Category: Leadership

DUMB GUYS REACT TO #METOO BY BOYCOTTING WOMEN

From Clarence Thomas bantering about pubic hairs on Coke cans, to Harvey Weinstein spilling his seed into a potted plant, we’ve had more than a quarter-century of teachable moments on sexual harassment. Every news cycle for the past four months has brought yet another revelation of once-important men falling rapidly into the abyss because they used their power to sexually harass female colleagues and subordinates. Surely by now, guys must get it, right?

No, not all of them. Not by a longshot. Sadly, it appears that many men extracted a bizarrely distorted lesson from the never-ending trail of #metoo stories. Professing profound confusion over how to avoid career-ending sexual harassment accusations, these organizational wizards have decided to keep their distance from women in the workplace, afraid that they might be branded as a sexual harasser. As a result, women are being kept out of key meetings, held back from crucial out-of-town trips and denied mentoring, all essential building blocks to career advancement in most organizations.

No good reckoning, it seems, goes unpunished. Consider, for example, these recent developments:

Major companies are telling men not to take female colleagues on business trips and even banning them from sharing rental cars with women coworkers.

Male investors in Silicon Valley are declining one-on-one business meetings with women.

Private work meetings with colleagues of the opposite sex were found to be inappropriate by a quarter of respondents in a recent poll.

A Texas public official was reprimanded last month for refusing to meet with female employees and ending his regular mentoring sessions with one of them.

Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook told of many men in the business community reacting to the #metoo phenomena by saying, “This is why you shouldn’t hire women.”

Then there is Dr. Mukund Komanduri, a Chicago area orthopedic surgeon who says he now stands at least 10 feet away from female colleagues and avoids being alone with them. He told the New York Times, “I’m very cautious about it because my livelihood is on the line. If someone in your hospital says you had inappropriate contact with this woman, you get suspended for an investigation, and your life is over. Does that ever leave you?”

Really, Doctor? Have we been reading the same stories? These guys were flashing their penises and groping, grabbing and forcibly tonguing their female associates. That’s why you can’t consult with a woman resident over a hip replacement procedure? Give me a break!

To be sure, this insipid overreaction has not been universal. Not every man has adopted the Mike Pence protective shield of never being alone with a woman other than his wife. But it has been widespread enough to spawn new corporate training programs, including one on “safe mentoring” which teaches male executives “how to mentor young women without harassing them”. Let that one sink in for a moment. That’s like teaching bank employees how to handle money without stealing it.

The #metoo effort has been enormously effective in shining a spotlight on the depth and pervasiveness of sexual harassment, but it is, by no means, a cure for all that plagues women in most workplaces. That will come only when they are on at least equal footing with men in running those workplaces. Yet, if the response to sexual harassment is to hire and promote fewer women and further marginalize the ones who are there, the goal posts of gender equality will have been moved back to the 1950s.

Not surprisingly, studies show that companies with the lowest incidence of sexual harassment are those where women hold at least half the key leadership positions. Conversely, consider the example of Amazon. One of the first post-Weinstein casualties involved Amazon executive Roy Price. He left the company late last year after accusations that he made repeated and unwanted sexual advances on a woman at a corporate social function. It turns out that the full episode had been reviewed by Amazon in 2015, and Price was told to drink less at company parties. Amazon is run by an elite group of 16 senior executives. Fifteen of them are men. It’s hard to imagine the same outcome if women had dominated the corporate leadership.
Unfortunately, there aren’t many of those places.

One recent investigation showed that women hold 46 percent of the entry level positions in large corporations, but only a small fraction of the key management jobs. There is an abundance of reasons for turning this around. Egalitarian organizations have not only been found to be more effective, but also more profitable.

So what’s the holdup? Power, mostly, specifically the power of male privilege. Numbers are power, as sociologist Rosabeth Moss Kanter noted in her seminal research decades ago. As long as women are, as Kanter put it, “the few among the many” in an organization, they remain underpaid, under-promoted and at a distinct disadvantage to change the dominant culture that enables sexual harassment.

Therein lies the quandary. In order to eradicate sexual harassment from our workplaces, we need to infuse more women into the leadership strata of those organizations. How do you that when anxious men are excluding female coworkers from the very activities that can lead to the advancement pipeline? Do we need more training? Maybe seminars that make it clear to these insecure males that, as long as they don’t act like they are in a pick-up bar at last call, it’s all right to work with women and treat them as equals? Seems like an incredulous message for 2018. But clearly, there are way too many guys who still don’t get it.

ENDING THE SHUTDOWN MAY HAVE AVERTED A DREAMER NIGHTMARE

Senate Democrats didn’t mess up by ending an embryonic government shutdown. Their mistake was using the tactic in the first place. Quickly retreating from a bad decision, a foreign concept to the current president and his Republican sycophants, is smart and effective leadership.

Linking immigration rights for the Dreamers with the GOP spending bill made sense earlier this month – an eternity ago in this bizarre political climate. Senate Republicans needed Democratic votes to pass a resolution keeping the government open. Democrats needed to find a way to keep undocumented young people brought into the country as children from being deported. Donald Trump told the world that he wanted to save the Dreamers through a “bill of love” and would sign any bipartisan immigration measure the Senate came up with.

The Capitol was hardly ensconced in a spirit of peace and love, but – for one brief, shining moment – there was real anticipation of at least a little give-and-take, the likes of which have not been seen here in more than a generation. Then Trump offered his “shithole countries” soliloquy, and Kumbaya morphed into a war chant.

The Donald’s boasts about his stellar negotiating skills have all the credibility of his claim to the be the world’s least racist person. There isn’t a rule of effective negotiating that he doesn’t regularly violate, including the one about not going back on your word. Days after telling a bipartisan Senate delegation that he would accept whatever immigration plan they came up with, and two hours after signaling his agreement with their proposal, Trump did a complete reversal and embraced the entire draconian screed of the anti-immigration hawks.

