MacKenzie King – Canada’s Pragmatist In Chief

The following is based on old notes + Allan Levine’s William Lyon MacKenzie King: A Life Guided by the Hand of Destiny + MacKenzie King’s own diaries.

An Academic Up to A Point

William Lyon MacKenzie, Mayor of York (later renamed Toronto), who led the failed Upper Canada Rebellion against the Family Compact, had a grandson with ambitions….William Lyon MacKenzie King (WLMK). And WLMK has since been ranked amongst the best Prime Ministers in Canada…longest serving. Why? He was calculating, bland and lacked a sense of humour but he was the inoffensive guy that the political system was designed to produce; before the technocratic Prime Minister’s Office could become an extension of the Prime Minister…MacKenzie Kng was an operator, a pragmatist in chief.

Educational Background: King did undergrad at University of Toronto then he did a masters in economics at the University of Chicago and then did PhD work at Harvard. He had a grudge with the UofT because he applied for a masters and they turned him down multiple times partly because of his anti-establishment student politics which upset the school’s dean. He moved to Ottawa in the late 1890s. which was still a lumber baron town and considered the ‘gloomy Pittsburgh of the north’ (usually associated with Hamilton).

The great fire of Hull in 1900, April 26th destroyed much of Hull, Quebec and more than 15,000 people lost their homes in Hull. The capital of Canada was a work in progress. Small. Canada itself was just getting started. It’s quite difficult to even fathom this past, a country so sparsely populated and under-developed. The standard of living of a Canadian today is insanely wealthy relative 100 years ago.

Small Country, Growing Population and Government Services

The competition for jobs in Ottawa was not that extreme and bilingualism was not a requirement and so MacKenzie King was able to move up quickly. As the lumber baron’s lost their economic power, many families turned to other means of support in the Ottawa valley. Government in the National Capital Region naturally grew through patronage, connections and while there weren’t unlimited jobs there were some….

From Journalist to Bureaucrat | A Taste of Perception As Reality

MacKenzie King’s career began as a journalist for the Labour Gazette which was a forum for labour issues which involved collecting certificates and firmly securing the support of the labour movement within the Liberal Party fold. In Ottawa, those in power rewarded their loyal supporters and intentionally ignored their opponents. Animosity between the two sides was bitter and deep, any story of statistics that even hinted the conservatives had done something positive was to be ignored. In one case, a judge had delivered a pro-labour decision but was a Tory supporter so Mueller (the editor of the Labour Gazette) found that unacceptable and Mackenzie King (who had covered the story) was forced to remove the reference. The fact was, for King in his diary, perception had become reality; partisanship was the mechanism for shoring up support, any sign of weakness or softness towards the other side was a basis for supporting that other side, for maybe giving ones vote to the other side or working with the other side. The competition is fierce for the budget of Canada. Weakness was not tolerated then and sadly (at a cost of having creative problem solvers involved) partisanship is still a going concern in partisan politics. A small change in intensity can be the difference between a majority government and opposition.

Becoming a Labour / Management Conciliator (Mediator)

Mackenzie King was swiftly promoted to the deputy minister for labour relations with a salary of $3,200. His meteoric rise was notable in the press of the time for example the Ottawa Journal mentioned him. In fact during a labour dispute in Valley Field, Quebec, Mackenzie King was sent by Wilfrid Laurier to defuse the situation. He manage to get concessions from both sides but as he was leaving, he also hung out with Liberal candidates and could be seen to publicly support Liberals stating that he hoped the Tory would lose in the 1900 election (after 18 years in power)… In the House of Commons, later Frederick Monk rose to accuse King of being a liberal political agent. Advocating on behalf of Liberal candidates is a no-no as a civil servant. Monk was vilified for attacking a civil servant but King learned a valuable lesson about even innocent public displays of partisanship being a harmful thing. The controversy likely brought King more attention, although Ottawa was a small town. Mackenzie King was a polite well liked fellow already.

King bought property on Lake Kingsmere for $200. That’s about $3,500 in 2021 money….Canada was a dirt poor country with a meager population of under 5 1/2 million in 1900.

King’s best friend in Ottawa, Bert Harper fell through river ice and died. King was consumed with grief in his diary for the soul of a man that King loved. Doesn’t necessarily mean there is anything beyond platonic love for a friend here. Mackenzie King’s diary is full of effusive language about loved ones, pets and girlfriends. King had a statue erected of Harper, in the image of Sir Galahad, which still stands at Parliament.

Focused on Work rather than Family

King had a platonic relationship with a married women Marjorie Hedridge. And it appears that it probably blossomed into an actual love affair at some point in the fall of 1902. However, there’s no actual evidence that there was a romantic relationship. Of course a lack of evidence does not mean it didn’t happen.

Eventually, by 1914 his relationship with Marjorie had shifted since his preoccupations with government were central. And she died by 1924 and he didn’t have much remorse for her which was a surprise to himself in his diary. Mackenzie King built the Kingsmere estate during this time.

Embed Your Work in Law and Academia

  • Labour relations were very poor in the early 20th century and union movements began to crop up as a response to management’s cold-bloodedness. 
  • King was responsible in part for the Industry Disputes Investigation Act passed in March 1907 which bans strikes, applies fines for strikers of $10 per day in public utilities and railways if there is an active government appointed investigation into those labour disputes. It was later put into question. Reality of life was more complicated than Kings idealistic theories. He believed that the greed of business owners and the radicalism of union leaders would naturallyrise up into conflicts. The better way was find common ground. 
  • In 1904, he had to convince the United Mine Workers of America, which had a local chapter in British Columbia, to give up their demand for eight hour days which was contrary to provincial labour laws and accept the pay of one dollar day and their own transportation to the mine located in Nanaimo. Mackenzie King had a knack for getting things done and so Wilfrid Laurier decided to invite him on the political side. He got King a by-election easy Liberal seat in 1908 and then made him Minister of Labour.
  • MacKenzie King was advising Laurier’s team on the 1907 Japanese riots. Mackenzie King’s diary suggests he did have a Anglo-Saxon pride about him…In fact, MacKenzie King wrote a report on the riots which was submitted to Harvard as a PhD thesis on “Oriental Immigration to Canada.” By the standards of today, King was deeply prejudiced, as was the average Canadian then.
  • In the early 20th century, newspapers were powerhouses of influence if you had support from one of the major newspapers you were ‘being made’ in effect. You’d get your honeymoon and then your teardown if you went against the muckrakers’ interests. The Globe and Empire / Mail, the Toronto Star, the Winnipeg Free Press…. these were the big papers in English Canada at the time.

End of an Era – 1911 Election

The 1911 election was Laurier’s swan song. The election was centred around concerns about liberalizing trade with United States as it was perceived by many to be a back door towards American conquest of Canada: protectionism being a critical component of Canada‘s existence. Tories had a war chest that they had built up. Mackenzie King lost his own seat and the corresponding Minister of Labour role. There was also an anti-Quebecer sentiment against Laurier and it was a good break from office for King….

Leaders Don’t Always Get their Heir Apparent

Laurier was not supportive of Mackenzie King (aged 36) being made leader of the party as Laurier considered resignation in the early-1910s. And King opted not to become leader of the Ontario Liberal party as he was offered $3,000 per year but instead he pivoted his political skills into get a job with John D Rockefeller from 1914 to 1918 (avoiding military service). King would work on supporting Rockefeller’s union negotiations in Colorado for example. Mackenzie King used his union conciliatory role to support John D Rockefeller‘s goal and had the opportunity to stay on and join the board of the Rockefeller organization but he opted not to. Instead he wrote Industry and Humanity which appears to be a kind of mystic public intellectual book rather than a hard science or political science analysis of union negotiations. It had some strong ideas around “management and unions being allies rather than foes”. The book is a bit goofy, unclear and eccentric, having read some excepts, but shows the general principles that he would embed into the Liberal Party…

Opposing Conscription in 1917 – The Three Major Considerations in Canadian Politics…..

There is an old Ottawa joke What are the three major policy considerations in Canada?” “First, there’s Quebec, Second, what does Quebec want and also, did I mention Quebec?” While still working for Rockefeller, King continued to support Laurier and supported the anti-conscription position that the Liberal party had split-up over, which in the short-run was harmful and led to a Union party victory in 1917, but would later catapult King into leadership and solidify support in Quebec which is central in Canadian politics historically and to this day.

Prior to Laurier’s death in February 1919, he had already made it clear (in King’s diary at least) that MacKenzie King was the preferred choice to lead the Liberal party:

King had befriended many key allies in the Liberal caucus and met up with Lady Laurier who confirmed her view that King was her husband’s preferred successor (not that there were really any good alternatives).

1919 Leadership Convention – Coalition Building Once Again

He basically embraced Laurier’s legacy of freedom and liberty, embraced labour interests (the party left), supported welfare reform and provided a fiery attack on Toryism, meanwhile Fielding was originally anti-confederation in the 1890s as premier of Nova Scotia, had got Montreal elites on his side, as well as provincial liberal satellites but was 70 years old at the time. Mackenzie King was not a charismatic leader but he was a tactician, bringing the pro-Conscriptions back into the fold + the progressive agrarian vote. He’s also just a really lucky guy, since winning that 1919 leadership might have been the optimal window he would have for getting the top job ie. leaders of the centrist political party typically absorb the vast majority of Canadian public preferences across language and regional divides, and Fielding would have a had at least one or two terms with MacKenzie King potentially being embroiled in some scandal in that intervening period….the unknowable counterfactual…still instructive.

Tactician of Timing, Hugging the Middle, Balancing Interests, Owning His Own Story

  • We quickly begin to realize, after he becomes the leader of the Liberal Party in 1919, that bland is grand. MacKenzie King’s true skill was to identify and know when to address a problem before it gets too large and when to let a problem fester. Everything needs to land on good timing, MacKenzie King was excellent at this…Or is that historical revisionism? Not sure. He also meticulously tracked all his experiences in a diary, the details of which was a useful reference point for his political strategy….and for historians to make fun of his peculiar lifestyle. He was obsessed with number patterns to say nothing of the seances, which is mentioned lower down this post..
  • Extending his skill-set in conciliation, MacKenzie King facilitated bargaining agreements between different factions of the Liberal party in a political application of liberal corporatism (i.e managing interest groups in a negotiated distribution of political resources, rather than attempting to represent the vast ‘hard to know’ society at large). Typically, in elections King would try to make appeals to coalition groups as a good guess of the ‘mood of the country’ and then govern with corporatism. For example, he was excellent at working with Ernest Lapointe to ensure no policy would rattle the French Canadian electorate (using anecdotal deductive feedback, media feedback and eventually polling data) of course these were still good guesses. Then in legislation, King was keen to appease the Quebec leadership who wanted their parliamentarians to also be able to hold board seats while remaining MPs, for example.
  • The Conservatives were dreadful at bridging white Anglo-Saxons with French Canadians. The only true coalition was in the 1980s under Mulroney….hence the Liberal party dominances in the 20th century.
  • King was keen to co-opt people with extreme views into the Liberal fold and the fold of government. ‘Why wallow in opposition when you can make a difference? ‘ King wrote in his diary on October 15th, 1935.
  • Mackenzie King was very vague in his word choices and not very interested in being committed without an exit option. He was hyper-pragmatic and optics oriented (never smiling in public during the war years of ’39 – ’45). Leaving doubt as to his positions was ideal in order to allow for triangulation (ie. capturing the support of a wider group of people rather than having a specific policy that people can either support or reject outright). This triangulation was especially helpful if he needed to win support from progressives or other fringe parties in a minority parliament. He was excellent at avoiding commitments and getting himself entangled in obligations that he couldn’t fulfill.
  • His speeches had the distinction of being unclear but seemingly sensible. His statements that seemed like direct answers were frequently un-interpretable. He looked at things from a flexible pragmatic lens in his decision making and looked at things from a technical standpoint about what could be achieved from the public optics perspective.
  • As PM, he exercises more power *proportionally* than a US president. He has full latitude to shape the agenda in the House of Commons. In Canada, the legislative branch is more of twig under the foot of a benevolent (and sometimes foolish) dictatorial prime minister. The right temperament is that of King relative to a Bennett or Meighen. And as such, by the time Canada becomes larger and thus more complex to administer, the need for a technical Prime Ministers Office emerged.  
  • King was a technical maneuver-er. When the crisis at Chanak broke, indicating that Canada might be required to raise troops for the British Empire, King said such a decision would require parliamentary approval…and since parliament wasn’t in session, that would be tough….adding that the matter wasn’t important enough to get parliament together.
  • As mentioned above, MacKenzie King was accused even by his own caucus of not being capable of making a direct statement and delaying decisions: an evasive tactician. As a Prime Minister, you don’t have to make appeals to those below you in the pecking order. He went uncontested in cabinet often. Unlike in the legislative process of the US government which has three strong branches of government, Canada has the Prime Minister (now augmented with the PMO), the legislative branch (more of a twig) which is largely beholden to the Prime Minister and the judicial branch was less activist relative to the US, for example. 
  • Unfortunately, the detail that you would expect from biographers is really not there, we don’t have anyone like a Robert Caro in Canada to give the level of detail and insight that a study of King deserves. Also everyone involved has passed away. All we have is an unreliable narrator in the form of MacKenzie King’s diaries which are a kind of Wacky Willie’s World talking to his dead parents on the regular, feeling his mother’s presence every evening and generally putting things in a positive light for himself as a diary should.

His first term? Well, MacKenzie King implemented the Chinese Immigration Ban of 1923 which sadly reflects a strategic block of voting interests in BC at the time.

In the 1925 campaign, MacKenzie King was not the ideal radio star. But because the medium was relatively new many were enthusiastic supporters even saying that he had a “pleasant voice”. Listening to old reels of King’s presentation he actually has a high-pitched whiny type voice and very little in the way of charisma. He exudes the characteristics of a skillful, quiet bureaucrat, tactician. 

Mackenzie King in his diary claims that his dead father was in the crowd at one of his rallies and was inspired such that he would surely win the 1925 election. He also had dream sequences involving his brother Max that he believed meant certain victory.

The Rational Bully versus the Senior Dignitary

With the outcome of the 1925 election in which the Tories had more seats than the Liberals, Mackenzie King went to Lord Byng to see if he could form a government with fewer seats but with a viable coalition with the ‘Progs’. This was not such a stretch since King seems to have considered the French Canadian Liberals to be a coalition with English Canadian Liberals throughout his first term, stating for example the “Bank of Montreal…nearly put 1 million dollars to elect 10 Fr.CanLiberals, to hold the balance of power, and get rid of Meighen.

The person who can ‘command a majority’ should be the PM was King’s thinking. King had even lost his own seat in North York in the election and all of his major cabinet ministers also lost their seats. Lord Byng had mentioned in 1924 that he was not a constitutional expert and would be giving Mackenzie King full latitude in any decisions as a docile Governor General. However in this post-1925 election meeting, Lord Byng’s affectations had changed.

Sitting in front of the fireplace at the Government House, he gave Mackenzie King three options:

  • 1) Dissolution and another election immediately which the public would not appreciate,
  • 2) Mackenzie King resigns and Meighen (with the largest block could become PM) or 
  • 3) Mackenzie King continues as Prime Minister with a coalition. 

Lord Byng suggested that having to kow-tow towards the Progressives and JS Woodsworth would be seen by the public as holding on to power for power’s sake. Mackenzie King was quietly outraged that Lord Byng might actually voice his opinion on the situation when it wasn’t constitutionally warranted based on King’s constitutional experts: ‘he had no opinion.’ The seat count was such that Meighen would not be able to form a stable government, either. Meighen had been rejected generally, as far as King was concerned. And MacKenzie King seems particularly concerned that Meighen would have access to the ‘election machinery’ as Prime Minister, which implies some level of fraud in vote counting? Or simply the incumbents advantage?

MacKenzie King went back to Kingsmere after the first meeting with Lord Byng and drafted a letter of resignation but instead insisted on staying on and didn’t complete that letter. He returned to Lord Byng’s house the next morning and said that Byng was either to “Accept” or “Reject” the decision of the Prime Minister. The governor general had “no right to express his opinion” about who should be given the right to form the next government. 

Lord Byng accepted the situation with the proviso that Meighen would be allowed to form a government before King could snap another election…..King said sure, later to reneg on that commitment, a bait & switch that kept King in his job.

Hindsight Meighen was a Goof or Unlucky?

Meanwhile Meighen had said publicly that the general will should be put to the people he didn’t necessarily want a ‘referendum’ but his statement was considered “heresy” for him to ask for a general election on the basis of what had transpired. 

MacKenzie King’s steely strength and confidence during this first part of the constitutional crisis, known as the King-Byng Affair. And it could be attributed to his séances with his Brother, Dad, Sister and Mother whom he spoke with on the regular beyond the grave…strengthening his drive to hold on to power.

So, MacKenzie King was able to stay on without having a parliamentary seat. He was mistreated by Lord Byng at a hockey game in Toronto where Byng publicly snubbed King but the balance of power remained with the progressives. Mackenzie King believed that Meighen and the Tories would not be able to hold on to government with the number of seats they had. Their ideological rift with the progressives would not allow Meighen to govern for long. King knew that JS Woodsworth did not want to work with the Tories and he used that to his advantage. 

MacKenzie King was able to get a seat in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan as it was the easiest seat to win in Canada for a Liberal…at the time.

King-Byng Affair – June 26 to 29, 1926

In June of 1926, MacKenzie King was not able to pass a tough bill and went to Lord Byng to request a general election. His Cabinet colleagues agreed with his analysis below:

At the Government House, MacKenzie snacked on bread and butter and sipped tea while explaining to Lord Byng what he wanted to do:

  1. An amendment to a bill (relating to the Customs Department scandal) had been defeated on a majority of two against the bill. With an adjournment in which the government was sustained by a vote of one, it was not sustainable if a single government parliamentarian was not present for every vote.
  2. King’s solution was a dissolution, as “the only means of satisfactorily solving the situation.
  3. Adding that Meighen “could be sent for” but was unlikely to be able to gain the confidence of the House.
  4. That King did not think Lord Byng could “afford to refuse me dissolution and grant dissolution to anyone else; that should he refuse, this circumstance would become a factor in a general election and might do himself personally,…irreparable harm, that it would be a kind procedure that would be unconstitutional and would not be approved in any part of the Empire.”
  5. That before, you (Lord Byng) say anything, consider what I (MacKenzie King) have just said.

Lord Byng’s response was :

  1. King had had his chance and that the machinery of government should be given to the other side for a chance at government.
  2. Byng added last time, MacKenzie King had said “It was for parliament to decide” Byng repeated the phrase several times and said that the parliament had decided against King.
  3. King’s argument that he could carry on was in direct contradiction to his prior statement and that he thought the country was against King and that he, King, was holding on unduly…

Byng’s role as governor general was to do whatever Mackenzie King advised of him, as far as King was concerned, but Lord Byng wanted to give Meighen a chance, despite that. Over a weekend of successive meetings from June 26 to June 29, Mackenzie King pushed his case, he even threatened to get the British to intervene, ironic given MacKenzie King autonomy drive for Canada in relation to Britain. In one of the arguments Lord being said “you love power” MaKenzie King explained that “there was no man for whom I had greater love, affection and regard, and that it was to save him from a very serious error, as well as to maintain a great constitutional principle, that I was advising him to take this course.” And that giving Meighen the chance to govern would cause serious injury to British / Canadian relations. Lord Byng nauseated said “I am an old man with very few years left and you’re a young man with many years ahead of you. Could you give me a little bit of a break here?“

In one of the biggest miscalculations in Tory political history, Arthur Meighen foolishly accepted the chance to form a government from Byng and he did a poor job of it as Mackenzie King expected. Meighen had been for conscription and high tariffs which were diametrically opposed by most French Canadians (+ the Montreal elite). He was not able to hold onto power for more than 80 days but then had to call an election for September 1926. On the campaign trail, Meighen was against old age pension at $240 and publicly ridiculed a senior citizen who suggested that he should have such a pension according to John Diefenbaker, who was at that rally, Meighen certainly won the debate but lost the crowd. Meighen was a hyper principled ideological guy and that hurt his chances. 

1926 Election – 80 Days in the Wilderness / Opposition

MacKenzie King ran on an anti-Crown ticket capitalizing on his fight with Lord Byng. He defeated John Diefenbaker in Prince Albert and the Liberals won a 116 seat majority. And he knew he was going to win because his mother had told him in a séance.

He was happy to see Meighen go as he believed he “lowers the whole tone & standards of public life

From that incident, Lord Byng and his wife viewed Mackenzie King as a “liar and a traitor.” For basically making her husband look like an idiot.

MacKenzie King continued to believe that his family members were guiding his hand and supporting him in every way. He was back in power after a stressful year of uncertainty that he navigated with the confidence of someone who thought spirits were protecting him.

MacKenzie King wanted autonomy from Britain, he didn’t want to be held accountable for British treaties. He established an embassy in places like Washington sending Vincent Massey as their first representative. MacKenzie King’s issue was the connection to Britain not that it should be severed but that Canada should be given far more flexibility and not be prevented from its own foreign policy.

Surround Yourself With People Who Can Compensate For Your Faults

MacKenzie King did not speak French at all. Shocking but true. Ernest Lapointe (de facto co-Prime Minister) became a critical support for Mackenzie King from 1921 on and through this period, the federal government had a lot of war debt and had nationalized the railways and therefore was not able to help out the provinces. As the financial crisis in 1929 materialized, Mackenzie King anticipated difficulties ahead for his re-election in 1931 which would be the latest he could pull the trigger on having an election (typically, you would do that if you knew you were a lame-duck Prime Minister; better to snap when convenient to you).

On economic policy, Mackenzie King was effectively an advocate of a variant of the laissez-faire capitalism. He believed that private enterprise was the root of all activity, did not accept that government should function across all areas of life. And as such he did not also believe that the federal government should intervene in provincial funding and budgeting. In a famous speech in the house of commons Mackenzie King (having already had three glasses of wine from a luncheon with Premier Hepburn of Ontario) made shocking statements in the House of Commons: 

  •  1) unemployment is the responsibility of provinces and municipalities; (true)
  •  2) the unemployment emergency is not real, not evident; (wrong)
  • 3) as the Prime Minister, he would never give any money to Tory governments not even a five cent piece; (rhetorical)
  • 4) maybe he would give some money to some progressive premieres: (flippant)
  • 5) at the federal level we have other priorities.

