Dear Chris,

The bottom line for me is this: a disruption does not equal a transformation.  It is true, a disruption is needed in leadership, public and private.  Needed in part, in my view, perhaps, because Republicans seemed to have been so unwilling to consider government as good for anything whatsoever and thereby discount NASA and The Apollo Program; The G.I. Bill; The Marshal Plan; The Manhattan Project; The Highway Program; CDC; Civil Rights, et.al.

Government is not the scourge.  Wasteful, over-reaching or corrupt government does not work for anyone, and government itself can be damn useful.

So: I am of the view that government, ipso facto, is not the demon.  My father was the guy who led The Apollo Program for IBM (the management side) and I’m very clear that government as an enterprise can work…including miracles like The Apollo moon landing, stopping AIDS, stopping Nazi Germany, rebuilding Europe, stopping ISIS, etc., etc.

If one has a “fixed-in-place” prejudice against virtually all government, that precludes government itself—out of hand and leaves resources and new possibilities out of reach.  In that context…and one could say that context frames everything…nothing can happen with government except less of it.  “Leaning” out government can be 1 useful approach.  There are others.  The kind of obstruction to effective government that is merely an ideological, “knee jerk” reaction that has been there for years is not genuine leadership.  It’s reaction, reaction, reaction—right/wrong, right/wrong, right/wrong.  Credit/blame, credit/blame, credit/blame. Good/bad. Win/lose.

By both parties and essentially all of the media, essentially all of the time,

There is no powerful lens for, framework for, a you and me world if the prevailing political framework defaults automatically to: you or me. Win/lose. Credit/blame.

This win/lose framework is unworkable in its design and its execution is stultifying. If one is ½ awake, conscious, and committed to workability, the current context must transform.

These binary behavior patterns, win/lose; right/wrong; true/false; good/bad are, I assert, actually addictions, given by a certain view (a zero sum, scarcity, win/lose view). Zero sum says: if someone wins, then someone else must lose. Win/win is simply dismissed as “horseshit,” in a zero/sum view. This constraint of zero sum, is often unseen and unsaid, at the origin of, yet bigger than, any ideology, and drives our ideological “opposites.”

There is no real transformation in any of this past-based reality.  Only more of the same, producing short-term reactive changes, left/right and right/left.  

Trump brings disruption to the game.  What he doesn’t bring is transformation.  Authentic leadership is transformative and, it includes/addresses/speaks to all people, and creates a new realm of possibility that inspires and engages all people, very widely, across the political spectrum… even people who oppose the politics of the leader. For example, Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan clearly were inspired and engaged by each other and opposed each other on many, many issues. Also, John McCain and Ted Kennedy opposed each other on many issues yet clearly were inspired by and engaged with each other. These four men are examples, amongst many others, of political leaders who authentically inspired and engaged their opponents. I assert that a transformational leader is not necessarily one who garners the most agreement; but rather, inspires and engages people even when opposed. Thereby, the transformational leader elevates the honor, rigor, and integrity of the political conversation. That widespread inspiration and engagement, rather than mere agreement or consensus, can and does mark the beginning of a transformation. 

In part, a transformation is a shift in view, a shift in perspective, in the being of human beings how people see themselves, each other, the world. It is a shift from what is already known to what can be created; from the predictable to the possible; from the past to the future. 

D.T., one can assert quite readily, is still too impulsive, too used to bullying, lying, cheating and demeaning, and has too many incomplete/unresolved breaks in his integrity to yet be “transformational,” despite what you claim about a “scandal free life.”  He needs to, can and could (with guidance and coaching) get all that pettiness and bullying complete and leave it behind him, in the past, where it came from were he coached to do so.

Without a transformational coaching intervention, it is extremely unlikely that Donald Trump will either transform or transcend his past of lying, cheating, and bullying.

(3000 (?) lawsuits); grabbing/groping/as his personal entitlement; his family racial bias in developing/ leasing of real estate in New York City as memorialized by Woody Guthrie in a song 70 years ago called “Old Man Trump”; the ‘?’ of his tax returns? his 1,000’s of lies? This is not exactly “scandal free” and it clearly ain’t even close to “squeaky clean.”  He unquestionably does have real, demonstrable integrity issues and communication issues, Chris, and it’s in all of our interest to recognize that straight up…. One could say so did/does Hillary but not close to his scale…All in all, not yet (and not likely) an “exemplary life.”

I have spent 30 years on what is transformational leadership.  It’s not authority; it’s not charisma; it’s not knowledge/expertise.  It’s the ability to cause (declare, stand for, fulfill) futures that weren’t going to happen anyway. (1)  ( I highly recommend you see, read, and do the leadership course, Being a Leader and the Effective Exercise of Leadership As Your Natural Self-Expression:  An Ontological / Phenomenological Model authored by Werner Erhard, Michael C. Jensen, Jeri Echeverria, and Steve Zaffron, SSRN. It is not about politics, but rather, what is it to be a leader. And you can do their course of the same name). Leaders say and stand for futures that address and fulfill the needs, concerns, and commitments of the leader’s constituents.  (See also James McGregor Burns on Leadership and Joseph Rost, Leadership for the 21^st Century).  In Trump’s case, that represents over 50% of the people voting that have not been fully enrolled, engaged and inspired by him (yet? ever?).  Without a transformation, Trump is not unlike Godzilla at a networking event.  Every time he turns around to say hi to Eddie, Cathy or Sue, his tail takes out 20 people and he looks up and says, “Hey…where did everybody go?” 

In general, nearly 2 of 3 Americans do not endorse his policies – and especially, his “character.”

In other words, in some sense, Trump can be, at times, what a friend called “a highly skilled yet clumsy menace,” i.e., a very skilled manipulator and provocateur subject to hissy fits and who leaves messes.  I do note that he could be capable of high accomplishment if he were powerfully coached to become a transformational leader. And that would take something!! Specifically, a miracle:

A wondrous and surprising exception to the order of things.

That said, he is clearly not what’s possible. He is not what’s possible——and Clinton wasn’t either, fully, in the leadership of this country.  If he transforms himself (with outside intervention) then we could be on to something, possibly of a genuine breakthrough.  And without that, he’s at best a mismanaged disrupter; at worst, a nickel and dime, impulsive, self-centered bully…..not transformational. 

There’s not a whole lot more for me to say.  If you (or he, or his “people”) can get that, and can appreciate and hear that fully, “the difference between a disruption and a transformation…” consider that, then maybe there’s something that can and will emerge from this transformational perspective.  His “blind spots” are so obvious to most people that if they are not considered or addressed effectively (“transformed”) then it seems to me, there may not be much elsewhere to go.  If we the people, some people, could then develop/empower him and unquestionably hold him and his administration to account, accordingly.  (See the Johari window, Dr. Joseph Luft, 1958 and Dr. Harrington Ingham, 1955 regarding early work on “blind spots”).

Chris, I appreciate your commitment, your honesty and your drive.  You are a fellow Harvard athlete, an achiever, a competitor/a “winner”—intensely so, perhaps “to a fault.”  If I were the Celtic Gods of old, I might temper your powerful masculine, ego drive with the ability to look effectively, creatively, openly for what “blind spots” accompany his, your (or anyone’s) success.

I hope and trust we took some ground here, Chris. It takes more than a village to deliver on The Donald; it takes a god darn planet.

References and resources:

1- See Erhard, Jensen, and Zaffron, Course Materials for: ‘Being a Leader and the Effective Exercise of Leadership: An Ontological/Phenomenological Model’.  http://ssrn.com/abstract=1263835

Portions of this article are derived from the ideas and work of Werner Erhard and are used with permission,

© Tony Smith