Although the rug had been pulled out from under them, Democrats stayed the tactical course of making immigration the quid-pro-quo for producing the needed votes to avoid a shutdown. The narrative quickly changed. It was no longer about Democrats helping Republicans pass a budget bill in exchange for protecting the Dreamers. It had become, through optics pushed by right wing messaging, a matter of Democrats forcing a shutdown to protect illegal immigrants. Besides, the leverage had no juice. The Trumpian gang got where they are by promising to drain the swamp. They abhor government. It’s the Democrats who believe in government and what it can do to make people’s lives better. Although the Dreamers have had strong public support, most polls showed substantial public anxiety over a prolonged government shutdown on their behalf.

That left Democrats in a weakened strategic position. Closing the government was hardly an effective club to use on a party that dislikes government. Yes, the talking point here was that Republicans would suffer from a shutdown since they control Congress and the White House. But the reality was that government closed because Democrats insisted to impasse on an immigration deal in exchange for the spending measure. That had the potential, particularly for the long haul, of weakening public support for the Dreamers.

I get the angst and disappointment of my friends on the left, and particularly on the part of those young people who grew up as Americans and see the clock ticking on possible deportation to countries they view as foreign. The pre-shutdown rhetoric of Democratic leaders about there being no spending bill without taking care of the Dreamers was powerful, passionate and hopeful. But, despite the message of many self-help books, a determination to win doesn’t guaranty victory. A prolonged government shutdown was simply not the instrument to induce surrender by a majority party that cares nothing about the fate of young immigrants, government workers or the people they serve. It would be like kidnapping Hillary Clinton and asking Donald Trump to pay the ransom.

By agreeing to fund government for another three weeks, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer not only bought time, he also brought the narrative back where it belonged, namely on how to keep the Dreamers from being deported. No longer is Trump’s campaign machine cranking out ads about Democrats shutting down government in order to help “illegal aliens.” Instead, late this week, the president put the White House on record for the first time in support of a bill that would not only give work permits to about 1.8 million young immigrants but would also grant them a path to citizenship.

Yes, Trump’s blink on the Dreamers, was in the context of an overall immigration proposal that would also include $25 billion in funding for his wall, along with severe reductions in the number of immigrants allowed into the country. It now seems more likely than ever that a bipartisan group in the Senate will produce a bill that follows the president’s position on the Dreamers but pushes back in some other areas.

To be sure, we are not yet at the end of the road on all of this. It remains very much an uphill battle for Democrats. They are, after all, Washington’s minority party right now. But hard, fruitful negotiations are still ongoing. And that would not be happening if the government remained shut down. The chatter would never have risen above the finger pointing.

Instead, the endgame offers two broad scenarios . One is a deal that overcomes the worst of right wing ideology and paves the way for nearly two million young people to become citizens. The other is, at the hands of Republicans, a defeat for any Dreamer protection legislation. That would be one more clarion call for a congressional realignment in this fall’s midterm elections. Either outcome is better than a protracted government shutdown with both sides accusing the other of causing it.

TRUMP’S SECOND YEAR IS ALREADY IN THE SHITTER

As dawn breaks on a second year of Republican control, our federal government dangles from this binary precipice of indelicate nuance: shitholes or shithouses? Which term did the president of the United States use to characterize third world countries of black and brown people? If this were a movie, now would be a good time to locate the nearest exit and use it. Who wants to watch such garbage? Alas, this is no celluloid fiction. It’s our life, our new reality, a bizarre sideshow of existence that isn’t likely to change anytime soon.

For those fortunate enough to have spent the past few days in a deep coma, here’s a quick recap: Donald Trump met with a few senators in an attempt to reach a bipartisan agreement on immigration. The meeting went badly. According to some participants, Trump kept complaining about having to take immigrants from Haiti and impoverished African countries he called “shitholes.” Instead of opening our borders to, say, “your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”, Trump pushed for a “merit-based” system in which we would take only good, lutefisk-eating white folks from places like Norway.

Well, the shithole hit the fan, causing a cascade of impassioned statements of repudiation from leaders throughout the world, Norway included. Initially, there was no denial from the White House. That’s because Trump surveyed his friends who told him not to worry since his base will love the comment. After a few days of constant heat, however, Trump and a couple Republican senators who were at the meeting said the president’s exact words were not “shithole countries.” That created a narrative that Trump had been misquoted, that he never uttered the word “shithole”. It turns out, according to the Washington Post, that what the Republican senators heard Trump say was that he didn’t want to take in people from “shithouse countries.” A quick review of etymological research shows no measurable differences between “shithole” and “shithouse”.

Yet, this unique linguistic dialectic, together with Trump’s incendiary message that non-whites from troubled countries should be kept out of the U.S., is now threating to shut down the federal government. Congress needs to pass a spending bill by Friday to avoid such closure, and part of that package was supposed to include immigration reform. Some sort of deal may yet emerge, but for the moment the shithole/shithouse conundrum seems to have brought what’s left of governance to a standstill.

Despite headlines decrying the president’s “vulgarity,” his use of a four-letter word for excrement – “s***”, as many news outlets coded it – was not the offense here. What really offended, stung and hurt was his raw, brazen racism and xenophobia driving his position that our borders should be closed to dark-skinned people from poor countries.

No, this is nothing new. Donald Trump kicked off his campaign by calling Mexicans racists. He suggested fighting terrorism by executing Muslims with bullets dipped in pig blood. He has called black people “lazy” and insisted that all Haitian immigrants have AIDS. His complete list of racist credentials takes up far more real estate than is available here. The most astute and best researched analyses of the 2016 election points to racism as the most important factor driving the Trump victory (here, here and here). So why all the shock over Trump calling impoverished black countries shitholes?

