Trump Tries New Clothes

Photo by Gage Skidmore/CC BY-SA2.0

Hans Christian Anderson, the popular children's fairy tale author who lived in the 1800's, could easily have been hired as Donald Trump’s political operative in the 2016. His classic story of the "Emperor's New Clothes" is a tale that would play well in the Trump campaign.

As the story goes, two weavers are hired to make a very vain Emperor a new suit of clothes. The Emperor always had a coat for every hour of the day. The weavers promise him a top of the line best quality suit, made from a fabric that's invisible to anyone "unfit for his position" or "hopelessly stupid."

We have a candidate about to become the Republican presidential nominee who has thrived on changing his verbal ‘outfits’ at whim. But he finally agreed that he had to change some of his campaign in an effort to appear more presidential. So he flung out the old and controversial campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, and hired a new more seasoned “weaver,” Paul Manafort. Corey, it seems, was deemed unfit for his position. The man who touted "Let Trump be Trump" was escorted out of his Trump Tower office in true Trump fashion, by security guards, and muzzled by an apparent airtight non-disclosure agreement. 

Paul Manafort has been a long-time lobbyist and political consultant working with foreign governments, dictators and corporations as he wound his way around the globe of political operatives. Manafort has also advised the presidential campaigns of Republicans Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. He's a man who has been quoted as having a "history with strong men." A recent story in Slate says Paul Manafort "has a particular knack for taking autocrats and presenting them as defenders of democracy." Add to that the facts that Manafort's old firm has done work for Trump, and the new campaign chief has an apartment in Trump Tower. Sounds like a match made in Trump heaven. 

So two wealthy men of about the same age have come together to pull off a Trump victory. And a new suit of clothes begins to be designed. It weaves a fabric of advice determined to make Trump appear just as palatable and professional as some of the politicians Mr. Manafort has previously disdained. If that means using more things like teleprompter support to help him stay on message, then so be it. The newly woven fabric also calls for less Twitter, but that seems to be more challenging. Trump may being trying, but here's a recent Trump tweet: 

“Crooked Hillary is wheeling out one of the least productive senators in the U.S. Senate, goofy Elizabeth Warren, who lied on heritage.”

So are we to expect Trump not to be Trump under Manafort's reign? Donald Trump is who he has been for 70 years.

He may overtly show short term signs of changing his approach to the campaign, but over the long-term I believe Trump will be Trump. I was a New Yorker in the ‘70s, '80s and '90s observing this man. He has just gotten bigger, bolder, brasher, and more egocentric over time. The thought that Trump will reverse those characteristics as part of a long-term personal and professional overhaul is hard to imagine. 

If you recall, the Emperor's new suit showed him wearing no clothes at all. It was a tale of grand deception.

Can Baby Boomers Clinton and Trump Change Negative Views on Aging?

Presumptive presidential nominees Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump share two distinctly non-political titles by category. Baby Boomer and Senior Citizen. We don't think of referring to them that way, because it hasn't become a job performance issue in this race. Hillary is 68-years-old and Trump recently turned 70. Their vitality is self-evident.

If the campaign says anything about age, whether it be Clinton, Trump or Bernie Sanders, few have not marveled at the stamina they've shown during a grueling primary season. Forget for a moment the politics involved, as hard as that might be, these candidates are unintentionally positioned to become role models for a greater senior workforce that needs to be valued, emboldened and increased.

Each day 10,000 Baby Boomers are projected to reach the age of 65. Yet the prejudice of age discrimination lurks behind too many corners of this generation's life. Especially if you are a woman. Ageism and sexism unfortunately go hand in hand, and both are rampant.

If Clinton is elected president of the United States, she will not only break the glass ceiling of that office, but will help break another employment barrier that millions of women face every day. Age. Clinton would be 69-years-old at the time of her inauguration, the same age as Ronald Reagan. Most women can't get a job of any kind at her age, no matter how qualified they are or how hard they work. And prior to Trump entering the race, Republicans tried to raise the “age issue” against Clinton.

Women over 55 are confronted with employers who only see value in youth. If they are able to find jobs, it's often for less pay. Senior men face discrimination as well, but they have an easier time finding more jobs at higher pay scales. A report by the National Bureau of Economic Research puts it succinctly: "For women, age discrimination starts earlier and never relents." 