The House of Commons erupted in anger over this statement. And he later, in his diary, regretted this greatly and realized that he was not prepared for this new challenge. This statement would come to haunt him as he handed over the reigns to RB Bennett and made a joke about it with himself…after the election:

He dissolved the parliament in July 28th, 1930 because he believed that there was a downward trend economically although he wasn’t sure he believed that there would be an economic crisis off of the back of the US financial crisis ‘29….

The Liberal Party infrastructure was quite weak from 1926 to 1930, it had atrophied over the years. And the conservative campaign was aggressively mobilized and technologically savvy. And their leader was not Meighen, it was RB Bennett who “promised to use tariffs to blast away a hole into the markets of the world.” And crowds cheered him on. Mackenzie King, in his diary, believed that RB Bennett didn’t make much sense as his style wasn’t very appealing and King felt confident that he would defeat him.

Old Age Pension in 1928 was the signature legislation of the mid-to-late 1920s.

In terms of tariffs, in Western Canada, the Montreal high tariffs were beneficial to Montreal meanwhile Western producers would have to compete in the global market. So on the one hand, furniture had to come from Canadian manufacturers in central Canada even though there were producers in places like Minnesota and Washington state that could just as easily sell their products up north if there weren’t tariffs. The price of nationalism was that it served the interests of the existing population centres at the cost of new population centres.

The night before the 1930 election, MacKenzie King was somewhat confident in his diary entry:

1930 Election – Lucky Streak Continues

Election was held. MacKenzie King lost to the Tories 135 seats with 47.79% of the vote in the Liberals 89 seats with 45.5% of the vote. Mackenzie King was shocked but he also knew that RB Bennett would struggle to solve for unemployment:

In analyzing the defeat, King was surprised by the results in Quebec where the Tories had picked up 24 seats, an example of the swings that characterize a disaffected Quebec electorate. At any rate, this outcome, in hindsight, turned out to be a lucky reprieve for Mackenzie King.

In response to the failure of that federal election, Mackenzie King created the National Liberal Federation noting that “socialism is not the answer but I can see how it attracts the well-intentioned person.“

There was a residual scandal, the Beauharnois scandal in which there were issues that he had to answer for but Mackenzie King was able to weather 1930 to 1935, as the leader of the opposition.

Being the leader of the Opposition is not a fun job because you basically have to oppose everything and complain a lot. RB Bennett got the credit for the Statute of Westminster, 1931 which was annoying to Mackenzie King since he had done the leg work with the Balfour Declaration. Bennett imposed tariffs which undid a lot of the trade liberalization that the Liberals had initiated over the last decade, except for anything effecting the Montreal elite and contra-the West. The newspapers were turning on Mackenzie King, one article said he had become ‘withdrawn and intellectual of life of a recluse. He is out of touch with the trends and with the people. He is living in a groove as deep and narrow as a political grave.’ – Winnipeg Free Press, 1931

As the depression persisted, RB Bennett was a one-man government with no delegation skills. His popularity plummeted and he fired Harry Stevens who was big on price gouging. Stevens formed the Reconstruction Party which split the vote between conservatives in the 1935 election. RB Bennett’s fireside chats echoed what FDR was doing. Mackenzie King felt that there were many platitudes in Bennett’s speeches and the culmination of Bennet’s failure was in the Regina riots which was an anti-relief camp riot.

Séances…What to say about the Séances…

As PM, he lived in Laurier House, which was gifted to him by Lady Laurier a few years after her husband’s death. It was in that house that he communed with the dead.

  • MacKenzie King lived in his own head as we all do. Except, he believed that he could access the afterlife. While he regretted not having a wife and children who might have normalized his eccentricities, he instead turned to spiritualists and mysticism to connect with those he loved who were already long gone: ie Wilfrid Laurier, Shakespeare, Jesus, his Dad, his Mom, his Dogs, his Sister, his Brother….He did this self-soothing by relying on séances for his connections to loved ones long gone. He believed in it, and that’s all that really mattered. It worked for him. He was surrounded by his loved ones and they didn’t ask him for much since they were spirits: it’s a win-win.
  • He had three dogs named Pat, who’s ghosts roamed Laurier house.
  • He saw messages in shaving cream from the after life.
  • He worked with mediums, often women, who told him what he wanted to hear.
  • Just as having waking dreams where you see ghosts, it doesn’t make you crazy, he experienced hallucinations that he believed were real (a significant difference from most of us, but it helped him deal with the pressures of his job).
  • At one point, he actively bragged to the Governor General about talking to FDR “last night”…months after FDR had died. He wasn’t all that shy about his séance ways but it was after he passed away that it become public knowledge.
  • And there is something creepy about talking to your mom so frequently. Take any random diary after her death, and MacKenzie King will talk about feeling her presence. His mother pushed him into politics and he felt indebted to her.

Government In Waiting

MacKenzie King was getting tired as he was now entering his 60s. Maybe it was time to pack things in? Fact is, Mackenzie King attracted a skilled cabinet and the Liberals appeared to be the government in waiting as RB Bennett continued to perform poorly throughout his term. MacKenzie King did not have a leadership challenge because it wasn’t as if the expectation was that the Tories were going to have multiple terms early on. They had inherited the worst depression in modern history and a federal government with limited revenue and a philosophy that was laissez-faire, Bennett wasn’t the right guy for that time. Unlucky.

1935 – Return of the King

The 1935 election saw McKenzie King return to power. In their post-election meeting RB Bennett said Bennett knew he was going to lose a longtime ago.

Mackenzie King had strong opinions about Edward the 8th and Wallis Simpson but kept those to himself and maintained a very diplomatic position. He never answered questions. When it came to provincial governments lacking capital, Mackenzie King was not Keynesian in his strategy as that hadn’t taken root.

His relationship with FDR was a positive one where he attempted to negotiate a better relationship. Unlike Mackenzie King, FDR was surrounded by people who had axes to grind in their own ulterior motives. And so FDR befriended Mackenzie King as an outsider.

Back in Canada, Mackenzie King had three premiers to contend with:

Alberhart of Alberta: who was a social credit premier who advocated for a new form of capitalism which did not align with federal fiscal policy. As a result, Alberhart‘s policies were not able to come to full fruition but likely lacked rigour.

Duplessis of Quebec: the Union National under Duplessis had imposed a padlock law in which businesses could be shut if they had communists within their ranks. Unlike Alberta, where Mackenzie King was happy to shut down Alberta‘s unique monetary-esq policy approach, he was not willing to threaten national unity with Duplessis. 

Hepburn of Ontario: was also a major threat to Mackenzie King as a possible alternative liberal leader. Hepburn opposed the GM strike in Oshawa and had a theory that Mackenzie King was undermining him when it came to the Niagara River hydroelectric dam and felt that Mackenzie King and FDR were thwarting him and his agenda. 

Duplesis and Hepburn created an ‘unholy alliance’ with the explicit aim of ‘getting rid of Mackenzie King.’ 

Bland Works – An Example

Here’s an example of MacKenzie King speaking off the back of a train. Riveting stuff. As a technocrat bland really works for MacKenzie King.

Vision of a Mediator Between Great Powers

Mackenzie King showed interest in Hitler’s leadership. But he was not interested in putting Canada in an ‘untenable position’ in which he would have to side with the British Empire against the German dictator and strong man. Running roughshod over parliamentary deadlock and concession/compromise was part of the appeal fof King. King aslo felt he could be mediator, just like his prior work with labour/management disputes and government. In 1937, on a chance meeting in London, Mackenzie King met von Rippentrop and was invited to Berlin on the basis of his ‘agreeable’ views. MacKenzie King emphasized that he was born in Berlin, Ontario and he positioned himself as a potential uniter between the United Kingdom, United States and Germany as a kind of Canadian emissary.

On June 29 of 1937 after meeting Goering at the Berlin zoo (delivering some Canadian wildlife), MacKenzie King suggested to Goering that “if at any time we feel this freedom to be imperilled by any aggression towards Britain our people will almost certainly respond immediately to protect our common freedom.” When Goering figured King was somewhat agreeable, he set him up for a meeting with…believe it or not…Adolf Hitler.

Mackenzie King and Hitler had a 30 minute meeting that went on for over an hour and 15 minutes. Mackenzie King wrote 7,400 words, a moment by moment account of his meeting with Hitler. He felt that:

  • Hitler ‘was a visionary’ and ‘dangerous’ but Mackenzie King was impressed that Hitler was “self educated” and even said Hitler was “sweet” . (Diary, June 29, 1937)
  • That he was a recluse like MacKenzie King… (Diary, June 29, 1937)
  • That King could understand why Hitler was so popular as “he was empathetic…” (Diary, June 29, 1937)
  • Hitler appeared to be “a man of deep sincerity and a genuine patriot.” (Diary, June 29, 1937)
  • He wrote, “My sizing up of the man as I sat and talked with him was that he is really one who truly loves his fellow-men, and his country, and would make any sacrifice for their good.” (Diary, June 29, 1937)
  • King saw a lot of himself in Hitler, “As I talked with him, I could not but think of Joan of Arc. He is distinctly a mystic …. He is a teetotaller and also a vegetarian; is unmarried, abstemist in all his habits and ways.” (Diary, June 29, 1937)

MacKenzie King could not tell that Hitler was an idiotic evil villain despite prior behaviour like the Nuremberg laws etc because (not certain) King wanted to avoid war and thought he could persuade world peace, politics being the art of the possible, most potent when unexpected (maybe this Hitler will involve King in a world peace treaty? In the next few years…’38 or ’39). In their conversation, Hitler explained that unifying German speaking people was a priority (ie. invading Austria and Czechoslovakia). Mackenzie King probably, it’s not clear, underappreciated the lebensraum concept of more space for Germans.

They talked about Hitler’s theories relating to the Treaty of Versailles as unjust, the need to re-armor Germany and the horrible consequences of war….Hitler said that “I get my support from the people and the people do not want war”. The general concern was that Germany was re-arming not just for deterrence….

King left Hindenburg Palace with a signed and framed photograph of Hitler….He left Berlin saying he didn’t care for the militarism….Later when Chamberlain completed his “peace in our time” deal/gamble in the Munich Agreement, Mackenzie King described it as” a great day of rejoicing.” As a Prime Minister who didn’t like confrontation, it makes sense that MacKenzie King wanted to appease or mediate between Britain and Germany, not only for macro-level reasons but also to avoid another conscription crisis that could split the Liberal English and French factions….although perhaps that’s a stretch, he wasn’t expecting war.

In mid-1939, Mackenzie King was invited by Hitler to come to Berlin to possibly establish a peace treaty. The Canadian government was not able to book that event until November 20, 1939. But that meeting might have not been serious, anyway. Mackenzie King sent a cable to Poland, Italy and Germany asking if they would cease hostilities only Poland and Italy acknowledged the cable had arrived. This implied that Canada would be implicated in legal interventions therein and that the Nazis were up to something.

On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland. MacKenzie King listened to mediums and went into a seance where it was claimed Hitler was to be ‘shot by a Pole’ that day and / or that Hitler was going to die within the year. In parliament, Mackenzie King made the declaration that war against Germany was certain on September 10 stating that ‘Canada was coveted by the Germans’ and that they were sure to come after us as well ‘inaction was support for Hitler’ and he got a standing ovation with only a few MPs including Woodsworth rejecting and / or resigning on the basis of the decision.

MacKenzie King returned to the bunk….Shockingly Collections Canada deleted more legible summaries of MacKenzie King’s diatiers, but it’s on the WayBack Machine: King and Germany

War-Time Prime Minister Gets Some Benefit of the Doubt

Mackenzie King implemented the War Measures Act which allowed the detention of illegal aliens or people deemed enemies of the country and or suppression of the press. Mackenzie King believed that Chamberlain’s Munich Pact was the trigger for declaring war on Germany and he was glad that it had been created (a rationalization) to establish when the line was to be crossed. In the newspapers, there were several calls for McKenzie King to resign and be replaced with MacNaughton or another military specialist. 

Duplessis saw the war as an opportunity to strengthen Quebec bargaining power in confederation or leave it and called an election. He sought to take advantage of the situation on an anti-conscription position sensing that this was yet another war in which conscription would be foisted on the Quebec people. The public basically believing that history repeats itself as well. So Mackenzie King and Lapointe campaigned against Duplessis and they succeed in defeating Duplessis in 1939.

Hepburn complained that Mackenzie King was not prepared enough for the war and hadn’t done a good job of preparing the soldiers. They didn’t have shoes or underwear and were poorly trained. However Mackenzie King was able to form a new majority government with 179 seats and he fought to Canadianize the Air Force, the British didn’t understand Canada’s inferiority complex but Mackenzie King refused to join Churchill’s War Cabinet and refused to go and work in London during the war. Here’s an example of MacKenzie King championing Canada:

When Mackenzie King was excluded from the Atlantic charter, he needed Winston Churchill and FDR to assuage his ego. At this time, Lapointe was stressed out, opposed various Quebec activities and he died in 1941 to be replaced by a new Quebec lieutenant, future Prime Minister Louis St Laurent. 

Okay, sometimes history repeats itself, sort of: Conscription 2.0

  • King was concerned that he might need to raise more troops then volunteers….and there was a bit of concern about there being conscription of home services (forced military service) but not for overseas services. This created ‘Zombies’ ie men who were not volunteers but were employed in the war effort. These Zombies were considered cowards by the vast majority of soldiers who were volunteers. The Zombies were constantly pressured to “go active” (ie change their status to volunteers).
  • This situation triggered a plebiscite regarding conscription on April 27th, 1942 which would relieve Godbout and MacKenzie King from their prior campaign commitments that there would be no conscription of Canadian citizens to fight overseas in battle.
  • King was rightly concerned that Gallop polls showed the English were for enabling conscription and the French were against conscription thus heightening the national unity question.
  • The Ligue pour la Défense du Canada united a young Pierre Trudeau with Laurendeau, Henri Bourassa and Jean Drapeau in voting “non”. And there may have also been support for the Vichy split up of France as the new normal. There were also arguments relating to anti-Semitism, regarding who was behind drawing Quebec into war. There were also arguments that suggested that if you don’t want to go then don’t go, vote no! Elsewhere, there was also opposition within the German and Ukrainian community in Saskatchewan and Alberta, so as usual (with a binary choice) it’s hard to draw causality from one or any of these arguments, it was a pile up of arguments on either side.
  • MacKenzie King uttered the famous phase: “Not necessarily conscription, but conscription if necessary” a classic of remaining aloof. For King, there was this odd situation that he wasn’t even sure that they needed conscription since there so many volunteers….and never really used the Zombies to back up the volunteers even though he won the plebiscite since it would fracture national unity anyway and fractured his cabinet AND there were 1.1M people in the Canadian military, half of which were volunteers so there should have been no shortage.
  • Some cabinet ministers threatened to resign if they didn’t send the Zombies overseas….so they eventually, in November 1944, forced 16K Zombies overseas but only a couple thousand ever fought….
  • The plebiscite on conscription was not necessary in the end…

Exclusion of Jewish Refugees

Regarding MacKenzie King’s morally repugnant anti-Semitism, he expressed in his journal a desire to avoid undesirables purchasing property near his home Kingsmere. He wrote for example, “there are good and bad Jews…and it is wrong to condemn a whole race or nation” meanwhile, he had a collection of anti-Semitic books relating to séances delivered to him from one of his medium friends. From 1920 to 1950 quotas, professional job discrimination at universities were common. Signs that would say “no Jews or dogs allowed” which is the kind of prejudice that Canadians today have atoned for. Judaism was associated with banking in the financial sector which was deemed amoral and had caused the financial crisis. Anglo-Saxons were race proud as well. And there was a great deal of anti-Semitism in Quebec as Judaism was perceived as not conducive to assimilation into French values which is a highly subjective claim.

Historically, this injustice all came to a head when the SS St. Louis arrived on Canadian shores, MacKenzie King had them turned away. Of their 907 passengers, 254 died in the holocaust…. 

  • Canada allowed 5,000 Jewish refugees; 
  • The US allowed 200,000 refugees; 
  • The United Kingdom allowed 70,000 refugees;
  • China allowed 25,000 refugees 

So, Canada in particular Quebec were clearly the most anti-Semitic of these countries in terms of its policy. Later in 1944, Duplessis claimed that King and then premier Godbout made a deal with the Jewish conspiracy group to settle 100K Jewish refugees in exchange for campaign financing. (Knowles, Valerie Strangers at Our Gates: Canadian Immigration and Immigration Policy, 1540–2006, Toronto: Dundun Press, 2007 page 149.)

As was the typical case, Mackenzie King and Lapointe were the key decision-makers in the government throughout the 21 years of his leadership. Quebec was the main star in the Canadian orbit and impacted immigration policy.

In BC, Japanese internment camps involved the impounding of over 1,200 boats and the internment of 22,000 Japanese Canadians. It is morally disturbing what happened. “It’s the Japanese themselves that need protection” was the logic King applied; arguing that the Caucasians would likely attack on Japanese Canadians. There was hysteria about a conceivable Japanese invasion of BC by mid-1942 which was coupled by cultural and racial prejudice in the form of the Asian Exclusion League, the 1907 riots, all pointing to a complex reality of fear of the other and inescapable lack of means by which we can identify the underlying loyalties of any other fellow human being. Another factor was MacKenzie King, who expressed happiness that the Hiroshima bomb was dropped on Japanese and not Europeans. He viewed Germans and Italians as security threats within Canada and was supportive of deportation or voluntary repatriation in either case.

The famous Quebec summit was a way to bring these three major influential powers in line. Churchill, FDR and Mackenzie King got together “we three have more experience in years of government than anyone in our three countries.” MacKenzie King felt good about that summit after having being excluded from the Atlantic charter.

MacKenzie King at FDR’s funeral

There was the Gouzenko defection that McKenzie King came and cleaned up but he stayed in power for an additional two years because he wanted to beat MacDonald‘s record of 6,937 days in power as Prime Minister.

The Great Pragmatist in Chief

There is but one rule in politics you can be principled and committed as you like but without power what is the point? How did William Lyon MacKenzie King do it? His timing was good. He kept Quebec happy, he was blessed with some really incompetent conservatives who alienated Quebec and he was lucky that there were no Quebec nationalist political parties in the 1920s to 40s. He was incredibly bland in his speeches, he rarely said anything newsworthy ever but he understood human nature and knew how to operate the machinery of government. He was very embarrassing on critical social matters but Canada then is not Canada now. And we are better for it, we will need to consider how to avoid morally repugnant choices in the future and in the present day.

MacKenzie King died in 1950.

Allan Levine’s biography leaves out a lot of material:

  1. Prostitution was never mentioned which is odd since that is the most frequently mentioned sensationalism of the WLMK story thanks to A Very Double Life by Stacey CP, the historian who interpreted diary passages to be about prostitutes. MacKenzie King was big on religiously saving prostitutes and there were references to him helping them and vice versa ….
  2. No biography is available that details how MacKenzie King operated his cabinet, whips, how policy was formulated. How did he work with the civil service, ultimately he was a mandarin and understood what they did for a living and didn’t want to do that for another decade, but how did he manage them? Did they get the better of him? There is no Robert Caro type journalist…the diaries are a good start, but it’s a shame we can’t corroborate those stories since all the principal actors are long gone…
  3. Where’s the indigenous and residential schools in the biographies of MacKenzie King? It’s simply not addressed.
  4. Collections Canada from 2002 were lost or discontinued in a site migration or otherwise but it contains a few solid summaries of MacKenzie King’s Diarie (saved by WayBackMachine). The Diaries, themselves are an extensive, day by day diary from the 1890s to the 1950s which is too long to review in their entirety so focusing on specific events makes more sense.

David Baldacci On Commercial Writing

David Baldacci is an author of many paperback novels. These notes are from his MasterClass.

Finding the Idea

The Writer Prism

Writing is a lifestyle: it needs to be incorporated in your daily life. You need to be looking at the world, but combining what’s black and white + your imagination with a few tweaks of reality. Writers run reality through a filter of your own creativity.

Look for Problems to Solve: wouldn’t be cool if something normal was actually changed slightly? You want to have the puzzles in your story, you have to leave clues, it tests your wit and cleverness. Make sure the story is puzzling.

Entertain and Inform: think about the opioid crisis and automation; rustbelt towns. Paying people $9 an hour to run around an Amazon warehouse. You want to feel a bit smarter after having read that book by raising awareness of these or other major trends and concerns.

Write about things that you are passionate about: Michael Crichton loved dinosaurs, don’t write a dinosaur story as a result of Jurassic Park. Don’t jump into the story for 100 pages and run out of the gas, either. That’s a risk when you don’t write from the heart.

Story Combinations: read the front page of a newspaper story then read a back page story and look at whether you can combine those two in a plausible way.

Research and Method: You have to learn about the industry you are covering. You need to be a journalist and then learn about it first hand. You will have better plotting and writing as results.

Live Your Research: If you use a real gun in your novel? It helps if you actually have fired such a gun.

Go to the places you are setting your novel in: People will see if you got the information right, so make sure you are accurate or there will be hell to pay.

Character of the Location Is Important: the location will drive and imprint on the soul of the characters. It makes it more monumental. If you pick a coal mining town, visit it because it is critical to understand it for the plot.

Zero Day: Baldacci interviewed people, study nuclear weapons and then distill into a 2 pager. John Puller is a researcher who can explain it in dialogue. You do not want to lose the audience. Really use a lot of easy dialogue to explain the situation to the reader. As a writer, leave almost all of your research out!

Research Methods and Sources: “does anyone know a secret service agent?”… Baldacci was able to get a connection through his friend network. Don’t just go in cold-turkey. You have to show that you respect what they do. Do what Robert Caro did and move to Texas to study the hill country. Ask how did you become a secret-service agent. Ask questions like what is it like being [job]? Always remember to not record others without disclosing it. Don’t send important information in emails; you should be very discrete.

