First Comes the Facts, Then Comes The Story

One portion of Glenn Simpson's Senate Judiciary Committee testimony of August 22, 2017 about the research performed on Trump/Russia in 2016 caught my eye:

"Generally speaking, when we do a research project for a new client and they ask us -- you know, they explain, you know, what situation they're involved in, if it's a lawsuit, for example, or some other dispute, a lot of what we do is related to disputes, they say -- you know, we say we will conduct an open-ended inquiry that's not goal directed and the results of the research will guide whatever decision you want to make about how to use it. So the range of possibilities with, you know, research are you could file a lawsuit, you could put it in a court filing, you could take it to a government agency, you could give it to Congress, you could give it to the press, but you don't really prejudge, you know, how you're going to use information until you know what you've got. So we generally don't let our clients dictate sort of the -- you know, the end result of things because we don't think that's an intelligent way of trying to do research and, you know, a lot of what we do is decision support. Your clients are frequently trying to make a decision about how they want to proceed, whether they want to -- you know, if someone thinks they've been defrauded, you can file a lawsuit, you can go to the police. You would decide that based on what you find out about the, you know, evidence of a fraud. So that's generally the way we do it."

As a former consultant, I can say that makes perfect sense. The skill set of Simpson, himself a former reporter, to research and uncover information, to understand and compose a sensible, meaningful narrative derived from the credible details differs dramatically from the skill set to take facts, cherry-pick the ones that can be twisted to serve your purpose, ignore the inconvenient facts, and compose a false and misleading narrative. The latter is not consulting. It's marketing - and, when it is all lies, distortions, and false accusations, a pretty dismal form of marketing at that.

What is astounding in the current environment is that:

-Republicans in Congress can get away with trashing Steele and his work without completely betraying their awful gamesmanship, or that

-Trump maintains support of any Republicans besides the newly engaged "deplorables" of the 2016 campaign, based on his long history of lies and distortions and composing false narratives.

The 'Better Than Ever' Future of the Democrats

Recent articles in politics have suggested that Democrats have failed in their messaging and need to improve. A few weeks ago party leaders rolled out the new slogan "A Better Deal" which was received with much harrumphing. (Democrats Struggle to Sell A Better Deal) But why?

David Leonhardt delved into this issue in Democrats Still Need a Story, asking readers to come up with A Better Slogan. He received 1,200 responses and collected the best ideas: A New Democratic Slogan? Your Choices. And these really do sound like the best ideas as ideas go.

I would argue that all of these "good" ideas are doomed to failure for many of the same reasons that the Candice Bergen character's best idea fell flat in "Starting Over" after her husband divorces her and then takes up with another woman. The performance of the song "Better than Ever" could be played as is at the next Democratic convention (sorry for the darkness):

Democratic strategy fails because it is so difficult for people to understand the thinking of other people who do not reason the way they do.  Rational, analytic thinkers often have difficulty understanding the minds of conservative, intuitive people. The Dems believe that they just need a better message to get through so that voters will focus on policy that will benefit them. But many instinctive people vote based on trust and they trust people who think and talk like they do and mistrust people who do not. These conservatives vote for a person, not a policy outcome. Policy is complicated, but deciding if you like a person is simple.

I think back to the political arguments my late mother had 40 years ago with her father who worked as a member of the Teamsters in the trucking industry before he retired in 1967. She would argue that FDR's policies were responsible for his Social Security which he should appreciate. Without Social Security, he would have negligible retirement income. But he was not voting based on policy or the personal impact on him . He knew who he liked and it was not the Democrats. He liked Jimmy Hoffa despite the meagerness of his own Teamsters pension. And despite Hoffa's obvious corruption. 

Trump brought a slew of new irrational voters back into the political process - people who had given up on hearing candidates who spoke and thought just like they did. And no one is suppressing the ability of these white voters to cast their votes. Republican strategists want these voters to remain engaged and actively voting.

No, the Democrats will never get through to these people with policy arguments, no matter how clever the messaging. 

Democratic strategy needs to focus on fighting voter suppression and inspiring the Democratic base. Maybe a better than ever slogan would be "Vote or Die - It's Up to  You". (Late update. Oops, apparently Vote or Die is already taken. You get the idea.)

