Four Tool Legislators

Our two Senators can work across the aisle with each other, but their differences have been highlighted by the recent issue of holding town halls in person with constituents. Senator Michael Bennet (D Colorado) held five town halls in two days last week. He thanked attendees for telling their stories and made video access available on his Facebook page for those who could not attend. 

Senator Cory Gardner (R Colorado) held a telephone listening session several weeks ago with people who had signed up in advance and had provided their email addresses. He has never shown up in person to listen to voters. One town hall was convened by constituents without him present. Chants of “Do your job! fill the air when TV cameras are present. Gatherings outside his office in Denver have appeared on local and national news programs. 

Senator Bennet is becoming a “four tool legislator” by my estimation. He one of a growing number of these resourceful and responsive members of Congress. It must make perfect sense to these resourceful legislators to conduct town halls. Here’s four of the obvious advantages to be realized by showing up, listening and soliciting input from constituents: 

1. The information received helps to make changes in existing rules and regulations that may impact or neglect some people adversely.
2. The stories about troubling situations contributes to formulating new policies and drafting new legislation that could be more responsive, innovative and even benign.
3. The evidence of new issues, shifting priorities and emerging coalitions can help guide the national level of the Political Party as they revise the platform, formulate budgets and recruit new candidates. 
4. The electorate gains hard evidence that it is being listened to, respected and cared about which feeds into further civic engagement, increased voter turnout and more small campaign donors. 

These benefits can only be realized if the legislator is working on legislation. A legislator who spends time fund raising, placating large donors and blocking legislation will have no use for town halls. They don’t have the four tools to do their job of legislating and serving their public. They appear as “do nothing” politicians who give Congress such low ratings in recent years. 

Here are my ideas for how a “four tool legislator” functions:

1. Collaborating DOWN to staff, field offices and volunteers in ways where they each feel understood, respected and supported in the work they are doing. This results in a lot of productive initiatives, loyalty and dedication to the team
2. Collaborating UP to Party Leadership, Ranking members of Committees and Senior members of Congress in ways where each feels well informed, protected from getting blindsided and trusted to give useful guidance. 
3. Collaborating ACROSS to colleagues on the Hill and co-sponsors of legislation realize collaborative outcomes to deliberations which improve the chances of getting enough votes for passage of legislation. 
4. Collaborating OUTWARD to constituencies, interest groups and city or state level politicians so they feel respected, included in the latest thinking and sought after for further input. 

Senator Michael Bennet is not the only emerging “four tool legislator” in Congress. I recently listened to a Pod Save America podcast where Congressman Seth Mouton was interviewed by the Crooked Media team at SXSW in Austin. I learned how our military veterans now serving in Congress are also showing signs of functioning as “four tool legislators”. Military service prepares veterans for public service in Congress superbly:

• Getting exposed to very dangerous situations in uniform gives “losing the next election” a better perspective where they can now function fearlessly in Congress
• Every military tactical engagement occurs in the context of mission that applies to choosing between maneuvers on battlefields. Keeping a mission in mind while maneuvering in Congress improves decision making and prioritizes actions effectively. 
• Each soldier learns to watch both sides and cover the back of each comrade regardless of their differences in ethnicity, religion, finances, sexual orientation or politics. Same goes for fellow MOCs’s differences in political affiliation, rural or urban constituencies or personal wealth.
• Whenever there is a lull in the fighting action, there is always a problem to solve, equipment to maintain, housekeeping to do or research to get updated. The same applies to lulls in Congress where lots more gets done because lull times are made productive.

The emergence of these “four tool legislators” fits my forecast for a revitalization of our democracy. I previously compared this to a meadow that appears when a swamp caves in on itself or the ecosystem in Yellowstone National Park that came back to life after the elk launched a chain of disasters. 

There’s another big reason the Republican “lawmakers” cannot show up at town halls besides a tool shortage. The precepts of Free Market Capitalism prohibit making an appearance at a town hall. I’ll explore this possibility in my next post. 

Note: Revisions made 21 March 2017 9:36am

Trump and the Freedom Caucus

Speaker Paul Ryan could ever realize on healthcare issues. John Martin, National Political Reporter for the NY Times, planted that idea in my mind this week on MSNBC with Chris Jansing. Martin suggested that Trump and the Freedom Caucus appeal to a similar base of voters. The idea continued to ruminate in my mind and evolved into what follows.

