Larry D. Lauer

Instead of improving our overall ability to better understand each other, the recent 24/7 social media revolution unintentionally created a ripe breeding ground for confusing and often quite hostile political and issue polarization.

It eventually became very clear to me that in this emotionally charged world political ideology actually was contributing very little to serious problem-solving. And it also became clear to me that governing was becoming hopelessly combative. Now it seems that finding reasonable ways forward will require commissioned groups of experienced experts and honest citizens working constructively together.

Obviously, this has not happened. Instead our political system has degenerated into information warfare. As viciously negative advertising and political district gerrymandering became successful in getting people elected, the sad consequence of all this fighting has been the destruction of public trust.

When President Trump established uncompromising expectations related to industrial regulations, climate change, free trade, immigration, tax cuts, the justice system, and traditional institutions of government, he was certain he could dictate it all. And his continuing lies, bullying, personal attacks, war provocations, and admiration of autocrats, are clear examples that he aims to use “by any means necessary” to achieve his ends.

We have also seen this same anything-goes attitude play out in Congress. Extreme House Republicans tried to protect the President from ongoing misbehavior investigations by attacking the integrity of the investigators with a selectively worded and conspiracy-inciting report. House Democrats have now responded with their own selectively worded counter-report. Ends by any means necessary is also now commonplace in Congress.

In the wake of the recent high school shooting in Florida we are seeing the NRA resort to potentially destructive means. They broadened their rhetoric way beyond a rational case for hunting and self-protection to viciously attacking the patriotism of every different-thinking person. If it continues, this level of outright fear-mongering can easily lead to country-wide culture wars… and much worse.

Evangelicals on a bus in Israel were asked why they supported the president. Constant lies and immoral behavior seem contrary to traditional Christian teachings. Their response, however, was that the Bible says Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel and this president is God’s way of bringing that about. As for the president’s character and immoral behavior, Jesus forgives. So ends justify means here as well.

But ends never work out as perpetrators originally imagined. And their means are what become the substance of our everyday lives. Today extremists are appearing everywhere. Most have a fear-mongering purpose. They include Russian agents, racists of all kinds, political extremists, political action committees, and even grassroots patriots with narrow interpretations of the U.S. constitution.

A constant daily diet of  “by any means necessary” has the potential to destroy civic society. If the president and congress would only commission work groups of genuine experts and experienced citizens to find real solutions to real problems we might eventually find a rational way out of some of this mess!

Read Full Post »

In our 24/7 emotionally charged media intensive and divisive society, can an increase in violent citizen behavior become encouraged by the tone and style of top leadership?

Here are a few leadership communication dynamics lessons:

Anger begets anger… My rocket is bigger than yours. My military parade is more intimidating than yours. My language is crude and belligerent and you can talk that way too. I can bully people, and watch me to see how to do it. Or, I can threaten violence, and you might be able to justify it sometimes too.

Give yourself some politically neutral space and it becomes pretty clear that mean-spirited behavior can multiply many times over in followers. Call someone an enemy and they will likely become dangerous. Lead with an intolerant personality and you will likely increase intolerance overall.

Lies beget more lies. Cheating begets more cheating. An extravagant leader in lifestyle spending models and encourages that in others. Make promises you can’t deliver on, and your colleagues will too. And all this encourages a preferred social class that squeezes the sense of well-being out of others.

What’s most dangerous is that an arrogant air of superiority in a leader can produce a fantasy movie-like image of an “outlaw (reality show) celebrity.” Those who are moved to model that behavior might seek that same kind of celebrity by attacking violently, or shooting up a school.

More and more and bigger and bigger guns become a part of the culture in a nation growing in intolerant extremes. And that is where outlawing military style automatic weapons in the hands of citizens in no way harms hunting or personal protection, and is therefore not a violation of the second amendment. It is only devastating to the profits of their manufacturers.

On the other hand, tolerance, empathy, and fairness are also contagious qualities of leadership. Why, you ask, would anyone think Oprah would make a good president?  In this climate that’s simple. They think she would be fair, bring people together, surround herself with real professionals, and quickly learn what she does not know about the job. Right now that “trumps” what we have.

Read Full Post »

Strategic use of media provides effective tools for finding and communicating an authentic brand identity and clarifying competitive advantage for both institutions and nations. But media tools can also turn rogue and be used to literally destroy the credibility of an opponent. Such unbridled nastiness is currently infecting our political parties, where winning at all cost has become the dominating purpose.

Attacking opponents begins with cherry picking bits and pieces of information specifically to raise questions about an adversary’s integrity. Then endlessly repeating those bits and pieces creates an overall conspiracy aura that begins to sound true… much the same as outright lies begin to sound true in today’s confused world. What’s tragic is that the truly transparent institutions are the ones that make themselves most vulnerable to this kind of cherry picking.

Right now in Washington a group of mean-spirited legislators, obviously concerned about the eventual outcome of an investigation of the president, have constructed a document specifically designed to destroy the credibility of the investigators. Whether or not this is a clever military-style initiative or a totally immoral act depends on where you stand on the issue of “ends justifying means.”

Making matters more dangerous, the most nasty of strategic attackers will poison the situation by adding conspiracy-reinforcing terminology. For example, hearing that a few investigative staffers were meeting after work one current legislative attacker used the term “secret society.” Use of misleading and inflammatory language such as this is the height of strategic “dirty tricks,” and is deceitful and dangerous.

Sadly, average citizens are likely to be seduced by the daily news media input they have chosen. And there are hundreds media platforms today that are not fact checked and have consistent biases. A few may even join in generating fake news because doing so advances their own political agenda or commercial goals.