Memories of Killenworth

The Obama administration action to shut down Killenworth, the Russian country manor in Glen Cove, N.Y. brings back memories of the Cold War. According to news stories about local reaction, some residents had no idea the Russians even owned the facility, but in the late 1950's and 1960's, it was the talk of the town. The Soviet delegation to the UN was known to unwind there. We would drive past from time to time and peer at the compound hoping to catch a glimpse of the enemy. The Pratts had owned this house and the Pratt name was well known in the area for multiple estates and their contributions to charity. So there was something eerie about the takeover of one of those estates by the Russians, even if it was a simple purchase. Read more.

Veterans Day 2016

Veterans Day brings many thoughts to mind, especially this year, but often in unusual ways. If I see an article in the business section about the importance of folks in their early 20's negotiating pay increases that they deserve - lest they miss out and be underpaid for a working lifetime, I think about the 5 years of annual pay increases my father must have missed in 1940-1945 fighting in the European theatre. No, not really. His unit, the 110th Antiaircraft Gun Battalion landed at Omaha Beach on D-Day+1 June 7, 1944 and after that battle participated in the liberation of Paris, the Battle of the Bulge, the bridge at Remagen, and witnessed the death camps. Their experience is memorialized in a book. There is much more to the story, told and retold many times in the following decades, but those soldiers were usually reluctant storytellers.

The story has changed. The small beginnings of marches this week bring back memories of April 24, 1971, the march on Washington to protest the war - 200,000 strong.

Life was different then. Long distance phone calls were expensive, so communication by overland mail was common. A classmate from high school had written by letter that she and a group of friends were heading to DC for the march against the war. Everybody who was against the war was going. Chip, a friend from home, headed down to join me to hitchhike from central NJ to DC. By luck, we were picked up on Route 1 within 20 minutes and driven to a spot just outside the city. They pointed to a spot where we could pick up a bus and head down to the mall. We headed to the spot on the mall where my classmate had drawn a big X in her letter. It seemed unlikely but in full view of the Lincoln Memorial by the reflecting pool we found her and her friends - no smartphone, no texting. Within minutes the crowd began the march in the direction of the capital. Though completely peaceful, the movement of wave after wave of people was not completely manageable. At one point I was close to a crush of people who were being pushed by opposing waves of marchers toward a lone car parked by a tree off the roadway. One person ended up on the car and others followed. Suddenly the car had several people on it and the roof began collapsing. No one was hurt, but I was surprised the car collapsed so easily. Roof reinforcement came later.

We were quickly separated from the group in the massive crowds, but we kept running into people we knew. Classmates in college who I recognized from campus walkways and classes, but did not know. Other high school friends and acquaintances. Unknown to me at the time, John Kerry had testified before Congress that week against the continuation of the war.

We often hear that our society is more polarized than ever, but that is not exactly right. We were polarized in our worldviews back then, but government still functioned because polarization existed within each party, not between the parties.

The prosecution of the Vietnam War exerted an enormous strain on the system in the late sixties and early seventies. The rift in society was sometimes simplistically expressed as a split between those over age 30 and the young people - "Don't trust anyone over 30" was the refrain, only half in jest. The idea that young people today - the millennials -- will carry the torch for a new generation sounds plausible, but we face an uncertain future and a few very turbulent years in front of us.  Many of those "under 30", back then, especially those attending college, talked about "the revolution" without knowing what that meant or how it was going to happen. But the idea was that, despite setbacks, the rights of and respect for women and minorities would continue to expand. One of the people we ran into at the march, I recognized from gym class. The next year he founded the first gay rights group at the college. So in many ways, the battle for the rights and dignity of peoples never ends.

The war had been prosecuted by a combination of volunteers and drafted soldiers, but an  all-volunteer force was on the way. Coincidentally or not, April 1971 marked the start of Project VOLAR (Volunteer Army) at select army bases.

In today's world, its hard to imagine the many pathways that existed to face the issue of the war. Many young men volunteered to fight for their country, but for others the purpose of the war was unclear and was considered crucial. By the time of the Tet Offensive of 1968 the determination of the enemy of our troops was clear, but the strategic relevance of "winning" to the U.S. was not. Other young men found ways to resist the draft the way some people resist taxes today, but situations and approaches differed.

At the height of the killing my oldest brother completed his undergraduate college studies, placing him in 1A status immediately, prime for the draft. Technically he had health issues that probably qualified his exemption, but he was essentially young and fit and did not want to play that game. He was drafted, but was lucky enough after basic training to be sent to the large American contingent in Germany (West Germany).