Because Trumpism, in all of its vile and despicable manifestations, remains a relatively new phenomena. We still remember and cling to the real spirit and essence of the American ideal: equality, justice, liberty and opportunity for all. There is precious little on the national scene to feel good about today. But, for now at least, we have this: wide spread disgust with a president who vulgarizes those core values that make it possible for America to be great. Let us hope we never reach the point of NOT being shocked, outraged and saddened by the racist words, actions and policies of this president. Trumpism must never be normalized.

There is another reason why many are shocked by what we’ve come to expect and anticipate from our president. It is difficult to process a constant stream of horror in daily White House utterances and tweets. While we struggle to wrap our heads around Trump’s taunt that he has a bigger nuclear button than North Korea’s, we are hit with the news that the President believes himself to be a “stable genius.” Before we can figure that one out, the shithole story breaks. We are so busy processing all this really weird shit, as George W. Bush might call it, we all have different a-ha moments.

Except, that is, for the Republican establishment. It appears that nothing, not even self-preservation, will dislodge the GOP’s shameful and embarrassing enablement of a pathetic, solipsistic, racist president who continues to degrade the party’s brand on a daily basis. Congressional Republican leaders have had a year of way too many opportunities to cut their losses and distance themselves from a maniacal autocrat who never cared a whit about them or their party. Playing word games, and ignoring the broader racist message, won’t save them now. He’s their president. They own him. Let them all be buried in the same shithole.

TRUTH OR CONSEQUENCES? TRUMP DODGES BOTH

Washington is once again awash with talk of presidential falsehoods. One Republican senator decried Donald Trump’s “flagrant disregard for the truth.” Another said the president is “utterly untruthful”. A neutral fact-checking service says close to 70 percent of Trump’s statements it examined were false.

Trump calls his tax plan a “middle class miracle” that will be “fantastic” for workers and make the rich pay more, when it actually does just the opposite. He says former president Obama never phoned families of fallen soldiers, when the record is replete with such calls. Major media organizations have kept a running catalog of the president’s false statements, now deep into four figures (here, here, here and here). Evidence of the president’s estrangement from the truth is so overwhelming, that a substantial majority of Republicans think he is a prolific liar, but still support him.

Yet, the Donald’s problem is not that he lies a lot. It’s that truth is utterly without value or meaning to him. The president is simply agnostic on the subject. Truth and falsity are equally irrelevant in his world. The words that flow from his mouth and Twitter app, are visceral, not factual. They are servants to his limited, binary emotional wiring: they either heap grandiose praise on himself or viciously attack others. It matters not one iota to him whether those words are true or false.

In fact, many of Trump’s falsehoods are not lies. Lying is a conscious act of deception. That means a liar must know the truth in order to deceive an audience with the lie. Think about some of the president’s classic claims: Mexico will pay for it; the New York Times is failing; Obamacare is dead. This is not a guy who methodically determines the truth and then disguises it with a lie. He simply goes with whatever jumps into his head, with whatever sounds good to him, with zero regard for the truth of the matter.

When, in 1972, Richard Nixon said he had no knowledge of the Watergate burglary, he was lying. When, in 1986, Ronald Reagan said he did not trade arms for hostages, he was lying. When, in 1998, Bill Clinton said he did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky, he was lying. These men knew the truth and strategically replaced it with a lie. They were not the only presidents to have done so. But Trump is in a league of his own. Truth does not matter to him. He doesn’t know what it is, and has no desire to learn. This makes him, as noted philosopher Harry Frankfurt observed, a “greater enemy of truth” than a mere liar.

Trump’s former butler, Anthony Senecal, read a published claim by his boss that some of the tiles in the Mar-a-Largo beach club had been personally designed by Walt Disney. Surprised by that revelation, Senecal asked Trump if that was really true. His response: “Who cares?” That pretty much captures this post-truth presidency. The leader of the free world, our commander in chief, the keeper of the nuclear codes, cares not one whit about truth.

Let me introduce you to someone who does care. Her name is Shannon Mulcahy. She is a 43-year-old single mother trying to support herself, two kids, a disabled grandchild, and two dogs in a small town near Indianapolis. Until a few months ago, Shannon worked at the Rexnord factory in Indy helping produce the Cadillac of steel bearings. She’d been there for 18 years. In an interview with the New York Times and the newspaper’s Daily podcast, Shannon said she loved the work as much as she did the good pay and benefits provided by her union contract. Last October, Rexnord announced that it was closing the plant, laying off its 300 employees and moving the work to Mexico. Shannon rushed to her car in the employee lot and started crying. Just like that, her middle class life began to crumble and she had no idea how she was going to support her family. Then came the tweets from candidate Trump, blasting Rexnord by name for “viciously firing all of its workers” and moving to Mexico. “No more,” tweeted the candidate.

Shannon never paid much attention to politics but had voted for Obama. Donald Trump and his tweets captured her attention like no politician ever had. He gave her and her coworkers hope at a time they needed it the most. “All of us were hopeful,” she told the Daily. “A lot of us there at Rexnord was thinking that he could actually step in and stop what was going on there. (If) he’s the president, he can do whatever he wants, right? I mean he’s kind of like a cowboy. He says things that a lot of past presidents wouldn’t say. The way he talked about American jobs and all that, I was thinking this could be the opportunity where . . . you know, a lot of our jobs come back from overseas. That would be awesome.”

So Shannon went political. Trump was her lifeline to a job that put meaning in her life and food on her family’s table. She conducted her own social media campaign on his behalf. She was thrilled when he won and then waited for him to come riding into town on his white horse to save the factory. It was like waiting for Godot. The cowboy never came. The plant closed. In a year filled with disillusion, Trump was just one more hard knock for Shannon. “After he got in there,” she said, “he done forgot about us and we don’t matter anymore.”

