Understanding Trump Pence

Donald Trump is never out of the news. If he is not being attacked or sued, he is screaming on twitter and offending anyone in his path. He described his campaign as the best value publicity stunt ever, and was surprised as anybody when he actually won. In power he has continued to treat the presidency as a mouthpiece for his own publicity.

To understand Trump is to understand only this. Many people try to divine what it is he cares about, or how he wants to change his nation. It is a fruitless search, because he cares only for his own ego, his business, his family and his survival, with his ego way ahead of all the others and the others mainly a manifestation of his ego. Hence all he is doing most of the time is massaging his ego and campaigning to extend his opportunity to keep massaging.

A good example of this is immigration. Before his run for president, Trump did not hate immigrants any more than anyone else, only those who challenged his ego. He believes nothing that he says about immigration, whether it is about the country being full or invaded or somehow threatened, or even about its religious or ethnic purity.

It is much more simple than that. Immigration is a sure fire winning issue with his base. And his base massages his ego and prolongs his power, so he uses language to agitate them and activate them. Hence the only result he wishes for is for immigration to stay in the news, to continue feeding fears and to continue being a problem. The last thing he wants is any sort of solution or policy prescription, for that would only reduce the salience of the issue.

Look at the policies actually implemented by the administration and this becomes obvious. The family separation policy kept the subject in the news. The border itself has been made into more of a bottleneck, by increasing security while constricting the capacity to process potential immigrants, hence maintaining the pipeline. And aid has been cut to the source countries to maintain the incentive for people to attempt to come in. Further, any attempt to actually ease any of these issues in congress has been blocked. It is already obvious that caravans and backlogs and cruel human stories and fear will stay at fever pitch right up to 2020 and beyond.

The other signature policy of Trump is trade, or rather bullying potential trade partners. This is also a popular choice, and neat. In the short run, there are only gains from renegotiating deals, and the US holds most of the power in such negotiations. And the results are easily spun: new NAFTA is remarkably similar to old NAFTA, but Trump can claim some kudos. So long as markets collude in believing that deals will be concluded eventually, because everybody wants that outcome, then only good can come to the Trump brand.

Many Trump policies have these themes. They are good for rousing the base, and hated by elites, they are easy to keep in the news, while little real change is either required or beneficial. They are also tough for the opposition to counter: who can’t support better trade deals, and who can be in favour of uncontrolled illegal immigration?

The other side of the ticket, Pence, is precisely the opposite. He has clear goals based on core beliefs, and he is all about engineering change, yet few of his beliefs have any popular support. So this requires exactly the opposite tactic. Trump is all noise and little action, while the Pence cabal is all surreptitious action, action with long term consequences.

The Pence faction, to its credit, is very clear and consistent about its goals. He is open about being a Christian first, a Conservative second and a Republican third. And his Christianity is of the Evangelical variety.

It has taken me a while to understand Evangelicals. I call myself a Christian, but based on a set of values in the New Testament. Evangelicals appear to discard most of these, in favour of a more literal reading, especially of the Old Testament. This leads to a strict and traditional moral code, and, even more central, a belief that Judeo-Christian people are chosen by God, superior to others, and required to prepare the world for a final judgement.

All policies derive from this. Social conservatism, small government, tough on crime, pro religious exemptions (for his own side) at home, and pro Israel and other Judeo-Christian nations abroad. Climate change is somehow seen as God’s business, maybe even necessary as part of the grand apocalyptic plan. Further, support any group who will pay money to promote those same policies, and acceptance of any tactic, including gerrymandering or voter suppression. 

Of course, the problem with all these policies is that they lack popular support. Corporate money can mask this for a time with diatribes against tax, socialism, particular democrats, Muslims and so on, but the actual agenda does not lend itself for winning elections. Indeed, Pence’s own record is rather poor, usually underperforming expectations and polls. He often ends up apologising, for example when forced to withdraw some naked anti-LGBT legislation in Indiana when companies started boycotting the state.

But his movement is effective, because it has focus, money behind it and plenty of intellectual power too, including Pence himself, a lawyer. A classic case study for its success is found in its accommodation with Trump. It is a simple deal. Pence offers total loyalty, dutifully standing behind Donald whenever asked regularly defending the indefensible. Most administration officials have not lasted the course; Pence is a rare exception. In return, all he asks are a few specific policy actions. And he receives them.

