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 Streetillustrates 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…
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:
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…..
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 Byrdand 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 Lucyfrom 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!
Notes based on Iger’s Masterclass and skimming his memoir:-)
Bob Iger Routine
Remember to try to find alone time; make a mental checklist, ie these are are things that I must do today. Write down the big items on your mental checklist.
Start your day with a workout: you do not want to be distracted; you don’t want too many external forces, because this is the clearest point in your day;
Arrive at the office 6:30am: early bird catches the worm, show up early which should give you more solitude.
8:00am to 4:00pm meetings all day, people, people, people. Business and politics is about people. Be home for dinner and take that time to disconnect from work.
8:00pm to 10:00pm and read a book that isn’t relevant to your work.
Be sure to infuse creativity in your day;
Focus is critical for leadership:
In 2004, the Board Members of Disney needed a new CEO. Iger was the only internal candidate. Find out what the company’s priorities should be an communicate with clarity on maximum 3 cores. There was a 9 month succession plan. How are you going to run the company needs to be communicated but also how will your vision translate financially (projections, vision and operations).
Bob Iger’s CEO bid was a kind of political campaign to try to convince voters / board members to elect him. He needed to articulate a few strategies: the more you have the less focus, and more spread out over time and capital; 1) Invest in creativity; 2) Embrace technology: use technology to reach new audiences; 3) Grow Globally.
Clarity is an essential leadership attribute: you must be very clear in your internal communications. There is a need to present, apply a face to face strategy. Why these are the strategies and then explain why this should happen and what the outcomes should be.
Disney Chairman and CEO Bob Iger revealed a scale model of Shanghai Disneyland and displays showcasing key highlights of unique attractions, entertainment, dining and hotels at a presentation held at the Shanghai Expo Centre. (PRNewsFoto/The Walt Disney Company)
Reinforcing Strategies:
Face to face interaction can be extremely effective. Every Monday morning, Iger has his 10 reports in a morning meeting. You could get called on to present where you are at. You had to be ready. Adjust to what is on his team’s mind; what they are seeing, what their needs are; it’s got to be a great give and take session to work.
Some folks probably didn’t want to be candid, accessibility and candor is critical; you need to be able to adjust to the marketplace. Evolve and adapt to the times.
Disney’s Acquisition Case Study – Pixar:
The Disney acquisition of Pixar was a major strategic win even if the price tag was high. Iger didn’t know for sure that they would end up acquiring Pixar. Disney Animation studios was not thriving with Tarzan etc. Iger needed to turn it around; all roads lead to people/creative talent. Steve Jobs was someone who believed in stopping everything to fix the story if it wasn’t working (ie. Jobs put story ahead of everything); there was a disruption over the prior Disney contract. Steve Jobs very publicly decided he was firing Disney given the distribution rights issue etc. So Iger had to repair it by first aligning with Jobs’ goals saying iTunes should be available on TV: iTune TV. Steve Jobs liked that alignment and pulled out a video iPod; so maybe there is a good idea: ABC TV. This facilitated an extension with the relationship with Apple.
Bob Iger told the Board of Directors during the process of selecting the next CEO that Disney Animation was in much worse shape then they believed or understood from Michael Eisner’s reign. Tarzan and Lilo & Stich were not great box office successes. So he set a bleak picture of the Michael Eisner era which did not sit well with an Eisner influenced board. Pixar couldn’t offer, you never know if a film would work; the stock equity was very high; if Iger could turn Animation around, then it would be worth the acquisition of Pixar. With the structure of the acquisition, Steve Jobs could also exert a lot of influence, and he could try to run the Disney;
Getting Steve Jobs on Board:
A great primer on Steve Jobs is here. Iger called Jobs in 2005 in his car sweating and explained the ‘crazy idea that Disney should buy Pixar’. There was a need to fix Disney animation and Pixar would bring the talent, technology and drive forward the legacy of Disney. Jobs and Iger met up in an Apple board room and started looking at 3 Pros and 20 cons to acquiring Pixar; the cons outweighed the pros in Iger’s mind while the pros outweighed the cons in Jobs’ mind. Iger credits Jobs with the ability to cut through at the essence of something. Also noteworthy is that Jobs was running on fumes with Apple and Pixar being part of his daily work cycle.