Age discrimination has been illegal since 1967. It needs to end. Our next senior president will have an opportunity to focus on the issue if she/he chooses. The political lift needed seems small compared to the economic impact on millions of unemployed Boomers who also vote. Our workplaces need to be age mixed and open to all who are qualified. Just like our White House.

Clinton's Victory - On Being the First

Late in the evening of June 6, 2016, the Associated Press announced that Hillary Clinton had secured the delegate count necessary to become the Democratic nominee for president of the United States. She became the first woman in American history to become a major party’s presidential nominee.

The news came as I was ending dinner with a childhood friend whom I hadn't seen in over 50 years. She and I stood on the street outside the restaurant reading the news on our phones. We each looked at one another, said nothing for a moment, and then said, "Finally."

For women of our generation - Hillary Clinton's generation - the significance of this historic moment is powerful. The strength of Hillary’s pure achievement as a woman in this country is never to be underestimated. She is now officially the first.

Clinton cinched the nomination in a low-key manner, as a few more delegates moved to her side and the word began to spread. No balloons or confetti. That will come later. No big speech. She did that last week. And voters are still voting before the primary season ends. But we know she's the one.

Her nomination will come 32 years after New York Representative Geraldine Ferraro became the first woman named a vice presidential candidate by Walter Mondale. On July 12, 1984, Mondale made history and did what many thought was a gutsy, smart political move. Thirty-two years is not yesterday, but that's how long it's taken for another woman to make her mark at the highest level in our land.

Being the first is not easy. It takes fearless determination. Like many women who worked the tides of change at the same time as Hillary Rodham Clinton, we know what it's like to break barriers. It's hard. You make mistakes. Not everyone likes you. But all along, we worked with dogged perseverance to win a place at tables of our choice. Hillary has won her place.

Unless there is a first, there can't be a second, or a third or a fourth. Congratulations Hillary.

Game On

Hillary Clinton finally launched a full out attack on Donald Trump that put the bully in his place - for a moment. Delivering a foreign policy speech in California on Thursday, Clinton came out fighting. She skillfully threw targeted punches at Trump showing the kind of strength that many Democrats these past months have been waiting to see. Framing her attacks on experience, Hers vs. His, she worked hard to get under what she called Trump's 'thin skin'. 

"He is not just unprepared. He is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility."

Clinton spoke substantively about foreign policy, but wove jabs at Trump as efficiently and effectively as any prize fighter. And it seemed to work. Trump was watching and tweeting comments throughout her speech.

"Crooked Hillary no longer has credibility - too much failure in office. People will not allow another four years of incompetence!”

Using a combination of broad strokes backed up with Trump examples, Clinton opened the doors to Independents and uncommitted Republicans for whom Trump is problematic. Perhaps the big tent approach revisited. The audience loved it. Ratings from the bigger audience are yet to come.

Clinton kicked off this last phase of her presidential campaign with a speech that will likely be viewed as one of the more important speeches of the 2016 race. Her tone was strong and strategically determined. Her words weren't used to whip up a frenzy. They were used as well-crafted weapons designed to invigorate an audience and position her opponent as a man with "dangerously incoherent" ideas. It's an approach we're sure to see and hear much more of going forward. She gave us an opportunity to think that all positive is not lost. Something that can only be described as refreshing at this point, in a very long and divisive race.

"Don't let anybody tell you that America isn't great. Donald Trump's got the country all wrong. This election is a choice between two very different visions… One that's angry, afraid and based on the idea that America is fundamentally weak and in decline. The other is hopeful, generous and confident in the knowledge that America is great, just like we always have been."

Since this presidential race began, we’ve watched Clinton appear to be searching for her true voice. The California speech on foreign policy helped her find it.

 

 

Bernie Sanders’s Destructive Ego Problem

Photo by Gage Skidmore/ CC BY-SA2.0

In the beginning ... Bernie Sanders was the well-mannered newly minted Democratic opponent appearing to understand he could make his points without knocking the block off the person with the strongest chance to win the nomination. He gave the impression that there was mutual respect, as did Hillary Clinton, and his initial demeanor earned him respect. Remember the man who declined to go after Secretary Clinton in the first Democratic debate saying, "This may not be great politics. But I think the Secretary is right and that is that the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails".