Look at the lasting legacy of this administration. The Supreme Court has tilted to social conservatism, and lower courts too. Abortion faces more restrictions in many states. Big corporate money is entrenched in politics as never before. And Israel and its goals have been relentlessly promoted, from recognising Jerusalem or the annexation of Golan, the weakening of Palestinians, and the demonization of Iran. Towards the latter goal, it has involved a tactical alliance with pliable Arab nations; note the rare veto this week over supporting Saudi militarism in Yemen.

While you may share my abhorrence of the agenda, perhaps you can also share my admiration for its execution. With minimum publicity, an agenda with tiny and diminishing popular support has dominated an administration, and few have even noticed.

Trump’s so called agenda is hard to counter, but so is Pence’s. While few actually agree with his policies, most are somewhat indifferent to them, so campaigning against them can come across as unpatriotic, anti-Semitic, or simply out of tune with concerns of ordinary folk. So probably the best approach is to campaign away from both of them, focusing on pocket book issues like healthcare where neither can claim any success.

So we have an amoral narcissist with no strategy beyond power and glory, allied to an insidious strategic religious extremist. Both will leave lasting damage, one through disrespect for institutions, the other by using those same institutions. They have little love for each other and no common agenda, but have reached an accommodation that is brilliant and effective. Both are hard to counter, though one will end in jail while the other will be free to continue his crusade. Perhaps they will get four more years.

It is depressing. It is instructive. And, at the strategic level, it is admirable.     

Celebrating Gifted Amateurs

When Jeroen van der Veer took over as Shell CEO in 2004-05, he made a number of keynote changes to the Group. One theme was an increase in professionalism around the company. Typical postings were to increase to four years to enable incumbents to develop and deliver fully within a role. One expression I recall him using was that Shell had been too much the preserve of “gifted amateurs”. Considering myself something of a gifted amateur and a beneficiary of the Shell way, my initial resistance to his analysis was rather personal. But now, having had fifteen years to reflect (does that make me a professional?) I still think he was more wrong than right.

I could see where Jeroen’s position came from. He is an engineer, and engineering is a professional’s career, full of modules, accreditations and defined career paths requiring long, specific experiences. In other disciplines, he saw in the opposite, especially among a cadre of protected leadership candidates. If you were deemed to have senior leadership potential you were able to drift quickly between positions and had very little accountability. Often such folk became rather arrogant and selfish, until they reached the top and were able to lord it over the mere professionals who did the real work, while getting in their way.

I came across many such creatures in my time at Shell, a lot of them Dutch. But I could describe my own career in a similar way. I was recruited based on very general attributes and thrown into a series of jobs for which I had no discernable professional competence. Although I hope I wasn’t too arrogant or selfish, I was certainly a gifted amateur, and often not terrible gifted.

The problem with Jeroen’s analysis, I believe, is that typical professional training is very narrow, and not very useful beyond its niche. In his own position as CEO, I needed many competences that he will only have acquired via experience or innate ability.

Here are four such competences. Line management is critical, including motivating others, assessment, selection, delegation and setting a team culture. Strategy is central as a CEO, including some analysis, goal setting, visioning and prioritisation. Major project management and deal making are also important, the latter less about negotiation or sales and more about forming and managing relationships with partners and suppliers.

There is very little formal professional development available in any of those categories. Line management is a black hole, project management and strategy are taught via process, tool and case study, and deal making is too often equated to sales. While in each case more could and should be done to create professional paths to accreditation, it is not simple, but the disciplines are applied, experiential and contextual. These constraints also mean we will gain precious little feedback or coaching on these through our careers, and what we do receive may do more harm than good.

It is tempting to conclude that this is a failure of business and academics, or the interface between them. But amateurism is the natural state for most things in life. Most of the difficult things we need to do to make successes of our lives are areas where getting help or training is almost impossible. The most obvious area is parenting. Wow, parenting is difficult, especially early on. But we throw ourselves into it, supported only be love and hindered by lots of poor advice.

Parenting is hardly unique. Driving a car does offer some initial training, but the real skills are honed the hard way and without support. Managing the small business that is our personal finances is usually an unsupported, amateurish affair. And what about sex, dating and marriage?