Buildup the Plausibility: if it could happen, it’s been considered by your audience to be real. No one can argue that is implausible. If you can imagine it, they have already done it….in the US military.

Research isn’t as hard as the story: you should try to do research and then write and then research more. It is so attractive to continue to research, it’s like going back to college. But don’t forget to write.

Outlining Your Story: do your outline for where you have to get to. Baldacci doesn’t do some work. He writes out what is the big story. He recommends winging the story and it might be more interesting to plan to the halfway and then figure out where to go.

Do Mini-Outlines: do not get overwhelmed with the story. You should focus into discrete tasks. You have to build the building blocks, and then you don’t feel overwhelmed. If you are thinking about all 145,000 words, 500 pages you would freak out and not start!

Working on small bullet points: you do not want to focus on the whole book. You should sweat about the small scenes, since small scenes make great novels, it doesn’t work in reverse. You need to work with outlining and then you need to let your mind grow and flow. Work on the forces behind an action…

Surprise Your Reader: You want to slant the reader into expectations that you then skew; you want the reader to say I never saw that coming. You want the reader to say “not going to try to predict what is going to happen in this novel. I’m going to read on.”

Constructing a Powerful Chapter: if you try to figure out the whole novel at once well then you should start with the “big pop”; which should be the first chapter. It’s the touchstone of the story. It’s the most important chapter. You want it to be more important. The mothership is the first chapter.

Create Momentum with Short Chapters: hurry up so we can get to something massive. You want the rapidity of chapters to signal imminent events. You have to hit these chapters quickly and hard.

Create Some Balance: if you have just interior monologue, you want to have some break up in the type of chapter. You should diversify. Dialogue is a powerful story telling mechanism. Bullet point your writing in the outline. You are always going to add as you write. Why are you writing Chapter 12?

Why are your writing Chapter 12? Be sure you know what’s the purpose of every chapter in your book and what isn’t the purpose of this chapter.

  1. Convey information,
  2. Develop character or
  3. Move the plot forward.

Tension, Pace: building mystery into the thrillers. The mystery has to be in there to trick the reader. You need to build the mystery incrementally. It’s not easy to build a mystery.

Lay the Groundwork to Make It Plausible: you have to lay the groundwork. It has to be clue by clue. You need to have all the material together. Then the twist is something that the reader would say “that makes sense.” You cannot have one false note in your story. “I never saw that coming” is key because the reader is engaging the story to try to solve the problem.

The sound of the car, the plane going over: the red herring: it’s a misassumption; and you assumed it was an airplane when it wasn’t it was a bi-plane, that’s a red herring.

Maintain a Ticking Clock: you need to make sure the time is ticking with this story. If you let something lapse, you don’t want people to be reading back earlier in the book to remember why the time is ticking on this story.

Take a Reader on the Roller Coaster Ride: you cannot sustain a constant action packed story, there is too much going on. You can’t sustain that. You need to have chapters where your characters heal their wounds, go get beer, have a pattern of crazy things happen then there is a lull, you need to rest the audience. The same with films as in books, the same needs to happen.

Give the Reader a Recap: the reader probably has too much going on in their lives to remember everything from earlier in the book. You can’t trust that something 18 chapters ago is going to be remembered by the reader. Detectives say “here is what we know about the situation….”

Build Anticipation with Cliffhangers: anticipation needs to be built. You have a cliff hanger. Pause in mid-scene. You can’t use every chapter to do this but it’s a fun trick. Your main character has to let himself go and nothing, he doesn’t seem to care about life…then the news comes in about who killed his family. Boom, end chapter.

Cliffhangers: Zero Day, you need to entice the reader to keep going. To makes sure they continue to turn the page. The so-what of your writing. Why did you spill this ink?

Creating Compelling Characters: You remember the character. You know his character. You need characters badly. It’s the only shot you have to connect with the audience. You need to have deep characters. You have never met a perfect human being; and just like in novel, you need flaws to make them humans, it gives you plot engagement too. You can root for them. How can I make any reader like this guy? Mistakes.

Give Your Character Baggage: Fodder, that you can foreshadow with. After he hit rock bottom. The best way to get readers into the story, is to put your character in rock bottom. Then it comes a challenge to show how they survived the situation.

Sidekicks Should Be Deep: You have to have an aircraft controller with your characters. Do not ignore your sidekicks. The journalists and the detectives and they could just float away: but instead they have to work with each other.

Antagonist is a Complex Character: It gives them depth and complexity. If you have an evil genius; No one want to think he was just a psycho. You actually ought to meaningful motivation.

Memory Man: Amos Decker: The character that sees the world very clearly. Why is his mind so weird? The narrative shows that the character is very unique in the way they notice certain things and analyze the world around them.

ID the Emotional Context: People don’t really talk pointlessly. What is the emotional context. You need to round out the scene. How would you feel if this happened to you. You need to get into the emotional side.

Make Every Word Count: When you are writing dialogue, you need to make sure the characters are efficient. You might realize that the story is very important to you or the description of the forest in Tolkien is very important to him but not to your reader. Be brief, every word matters.

Become a Student of Humanity: You need to listen to people. Watch their body cues; you can tell they are prevaricating. Live in the real moment and see if you can accomplish that.

Read Dialogue Out Loud: Test your ear. If you were worried about it, get your friend to talk the scene out with you. Does this sound right?

You can use shorthand in your writing, the reader doesn’t want to know about these short-hands. Be very careful about the readers. You should have shorthand stuff; technical language is useful but make sure it is against something that the reader can read. People actually know, that could insulate the reader. Do not insult your readers.

Writing Action: You want action to see if you can jolt the reader. Then the action can convey the information. You can actually learn about the character through action, it has to be important. You want to make sure you don’t screw this up.

What does it feel like to be shot or hurt? Know how to describe that. You should show the consequences of these actions. Slow down the fight scenes. Savor them if you can.

Choreograph Action Scenes: you should try to visualize the scene. Plan the details.

Make the Action Believable: This guy bleeds. You neve want to write science-fiction where the character is completely crazy. He almost died there are consequences to the scene. No one will buy it if the hero is impervious to harm.

Writing Process: Baldacci was a lawyer but he also had to find the time. He would spend time at night 10 to 2am. But if you really like your stories you will take those 4 hours a day to focus in on your writing. He wrote 4 hours per day. Either write in the mornings or evenings. You should set out little goals for every writing session…

You Have to Find the Time: If you really wanted to be a writer, find the time. Writing is a compulsion. You find your time if you are really into your career. So writers are ready to find the time. You have to be creative to find the time to do your stories; 4am to 8am or 10pm to 2am….

A Good Clip: 2,000 words, or 5 pages per day. Baldacci doesn’t write at all some days. He could write 5,000 words in one sitting. So every day is a bit different. You may find one process doesn’t work. The perfect place is in your head: you should be able to write anywhere. You should be focused and be productive in a coffee shop or subway car.

Immerse Yourself: You should re-read the first chapter of the novel then the last two chapters you recently wrote to get you warmed up, that way you can avoid doing the next scene cold.

Breaking Writers Block: Go work on another project, and take a shower, go exercising. He does a lot of long walks, let your mind wander.

Self-Imposed Deadlines: Baldacci has an April and November deadline per year. Baldacci never misses those marks. He is the fastest editor in the west. He then does the editing in the novel and then mixes and moves plot points around nearing the final draft. Have an internal deadline; when you immerse yourself in the material; you have to live with the material.

Editing Process: go through the manuscript and then edit 12 times and then do the big boy edit (one final read through), you turn the manuscript around start to finish and then cross out other aspects. And then remove the preachy time or soap box type stuff. You cut out a lot of material or you just have to add a few lines. Copy-editing stage: this is where you work to get the manuscript off your desk.

Check Your Pacing, Chapter by Chapter: look at the roller coaster ride that you’ve built and lay out how to make it more appealling.

Walk Away from the Material: Take a break, and have a clean look at it again. During the editing, you should know where you are in a novel just be reading a few lines.

First Draft: there is a lot of tightening that needs to happen and then you cut some sections out.

Know When to Let It Go: you have to wear your psychologist and writers caps; reader might feel differently You have to let it go before you edit it to death. Let it go and then move on to the next book.

Working With An Editor: build trust with editors. You have to have trust and confidence. Writers have to have trust. The editor is trying to make it better. A good editor will say promo! you need the editor to tell you the truth where the plot is not working. there will be disagreements over the manuscript. Open communication is essential. Not any word is set in stone, take feedback in context.

The Buck Stops with You: you should make the changes, then copy-edit. The buck stops with you. You can’t really change that much. So you have three opportunities after your first draft.

Editorial Letter: take feedback positively, character X could use more attention, similar to actors on the screen. Try it and see if it makes the story better. In fact, that’s how several other novel series were born for Baldacci.

Navigating the Publishing Business Part 1: if you are given an advance, then you are given 15% of the book’s cover price, so if the book is $25 then you get $4 bucks. Then you’ll learn about royalties. The publisher gets better placement of the book on Amazon for example, then you get this bigger pie because they want to grow your share. Get all your expenses in there, but then we have money left over which Baldacci splits with his publisher. He gets 50% of the revenue in that deal. You should learn about the business, you should learn about the publishing industry. You will then feel more in control. Understand the industry, you won’t get screwed. You want to help sell this book that drives the publisher’s profits.

ThrillFest: is a July convention. Do panels. And then they have publishers and then pitch ideas.

Look to this as a Career: you want an agent that manages your career not your one book. You want to negotiate your own deals. You want to have sage advice. Are you receptive about the craft? You need to lift yourself out of the sludge. If you tell your agent that you are only doing one novel then you will lose their interest fast since they want to milk you just as much as a multi-book publishing deal. Align your interests otherwise you will get screwed.

Actively Promote Your Book: print ads, airport placements. Be prepared to publicize this book. If this is one book success, then you will lose your audience. You can reach people and build the ecosystem with more than one book.

Pay Attention to World Rights: be sure you do not sell world rights to the publisher. You can sell your American rights and then British, you should be wise to meet your country by country publisher to get better deals on a bilateral basis. If you sign off World Rights, then your publisher will do all that work for you and get a better deal for themselves. Don’t work with a publisher that want to do World Right or nothing at all. You should do your own World rights deals and build your fan base over there.

Establishing the Booksellers: you should do book signings. Walk around the stores, how many returns do you get? how many people do you see? There are book stores on book tours that you have to visit. You need to promote your book by being present.

Build Your Fan Base: you need to write regularly just like podcasts etc. 1 per week and for a book, it’s 1 per year? He has many characters with multiple series. You have to get out there. He went around the world to get fans. You want to build your fan base by writing another and another. You shouldn’t just write every 5 years, there is a free market, people will forget you and your books. Note that Baldacci writes okay books twice a year (3 months to write one + 2 editing). They know that they will be consistently reading, that’s the way the market place is. The biggest problem; you need to follow-up with a reasonable fan base; or they will forget about you.

You can do self-publishing, editing and sell copies. You can have thriving careers on Amazon. You can send sample chapters as well.

Stay Focused on What is Important: some authors actually forget about what got them there which was the writing and thinking.

Writing A Series: if you have the motivation to write a series. A is for Alibi, B is Burglary, don’t say that you can’t take on a series. The world will miss out on a great character if you don’t write a series..

Give Your Characters Wiggle Room: so that you can potentially write a separate series featuring them.

Next Books: always sell the idea to the publisher that you want to write a series of 8 books.

Be Consistent

Everything is consistency; if your character reappears in a new book than you need to know about them. Be consistent with what they do. You should master your own material. Do not screw up the arch, make sure that your character actually follows an arch.

Books Change The World

So be the next vital cog in making this system work. We need people’s inner drive. Don’t give up what you care about. If writing is your passion, then follow the words and good things will transpire.

Takeaways and Insights from Barack Obama’s A Promised Land

Representative Democracy is Emotional / Inspiration to the Public and then Rational / Legal to the Legislator

When Harold Washington became the first African American mayor of Chicago, it wasn’t so much what the guy did (legislatively), it was how he made you feel, according to Obama. Because having Washington as mayor of Chicago suggested that someone who looked like Obama could make a difference. Symbolism matters. For Obama, results aren’t necessarily as important as the symbolism which is foreshadowing for the Obama presidency….Legislatively, as we know, Obama struggled as president. You can blame others all you like, the fact is, he wasn’t able to get as much done over an 8 year presidency as he marketed in order to get there. The trifecta of special interests, money and deadlock were increasingly powerful at the federal level. But….the symbolism of having the first African-American president is impossible to calculate and also awesome….

A Good Philosophical Question for Every Citizen

Obama would ask, as a community organizer, ‘how are things right now and how do you want them to be?’ The gap between the way the world is and the world you as an individual want is an important consequentialist question. Systematic (financial, institutional, social) racism [plus individual acts of racism] has led to discrimination on many aspects of life including getting textbooks, the time value of money, SAT prep and being passed over for bank loans. Solutions need to come from aspirations, values (what do you deductively believe is needed). Unfortunately, what we think is needed isn’t always what we actually need….

Rising Up Takes Grit

Obama worked on project vote ‘92. And in his run for state senator in Illinois, thanks to his volunteer work on that project, he had built credibility and would continue teaching while a senator. Obama’s 1997 campaign gathered four times the number of signatures to register because they figured that the Party would invalidate a huge number of signatures. He won because he was better organized.

Horse Trading in Illinois State Senate (1997 – 2004)

  • Being a state senator was like being “a mushroom….covered in s#@$ in a dark room….” Illinois politics was basically a backroom-dealers forum, where as long as you didn’t hit on any hot button issues that would get attention in the press, 90% of the public didn’t care. It was the worst aspects of representative democracy; simply not about representing actual voters but rather the competing legislative factions (i.e the disgusting sausage factory). As such, the debates on the floor were ignored. For Obama, the thought was that if you took a chance on an innovative policy idea, it could cost yourself the seat. The Democrats were also in the minority during 5 of his 7 years in that role.
  • The gerrymandering in Illinois (urban/rural/race) was such that if you wanted to get services for your constituents you truly had to convince senators in other districts to support your campaign. And that created a pork barrel / horse trading / crossing the aisle approach on votes that you are tacitly obligated to support in exchange for what your constituents care about.
  • Obama didn’t dig the legislative realities…and this would haunt him as president where he was relatively ineffective in pushing through policy that his rhetoric demanded.
  • At the first available opportunity, Obama wanted out. He had commuted to Springfield and played poker one too many times.
  • His first offramp was to run against Bobby Rush for Illinois’s 1st congressional district for the US House of Representatives in 2000. However, Congressman Bobby Rush had an 80% approval rating. Then Bobby Rush’s son was shot and killed which further bolstered his support. Obama lost by 30% on a ticket of bridging divisions.

Losing Two Races In A Row = Your Political Career is Likely Over

Trying again, Obama told Michelle that “if we loss this [2004 US Senate race] then we will be out of politics for good.” Of course, politics is random and chaotic. And he figured that if he cleared the democratic field, he “would be able to run to end zone untouched.” Obama sought support from the most powerful in Illinois politics within the black community. “Wouldn’t it be great if I was elected to the US Senate then we would have a black person at the federal level” was Obama’s pitch. David Axelrod was also brought on the campaign. When David Axelrod agreed to work with Obama, he insisted that Obama raise 5 million dollars…or drop out. Hence, fundraising became a major pre-occupation….and likely involved selling his candidacy in the ridiculous double game that is fundraising. Attracting donor that then think you are in their back pocket, while turning around and doing what you want, donors be damned in some or many cases.

Your Spouse May Be Rational and Therefore Not Believe in You Fully

When Obama was a state senator, Michelle’s point was “just promise me I don’t have to move to Springfield.” Now, Obama’s strategy, if they won (and needed a second home in Washington), would be to write a second book, as the only black senator, he would get a lot of attention nationally and be able to sell his book and live off the proceeds. Michelle said that was “magic bean talk” considering his Dreams of My Father book (1997) was not lucrative. It seemed like climbing up the bean stock and slaying the giant and then bringing back the golden eggs. She doubted him. She even said that he would not get her vote. She was wrong.

Politics as Poetry 1, Winning with Inspirational Words / Bold Leadership Positions

Obama needed to raise money, increase visibility in the media and issue sound bites that resonate. He got support from unions etc and gave a speech about the Iraq war that made waves for its obvious prescience. I am not against war. But Iraq is not Al Qaeda. Obama got attention online for opposing the War in Iraq. It was a really good speech as he argued what many in Canada, for example, recognized, that the US had not finished the war in Afghanistan etc. By 2004 Obama had the momentum. On March 6th, 2004 Obama won the nomination which was as good as winning that actual US Senate seat. He won with all kinds of demographic groups and worked with Robert Gibbs. All the while, Obama was thinking about his manuscript called The Audacity of Hope.

Politics as Poetry 2, The 15 Minute Speech That Changed American Politics

There’s not a liberal America and a conservative America – there’s the United States of America.” – DNC keynote speech 2004

  • A lot of good politics is poetry and Obama’s speech at the Democratic convention in 2004 was an exceptional case in that column. If you watch JFK, it’s clear Obama was more charismatic than JFK. If you watch Bill Clinton, it’s clear Obama was more poetic than Bill Clinton. It’s not just what you say, it’s what they hear.
  • Obama was the James Bond of public speaking. He was slick whenever he had prepared remarks.
  • The buzz was palpable: black, handsome, well-educated, charismatic, Obama was untarnished and exciting. The idea of a Hollywood-like Black president was a delicious storyline, it was pure America. Emotionally, he resonated with a wide base even if it was paper thin or kind of superficial.
  • His senate race was made easier as a result of the DNC speech as well. The crowd sizes for Obama were massive. The Republican candidate chased Obama around with a video camera hoping to catch him in a gaffe, that’s how desperate they were and then that opponent dropped out when they couldn’t find anything. The Republicans carted out Alan Keyes as a backup but he was a cynical play in a Blue state.
  • Obama won while Kerry lost in 2004. Obama got an apartment in Washington. Michelle how did you pull this off? “Magic beans baby magic beans.” Obama wanted to be a workhorse. Obama was able to attract talent at 43 years old.

Jobs That are Good Training Grounds but You’re Not Going to Have Much to Show for It

1) Community Organizer,
2) Illinois State Senator in Illinois,
3) and yes, even US Senator…

Congress (Senate and the House) was a grand debate forum but it was all managed by the Republican majority which roll called the Democrats in a, what-felt-like, permanent majority. How long would it take for things to be possible in Congress? In A Promised Land, Barack Obama points out that Illinois state senate was a waste of time, Washington government was also a messy situation where the longer you spent there the more tarnished you became. It’s a common complaint that the only people who stick around during the long wilderness of opposition are unfortunately a bit nutty at times. Obama is not a Legislation guy, maybe he read and didn’t like Lyndon Johnson’s approach or maybe he figured he could wing it. This ‘just do it’ approach would be a problem when it came to the horse trading, persuading the other side and in getting legislation passed in the US legislative branch.

The Power of Identity Politics Is Awesome, If You’ve Got It Flaunt It

There is a strand of political thought that says a white male cannot really represent the perspective of a different identifiable kind of fellow human being and or that a group of men will develop group think in the legislative process and overlook the perspective of fellow human beings. It’s a well regarded argument… So much so that Obama was being catapulted into the lime light on the back of his 2004 DNC speech + all his other accolades.

When there is pressure to run for president, you should heed the call. For Obama, the groupthink in the US senate was going to chip away at his brand and half of Democrats supported the war in Iraq or other bad Republican policy in exchange for various horse trades. Obama didn’t believe in destiny. But he also didn’t want to play the legislative game. Meanwhile, he was getting a disproportionate amount of national support. A lot of attention was directed at him. They wanted him to run in 2008 because he was rock solid, had the pedigree, presentation skills and was well liked. Ted Kennedy brought him into his office and said ‘as a matter fact, you’re not gonna be able to win without taking a chance and doing it.’…‘You’re going to regret not doing this if you don’t and it’s the time that chooses you not the other way around.’….’There is already a lot of energy around your campaign suggesting that this was very doable.’ – Ted Kennedy. Identity politics was truly Obama’s secret sauce alongside his politics as poetry skill-set…Again, this would be a problem when it came to legislating as president since Obama didn’t like how the sausage is made.

Who Wants to Hitch Themselves to Your Wagon? That’s the Best Test

In party politics, you build a campaign and attract talent. Chris Dodd and Hilary Clinton etc all planned to run. At this point in 2006, Obama had to run! He admits that his megalomania was driving the idea that he should run in 2008. Obama worked in his campaign manifesto, triangulations that were aspiration and vague and poetic, all of which was exemplified in the Audacity of Hope: a major publication success. “I am thinking about the midterm 2006, running for something else.” Obama mused…. Gibbs said “Fuck That!” He was not irrelevant, Gibbs realized that he could win and become president. Go big or go home.

The Laser Focused Blank Slate over the Tarnished Persona – Should Obama Have Waited?

“Change will not come if we wait from some other person or if we wait for some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change we seek.” – Campaign Speech 2008

  • Time = baggage.
  • Media = perfectionists.
  • Partisans = dumpster divers / demonization
  • Politicians = adversarial / power-hungry / insular / sheltered
  • Leadership = communicating with charisma, inspiration and hope
  • Obama played partisan games as well, demonizing Republicans etc. But the above factors put Obama in the 1st row of candidates in the Democratic 2008 primaries even though he literally had done nothing of significance legislatively on the state and US senatorial level. It’s like deciding you should become the CEO of a company after managing one of its retail stores….
  • But this has happened before…note also that each of these men started very young on their path….
  • JFK (Junior senator was president at 43)…
  • Barack Obama (Junior US senator was president at 47…)
  • More experience but young:
  • Teddy Roosevelt (Governor of NY, technocrat was president at 42)…
  • Bill Clinton (Governor of AK was president at 46…)
  • Ulysses Grant (Military leader was president at 46…)

Note that JFK and Obama were both ineffective at passing legislation for the most part, as you can see below + according to Robert Caro. Of course, data doesn’t tell the story. Generally good at handling global events, but neither those two inexperienced senators were able to really do what Lyndon Johnson or Franklin D Roosevelt were able to do legislatively.