But Sanders, the underdog, has kept winning primary elections. With each win his crowds have grown larger, and he has grown angrier. A new Sanders has emerged creating a distinctly, and to any Democrat, uncomfortable similarity between him and Donald Trump. Each one knows how to ignite the passionate support of large crowds that in turn inflate their candidate egos - no matter what. Bernie has called his campaign a revolution. Trump calls his a movement. They each consider themselves outsiders focused on disruption, and it doesn't seem to bother Sanders a bit that he's feeding Donald Trump real ammunition to use against Clinton. Who cares, he's basically said. It's about me now.

At this point, Sanders ego seems to be driving his battle to win a nomination that's now all but unobtainable. The delegate math won't add up unless a miracle steps in. But you'd never know that by listening to Sanders. After a loss in the Virginia Primary and a win in Oregon, he continued to talk about winning. He told a California crowd, "Before we can defeat Donald Trump we have to defeat Secretary Clinton". The crowd went wild, and so it seems has Sanders. He's gone full throttle against the Democratic party and Clinton, apparently unconcerned about its impact on the November election.

“Bernie the Maverick” has come out. The Independent he always was seems to be the Independent he wants to remain, despite taking on the Democratic mantel to run for President. Sounds too Trumpish for comfort. Especially when refusing to condemn the violence his supporters took part in at the Nevada Democratic Convention last weekend. 

Sanders has a right to make his case. He is committed to doing so. But I now see a man increasingly caught up in himself and his crowds rather than fighting a statesman like battle to achieve his goals. It gives a more egocentric tone to his continued attacks on Clinton while building unreal expectations among his supporters.

Clinton needs less than a hundred votes to secure the Democratic nomination. It's turned Sanders into an angry man fighting the establishment and vowing to take his angry fight to the convention. What ever happened to the pull it together positively Bernie?

The Power of Oft Repeated Negatives

Photo by Gage Skidmore/CC BY-SA2.0

Can the politics of negative be turned into the politics of positive with Donald Trump as the Republican nominee for president? Trump has achieved what I predicted last summer. He outboxed all the other contenders running for the office and fought his way to the top using some of the most negative and repulsive words, phrases and language ever heard from politicians. Trump has effectively manipulated the negative, seamlessly creating an explosive platform of its own.

We've learned a lot about negative rhetoric these past ten months, in part because we've heard so much of it. For some of us, it's a giant turn off. For others, it seems to be a giant turn on that unleashes pent up ... well a lot of things.

What Trump has done and continues to masterfully do is, in part, counterintuitive to effective political and business communication. Normally, if your goal is to consistently project the positive, you’re strongly advised to not repeat the negative. And with good reason. If a negative word or statement slips into what's supposed to be a positive message, you can get away with it once. Maybe. If you repeat the negative a second time, it remains in people's minds. If you repeat that negative thought or phrase a third time, it's pretty much in our minds for good. 

Trump is flipping the tables by using negative thoughts to produce positive results. He must have carefully studied a phenomenon called the Illusion of Truth Effect identified by researchers at the University of California Santa Barbara. They proved that any statement we speak, see, hear or read regularly is viewed as more valid than one we’re only exposed to occasionally. It makes no difference whether the information is true or false. The only thing that matters is how often we’re exposed to it.  

If you underscore the exposure of Trump's negative messages, supported by all forms of media and repeated by him on his frequently used Twitter account, we can better understand what has brought his campaign to where it is today. And if we pile on those large rallies where he's the only one on stage throwing his body language into every word while surrounded by thousands of cheering fans ... you have a spectacle that for some will be hard to forget. Especially if you're continually reminded of it.

The saddest part of Trump's negative style of running for president of the United States is that it deprives us of all the good that comes with strength derived from positive.

His mantra has been "win at any cost". And it has cost.

The Trump Effect: 2016 Campaign And Our Schools

Photo by ©Monkey Business Images/Dreamstime.com

Donald Trump, the Republican presidential frontrunner and likely nominee, has made it clear by the continuation of his unfiltered mouth that he has no concern about positive role modeling for anybody, let alone very impressionable kids. The Southern Poverty Law Center has released a new study called, "The Trump Effect - The impact of the presidential campaign on our nation's schools." It produces findings that are both powerful and sad.

