Vines is the executive producer of the 2021 documentary “Dialogue Lab: America” and president/CEO of Ideos Institute.
With the midterm elections over, it is high time we all take a collective sigh of relief. Not that the work is over. In fact, with new leadership, shifting coalitions and renewed focus on the challenges our nation is still faced with, some of our greatest work lies before us. But how does a nation divided across almost everything begin to move forward together towards the kinds of systemic changes and big idea solutions required of us?
Sadly, the jury is still out on exactly how we go about bridging our seemingly unbridgeable divides, much less solutions our political parties will collectively rally behind.
However, one thing I do know is that if we continue to wait patiently for systems change to magically happen, change will certainly remain elusive. Advocacy and activism are incomplete methods of change. Many tout “systems change” as the new solution. But the language of systems change gives the “exhausted majority” of Americans a bit of a hall pass. This exhausted majority feel disconnected from the halls of power and/or powerless given the overwhelming size of the issues themselves.
This is largely why we remain immobilized in the face of issues long overdue for real and sustainable solutions. Major issues like racial injustice, poverty, climate change, voting rights, immigration, gun violence and mental health continue to plague us after generations of political promises. As each party tells us what we want to hear – that they can fix it – we’ve grown cynical. It is time to stop scapegoating particular parties or populations for these systemic failures. Our inability to transform our broken and dysfunctional systems is, in fact, a lack of transformation within the American people themselves. The problem isn’t only the system. The problem is also us, our mindsets and attraction to simple answers, conspiracy theories and other quick fixes. We need to try something new.
For instance, what if we broke down systems change into manageable steps that every American could see themselves participating within? We could transform ourselves and our system, together. To understand this distinction, we must first define what systems change is and how it’s different from other types of approaches.
First, systems change focuses on the addressing of causes, rather than symptoms of social, political and economic issues. It involves the adjusting or “transformation” of the policies, practices, power dynamics, social norms and mindsets that underlie the societal issue at stake. And, for its success, it requires the shared understanding, commitment and action by a diverse set of stakeholders, including those closest to and most affected by the problem. This last part is the people part. It’s not a mindset of “they need to change” but a new mindset of “we need to change” so a new system is supported by all stakeholders, because they helped design and implement it.
Catalyst 2030, a global movement of people and organizations committed to achieving the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals by 2030, outlines systems change in the following way:
Systems change is the shifting, reconfiguring, and transforming of:
- mind-sets, mental models, and paradigms,
- patterns, underlying structures, and ways of operating,
- dynamics and relationships,
in order to:
- address underlying root causes,
- deal with [ever-changing] complex, uncertain, and interconnected systems…,
- Solve big social issues,
through intentional process and design, purposeful interventions, and conscious, deliberate approaches such as…:
- growing the number of people who think and act systemically,
- enabling and supporting leaders with the power to convene systems,
- strengthening capacity and processes to engage,
- strategic, multi-stakeholder approaches coming together across systems,
- having an inner awareness of the whole,
with the outcome of creating, enduring and positively affecting:
- different behaviors and outcomes,
- resilient, lasting, and better results,
- building a bridge to a better tomorrow,
- increased systems of health,
- positive social change,
- just, sustainable, and compassionate societies, [and]
- a new normal, the emergence of a new system and a new reality.
This is the process of systems change.
It is more common to assume the who/what behind systems change is “them,” and resist any change reflexively. We push away any thought that we might be better served with a new system or new belief. Here, today, we invite you to consider that all systems are simply people coordinating together with shared understanding. These “stakeholders” for our multiple looming crises are all of us. There is no “them” to blame, only “us.”
This means that the transformation of broken, antiquated, dysfunctional systems starts with the transformation of actual people. You. Me. Us. In other words, if we are ever going to change the systems most in need of changing, our first and most important step is to begin the work of changing ourselves – our personal mindsets, patterns, paradigms and ways of operating. Changing ourselves is the first step. Only then, according to the process outlined above, will we have a chance at building a just, sustainable and compassionate society.
Yes, the work of systems change is hard. But I would bet large sums of money that the reason why we are so lacking in most areas is because the work of people change is even harder. It is always easier to point our fingers at the other side; the ones with the wrong answers, the evil plans, the destructive ideas. But as my grandmother always told me, “When you point a finger at someone else there are three pointing back at you.”
So, with my three fingers pointing squarely back at myself, I invite you to join me in the work of personal transformation. Join me in a process – as my October piece alludes to, the transformative process of seeing past political, social and cultural identities toward the human being in search of a better future – even if differently designed. This is the messiness of social capital building and the foundation for strong democracies made up of diverse people and perspectives. The kind of democracy we have been promoting globally for decades and now struggle to maintain at home. Yes, the world is watching.











Ben Droz
Ben Droz







U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at Pinnacle Bank Expo Center on the Nebraska State Fairgrounds on October 05, 2026 in Grand Island, Nebraska.
The President Invited Iran to Bomb My Home
I was driving home to San Diego from Los Angeles on Monday night when I heard that the President of the United States had offered both cities up to Iran as bomb targets. At a rally in Nebraska, defending his war, Trump told the crowd, “let [Iran] take out Los Angeles, let ‘em take out San Diego.” It was, he said, “a very small price to pay.”
