Winning through intimidation vs Winning through Leadership | Eastern North Carolina Now

   In an effort to understand the political ramifications of Donald Trump, I stumbled across the problem, which is probably evident to anyone else but me who observes politicians.  Whenever I am trying to resolve an issue in my mind, I usually commit my thoughts to writing which I can review later and debate myself after I have let the emotion of the writing moment subside. This article is the result of that effort. Bobby Tony

   A politician who wants to survive must surf the waves of the voting public's opinion or at the very least of his voting constituency.  We must remember that the practice of politicians is the art of winning.  In that respect it is not much different from the practice of business.  The main difference may be in the way we judge the results of each. Everyone seems to disdain the politician for having a nuanced stance on the issue and wish for the plain spoken tell it like it is  era of Harry Truman.  Then along comes a 2016 "Truman Stylist candidate" and immediately a whole cadre of people are offended and angry about the presentation rather than the underlying basis of Donald's pontificates.  

   Donald Trump is a product of business which depends on results and not style. I have no doubt that he has   read Winning through Intimidation by Robert J. Ringer. A good portion of his book The Art of the Deal is about driving a hard bargain.  In business, the results are quantifiable.  Winning and losing shows up on a financial statement.  You must deal from a position of strength.  You must also have a confident belief in your goal as well as a persistence bordering on stubbornness to achieve your goals.  Those traits can often appear to be arrogant and narcissistic.  Not only can it appear to be, it can be in fact a reality. 

   To be successful in business you do not have to be a 'crook' as some liberals would have you believe.  You have to be able to get results, which many liberals equate, with being a 'crook.'  You see, the liberal mind is pre-wired to think that no one can get ahead without a crooked, slanted, or rigged playing field. But once they are in power, just like the conservatives they began to rig the system to accomplish their goals. But a good liberal always has an excuse before they start a project just in case. 

   The overused cliché from the Godfather has a basis in reality.  "It's not personal, it's just business."  For a long time our laws were designed to keep a level playing field in all interactions between people or businesses.  They were designed to provide a resolution to contractual disputes.  They were also supposed to prevent abuse of rights which were clearly defined in the law (namely our Constitution and Bill of Rights). Generally speaking, the purpose of laws in the American system should be you can do anything you want as long as you don't infringe on someone else's right to do the same.  Granted, we have strayed far away from that simplistic premise.  Many of our laws today are designed to affect outcome rather than equality. In the absence of a majority we have a political party that just expands rights by fiat or pronouncement since very few people want to abuse someone else's rights.

   Society has always been a bipolar reflection of our Human nature.  As with everything else in human psychology, it is a question of degree.  Trump's success in business is the result of swimming in the deep end of the pool with sharks.  That will create a realistic attitude .

   Just by coincidence, I suspect the same is true of politicians and maybe even more so, but they usually are able to create a pretense of empathy for the voters.  The more diverse the district the more nuanced the politician.  That is not a pejorative opinion but just a statement of fact.  The most dogmatic politicians usually have a constituency that is in lock step with their own philosophy.  They can afford to be more transparent.  One of the first rules of engagement is to know your audience.

   Think of it as two concentric circles.  The less overlap the more nuanced your approach.  The more overlap the less nuanced you approach. In politics you only need 50% +1 to get elected.  At the risk of stereotyping a whole district of voters, I would imply that the majority of a voting district's opinions will closely resemble the elected official or the other way around.  How do you think a woman born in Illinois, lived in Arkansas and Washington DC most of her public life chose New York as a potential constituency for a Senate run.  Clinton won the election in November 2000 with 55 percent of the vote to Lazio's 43 percent. Clinton's 2006 victory margin over her Republican opponent (67%–31%).

   To be fair, Ted Cruz's state reflects his position on the issues in above the 50% rule.  Cruz ran for the Senate seat vacated by fellow Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison and, in July 2012, defeated Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst during the Republican primary runoff, 57%–43%.

   Getting elected by a voting public that disagrees with your philosophy requires stupidity on their part, lying on your part, or maybe plain uninformed opinions on the 50%+1. I am making allowances for the dead voters in Chicago, which only come into play in a close election.

   The belabored point is that both politician and businessmen (used in the gender neutral sense – since I am not running for office) play to their audience.  It is natural and normal. 

A VARIED AUDIENCE

A COMPATIBLE AUDIENCE

   Most everyday people live in the real world and thus have strong opinions on the issues.  If they do not they are usually represented by RINO's and DINO's (if there is such a thing).

   So let's just sit back and not worry about the style but worry about the issues.  We have been riding the 'hope and change wagon' for eight years, maybe we should get on the 'results wagon' for a while.  In the final analysis maybe the argument is just between two simple concepts.  Can the government solve our problems or is it the problem.  We knew the answer back in 1980.

Ronald Reagan speech: 'Man is not free unless government is limited'

   If some of the red words above have irritated you, you may be slightly to the left of my circle.  I don't apologize for that, JUST SAYING, another cliche by BT. (CHA-CHING)

Tony Adams July 2016