Sacrificing Your Family for The Big Picture

  • David Plouffe (campaign manager) said Obama needed to use the internet to fundraise for individual donors + then he needed early primary momentum to overcome the Clinton juggernaut. Obama did not see Michelle or the kids much for 2 whole years. He needed to be pathological / laser focused. The chance to compete at this level, there were a lot of Democrats running for president; he asked himself, why do I need to get into the White House. Why me! Spark for a new generation! Change politics as usual!

Don’t Be Too Academic, Although It Is A Better Starting Point than the Inverse

The belief that he should not lose his nerve was critical. In 2007, Obama announced in Springfield. And he was hoping to catch lightning in a bottle. Obama wasn’t really all that good, he worried. Then he made a major gaffe by saying that the lives of American soldiers had been wasted in Iraq. Obama had 4 arguments for every issue.

About Hillary

On Hillary Clinton, Obama felt she was strong on policy, solid on experience however she had been overly scripted / calculating, she was very hard working but she couldn’t break free of the Clinton political divide.

Emotive Debate Techniques Rule the Modern Age

The best answers in the debates were to show that you would always be on their side. Emotional answers. Not these skirting the issue answers. You needed to show you cared! People are moved by emotions not facts. Obama was not well organized. Donors could count on us raising their taxes, Obama said. It was a movement with Obama as spokesman. This is not up to you. We are all in this.

Iowa Caucusing, A Major Campaign Strategy / Investment, Win Early

Caucusing is time consuming and means you have to make an evening out if it. Democratic caucuses needed to win people over. Covered 90 counties and target the democratic. Obama had to try to get the unorthodox ideas off the table, 1 idea was genius, a butter bust of Obama with a sign that read: vote for the guy with big ears! Anti-pant suits was not appropriate, Obama wanted a positive campaign. Not a nasty campaign. 87 days in Iowa. The 90 volunteers for each county was key, Obama’s team learned to listen to volunteers. Month by month they worked Iowa. Field organizers. How did job creation programs fail? How are things as they are and how ought they be?

Retail Politics, Obama had it better than Clinton

There was a lot of excitement in the air with the possibility that Obama could win. And a little woman, about 5’3″, 65 years old, in a big church hat, with big glasses, smiled right at Obama at a campaign event. And she said, ‘Fired up!’ They all said, ‘Fired up!’ We hear her shout, ‘Ready to go!’ And the people said, ‘Ready to go!’ That’s the kind of electricity Obama created with his candidacy: that je ne sais quoi. “Getting fired up and ready to go!” was the chant that Edith Childs shouted in her own public engagements and it stuck to Obama for the rest of the campaign.

Crafting Winning Views

Politicians don’t want to tell hard truths, Obama was willing to say things that Clinton couldn’t, like the Iraq war was a mistake. In reality, Clinton probably supported the Iraq war in exchange for getting other bills passed through horse trading. Obama was unconventional. On foreign policy, Obama said he would take the shot at Osama Bin Laden if Pakistan was harboring the terrorist. The primary voters supported his views while the Democratic party elite disagreed with Obama’s foreign policy approach.

Your opponent’s policies have failed and Washington is broken. Who can disagree?

Nasty Campaign Attacks, Usually Involve Warping Own Statements

  • Joe Biden didn’t think Obama had the maturity to lead. Hilary Clinton’s campaign guy said that Obama had dealt drugs in college. One of Obama’s staff (Samantha Power) called Clinton a ‘monster’ to reporters. Attacking her people, Clinton was unhappy and let him know at the tarmac. Obama didn’t get all the good breaks.
  • He made a “gaffe” about how Reagan had reframed the US which was taken out of context to seem to be an endorsement. Bill Clinton didn’t reframe American politics the way Reagan had.
  • On the debate stage, Clinton was asked ‘How do you feel about being unlikeable, Hillary?’ Obama said “you’re likeable enough” then the story exploded as a sexist move.
  • Clinton cried at an NH campaign event and some thought it was a good media position. Then she won the primary….journalists without data science training though there was a causal link (i.e. that Hillary’s tears = victory)…
  • Obama said that setbacks were expected.
  • The fact is, each candidate was trying to convince the voting public that they themselves were more worthy than you. Your opponent will try to count every action you had taken to say that you have worse judgement.
  • Obama won Iowa with a massive turn out on January 3rd, 2008. Oprah was supportive of the campaign. Michelle was a closer.
  • He brought his extended family on the campaign for a visit. The community of America, how it manifests in Obama’s own diverse white/black multi-ethnic extended family!
  • Obama didn’t want to take black voters for granted but he also didn’t want to alienate the Democratic party base. Too much talk of civil rights and police brutality would basically turn his candidacy into an ethnic voice rather than a pan-American candidate, according to Obama. He wanted to win. He wanted to use language that captures the group that he needed to win over which was the majority whites. Hence, Obama was all about universal programs over specific black policy. According to Obama, blacks had to get inside and not push too hard on policy and just support Obama and trust change could be possible.
  • Jeremiah Wright was Obama’s pastor in Chicago and he had said America was bad while Obama was a member of that church. The Rolling Stone article comes out; he called Obama. Jeremiah Wright was a wingnut but also a pillar of his community. Wright became a victim very fast. Theologian. Said that America is racially motivated, Obama felt that he went “full ghetto” with the public attention he received for being associated with Obama. So Obama had to throw Wright under the bus. Cut ties. Obama did so unreservedly.
  • Michelle also said something harmful, “it’s the first time I am really proud of my country…” This was deemed Anti-American, just trying to score cheap political points.
  • Obama got a secret service detail early because of the number of threats to his life early. He was trapped by the secret service, though, unable to enjoy the freedoms he used to have.

Winning = one opponent says you’re too X and other opponents say you’re too Y

Obama was either too white, too mainstream, too radical…There is good and bad cholesterol. And good crazy and a bad crazy. Take the steps to gain justice in our time, type rhetoric was the perfect fluff that got Obama elected, sufficiently vague to appeal to a wide range of people, triangulation but with passion and poetry that Clinton could not exude. To win you have to show compassion for the down trodden for those who fell between the crack, the drug addicted single mother.

Inequality compounds itself both in financial and real terms. Manufacturing towns lost their life blood. SAT prep courses, etc. Ownership economy (the Bush approach) wasn’t working. Obama won the democratic nomination but two years of running for president cost him his share of time with his kids.

Later as president, Obama writes that he was perceived as either too chummy with Wall Street or too hard on Wall Street depending on which group you talked to. Too weak on Medicare for All or too aggressive…so you know you’re winning when different opponents are seeing different problems with you (ie. you are the everyman change agent).

Politics is Poetry 3, Winning Speech Lines

“The choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It’s not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white. It’s about the past versus the future.” – South Carolina victory speech

Andy Favreau met Obama in 2004, his speech writing has become legendary. …

“And because of what you said, because you decided that change must come to Washington, because you believed that this year must be different than all the rest, because you chose to listen not to your doubts or your fears, but to your greatest hopes and highest aspirations, tonight we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another, a journey that will bring a new and better day to America. Because of you, tonight I can stand here and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for the President of the United States of America.” – June 3rd, 2008 Primary victory

“I want to be the last guy in the room when the decision is made.” – VP Joe Biden

The choice came down to Tim Kaine or Joe Biden. Kaine was civil rights lawyer…Obama felt that Joe Biden loved to talk long while lacking gaffe free days. Biden had said Obama was ‘articulate and bright’ which the press did not give him the benefit of the doubt on. Biden was a skilled debater. He had embarrassing defeats. His wife and baby daughter were killed. He took care of his sons. Obama wanted a partner. For relationships in congress; Joe Biden was a key.

Denver Convention 2008 – Acceptance Speech Masterclass

Michelle gave a great speech. Obama didn’t want to draw comparisons to 40 years prior when Martin Luther King Jr made his March on Washington. “Never thought we’d see the day” was the narrative of the DNC speech. Balance between policy goals and firing Republicans.

Election 2008, Catch Up + Identity Politics

  • John McCain didn’t talk about climate change and the economy was worsening. McCain needed to do something dramatic. McCain picked Sarah Palin! Got millions of dollars for playing the identity politics card.
  • She was a disrupter; pageant queen who took on the Republican establishment in Alaska, hunting in her spare time. She was perfect for authenticity, the elite were just wrong in her summation. The 44 minute Sarah Palin RNC speech was hugely popular, the new hockey mom.
  • “She had good instincts” according to Obama. However, she didn’t know anything about foreign policy. She didn’t know anything about the issues or basic functions of the government.
  • During the national campaign, Obama went on an international junket to show that he could be American president. Obama met with all the international leaders. Palestinians, Israel, Merkel, etc.
  • Pivoting from the primary to the general election. Using the primary folks infrastructure to succeed in the general.

Financial Reality of the Late Summer of 2008

Refinancing his house in 1993, just getting the credit card cleared, Obama had a $40k cheque for his book but not much else. You could use your house and flip it as long as you watched the balloon payment index. But then Chicago housing market softened and Obama learned a lesson therein. Then in 2007, the entire housing market and the subprime mortgages started to implode. Obama felt primed….

Obama’s View of the Finance Persona

  • This credit crisis was the financial sector’s comeuppance for being generally ‘smug and entitled’, conspicuous in their consumption and not interested in how their actions affected others i.e not being systematic thinkers. Seems like a broad generalization…Obama was all about subprime mortgages in 2007 according to himself. He was talking about subprime mortgages and talking about the bubble, in the early 2000s which is in line with general economist speculation at the time but seems a bit overstated. There is always a future down turn or bubble burst…
  • Obama basically predicted the future suspiciously accurately…
  • An example of (UPO) unproveable partisan opinion, the “Stimulus was pulled back too soon in 1936 so we needed a war.” Keynesian economics makes sense, infrastructure spending…
  • Note that Obama also doesn’t mention deficit or debt much in A Promised Land.
  • Anyway, on the side, it was much worse, McCain supported the deregulation of the economy generally. McCain owned 8 homes. There was a danger of depression levels of unemployment and McCain seemed out of step.

It’s Other People’s Fault if You Can’t Get Congress On Side

  • Lehman Brother’s collapsed on September 15th 2008 and it meant that McCain and Obama might need to do a joint agreement on the rescue package since there was a legislative deadlock as the congress waited for a new president….BUT action was required in late September, the financial crisis was heating up.
  • McCain suggested “how about we suspended the campaign for a few days?” Obama phoned McCain to coordinate a solution, but McCain said he’d think about it and then McCain unilaterally pledged to suspend his campaign; he decided to one up Obama. McCain publicly called for Obama to suspend his own campaign alongside McCain about 30 minutes after saying to Obama, that he [John McCain] would think about Obama’s offer. McCain wanted to hash out a $700B TARP deal with Obama. Bush, McCain and Obama. It was a political stunt.
  • Democratic + Republican + McCain + Obama and Bush’s people all met in the White House for a joint session in order to pass TARP. Democrats had Obama talk first. Boehner said he didn’t want to withdrawal but that TARP wouldn’t work. In Obama’s opinion, the Republicans weren’t familiar with their own legislation. Bush asked McCain to speak, and McCain refused saying “I’ll just wait for my turn.” The guy who pushed for campaigns to be paused had now taken a back seat on TARP.

Politics is Poetry Part 4

Obama won big. 365 in the electoral college.

“If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer. It’s the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen; by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the very first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different; that their voices could be that difference. It’s the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled ¬- Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America! It’s the answer that led those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful about what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day. It’s been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.”

Where we are met with cynicism and doubts and those who tell us that we can’t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can.” – Victory speech 2008

Building A Winning Team, Not Rocking the Boat

With eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.” Inaugural Address 2009

  • Needless to say, Obama benefited from independents and Republicans and leftists who wanted something different and projected that sentiment on the blank slate with no track record that was Barack Obama. Rahm Emanuel was a triangulating-Clinton guy. Obama hired Tim Geithner, a Wall street insider as Treasury Secretary. Lawrence Summers from Harvard also involved….
  • The economic team had been on the inside. The righting the ship economically, meant hiring those who understood the system, with all the moral hazard that might entail.
  • Obama argues his hand in mentioning the success of the 90s is correlated with federal policy under Clinton…another UPO, unprovable partisan opinion.
  • Obama kept Bob Gates in as Secretary of Defense.
  • Hilary Clinton Secretary of State, reluctant at first.
  • White House staff is mostly black or Mexican indicating that most presidents were happiest if there was inequality between menial staff and leadership, according to Obama.

Crisis Is Strongly Biased to Being Fixed with a Return to the Default

  • For example, the stimulus package should not include legalizing marijuana, according to Obama.

Republicans Did Not Want Obama’s Rhetoric to Be Converted Into Actual Accomplishments, Instead the Goal Was to Humiliate Obama into a One Term Presidency

  • Congress was fluid in the 1950s and 60s. The Lyndon Baines Johnson era resulted in the re-alignment around race, Gay rights abortion etc computer models of gerrymandering in the 1980s, TV news cycles changed partisanship, the moderates were disappearing; Rush Limbaugh talk radio meant there was hyper partisanship…..
  • Obama’s central thesis / complaint / default in A Promised Land is that he was a victim of his own success and it was other people’s fault that he was not able to pass the kind of legislation that his rhetoric vaguely implied…the jury is still out on that….
  • Obama had to win Republican votes to pass any legislation.
    1) $800B stimulus;
    2) tax cuts;
    3) infrastructure and improvements
  • Boehner rarely deviated from the talking.
  • Nancy Pelosi was not making progress either.
  • These legislators were all unified in wanting to be somewhere else rather than negotiate in good faith.
  • Dissent in party is dangerous because it means what ever legislation was on the books, that legislation might not pass.
  • Filibuster could prevent cloture hence the need to have +60 votes to impose cloture on a discussion.
  • The minority would allow legislation through by using the filibuster and you needed 60 votes in the senate to break that deadlock; aka the supermajority.
  • Republican cooperation seemed very unlikely even though TARP was bi-partisan:
  • Mitch McConnell was not letting members talk to the White House, this anti-communication strategy was not overcome for 8 whole years (i.e. no carrier pigeons or otherwise). Making cross communication impossible. They literally did not want to work with the Democrats at all.
  • House Republicans announced publicly they will not support Obama’s economic bill and likely fundraised off the back of it. Obama was invited to the Republicans Luncheon which was televised. And in that room were almost all middle-aged white men, Obama noted. As far of the Republicans were concerned, the real cause of this crisis was the mortgage house law circa Bill Clinton era. Another, (UPO) unprovable partisan opinion.
  • Rahm Emanuel didn’t have an exact senator vote count but surmised that there were zero Republicans willing to support Obama’s plans. Regardless of the issues, obstruction had fewer downstream consequences than cooperation:
    a) loss of internal party influence,
    b) contested right flank primaries (amplified by gerrymandering),
    c) the Democrats have both the House and the Senate so the Republicans survival is the mode,
  • d) ‘if our primary goal is to get power again so any help Republicans give will make Obama look good’….which isn’t necessarily bad for the country since Congress is a deadlocked, snails pace branch of government….but still…
  • e) the modern news coverage was also re-calibrating as print media revenue was declining and online competition was driven by sensationalism. Obama says the media’s collective approach was to report one side and then the other side and then do polling on horse race politics which got ratings.
  • f) Rush Limbaugh said “I hope Obama fails”, he and other radio talk-shows were channeling the voters to be anti-centrist. That they needed the voter to shift to the extreme to get re-elected as well as increase voter intensity.
  • And a lot of Republicans were being pushed hard by extremist primary challenges.
  • Bipartisan Judd Gregg had to withdrawal his support or suffer a career limiting move.
  • Charlie Crist supported the recovery act; putting people first. And with an Obama handshake, Crist’s career was destroyed. If you cooperate with Obama you will lose! So, February 2009, the recovery act did get passed but solidified a legislative divide with heavy consequence for deviants…

Public Horse Trading Is Sub-Optimal

But wait a second…..the Democrats from 2009 to 2011 had a double majority, so they should have no problem passing legislation, right? Wrong, the average years of a Congress-person in either the House or the Senate was 10.6 years and the divisions were fierce and long lasting so Obama felt he needed a supermajority (ie. secure 61 Senate votes) in order to avoid the Filibuster by Republicans which would log jam legislation and prevent cloture (ie. roll call voting).

Al Franken was the 60th Democratic senator in 2009 but then there were vacancies so it was more like 58. The Congress was only Filibuster-free for 72 days out of the total session. So, centre-right Republicans like Susan Collins and Arlen Specter were key. The Gang of Four (Republicans) made random demands in order to pass bills such as the recovery act. The general public was made aware of these side-deals by the press which made things much worse since it angered the progressives who saw hope and change fading into disappointment, compromise and politics as usual. A type of politics that took progressives, minorities and other Democrat default cleavages for granted. Those folks had no where serious to park their support.

Tim Geithner’s Three Options

  • The US’ credit crunch threatened to trigger a depression; credit was frozen at Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac, AIG, CitiGroup and Bank of America. If anyone of those fell, then it would cause a major financial cascade of balance sheet dependencies. So the goal was to get consumers to invest in the market.
  • There were Three Options:
    1) Build a bad bank that all other institutions could sell their toxic asset to and thus the government owned and foisted the costs on the tax payers directly through a sunk fund; problem being no one knew how to price the toxic assets and then there were pricing complications;
    2) Nationalize the financial institutions which is what the UK government did with Royal Bank of Scotland, i.e. a government take over. There was a danger of losing money and how would the public support this;
    3) Run a Stress Test which might show that market panic was not that bad! The banks didn’t know how bad it was therefore they could do stress tests and then figure out how much against agreed upon benchmark. Markets probably wouldn’t trust the government to audit their books…
  • Obama choose the option 3) the stress test. Obama put a lot of pressure on Geithner to improve communications between departments because the markets were spooked initially. Politically, obviously, the problem is that Obama was definitely abandoning the progressive wing and supported an inside guy.
  • The fact is it is always an inside guy, there just isn’t enough time for revolution. There could be structural reforms later but stopping the bleeding was priority #1.
  • Obama was always trying to minimize screwups, gaffes / pushing his team to the next phase.
  • The stress test was executed for institutions. The collective shortfall was $75B. And the Wall Street Journal said the analysis was very compelling. So through that process of price discovery, Geithner et al were able to arrest the financial crisis and begin the recovery.
  • As a result of Option 3, Obama says that the US economy bounced back faster than the Europeans which is true but associates his policy decisions with that outcome of course, unproveable partisan opinion. He saved Main Street jobs. There was no ‘let-them-fail’ attitude nor was there a ‘nationalize and criminalize the executives of the major banks’ attitude either.
  • Again, at the time, there were a bunch of people who thought he should have permanently altered the financial system with more extreme nationalization and criminalization of financial consequences. Most of those advocates will not have had experience in finance or economics to understand that the consequences were much more uncertain in such a scenario. The worse case would have meant a longer recovery time in Obama’s view.
  • Put simply, he wasn’t willing to revolutionize the system; and to what end state? He says he had a conservative approach to reform. Best to steer the economy away from disaster.
  • And so they managed to get the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act through.

Intractable Habits: Reasonableness, Blame the Other Side and Smoke A Lot

  • Obama had exuded throughout his campaign in the primaries and as president, an even keel balance that frustrated…..
  • There are a remarkably low number of UPOs in A Promised Land.
  • In the wake of the financial crisis, financial leaders gave themselves a bonus once the recover act was passed.
  • As far as Obama could see, the financial leadership rejected responsibility for the sale of sub-prime loans. That they were the arteries of the economy meant it was too bad but they were still linchpins that could not be punished in any real terms (although their career prospected were curbed much more so then their predecessors in the ’80 and ’90 “good times”.)
  • Also, Obama didn’t want to alienate investors. AIG was contractually obligated to give its employees a large bonus.
  • Many complained to Obama that ‘you should be taking over the financial sector!’ But the economics is hostage to the good as well as the bad financial professionals.
  • Obama smoked 6 cigarettes per day. Then he got busy and started smoking 8 cigarettes per day.
  • Obama did a morning workout every day. He chose to quit smoking. He had a lot of nicotine gum ready on the day the ACA was passed.

GM and Chrysler Bailouts

Obama points out that compared to financial technocrats, these auto-sector management folks were amateur about how their sales was going to increase by 2% as long as the government just bailed them out. Brian Deese came up with the incremental support and cost controls. They also wanted to replace Chrysler. To let the iconic Chrysler go under? It was throwing good money after bad. But there was hope with Fiat ownership.

The Chrysler Plants As Another Bailout Argument

The depression across their towns meant political intervention was expedient. Indiana and Ohio, men who had lost they jobs were struggling which was a similar refrain from the 1980 bailout and the mid-terms would hurt Obama if they didn’t give them ‘a fighting chance.’ Brian Deese calculated the cost of Chrysler going under and concluded it was worth it political to use Federal debt and revenue to bail them out….

On the Mind of a President

The president has to protect you from:
A. Oceans rising; (Interesting that it turns out that the IPCC doesn’t think this is a serious threat as of 2022!)
B. Earth frying;
C. Terrorist attacks;
D. The government reading your emails;
E. Nuclear war;
F. Tribalism like in Kenya had already infected US Congress in his opinion.