Sadly, Shannon, you never mattered to him. Nothing matters to this man except himself. Certainly not truth. His words have no shelf life. They exist only in the impulse of the moment. He makes us all long for the good old days when presidents only lied every once in a while.

IT’S NOT JUST TRUMP – OUR WHOLE SYSTEM IS BROKEN

Our body politic is totally messed up. If a family member was as out of control and dysfunctional as the U.S. Congress, we would have staged an intervention long ago. Could it be that we are so sidetracked by the aberrant, maniacal antics of an unhinged president that we can’t bring ourselves to focus on the much broader problem of a broken system?

It is, after all, difficult to have a serious conversation about realigning the architecture of governance over the constant din of presidential tantrums, tweeted threats of nuclear annihilation and never-ending Russia investigations. Yet, if we step back from the chaos of the moment and examine how we got there, this glaring truth emerges: Donald Trump is a symptom, not the cause, of our problem. It may be hard to remember, but our democracy was pretty out of whack before the Donald landed in the White House. In fact, that’s how he got there.

The heart of our systemic problem is a deep toxicity of tribalism that has coagulated in the veins of our politics, blocking the free flow of creative, constructive, problem-solving solutions. For most of this country’s history, elected representatives from both parties were able to tackle major issues through a rugged-but-productive give-and-take. It wasn’t always pretty, but it worked. All that slowed to a crawl, then to a virtual stop, over the past decade.

A 2014 study examined the productivity of Congress over the years by measuring the number of major issues that body failed to address. It found that the volume of gridlock had doubled since 1950, with 75% of key legislation dying by deadlock. Things have only gotten worse. Despite single-party control of the House, Senate and the presidency, not a single salient issue has been resolved this year. Small wonder that 80% of Americans disapprove of Congress. Even before last year’s election, 70% of Democratic activists said they were afraid of Republicans, while 62% of the GOP said they were afraid of Democrats. That’s a level of hyper partisanship never before recorded or experienced.

Analysts offer a multiplicity of causes for this congressional quagmire. Among them: growing income disparity, free-flow of corporate money in campaigns, racism, and an expanding right flank in the Republican Party, exacerbated by gerrymandered reapportionment and primary battles between the GOP mainstream and the right. On top of those factors, the relative parity between the two parties creates an intense competition. The result is that making the other side look bad is more important than passing productive legislation.

Although this strategic dysfunction set in well over a decade ago, it was not openly acknowledged. That all changed in 2010 when Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell came out of the closet and announced that his top legislative goal was to make sure then-president Obama did not get a second term. It’s been downhill ever since. A new breed of hardline conservatives, ranging from the Senate’s Ted Cruz to the House’s Freedom Caucus, got elected by bucking the Republican establishment. As the Wall Street Journal noted, these folks think nothing of closing the government over the debt ceiling or Planned Parenthood without the slightest expectation of success. Such “unbending opposition,” says the Journal, “is not a means. It is an end in itself.”

It was in that kind of atmosphere, that the Democrats, enjoying a rare bicameral majority in 2010, did something that had never been done in modern congressional history. It passed a major bill, the Affordable Care Act, without a single vote from the opposition party. The Republicans seized the moment, coined the term “Obamacare” and have been staging exorcisms ever since. Obama became the source of all evil for those on the right. Trump didn’t write that script. He just picked it up and went with it. Meanwhile, particularly in the last two years of his presidency, Obama gave up on an intransigent Congress and used executive orders to put as much of his program into place as possible. He sealed a deal with Iran on his own, created a legal status for the dreamers, issued numerous rules and regulations on the environment, and negotiated the Paris climate change pact.

“We have a president,” Trump said during his campaign, “that can’t get anything done so he just keeps signing executive orders all over the place.” Last week, Trump signed his 49th executive order, the most of any president (at this point of his term) in more than 50 years. He has managed to reverse the bulk of Obama’s executive actions. At this moment, Obamacare continues to breathe only through the ineptitude of its would-be executioners.

This schizophrenic approach to governance is not what the founders had in mind. Yes, power needs to change hands at the direction of the electorate, but the entirety of our domestic programs and commitments to other countries has never been discarded en masse. Until 2010, every major legislative package (Social Security, Medicare, Civil Rights, Voting Rights, etc.) was passed with votes from both parties. None of those laws were repealed when control of Congress changed.

Partisanship is an inherent component of our democratic process, but partisanship on steroids, divorced from cooperation and constructive engagement, is a lethal anathema to good governance.

An amazingly prophetic George Washington, in his final address as president, warned that extreme partisanship would lead not just to a revenge-seeking loop between the parties, but ultimately to authoritarianism. Said our first president: “The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to see security and repose in the absolute power of an individual (who) . . .turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.” As if he had the vision of 2017 in front of him, Washington then suggested that this evil of hyper-partisanship will open “the door to foreign influence and corruption.”

Before it’s too late, we need to return to a political system where the needs of the people outweigh the needs of the politicians.

WARREN HARDING IS NO LONGER THE WORST PRESIDENT

It may have escaped your attention, what with Rocket Man and the Dotard flexing for nuclear war, but historians are pretty sure that Donald Trump has already overtaken Warren Harding as the country’s worst president. This has no doubt brought Harding his first good night of eternal rest since dying in office in 1923.

In many ways, the 29th and 45th presidents are starkly dissimilar. Harding drank too much. Trump, in his singular gift to humanity, is a teetotaler. Harding was suave and debonair. Trump is puffy and orange. Harding was known to woo and enchant women with romance. Trump grabs them the wrong way. Harding was prone to honest self-reflection, having once said, “I am not fit for this office and should never have been here.” Trump stares down his massive failures and declares his reign to be “the best presidency ever.”

