Blog

Michael Bloomberg is one of the most estimable men in American business. And Michael Bloomberg is one of the most estimable men in American politics. He has not done everything right. But he has done nearly everything right. In business, coming from nothing, he built a great fortune, and is now one of the nation’s leading philanthropists. And in politics, he served as mayor of New York City for twelve years, most with high distinction.

He is, moreover, of singularly even temperament. He nearly never raises his voice. He nearly never engages in needless disputatiousness. And he nearly never resorts to rhetoric even remotely extreme. So, when he made a deliberate decision to go public, to speak as an independent at the Democratic Convention in order to call out Donald Trump as a “dangerous demagogue,” attention had to be paid.

Let’s assume for the moment that being a demagogue is bad, but not that bad. After all, being a demagogue is not the same as being a despot. But being a dangerous demagogue suggests something different. It suggests a slippery slope. It suggests a slide, from demagoguery to tyranny. Bloomberg was suggesting, in other words, that Trump has it in him to transition from being a troubling leader, to being a terrible leader.

Such a transition is not uncommon. History is full of examples of men, nearly all men, who came to power in a reasonable manner, but who in time changed. Who in time became dictators satisfied with nothing less than total control.

Look at China’s president, Ji Jinping. By every account, in the last two years he has gone from strongly resembling an authoritarian leader to strongly resembling a totalitarian leader. Through a brutal purge and a total overhaul of its structures, Ji has transformed the People’s Liberation Army into his personal power base. And, after eroding or even eliminating civic freedoms, he threatened, punished, and finally muzzled most of his political opponents. *

This is not to say with any certainty that if Trump became president, he would go down that same dark path. Among other reasons, America is not China. But Bloomberg did issue a warning. And Bloomberg is a reasonable man who additionally is clever. Very, very clever.

—————————————————–

*Financial Times, July 27the and 28^th, 2016.

Any regular reader of this post knows where I stand. I wish the first woman nominee for American president by a major political party had been someone different. Had been someone other than Hillary Clinton.

But… it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge – not to celebrate! – this milestone.

Additionally it would be remiss of me not to make my position clear. For given the essentially binary choice that I, like millions of other Americans, will face in November, even now I know where I stand.

Who knows what will happen between now and Election Day? What events will take place, malicious or benign? What secrets will be revealed, unsettling or embarrassing? What behaviors will be displayed, contemptible or curious? I certainly do not.

This however I do know. That I will vote. That I will vote for one of the two major party candidates. And that I will not vote for Donald Trump. Whatever my complaints about Clinton, intellectual, psychological, or temperamental unfitness is not among them. About her Republican opponent I cannot say the same.

You know that followership has arrived – followership as a conception as important as leadership – when the tail wags the dog.

That fact that Bernie Sanders has been unable so far to control many of his own followers at the Democratic Convention speaks volumes. This may soon change, even this evening, or it may not. At a minimum it is a reminder to Hillary Clinton that between now and November she is in abject thrall to “followers” on her left flank.

• After being booed off the stage earlier today in Philadelphia, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, leader of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), announced that she was withdrawing from all previously scheduled performances during this week’s Democratic convention. Why? Because her ostensible followers were so furious at her now amply documented partiality  during the presidential primaries, that she could not appear in public without risking her own humiliation – and her party’s conflagration.
• After struggling for four years to save Yahoo as an independent corporate entity, Marissa Mayer finally threw in the towel – she agreed to have the company acquired by Verizon. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Yahoo might have been beyond saving when Mayer took over. Trouble is that one of our most visible women leaders has replicated the rapacious greed for which male executives are famously well known. Evidence is that some of the best paid CEOs run some of the worst companies. Mayer then is no exception. But let’s be clear here. According to the Wall Street Journal, for her labors over her four-year tenure, Mayer “stands to make more than $50 million in compensation if she is terminated as a result of the sale, after earning over $100 million in cash and equity.”
• After pooh-poohing charges made by Bernie Sanders for the better part of the year, that the supposedly neutral DNC was rigged against him and for her, Hillary Clinton has been caught red-handed. Yet again. If you believe that she knew nothing about how the DNC favored her during what turned out a series of stiffly fought primary contests, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

Sad.

When I first started blogging, I had regular posts titled, “Putin Patrol.” Long thought the snake bore watching for what he was doing at home – and abroad.

However, never thought it would come to this. Never thought there would be good evidence that he and one of our leading presidential candidates were in bed together.

A failure of my imagination.

Where did Theresa May go on her first overseas visit since becoming Prime Minister? To Berlin. Properly so, for by far her most important counterpart as head of state is Angela Merkel.

By all accounts their meeting went swimmingly. Merkel was conciliatory toward May, backpedaling from her earlier demand that the United Kingdom negotiate its exit from the European Union as soon as possible. By the time the visit was over, Merkel was conceding that it was “completely understandable” May needed more time to decide what Britain’s “future relationship with the EU” should look like.

Both women seemed bent on stressing the symbolism of their situation. According to the Financial Times, when May was asked her first impression of the German chancellor, she invoked gender. Her reply? “We are two women who get on with the job and want to deliver the best possible results for the people of Britain and Germany.”

Moreover, on the single issue of their greatest disagreement – immigration – they will inevitably be brought closer. May recently reiterated that Britain expected controls on the freedom of movement for EU citizens. And while up to now Merkel has taken the opposite tack – strongly supporting open borders within the EU – the events of the past week will oblige her to modify her position.

Earlier this week a young ax wielding Afghan refugee wounded four passengers on German train. (He was shot and killed by German police.) And yesterday the entire city of Munich went on lockdown until it was determined only one man murdered nine people in a large, local shopping mall and that he was now dead. The 18-year old perpetrator had dual citizenship – German and Iranian. (He died of his own hand.)