List of Things that Obama Couldn’t Look Soft On

  • Obama basically continued Bush policies on Foreign Policy, pushing back his left flank saying: I couldn’t look soft on:

  1. Drone strikes on Al Qaeda;
  2. Deportation of Illegal Immigrants;
  3. Free market principles of the economy, with patches of Keynesianism;

Foreign Policy Laydown Aligns with Centrism

“There has been one constant amidst these shifting tides. At every turn, America’s men and women in uniform have served with courage and resolve.” End of Combat Operations in Iraq 2010

  • Obama had conflicts with the civil service who would misinterpret, bury and slow walk presidential recommendations.
  • American forces would be leaving Iraq in 2010 and then use residual forces, once out you don’t want any other force to fill the vacuum however. Obama seems to have amazing predictive powers…..once again…implying his concern about ISIS before ISIS was thing.
  • On the Afghan campaign, once American leave, the Taliban will retrench. Karzai struggled with corrupt government. In Kabul, there were shady operations.
  • Obama in March 2009 increased the troop deployment in Afghanistan even though he campaigned on drawing down troop numbers.
  • G20 Summit: Air Force One has a shower, armored windows and 4,000 square feet of office space.
  • Obama strengthened US global vision; US was able to abide by global standards. The US had Iraq and a bank crisis was threatening to take the US over a cliff which reduced the US’ standing globally..
  • Sarkozy was crazy, genuine and would take credit for good policies. He endorsed Obama. But he was unstable and not consistent and failed to do anything tangible for the US.
  • Obama’s Read of the Global Situation
    – BRICS were big nations and saw the crisis as a means of flipping the paradigm. Give these nations more influence.
    – Brazil had promise;
    – Russia…Medvedev and Putin criminal syndicate;
    – India, hobbled by civil service;
    – China, not in a hurry to take on the world order in 2009;
    – South Africa, broken.
  • Very few countries were interested in acting beyond narrow self-interest. Bilateral negotiations were the preference.

Media Misinterpretation of Obama’s Global Tour

  • The ‘Obama apology tour’ was misconstrued from a comment that every country ought to believe they are exceptional. The media ran with this, pretending Obama had apologized for America’s world superpower status. Michelle touched Elizabeth II’s shoulder which was a violation of protocol….
  • No major pratfalls on the tour, Obama spent a lot of time putting out Bush’s fires. The last turn on the global board game. That is natural. You should expect that the hopeful past was now rough.
  • Turkey’s Erdogan in 2002 reshaped Turkey as a new Muslim nation-state.
  • Democratic values were in decline. Claus in Czech Republic. Obama sees these guys as power brokers at the local level with whom he had interests and had to work with.
  • Captain Philips could have gone badly. Somalis warped, religious and casually cool. Obama wanted to help these pirates rather than kill them.
  • Al Qaeda: Drone strikes and Obama was not able to track with all the burner phones. Ensured a ranking on the targets. Obama couldn’t look soft on terrorism. He did sign an executive order on waterboarding, ending it officially.
  • Obama was going to give a speech in Berlin and use a line called Community of Fate! Unfortunately, it was actually a Hitler line from one of his speeches…Obviously wanting to avoid anything remotely controversial, sometimes hard to avoid, the term of phrase was scrapped.
  • A New Beginning’ Islam speech in Egypt, probably a good speech to point out progress was inevitable and that Islamic extremists were not representative; and that the dictators who gummed up the arguments about fighting democracy were trying to cover for their failures.
  • In the dessert, Islam was dominant in Saudi Arabia….established Islamic shrines + oil development; sent their kids to Harvard and Cambridge.
  • Obama’s dad was not Muslim.
  • Obama rejected personal gifts from leaders. Obama thought about the necklace, how many kids that could help?

“In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government.” – Obama acknowledge the 1953 Coup

Mubarak, Ally to US Interests in the Middle-East

Overcame the Suez canal crises on the mid-20th century…. Pan-Arab nationalism…Sadat’s 1979 peace treaty facilitated support from the US. Obama believes that the Mubarak Palace had no broader interest then to protect the tangled patronage that kept them in power.

Healthcare Would Cost A Lot of Political Capital

  • Obama points out that Medicare and Medicaid had the effect of pushing up the prices of health insurance for insured employees in the US. Medicare for All was considered very progressive, to distribute healthcare resources not based on the ability to pay, was pushing hard to the left.
  • Obama was saying that universal healthcare campaign would build on Lyndon Johnson‘s Medicaid and Medicare plans of the mid-1960s. Why should Americans pay way more than Canadians on healthcare per person? Especially when are you getting the same or worse quality of care, another (UPO) unprovable partisan opinion.
  • Note: It’s actually very difficult to discern what is good and bad healthcare on a person to person basis even at a system level, region to region, country to country and that’s ultimately what is being discerned in Obama’s statement: the cost (budget) / capacity (accessibility) of healthcare in Canada is lower with similar outcomes. We enter a biased lens as Canadians and Americans here: of course, my family is better than yours (our emotional instincts are tethered to reality of our self-love). …more on this later!
  • Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod advised against pushing for aggressive healthcare reform since you would spend a high degree of your political capital and if you lost you would be ‘a very weaken president.’ Of course, what Obama was saying ultimately was that he had sold the poetics and needed a major win or his rhetoric would look ridiculous historically.
  • Obama was overconfident in pushing for universal healthcare, for sure. The Democrats had the Senate, the House and the presidency so they should be able to get these things through. But, of course, the Democratic Party has factions, cleavages, strong and weak interest groups, counter-arguments and donor pressures…the Republicans also had those dynamics.
  • Obama decided to do the courageous thing. Leaving your family with a mountain of debt because you were fighting cancer is a moral problem. Obama’s mom was a victim of bad insurance policy, for example.

Sausage Making in Representative Democracy Clashes with Soaring Rhetoric

  • The politics and optics of reform is very difficult. Obama and JFK had a lot in common in that they were not able to influence congress very well. They didn’t play hard ball with legislator’s careers, they didn’t do the horse trading necessary to get things done. LBJ knew how to get legislation passed. Sure, things were different now, but Rahm Emanuel was no LBJ obviously. Rahm would bully representatives in the shower but it doesn’t appear that he was a skilled and or had the rich experience that LBJ had.
  • Obama had a naïve idea about having a public consultation on healthcare where all the different options could be discussed….but Rahm knew that the sausage making of legislation would mean that there will be many concessions and compromises at the legislative level and so having a public discourse and discussion on the nature of the policy belies the fact that getting anything through has to run the gauntlet of the legislative process. And the legislative process is a negotiation between representatives not actually a democratic process, it’s a horse trading exercise.
  • Rahm Emanuel’s line was ‘we’re gonna be ordering a sausage to be made in the sausage factory and you’ve ordered a big sausage!’
  • Obama hired Katherine Sibelius. It’s critical to have someone on the team who understands all the different policy options and the spectrum of options that could be put into practice.
  • Mitt Romney’s Individual Mandate (obligates every citizen to take person responsibility by getting a healthcare plan, and those who don’t have one can select a government funded plan) in Massachusetts.
  • This model included the creation of a marketplace for healthcare plans. Citizens could choose the plan they wanted and it would also include a clause that prevented targeting on the basis of pre-existing conditions.
  • Obama was for Medicare for all. He makes a ridiculous argument that Canada had started with Medicare “from scratch” (…in Saskatchewan in 1962 and Federally in 1965? Canada was founded in 1867, dude) but in Obama’s mind the US was not starting from scratch…it would be hugely disruptive economically, for the insurance infrastructure so Rahm Emanuel worked with Romney to line up the democratic votes and to poach a few Republicans onboard.
  • RomneyCare was a huge success?! Romney’s model would work. So, Obama began to copy that plan in order to get signature legislation through.

Pandemic Crisis with the H1N1 Swine Flu Virus

  • H1N1 hit the US under Obama’s administration in 2009 and he tapped Katherine Sibelius to lead the effort. Obama’s team was warned by the Gerald Ford retirees that they should not act too swiftly and rely on the vaccine since it could actually cause neurological harm if rushed. More people were harmed by the vaccine then the swine flu during the Ford administration.
  • But there was clearly a fear as this H1N1 was spreading to several schools and locations in the US. And the 1918 Spanish influenza which was spread to about 1 billion people and killed 50 to 100M people with the result that babies in utero develop permanent disabilities which included getting the lower standards of living, lower socioeconomic status as a result of contracting the flu in utero.
  • 12,000 people died of H1N1 and obviously comorbidities are a big factor in the US. But at any rate, Obama was lucky the virus was quick acting, showing symptoms as it spread! Obama considered closing down schools but decided against it. The virus was not contagious and did not spread across the entire population and was quarantined out of existence.

The Supreme Court is Partisan Due to a Vague Constitution, Unlike Most US Laws

Marbury v. Madison gave the Supreme Court supremacy over the constitution. Major social issues are routed through the Supreme Court as a result. Terminology within the constitution is so vaguely described that you can have competing interpretations of values and interpret the constitution to back your values. In fact, we know that the founders had competing views and values at the time of writing it and therefore the ‘founders intent’ narrative is a very weak argument.

Obama had to replace Souter and had met many ‘high IQ morons’ in academia and otherwise so he opted for Sonia Sotomayor who was born into a lower middle class Portuguese family in the Bronx.

Obama Ridicules the Left Who Will Never Have To Pass A Law

  • The healthcare negotiations were snapped back and forth by capitulations as perceived by anyone on the left who would never have to deal with actually getting bills passed without a Filibuster and therefore were very “Weimar Republic-esq” in their inability to reason out concessions legislatively but skilled at appealing to the masses (ie. as a parliamentarians, you could grandstand in the legislature and never have to pass a bill during the Weimar Republic, and thus it was a very weak form of democracy that failed to cultivate effective leaders, arguably leading to the rise of Adolf Hitler…this is just a theory from the likes of Niall Ferguson etc).
  • These progressive folks could talk about aspirations because they never had to cut a deal. They talked of railroading legislation as if that was even feasible legislatively.
  • Anyway, Obama points out the biggest problem with the doctors was that they basically could still charge whatever they felt necessary. And that patients would see a drug ad on tv and still want that drug even if it was deemed a marketing scheme by a bell-curved scientific review. So, Obama pushed for a committee to set prices. The Cadillac benefits was another problem because there were these expensive plans that didn’t really effect outcomes but were highly sought after. Union leaders didn’t trust that any saving would go to their members. And they knew they would catch flack about changes.
  • Axelrod took Obama aside and said, people who already have healthcare were skeptical of any reform as additive of their care. Maybe we should back off healthcare….

Since Politics is Emotional, Comments on Race Explode Quickly, Sensationally and Crowdout Substantive Policy Discussions

Harvard professor Henry Gates was interrogated by a police officer for seemingly breaking into his own home, so Gates branded the office a racist. Obama quietly believed that Gates had not shown respect. Cussing out a cop. Obama used to get followed around by security guards. If you were followed, it was not a matter of paranoia, in Obama’s estimation.

4 minutes out of a 60 minutes discussion on healthcare police was all the media covered, and that 4 minutes comprised of Obama saying that the police acted ‘stupidly’. This is an example of a politician’s intentions begin warped for political points.

Stupidly does not equal stupid in reference to Sgt Crowley, according to Obama. Both Gates and Crowley overreacted. So, a beer summit was done to close off the issue. Again, more sensational than anything, Obama was proposing on healthcare and this incident was what sold newspapers.

Obama was truly always navigating in the White House. He gave his white counter parties the benefit of the doubt on any sensitive race issues.

On Healthcare, Obama was hopeful that 2009 would be the signature year. Maybe by August? But Republicans had other plans, Boehner through Frank Luntz coined the term “government takeover of healthcare.” Grassly would just stall and stall. Never coming up with a compromise bill.

Have a Townhall, sure, but the Media will not Pay Attention Unless there is Blue Meat (engineered controversy) or Red Meat (actual controversy)

The Tea Party had angry protesters outside an Obama event. This new NOPE movement was led by people like Ron Paul who was calling for withdrawal from NATO and end to the Fed.

Tea Party mobilized narratives around death panels, benefiting illegal immigrants, the birther movement (i.e that Obama was born in Kenya and ineligible to be president was at least in part racism.) The fact is the thought that the president of the United States was not even an American citizen was just too juicy a story not to cover it. The news media was selling lots of papers with Donald Trump playing up the possibility that Obama was not legitimate. Threading the needle between a) a legitimate concern about a person’s place of birth, b) implied racism. If it 10% racism and 90% a legitimate concern or vice versa, the fact is that was more interesting than public policy. Trump, himself didn’t have to believe it in order be leading in the Republican New Hampshire primary in 2011…And Obama’s team knew that white voters don’t like lectures on racism so the Obama White House was silent on the matter. Finally, Obama made a statement once he released his long-form birth certificate, but he was ultimately unable to capture the media’s attention when it came to his policy.

“The paid media is not the ideal conduit to discuss your policy options as a citizen…” – Professor Nerdster

Never Call Your Opponent Racist, That’s a Common Default Assumption

Obama’s position is that you should never complain about voters. The white predecessors. Whatever truths you might have, there are competing viable explanations about intentions of separate individuals. Obama was not going to win by labelling his opponents racist. State rights versus ending Jim Crow / culture, it’s just not going to get you very far, in Obama’s estimation.

Horse Trading on the Affordable Care Act

  • Obama was no LBJ…Efforts to placate Chuck Grassley were fruitless. Finally, Obama was asked ‘If we met everyone of your five new complaints about the bill would you support it?’ Chuck Grassley paused and said “I guess not.” Rahm Emanuel was being a bitch as usual said, “Well, we should have pushed for a slimmed down bill that a few Republicans could accept!”
  • All the evidence showed the Republicans did not want to cooperate, however.
  • Obama has always felt lucky….
  • He had to explain broadly and intricately the Afford Care Act, discuss what the risk corridors are and the Excel file full of formulas and options. He needed to “fight cynicism.” Obama decided to do a TV presentation on the subject. 1 hour of the reform proposal and the time was now.
  • Obama was able to get the healthcare bill kicked out of committee. On November 7th, 2009, Pelosi needed to make sure the bill wasn’t going to fizzle. Senators had lots of requirements, there were hold outs seeking horse trades. Liberals had no problem taxing pharmaceuticals but when a company was based in their jurisdiction, individual members demanded a reduced tax rate for their donors, ie a carve out. Hypocritical!
  • Harry Reid basically sorted out the deal.
  • Senate pork barrel deals were abound.
  • Unlike LBJ, the discussions hit the press core.
  • Obama stripped the public option out, arguing the government option being removed would pave the way to get better options through later, senate didn’t support that now.
  • Joe Lieberman was an independent but had supported McCain in 2008 but Obama let him keep his committee jobs because Obama knew he needed Lieberman’s vote.
  • McConnell threatened anyone who broke ranks either with a primary challenger OR be removed from committee assignments…
  • On December 24th, 2009, they got it through the senate but then Scott Brown won in Massachusetts. Obama blames Coakley for being a bad campaigner in that race, i.e. not a reflection of the public view of Obama.
  • Senators think all congress men are ill informed and congressman think senators are bloated and ineffectual, according to Obama, they’re both right!
  • Rahm was starting to vent about Obama’s healthcare strategy to the media and the resulting ‘scaled back strategy.’ Rahm was prepared to resign over his criticism that appeared in the major papers. But Obama said, ‘go pass the goddamn healthcare bill.’

When in Doubt, Split the Bill into Acceptable Components

So now with 59 votes in the senate, he wouldn’t get it through without a filibuster. There was another path which was Budget reconciliation; and to split the bill and pass a separate bill, had to scrap the 50 state healthcare markets instead of a national one, however.

Republicans Opposed Obama – January 29th, 2010

Republican didn’t know what was in the bill but were simply anti-Obama. But it basically emboldened the democratic healthcare bill. The press ran out of the things to talk about on the Affordable Care Act…Is it more important to get and stay elected or be courageous? Getting elected since you can’t effect change from outside.

On March 21, 2010, could have a last minute switch back by some legislators, but it was going to be passed. This law better work since Obama would be owning the healthcare system. Yeas and Nays, 216 passed. It’s done! Promise fulfilled.

Military Industrial Complex

  • The world as it is…Obama had to write letters to the families of the fallen. In Iraq, the government was split between Sunni, Kurdish and Shia; but the new regime was not willing to compromise on their ethnic dominance.
  • Afghanistan security forces needed to be trained. McCrystal asked that the White House give $1B for every additional 1,000 troops in Afghanistan. Bob Gates wanted an additional 10,000 troops. ‘We have the highest military count’ Obama was complaining that his staff should stop telling me the military sources had leaked the story. Working the press behind the scenes.
  • The 9/11 era sought to avoid congress being held responsible, need to get the country safe, shifting power to the Pentagon. Civil control of policy making was in question.
  • Afghanistan Pentagon advocates sought “$30B per year” McCrystal’s argument was to ‘give the troops a chance to succeed.’ Taliban was basically infused into the country. Afghanistan was not like Iraq; the military wasn’t optimized to solve the political difficulty; they were dependent on US support. 30K new troops, and the Canadians and Dutch wanted to leave. More of a surge than a withdrawal. They had a time table as well but Karzai didn’t feel obligated to transition based on that timetable.
  • Nobel Prize for Obama…that was a major shock. The prize was a call to action, shrinking ethnic divides, climate change. However, Obama was beginning to see a widening gap between expectations and the reality of his presidency.
  • There was another 20K troops; it was ideological, the Pentagon had a habit of getting enablers NOT included to the troops’ numbers. The Pentagon was basically trying to convince Obama to accept; December 1st Obama sent more troops to Afghanistan in order to protect the peace. War is contradiction.

“Cleared-eyed, we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace.” – Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech 2009

Cookie Cutter Speeches

Obama international speeches to small countries he visited has a simple template he followed. Just as individuals want to be respected so too do nations. The template was simple: [greeting in native language] great to be in this country that has brought so much to the world [insert list of accomplishments]…[US and x country summary of relations]….[How the US has been shaped by immigrants from that country]…[Closing poetics].

Iranian Relations

1951 Iran nationalized oil and British was not happy so the British convinced Eisenhower that Iran was leaning towards USSR and should therefore institute the ’53 coup…commercial interests mixed with national interests were at play when it came to oil production. Then the Shah did a horrible job and in 1979, the Ayatollah arrives from Paris. Why were they chanting “death to America!” The fact that Iraq went to war with Iran and Iran used terrorist tactics to destabilize and attempt to overthrow other regimes using US sold weapons showed the tangle web. Hezbollah and Iran were a headache. Iran had nuclear facilities at the time of the Shah; but they could produce a bomb and prevent US intervention without risking a nuclear retaliation on Israel.

Obama’s Approach with Iran was:

  1. Step up a handshake for an open dialogue, Iran was happy to give the middle finger; Iran’s Green Movement and the crackdown meant the leadership was in trouble.
  2. Peaceful passive approach; US and Iran; Obama had less influence over that.
  3. Tough Sanctions on Iran P5+1 (Germany), Iran would basically string along negotiations in order to prevent the sanctions however.

Putin was not interested in the new Russia and applied soft authoritarianiansism he was genuinely popular and wanted to escape the humiliation of the USSR collapse.

Obama’s visit to China was interesting because a lot of these remarks from both the students and the Premier were prepare or vetted in advance. The Chinese insisted that they are still developing country, those living outside grill areas were below the poverty line relative to American citizens. Concerns about the South China Sea and Iran sanctions were his primary focus.

Climate Change Views of Obama In a Nutshell

  • Obama’s views on climate change were informed mostly by his mother who lived in Indonesia and had, as an anthropologist, had other preoccupations such as starvation, jobs and so pollution was a post materialist concern, well after jobs are secured.
  • Obamas daughter was concerned about tigers and deforestation however the primary concern was that climate change would raise the oceans. Increase the likelihood of more severe storms because there’s more urban centres to worry about but also more severe weather. Nixon launched the EPA, had to be mentioned.
  • Labour union leaders were against any kind of climate change measures that would hinder the union member jobs. And climate change is a really difficult problem to solve given that it’s short term pain for long term gains and partisans are only secured for four years terms. Bush ignored the reality of climate change. Doing so would lead to a challenge from the right which denied its existence.
  • Obama supported a cap and trade model; emphasized oil and gas production, but was happy to support ethanol in the swing states. Acknowledging that he can’t lose Ohio and Pennsylvania in 2012! Ambitious but realistic goals. Obama was concerned about coastal town flooding. Solar panels and windmills were still rare in 2009 and depended on whether the sun will shine or the wind would blow. The economy was built around resource extraction and oil and gas.
  • The best laid entrepreneurial plans will lead to risks. Solindra failed by 2011, cheap Chinese manufacturers crushed it. Clean energy moon shots to combat climate change were long-term.
  • The Clean Air Act 2003 was a step forward but Bush’s EPA didn’t want to control exhaust from cars and refused to classify it as a pollution.
  • For Obama, regulatory policy actually helps make life more safe. For example, airline regulations make flying more safe. And clean water is more likely with regulations. But regulatory policy was always viewed as bad by the right. In part because it created government jobs? But also the red tape inhibited economic development so the thinking goes.
  • Case Sunstein: The benefits of regulation outweighed the costs. Automakers accepted national standards, The auto-bailout (never mentioned bailouts) when they accepted the new standards.
  • Obama had collaborated with McCain quickly after his election defeat recently on environmental policy but as soon as that was released to the press, McCain received a threat from his right flank if he continued to work with Obama so he had to withdraw or risk losing his senate seat.
  • Congress was unhappy about these centrists. Senate is where good ideas go to die. Cap and Trade: companies that exceed have to pay a fee. They would support it even if Bush senior had a cap and trade policy but not if Obama proposed it. Getting a congress environmental bill before December was not realistic. Not enough runway to land this bill.
  • Brazil ‘92 Earth Summit, Kyoto Protocol had a cap and trade function. Kyoto was mothballed by Bill Clinton in 1997.
  • Lindsay Graham was media savvy but a double crosser on bills such as climate change legislation.

Common Differentiated Measures

Common differentiated meant that rich countries that had higher emissions standards could achieve greater reductions but were also the bearers of most of the costs in fighting climate change (even if it was through pollution that these countries prospered, it was a tough sell). China and India didn’t have to work by the same rules. Measures that Obama wanted to improve upon:

  1. Self-determined; wealth energy profile and would be revised
  2. Measures to verify
  3. Wealthy countries would help developing countries

Ban Ki-moon was not a social guy. Copenhagen Summit: treaty was held up. Chinese and BRICS were not supportive. It was already looking like an eminent failure, as Obama crossed the Atlantic: Obama was self-aware that his carbon footprint was wacky high (not necessarily hypocritical since it’s a broad policy aspirations). Rasmussen was the Dutch PM but was ignored at the summit.