So of the cons of Disney taking over Pixar: Disney would destroy the culture, too process oriented, too conservative in story telling. Like a movie about rats working in a French restaurant…that was pure Pixar.Jobs had to talk to John Lasseter: the relationship at Disney had been somewhat damaged and Lasseter needed to be open minded about it. It turns out that Pixar/Jobs/Lasseter were keen. So keen in fact that the Pixar guys pitched a bunch of movie ideas: Cars, Wall-e, Up! and they pitched some great story ideas in the manner that Walt Disney and others always did. Telling the story from start to finish. Iger was excited.
Merging Cultures:
With Pixar, often the artists would challenge the technology people to enable their talents; they would see the technology guys as enablers. often it’s the culture that is the reason that the company was successful to begin with. When you merge you want to merge quickly and assimilate, that allows for the continuous driving and creation of shareholder value, Iger was lucky that he had first view of what acquisition does to a company. So Bob Iger was aware of the process of merging, if Disney tried to kill the culture at Pixar it would be a failure. Bob Iger was able to tell how that first hand knowledge of the value of culture and thus that helped enable the Pixar culture to continue; What’s the Pay Off? Just Go For It: Pixar deal was 14 years ago, it was a $7B acquisition and it is certainly worth it…..pre-Covid. We’ll let the Equity Researchers predict its future worth…the net present value of all future cashflows. Learn to love finance, by the way!
Negotiation Style of Bob Iger:
Iger believes that no two people have the same negotiating styles. But he biases towards getting deals done quickly. Approach the deal in a candid manner. Bob Iger likes to get the particulars out. He may even give away more than you want then you want them to know. There negotiations have to be two way. Iger is big on forging a personal relationship with the negotiation; George Lucas, Steve Jobs, Stan Lee and Rupert Murdoch. Don’t let ego get in the way of the negotiations.
Brand Is Important To Understand:
Brand has a price / value proposition. If you trust a brand to deliver, you will spend your time and money on it. Time is a finite commodity and so people make choices of how to spend their time based on pattern recognition, past experience (ie the same sub routine that informs decision-making elsewhere: racism, food preferences etc). Brand conveys what a product is what it is, trusting they will get value from that transaction. Brand reveals an emotional connection with the audience: Nike, Apple, Disney. You know what it stands for. Evergreen story telling, Challenge of creating Disney’s brand to stay relevant, edginess would have ruined the Disney brand. If you revere a brand, then you might as well put it in museum casing, but if you respect it, it can grow and develop further.
Modernizing the Disney Princess:
What are the core attributes of a Disney princess?, he asks in his Masterclass. Snow White was the classic princess. Now it was time to show young women who are empowered. Walt Disney new the power of merchandise before George Lucas or anyone else. Maximizing your brand over businesses: coonskin caps for Davey Crocket, king of the wild frontier. Brands are relationship between a product and a consumer… Managing the Brand, what is the essence of the brand, every time it is used on a product, what is very important; dynamism to be dynamic, abandonment of the brand in the name of profitability, it needs to be respected.
Marvel Acquisition:
Is it going to enhance the association, for purchasing Marvel, the brand attributes, violent Disney doesn’t like. We looked at the brand damage, the story telling is not necessarily damaging, Marvel is Marvel and Disney and Disney. Fan is short of Fanatic; Management of the brand is through creating brand value.
Anticipating the Audience Demand:
Disney has been universal in its appeal, the audience is far more broad, there needs to be relevance to those stories. Diversity of Captain Marvel (women) and Black Panther (black superhero) wouldn’t travel far was the theory internally at Disney. The film might not be embraced; the idea was to not spend that much money on Black Panther. But it turns out, it was a huge box office success and was nominated for best picture…a comic book movie!
The Limitation of Data:
Giving the consumers before the know that they want something, Bob Iger believes in gut research: Data collected about marketplace is mostly waste of time, looking at numbers on a spreadsheet is not that powerful. The better way to get to understand people is to go talk to them. Get a sense of their tacit engagement. “If you don’t go, you can’t grow!” Doing business in India, never going to learn about it unless you go live there for a few months. So get some real-time research: go meet your consumers. Data is also challenged by the problem of tacit knowledge and hard to measure inputs….