Yet, both men entered the White House through amazingly similar routes. Malcolm Gladwell, in his best-selling treatise on the ups and downs of intuitive decision making, “Blink”, devoted a section to Harding as an example of the down side. Harding, the author noted, never distinguished himself when he was in the Ohio legislature or the U.S. Senate. Instead, writes Gladwell, a political sponsor pushed Harding to run because he “looked like a president.” Those looks were enough to get him the Republican nomination at a brokered convention in 1920, and, from there, the presidency. The charisma and presidential confidence that voters saw, however, was a mere façade. Harding lacked the capability of functioning successfully as a president.

Although the Donald hardly brought a Mount Rushmore face to the ticket, he had something just as powerful as Harding’s presidential aura. As a blustery business mogul, Candidate Trump was rude, crude and mad as hell. Eschewing all forms of political correctness, he denigrated every minority group imaginable and ripped into establishment elites for coddling them. For a good chunk of voters, it was a different kind of love at first sight. To the disgruntled, disaffected and disenfranchised – mostly older, angry Caucasians longing for the good old days when white privilege actually counted for something – Donald Trump was their Warren Harding. It wasn’t his looks. It was how he acted, what he said, his anger, his persona. He was one of them, their only hope to take a rapidly changing country back. But there was a problem, the same one Harding’s supporters faced: a deep void behind the veneer. There was no substance, intellect or skill to convert an illusion of competence into effective governance.

And so we have, in the ninth month of this administration, a new paradigm of presidential paralysis, a bizarre, needy codependency between the president and his not-so-merry band of malcontents. It’s a vicious cycle of dysfunction, in which Trump responds to each failure with an outrageous act that disgusts most people, but is lovingly devoured, like a piece of red meat, by his faithful base. As a result, he loses support from moderates and independents, while holding on to a “strongly support” base of around 20%. He keeps on stumbling because, among other reasons, it’s hard to move political mountains with that kind of math. And, with each failure, he trots back to his base with another piece of red meat. Rinse and repeat.

For example, take the crazy NFL brouhaha. Trump had been having a bad week. Yet another shot at Obamacare repeal appeared dead on arrival. He took heat for softening on the dreamers and working with Democrats. The right was all over him for backing an establishment Republican Senate candidate in Alabama. So he rips into the NFL for not firing the “son-of-a-bitch” players who kneel during the National Anthem. By all objective accounts, the move was a disaster. Players, coaches and even team owners who had supported Trump, linked arms before Sunday’s games to protest the president’s comments. Predictably, his base loved it, which meant that Trump was ecstatic. “It’s really caught on, it’s really caught on,” Trump said at a conservative White House dinner Monday night. “I said what millions of Americans were thinking.” Meanwhile, days before his NFL rampage, 66% of Americans told pollsters that Trump has done more to divide the country than unite it.

Solidifying the love of those closest to you, even if others disapprove of your actions, can be a commendable personal trait. But it is not particularly useful in the pragmatics of electoral politics. Every recent president has attempted to broaden their appeal, despite loud outcries from their base. George W. Bush’s pro-immigration stance, and his successful push for a Medicare drug program, infuriated his base but drew in more moderates. Liberals are still complaining about Bill Clinton’s welfare reform move that got him more support from the right. Many on the left, including the Congressional Black Caucus, were privately outraged with what they felt was Barack Obama’s failure to do more for the people who helped him get him elected. Yet it was important to Obama to be more than a black president. He, like his predecessors, wanted to expand his support and broaden his base. That’s what makes presidents more effective.

Trump is forever stuck in campaign mode, a one-trick pony who excels at creating outrage just so he can bask in the glory of a shrinking fringe group. He’s had their adulation since the birther days. They still chant “Lock Her Up” at his rallies because nostalgia feels so much better than the dismal reality of failure. Like Warren Harding, Donald Trump fooled a lot of people into thinking he’d make the perfect president. Unlike Harding, however, Trump fooled himself into believing the same thing. That’s why he has to keep performing for his base. Their applause is what makes his act possible. Without it, the curtain will eventually fall.

LAST RUSH TO REPEAL OBAMACARE IS AN ENDGAME ONLY BECKETT COULD LOVE

Samuel Beckett, theatre of the absurd playwright extraordinaire, would have been absolutely enchanted with the U.S. Congress and its over-the-top obsession to repeal Obamacare. Mindlessly repeating actions, completely unattached to any rational or meaningful result, is the heart and soul of absurdist theatre. In one of his early writings, Beckett captured the utter despair and pointlessness of his character’s life with this line: “If there is one question I dread, to which I have never been able to invent a satisfactory reply, it is the question of what am I doing.” Beginning to see the connection to this Congress?

Then, in his critically acclaimed play, “Endgame”, Beckett constructs a dialogue reeling with hopelessness between two characters as they shuffle through repetitive actions totally void of meaning. As they talk, a rat scurries across the floor. Clov says to Hamm, “If I don’t kill the rat, he’ll die.” And Hamm says, “That’s right.” Republicans insist that Obamacare is either dead or is dying, but they are rushing to kill it because, if they don’t, it just might live. Worse yet: it could grow into single payer healthcare. No, it doesn’t make sense. It’s not supposed to. Welcome to Government of the Absurd.

Senate Republicans are just a couple votes away from passing a health care bill most of them don’t like nor fully understand. It is, most analysts say, far more Draconian than the one voted down in July. It will leave tens of millions of Americans without insurance, drastically reduce Medicaid benefits, and remove protections for those with pre-existing conditions. And the list goes on. Republican senators who earlier voted against less egregious versions are either supporting or thinking of supporting this monstrosity. Why? It’s the “last train” available to Obamacare repeal. That’s what a high ranking GOP Senate staffer told Vox this week. Under Senate rules, between now and September 30, Republicans need 51 votes to move that train. Come October 1, it will need 60 votes. With 52 Republicans in the Senate, and a united Democratic opposition, the train isn’t going anywhere after next Saturday.