Copenhagen – Cornering Your Negotiation Opponents

  • When the Chinese delegation went up to hold a separate meeting with Brazil and India, Obama burst into their meeting. They were all shocked…Their view was that Kyoto is fine, the West was responsible, national sovereignty concerns trump the environment.
  • Obama said they were holding it up, try telling the people downstairs what you were doing, that the poor countries would be losing funds from the US. The US was going to provide aid to these other countries to be environmentally sustainable, and these developing counties and big polluters were holding things up….Obama pushed it through.

Into the Barrel Stories

The negative stories if they aren’t broken up by global news stories or other distractions build up a negative perception and then opposition grows built up around that perception further. Then you get thrown over the Niagara Falls, according to Obama. The press was more critical;

Cabinet and staff would prevent leaks. There were no ethical lapses during Obama’s two terms. Dr. No (if it sounds fun you can’t go to that event)….

Women in the White House

Obama didn’t perceive much gender bias until he had a meeting with female White House staff. It was good to air things out. These women did not feel that they were being respected. The towel snapping was not something these women understood and appreciated ie. male networks of influence. Obama’s view was that no one was respected in the White House, it was about ideas and forcefully arguing your point. Need to fight for your own voice. At any rate, he agreed to do better to accommodate female voices.

Wall Street Reigned In, Modestly

  • Congressional progressives were skeptical of all the human psyche with its ups and downs as well as the economy under capitalism with its ups and downs.
  • But Obama’s primary goal was to stop financial crises; reinstating Glass Steagall just didn’t make sense since this was not an issue of investment banking and retail banking overlap. The left believed that Wall Street was a trillion dollar casino. Based in quarterly earnings. The offshoring of the jobs and the retaliation of regulating finance was not going far enough. Limiting the size of banks was another idea; but that was an idea that didn’t work for Obama. It was not necessarily mega banks that were the problem. Cutting the banking sectors size didn’t really make sense. Euro has a lot of big banks, for example, in Obama’s rationale.
  • Obama’s mandate for change was not strong enough because he had held off the worst of the crisis. But what he did institute was:
  • – More capital liquidity requirement:
    – Derivatives intensified; used to hedge their risk;
    – Needed better risk management;
  • Elizabeth Warren created the consumer protection project. Harry Reid put her in the Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs committee. She was a grandstander to the point of dishonesty but Obama understood that she was playing to the crowd in committee.
  • Chris Dodd was long a legislative animal. While a colleague makes an impassioned plea and then in backroom deals taking the exact opposite stance, Dodd turned to Obama and asked “You didn’t think this was ever on the level? Did you?”
  • The House could pass the bill but they would need a Democratic senate needed every vote. Had to serve the conservative Democrats. Regulation happy Democrats were afraid to go after any of the major banks. Politicians who were complaining about special deals being carved out for healthcare reform, now wanted to carve out special deals for whatever they could get for their constituents.

Obama consistently feels like the fisherman from Old Man & the Sea with the sharks eating the tuna as he brings it home.

  1. Increased transparency on Senior Leader Team compensation;
  2. Consumer protections;
  3. Clawback mechanisms for questionable practices.

Mostly came through intact. Amendments didn’t nip away much. July 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. It had compromised: fairer consumer protections. Dodd-Frank is now possibly going to be adjusted, with reduced regulation. Promise fulfilled.

Deepwater Horizon, Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill

  • April 20th, 2010, it was a space agency-caliber problem; the underwater leak was almost impossible to clog.
  • Politically, the oil spill was right in the middle of negotiations on Climate Change legislation in which a concession had been made for Republican support in exchange for regulatory loosening of the offshore drilling protocols. Therefore, Climate Change legislation was killed off after this accident.
  • British Persian petroleum in the 1950s had spurred the coup in Iran. Beyond Petroleum now had a real time camera of the underwater leakage that outraged the world.
  • Jindal was making a political play around building a marsh so that he would look like he was doing something as governor of Louisiana.
  • Hurricane Katrina was a mess, quick to respond, most of the victims were black. Couldn’t relocate because they didn’t have a car.
  • This new crisis was going to hurt Obama

Obama v. Carville

Carville (Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign manager) basically blasted Obama for not doing enough with this crisis. The truth was Obama couldn’t plug the hole himself…”What am I supposed to dive down with a wrench myself?” Obama wanted to blast the American public by saying that this spill is partly due to 30 years of Republican idea that the regulation was the problem. BP didn’t have the tools on hand because they calculated a spill was unlikely and wanted to save money. That people didn’t want to pay taxes, Jindal tried to score a point while he was an oil industry insider, that Americans love their cars and cheap gas more than they do the environment. Boring to talk about environmental goals and or would be seen as boring, that Americans just wanted this issue to go away so they could feel less guilty about polluting as usual.

Axelrod needed a break and Rahm decides to run for Mayor of Chicago. So they both quit.

The Republicans were tasting blood. They wanted to block the Repeal of don’t ask don’t tell, needed to muster 60 votes for a bunch of other items. McConnell had a tax cut bill while Warren Buffett pays less than his Secretary proportionally or in fact in absolute terms if other entities for which Warren Buffett pay the taxes on his behalf…tax law is complicated. Bush tax cuts were happy, doctors and lawyers don’t think their own taxes should go up. Anyone making more than 200K are rich. Obama would need to compromise.

Any increases in taxes would be harmful to get that through Obama’s agenda.

Extending the Tax Cuts

Joe Biden negotiated McConnell legislation. McConnell said the only thing he ‘wanted to do was make sure Obama was a one term president.’ Joe Biden was a better negotiator. December 6th 2010 got the concession for his bills in exchange for extending the tax cuts for another 2 years. The idea was that McConnell was betting Obama would lose in 2012 and Obama was betting he would be able to reform in 2012. The worry was that the Bush tax cuts would be made permanent. Bill Clinton had a “reasonable centrist” view to get the détente.

Michelle was doing a good safety bill. 3 ½ weeks of Christmas, had to posse for the secret service staff photos.

The Dream Act: the American children of illegal immigrants worried so much that they would need to self-deport or be deported without notice,
Don’t Ask Don’t Tell: Obama was not enlightened as a kid but his views changed overtime. The discrimination of the LGBTQ community, changed his view.
Opponents of Repeal: Obama didn’t want to do an executive authorization. Marine corp. didn’t really have a problem with being gay. The idea that these folks can’t fit in is a weak argument in Obama’s view.
DACA militarized: creating border crossing cartels. And most folks overstayed flight entry visas. 11M people in the US were believed to be illegal immigrants.
Border Enforcement: Obama didn’t want to reverse the immigration reform and then be accused of being weak on border laws.

The Dreamers Act DACA

  • Smart kids who didn’t take the country for granted, is how Obama characterizes the Dreamers. Harry Reid called the dreamer act critical. Claire McCaskill explained that “if I support this I would lose my job.” They had the DACA vote, but were 5 votes short, it didn’t pass. But Claire said she had to vote Yea. She just couldn’t look up at the gallery at the kids in attendance and vote Nay.
  • Lame duck session in the house was surprisingly productive. 25% of the legislative was done in that one one month. Democracy was normal again for December 2010.
  • Obama owed his foreign policy stability to the dictatorships. Terrorist attacks had been narrowly evaded by the dictatorship interventions at the last moment, yeah right! Planted by the dictatorship (reverse causation). Suppress press, police state.

The Betrayal of Mubarak

  • He had a genocide human rights lawyer named Samantha Power who had inverted neo-liberal opinion by advocating punishing countries who engage in genocide, when Obama wanted to abide by state sovereignty. The Armenian genocide and announcing it was blocked because Obama was in negotiations with the Turkish government to support Iraqi withdraw. Same with Mubarak Egypt…As Tahrir Square took off, the US press demanded Obama take a stand.
  • Mubarak said they were an emotional people that would cause a huge regime crisis. Obama got Mubarak on the phone, trying to get Mubarak to retire into the sunset and Mubarak said “you don’t know the Egyptian people, they are very emotional!” Obama then publicly sided with the protesters. Counter-protests happened. US journalists were assaulted. Without intervention, subsequent protests were met with extreme violence to prevent any kind of public political protest resulting in likely repression in places like Bahrain and Iraq.

The Thing About the UN

Syria had Russian support while the public protests were occurring. Therefore, the UN veto is another political body that blocks doing the “right thing.”

Qadaffi in Libya

Somalia Black Hawk Down (1993) was fresh in the minds therefore boots on the ground was not feasible. Libya was using ground forces to clear out (kill) citizens house by house in territories now ruled by competing factions. The consequences of intervening were significant. Obama led with intervention and so other regimes would quell protests much earlier in their cycle to prevent a potential US intervention.

Osama Bin Laden Execution Was Well Planned

Joe Biden was hesitant to proceed with the raid on the Abbottabad Compound. Obama weighed the probability that the tall man walking in circles in the courtyard was Bin Laden…Obama instincts were good…He got Bin Laden which was a rare bi-partisan victory...

Book 2 is likely coming in a year or two….more to come then….

This Holiday Prepare Yourself for Any Argument With These Simple Reminders

Or Just Don’t Get Into Arguments At All

Life is short. Love one another….focus on common ground. But if you’re getting into an argument, check these classic argumentative habits. But know that the biggest mistake you can make in life is to believe that your opinion is the correct one, that your opinion should be imposed on all others in your immediate or extended sphere. The second biggest mistake is to think that people will ever really understand what you are saying, even if you try to be as clear as possible. And that’s because others: a) can’t live your life, b) want to project on to you their interpretation of what you have just said and c) will never be able to fully get inside your head. Plus, your counterpart is too busy preparing their next point in the conversation…while you are talking. So accept that a civil argument is mostly to exercise your own mind.

A List of Classic Social Science concepts to be aware of in any Argument:

Winning” an Argument

Okay, you can’t really win an argument, but the best next thing is to say to your counterpart, “fine, what is the next step based on your argument?” If your counterparty has made a valid point, they will frequently stay mired in the awareness stage in which they are trying to validate the logic of their argument rather then extending it outwardly to the implications and the consequences of their argument. For example, that inequality is evil. All you have to do is say; “So, what’s the next step.” And they will have difficulty because a policy of enforcing equality is way more difficult than the normative claim that equality and fairness is a positive aspiration. Saying “what’s the next step” typically shifts the debate into your corner.

Anchoring

Your counterparty will want to make the first offer in a negotiation, so that they frame the discussion around what they are advocating. That’s why striking a specific price point is critical. You could say that healthcare is a human right for example. That anchors and locks down your position and shapes the discussion thereafter.

Cognitive dissonance

Is a situation where you mind holds two conflicting ideas at the same time. When you have a belief that you believe is true and then discover that the facts show otherwise, instead of accepting being wrong, you come up with scrambled thinking to avoid reconciling yourself with the truth that you were wrong. This is also known as negative capability; the most successful management and leadership are able to overcome cognitive dissonance, identify it and figure it out in others. Tells that someone has cognitive dissonances are: 1) using word salad to win an argument, 2) mind-reading the other person’s intentions, 3) expanding the opponents argument with absurd absolutes, 4) tells like “so….your saying” which are misinterpretations of what you are saying. Cognitive dissonance is a flaw that EVERYONE has and can be used to turn others onto your side, if you point out someone else’s cognitive dissonance in a compelling way, you can help them see your world view better, as long as you do that gently.

Confirmation bias

Is where your brain subconsciously finds evidence in the real world that reflects what you are most thinking about. The human brain builds biases based on patterns observed over time. As a result, biases are impossible to get rid of. The curious point here is that confirmation bias is also where your brain starts pointing out instances that align with what you are looking for as evidence to support your pre-existing view. So when you are in an argument, you might actually have confirmation bias that the other person does not and because neither of you can access eachother’s biases directly, you just argue without knowing which biases are preventing clarity of position from being realized. And of course, if people are involved there are competing interpretations of what the truth is from their perspective….

Filter

We “filter” reality and each person is interpreting reality from their own perspective. Bertrand Russel said that there only markers that we are experiencing the same reality are physical markers. A filter is the brain’s interpretation of physical reality. The brain is shaped by the Value Laden hypothesis. Max Weber described this phenomenon in the 19th century; basically, we have values or theories or frameworks (based on pattern recognition and the like) that we believe can predict future actions and we go out into the world, to prove our theories are correct. And sadly, we tend to believe our filters too much which creates confirmation bias.

High-Ground Strategy

Taking a debate away from the level of detailed debate to a topic that everyone can agree on. Being intentionally vague has its place in any communication strategy. It’s also known as triangulation, we aren’t trying to win an argument this way, we’re just trying to make ourselves feel better about ourselves.

Thinking Past the Sale

Persuasion tactic where you get those you are trying to persuade to think about what it will be like after the decision is made. The act of forcing us to imagine what you want to have happen is a means of shaping opinion, as long as you can also sell the good and downplay the bad. Visualizations are very powerful.

Pacing and Leading

Pacing and leading is when the speaker gets into the learner’s head, so that they understand your thinking, speech and breath of the speaker and thus this more persuasive because we believe the speaker is speaking for us. As I said in the introduction, your counterparty is never going to fully get you but if you can create the illusion that you get them, you’re ahead of the game. Things like repeating in your own words what your counterparty has just said is helpful. Basically, mirroring the audience or counterparty. Negative attacks on your character is what people remember in these conversations. You should match your counterparty’s cadence of attacks until you’re both covered in holiday stuffing or whatever. Just kidding, chill.

Psychic Psychiatrist illusion

Believing that you can diagnose someone’s sanity just by their outward actions from a far is just wrong. This activity is typically shunned in most circumstances but can be used as an attack on someone who’s leadership you detest.

Walking Talking Contradiction

Policies are obviously going to overlap and conflict with each other. Politicians by definition will make statements that contradict other statements made because facts are moving objects in the sense that time is a moving object. People want snacks and beer and burgers and salad. We are walking emotional contradictors, not logical beings. Get used to it, don’t fight human nature unless you intend to be confounded by it (i.e lose).

Rhetoric is Not Action

If you ask your counterparty to put their money where their mouth is (demonstrate how they live by their opinion /or make a bet) and they refuse, they are simply being rhetorical. Rhetoric, virtue signally is also an extension of the contradiction since emotional statements are often illogical and will contradict themselves. Words matter but to what degree depends on how much you want to undermine the communicator. The difference between assimilation and integration for example, is mostly in the speakers head. Understand that top persuaders will communicate to the the less informed (who have not studied the nuances) with the aim of persuading. Most folks are least likely to detect contradictions and most likely to be appealed to on emotional grounds but when the general public spots a contradiction, we as people get a little high off of the enlightenment that needs to be handled with care or you risk insulting the intelligence of the uninformed. Remember that the less informed aren’t necessarily idiots are all, it’s just they have better things to do then argue about what you care about.

History Does Not Repeat Itself

Using analogies from past events to imply a future outcome that is relevant to whatever argument you are having now is hollow talk. You can’t predictive the future generally, but in particular by saying this current situation is just like this other past situation and look how that past situation turned out therefore the same will happen here, is lazy thinking.

Facts are Weaker than Fiction

Better more reliable facts are helpful but secondary. Facts relating to human behavior and activity can change and evolve. Facts are moving objects therefore any statement is subject to being made false through time-lapse (passage of time). Meanwhile, fiction is static because there are no reference points to suggest it is changing. And people love certainty!

Rationality versus Irrationality

Human beings are irrational most of the time, therefore appealing to the irrational is far more effective. Get used to it. An example where rationality does not take hold is the financial sector. There are systems to analyze finance which managers use to ensure they are in control of the apparatus of capital creation, however, Burton Malkiel’s A Random Walk Down Wall Street illustrates that irrationality rules the stock market. Human are irrational with pockets of rationality in specific circumstances; the final purchase decision is usually not rational. Love is not rational. And politics is the art of the possible, not the art of the rational. Complicated prediction models with many assumptions have the possibility of being very wrong because the assumptions are rarely dispassionately derived.

Acknowledging that this Argument was good Exercise:

it’s a nice way to diffuse a situation, if you can explain what this argument really was about. It was about exercising your brain. The most important “muscle” in the human body, needs a good work out and so you can finish off any argument by stating the obvious that 1) we’re not going to solve the world’s problems by the end of this argument, 2) it was good exercise…

LBJ: Key Takeways from The Years of Lyndon Johnson by Robert Caro

Considered one of the eminent biographers of the 20th century, Robert Caro has dedicated a big chunk of his career to two political powerhouses: one is Robert Moses (the broker of New York government) and the other is the 36th President of the United States of America, Lyndon Baines Johnson. For this analysis, I’ve opted to focus on key takeaways that I’ve gleaned from a speedread of Books III Master of the Senate (the 1950s), 1,232 pages and Book IV The Passage of Power, 768 pages (’59 – ’64). Still waiting for Book V of the Years of Lyndon Johnson, which will focus on Vietnam, the late-Sixties (’64 – ’73) and be about 2,500 pages in my estimation ;-P Caro provides such meticulous detail that you have to question his sanity at times. If we had 15 Caros then we’d really be able to crack open the inner workings of government. He’s nutty about detail. You can smell Johnson’s smokey oval office as you read. He writes from an empathic and human perspective. And he excels at putting the reader right in the scene. Putting great writing and interesting people together and you’ll realize just how the game is supposed to be played. Now, that Johnson….he knew how to work a deal…he knew how to play the game. Here’s how he played it:

Key Takeaways from Master of the Senate

Thoughtful Teacher Turned “Look ’em In The Eye” Political Animal

Lyndon Johnson’s 1948 senatorial campaign ad suggested that he would look you straight in the eye and tell you where he stands. This was only half true. The nature of politics being what it is; alliances, maneuvering and a series of triangulations where possible, meant Johnson was anything but a look ’em in the eye truthsayer. He was a social animal, but he was still a savage animal. He would do what it took if it suited him politically for example, accept the vice presidency, which had been described in the “congress as about as useful a job as a bucket of warm spit.” (Caro, MotS, 123)

Robert Caro’s mantra is that power reveals. The person who can make things happen when others didn’t believe it could be done is truly powerful. And this is certainly true in the case of Lyndon Johnson…He had to balance human decency with getting things done.

While there was racial injustice in the Dixiecrat-south and Johnson witnessed discrimination as a school teacher near the southern border, he was also a negotiator between competing factions in parliamentary representative democracy. Back in the 1930s, he enjoyed teaching Mexican-American kids in south Texas and even taught the school janitor in his spare time…But when it came to his legislative work, it was a different story. For example, Mexican Americans largely wanted to prevent illegal immigrants from entering and displacing legal Mexican immigrants, according to community leadership as at the time. But Johnson’s Anglo grower business leaders loved the wet-backs (Mexicans who had illegal crossed the Rio Grand). So Johnson opposed increasing fines for employing illegal immigrants to align with what his political bosses supported.

Johnson had to turn around and charm/convince the Mexican American movement that “[he was] on [their] side!” by saying a) his “heart was in the right place”, b) the timing is not right, c) that policy will not pass the senate….Perhaps too Johnson knew the MATH. And the math showed that Mexican Americans had nowhere else to park their vote except with Democrats and as such, Johnson largely ignored them at little cost electorally.

Welcome to political reality starring Lyndon Johnson. Next stop? Electoral fraud.

Vote ‘em or Count ‘em – The Stolen ’48 Primary

‘Bull Johnson’ stole a college election and so a pattern was set early…win at all costs. During the Democratic primary for US senate in 1948*, Mexican Americans on the border were corralled to either ‘get these folks’ to vote for themselves or just simply go around to their communities and then count and tabulate their votes at the polling station. This had gone on for years and in fact in the 1941 Senate Democratic primary race, Johnson had lost against W. Lee O’Daniel in part because Johnson’s team declared his final count before O’Daniel who upon learning Johnson’s total…..how shall we say…..’adjusted’ and announced a higher count. Johnson wouldn’t let that happen again, it’s better to wait until after your opponent has declared their count so that you can then steal the election with the right number of votes to “beat ’em fair and square” 🙁

In 1948, while Johnson ran a great campaign featuring a helicopter-stopping-tour, there was also a big fly in the ointment. Namely, John Connally and Johnson stole the election! Caro thinks the true number of faked ballots was in the 10,000s but after Johnson had passed away, it was revealed, with substantive evidence, that there were indeed 202 fraudulent ballots for L Johnson over C. Stevenson in Jim Wells County, Texas. The Johnson’s margin of victory was only 87 votes! Whoever won that primary would be guaranteed a seat in the senate given weak Republican candidates. So Johnson’s senate career was made possible in part with illegal voting tactics.

Naturally, Stevenson went to the courts over this but Johnson had friends in high places (for example Abe Fortas who Johnson would later appoint to the Supreme Court) and the legal challenge was killed at the Supreme Court level since it was an internal Democratic party matter. Who is to say that there wasn’t counter-fraud by Coke Stevenson’s people in another district? Caro interviewed John Connally who explained, Stevenson couldn’t have cheated as effectively as Johnson because he didn’t know how! Ultimately, Johnson was dubbed “Landslide Johnson” as a joke by his critics given the narrow victory but Lyndon Johnson was all too happy to use that moniker himself. This truth bomb was a major reason that none of Johnson family participated in Caro’s research….but John Connally set the record straight near the end of his life.

*Side note: Aside from harvesting ballots to beat Stevenson, John Connally helped Johnson by repeating over and over again in campaign ads the same lies in what was the first era of negative radio campaigns. Johnson bought all the radio station time that he could in order to make sure every Texan heard his pitch and his negative attacks against the favourite son of Texas, Coke Stevenson.

