By ann summers
The premise of the recent HBS article suggests that the election has encouraged a successful national strategy of misanthropy in the executive branch and that political correctness has greater clarity relative to race, gender, class, among other indicators and has some normative function. It also assumes that cognitive dissonance infects only one dacha.
While officially dismissed in 2010 by Vladimir Putin‘s spokesman Dmitry Peskov, it has been claimed that the dacha was built for the personal use of President Putin, and that its construction began during his first Presidency. Detailed claims about the project, which allegedly made improper use of state resources, were made by Sergei Kolesnikov, a businessman with ties to Putin dating from his time in Saint Petersburg prior to entering Kremlin politics. en.wikipedia.org/…‘s_Palace
In a mediated age, there are no such guarantees or assurances and while a candidacy can be a capitalist commodity product, it is more like the delivery of audiences, however reactionary or vulgar in their range from sacred to profane. Messaging must for Democrats reflect its corresponding public sphere rather than the petty scolding often found in liberal domains. As such there is a natural superiority of democratic humor in its ability to appreciate both nuance and common denominators. RWNJ have shown that they lack the reflection to appreciate irony even in the age of its end.
PEOTUS Kozyr’s strategy of political incorrectness was not as much successful as his opposition was incompetent, and in that context, the opposition had a cumulative advantage’s chance in Hell, however frozen over. The Democratic party had in that sense, a cumulative disadvantage, easily leveraged in an imperfectly competitive market environment for votes. Darn those utils in a liberal democracy.
TrUmp, as his hagiographers or sycophants tell us, does have a sense of task-commitment if only due to his unhinged nature (insert Godwin psycho-history “category” here). Why else would America be not “Great” now, except as a pathological construction, enabled by ‘baggers astroturfed by the Koch Brothers.
His commitment is to being a punk as the anecdotal comments by his father reveal and exhibited by being sent to military school. This HBS article only continues the legitimation crisis normalizing what to date has been more than unethical behavior but illegal acts.
His political correctness is simply the dichotomous GOP version of bigotry that as we have seen festered beneath the imaginary jackboot of PBO and has reemerged in the victory of Orange Gazbag.
That autocracy is now normalized, operationalized, and instrumentalized by a GOP legislative majority at a number of levels and soon to be reified in SCOTUS. Only in the current strategy of tension could true claims be deferred as “post-truth”. Everyday life now is infested with the rationalizations of anti-democratic incivility because a punk will be POTUS* in a couple of days.
What he was doing was creating with precise and relentless consistency an entirely new category in the minds of voters: the politically incorrect candidate. He has since monopolized that new category.
To establish the legitimacy of the category, he made a consistent and devilishly tautological argument: In the category of traditional presidential candidates,
- the politicians are all politically correct.
- When they get in power, they fail you.
Hence you don’t want a leader in that category — you want one in a new category called politically incorrect presidential candidates.
- I have been a huge success in business by being politically incorrect.
- Therefore: political correctness = failure, and political incorrectness = success.
It doesn’t matter whether he consciously set out to pursue that strategy or whether it was the result of his personality and instincts. The outcome is the same in either case…
Because the mind craves simplicity and consistency, the product that feels most comfortable tends to be the one with which people have a long and dependable experience. For example, someone’s favorite Chinese restaurant is their favorite because they have gone there the most often and know the people and the menu and the layout best. Former Procter & Gamble CEO A.G. Lafley and I have termed this “cumulative advantage,” and it is an underappreciated way of attaining sustained leadership in a market…
And because he did it continually during the campaign, he helped voters find him increasingly comfortable and familiar. This is why he never apologizes for his political incorrectness: It would undermine his consistency and be a disaster for him…
…more recently, causing international incidents with China and rebuffing intelligence briefings on Russian hacking, the politically correct thing to do would have been to apologize and attempt to retreat diplomatically from his faux pas. Nope. Instead of showing remorse, he has gone on the attack…
Apologizing would have tossed him back into the “traditional” category, where he would have been an ineffective player, like Carson or Sanders. Instead, political incorrectness piled on top of political incorrectness reinforces the fact that he is in a different category and makes him an ever more familiar member of that category.
When they are doing something that you think is crazy, don’t blame them. They aren’t a “basket of deplorables.” They are your customers…
- Understand why they are buying it and give them a compelling reason to buy yours instead…
- Trump understood that it was essential to keep his competitor from waking up to his strategy, so he worked to reinforce her blindness by unfailingly acting infuriatingly politically incorrect…
- Third, when things don’t go your way, don’t blame your downfall on events outside your control. Every strategist faces these issues; the best strategists learn not to scapegoat them. But what has the entire Democratic-leaning universe done in this case? They have blamed Russian interference.
- She underestimated her competitor until the middle of election night. And there is no sign that she or her team even now understands what really happened.
My view on this matter as a strategist, not a political partisan or pundit, is that Trump’s election strategy was brilliant. He understood that there was only one way to win the nomination against entrenched competitors in a crowded field:
- He had to create a new category and dominate it, building cumulative advantage.
- He understood that there was only one way to win the presidency: He had to work for the entire campaign on being as consistent as possible to become the most familiar and comfortable choice he could possibly become.
- And after all of that, he had to hope for an entirely improbable win, because that was the best he was ever going to get. But an improbable win is still a win.
and Politico attempts to normalize Russian interference
In 1940, as war raged in Europe, British intel officers in New York and Washington worked to elect candidates who favored U.S. intervention, defeat those who advocated neutrality, and silence or destroy the reputations of American isolationists they deemed a menace to British security. Scores—perhaps hundreds—of Americans who believed that fighting fascism justified unethical and, at times, illegal behavior, worked for British intelligence or cooperated with London’s efforts…
While the British government strongly backed Roosevelt, it hedged its bets by working behind the scenes to increase the chances that Republicans would pick a presidential candidate in 1940 who would join the fight against fascism.