You need to take risks, do not adopt the status quo; so if you are going stray it is risky, but it is necessary. Don’t be risk averse. You should try to fail by daring greatly. Bo Iger’s best example of that is when he was at ABC daytime. He and a producer pushed a singing Police drama called Cop Rock. It was a failure. Creativity means to dare to do great things.
Don’t worry about failure: R Rates NYPD Blue: it was not R rated because of the commercial sponsors. You have to get back up and try again. There aren’t many rules in creative businesses, you need to be resilient to succeed. You need to take risks but you need to have a well thought out process. You need to have a knowledge of what the risk is if it does not pan out, so you aren’t surprised.
Disney 21st Century Fox Acquisition:
The challenges and compared the notes from the business, Rupert Murdoch was actually looking to sell 21st Century Fox. Strategic First Steps: the new strategy for the direct to consume business, our new interests was going to make sense for the company, we needed more content creation capability. The Simpsons, we were interested in international assets. Interested in the Europe and East Asia business; There was a bidding war strategy, but Comcast was interested in the valuation.
High Stakes:
It took a long time, it was about content: Strategically Dealing with the new assets…the platform unit Disney+ Then the restructure, and then they plugged them into the new structure. so in preparation for assimilating on group, you may have to resturcture your own company in preparation.
Managing Disruption -> Disney +:
You need to be look ahead and where the business might be going, years into the future. You need to also embrace change and admit it is coming. How media entertainment is changing over time is always in flux. ESPN was starting to change: because people had other means of getting sports. So they acquired the technology to bring ESPN into the future. They delivered BamTech, to harmonize audiences and sports. And so they took that platform to deliver Disney+. There are content engines that are building content. They had Star Wars Mandalorian which is their flagship show. The use of consumer data will have more personalized, will be based on prior use (skeptical).
Bob Iger’s what makes you successful metrics:
These tenets may not apply to every person:
Foster curiosity: you need to be curious, learn with new places, new people, you need to be curious about reality;
Be authentic: don’t fake things, admit that you lack knowledge and experience, be honest and candide about what you are doing, don’t try to fake emotional, people read through that;
Operate with Integrity: you need to have high standards, adhere to those high standards, get brains, energy and integrity;
The Pursuit of Perfectionism: try to create something great but never accepting mediocrity, you have to work hard that way;
Be Fair and Own Mistakes: be accessible, be present, express opinions and put yourself in their shoes.
Be Decisive: indecisiveness is harmful for an organization. You need to make timely decisions. Do not second guess, you need to have courage. Decision-making has to be quicker in order to get decisions through. The market place was reacting quickly to Rosanne Barr so Iger fired her quickly.
Practice Candour: make it clear what your expectations of them are, communicating good news is relatively easy, bad news needs to get to the leadership quickly, make sure it is a safe environment.
Project Optimism: people don’t want to follow a pessimist;
Have a sense of humour: don’t be always serious, be able to laugh at themselves, don’t take yourself too seriously. Be able to tell a good joke.
The further out you go into the future the less clarity; so you need to think about the future but set the parameters. We only look at 5 or 10 year horizons since any further is not within the scope of realistic prediction……
To ensure that the size of the pie i.e. the size of the deal is the maximum possible amount attainable
To ensure that the nature of the relationship of the two parties are not negatively affected, thereby ensuring a sustainable future relationship that is profitable for both parties
To ensure that you get as big a piece of the pie a possible, while at the same time reaching a pareto efficient frontier in the combined deal that is reached between the two parties
In order to achieve Pareto efficiency, it is essential that both parties share their relative preferences of the issues discussed. This way, both parties will have a clear understanding of each other’s’ interests, thereby helping the parties come to an efficient solution.
One of the ways in which the parties can achieve pareto efficiency is by working towards an integrative solution. This can be achieved by both parties negotiating in a manner that they try to achieve their highest priority issues, while conceding on the lower priority issues. This can only be achieved when both parties are willing to make concessions.
