There are old pilots and there are bold pilots. But there are no old bold pilots.
There is a storm of bad press for Hillary just now. She polls behind Bernie Sanders; her fans on the DNC are getting criticized by Bernie; Trump and Fox News pound on her daily; the polls show that Trump and Hillary are dead even nationally; Democrats are nervous because Bernie people are openly talking of "Never Hillary".
Worse, the mainstream print and Television media are accepting Trump's frame of what this election is about: "Are you really crooked, Hillary?" "Doesn't your email server give the appearance of hiding crookedness?" " "If you aren't really crooked, why do people think you are crooked?"
I watched closely a couple of Hillary's interviews by Sunday talk show hosts--the most mainstream of mainstream--and my observation was that Hillary is extraordinarily competent. Not exciting, not charismatic. But disciplined. Professional. Poised. Battle hardened.
Cautious Hillary. Leaning back.
I came away from watching these shows thinking I had observed one, and perhaps dispositive, frame in which Hillary Clinton has a great advantage in a matchup with Trump.
In Hillary's case battle hardened means cautious and emotionally guarded. She described herself correctly when she said she was not a gifted politician. It was only OK at TV entertainment. She stayed focused and earnest in an interview that must have been excruciating: sixteen minutes when she could have been discussing taxes, education, budgets, lifting up the middle class. Instead she was asked questions about her email server.
It would have been more entertaining had she bullied Chuck Todd, told him his questions were ridiculous, that he was a male bimbo and that NBC was a basket case and Meet the Press had a fraction of the viewers he had. That's what Trump would have done. But the presidency involves dealing with constraints and opposition: legal, constitutional, economic, foreign. It isn't TV. It is government within a system of checks and balances. Hillary kept her head in the game.
Oregon fans click here for great video
It dawned on me watching this: Every fan of college football has watched a win turn into a loss because some amped up player made a stupid late game defensive hold or a crazy late hit, reversing some game winning play. Hillary on the football field would not make a stupid penalty. Oregon Duck football fans watched a game momentum turn completely with a 14 point swing when an opponent celebrated as he ran in a touchdown and let the ball drop on the one yard line as he began celebrating, allowing the Duck defender to pick up the ball--not yet the sure thing touchdown--and ran it back down the field to a Duck touchdown.
It was just a game. But discipline, self control, and poise matter. Whom do you want in a pinch? Whom can you trust?
Watching Hillary handle 16 minutes of hostile questioning presents that question of temperament. Which candidate has self discipline and experience, with full knowledge of the hazards and constraints of the situation versus. a free spirited, enormously talented, entrepreneurial cowboy, filled with bluster and bravado.
Hillary's opportunity and challenge will be to get voters to realize that they aren't watching TV. This is life and death, the future of their families. It is even more important than whether to let Scotty Pippin make the last shot in a close Bulls game.
What captain do you want in the cockpit if your flight over the Pacific runs into lightning and one of the two engines has shorted out? The battle tested experienced guy, scars and all? Or the hotshot, who says this is easy and it will all work out?
The answer is not totally clear. The passengers in the airplane would prefer the confident voice over the loudspeaker: I know what I am doing. This is easy. This flight will be great. Trump has confidence. Critics note it is unearned and unwarranted, but he is the more confident sounding. I am guessing that the airline company, who has its reputation, its crew and passengers, and billions of dollars at risk when people look closely at whether the airplane should have been anywhere near that lightning storm and whether the pilot knew what to do with a single engine and a thousand miles to the next place to land, would choose the Hillary option every time. They want the cautious, experienced one.
It is an interesting situation. There are more passengers than there are airline executives. Sitting in the cabin I would want to hear the voice saying everything will be great. But after the crash everyone looks at behavior, not confidence. Who was prudent? Who understood constraints and risks? Hillary's challenge will be to demonstrate the value of experience and caution and to show Trump's bravado to be very, very risky.
Leeson: a dangerous employee, it turns out
The Trump style works well in the two arenas where he operates, show business and his own private business. Trump takes risks and humans enjoy the thrill of vicarious risk and danger. Why else watch a trapeze act? Trump is a master at branding--or to be precise, self branding. Voters don't seem to mind his bankruptcies because, after all, they are his bankruptcies.
I spent a 30 year career as a financial advisor. I could easily imagine a career path for Donald Trump. He would have had a fast start. As a master salesman, he would locate and thrill clients. He would be a rising star with a growing client list and tremendous potential, and for a while the person who hired him would look very smart. Then, one day, shortly into Trump's career, all the employees would be called into the conference room to hear management report that, due to demands from the Legal Department, Donald Trump had been fired. He would have ignored some of the million different rules intended to protect clients from over-promises, misleading statements, hazards.