Whatever the short term consequences of this week’s events, over the longer term the pressure on Merkel to harden her stance both on freedom of movement and on immigration will grow. Put differently, the context within which Merkel and May are situated will increasingly unite them and decreasingly divide them.

Here are some of the numbers:

Since the failed coup in Turkey last weekend, President Recip Tayyip Erdogan has started to take revenge:

• Some 33,000 members of the military, including 103 generals and admirals, have been detained or dismissed.
• Some 15,000 employees of the education ministry have been suspended.
• Some 20,000 teachers have had their licenses revoked.
• Some 1,500 university deans have been forced to resign.

Let’s be clear here: though the headlines scream Erdogan, Erdogan, Erdogan, such numbers are not his handiwork alone. Ask yourself this: how many people does it take to depose or dispose of 70,000 people in less than seven days?

Here are some of the facts:

• Volkswagen’s current CEO, Matthias Mueller, has been implicated in the use of emissions cheating devices in VW’s diesel cars.
• Volkswagen’s previous CEO, Martin Winterkorn, has been implicated in the use of emissions cheating devices in VW’s diesel cars.
• Some Volkswagen board members have been implicated in the use of emissions cheating devices in VW’s diesel cars.
• Some Volkswagen engineers have been implicated in the use of emissions cheating devices in VW’s diesel cars.
• Some Volkswagen upper and middle level managers have been implicated in the use of emissions cheating devices in VW’s diesel cars.

Let’s be clear here: though the headlines scream Volkswagen, Volkswagen, Volkswagen, this is not an organizational abstraction. Ask yourself this: how many people does it take to execute for so long company policy so obviously fraudulent?

No use obsessing about bad leaders when what we have is bad leadership. When what we have are leaders and followers engaging in wrongdoing by acting in tandem.

Never before have so many leaders been so vulnerable to so many followers. Never before have so many leaders been reactive and so many followers proactive. Never before have single individuals who appear on the surface to be powerless been so powerful.

Some of the reasons why fixating on leadership while ignoring followership is dumb.

Those who insist that women leaders are better at exercising “soft” skills such as communicating, collaborating, cooperating and, yes, unifying, have their chance of a lifetime. Literally. For the future of the European continent lies in the hands of Germany’s longstanding Chancellor, Angela Merkel, and Britain’s brand new Prime Minister, Theresa May. This is not to say that, for instance, the French, Italian, Greek or Polish presidents will be bystanders. Rather it is to say that in this particular drama, the drama that is the future of the European Union, the two leaders who matter most are women.

Though May has been compared to her predecessor, Margaret Thatcher, the comparison is misleading. A much closer parallel is with her current counterpart, Merkel. Both women are the daughters of clergy. Both women are in marriages of longstanding. Both women are childless. Both women have leadership styles that are efficient and pragmatic, highly disciplined and hard-working, and so sober and steady as to verge on the downright dull. Finally, both women are centrists, ideologically and temperamentally.

Ironically, the single exception to this general rule could be the sticking point between them – immigration. By admitting into Germany in a period of about one year one million mainly Middle Eastern refugees and asylum seekers, Merkel deviated dramatically from a lifetime of political caution. Trouble is that this is the issue, immigration, on which May will be obligated to take rather a hard line. For as the result of the recent British referendum attested, it is this issue, arguably more than any other, that matters to May’s constituents. Fear of immigrants is why the Brits voted to exit the European Union rather than to remain.

So Merkel is invested in comparative hospitality to immigrants, while May is invested in comparative hostility to immigrants. But… both are also invested in the future of Europe. In Europe more united than divided. In Europe more peaceful than tribal. In Europe more prosperous than penurious. In Europe of the future – heaven forefend not Europe of the past.

Interested in women and leadership? Get a ringside seat!

In my 2012 book The End of Leadership, was a chapter titled “Technological Imperatives – Losing Control.” The point of the chapter was that information technologies were changing the balance of power between leaders and followers. Social media were distributing information, enabling expression, fostering connection, and inciting action – all of  which were enfeebling leaders and empowering followers.

Then vision became part of the equation. Once cameras began to bear witness, on the spot and in real time, followers had leaders, authority figures, in an even tighter vise.

Turns out that under certain circumstances confrontations caught on cameras bestow power on the previously powerless. Two years of violent encounters between black citizens and police officers – caught on camera – changed the dynamic between them.

• In 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri, it was video filmed by a bystander that showed Michael Brown lying in the street after being shot and killed by a police officer.
• In 2014, in Cleveland, Ohio, it was a surveillance video that showed a police officer firing at 12-year old Tamir Rice at close range. Rice later died.
• In 2015, in Pasco, Washington, it was a cellphone video that showed Antonio Zabrano-Montes running away from police officers when they shot him fatally.
• In 2015, in North Charleston, South Carolina, it was again a bystander who filmed an officer shooting Walter Scott in the back as he ran away. Scott was pronounced dead at the scene.
• In 2015, in Prairie View, Texas, it was a dashboard camera that captured a state trooper stopping Sandra Bland for a traffic violation. A confrontation between them escalated. She was arrested – and later found dead in her jail cell.
• In 2015, on the campus of the University of Cincinnati, it was an officer’s body camera that captured him shooting and killing Samuel Dubose during a traffic stop.
• In 2016, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, it was a cellphone video that showed Alton Sterling being tackled and held by police officers. Gunshots were heard, Sterling died at the scene.
• In 2016, in Falcon Heights, Minnesota, a front-seat passenger captured on camera the police shooting of Philandro Castile and streamed live near the entire episode.

Because of new video technologies at least some of what was covert now is overt. Because of new video technologies at least some very old grievances are at long last being addressed. Because of new video technologies at least some without power and influence have acquired some power and influence. Seeing is believing.