Making concessions is a useful negotiation tactic because of the following reasons:
It signals to the other party that you are willing to work towards attaining a mutually beneficial solution
It may motivate the other party to make concessions on their low priority issues as well, which can help you get a higher payoff / benefit
Making strategic concessions is one of the ways, in addition to MESO, post-settlement settlements and contingency contracts, by which the two parties can achieve pareto efficiency
Concessions should be made in a strategic manner, in the following ways:
The parties must ensure that they always make bilateral concessions i.e. always make concessions while demanding / getting something in return from your opponent. This ensures that you are not perceived as weak.
Only make concessions on issues that you know are not very important to you. Concessions cannot be made on issues that could possibly hurt you, or reduce your payoffs
Making smaller concessions is better than making one big concession. Using this method, you can ensure that you are moving in a calculated and strategic manner, as well as not exposing yourself to too much risk.
Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement Explained
BATNA is defined as your Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement. It is an alternative that you are guaranteed to receive in the case that negotiations fail.
BATNA can be viewed as a safety net, or a backup plan which can help in your approach towards negotiations. When a party knows what their BATNA is, it helps them think through various strategies to ensure that the outcome of negotiations is better than their BATNA.
Many a times, BATNA can be a source of power, and parties can use their strong BATNA’s to their advantage in negotiations.
BATNA’s can be used to calculate a party’s reservation price using the following formula:
Reservation Price = BATNA + Switching Cost
The reservation price can then be used to calculate a party’s value claimed by using the formula:
Value Claimed = Settlement Point – Reservation Price
Every party must ensure that they do everything to improve their BATNA before negotiations. BATNA’s can be strengthened by the following ways:
By identifying all the variables that go into calculating the value of the BATNA
Doing extensive research on what the possible BATNA’s could be
Having a strong understanding of the valuation of the BATNA before beginning the negotiations
Once a party has an exact understanding of their BATNA, it is imperative that they do not lie to the other party during the course of the negotiations about their BATNA’s. This could make them legally liable for wrongdoing, and could negatively impact their reputation.
MEDIATORS Explained
A mediator is a person who is seen as a neutral party in any negotiation or dispute, and whose purpose is to ensure that the parties come to an agreement. As opposed to an arbitrator, a mediator does not pass judgement and decide who is right or wrong as per the legalities of the situation.
A mediator can be used during the following situations:
When there is a lot of anger between the parties
When parties are unable to communicate
When there’s a high level of mistrust or chance of misinterpretation
When parties need help identifying integrative potential
Mediators are effective third parties when:
They are successful in helping parties reach settlements
The settlement meets the needs of both parties
The settlement helps continue relationships between the two parties
The services of mediators are not needed in the long term
Compared to an arbitrator, a mediator has the following advantages:
Parties have a higher satisfaction of the outcome
The settlement that the parties agree on is reflective of a more integrative solution
There are fewer problems with the implementation of the settlement
There are fewer problems of recurrence of the problems
The sole purpose of a mediator is to ensure that the parties reach an agreement. A mediator is involved in multiple rounds of negotiations with the parties involved. In each round of negotiations, the mediator identifies the interests of the parties, as well as any concerns and issues they might have. The mediator then utilizes this information to approach the opposing party and identify if the interests of the two parties are identical in any way. The mediator formulates solutions for interests that are identical, thereby resolving a few issues, and then works on the unresolved issues. During these multiple rounds of negotiations between the opposing parties, the mediator tries to reduce the number of unresolved issues and formulate the clauses of a possible agreement.
It is important to note that the mediator is also tasked with resolving the concerns of the both parties as well, through an integrative approach. The result of these multiple rounds of negotiations is to reduce the talking points to a bare minimum, thereby coming up with a final proposal which is voluntarily agreed upon by all parties.
A mediator curbs the parties’ overconfidence and gives them a reality check of the situation. By focusing on the interests, and not on the rights and powers, a mediator comes up with the most beneficial solution for both parties. This solution can entail a longer and sustainable working relationship of both the parties.
Since acceptance of the outcome is voluntary, there tends to be greater satisfaction of the solution.
