Every now and then I come across a book that completely changes my view of the world, and “The Innovator’s Dilemma” was just such a book. The book’s gist is that large companies tend to avoid new innovations that do not immediately serve their established clients. These innovations usually refer to products or services that are cheaper or more convenient to the customer if not necessarily of the same quality as those the larger companies already offer. This creates a niche market for smaller companies to thrive in. These niche innovations become “disruptive” when they start creeping up on the turf of the large organizations’ existing business, at which point it is usually too late for these organizations to adapt.

The problem with these sorts of books (if you want to call it a problem) is that no matter how hard the author tries to give you examples of their thesis in action, you will find better ones simply because the idea is so prevalent. The struggle of Taxi companies in the face of ride sharing services like Uber, or the similar struggle of cable companies against video streaming services like Netflix are but two of many examples. Neither the taxi companies nor cable ones were willing to introduce services like their nimbler Internet counterparts because these services cut through the fattest parts of their margins. But now that competing companies do offer cheaper, more convenient versions of their services, the older companies are struggling to keep up, even if Netflix did not offer the widest selection at launch or Uber did not cover all the areas the Taxi companies did.

The example I personally like the most is a historical one. At the time of the Napoleonic wars, most European countries had relatively small professional armies that took years to train. Napoleon, on the other hand, had a French public fevered with national zeal after the French revolution. The French army was not as well trained as their Prussian counterparts, but there was a lot more of them, and even more were always a few short training weeks away from joining. Many European armies, including the Prussians, adopted the Napoleonic way of building armies, but only after Napoleon humiliated them in battle.

This finally brings us to the US Presidential Race, a long and costly process that is only getting worse with every election cycle. But I hope you can see where I am going with this by now. My hypothesis is as follows: if an independent candidate enters the presidential race a month or so before the election with a relatively modest budget, they can jam the airwaves with advertising at the point in time when it matters the most, as opposed to a year before election day when no one would even remember they are when it really counts. Running a campaign this way is the very definition of fiscal responsibility. I would probably vote for this guy/gal.

To be clear, such a candidate would not win. It is virtually impossible for an independent to win an election. But if such a “disruptive” move gets enough votes on election day, it would force other campaigns to rethink their strategy for the next election cycle and elections might start trending back towards nimbler elections than the juggernauts that they are today.