Almost 2,000 K-12 teachers were surveyed without mentioning specific candidates’ names. Out of 5,000 comments, more than 1,000 mentioned Donald Trump. 

The "Trump Effect" report finds that our current presidential primary season is having a strong negative effect on our children and their classrooms. Unlike any in recent history:

"It's producing an alarming level of fear and anxiety among children of color and inflaming racial and ethnic tensions in the classroom. Many students worry about being deported. Other students have been emboldened by the divisive, often juvenile rhetoric in the campaign. Teachers have noted an increase in bullying, harassment and intimidation of students whose races, religions or nationalities have been the verbal targets of candidates on the campaign trail." 

Our classrooms have traditionally been the place where children learn about a presidential election, its process and role in our democracy. But thanks to campaign 2016, more than 40% of the teachers surveyed are now hesitant to teach about the campaign. "The word Trump is enough to derail a class," says a Texas teacher. Another from Oklahoma says, "My kids are terrified of Trump becoming President. They believe he can/will deport them - and none of them are Hispanic. They are all African American." 

Children being hurt, confused or frightened by what they see at televised Trump rallies is not the way to learn about civic responsibility. Neither is using Trump’s name to taunt and bully classmates.

Trump says he’s going to build a wall on the border with Mexico. The report shows us how that translates in some children’s minds:

“In Tennessee, a kindergarten teacher says a Latino child—told by classmates that he will be deported and trapped behind a wall—asks every day, “Is the wall here yet?”

If anyone wants to be outraged about something, this is it. We have a political season that is blind to seeing itself through the eyes of young people and has fostered one of the most negative Republican frontrunners in history.

Bernie Meet Hillary

Photo by Gage Skidmore/CC BY-SA 2.0

Bernie lost big and Hillary won big. That's the easy story of the New York primary. The future for both candidates is a story in motion. It's time for Senator Sanders to meet Secretary Clinton anew, and get back to respecting each other instead of fighting. The focus needs to be on November.  

Constituencies and demographics matter in election victories, and New York’s primary has the potential to show the real benefit of Bernie Sanders joining forces with Hillary Clinton to win the Presidential election. Exit polls show Sanders continued strength with millennials, but Hillary won those over 30 years of age. Not just those over 65. She had the overwhelmingly support of women and minorities, and all voters no matter the income level.

We've watched Sanders increase the velocity of tone and attacks on Secretary Clinton as he's continued to focus on his key issues of income inequality, Wall Street, free college education and universal healthcare. But his specifics on the issues remain foggy, and hers do not. Some kind of meeting of the minds presents an interesting order. Not an easy one, but an increasingly important one. 

Sander’s rousing calls for a revolution have met the more pragmatic Hillary Clinton. He's gotten her to move more to the left than when she started her campaign. But he has stayed where he began - the candidate of economic populism. In a state as diverse as New York, the election results show its limited appeal.

The Sanders’s crowds are filled with young people looking to get involved in the political system, and that's one of the most positive things we’ve seen in this entire political season. At this point, showing young people the benefit of being a leader who understands the importance of crossing different political aisles to achieve victory could be a lasting positive. Divide and conquer is no longer working for him.

Perhaps an impromptu conversation I had on a park bench yesterday, my personal exit poll, is a predictor of things that could come. The 29-year- old young man sitting next to me with his dog told me he was from New York. I asked if he had voted, and he said, "I sent in an absentee ballot and voted for Sanders, but after I sent it I began to realize I should have voted for Hillary. He's still not coming up with answers."

Clinton set the tone for her campaign going forward, reaching out to Sanders supporters in her acceptance speech. "There's much more that unites us than divides us." 

Equal Pay Day Highlights Need for Change

Photo by ©Lightfieldstudioprod / Dreamstime.com

April 12, 2016 is Equal Pay Day. It's not a holiday that gives you time off from work, but one that gives you the important opportunity to focus on the pay inequities that still exist between men and women. The date symbolizes how far into the year an average women must work to catch up with how much an average man earned in the previous year. This year women will have to work an extra 3 months and 16 days to make the same money as their male counterparts.