Network with the Existing Players 

Ever since he was a child, Johnson wanted to win at all costs. That included winning arguments, he just had to win and be a somebody. At one point, early in his teaching career, Johnson jumped at the chance to be a congressman, he wanted the job so badly. There are two key individuals that Johnson befriended in order to be come an epicentre of power himself:

  1. Sam Rayburn (House Majority Leader ’37 – ’40, House Minority Leader ’53 – ’55, Leader of the House Democratic Caucus ’40 – ’61, Speaker of the US House of Representatives ’55 – ’61): was a life long bachelor who befriended Lady Bird Johnson on account of their similar personalities: quiet and unassuming. Lyndon invited Rayburn for lunch when he and Lady Bird got married and Johnson and Rayburn were like father and son. Johnson lost his father and Rayburn never had kids but wanted a son badly. Johnson fit the bill and Rayburn would come over regularly to their little apartment in Washington. When Johnson asked a favour the most powerful man (Rayburn) in Congress got it for him. Over time, Johnson become a conduit through which congressmen could gain access to Rayburn’s ear even after Johnson moved to the Senate…and Johnson knew that if you wanted to get anything passed in the Senate, you also needed the House. Johnson would later throw him under the bus by stirring up resentment between FDR and Rayburn so that LBJ could take over as the power broker for Texas…..
  2. Richard Russell Jr (United States Senator ’44 – ’71, Chair of the Senate Committee on Armed Services ’55 – ’69 , Chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations ’69 = ’71): would have breakfast with Lyndon Johnson every Sunday, go to baseball games, was the key to Dixiecrat support and he had blocked every civil rights bill that he could. And Johnson convinced him that he was one of them. Johnson would later throw Russell under the bus as well on a myriad of issues…civil rights being the one things Russell could not abide.

And so Johnson basically built up strong relationships with the people who were involved at the right level through his work. He go the job at the NYA as a junior through the help of Sam Rayburn. If you want it badly enough you can get it, even if like Johnson, you went to a “crumby university” with a troubled childhood etc. it’s the American dream in the flesh folks! The Dixiecrats raised him up to Senate leadership because they believed that he would protect their anti-civil right bill stance. And Lyndon got their trust by asking for “your wisdom” to every senior politician he could ingratiate himself with. For example, Johnson was very submissive to Harry Byrd and would basically suck up to him since Byrd had control over the finance committee. Didn’t matter that Byrd was a financial hawk. Crossing-the-aisles was table stakes for Johnson.

Tactic – Legislative Log Jams

There are only so many legislative hours in a session (and the intent was to fill them up with obstructions if you didn’t like a major bill that stood a chance of passing). Bills have to be re-introduced if they do not get passed in a legislative year and that means time is the ally of obstructionists.

Have a type of legislation that you want to block? Well, in 1948, Johnson’s mentor did. In the 1948 session, Dick Russell (leader of the Dixiecrats) looked at legislation that was set to expire in 1949 and found a bill that could not be delayed: rent control legislation.* Plotting in his office with Lyndon leaning back in his chair, Russell coordinated over the phone with the Dixiecrats to delay reading of the rent control bill and other relevant legislation that supported the rent control law…Now why would he do that? Because civil rights legislation was on the table as well.

A log jam is the obstructionists best friend. The southern Dixiecrats wanted to filibuster the civil rights bill on the floor, IF cloture was imposed on the motion. The cloture votes didn’t materialize and other bills like the rent control one were set to expire in early 1949. So the northerners had to withdraw the civil rights bill in order to get the rent control bill through. See how that works? They had to withdraw the civil rights bill because otherwise they wouldn’t be able to pass anything and since the rent control helped urban dwellers in northern states, civil rights was de-prioritized. “Shoot! We can introduce [civil rights legislation] next session though” This log jam strategy made any civil rights legislation impossible, holding hostage a rent control bill if your opponent doesn’t withdraw human rights legislation, now that’s representative democracy in action, folks. A crying shame.

*Side note, back in the 40s, government intervention on rent control was considered to have no unintended consequences which was later to be proven false, rent control creates an artificial new floor that can actually make housing more scarce in more circumstances then is conventionally accepted…

Longoria Incident – Gestures Can Matter 

It was 1949, service man Felix Longoria, who had died in World War II, was refused burial through his hometown funeral chapel because he was Mexican American. The good Lyndon Johnson didn’t realize that “discrimination followed you into the after life” and replied to a letter of complaint by suggesting that the Mexican America veteran be buried in Arlington cemetery. It was a gesture but still Johnson worried he might get screwed by the white establishment ie. those south Texas Anglo leaders that “I need for re-election!” The political calculus tells us that the Mexican American voters did not have that same level of organizing power.

When Longoria’s body arrived at Arlington, his family was given a tour of the capital but Johnson hid himself from the public eye on the occasion. Better not to upset the base…After all, in Texas the legislature investigated the funeral homes refusal and concluded there was no discrimination. Case closed. To keep Dick Russell’s support, Johnson had to maneuver. In the long arch of history, it does bend towards justice…slowly. Later, Johnson made sure that Mexican American veterans got their full rights under his presidency.

Emmitt Till’s Murder and Other Evil Acts of Racism

The south had very racist antagonists in its midst, willing to kill black Americans who thought they should have the right to vote in the south. Meanwhile, Jim Crow south created roadblocks to voting such as reading tests, poll taxes and comprehension tests in order to prevent black Americans from voting in local and state elections. This suppression even extended in an informal manner by simply turning black voters away on election day on sight…and it was socially acceptable to do so. In some cases, black Americans were shot or killed for trying to vote. Caro provides graphic details that are shocking to behold. Nothing can justify these despicable crimes against all humanity.

Things came to a head when a northern African American named Emmitt Till (aged 14) was brutally murdered for talking to a white female shopkeeper in a suggestive manner. His bloated corpse and mutilated face were on display at his funeral drawing national attention. It is very sad, from an outsiders perspective, to think this could happen in the US. Many acts of racism were couched as part of massive resistance. The murderers in Mississippi, after they were acquitted of Till’s murder by an all white jury, told their story to the press saying that Till didn’t respond to their ‘whipping him’ the way they liked so they ‘made an example’ of him. Adding that they did not want blacks in their white schools and the whites had fought for their right of segregation. These two demented criminals had lawyers, of course….And they were supportive? Yes, the lawyers let their clients do an interview to show the northerners that the ‘whites of Mississippi’ were not going to accept desegregation. They, in fact, wanted to repeal school desegregation: Brown v. Board of Education.

It gets worse and worse, in 1956, there was the 26 year old black women who wanted to be a librarian via Tuscaloosa at the University in Alabama. What’s the problem? Oh, there were actual white riots/protest (1,000s of white student) to prevent Autherine Lucy from being a classmate. She had to move to New York. Caro doesn’t give any credence to these racist white students but we have to acknowledge that they, as a group, must have thought they were in the right, protecting their culture and that they did have a hateful rationale which was wedded to the Democratic party’s southern contingent.

Becoming the Senate Pro: Through Outworking, Outcourting and Outhorse-trading

Back in Washington, Johnson went from minority leader of the United States Senate in the 1952 election (46 Dem / 49 Rep) to Majority leader in 1954 (48 Dem / 47 Rep). After his long “courtship” of senior senators, like his critical ally Richard Russell (the master of the Dixiecrats), Johnson was now wielding immense power over:

a) who got which committee assignment,

b) the agenda on the senate floor,

c) the counting of votes,

d) the issuance of committee powers.

It was horse trading politics, the kind that flies in the face of true democratic engagement. But he worked as a wild animal of the representative democracy that “we’re stuck with.”

Martin Luther King Jr Made Many Sacrifices Including Persisting After His House Was Bombed 

Caro details the threats of violence against Martin Luther King which also included the regular fire bombings of his home. Montgomery white agitators actively threatened and harmed black citizens in order to deter integration and voting rights. Take a moment, in this the 21st century, to consider how horrible that was and where we’ve come and where we’re going…

Tactic – Count Your Parliamentary Votes Like Your Career Depends On It, ’cause It Does

Sam Johnson Jr (Lyndon’s Dad) had lost the family farm because he committed to a mortgage that he figured would be covered by the revenue from his cotton production. He was wrong. The land could not sustain that mortgage, the soil was only an inch thick with granite underneath. In farming, if you get something wrong you could lose your house. Rural life is austere, the social safety net is small. And so you can’t afford to make a mistake.

Lyndon took this to heart and into the Senate. When his whip would say, “I think he’s voting with us” Johnson famously replied “what good is thinking, I have to know!” (Caro, MotS, 453) Johnson was an obsessive vote counter on every bill. He was keen to gauge and predict the legislative path of a bill. Throughout his tenure in the senate, Johnson rarely lost passing legislation because he worked hard to know where each man stood. Winning requires tracking vote counts tightly.

HR-6127 which became The Civil Rights Bill of 1957 / Handling Paul Douglas Part 1

Lyndon Johnson did not want a civil rights bill to split his southern support base in 1956. He was planning to run as the Democratic presidential nominee and simply could not allow such a landmark bill to come to the floor and force him to take a side. So his tactic was to delay the bill. The HR6127 was going to be delayed, it had to be, in Johnson’s mind, otherwise it would “destroy” Johnson’s chances for the Democratic party nomination.

Enter [stage left] Paul Douglas, a liberal in the senate, who believed that a gesture to black citizens was important, NOW in 1956, even if the session was nearing the end of the legislative year. Douglas felt that if we don’t fight immediately then there will be a revolution, incremental change was essential given the counter-threat of riots in Alabama and Mississippi. Douglas wanted to “get out of the shadow of states rights into the sunlight of human rights.” The Dixiecrats were all senior leaders in the legislative branch because they never lost their elections over a succession of Republican “freedom loving” challengers.

To complicate the situation, Eisenhower was very weak on civil rights. “Eisenhower was a fine general and a good decent man, but if he had fought World War II the way he fought for civil rights, we’d all be speaking German right now.” – Roy Wilkins. And so a coalition of southern Dixiecrats, with Johnson’s two-faced leadership, could block the bill from ever getting passed. 

Tactic – The Ol’ Recess versus Adjournment Trick / Handling Douglas Part 2

Johnson as the Master of the Senate said that he needed to prioritize another bill that Eisenhower wanted to get through; dealing with the Suez Canal etc. On the Tuesday of the last week of the legislative year, Douglas tried to introduce bill HR6127 which was the landmark rights bill from the House of Representatives. This was to be done with a petition, but it was noted that ‘petitions may only be read in the morning hours’ (unless there was unanimous consent). Russell (Johnson’s right hand man) said he would not be able to grant unanimous consent. So Douglas said “fine, Wednesday, July 24th, 1956 is when we will look at this bill” and Johnson then (as majority leader) said instead of adjourning for the next morning, he said ‘recess’ until the next day.

Now that wouldn’t sound like a big difference for you and I but this procedural difference meant that the next day, even if it was the ‘morning hours’, it was still a continuation of the previous day’s session and thus was not a morning hour session since this morning was a continuation of the previous days legislative day. When Douglas was not able to initiate a new legislative day, he complained. Johnson blocked all that. Douglas said there was no way to get HR6127 through to the newspapers but the headline read: “The Liberals misunderstand Senate rules.” To force the decision, Johnson decided to do a roll call vote. Douglas was voted against, 76 senators voted against him introducing HR6127. Defeated and angry, Douglas went up to his office and cried. 

1956 Democratic Nomination – Leaving things to chance

Johnson crushed the civil rights bill in the Senate but party conventions were not his strong suit. The rules were very different. The Senate was a legislative brokerage house. Johnson was running in earnest as Truman decided against Adlai Stevenson running again and Truman’s backing was sacrosanct. Johnson saw an opening for the big prize. But he was not able to avoid the antipathy of northern Democrats.

Adlai Stevenson was the least liberal of the candidates running. No one was able to close on Stevenson. Meanwhile, Johnson wasn’t appealing for votes and wasn’t committing to stay through to the convention. Johnson seemed afraid to lose. He didn’t seem to try for the nomination really. He didn’t want to be branded as a southern candidate. He tried to convince people one to one. Unfortunately, other candidates were coming to see Johnson to get his Texas delegates. Johnson was not vote counting all that seriously either, he was delusional, believing he could be a dark horse nominee. He basically tried to win the nomination from the convention hotel suite.

After Adlai Stevenson won the nomination, he visited with Johnson but Johnson was told “no” by Stevenson’s team relating to putting together a civil rights bill that ‘considered/protected (white) southern values.’ Johnson was single minded. Be on the highest vote-totalling side in the immediate legislative window so as to garner influence and coral support favours to be debited in the future.

1956 VP Selection

Johnson was considered for the vice presidency, sure but Stevenson said that the convention ought to select the VP in an open vote. At the time, it was novel, later this was viewed as yet another example of indecisiveness on the part of Stevenson (i.e giving away more strategic coalition building to democratic power = not leadership). Leaders don’t ask for opinions, they ask for votes and the voter can go away thereafter. 1950s machismo! Kennedy was in the offer for VP under Adlai Stevenson. Kefauver won the nomination in the end, however.

The Johnson Treatment: Cavalier Chatter, the Long Antenna and Physical Abuse

He was a peoples person in a way. During senate votes he would yell across the floor to ask a senator to “change your vote right now!” He was bold. Johnson was the type of 6’4″ man that would run to the back couches in the senate chamber and corner a senator and wrap his big arms around the fellow he was trying to cajole. Later in the 60s, it was revealed that Herbert Humphrey had had two bruised shins from that time Johnson kicked him hard for moving to slow on vote counting. Johnson would grab people by their lapels and even put his finger through their lapel so they couldn’t escape without agreeing with Johnson. He liked to poke hard at a man’s chest to get his point across if he could.

Johnson revealed to Arthur Schlesinger that he tracked each senator’s life story with great interest: in a notebook akin to today’s Salesforce. Johnson could do imitations of other politicians. Johnson knew who would respond to which arguments as well. Johnson also believed that the North posted up weak politicians. The southern Democrats had the better, harder negotiating / horse trading candidates in his mind.

Tactic – Lyndon Johnson Tries to Win the North 

Johnson saw that he would always be a “southern boy” unless he could swing to the Liberals: he needed to pass legislation but also couldn’t dispense with the south. Civil Rights was something Johnson had to accept. But he had always had a soft spot, the issue was perhaps “how to get such a thing through the Dixie south.”

In his view, the tactic was to not be shouting from the rooftop about civil rights like a “northern hot head.” (Caro, MotS, 567)

Johnson recalled the Johnson city story of the black rail workers, who weren’t allowed to sleep in the same town and how the white gang leader assaulted a local who had insisted blacks have proper lodging by hitting him over the head over and over asking; “Can I keep my blacks? Can I keep my blacks?” The theoretical liberal was not as powerful as the practical pragmatist. 

Tactic – Republican Threat to the South

There was a major concern about the northern city shift towards Republicans in ’57. There were recalculations of the alignment across the states. The south could be lost for a generation if the Democrats make a mistake. It was a question between the progressive wing and the Dixiecrats. Johnson used the threat of public sentiment shift, to get the Dixiecrats to consider HR6127. Richard Nixon was supportive of civil rights in order to win African American votes which was a concern as well.

Tactic – Producing a “token bill” in Civil Rights Legislation

Another reason to care was that it was also possible that Paul Douglas and the other liberals could remove Johnson from Senate majority leader. Preserving his self-interest was important since you can’t effect change outside the political infrastructure. So he needed to sell to stay in-line for the 1960 nomination. Washington Post editor Phil Graham also pressed upon Johnson that it was essential for his chance at the presidency that he push through civil rights legislation. Johnson did have support from Texas. Russell (his closest confidante) needed to give Johnson some slack or leeway to get a civil rights bill passed.

On behalf of the 16 million black Americans, Johnson was ready to be a mighty champion and win for civil rights. Filibuster was preserved but Johnson asked the southern camp not to let the Republicans get the “black vote.” Johnson said they needed a “token bill” to show that Democrats cared. 

Tactic – ‘Incremental Progress versus Revolutionary Change’ Argument

Johnson argued that they needed a civil rights bill now rather than filibuster and let the demand boil up in ‘60. They might even take away the filibuster, he would shout! And why should the south gamble now and risk a more extensive civil rights bill later? The southerners were also keen to think that Johnson would become president in 1960 and therefore can protect the south from further civil rights legislation. Johnson was misleading the southern men with various arguments. However, his goal was to get the bill to be weakened so much that it was acceptable to southerners and valuable enough to get northern support in ‘60. So in a way, Johnson was a hero? Maybe?

Tactic – Threat of Losing Committee Assignments

Loss of committee assignments. How sad would it be for you if you cared about finance and were not in the ways and means committee? A vote against civil rights means that you would not get an appointment to a steering committee by Johnson. Lyndon Johnson would ignore people who had voted against Johnson’s legislation. Another example is getting a bill reviewed earliest in a session so that the obstruction cannot be sustained. For Johnson, the essence of legislation and the legislative maneuvering is to find common ground and scrap parts that were unacceptable to the Dixiecrats…Too bad the sections that Liberals really wanted (ie. were the most essential aspect of the bill) were also what the Dixiecrats wanted to scrap.

Tactic – The Threat of Filibuster

Another tactic Johnson used was to spread the gossip that other bills will not get passed because the civil rights bill will get filibustered and then block those other viable bills from getting the attention they deserved. The intentional delay of bills allows for recess or end of the legislative session to be the ticking clock that motivates a binary yes/no vote. For example there was a financial hole at the US Postal Service and they weren’t able to cover their OPEX and required federal support. There are other legislative considerations that had time constraints and needed cloture to force the decisions. Johnson may not have wanted to support the civil rights legislation, the bill getting filibustered was very likely. But newspaper articles argued that Johnson was an extension of Richard Russell, a racist tool of the south. So Johnson was damaged on segregation and his southern origins and needed this bill more than most if he wanted a shot at the presidency.

Tactic – Working Himself Out of His Bad Side (the compassionate versus the hurtful Johnson)

Johnson liked to believe his truth at that moment even if it was vile and racist. Caro details several racist Johnson moments:

One was where Johnson’s chauffeur, Robert Parker, who was black and had asked Johnson if he could be referred to by his actual name Robert Parker rather than as “boy,” “n-word” or “chief”… but was rebuffed by an angry Johnson, who said the following: “As long as you are black, and you’re gonna be black till the day you die, no one’s gonna call you by your goddamn name. So no matter what you are called, n-word, you just let it roll off your back like water, and you’ll make it. Just pretend you’re a goddamn piece of furniture” according to Caro’s Master of the Senate. Johnson also used the n-word and derivatives on many many occasions, particularly when talking to Dixiecrat senators.

On the other hand, Johnson would get worked up on the belief of civil rights until it was his truth as well. Johnson had to know and feel that there was a strong reason to support civil rights. As was his obsession, Johnson felt that he needed to get ahead of the ‘left’ and often he would talk to senators in order to convince himself of the strategy. Jean Williams (the Johnson ranch cook) told his story to Johnson about how it was difficult to travel from Washington to Texas as a black man since he didn’t have access to white restrooms. The fact that Williams had to pee on the side of the road even though he was the chef for Johnson…that crossed the line for Johnson. This story became a staple of the Johnson pitch in 1957 and he re-told it many times.

The duplicity of LBJ was not novel but it is the best example of what became an asset in representative democracy. The Senate was more productive under his reign then in any other time in the 20th century. Nixon was quoted as saying, “[Caro’s books] makes Johnson appear like a goddamn animal, of course he was!”

So what to take from it? From the outside, it would be characterized as hypocrisy, doublespeak, inconsistency, as if

  • a) the general public is consistent and principled every moment or even when it counts when LBJ is just as imperfectly human and free to change his mind in the moment as we are,
  • b) as if the general public ought to control their representatives when the system clearly is not designed in that way, it’s a take-your-vote-then-do-what-I-need-to-do-in-order-to-effect-change/stay-elected system…and reform is coming folks!

On Civil Rights, despite his racist statements and his soft-spot for minority rights, the most important thing is what is not mentioned, what did Johnson think he could concede away to get a bill through: a) to shore support for his ’60 presidential run, b) to do what is morally right, c) to avoid losing his support with Dixiecrats? The provision III of HR6127 was the most contentious since it was full blown Civil Rights. In provision IV there was voter rights: it was unequivocal about basic voting rights. Johnson realized that voting rights might work with a jury trial amendment which would allow women and blacks to sit on juries thus making it much harder for murderers like the Emmitt Till killers to go free.

Tactic – Voter Rights Argument – A Nation Within a Nation

Johnson wanted to empower black voters which was a tepid view that was also an agreeable one for “responsibility conscious politicians.” Johnson didn’t really think it made sense to get the “south mad.” He also felt that you can pass a bill that is slim then you could slowly crack open the opportunity for future civil rights legislation. From 1875 to 1957 there had been no new civil rights legislation, but that would be ‘inevitably changed going forward’. This was another of Johnson’s arguments.

Tactic – Horse Trading / Quid Pro Quo – Hell’s Canyon

In the 1957 session, getting the south onboard seemed impossible but not for Lyndon Johnson. He used behind the scenes negotiation to get movement. But to get other uninterested Democratic senators to support HR6127, Johnson found mountain senators as a possible ally in supporting the bill. It turned out that they were trying to build a federal dam built in Idaho. It was also a touchy issue as it was a public dam plan rather than a private project.

The mountain states didn’t care about civil rights much because there were not that many black people in these 4 states, less than 750k African Americans. But they all needed help on the dam from northern Democrats to Republicans, in exchange these mountain folks could support civil rights (HR6127).

Scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours. If the Republicans + northern Liberals would support your dam bill, then you can support the civil rights bill in a backroom exchange.

But the Republicans didn’t like the dam idea since it was public utility development: anti-free market. So the Republicans could pass a civil rights bill. When the Republican senators protested, Johnson explained that even if you supported the dam, it would still need to go through the house interior committee and then a presidential signature would be needed to start construction and that was not likely.

In fact, in a double game, Johnson promised that that dam would never happen to the Republican faction supporting the civil rights bill! Some of the mountain senators didn’t want to publicly support HR6127, ‘can we just squeeze it through?’ At a luncheon, Johnson let them know that he was working hard to get the votes and the abstentions needed to push through a Idaho federal dam. Johnson even made sure that only the minimum number of mountain Dem votes should be made in order to support civil rights for the western senators. Johnson was also happy to let the newspapers think they forced the civil rights bill through themselves!