President Trump is famously fluid in the stances he takes on issues. He thinks like a Product Marketing wiz— as I explored yesterday. He appears to rely on one simple criteria for choosing his positions: “whatever sells”. The Freedom Caucus and all its brethren (Tea Party, Libertarians, Nationalists, etc) are the opposite of fluid. Their stances appear rigid, demanding and intolerant of compromise. Compatibility with Trump is unlikely given the unyielding criteria that the Freedom Caucus applies to political stances. Here are a few of the likely sticking points I foresee:

• Trump says he wants universal coverage and the Freedom Caucus wants access to care unrestricted by bureaucratic regulations which interfere with free market competition.
• Trumps says he wants to protect Medicare and Medicaid from revisions and the Freedom Caucus wants to eliminate subsidies that increase taxes and provide disincentives for hard work.
• Trump wants to maintain a Federal healthcare program and the Freedom Caucus wants the States to ensure more competition which will bring soaring costs under market control.

When I have sought to empathize with the Freedom Caucus, I have found it helpful to imagine these members of Congress as trial attorneys in private practice who argue for the plaintiffs in criminal cases. They assume the defendants are guilty of the crimes before the trial. The public defender for the criminal clients appears to be a chronic loser who cannot win. There is no incentive to win in the pay from a government job. There’s no chance to win when protecting a guilty party. There’s nobody with the education and talent for prosecution who would work for the government. There are no extra resources available to the public defender that could create an advantage in the minds of the jury or a judge. 

These trial attorneys need to win at all cost. They assume they are right and everyone else is wrong. It makes no sense to settle out of court or utilize mediation when a total conviction is easily obtained. They go after the win like a shark feasting on chum. They do not see their own shortcomings, obsessions or predictability. All they see is too many public sector losers who spend tax dollars to lose every time. The winners in these courtroom confrontations are subsidizing incompetent losers by paying the taxes that pay for public defenders. 

Adding President Trump to this scenario brings in a new character unlike the public defenders. These unexpected attorneys can flank attack the trial lawyers focused entirely on winning. The fixated lawyers don’t anticipate the surprise witness, new evidence or contradictory testimony. They fall prey to more a fluid winner who can come at them from many different angles.  The shark becomes confused by the strange behavior of the chum. The defense is defying the sacrosanct expectations and failing to put up lame arguments to be easily shot down.

In this way, it does appear President Trump could force some concessions out of the Freedom Caucus, but not get their willing cooperation. Because they share a common base of voters, Trump could be between the voters and the Freedom Causus. He could challenge the older voters to question their loyalty to the Freedom Caucus MOC’s who were about to mess with their current, trusted healthcare. The Caucus would probably experience getting taken advantage of or pressured into submission — just like those “public sector losers” they despise. This, of course, would spawn lots of resentment toward Trump and even inspire some retaliatory moves in the future. It’s doubtful Trump would risk those consequences in the process of getting this deal to come together. 

Marketing Trumped Politics in 2016

Donald J. Trump did not win the 2016 Presidential election by knowing how to play the game of politics better than seasoned politicians. He changed the game to marketing where he is good enough to “sell snow to an Eskimo”. Here’s a look through the lens of business marketing at how Donald J. Trump won the 2016 Presidential election.

Political Rallies

In the world of product marketing, there are no political rallies. There are focus groups and lots of them. They usually consist of small groups in windowless rooms with lots of electronics to collect immediate feedback from the participants. Thinking outside the box, a political rally could function as a focus group without changing its size or location. Rather than getting individual feedback from participants, simply listening for the variations in the roar of the crowd could provide insights into what was selling. I suspect Trump did this. He’d dish out a rabble rousing remark and pause to see how big a reaction he’d get. He’d try another inflammatory comment and compare reactions. Over many rallies in many states, he learned what to say to define his brand and to excite those who were eagerly buying what he was selling.

Political Advertising

Conventional wisdom expects a large percentage of campaign spending to be spent on TV advertising. It’s an opportunity to expose a more human side of the candidate and to portray opponents in a negative light. Product marketing sees most political TV ads as push tactics which usually generates lots of pushback. Pull tactics generate word-of-mouth advertising which is comes from a familiar, trusted source. Trump did almost no TV advertising for many months in the run-up to the General Election. Yet he was generating huge amounts of buzz. He created demand for his brand without hard selling it. He got people talking among themselves while provoking the the print journalists and TV talk shows to fuss about his brand of politics.