For anyone with daughters ... or mothers ... or sisters ... or grandmothers, the time has come to end gender pay inequities, and seriously look at its implications for today and all of our tomorrows. Whether it's paying off student debt as a young to middle age woman, raising children as a single or married mom, or retirement for those who reach that age, the money we as women aren't earning adds up. 

The Equal Pay Act was passed in 1963. In 2015, women in the U.S. working full time still receive the equivalent of 79.6% of men's earnings. Too many employers have been allowed to turn their backs on this historic law : 

No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section [section 206 of title 29 of the United States Code] shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on job.

Pay discrimination has morphed into what is known as the Gender Pay Gap. According to the National Women's Law Center, if we don’t act to change the wage gap, a woman starting out today stands to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of her career. The Center estimates based on today’s wage gap, women would lose $430,480 over the course of a 40-year career. For African American women, the losses are $877,480. For Hispanic or Latina women, the career losses increase to $1,007,080. The ramifications of these numbers are staggering.

And the Gender Pay Gap ages right along with us. A recent study released by the American Association of University Women (AAUW), shows that while men and women may start off their work years making close to the same money, after women reach 35 the gap begins to increase. Median earnings typically become 76-81 percent of what men are paid. Here's what will surprise many looking for solutions. The study shows that "education is not an effective pay gap solution.” At every level of academic achievement, women's median earnings are shown to be less than men's.

Women. Women. Women.

The last week of March 2016 became the week of women - in politics, sports and science. A unique trifecta was created highlighting women’s issues forty plus years after they should have been settled. Women are a key demographic to win the upcoming presidential election.

We have seen Republican presidential candidates publicly demean and victimize women during this campaign while continuing to strongly oppose a woman’s legal right to choice when it comes abortion. They have made it clear they want to overturn the 1973 landmark Supreme Court ruling, Roe v. Wade, which made abortion legal. This week Donald Trump told us that any woman who seeks an abortion should be subject to “some form of punishment” if the procedure is banned. While he later changed his mind, his initial thinking on punishing women who have abortions is on record.

Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, was formally arrested on battery charges for allegedly putting his hands on reporter Michelle Fields as she was trying to ask Trump a question. The candidate continues to defend Lewandowski’s action, at the same time he tells women how much he loves them. He had no qualms posting this on his Twitter account: “No one has more respect for women than Donald Trump.” It's a classic abusive mentality.

Trump’s opponent Ted Cruz is on record voting NO on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act in 2013. And let's not forget the third candidate in the race for the White House at this point, John Kasich. As Governor of Ohio earlier this year, he signed a bill defunding Planned Parenthood. On the campaign trail he said maternity leave should be left up to employers to "be creative.” Both Cruz and Kasich have said they oppose Trump's position on criminalizing women who have abortions. What a group.

On the issue of equal pay, our country's top five women soccer players finally had enough of being treated unequally, and filed a federal complaint accusing U.S Soccer of wage discrimination. Equal pay for more than equal work does not seem to apply to these soccer players, even though they’ve won three World Cup championships and four Olympic championships. The men's team doesn't come close in athletic comparison, posting a strong losing record. Yet, according to the complaint filed on March 31, the men earn 60% more than the women playing the same game. Who of us doesn't want to encourage any of our interested daughters to play sports today? But not if they're treated unequally. That's what Title IX was all about. We want them to look up and see role models like Billy Jean King who led the fight for women tennis players to be paid equally, enabling current tennis greats like Serena Williams to win over eleven million dollars in tournament play last year. 

The Food and Drug Administration announced a change this week in their guidelines for use of the abortion pill, easing access and saying their action is based on updated medical science. They extended the time in which a woman can take the prescribed pill from seven to ten weeks, and decreased the number of doctor visits for the procedure. The Guttmacher Institute, which tracks women's reproductive health issues, reports that 37% of women obtaining abortions identify as Protestant and 28% identify as Catholic. 

Both the Republican and Democratic parties are aggressively courting women voters. The latest Fox News poll shows that Republicans must win more women voters to succeed. Re-thinking their positions on equal pay, equal opportunity and choice might help. So might showing women greater respect.