Bannon on Trump with Charlie Rose

I had not had occasion to think much about Steve Bannon before now, but given that he left the Trump Administration recently to return to Breitbart it seemed worthwhile to get a deeper insight into the man.  The recent interview with Charlie Rose, parts of which were shown on 60 Minutes provided a good opportunity.  Yes, yes, I know that Rose is a paid propagandist, and he does get irritatingly condescending and contentious at times he does let Bannon speak for himself most of the time.

I come away very favorably impressed by Bannon, and even more favorably impressed by what Bannon says of Trump. Bannon gets one thing absolutely right, and he says it over and over with different words in the interview: the real power comes from We the People.  And he trusts the People to exercise it wisely.  I post the videos below for your delectation.

Did Trump betray us?

Maybe not, according to Scott Adams.  Bear in mind that Mr. Adams is an early Trump supporter who has been very impressed by Trump’s powers of persuasion, persuasion being a topic of particular interest to him.

By the way, don’t forget to come to the meeting tonight at the La Canada Flintridge Community Center, the show kicks off at 6.30 pm.  It is immediately South of Foothill on Chevy Chase on the West side of the street.

Visual Persuasion: President Trump describes border security (a concept) with the word “wall” because you can visualize it. Our visual sense is our most persuasive path for influence. It would be weak persuasion to talk about border security as a concept without a visual.

Simplicity: Border security is a big topic, and the method you use to secure it will depend on the terrain and other factors. If President Trump mentioned all of that complexity each time he talked about border security it would be a big yawn. Simple messages such as “build a wall” always beat complicated (but accurate) conceptual arguments.

Strategic Ambiguity: In hypnosis class we learned to omit any details the subject might find objectionable. Following good form, President Trump doesn’t get too specific about the type of wall he wants. He lets us see the wall that makes the most sense to us.

We see the same strategic ambiguity after his famous dinner “agreement” with Pelosi and Schumer. The Democratic leaders got to announce “no wall” while the President says “yes wall.” The reality is that both sides agree on spending for border improvements, some of which will undoubtedly be wall-ish sometime in the next few years. We citizens get to pick which version of reality we like best: wall or no wall. The ambiguity supports both views. And it is intentional.

Big First Demand: A good negotiator starts with an aggressive first demand so there is plenty of room to negotiate toward the middle. President Trump started his campaign promising to deport every undocumented immigrant. That first demand was so extreme that he has plenty of room to negotiate toward a reasonable center, such as allowing DACA folks to stay.

Likewise, the “Wall” idea is seen by many Trump critics and supporters alike to mean a solid wall for the entire border with Mexico. This was never a practical idea, and candidate Trump said so directly at least once, but he wisely didn’t emphasize the full range of solutions for the border. Now it will seem totally reasonable to build a solid wall wherever border security is most problematic, so long as it is not extended to the entire border.

Thinking Past the Sale: In this case, the “sale” is President Trump’s desire to tighten border security. Now both sides assume the border will be tightened and they are only debating the budget and the details. This is classic persuasion. The President never allowed the country to spend time debating whether or not we wanted better border control. Instead, he made us focus on how to do it. He made the sale before the country thought it had anything to buy.

Trading Imaginary Assets for Real Ones: If we believe initial reports from Pelosi, Schumer, and Trump, there will be some sort of deal for greater border security in exchange for allowing DACA folks to stay in the country. But realistically, the DACA folks couldn’t have been rounded up and deported without a civil war. So President Trump traded an imaginary asset (the idea of deporting the DACA folks) for something potentially real in terms of greater border security funding.

Pacing and Leading: Pacing refers to matching your subject in some way, either physically, verbally, or in terms of philosophy. Candidate Trump paced (matched) his base on immigration until he got elected. Now the base trusts that he is philosophically aligned with them. So if he finds he can’t do all the things they demand, they are likely to let him lead to whatever is practical and doable simply because they trust him on the topic. People don’t expect a politician to be magic, or to do the impossible. But they do want politicians to “get” them and to care about them and to fight for what they want. President Trump paced his supporters by understanding their needs and fighting for them. That group is likely to trust him when he says some form of “This is the best we can do for now.”

High Ground Maneuver: The high ground maneuver involves taking an argument out of the weeds and up to a level where everyone agrees. In this case, the weeds include a discussion of how best to handle DACA folks. President Trump tweeted that some are military veterans. The military is the high ground in the U.S., and any reference to them is likely to be a high ground play. In other words, President Trump is committing to keeping the DACA folks in this country. He just doesn’t want to say it until he gets his budget for border security.

Likewise, at some point soon President Trump will pivot from “the wall everywhere” to “effective border control.” Effective border control, and the job improvement for Americans that might come with it, are the high ground. The details of how to do it are the weeds.

He has a link there to a video where he goes into more detail.

Errata corrigi

It has been brought to my attention that the flyer for the September 2017 dinner talk is missing the actual date of the event.  This is my mistake, and it is a little late to correct the flyer now so I’m putting up this post to correct that error and clarify a couple of things.

  1.  The date of the event is Friday, September 15, 2017.  That’s this Friday.
  2. The time of the event is 6.30 PM.  That is, we get the show on the road at 6.30 in the evening. of September 15, 2017.  We hope to have it wrapped up by 9.00 PM, the evening of the same day.
  3. The Republican Club of the Foothills is hosting the event, therefore please RSVP to the Republican Club of the Foothills, NOT to the La Canada Flintridge Community Center.  The Community Center is the location.  Your host is the Republican Club, if you want to come, let us know.
  4. The phone number on the flyer is not working, I don’t know why.  Just hit “REPLY” to this email and let us now your intentions.  I send all the “I’m coming” replies to the planning committee and they take it from there.