Political Debates

Neither commercial or industrial products get into big debates on a stage full of other candidates. If a new product stands out from the crowd, it gets press coverage and product reviews online and in magazines. With enough exposure, the product becomes a “household name”. Trump figured out the way to standout in that crowd of Republican candidates was to be as controversial as possible. He defied convention at every event. As he said: “There’s no such thing as bad publicity — all publicity is good publicity”. He stole the spotlight daily for months. 

Political Polling

Conventional campaigning runs on getting a bump in poll numbers after an event, TV appearance or the party’s national convention. Pollsters survey voters by asking for them to rank issues from most important to least important. Product marketing does not track fluctuations in customer opinions, preferences and reactions. Marketing campaigns follow sales numbers by territory. Trump said he didn’t trust the polling numbers to show the momentum he was building or the emotions he was arousing. He was counting votes he could rely on, not movement on issues. 

Political Demographics

During a political campaign, maps get repeatedly drawn and revised. They show the changing number of red and blue states, the size of urban and rural regions, or the breakdown of voting by district from a previous election. The very diverse population gets mapped into homogenous territories. Product marketing positions a brand among other products in its market space of product attributes - not a geographic space of districts. Trump positioned himself in the market for the presidency as a Washington outsider who could bring about changes that insiders could never accomplish. He found unmet demand for change that neither batch of campaign promises had fulfilled. He not only voiced his distinctiveness, he walked the talk. He embodied be the change that could bring change to Washington. He acted unconventionally and differentiated himself from conventional candidates by his antics.

Now that Trump is the POTUS, he is out of his element. His practiced marketing tactics look deceitful, controlling and incompetent under the glare of our expectations for presidential leadership. Bad publicity is really bad now, no longer good for brand visibility, word of mouth advertising or pull strategies like it was during the campaign. Being a Washington outsider looks like a disadvantage when trying to significant changes in how a polarized Congress functions. He was a game changer during the election. Now his game is getting changed. 

Trump-speak and Fake News

“I hate to tell you this folks, but that is fake news, totally fake news.”

“Let me tell you, those reporters putting out fake news are bad people.”

“Trust me, they’re telling lies, they’re liars, total liars. What can I say?”

These are not actual quotes of Donald J. Trump. These are examples of Trump-speak, an unusual vernacular that arose in American English following the Obama years . Form a zero with your right hand while you say these trumpisms with pursed lips in order to get the full effect.

In a previous post, I explained how any attacks on others are best understood as telling remarks. It would only occur to people to say these things if they were dishing out fake news themselves, secretly thinking of themselves as bad people and knowing subconsciously how they have been telling lies often. 

Here’s what Donald J. Trump is not saying that would ordinarily be said by a leader of the free world:

• “It’s become apparent to me that I am not giving the press enough information to publish an accurate appraisal of our situation.”
• “I’ve done a bad job of clearing up some misunderstandings that have arisen following something I said last week.”
• “I may have provoked you to think that I was misleading you or covering up the truth by saying so little about this so far.”

In these statements, the leader is making “I” statements. The leader is taking full responsibility for errors that appeared in press coverage. The leader is conveying a desire to work with the press to clear up confusion, correct misinterpretations and report accurately on the leader’s intentions, activities and accomplishments. These statements noticeably avoid finger pointing, blaming, labeling and self-aggrandizement. The press is shown respect because the leader has enough self respect to see the press as worthy of respect. The press would respect this leader in return, seeing that admiration was earned and well deserved. 

Another remarkable feature of trumpisms is the frequent prefacing of remarks with references to the big deal involved with informing us:  Let me tell you, I have to tell you, Listen to this, I hate to tell you this but, Trust me I know, I must tell you, etc. When these prefaces get used, we often get called “folks”. He is sending us signals when he phrases his announcements this way. They are also telling remarks. 

