Takeaways and Insights from Barack Obama’s A Promised Land

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

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

A Good Philosophical Question for Every Citizen

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

Rising Up Takes Grit

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

Horse Trading in Illinois State Senate (1997 – 2004)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sacrificing Your Family for The Big Picture

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

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

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

About Hillary

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

Emotive Debate Techniques Rule the Modern Age

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

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

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

Retail Politics, Obama had it better than Clinton

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

Crafting Winning Views

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

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

Nasty Campaign Attacks, Usually Involve Warping Own Statements

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

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

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

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

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

Politics is Poetry 3, Winning Speech Lines

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

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

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

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

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

Denver Convention 2008 – Acceptance Speech Masterclass

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

Election 2008, Catch Up + Identity Politics

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

Financial Reality of the Late Summer of 2008

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

Obama’s View of the Finance Persona

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

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

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

Politics is Poetry Part 4

Obama won big. 365 in the electoral college.

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

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

Building A Winning Team, Not Rocking the Boat

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Horse Trading Is Sub-Optimal

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

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

Tim Geithner’s Three Options

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

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

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

GM and Chrysler Bailouts

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

The Chrysler Plants As Another Bailout Argument

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

On the Mind of a President

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

List of Things that Obama Couldn’t Look Soft On

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

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

Foreign Policy Laydown Aligns with Centrism

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

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

Media Misinterpretation of Obama’s Global Tour

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

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

Mubarak, Ally to US Interests in the Middle-East

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

Healthcare Would Cost A Lot of Political Capital

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

Sausage Making in Representative Democracy Clashes with Soaring Rhetoric

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

Pandemic Crisis with the H1N1 Swine Flu Virus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Horse Trading on the Affordable Care Act

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

When in Doubt, Split the Bill into Acceptable Components

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

Republicans Opposed Obama – January 29th, 2010

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

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

Military Industrial Complex

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

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

Cookie Cutter Speeches

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

Iranian Relations

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

Obama’s Approach with Iran was:

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

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

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

Climate Change Views of Obama In a Nutshell

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

Common Differentiated Measures

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

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

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

Copenhagen – Cornering Your Negotiation Opponents

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

Into the Barrel Stories

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

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

Women in the White House

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

Wall Street Reigned In, Modestly

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

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

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

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

Deepwater Horizon, Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill

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

Obama v. Carville

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

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

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

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

Extending the Tax Cuts

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

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

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

The Dreamers Act DACA

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

The Betrayal of Mubarak

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

The Thing About the UN

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

Qadaffi in Libya

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

Osama Bin Laden Execution Was Well Planned

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

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

This Holiday Prepare Yourself for Any Argument With These Simple Reminders

Or Just Don’t Get Into Arguments At All

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

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

Winning” an Argument

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

Anchoring

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

Cognitive dissonance

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

Confirmation bias

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

Filter

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

High-Ground Strategy

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

Thinking Past the Sale

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

Pacing and Leading

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

Psychic Psychiatrist illusion

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

Walking Talking Contradiction

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

Rhetoric is Not Action

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

History Does Not Repeat Itself

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

Facts are Weaker than Fiction

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

Rationality versus Irrationality

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

Acknowledging that this Argument was good Exercise:

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

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

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

Key Takeaways from Master of the Senate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Network with the Existing Players 

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

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

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

Tactic – Legislative Log Jams

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

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

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

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

Longoria Incident – Gestures Can Matter 

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

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

Emmitt Till’s Murder and Other Evil Acts of Racism

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

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

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

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

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

a) who got which committee assignment,

b) the agenda on the senate floor,

c) the counting of votes,

d) the issuance of committee powers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1956 Democratic Nomination – Leaving things to chance

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

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

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

1956 VP Selection

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

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

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

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

Tactic – Lyndon Johnson Tries to Win the North 

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

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

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

Tactic – Republican Threat to the South

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

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

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

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

Tactic – ‘Incremental Progress versus Revolutionary Change’ Argument

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

Tactic – Threat of Losing Committee Assignments

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

Tactic – The Threat of Filibuster

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tactic – Voter Rights Argument – A Nation Within a Nation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tactic – Threat of Filibuster to Weaken the Bill 

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

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

Tactic – Convince The Other Side That They Have the Count

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

Tactic – Convincing both sides that he was on theirs! 

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

Never disclose your strategy 

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

Key Takeaways from The Passage of Power

The 1959 – 1960 Democratic Primary 

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

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

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

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

Reality Distortion and the Two Faces of Johnson 

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

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

JFK’s Double Strategy 

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

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

Power Is Where Power Goes 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relationship Maneuvering, the Legislative Politics of the USA 

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

The Assassination of JFK 

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

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

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

Vice-President transition to Presidency 

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

Horse Trading Politics ‘59 to ‘64 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tactic – Get External Stakeholders On Your Side 

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

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

Outcome of the Federal 1964 election…

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

Bobby versus Lyndon 

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

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

Bobby Kennedy Assasination 

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

Power Over Policy 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bob Iger: Random Takeaways from the Executive Chairman of the Walt Disney Company

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……

This publication is dedicated to finance, politics and history