See you Friday, September 15, 2017 at 6.30 PM at the La Canada Flintridge Community Center located at  4469 Chevy Chase Drive, La Canada, CA 91011

 

16 years

Your humble correspondent admits to having been a Democrat for most of my life.  I blame this on JFK’s charisma and Jackie’s loveliness.  Going on 10 years old I vividly remember seeing them (and shaking Jackie’s hand!) at the ambassador’s reception during the 1962 visit to Mexico.  To my young mind he seemed like a god,, radiating some kind of power, and she a demure and graceful beauty; I was captivated.  that captivity was sealed by his brutal death 18 months later.

I remained a captive until the 9/11 attack.

My political awakening began on that terrible morning, as it did for millions of Americans.  I knew what had happened, but it was in investigating the why of it, and the subsequent fallout, that my eyes began to open.  The more I found out the greater the horror, the greater the rage.  America had been made blind and stupid and helpless not by the good intentions of the feckless but by the malice of the corrupt. It was, and remains, one hell of a wake up call.

I formally left the Democratic Party during the run up to the 2004 election.  Two things pushed me over the edge.  The more proximate cause was Barbara Boxer’s re-election campaign.  The one thing, the ONLY thing I saw over and over was she promised to preserve a woman’s right to abortion .  I despise abortion, so that was bad enough, but she didn’t have anything else, just that.  As much as Boxer disgusted me, the other reason was even more infuriating.

For a few brief weeks after 9/11 America unified in the face of the attack and the ongoing threat.  Almost as tragically as the attack itself, that unity did not last.  Shortly after the invasion of Iraq, which the Democrats had supported, the turned against the war en masse, in perfect lock-step.  This was a replay of the 1974 Democratic Congress which refused to honor American treaty obligations to the Republic of South Vietnam by refusing to allocate the funds that would allow them to defeat the North’s aggression.  The horrific consequences of that 1974 betrayal were plain, as would be the consequences of the 2003 betrayal.

It was clear to me that the Democratic Party was the party of treason.  It still is.

With a view to understanding the roots of that, and exploring practical remedies the Republican Club of the Foothills is pleased to invite you to attend:

The next Republican Club dinner talk will be on Friday September 15, 2017 at 6.30 PM.

Featuring John Oliphant speaking on “Draining the Swamp pt. 2.”

Where: NOTE CHANGE OF DAY & VENUE!

Community Center of La Canada Flintridge
4469 Chevy Chase Drive
La Canada Flilntridge, CA. 91011
Tel. No.: 818-790-4353

Catered by: Elser of Ali Catering

Cost: $25/person for members; $30/non-members & non-RSVP; Students, auditors $5

RSVP: rcfoothills@gmail.com or 818-248-4600
PLEASE RSVP NO LATER THAN Wednesday September 13th

Don’t forget to show up and have a great time!

 

September dinner talk – with explanation

The next Republican Club dinner talk will be on Friday September 15, 2017 starting at 6.30

Why this change?  Skip down to So what the heck is going on???

Featuring John Oliphant speaking on “Draining the Swamp pt. 2.”

Where: NOTE CHANGE OF DAY & VENUE!

Community Center of La Canada Flintridge
4469 Chevy Chase Drive
La Canada Flilntridge, CA. 91011
Tel. No.: 818-790-4353

Catered by: Elser of Ali Catering

Cost: $25/person for members; $30/non-members & non-RSVP; Students, auditors $5

RSVP: rcfoothills@gmail.com or 818-248-4600
PLEASE RSVP NO LATER THAN Wednesday September 13th

Don’t forget to show up and have a great time!

So what the heck is going on???

We’re moving again, dammit. St. Bede’s is not going to renew our contract. Turns out that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles has a policy that forbids making Catholic facilities available for use by political groups. Nobody at St. Bede’s knew about this as it had never been an issue before. So why is it an issue now?

You may recall that some months ago some left wing nut jobs were making an attempt to get us kicked out of St. Bede’s. Although the Pastor of St. Bede’s held firm the nut jobs have continued their attacks in subsequent months which brought our situation to the attention of the Archdiocese. What is to be done?

First thing, of course, is to set up someplace else and carry on, which we are doing. Probably a good idea to complain to the Pastor at St. Bede’s about being kicked out, while recognizing that he is not the final arbiter of that decision. By all means complain to the Archiocese about undermining organizations that are mostly in alignment with Catholic social teaching (abortion, marriage, etc.).

There are numerous Democratic Clubs in Los Angeles County some of which may be meeting in Catholic venues. Here is a list of many of those clubs. Your humble correspondent doesn’t have time to research whether any of them are using Catholic facilities in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, but if any of our membership have time on their hands they might form an ad hoc committee to find out with a view to returning the favor and have the rules applied evenly.

More can be done, and I hope to have more specific suggestions for you soon. It would be a fault against justice to allow what has been done to us to go unanswered. We are at war, a war we neither wanted nor, for many of us, even knew we were in. But we know now if we didn’t before. We have two options: fight or surrender.

Never surrender. I’ll see you in the winners circle on September 15th.