Back when restaurant waiters and waitresses started addressing my entire table as “guys”, I was taken aback by that turn of phrase. I’ve now grown accustomed to the greeting. Now, I am equally startled to be addressed as “folks”. For it to be coming from such a powerful source of mixed messages, I presume the use of “folks” is more telling than incidental. Here are four possibilities for what is being implied, conveyed in the subtext or meant to be read between the lines:

1. “I’m being gracious enough to be folksy with you, even though I am far superior to you and forced to condescend to address you at your low level”.
2. “I’m a folk-hero to all the working folks in America who pay exorbitant taxes with their hard earned money and I don’t want you to forget that when you get exposed to all the fake news about me”.
3. “I’m being polite to all you good folks while I’m working a rip-off scheme that treats you as a real sucker”.
4. “Folk you folkers! If you won’t believe me, you don’t buy what I’m selling or you can’t fall for the incredible deal I’m offering you, go folk yourselves”.

I read a blog post by George Lakoff a couple months ago (A Minority President: Why the Polls Failed, And What the Majority Can Do). It got me thinking how marketing savvy may be what’s animating Donald J.Trump’s speech. His real estate deals and Celebrity Apprentice TV show would have given him countless opportunities to hone his craft. Now I have to tell you, all the prefaces that occur in Trump-speak have the feel of a marketing outlook on life. I hate to tell you this, but they are not causal phrases to be taken lightly. Listen to this, they orchestrate some subliminal manipulation to get buy-in, customer loyalty or cross selling to other offerings. What can I say? I’m going to translate these prefaces to say what I now think they mean:

• Let me sell you this bill of goods 
• I have to sell you on my amazing abilities
• Listen to my fake news you are going to fall for
• I hate to sell you this but I have no choice with others pulling my strings
• Trust me, I know what I’m talking about when I put my spin on this empty promise
• I must sell you this now before you suspect that I’m lying

In short, if you have misgivings about these frequent prefaces in Trump-speak, trust how it doesn’t feel right to you. Suspect, as I have here, that he is signaling us about a hidden dimension to his unusual vernacular. Piece two and two together. Do not take him at his word or take him literally. Read between the lines of his verbal antics.

Telling Remarks

When we make a telling remark, we know what we said but not what we’re telling people. We’re sending signals unconsciously. Others can read us but we cannot read ourselves. We do not get taken at our word because we are contradicting ourselves in ways that do not register on our outlook.

We are speaking about telling remarks whenever we say:

• There’s the pot calling the kettle black
• Birds of a feather flock together
• It takes one to know one
• Look in the mirror when you point your finger at someone
• It’s your own damn fault when you find fault in others
• When you point your finger at someone, you’re pointing three fingers back at yourself

Our most telling remarks attack other people. When we are pointing fingers, we are saying a lot more about ourselves than what we’re pointing out about others. When we’re finding fault with others, we don’t realize how clearly we blame ourselves in worse ways. When we cannot imagine how to be respectful, grateful or considerate of others, we are obviously showing the world how damaged we feel behind our pretentious display of overbearing confidence. 

When we are captivated by the flaws we see in others, we are repulsed by similar shortcomings we keep hidden in ourselves. We take offense to others when we are offended by something about ourselves. We are fussing at the spec in our brother’s eye when we are not seeing what interferes with our clear vision. We cannot know why we are spellbound by other people’s flaws until we stop rejecting similar facets of ourselves. We will continue to fuss and fume until we get to know ourselves behind the masks we show the world.

Spoiled brats make telling remarks that are the most obvious and easy to read. They are not good at hiding what they don’t want others to see. They are extremely obvious about what they are not saying with their words. They tip their hand for us to see what cards they are playing. They pull back the curtain for us to see what they are really saying beneath their superficial bravado. 

Spoiled brats have had it too good in life and that is too bad for them. They barely disguise how they feel sorry for themselves and inferior to those who didn’t have it so good. They feel driven to defy social convention which usually dictates “putting on your best face in public”. They wear their worst face in public and keep their goodness out of sight. The act out their frustrations with being privileged. They take secret pleasure in being so bad, surprising and defiant. They say all this with their vicious telling remarks, accusations and blame games. 

In the worlds of business, sports and theater, spoiled brats are called “prima donnas”. They are conceited and extremely selfish. Their minds are closed to constructive feedback or helpful advice. They cannot listen to reason, take more responsibility for their effect on others or change their closed minds. They are convinced they are the best in spite of all the evidence they are only good for themselves. They need to be right at all cost and see everyone else as wrong, bad, stupid or incompetent. Their telling remarks reveal how weak they seem to themselves, how inferior they feel and how troubled they are by their profound insecurities. They obviously come on too strongly to compensate for not feeling strong enough. They blatantly trouble others and barely disguise how troubled they really are. 