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) used a different transportation metaphor to describe the party’s dilemma: “Look, we’re in the back seat of a convertible being driven by Thelma and Louise, and we’re headed toward the canyon. . . So we have to get out of the car, and you have to have a car to get into, and this is the only car there is.” Neither of the analogists said a word about what the bill would do for people who need healthcare. That’s because, to Republicans, unlike the motivational posters, it’s all about the destination, not the journey. The destination is Obamacare’s death.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) said he could come up with at least 10 reasons why the bill is bad and should never be considered. Yet, he’s a yes vote. His ringing endorsement is right out of a Beckett script: “. . . Republicans campaigned on this (Obamacare repeal) so often that you have a responsibility to carry out what you said in the campaign.”

Look, Congress has taken its share of slings and arrows over the years. Legislating is a messy process and most outcomes leave something to be desired. But this is a whole new height of absurdity. Senators like Roberts and Grassley freely admit that this legislation, this massive thrashing of our healthcare system, sucks. But they are on board – whether by way of the last train or the only car – because the party has been mindlessly chanting “Obamacare Repeal” for seven years.

The Washington Post’s Paul Kane suggested this week that Senate Republicans made a calculated decision that it was better to fail once more in trying to repeal Obamacare than not to even give it a shot. According to Kane, the August recess was really tough for Senate Republicans, given their narrow healthcare bill defeat in July. They faced, he said, “an unrelenting barrage of confrontations with some of their closest supporters, donors and friends,” all pounding them for not making good on their Obamacare repeal promise. Those flames were fanned, of course, by regular tweets (here, here and here) from President Trump on how disgusted he was with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for not delivering the votes on repeal. A Republican donor in Virginia even filed suit against the GOP on grounds that it repeatedly solicited funds for an Obamacare repeal it couldn’t produce. The suit alleges fraud and racketeering. So the party clings to an obsolete goal.

That kind of bizarre thinking is the result of intellectual inertia. From a Republican standpoint, Obamacare repeal made sense in 2010. For all its faults, it was the most progressive national insurance legislation passed in 50 years. Conservatives understandably wanted to attack it and try to undo it. But that window doesn’t remain open indefinitely. Republicans used it effectively for several years, even leveraged it to take control of Congress. Meanwhile, millions of people were added to the health insurance rolls. There was no discrimination for pre-existing conditions. Adult children were covered by their parents’ policies. For the past year, a growing majority of Americans say they like Obamacare and don’t want to lose it. The Republican establishment, however, has not changed gears. It just keeps forging down the same archaic path, mindlessly committed to repealing a program that people now want.

The best outcome for Republicans at this juncture is that their repeal efforts fail once again. A bruised ego ought to be preferred over the wrath of voters stinging from the loss of their healthcare. It’s a result, however, that can’t be taken for granted. Best to call those Republican senators now and urge a no vote. When they answer, ask them just what it is they think they are doing. See if they are honest enough to offer a Beckett answer: “I have no idea.”

LEADERS WHO IGNORE PROCESS WILL END UP BEING TRUMPED

Donald Trump’s most crippling deficiency as president is his innate inability to understand process. His abject failure to even embrace the concept of process, let alone direct and nurture it, is the main reason for his subterranean poll numbers, a dismal legislative scorecard and a rapidly declining base.

Process is everything when it comes to effective organizational leadership. It’s how people interact, manage conflict, decide and work toward accomplishing shared goals. And therein lies the problem for this president. As the closest thing to a genuine solipsist to ever occupy the White House, the Donald is barely cognizant of other people, let alone able to direct productive interactions with them. He simply doesn’t do process.

Take the latest example: Trump brought crowds to their feet last year by characterizing undocumented immigrants as the scourge of the earth. He insisted that they all be deported and that a wall be built to keep them out. “Send Them Home!” and “Build the Wall!” were iconic chants at his rallies. (Here and here.) Once elected, Trump softened a bit on 800,000 young people who grew up in America after being illegally brought into the country as children. These are the “dreamers” who were saved from deportation by the Obama administration in 2012. Trump’s base spent the past eight months pushing him to pull that plug and send the dreamers packing. That’s exactly what he did two weeks ago. He, in effect, nullified Obama’s order, but gave the dreamers a six-month reprieve, allowing Congress to do what it has been unable to do for two decades: enact an immigration bill addressing the issue.

Then, just last week, Trump, over dinner with Democratic Congressional leaders, supposedly indicated he was ready to support a bill allowing the dreamers to remain in the country in exchange for some border security measures that would not include his infamous wall. And all hell broke loose. Red Trump hats are being torched by their disgruntled owners, one of whom tweeted, “Put a fork in Trump. He’s done.” Breitbart News, the ultraconservative website run by Trump’s former chief strategist Stephen Bannon, called the president “Amnesty Don.” Ann Coulter, a provocateur for all things very right of center and one of Trump’s most steadfast supporters, turned on a dime with this tweet: “At this point who DOESN’T want Trump impeached?”

The president was crushed by the reaction, and has seesawed back and forth on his position ever since, creating the most bipartisan confusion this town has seen since Alexander Haig contended he was in charge of the Regan White House. But Trump brought this turmoil on himself by paying no attention to process. This guy spent 18 months pumping up his xenophobic fan club about all those rotten drugged-up, thieving, raping illegals and now he’s telling them to love 800,000 of them and let them stay.

I learned quickly as a union rep that it was much easier to get a group of mistreated workers up the mountaintop of a contract campaign than it was to get them down again. In collective bargaining, as in politics, you get nowhere without a mobilized base. At the same time, you can accomplish nothing for that base without making a deal that falls short of your campaign rhetoric. Effective leadership means managing expectations and helping your troops slowly descend that mountain. It’s far more art than science, and it requires leaders to prepare folks for gains that are more incremental than revolutionary.