No, it is the professional disciplines that are anomalies. And perhaps that is partly because the insiders want to protect their positions, creating all sorts of trade unions, language and certifications to bolster their status. Professionalism has its place (I really hope that the guy who designed the RFK bridge and the woman who performed a biopsy on me had some qualifications), but can be overrated.

Further, consider deep professionals you have come across, usually engineers or finance or legal experts. While they are necessary to any endeavour, and often impressive in their skills, too often they make terrible leaders, and even become weak at their own discipline once the requirements become more nuanced at senior levels. For the most senior engineers need most of all to integrate with other skill areas, to manage complex projects and to manage others. These are not typical strengths of passionate experts, indeed they often see them as getting in the way and will resist roles with such requirements, only accepting them for status and money and because other avenues are closed.

It is hard to escape this dilemma; indeed the Shell “gifted amateur” approach pre Jeroen may be a good option, so long as some humility and accountability is built in. Shell also developed a leadership framework, which was great for assessment but too late in careers for development. There is much scope for developing professional theories for all of these general areas. Paying world-class professional specialists better without requiring them to do things beyond their competence also makes sense.

But I also have another idea, which comes from some inspiring articles I have recently read about in the field of psychology. In Zimbabwe, one of the very few trained psychologists did an amazing thing. Rather than bemoaning the absence of fellow professionals and glorying in his unique status, he found a creative way to make a difference. He noticed that grandmothers in villages tended to have some useful amateur psychology skills, being good listeners, experienced in life, caring and respected. So he set up a network of these grandmothers, gave them some tools and tips, and put them to work. The stressed people of Harare have some amateur relief, and are grateful for it.

This story has started to spread around the world. New York City has implemented something called Friendship Benches. I love it. Perhaps what I love the most is the humility of the psychology professionals, being prepared to embrace amateurs to generate better outcomes for patients.

This line of thinking has potential in so many other fields. Imagine if most classrooms had volunteer amateur assistants available. Imagine if people could have access to financial advice that was not tainted by the greedy incentives of the financial services sector. Imagine if folk requiring everyday had not just scarce professionals and overburdened family members to rely on, but also a army of amateur volunteer carers.

I think this sort of thing will spread in the coming years, enabled by many trends: the gradual weakening of unions; the availability of online training and supervision; and a supply of willing amateurs with time on their hands being past retirement age or working in the gig economy. Professionals surely have their place, as do unions, but both should put outcomes ahead of job protection, and be humble enough to accept that others can be modestly trained to contribute.

The humble psychologist in Harare might change the world more radically than even he could conceive. For me, that makes him a Nobel Prize candidate. Jeroen van der Veer and his disciples, I have a lot of respect for you, but please take note. 

Humanity's Fragile

One of the most uplifting stories over the last fifty years is how humanity has evolved in handling its fragile. We can learn from this success and try to do even better during the next fifty years.

Let us be clear, we are all fragile to some degree. Remember the last time you were sick. Last summer I was sick for a few weeks and it made me weaker in every way. Everything that could go wrong seemed to do so, I had to take extra care even with simple actions, and I craved love while being unable to offer much in return. I had a whole year of fragility in 2009, when much change happened in my life, change that I was not really prepared for and made me vulnerable.

Yet I count myself as among the least fragile people I come across. I have many natural advantages and blessings, few of which I have done much to earn. If something as common as a sickness can knock me over so comprehensively, many others seem much closer to breaking point.

It is a healthy thing to remember ones own fragility, and also to observe the fragile around us. Hollywood and TV do poor jobs at reminding us that the world is full of fragile people. To the extent that fragility is made obvious in common culture, it comes through in stories from the developing world and of less fortunate groups in the developed world. It is too easy to see those people as not like us, sometimes beyond our scope of help, and at our worst moments even somewhat deserving of their plight.

I enjoy travelling by bus. It is not fast but still convenient and a great window into society. I observe a lot of kindness on buses. Just in the last week, a guy was chatting away to the driver in a way that betrayed some mental weakness, and some need for connection that the driver was happy to indulge. Another lady struck up a conversation with me that had a similar vibe. Many people on the bus struggle with physical disability and display social vulnerabilities, sometimes burdened with elderly or babies, and usually most of the folk around them tolerate and take time to show simple kindness, even in busy New York.