In the mid-1960s, one strategy to avoid the draft indefinitely involved continuing directly from undergraduate to graduate studies and then marrying immediately. As the war waged and many soldiers died, the popularity of this technique surged. The key requirement was to maintain continuity of exempt status. Any lapse, however brief, could mean being drafted. This loophole of sorts was tightened at some point.  Making the sacrifice of pursuing graduate study, whether or not truly interested, and getting married, whether or not truly interested, was a sacrifice many were willing, like Dick Cheney, to make.

The U.S. Army National Guard route was popular as well. In the 2000s, joining the National Guard has often meant being sent to a dangerous war zone, despite gender, marital status, and, for women, having young children. In the 1960s war, the opposite was true. The National Guard was a popular escape route for those who were otherwise certain to be drafted. National Guard service meant never having to go to Vietnam to get killed. The only sacrifice was the requirement to show up from time to time. It was well known at the time that those who were well connected could jump the line to get into the National Guard. Later we learned that those who were well connected did not even have to show up.

My other older brother, younger than the first by 4 years, was swept into the birthday draft lottery which existed only for a few years. His number was 9 out of 365, which meant he was sure to be drafted as soon as he graduated college. By that time, he solicited and received a note from his ophthalmologist that his "conical cornea" should exempt him from the draft. I still don't know what that was -his vision never seemed impaired, but he did need glasses, It worked. He escaped the draft.

I was younger by another 4 years. The draft lottery continued. I was number 143, in the gray zone of the middle third. Lowest third - definitely drafted. Middle third - maybe, maybe not. Highest third - not drafted. By the time of college graduation in 1974 when the student deferment lapsed, the draft had ended. One classmate was my age though a year behind in college. That made him draft eligible. He was drafted and pulled out of college for a two year stint, and also headed to Germany.

So, on Veterans Day, which is intended most to recognize those who served, while Memorial Day was intended for those who served and died, I think about those who served and am grateful. But I also think about the different challenges in different eras and the ways we find ourselves sometimes on the same side, or different sides, as battles rage - hot wars and cold wars, and the constant threat we live with that cold wars may become hot.

Bring the Boys home was the demand in 1971. The primary argument against that was that U.S. troops had to stay there to protect the U.S. troops that were already there, which made no sense. Even then, arguments that were nonsense were used as a method to put a clean stop to meaningful discussion, so the current problem is nothing new.

In America the time may come again for similar marches on Washington as the battles continue. In 1971 we marched because we had no other way to send a clear message to the Congress and the President that the war they were waging lacked a clear objective and needed to end.

Like Father Like Son

During the late 1970s, 60 Minutes on CBS was in its heyday with an expanding audience in the pre-Internet world, but my father stopped watching out of disgust. At first I did not understand. The 60 minutes crew would investigate an issue, find out who was the bad guy and, on camera, trip up the bad guy in his or her own words. Of course, 60 minutes always won. The designated bad guy often stumbled on camera, caught in his or her own apparent lie. Or, the bad guy's smooth response would be followed immediately by a blanket statement of fact by a 60 minutes correspondent or a hired outside expert for the show, explaining why the statement you heard from the bad guy was false. The power to edit is the power to destroy, and 60 minutes was not afraid to exercise that power. The star prosecutor of 60 minutes in those days was Mike Wallace, who continued on the show until 2006. He became famous for this brand of "gotcha" journalism. So I started to understand something was wrong with this "unbiased" approach.

Another popular correspondent on the show was Ed Bradley, who was to speak at a conference I attended in the late 1990s. The TV show's gotcha tactics had become somewhat controversial by this point and I looked forward to Bradley's explanation and defense of their methods. Bradley's most telling point was that 60 minutes was "trying to tell a story, that's all." This was startling. I thought for sure he would say they were searching for some intrinsic truth, deep understanding, or whatever. In the end, the message was clear. Do not watch 60 minutes as a search for truth. Watch for a great storytelling.

Having seen the mainstream media continue to struggle with their appropriate role when reporting on politics over the past three decades, the takeaway is clear. They are great storytellers. That is their role.

Ironically, one of the key media moments of the current campaign was the exchange between Chris Wallace, Mike's son, and Hillary Clinton regarding the Comey report and Comey testimony before Congress. Anyone watching his prey backed into a corner would have to agree - Dad would be proud.

The Plumber and the Pipefitter

or What I Learned In College

People often ask what you studied in college, but no one asks what you learned. I tell people I studied economics, but this is what I learned.