In political terms, the federal dam never materialized but those senators got 3 smaller dams. If it hadn’t been for Johnson, then the dam authorization would never have happened. Johnson said publicly that there were no horse trading votes but that was how he broke deadlock. 

Tactic – Threat of Filibuster to Weaken the Bill 

If both soldiers had a legitimate claim to the moral high ground then there must be a middle ground. To break the impasse, getting a liberal and a conservative to ‘cross-the-aisle’ and support the amendment to the bill was also useful. Johnson basically used the Filibuster threat to justify the removal of the most important part of the civil rights bill (part III) but he also had invoked the filibuster in January when he could have removed it from use. In other words, he was playing both sides for a compromised and weaker bill.

The part of the IVth section that Johnson wanted to keep, had a contentious part that needed to be removed according to the southerners, around the jury trial amendment. The southern juries had let the killers in the Emmet Till trial got away with murder. And so removing the ‘right to a white only jury trial’ was a big concession. Ultimately, voter rights in section IV was the core of the final Civil Rights Act of 1957 bill. This was part of Johnson’s legacy as the Master of the Senate.

Tactic – Convince The Other Side That They Have the Count

Johnson was a reader of men not books, believing as well that what a man tells you isn’t as important as what he isn’t telling you….[body language, facial expressions]…Just like the 1941 Senator election which Johnson lost in which he announced his totals before this opponent had, here too Johnson knew the power of withholding and wrong-footing his opponent. Johnson tricked Nolan, Nixon and other dissenters into thinking that the civil rights bill count was in Nolan’s favour on the jury trial amendment component. “They will try to get this done this time, but Johnson is short and it will be easier next time…” One of the key tactics is to convince the opposition that they have the votes to win when in fact they do not. Checkmate on HR6127. They did the yeas and nays and it passed. Nixon as VP was outplayed by Johnson. 

Tactic – Convincing both sides that he was on theirs! 

Johnson was an absolute vote counter. And would manipulate senators to make it happen. Johnson would play on the pride of the southerners: ‘we are hicks!’ Johnson would go to one side of cloakroom and talk to the liberal Democrat, “we need to push this through with the jury trial amendment” and then turn around and talk to a Dixiecrat and say ‘we got to deal with the ‘n-word’ bill. We have Republicans sniffing around and need to get something passed.’ Johnson would assume a southern drawl where appropriate and lighten it up when talking to northerners.

Never disclose your strategy 

Johnson suggested to Arthur Schlesinger that he had no ambition to seek the presidential nomination. He had lots of evidence to support that claim. He had had a heart attack in 1955 for example when he was only 47. That heart attack was brought on by a life-time of eating a hamburger a day, never exercising, chain-smoking, worked 20 hour days and drinking alcohol….but yes, Lyndon Baines Johnson wanted the presidency. On policy, he didn’t want to get too far ahead of the people. Incremental change happens as senior (senator) power fades into the sunset, their interests become more fringe to the general public. The influence of those interest groups melt away, like snowflakes in spring. Johnson was patient.

Key Takeaways from The Passage of Power

The 1959 – 1960 Democratic Primary 

Johnson was indeed the Master of the Senate and would be able to pull in a lot of favours from there, including supporting his nomination for the Democratic presidential nominee. However, his campaign for the presidency was behind the 8-ball. Johnson had a strategy that saw Humphrey had no chance, same with JFK. JFK was Catholic, his father was a financial genius riding the stock market up and shorting it on the way down in 1929 and JFK didn’t look like a president but was attractive (boyish) and lazy. Never said a word of importance in the senate and was frequently in pain (back & pancreatic issues).

Johnson’s lines of attack were that Kennedy was a junior senator, the rich man’s son and that JFK was on drugs for his ailing back condition which meant Kennedy was frequently in crutches (i.e. he would be a physically weak president). From the start, Jack Kennedy worked to shake hands with union members in the factories in Massachusetts but basically his dad bought his first campaign. JFK DID know how to hustle for the Democratic nomination.

Johnson seemed to not be trying very hard for the nomination, just like in ’56. And so Johnson campaigned for the leadership from the senate floor. Johnson was hobbled by the fact that the northern Democrats didn’t like Johnson because the 1957 civil rights bill, which had been compromised to assuage the south and Johnson was perceived as a shill for his southern counterparts.

The fact is…Johnson wanted his Democratic nominee campaign kept secret out of fear of losing. Kennedy was well ahead. Johnson had a tremendous fear of losing this race against the upstart very junior senator…Johnson didn’t want to enter any primaries and wanted to get the nomination from the inside given all the favours he accrued while senator majority leader. Similar to competing against Adlai Stevenson in 1956; it almost seems as if he wanted the votes to come to him (as a dark horse nominee) rather then he come for the vote. So Caro’s analysis suggests that Johnson hesitated to actually run in 1960 up until July. That was very late and meant that he did not have a top-notch campaign as key people joined other campaign. Of course, Kennedy won in the end.

Reality Distortion and the Two Faces of Johnson 

Throughout Johnson’s years in the senate and thereafter, he frequently would phone allies and seem to want to describe a reality that wasn’t there. Whether it was the democratic nomination or a particular bill, Johnson would convince himself of a truth that was convenient at the time and to the person he was speaking to in order to gauge the argument. He would then discount any suggestion to the contrary. For example, JFK speaking magic was real but Johnson simply ignored that fact. Johnson fired defeatists. Johnson thought he could win on the first ballot. “Jack Kennedy didn’t have a record!” He also read people closely, did the argument make sense and did it resonate? If it didn’t he would adjust but ultimately he’d impose his will on reality.

To the Dixiecrats, Johnson was a conservative just like them and would support their anti-civil rights causes. To the northern Liberal, they thought he was waiting for the right opportunity, if it should arise, to bring in civil rights legislation. This two faced approach is common amongst effective politicians. And it is up to political scientists and the sidelined general public to better understand and decide if this is a bug or a feature of representative democracy, of ruthlessly getting things done.

JFK’s Double Strategy 

Jack Kennedy had a couple options so that he had a way out. JFK won the nomination, of course, but he also promised that L.B. Johnson would not be on the ticket as his VP to one group of supporters (labour unions in particular) but then decided without Bobby (his closest advisor) the opposite. Namely, in order to win the south, Kennedy needed Johnson to win Texas’ electoral delegates. Getting the Dixiecrats was essential against Republicans.

Kennedy played the political game of chess well. His goal being to secure support…At the convention, JFK said that Johnson snatched the offer from Kennedy’s pocket in his hotel room and accepted the Vice Presidency without question: practically without Kennedy’s say so. Johnson took the job on the off chance that he would be able to run in 1968, or that Kennedy’s back would give out in the interim…When anyone asked, Kennedy then claimed to the public that Johnson forced Kennedy to accept him as the VP thus mitigating the risk of labour union backlash on the convention floor. The decision to pick Johnson was likely a good one since Kennedy won Texas and Johnson campaigned hard with and for Kennedy in the 1960 general. He gave a heartfelt pitch, in defense of JFK’s Catholicism ‘when Jack’s brother Joe volunteered for a suicide mission in World War II, was he a Catholic then? He was an American hero!’ (Caro, MotS, 756)

Power Is Where Power Goes 

Vice President Johnson still wanted to be the Master of the Senate but that wasn’t the case. He was very firm in his conviction that he should influence both branches of government. He believed no matter what position you have, you can make it a powerful one through your blood, sweat and tears.

  • From the campus student president who was hated for his politricks, to now being VP.
  • From the congressman who was able to become the conduit to funnel Texas oil money to northern liberals in exchange for support on southern bills, to now being VP.
  • From steering naval funds to allies in Texas such as Herman and George Brown, in exchange for funding his future campaigns which is certainly fraud, to being VP.
  • From the whip job that no one wanted and Johnson took it making something out of the role that no one had before. Johnson transformed the senate majority leader role too.

Through sheer effort, he habitually changed the dynamic of power much as Robert Moses in New York had. But the VP job is really a spare leader role….

Once he was in the VP office, he was sidelined. Johnson’s plan to oversee the senate’s successes, while VP, were about to be dashed. To have hands in both the executive and legislative branches was not possible. Mansfield was elected to senate majority leader but Johnson refused to vacate the chair. Johnson wanted to remain “the overseer” whenever Democratic senators were convening. However, this was a violation of the separation of powers. Mansfield threatened to resign if the caucus didn’t acknowledge Johnson’s influence. But they only supported the vote to keep Mansfield in control and give Johnson ceremonial titles. Johnson knew, at that point, he was just the VP. He was not able to push this through as his caucus role was shot down.

His theory that power is where power goes (he being the source of power) was not entirely accurate. It was in part the circumstances, the alliances and the chair itself, as the house majority leader, that had created the power and influence. Robert Caro describes the legislative genius of Johnson, the kind that got the legislative branch passing legislation rather than remaining in perpetual deadlock. But things were about to change for Johnson….

Eleanor Roosevelt’s Funeral in 1962, Four Presidents in one photo….

In fact, there was drastic change for Johnson under JFK because he was a lame duck Vice President. The VP role was considered a worthless job ‘that it wasn’t worth a bucket of spit.’ Johnson was lucky to be outside the inner circle, he wasn’t involved in the Cuban missile crisis. He wasn’t part of the Bay of Pigs invasion (which was an idiotic blunder by JFK). JFK didn’t trust Johnson to not leak to Washington journalists. Kennedy actually thought Johnson was a character / caricature. Johnson was actively excluded from Kennedy’s inner circle because he was just like any other constituent: now that we have his votes, he can be excluded: representative democracy in a nutshell.

Johnson was frustrated about all that and so applied all his anger about being sidelined not towards JFK but rather Kennedy’s brother Robert. The two of them did not see eye to eye on much….and Johnson preferred to hate Bobby rather then his boss.

Relationship Maneuvering, the Legislative Politics of the USA 

Johnson used tactics like making sure the politician had to phone and ask Lyndon Johnson directly for a favour so that they would know they owed Johnson. He was very mean to his staff, very cruel, compared to an animal according to Bobby Kennedy. If you were a Johnson man, you were treated very poorly by Lyndon Johnson. Johnson crushed McNamara’s spirit as well, according to RFK. Effective politicians are constantly trying to figure out how to build coalitions; and how to understand the voter preferences and then repeat them back to others in the legislative setting. Johnson, it should be mentioned was not just cruel to his own staff, he was cruel to his own body. He felt he didn’t have much time left to live and he was right. He had worked himself to death managing these political machinations and smoked 60 cigarettes per day.

The Assassination of JFK 

In chilling detail, Caro describes that Johnson was in the car 50 meters behind JFK’s on that fateful November 22nd Friday in 1963. At the hospital Johnson got word that “he was gone” and immediately sought to be sworn in for continuity. He wasn’t sure if this was a mass coordinated attack considering that most of the cabinet was on a plane over the Pacific at the time of the assassination. Johnson thought of a judge who could do the swearing him in: Sarah Hughes whom JFK had blocked from promotion despite Johnson’s requests in ’61. During the swearing in on Air Force One, Jackie Kennedy insisted she wear the blood stained suit to show the world ‘what they had done to her husband.’ (Caro, tPoP, 456)

The JFK funeral and procession was a historic pageantry and the live homicide of Harvey Oswald was also another first. But fortunately for Johnson, global tensions relaxed during this time. There is zero credibility in a conspiracy involving Johnson himself.

However, at one point in the mid ‘60, Johnson referred to the assassination as “divine retribution” for Kennedy’s implicit participation in Ngo Dinh Diem’s assassination in Vietnam and for the Cuban Operation Mongoose as “misdeeds coming home to roost” (Caro, tPoP, 678), according to Johnson. Bobby Kennedy quietly had his doubts about the Warren Commission but never expressed them publicly. Bobby did suspect a conspiracy of some kind. Recall that a conspiracy does not automatically = false tin foil hat stuff. In fact, the mob or Cuba might have been involved rather than a single lone gunman with ties to Russia. Absent evidence, this will never be resolved.

Vice-President transition to Presidency 

Johnson was able to ascend to the presidency smoothly. Gave a strong speech a week after the assassination of JFK. That was because of the traditions of transition. Johnson made his appeals to Salinger, Schlesinger and Sorenson (who were Kennedy’s key men) saying that “I need you more than Kennedy ever did.” The goal for Johnson was to humbly request their help, Kennedy ‘was smarter than me, I need your help!’ Kennedy figured after the assassination that his team had 11 months left to shape policy. Bobby Kennedy was weaker then he realized; when Johnson installed anti-Kennedy supporters into a position for Latin America, Bobby realized he really had lost a lot of influence. Johnson ignored Robert Kennedy’s complaints. Salinger, Schlesinger left once Camelot was over. Continuity didn’t really matter by mid-1964. Profiles in Courage was written by Ted Sorensen but ultimately Sorensen was not going to be writing any Johnson speeches. 

Horse Trading Politics ‘59 to ‘64 

In a repeat of the Master of Senate, Johnson deployed all the classic tactics to fulfill Kennedy and perhaps his own legislative legacy. Unfortunately for Kennedy, legislation was not easily passed in his first 1000 days. Kennedy had barely won in ’60…It was in fact a bleak first 3 years as president. While JFK would accept that a senator couldn’t support a bill, LBJ would try to bribe, cajole, threaten and intimated a senator or congressman “to do the right thing.”

Many bills were being renewed for review but not being passed. There was a log jam of bills in the legislative branch in the early 60s. There was a spending budget freeze which meant new legislation didn’t have money for implementation. Johnson had influence with the southern senators who had blocked some of the progress, however. A lot of favours needed payment. Recall that the southern senators were very senior (re-elected multiple times) and were fiscal hawks too. They had got themselves embedded in all the critical subcommittees and committees to ensure they had a majority where it mattered. Support from the southerners was wanting also because the 1957 Civil Rights bill slammed that door shut. Quid pro quo / horse trading is an essential approach that Johnson takes. ‘You did this for me before, now I need to call in a favour. If you don’t acquiesce then it will cost you dearly.’

To break a deadlock in negotiations in 1964, you frequently have to consider taking on the logic of integrative negotiations (ie. how can we make the pie larger), for example Hell’s Canyon in ’57. Find what future benefit can be bestowed for a commitment today. Then at a future date, delivering that benefit or not delivering that benefit (bait and switch) with the consequences calculated out. Johnson felt that Kennedy’s death would give him the chance to get more votes; he traded on JFK’s death saying that we ought to get more civil rights legislation because it was what Kennedy wanted to achieve.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 – Cornering Your Opponent with a Discharge Petition 

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 relied on old Johnson tactics. But getting the 1964 civil rights act passed required all the legislative genius that Johnson could muster. Another tactic was to get opponents to either admit they were anti-civil rights or for civil rights through the use of a discharge petition. A discharge petition takes a bill out of committee, and forces a vote: ‘cloture.’

In the ’64 session, they needed to compromise by blocking the introduction of new bills and push a Tax Bill through first. And the northern Democrats learned the rules and lessons of the Johnson senate majority days. Johnson used the crisis for good. To pass the civil rights legislation. To ensure that it wasn’t delayed or manipulated.

Meanwhile, Johnson sucked up to  Harry Byrd and Everett Dirksen and other republican leaders; for the “Party of Lincoln” they needed to support civil rights legislation to outflank the Dixiecrats. Johnson was the only senator to attend Harry Byrd’s daughter’s funeral. After that, Byrd said Johnson would have his ear. Johnson played hard on the fiscal conservatism of Harry Byrd. There was this Tax Bill that was also in the way of the Civil Rights bill. It would threaten to log jam the Civil Rights Legislation in 1964, so Johnson ensured the Tax bill ‘didn’t get behind’ the Civil Rights bill i.e. the Tax Bill would be addressed first swiftly and before Civil Rights. And of course, Byrd wanted to read the budget under $100 Billion and Johnson knew that Byrd would audit the balance sheet, so concessions had to be made. Johnson with the help of Harry Byrd maneuvered to get the Tax Bill out of the way. Cloture on the civil rights bill required Republican support of 25 senators. So LBJ phoned each senators. ‘Can I count on you now?’ ‘Yes, sir!’

In Book V, according to Caro there will be another example: The 1965 Civil Rights Bill was stuck in the House rules committee, Johnson needed Republican votes to get a discharge petition to get it out committee. Charles Halleck, the Republican leader in the committee, refused to agree to a discharge petition. And Johnson learned that Halleck wanted grants for Perdue University so while Johnson and Halleck are in the Oval office, Johnson calls up James Webb of NASA and says ‘I want to see what you can do for Halleck.’ A few minutes later Webb phones back and says ‘I hope Halleck will be happy with what I can offer’ and Johnson said ‘I’m not talking about hoping get ‘er done!’

Tactic – Get External Stakeholders On Your Side 

Johnson worked with external stakeholders to push civil rights legislation through. Johnson met with Martin Luther King Jr and Johnson provided a list of politicians for Luther King’s people to apply pressure upon in the committee that the bill was trapped in. Johnson wanted them to go and get “yeas” to move it out of committee. One of the stories Johnson told sympathetically was of his secretary who was black and had to pee on the side of the road because there were patches in the a green book (i.e. no black friendly gas stations) on her trip down to the Johnson ranch. There was also the Mississippi murder of the three civil rights workers to spur support. All the technical maneuvering and the pressure from the public explains how Johnson got the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 passed. Pushing hard. Counting votes.

Dick Russell (Dixiecrat leader) did not want a civil rights bill and thought that the civil rights bill would split the Democratic party. He was right.

Outcome of the Federal 1964 election…

The 1964 bill proved costly in that the Dixiecrats shifted to Republicans as you can see in this map and it meant the south was locked into Republicanism for a long time to come….for generations. But is was directionally the right thing to do and perhaps JFK would not have got it through…Johnson knew how to break deadlock, the 1964 election was a blow out for Johnson.

Bobby versus Lyndon 

Back in 1953, Bobby Kennedy had an awkward altercation with Johnson in the senate cafeteria where Bobby didn’t want to shake Johnson’s hand. Bobby Kennedy was in fact an angry young man, and not the brightest student in college and his father’s approval was very important, especially since it was never fully given. Bobby hated Johnson because one of Johnson’s favourite stories about FDR involved Bobby’s dad. Ambassador Kennedy had just returned from the UK and was known to have been looking to switch support to the Republican and so FDR, with Lyndon Johnson present, phoned Kennedy senior and in a booming voice said ‘Joe! How are you doing? Can you come for a dinner meeting tonight?’ The plan was to get Kennedy’s support to ensure Joe made a pro-FDR public speech, FDR hung up the phone, turned to Johnson and said ‘I’m gonna to fire that sonnovabitch!’ Once the Ambassador declared his support for FDR, FDR literally fired Kennedy senior the next day. Exposing the tribalism and importance of loyalty.

Throughout the 50s, Johnson would try to embarrass Bobby like a bully might by insisting on shaking his hands and looking him straight in the eye. Now, after JFK was gone and Bobby was moving towards a divergent ambition for the Democratic Party, Johnson wanted to show confidence in Bobby (still the Attorney General in 1963 – 64) so he sent him to Indonesia, Asia. It didn’t go well. Bobby was upset…..You see, Johnson liked to see the jugular of his opponent. The ability to hurt is a critical tactic that Johnson used over and over again. The Johnson treatment = physical intimidation. He’d focus in on his opponent’s weakness and exploit it. Bobby said that Johnson knew how to ferret out a person’s weaknesses and that was disturbing to him.

Bobby Kennedy Assasination 

After Bobby Kennedy was shot while walking through a kitchen as he was leaving his California primary victory speech in June 5th, 1968, Johnson asked Joey Calliphano about Bobby Kennedy: ‘is he dead, is he dead yet’” Once the news was realized, Johnson then announced the death in a letter that heartwarmingly shared condolences and spoke of Kennedy’s service to the country. Although, privately, Johnson also said that he wasn’t sure Bobby should be buried in the Arlington cemetery….

Power Over Policy 

Johnson was interested in balancing powers not developing policy. It’s what can be passed (predicting the legislative path) rather than the actual public’s requirements towards policy. There is no way to understand the public so it is easier to look at the representatives (even though they often ain’t representative). Johnson didn’t think the academic approach of Arthur Schlesinger was of much value. Actions over words! ‘Schlesinger knew how to think about issues but he didn’t know how to decide.’ Schlesinger wasn’t a leader but a follower.

The Way Things Are, Not The Way Things Ought To Be

Johnson exhibits politics as it, is not as it should be. Relationships are the driving force. Not the values of the people. Not the democratic aggregate demand. We can bemoan this approach but ultimately, everyone wants power and it has to be earned and wielded, not distributed to the loudest Twitter accounts. That sentiment is in conflict with the arch of history which bends towards true democracy. Perhaps that will change in the future, but this is the way it was then and continues to be….understand that first!

The public doesn’t ratify the decisions made, and the polling booth is hardly a proxy for their wants and needs. Representative democracy is a very weak form of democracy as Johnson shows in that the relationships and tactics he deployed are alien to the public interest. When it came to white students protesting over having a black class-mate (the thin edge of the wedge!) democracy and validation in crowds can be an ugly thing… For Johnson, he was the power and through his negotiations with factions within the legislature, was able to effect change. So in Johnson’s parliamentary world: the general public is modestly invoked but not in control or involved.

To have citizens vote in a binary way between two policies already developed would be a weak form of true democracy, so to truly get further down the field towards true democracy, you also need the policy formulation to be developed by citizens in a marketplace. Active, creative participation in policy would be closer to true democracy. Of course there are a lot of “Yeah But…”

What we have had is a kind of “manufactured consent” (Lippmann), to ensure that the elite class of civil servants and politicians control the government and the citizen, instead of direct involvement, participates as consumers rather than being informed, weighing the options, acting and controlling decision-making. And, there is seldom a rigour audit of what has worked in the past to gauge what policies should be in place in the future! Again, a lot of “Yeah Buts…” The mission for me is clear…..

To sum up Johnson, he’d say ‘Ask not what your president has done for you, ask what you have done for him lately?’ Power is indeed where power roams.

As for the next volume, Book V, it is going to be absolutely amazing. Can’t wait!

This publication is dedicated to finance, politics and history