When I shop at Trader Joe’s, I notice that they have a wonderful staffing policy, leading to a great atmosphere in the store. One aspect is a willingness to employ fragile people. One young lady in particular has some mental frailty, but she is trusted with real work and respected, while the rest of the staff keep a close eye on her. Generally, customers tolerate her and help her as well. My loyalty to the store is greatly enhanced by this humanity.

A more obvious example is volunteering at the home for the very elderly, where many residents are weak and sometimes confused, but the strong support the weak and the nuns and volunteers offer much love. I also see less obvious examples of the same type of humanity each time I go to church. 

I guess this type of snapshot happened fifty years ago as well. Some might argue that community was even stronger then, because people moved much less and lived more closely with extended families and tighter communities. But I think we overlook the sacrifices involved in that type of society.

The most important sacrifice was by women staying at home. Two generations ago, frail elderly, children with special needs or disabled adults were often homebound and cared for full time by stay-at-home mums. Such fragile folk were less visible to us in society then, precisely because they were not really a part of society, they were behind the closed doors of a home where a woman sacrificed her own life.

This sacrifice was further embedded by the way society treated the fragile. Lady Mary Warnock died a couple of weeks ago; it was her ground breaking report which finally brought fragile kids into mainstream schools rather than being educated in special institutions. Such places were often cruel, and made it much harder for fragile kids to find a pathway to a full adult life.

And special schools were not the worst part of the cruel system. Disabled adults and anyone with some mental fragility ran the risk of consignment to asylums, while the elderly frail were often housed in places with similar principles. Pathways to recovery were not a major priority of such places.

Indeed good public policy is all about creating such pathways. I sense that this is one more area where Europe is ahead of the US. When we lived in Holland, our kids became friends with two neighbouring kids with behavioural and cognitive challenges. Either or both trod a path that could have led down towards crime or addiction. But I learned this year that both had forged vocational careers, in each case I suspect helped by programs with subsidies and extra support. That support cost taxpayers some euros, but was probably a good financial investment and certainly a great human one. I don’t have the same confidence that a similar situation in the US would have reached such a promising state.

To be fair, New York City does a lot. Access-a-ride is a strong program, and, belatedly, the current state administration is acting to remove cash bail and reduce the chances that fragile humans spiral downwards. I also applaud the scheme of the mayor’s wife to tackle mental health, even if its management appears weak so far. Trader Joe’s is among many employers that help as well, as are churches and other groups relying on volunteers. But I still feel that vulnerable kids from families without means are more likely to be sucked into a whirlpool than launched onto a current of success.

Medical advances have also helped, and progress is especially rapid in understanding mental health. I sense that many of those we see on the fringes of society today would have been sicker a couple of generations ago, perhaps in asylums or even dead. Humanity is working out how to handle its own weak, socially and medically and with more positive paths and fewer sacrifices for carers.

We can view other public policy through this lens. Drugs and criminal justice policies can help or hinder the fragile. Public transport, affordable housing, and caring professions need support. Pathways for fragile kids of 16-20 can be a priority, via vocational courses, apprenticeships and so on.

Less obvious, the fragile are the ones who need protecting from risks or abuses from businesses: the financial industry is a particular culprit, I don’t understand how robocalls are not banned, and I also find the rush to lotteries, casinos and sports betting to be short-sighted, since it is the fragile who most struggle to control their behaviour.

Technology can be a great enabler for the fragile. I guess we have to accept that early applications are more likely to be targeted at the hip than the needy, but eventually I can see a world with apps that support carers replacing those than count steps.

A tricky issue is how to police potential abuse. The fragile benefit from kindness via social contacts, but it is precisely those contacts that can become abusive. Churches do a lot of good, but can also harbour abuse or indoctrination. Carers are most effective when they can develop a deeper relationship, but become vulnerable to challenge if things develop badly. Fragile people often have limited awareness of boundaries. I fear that the current focus on proscribing behaviours, while necessary, can have unfortunate side effects. The warriors of such causes should think outside of their own bubbles occasionally.

I will strive to change my mental model for considering many issues of social behaviour or public policy. Rather than thinking from my own viewpoint or that of some typical healthy person, I will try to think of someone more fragile. After all, I or someone close to me could become that person in a blink of an eye. And even if it doesn’t, surely the cause of the fragile is a worthy one for humanity anyway.