Finding reliable information in today’s clutter and confusion is all but impossible. It takes time and persistence. Maybe widespread media literacy and civics education in schools and community organizations is necessary to help news consumers read, listen, watch, and form opinions more skillfully. One thing is certain: There is much more clutter and confusion to come.

Read Full Post »

This essay has nothing to do with partisan politics. It is about how self-centered and hateful communication can screw up everything, especially governing.

We have a president who uses attacks as ways to force deals. He doesn’t negotiate them. He makes demands with no plans in hand, or even the vocabulary required to explain them. He uses an autocrat’s style, transparently driven by a relentless “it’s all about me” ego. Even when he reads a thoughtful script written for him, it’s clear that this uncomfortable “reader” is not really him. And so the fear of what he might say or do next continues.

At the same time, elected officials have created a vicious competition-based legislative process that has become so entrenched there seems to be no other way they can try to do business. The result is severe polarization, extreme thinking, and an overall meanness that has made too many legislators blind to the horror they have created. For the most part, both major political parties are now talking only to themselves internally, making each other believe that their extreme ideologies are best for everyone. All it takes is standing back for a second or two to know that problems just don’t get solved that way.

The result in Washington is a mean-spirited environment, and a totally confused nation. A deluge of negative and contradictory stuff just keeps coming every day from the White House, from legislators, from special interests, and from the news media. And try as they might to sort things out, the 24/7 news media also ends up adding more clutter than clarity.

Finding and communicating simple truth in the midst of overwhelming clutter is almost impossible. There certainly are many good people trying to do it. But in a churning sea of turmoil even top experts can’t agree, constant lies begin to sound true, and the ongoing build-up of clutter continues to confuse. Our only hope is that somehow responsible fact-hawks will persist and endure, and their never-ending determination will sooner or later enable truth to break through.

With the incredible cost of hurricanes Harvey and Irma, frequent nuclear threats from North Korea, and countless other threatening issues facing legislators, what can we expect from a president and federal government in ceaseless and senseless turmoil? Or maybe the better question is this: Will these crisis moments be big enough to break through crippling legislative extremism and a self-obsessed president to finally make the greater public good our national priority? We all better hope so. The stakes have never been higher.

Read Full Post »

To what extent does the overall tone of presidential leadership influence the behavior of members of the public. If that tone is positive and unifying will it help bring about unity? And if it is combative and hostile will it encourage people with similar inclinations to act out their anger?

My experience over the years working with institutional presidents is that their tone certainly influences the cultural characteristics of their institutions. When a president is out front and aggressive, message tone often shapes brand identity more than the content. Sometimes it’s a culture of strong optimism. Sometimes it’s a culture based on deeply felt human values. Sometimes it’s a culture of big vision and teamwork. But sometimes it can be a negative culture of blame and unending criticism. And especially when that tone is the expression of the president’s long-established attitudes and behaviors, it is not likely to change.

The president of a nation similarly sets the tone for that nation with words and deeds. A chief of staff can improve daily operations. Second level administrators can set a different tone for their operation.  But only the person at the top can establish the nation’s tone.

So what about Charlottesville?  Did the previously combative and autocratic style of the current U.S. president establish a tone that encouraged white supremacists and other hate groups to show up, feel empowered, and behave violently? If his consistently hostile tone was a factor in causing the event, what happened when the television cameras arrived?

Clearly, television coverage gave the event a world-wide audience. Close ups made the violence more emotional. Lively reporting and commentary turned it into engaging “reality TV,” a situation with which Mr. Trump is perfectly comfortable. Those who planned the event got the mass publicity and validation they wanted, and the final outcome is that we are left with the fear that copy-cat violence and events like this will likely be ongoing public safety worries.

Make no mistake, a consistent and combative tone at the top of any organization or nation will encourage people with similar hostile inclinations to act out their anger in both small and large ways. When this happens, entire organizations and societies will inevitably experience increasing amounts of hate speech and violence.

Read Full Post »

The talk in Washington is about Russian internet hacking to influence the U.S. presidential election. But future concerns should also be about “bad guys” having the capacity for even more pervasive influences in a country’s economy, institutions and politics. From a citizen’s perspective, these activities can easily operate silently “below the radar,” and are likely in time to become extremely disruptive. The communication process implications here go far beyond computer hacking.

Senior Vice President for Europe, Eurasia and the Arctic at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Heather Conley, was a co-director and co-author of a study of Russian influence in Central and Eastern Europe.  The study was a project of both CSIS and the Center for the Study of Democracy (CSD). It is titled, The Kremlin Playbook, and the complete study can be downloaded at CSIS.org.

My take: “Bad guys” can influence political processes with much more comprehensive and sophisticated communication and other tactics than internet hacking. Combining insights from my reading of this new study with those from scanning periodic U.S. news media stories, here is my take on how this frightening process can work:

1. “Bad guys” make various real estate investments in target countries of special interest, including the U.S.
2. They also facilitate profitable investments and partnerships in their country for well-healed investors from their target countries.
3. They then look for specific “mogul level” investors who are willing to consider bigger and more profitable opportunities.
4. These bigger opportunities will soon involve ethically questionable situations that include “moments” of possible personal “entrapment,” some with later blackmail-potential.
5. Now, with the help of entrapped investors, bad-guy-operatives begin to infiltrate political activities, with the ultimate goal of influencing election outcomes.
6. Electronic hacking is an important part of this formula, but only one part.

Has Russia employed these tactics to influence the U.S. political system and voting processes? It certainly seems likely. And if so, will they do it again? Answering these questions with more facts is what the current special investigator’s challenge is all about. But here is the most important question of all: When we finally have all the facts about Russian involvement, will we have the courage to do what needs to be done?

Read Full Post »