Barack Obama’s 2008 election was a seminal moment in American politics. Against significant odds, a black man promising hope and change was elected president. An enormous crowd gathered in Chicago, chanting “Yes We Can!” while waiting to hear from the president-elect. Obama, an astute student of process from his days as a community organizer, had this message for his cheering supporters: “There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won’t agree with every decision or policy I make as president. And we know the government can’t solve every problem.” Contrast that with this line from Trump’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, “Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it.”

The truth is that this president doesn’t understand the system at all. America is not a sole proprietorship where the owner calls all the shots. Sadly, that is all that Trump has ever known about process. That’s why he is exasperated with Congressional rules, and with votes that don’t go his way. He wants his campaign platform implemented by fiat. Every president does. Trump is the only one who actually believed it would happen. All his predecessors were frustrated by the time consuming process of governing, of listening and talking with others, having to know what buttons to push, when to come on strong and when to back off – the basic nitty-gritty of playing well with others. Yet, they persisted. That’s because they grasped the power of process.

Leaders who ignore process do so at their own peril. Take Lemuel Boulware, for example. As head of General Electric’s labor relations in the 1960s, Boulware decided to dispense with the normal rituals of contract negotiations. He saw no reason to engage in drawn-out meetings and an endless give-and-take. He opened – and closed – negotiations with what was seen then as a fairly generous offer and made it clear that the company would neither change nor discuss it, resulting in a very ugly strike. It also coined a new term in the lexicon of collective bargaining: “Boulwarism”, a take-it-or-leave it proposal that usurps process.

The superhero image of Donald Trump singlehandedly draining the swamp was obviously a successful campaign narrative. Like all superhero stories, it was pure fiction. This country’s founders, the people who actually did make America great, constructed a process, complete with three branches of elected and appointed players. Process is not always pretty, or fast, or easy. Neither is democracy. But it is far better than either Boulwarism or Trumpism.

TRUMP ECLIPSES THE SUN & MOON IN SEARCH OF NAZI LOVE

Forget the eclipse. The biggest astronomical event of the past 10 days has been nothing short of a spectacular, once-in-a-lifetime sighting of presidential time travel. Some 72 years after this country and its allies defeated Hitler’s fascism, Donald Trump saddled up to the neo-Nazis. And, 152 years after Robert E. Lee’s Confederate army surrendered at the Appomattox Court House, effectively ending the Civil War, our president embraced and saluted those who fought to preserve slavery – past and present.

For us aging boomers, this has been a time warp from hell. We grew up with daily news of murdered civil rights workers and KKK lynchings, of frightened black children escorted by armed troops into previously all-white schools. We remember the pain, the fear, the hate. We also remember the powerful forces for change: Martin Luther King, Malcom X, Stokely Carmichael, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Very slowly, things got better. Bigotry never disappeared, but it seemed to move off center stage, and into the fringes and dark reaches of a netherworld most of us rarely saw.

Yet, there they were, more than a half century later, hundreds of them, all white and mostly male, marching through the streets of Charlottesville, waving Confederate flags and Swastikas, shouting vile chants against Jews, blacks, gays and immigrants. It was a convention of wickedness: the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, the so-called “alt-right” and white nationalists, all united in a common bond of white supremacy. Once confined to whispering their bigoted messages through code words and dog whistles, Trump’s election unleashed these hate mongers from their caves and ushered them into the daylight of a world unprepared for a relitigation of basic human rights, dignity and decency.

It was a rare moment of totally unambiguous moral clarity. The bigots represent an evil world view, long ago dismissed as despicable by decent people everywhere. A high school student council president could have easily delivered that message. Donald Trump, however, neither could, would, nor did. Those marchers are part of his cherished base, and he spent days entangled in linguistic gymnastics, trying desperately not to lose the love of those who hate.

It was a huge turning point in this presidency. Trump has always been obsessed with branding, from luxurious high-rise condos, to wine, steaks, neck ties and bottled water. Let the history books note, with unequivocal clarity, that the Trump brand now stands for neo-Nazism, the KKK and white supremacy. Unlike all of the other political issues he has botched with his utter incompetence, petulance and arrogance, this one has legs. The president’s post-Charlottesville moment called for a simple, clear-cut, binary, which-side-are-you-on choice. Trump picked the wrong side. He will forever be the president who brought the Nazis, the Confederacy, and the KKK back from the dustbin of history. He will spend the rest of his life paying for that decision. Rest assured, it will be part of his obituary.

In fact, the ramifications of the president’s moral weakness and waffling have been mounting daily. For example:

• News magazines – in the U.S. and Europe – produced covers showing Trump in either a Nazi salute or some version of a KKK hood.

• Republican officials at every level have repudiated the President’s handling of the Charlottesville march, including at least 23 members of Congress and eight current or former GOP governors.

• So many major business leaders resigned from two presidential commissions over Trump’s remarks that he was forced to abolish both groups.

• All 16 members of the President’s Committee of the Arts and Humanities resigned, telling him: “Reproach and censure in the strongest possible terms are necessary following your support of the hate groups and terrorists who killed and injured fellow Americans in Charlottesville.”

• More than 15 large charities have canceled scheduled fundraising events at Trump’s Mar-a-Largo Club in Florida, all concerned with losing major donors as a result of Trump’s embrace of the hate groups.

• For the first time since the Kennedy Center Honors program started in 1978, neither the president nor first lady will attend, nor will there be a pre-show reception at the White House. That move was made after some of the honorees talked of boycotting the event because of Trump’s recent comments.

Of course, the country has been sharply divided over Trump since election day. Some saw him as the only hope for a very sick system. Others saw him as an emblem that went to the very heart of that sickness. Both sides made credible points. Workers and the middle class have been losing ground for decades, and their needs have been ignored by too many politicians – from both parties. One view had it that only an outsider like Trump could turn that around. The counterpoint: Trump was way too self-absorbed, inexperienced and rich to successfully navigate a meaningful redistribution of wealth. Or so the arguments went.

