the animal named, is to work toward recovering that public trust.