The political arena has always been sanctuary for spoiled brats and prima donnas. Political discourse is usually as noisy as bird sanctuaries during mating season. Each partisan politician dishes out one or two telling remarks at every opportunity. Pointing fingers is all in a day's work. Attacking others is the norm. Being the loudest pays well. Sounding hypocritical is inevitable while all the commonalty with the opposition is inconceivable. 

A collaborative, bipartisan politician is a rare specie in the noisy arena. Sounding inclusive, reasonable and insightful does not play well in the breaking news stories of ongoing investigations and shocking revelations. Focusing on policy changes instead of political harangues does not quack like all the other ducks on the pond. Acting collaborative and diplomatic with the opposition does not excite campaign rallies, entice the party faithful or motivate the campaign donors.

At first glance, all this evidence shoots down the possibility of draining the swamp. The dysfunctional discourse and deadlocked deliberations appear to be robust and resilient. However, the emergence of a vibrant democracy looks both feasible and likely to me. There’s more going on here than the culture of telling remarks which bodes well for the transformation I foresee. As I will explore in my next post, there is no real opposition, only posturing. Those in power are playing a losing game while winning elections. They clearly are their own worst enemies. They can only succeed at falling down as the swamp morphs into a meadow. 

Self-sabotaging Leadership Failures

When a leader, governing body, enterprise or nation is showing symptoms of self-destruction, the wise give this natural process of decay room to take effect. Fools ignore the signs of self-sabotage and either try to prop up the falling edifice or continue to fuss at it vociferously. There is really no need to do battle with anything that has become it’s own worst enemy. I suspect this may be why:

• Mathew 5:39 states “but I say unto you, resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also”
• Mohandas Gandhi encouraged nonresistance to effect change
• Sun Tzu, in The Art of War describes how emptiness can defeat fullness, but only the emptiness that cannot be described succeeds at this

I’ve seen this pattern of self-sabotage unfold in several business enterprises and academic settings. I’m currently seeing signs of this same astonishing demise in the antics of the Trump Administration, Congress and their political parties’ organizations. Here’s a glimpse at a trio of the dynamics.

Web of deceit

When leaders lack self respect, their psychic void gets filled by insecurities, neediness and desperation. None of this is admirable, so these leaders put on a show of bravado. However, they cannot earn respect from others with so little self respect, so they opt for collusion with lieutenants who are also equally needy, insecure and desperate. Loyalty gets defined as acting to maintain a web of deceit that bolsters their equally shaky confidence. To their way of thinking, only traitors would expose the hidden insecurities, ignorance or incompetence of the leadership team. Loyalists tell each other what they want to hear and avoid pushing any hot buttons. The inner circle is not alarmed when their leader shoots down those troublesome messengers who are bringing truth to power. All this ensures that no self-respecting outsider will show these leaders respect or fall for their contrived web of deceit. The tide eventually shifts so the team at the top loses all credibility and buy-in to their leadership. Meanwhile, outsiders set an example of self respect, a healthy distance from the mandatory collusion and a steadfast commitment to the truth. They become trusted, informal leaders who ease the transition of power and envision an inclusive resolution of the turmoil. 

Winning a losing game

When leaders are consumed by winning at all cost, almost everyone they are leading looks like losers. They justify becoming authoritarian or totalitarian bullies because the losers need to be told what to think and do. The players of the losing game are doing whatever works. The rules no longer apply. There is no right and wrong. It pays to be ruthless to win small victories.  Every negotiation appears adversarial to everyone labeled a "loser". The leaders’ tactics escalate the context of suspicion and mistrust.  Opponents prepare equally adversarial maneuvers to retaliate against the attacks and expose the vulnerabilities of these leaders. Unbeknownst to any of the adversaries, they are all playing a losing game where no one can win. It’s like a nuclear war with second strike capability on both sides. The only outcome is MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction. Before any meltdown, the pendulum swings back and forth, making news headlines, and taking turns at winning senseless victories. Adversarial conflicts are struggles of attrition designed to wear down the opponents, to deplete their reserves, to lower their morale and to weaken their conviction. It’s very fair. Both sides get wasted. Live by the sword, die by the sword. 