Charlottesville totally changed the game board. It removed all of the gray, leaving behind only black and white. As the late, great Pete Seeger sang, “Which Side Are You On?” There are no nice Nazis, vintage or neo. There are no good Ku Klux Klansmen. White supremacists spewing hatred toward Jews, blacks, gays and immigrants are worthy of nothing but our deepest scorn. What they represent is, simply and purely, evil. That’s one side. The other side, filled with olive branches for hateful hooligans bearing Swastikas, is the one that Donald Trump chose. That choice tarnished the White House so badly that repair can only come from a new occupant. Until that happens, more than a century of human rights’ gains hangs in the balance. Seeger’s question has never been so easy to answer. Choosing a side right now means moving forward or backward. It’s the difference between right and wrong.

FUELING FIRE & FURY: HOW TRUMP SPENT HIS SUMMER VACATION

It’s too early to tell for sure, but a former Ku Klux Klan Imperial Wizard might have seriously messed with Donald Trump’s concept of what it means to win. More on that later, after a recap of the president’s winning ways of threatening nuclear annihilation.

A few days ago, I suggested in this space that President Trump, as a result of his inability to grasp the difference between a strategy and a tactic, had become the embodiment of what losing looks like. So, why doesn’t he do a course correction, or, in the parlance of organizational change, order a reset? The answer is simple: he is absolutely convinced that he is winning. A win to the Donald is any day that he can see himself as the most important and powerful man in the universe, the only person capable of solving the world’s problems through the sheer force of his strength and will. That, and the adulation of his base through constant public attention, is what winning is all about to this president.

Take nuclear war, for example, which Trump has latched onto like an obsessed teen with a new video game. Military expert Herman Kahn introduced us to the treacherous and dystopian world of nuclear bombast with a 1962 book called “Thinking about the Unthinkable”. Every U.S. president since then has spoken of nuclear devastation in measured and carefully chosen words. Not Trump. Nothing unthinkable to him about the prospect of obliterating millions of people.

With almost manic glee, he warned that North Korea will be “met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.” Two days later, he became the first world leader to threaten war on Twitter, warning North Korea that the U.S. is now “locked and loaded”. Predictably, most sober-thinking adults in Congress were stunned and chagrined by the presidential war mongering. So were most heads of state, including our allies. North Korea responded with a threat to fire missiles at the U.S. territory of Guam, saying, “Sound dialogue is not possible with such a guy bereft of reason (Trump) and only absolute force can work on him.”

As Armageddon anxiety set in, Trump basked in his own glory. He was, after all, winning. At least in his own head, the only venue that matters to him. He argued that millions of Americans are cheering him for his tough North Korea talk. “It’s about time that somebody stuck up for the people of this country,” he told reporters last week.

While North Korea readies its rockets for Guam’s shoreline, the island’s governor, Eddie Baza Calvo, used the right passwords to secure a soulful telephone exchange with Trump. “Mr. President, . . .” Calvo said in opening Saturday’s phone chat, “I have never felt more safe or so confident, with you at the helm.” It was another winning moment for the commander in chief, who quickly agreed with the governor. “You seem like a hell of a guy,” Trump said. “They should have had me (as president) eight years ago.” Despite the fact that that Guam’s existential fate rests in the hands of two would-be nuclear bombers, who together lack anything resembling a full deck, Trump had good news for the governor: “Eddie,” he said, “I have to tell you, you’ve become extremely famous. All over the world, they’re talking about Guam . . . your tourism, you’re going to go up like tenfold with the expenditure of no money. I congratulate you.”

That pretty much captures Donald J. Trump’s life story: get the name out there any way you can, build the brand, then monetize it. To our president, nuclear war is just another profit center. His tough talk is drawing attention, and that keeps his juices flowing. Trump reportedly spends hours a day glued to television news. For an attention addict, cable news is the fix that never ends. According to the Washington Post, the three top cable news networks rarely cover any subject other than Trump during prime-time hours. For this president, Trump-All-The-Time is winning.

But wait, David Duke and his fellow neo-Nazis may have inadvertently punctured the contours of the Donald’s delusional winning loop. Duke, the former KKK wizard, and hundreds of angry white supremacists violently took to the streets in Charlottesville, VA on Saturday. Remember those poor forgotten white guys Trump championed on the way to the White House? The Charlottesville disaster was all about them. One person was killed and 19 others were injured. While political leaders of every stripe immediately decried the protest’s bigotry and racism, Trump, the Twitter insult king, was at a loss for words to describe the repugnant evil of white power nuts, many wearing Trump’s Make-America-Great-Again caps, staging a violent rampage on Virginia streets.

For the first time in his life, Trump tweeted with delicately selected words. He condemned violence generally, but avoided specific criticism of his own supporters, that shrinking base that keeps him “winning” by cheering his tough rhetoric. Even his stilted messaging drew this Twitter response from former Imperial Wizard Duke: “I would recommend you take a good look in the mirror & remember it was White Americans who put you in the presidency. . .” One neo-Nazi web site praised the president for his reaction to the Charlottesville riot: “Trump comments were good. He didn’t attack us. . .No condemnation at all. When asked to condemn, he just walked out of the room. Really, really good.”

This must leave the president highly confused. He rains down insults on his own party’s congressional leaders. He uses graphic imagery to threaten a nuclear holocaust. And he believes he is winning because his base cheers his toughness. But now, part of that base – sheet-wearing bigots and red-caped goons – have slithered out from behind their rocks in answering Trump’s clarion call to make America white again. A stunned and saddened nation looks at pictures of Charlottesville’s death and destruction, waiting for their president to renounce these domestic terrorists. But how does a man renounce part of himself, part of what he created? If he does, who will cheer for his madness? And without their cheers, what becomes of his winning? Forget nuclear war. For Donald Trump, this is the new “Thinking about the Unthinkable”.