The senior year housing situation was great. My five roommates and I took two adjoining three-room suites in a neo-gothic style dorm in a great location. Turning one of the living rooms into a bedroom meant that we had created a shared 6-room suite where each of us had a single bedroom for 5/6ths of the year and only had to share a large bedroom with a roommate 1/6th of the year. All was right with the world.
But things soured within the first few days of September - scalding hot water started to drip from the ceiling in the living room and hallway. We called dormitory services to complain and a plumber arrived that day. The plumber took one look at the problem and said, "You don't need a plumber. You need a pipe fitter."
"Huh? What's a pipe fitter?"
"A pipe fitter fixes steam pipes. This isn't hot water. It's steam that is condensing to water and dripping from the ceiling. He needs to repair the steam pipe."
So we called back dormitory services and, with scalding hot water still dripping from the ceiling the next day, a pipe fitter arrived. The pipe fitter took one look at the problem and said, "You don't need a pipe fitter. You need a plumber. This isn't steam. This is hot water."
Suddenly the thoughts of a luxurious living in a six-room suite seemed like a far off dream.
Fortunately, the plumber returned and investigated with greater diligence, discovering that a nail was used to hold down a carpet on the floor above us many years ago and punctured a water pipe. The nail had sealed in the pipe, but was finally leaking. We had little disruption to our lives after that while the floor above was ripped apart to reach the pipe, make the repair, and put down the new flooring.

What did I learn?

When evidence first presents itself, it can be misleading. Making causal inferences is tricky business.

1. Dealing with an urgent matter puts pressure on finding the root cause - leaving no place for wishful thinking.
2. An expert may be wrong.
3. An expert may benefit in his own field of expertise from an expert in a completely different field due to the different perspectives and ways of thinking in that field.
4. If experts from different fields talk to each other, and listen, there is a greater likelihood for success.

It turns out that collaboration of experts from different fields has become all the rage. I attended my 40th college reunion a couple of years ago and attended a seminar on developments in neuroscience. This time I learned that neuroscientists had recently begun to make major unexpected strides in their field derived from collaboration with computer scientists and engineers.

So happy to report the plumber and the pipe fitter aren't the only ones talking to each other these days.

The Fifth Dimension

As a teenager in the 1960s, I was at one point confined to bed convalescing from an illness during the summer and needed to keep myself occupied. We had a shortwave radio, so I roamed the airwaves to find broadcasts from different countries in Europe and Asia.

I especially enjoyed  listening to Radio Moscow, which was beamed to the U.S.  The endless stream of propaganda was fascinating. Russia had their own inventors of the light bulb and other modern devices. In fact, the Soviet Union was apparently superior in all respects. How did I recognize the propaganda? After all, I could not prove who invented the lightbulb and I was not in a position to observe the Soviet Union directly. But I did know I lived in an open society that really did have freedom of speech and of the press where I was told the truth about the Soviet Union. After all, the U.S. and World War II allies had withdrawn from German occupation while the Soviet Union had maintained control of their occupied territories throughout Central and Eastern Europe. So there was asymmetry between  U.S. and NATO allies vs. the Soviets, not two equal and opposite opponents who were just two sides of the same coin.

Aside from my textbook knowledge of world history, I also observed patterns of behavior of the radio personalities. The Soviet Union was always so wonderful. Never a discouraging word. Bursting with national pride. And never mistaken. Never in doubt.  I could not imagine that the Soviet propaganda machine was fooling anyone and wondered why they kept trying with these transmissions.

Today's New York Times opinion piece The Age of Post-Truth Politics made me think of that Soviet era propaganda. The article argues, vaguely, that there is too much data to sift through these days, too many facts available and therefore people can choose themselves what they wish to believe, which encourages conspiracy theories.

Any consumer of news programming can discern the style and behavior patterns of a reporter who is searching for truth from someone who is searching for “facts” to support their ready-made conclusions. And if that behavior includes ever-changing lines of attack against a political opponent without evidence, maybe serious skepticism is in order. The problem today is too many viewers who are happy to be fooled, not too much data or too many news sources. The willing believer will not be persuaded by better communications as the NYT piece suggests with Brexit politics as the example. The author seems to regard our current state as a confusing universe, similar to the alternate realities where ordinary folks found themselves in the 1960s TV mystery "The Twilight Zone."

Count me unconvinced.