The saying that there are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots is true for financial advisors as well. Sometimes bold cowboys only destroy themselves, but sometimes they bring down 200 year old investment firms. They are exciting hires, but they destroy lives and careers.
(I asked a local restauranteur if would hire Trump, if he could dare send Trump out as the unsupervised manager of a highly visible and important catering job. "Couldn't do it. Trump would get me into trouble, sooner or later, probably sooner," he said.)
It is possible that American voters will choose excitement rather than steady. Some hiring managers do. Trump dominates the story on TV. Hillary is less interesting than Trump. Some voters are frustrated enough to choose "thrill" over "reliable," and figure they have nothing to lose. Hillary will attempt to show they have everything to lose.
The hiring choice belongs to the voters. Do they want the experienced one or the bold one?
 |
| Cautious Hillary. Leaning back. |
In Hillary's case battle hardened means cautious and emotionally guarded. She described herself correctly when she said she was not a gifted politician. It was only OK at TV entertainment. She stayed focused and earnest in an interview that must have been excruciating: sixteen minutes when she could have been discussing taxes, education, budgets, lifting up the middle class. Instead she was asked questions about her email server.
It would have been more entertaining had she bullied Chuck Todd, told him his questions were ridiculous, that he was a male bimbo and that NBC was a basket case and Meet the Press had a fraction of the viewers he had. That's what Trump would have done. But the presidency involves dealing with constraints and opposition: legal, constitutional, economic, foreign. It isn't TV. It is government within a system of checks and balances. Hillary kept her head in the game.
 |
| Oregon fans click here for great video |
It dawned on me watching this: Every fan of college football has watched a win turn into a loss because some amped up player made a stupid late game defensive hold or a crazy late hit, reversing some game winning play. Hillary on the football field would not make a stupid penalty. Oregon Duck football fans watched a game momentum turn completely with a 14 point swing when an opponent celebrated as he ran in a touchdown and let the ball drop on the one yard line as he began celebrating, allowing the Duck defender to pick up the ball--not yet the sure thing touchdown--and ran it back down the field to a Duck touchdown.
It was just a game. But discipline, self control, and poise matter. Whom do you want in a pinch? Whom can you trust?
Hillary's opportunity and challenge will be to get voters to realize that they aren't watching TV. This is life and death, the future of their families. It is even more important than whether to let Scotty Pippin make the last shot in a close Bulls game.
What captain do you want in the cockpit if your flight over the Pacific runs into lightning and one of the two engines has shorted out? The battle tested experienced guy, scars and all? Or the hotshot, who says this is easy and it will all work out?
The answer is not totally clear. The passengers in the airplane would prefer the confident voice over the loudspeaker: I know what I am doing. This is easy. This flight will be great. Trump has confidence. Critics note it is unearned and unwarranted, but he is the more confident sounding. I am guessing that the airline company, who has its reputation, its crew and passengers, and billions of dollars at risk when people look closely at whether the airplane should have been anywhere near that lightning storm and whether the pilot knew what to do with a single engine and a thousand miles to the next place to land, would choose the Hillary option every time. They want the cautious, experienced one.
It is an interesting situation. There are more passengers than there are airline executives. Sitting in the cabin I would want to hear the voice saying everything will be great. But after the crash everyone looks at behavior, not confidence. Who was prudent? Who understood constraints and risks? Hillary's challenge will be to demonstrate the value of experience and caution and to show Trump's bravado to be very, very risky.
 |
| Leeson: a dangerous employee, it turns out |
I spent a 30 year career as a financial advisor. I could easily imagine a career path for Donald Trump. He would have had a fast start. As a master salesman, he would locate and thrill clients. He would be a rising star with a growing client list and tremendous potential, and for a while the person who hired him would look very smart. Then, one day, shortly into Trump's career, all the employees would be called into the conference room to hear management report that, due to demands from the Legal Department, Donald Trump had been fired. He would have ignored some of the million different rules intended to protect clients from over-promises, misleading statements, hazards.
The saying that there are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots is true for financial advisors as well. Sometimes bold cowboys only destroy themselves, but sometimes they bring down 200 year old investment firms. They are exciting hires, but they destroy lives and careers.
(I asked a local restauranteur if would hire Trump, if he could dare send Trump out as the unsupervised manager of a highly visible and important catering job. "Couldn't do it. Trump would get me into trouble, sooner or later, probably sooner," he said.)
It is possible that American voters will choose excitement rather than steady. Some hiring managers do. Trump dominates the story on TV. Hillary is less interesting than Trump. Some voters are frustrated enough to choose "thrill" over "reliable," and figure they have nothing to lose. Hillary will attempt to show they have everything to lose.
The hiring choice belongs to the voters. Do they want the experienced one or the bold one?
No comments:
Post a Comment