I was coming from a Bernie Sanders rally for Proposition 40, the one-time tax on California billionaires that would send 90% of its revenue to healthcare. We desperately need it to pass because, in order to give tax breaks to billionaires, Trump signed a law that will strip health coverage from 10 million Americans; this tax will make sure we can still cover Californians. Call me crazy, but I think taxing billionaires one time so we can make sure kids in California get to see a doctor is a very small price to pay. I also think that even if Trump were joking, it is indefensible to make jokes about the potential destruction of so many lives. Human life is never a small price to pay. Human life is priceless.
Plus, the reality is: here in San Diego, we’re already paying the price for Trump’s actions, and it’s not small at all. He has gutted FEMA, tried to kill climate resiliency programs, and destroyed public health standards, while his signature law is set to cut off health insurance and food support for hundreds of thousands of San Diegans. Like plenty of American cities, San Diego is already busy finding local solutions to respond to the problems this president has recklessly created.
Not to mention, at least 19 American service members have been killed in this war already. Human rights monitors have documented more than 3,600 dead in Iran by April alone. Here at home, gas is sitting just pennies below its all-time record. Taxpayers have already spent more than $45 billion on the war, while Trump’s oil and gas portfolio has grown by roughly $15.5 million this year alone. Of course anything is a “small price” to someone paying free.99 for this war, and profiting from it. Meanwhile, We the People are paying twice: first for the war, and then for the consequences of that war. But now he wants San Diego to pay a third time, flippantly offering us up to Iran.
It is worth noticing which cities he thought to name. Were San Diego and Los Angeles strategically chosen to signify something to his audience, or were they simply the first cities that came to mind as expendable places? Either way, the effect is to normalize—-and to gauge a crowd’s reaction to–the idea of massive violence in major California cities, suitable targets because of their perceived liberal lean. So what if Iran needs to bomb a little bit of America before the war can be over? Who cares, says Trump, if they target Los Angeles and San Diego?
By the way, why didn’t he offer up San Francisco, the free-love hippie-town MAGA loves to hate (and also my birthplace)? Could it be because that’s where the tech titans live? The same ones who joined Trump for Xi Jinping’s state dinner, a guest list worth a combined $2.4 trillion?
San Diego may have fewer billionaires, but it is home to more than 115,000 active-duty service members and 230,000 veterans. One in six active-duty sailors–in the entire Navy–is stationed here. So is one in four Marines. You cannot throw a rock in this county without hitting a military family: brats and spouses and veterans are among us. I got out of the Navy last year after ten years, and eight of those were here in San Diego. When Trump says “let ‘em take out San Diego,” he’s talking about the backbone of the United States military. He’s also talking about the people fighting his war.
San Diego has not been watching this war from the sidelines. Today, the USS Abraham Lincoln returns to North Island after an almost yearlong deployment to the Middle East that featured food shortages, broken toilets, and mold in the showers after 286 days at sea without a single port call. Eight sailors in the Lincoln’s strike group attempted suicide, but in August, when a reporter asked whether the deployment had gone on too long, Trump said “not nearly long enough.” Now he has told a crowd in Nebraska that we should let Iran take out the city those sailors call home. These are sociopathic sentiments.
Last week at Quantico, Pete Hegseth closed his address to the force by telling them, “President Trump has your back and so do I.” To the contrary, President Trump has put one of the biggest military towns in the country forward as a target for our adversaries. With friends like these, the “domestic” in “against all enemies, foreign and domestic” starts to sound a lot less hypothetical.
San Diego is home to Naval Air Station North Island, Naval Base San Diego, Naval Amphibious Base Coronado, the Point Loma submarine base, Camp Pendleton, and Miramar (and I have been permanently stationed at or trained at all of them). If Iran bombed San Diego and Los Angeles, aside from the devastating loss of life, it would cripple an immense share of our national security readiness.
And for what, exactly? Trump says the war is “essentially almost over with.” This is the same man who claimed in June 2025 that Iran’s nuclear program had been “obliterated,” then launched a war over it anyway on February 28. More than seven months later, he wants us to believe two things at once: that we’ve basically won, and that we might need to sacrifice an American city or two to finish winning. If the war is almost over, why does anybody need to take out San Diego?
I wonder if Trump’s endorsed candidate for California’s 48th District here in San Diego County will respond to these remarks. He recently said “no pain, no gain,” when referring to the gas prices San Diegans are paying. Jim Desmond, would you apply that same mindset if we were bombed? Or do you have the moral courage to stand up for the people you’re running to represent?
Last November, six Democratic members of Congress, all veterans, including Senator Mark Kelly, recorded a video reminding troops of their duty to disobey unlawful orders, restating the law that says so. Trump called it “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH,” and then his Justice Department went looking for an indictment, which a grand jury refused. The president treated reading the law out loud to the troops as a capital offense, but then he himself invited a foreign enemy to destroy two American cities, possibly as a punchline. Is anyone calling the latter sedition? Who is demanding accountability?
Calling our lives a small price to pay affirms a moral bankruptcy, as well as an obvious dereliction of duty to the office he holds. While we can’t impeach him or invoke the 25th Amendment ourselves, we must stop being so quiet about what we’re paying already. We can make our voices heard by calling our representatives, writing op-eds, knocking doors, phone banking, and voting in defiance of the man who threatens the safety of our city. Ballots are already arriving in mailboxes. Vote, and vote yes on 40 (and no on 41 and 42).
Trump has been harming our cities for a while, but now he is inviting our military adversaries to join him in the harm. If we have any self-respect as Americans, we must not tolerate our leaders disregarding the dignity of lives in this way. We must fight for our home.
Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.