Thinking even further about the assumptions made in the anti-Trump Michael Wolff book about life in the new White House the definitions for winning, and victory are not the same from each side. Liberals clearly do not understand what “winning” means because they are not a performance based political party. Trump’s methods of negotiating are foreign to them and the means of achieving wins is as well—which is very apparent by the kinds of things that the people around Trump said about him to the fly-on-the-wall writer. Steven Bannon in particular obviously was looking at the president and thinking, “I can do this, and I should be.” But that is a common mistake made by second-hander people. What they don’t understand is that the master negotiator, and the person who often wins most of their engagements are not the types of people who spike the football in people’s faces. They are the ones who build up those around them and teach other people how to win as the residual effects migrate into the circumstances of the leader whoever they may be—in this case Donald Trump.
Trump said a lot when he said that he makes winning look easy. Winning is a skill as much as it’s a strategic result. Most people don’t know how to win, but there is no question that there are people who always find themselves knocking on the door to victory time and time again while others consider it a mystery and an opportunity given only by luck. Anyone who has read Trump’s books, especially books by Trump University like Trump 101: The Way to Success, understand that there is a lot more going on with Trump than just powering his way into beating his opponents at whatever objective he seeks to accomplish. From day one in the Trump White House—even before, this is how the new president went about his work—learning what all sides on a matter wanted, then learning how to use that knowledge to achieve his objective.
Winning is not about out powering your opponent, or even check-mating them into submission. Often when it comes to negotiations you want the other party to feel good about what they are doing—even if its losing. Winning and crushing your opponent into oblivion is not synonymous with success. Sometimes it is—but often not. Winning is about achieving your objectives while letting everyone else feel that they were a part of the process—and that is why Trump ran, and still does to a large extent, a loose White House. People need to be comfortable, so they can reveal their needs to you, so that you can use that information to help build in their minds the parameters of victory.
From its inception in the modern sense—as in from the Dark Ages to the present, occupational responsibilities in Western cultures tend to be focused on specializations. In oriental cultures it is expected that an individual will become somewhat curious about many fields, but in the West we are projected to learn one thing and to stick to that relying on the next specialization to do their job correctly and if they don’t we throw up our arms and blame that person for failing. People who constantly win however are usually good at many things in life, and are curious about many others. What they have in common is that they tend to not be overly specialized, but have developed within themselves many skills for which to use in improvisational context to solve problems and build support for their viewpoints among other people.
What we have going on regarding Donald Trump in the White House is a fear from the majority in Washington D.C. that function from a specialized trade that a multitalented businessman will forever raise the bar of expectations for them. For those who voted for Donald Trump, that is exactly what we wanted, but for those who believe in a specialized skill conducted through institutional protections, Donald Trump is a nightmare. For Washington D.C. to work the way they learned it does requires that the formula of specialization be maintained. But for Trump to do his thing he needs to be part psychologist, part inspirational speaker, part numbers cruncher, part fashion model, part strategist and to be able to recognize in everyone he speaks with what their specializations are, so he can turn them to his advantage. The way to do this is to let people have a free rein and study their behavior so that it is easy to ascertain their characteristic tendencies. Saying that Donald Trump is stupid, or insane—or anything resembling an unstable personality is more of a wish than a statement. For the institutional addicts who need the structure of specialization to be maintained Trump is “unstable” because their definition of stability is to keep personalities within the specialization of their institutional expectations. Yet Trump is results driven which does not adhere to a structure—because often the structure stands in the way of the needed results—otherwise there wouldn’t be a need to fix anything—which is what the opposition against Trump is really after.
To those who have mastered the art of just about everything they have no need for advice—at least in the traditional sense. Trump has shown that he does listen to people, but not in the way that people hope—where their specializations are respected. Trump listens to what people say then he uses his experience to make gut judgment calls based on his unique leadership skills. This is something that most people in the world do not have the ability to do—including most major presidents throughout history. It’s not that Trump did anything wrong, it’s just that our current society doesn’t understand the nature of leadership very well—and why only a very few people per capita seem inclined to proper leadership. Leadership isn’t about following the rules of an established institution, it’s about getting good results even when the institutions let us down with poor resolutions. Solving those problems isn’t about doing so within the context of institutional boundaries, it’s about discovering the correct solution and then bringing about the conditions to implement those solutions. To be free to make decisions on your own is to be able to more quickly ascertain the needed objectives. If the problem is in the people who are advising, to protect their specialized roles within the institution, then speaking with them about their opinions won’t solve the problem, and this is why Trump has achieved so much in such a short period of time. He is not hindered by the limits of other people who don’t strive so far as he does.
In the traditional sense of presidential roles within the nation of America—it is expected that the Executive Branch be treated like the Monarchy in England—as kind of a figurehead that acts as the face of the nation while the specialized experts do their thing for whatever purpose is identified on their institutional charters. But most Americans during this last election saw that the process just wasn’t working, so we voted against the institutions themselves and put a CEO in charge instead of just another political hack. To a certain extent it is understood that people will have problems with that approach because they don’t have the definitions in their lives which explain why Trump is successful. They only know that Trump does not respect the institutional parameters for which they exist. Stupidity in this regard is a matter of perspective—and as history will chronicle, it is the institutionalists who will be shown as lacking. Trump is a change, a demand in real leadership—not token sentiments meant to protect the Skull and Bones Society, or the charters of the FBI, CIA and Homeland Security. Nor the secret societies, hate groups, or ideologies of long dead philosophers. Trump was hired to solve problems and that is what he’s doing, and history will respect what he did even if it does piss everyone off. The more he does piss off, the better our nation will be in the end.
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.