WISE THREATS
WISE stands for
W – Willing
I – Interest
S – Save Face
E – Exact
The four considerations in making a WISE threat are given below:
W – Willing
The parties must be willing to carry out the threat. The threat should not be made without the intention of actually walking away from the negotiating table and following up with the threat. It is important to be willing to carry out the threat because of the following reasons:
The credibility of the party is at stake, and the threat must be substantiated with appropriate action
In the situation that the threat is not carried out, the party making the threat is seen as weak. This affects the attitude of the opposing party at the negotiation table and can ultimately affect the outcome of negotiations
I – Interest
Threats must only be made after careful consideration of the party’s interests, and not positions. This leads to the conclusion that the interests of both parties must be discussed during negotiations. In the situation that a threat is made based on the position of a party, it will most likely not be a credible threat, and would result in the company not willing to carry it out.
However, if the interests of the party are affected during negotiations, and if a party feels that its interests are not going to be met, then a party may make a WISE threat.
S – Save Face
It is essential for the party making the threat to give the opposing party to save face. This means that the party making the threat should mention to the other party that there are certain actions that could be taken in order to the party not to carry out the threat.
Thus, it is important for any party to not push the opposing party in a corner, since during these situations, the opposing party might take actions that can be mutually destructive
E – Exact
A threat must be precise in its clauses. i.e. A party must make a threat only if certain interests are not being served. Those interests must be detailed in the threat. In the absence of being exact in the threat, the opposing party might get a sense that the threat being made has no basis, and they might be pushed to taking actions that are mutually destructive.
HORMEL “AMERICAN DREAM”
The key strategic errors made by P-9 during their negotiations with Hormel are as follows:
Interests
P- 9: The labor union wanted the following issues to be met by Hormel
Higher wages
Higher benefits
Worker autonomy – i.e. freedom to work as per their own directives as opposed to management control
Continued employment
Hormel: The company had the following interests:
Continued business operations
Profitability
Lower costs
Lower wages
Removal of labor unions
Rights
P-9:
The labor union had to right to continue working in the factory until the end of the contract
They had the right to negotiate a new contract
The unions also had the right to strike work in case the negotiations did not occur favorably
Hormel:
The company had the right to terminate employment of the employees by giving them a 52-week notice
The company could terminate the contract
They could hire non-unionized employees at a much lower cost
Power
P- 9:
The unions had the power to go on strikes
They could start picket lines
They could generate negative media coverage, thereby hurting the brand of the company
Disrupt production
Hormel:
The company could transfer production to other plants
They could hire non-unionized employees
Based on this framework, it seems that Hormel had more power in this case. Since the company could transfer production as well as hire lower wage workers. P-9 did not consider all these factors when they decided to go on strike. They used arm wrestling tactics, which brought in ego and spite. By failing to calculate their BATNA, which was loss of employment, as opposed to Hormel’s BATNA, which was lower wage workers and moving production to different plants, P-9 made numerous errors in their decisions.
Due to the fact that P-9 did not calculate their BATNA effectively, it resulted in incorrect decision to go on strike, which ultimately resulted in the losing their jobs. Only a small percentage of employees got their jobs back.
P-9 moved from interests to rights, which resulted in Hormel moving to power. Since the company had much more power, it followed up on their word, and they ultimately won. In hindsight, P-9 should have focused more on their interests and sought a mediator to work with the company to resolve issues amicably.
Also, P-9 used a representative with a different interest as compared to their own. This non-alignment resulted in inefficient negotiations.
CULTURAL RELATIVISM / ETHICAL IMPERIALISM
Cultural relativism suggests that when in Rome, do as the Romans do. Thus, the company is more willing to concede on issues that might not be acceptable in their own countries.
Ethical Imperialism suggests that when in Rome, do as you would do at home. In this case, the company is not willing to budge on ethical and legal matters, which could result in the company losing out on many business opportunities.
However, in legal and ethical pluralism, the company would be willing to accept only those issues that are not illegal in their own countries.
For example, many countries have laws that make it illegal to bribe foreign government officials, hire child workers, or partake in environmentally destructive activities.
In such cases, the company do not involve themselves in these businesses, but are willing to overlook other less important ethical issues.
This publication is dedicated to finance, politics and history