The silent treatment

When leaders get worried that they are not getting respect because they are not leading, they start making gratuitous changes. They may throw money at problems that need more than a quick fix, turn up the heat on subordinates who already hold themselves to higher standards, or light fires under those who are already fired up to get better results. The leadership appears to be deaf, dumb and blind. It’s a mystery how the top can be so clueless when one’s colleagues and direct reports are fully aware of the dedication, determination and diligence brought to the job every day.  It becomes obvious down below that it has become pointless to manage up or keep the leaders in the loop. The leaders deserve zero respect. The top leaders are then driving blind. They are steering with only their rear view mirror to guide them. The bend in the road becomes the end of the road for the leaders because they fail to make the turn. Nobody down below who could warn them had said a word about the change, danger or opportunity. The leaders were getting the silent treatment. The leaders had lost all respect following their debacle of misguided leadership maneuvers. 

When these patterns occur in settings employing professionals (architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, computer techs, college professors, etc) the brightest and best fly the coop, crippling the workflow. When it occurs at the scale of a nation, the national press becomes a far more trusted source than the self-sabotaging leadership. Grassroots efforts flourish and discourse outside the bastion of power reaches a fever pitch. There is an inevitable change in national priorities, alliances and agendas as the disheartened and disoriented seek to get their bearings amidst such a high level leadership failure. 

How Trump is Our Perfect Monster

A century ago, the ranchers bordering Yellowstone National Park were up in arms over grey wolves killing their livestock. If they could have built a wall around Yellowstone to keep the wolves out, they would have. They killed those horrific monsters off to extinction instead. As far as they could tell, their livestock and bottom line both were better off. They assumed the wolves would not be missed inside Yellowstone Park.

If this was a story like George Orwell’s Animal Farm, the grizzly bears, coyotes, otters, beavers, hawks, and ravens would have ganged up and killed off the ranchers. The ranchers’ diagnosis of their wolf problem was so short-sighted it only benefited the elk inside the park. 

This is a different kind of allegory. Democracies are ecosystems of highly interdependent interest groups cooperating in ways that serve both selfish and mutual interests. None of the constituents of a democracy are “horrific monsters” but a few function as “perfect monsters”. Acting on their own short-sighted interests yields widespread and long term benefits for the entire ecosystem. 

One century later, we now understand how wolves function as “perfect monsters” in the Yellowstone ecosystem. Their absence yielded horrific consequences. In hindsight, the ranchers were the “horrific monsters”. Their pointing a finger (and their rifles) at the wolves missed how they were being what they were seeing. They should have pointed some fingers back at themselves and questioned their flawed reasoning that put all the blame on the wolves. 

When the wolves were exterminated, the elk were free to forage by river. They over-harvested the willow, aspen and berry bushes that grow by the water’s edge. The beavers no longer had food to eat or construction materials for dams. With no dams, the groundwater did not get recharged. Many of the fish and amphibians that thrive in and around ponds died off. The grizzly bears population declined. They missed the berries they fed upon to prepare for winter hibernation. The river banks became barren and eroded into the river when it rained or the snow melted. The water became very muddy, killing off the fish that otters thrive on. The absence of trees on the riverbanks meant many varieties of birds lost their perches, their tree bark teeming with nutritious insects and their lightweight twigs for building nests. The hawks and ravens were dying from starvation when the supply of fresh wolf-kills dwindled to nothing. The ecosystem could not have been more out of balance, but also more poised to equilibrate. 

When the wolves were re-introduced into Yellowstone, the river water cleared up. The groundwater got recharged. A wide variety of birds returned. The riverbanks became lush with aspen, willow and berry bushes. Eight beaver dams appeared on the Yellowstone River. The otter population staged a comeback as the fish were multiplying because the aquatic plants had revived. The coyotes, hawks and ravens found enough wolf-kills to scavenge and prosper. The return of berries increased the grisly bear population. The number of elk came down to a sustainable level, in part by their foraging far from the riverbanks for safety. 

The wolves did not build a water treatment plant or restock the river with fish. They did not plant the willow, aspen and berry bushes on the riverbank. They did not re-introduce beavers, otters, ravens, hawks or other bird populations. All the wolves did was prey upon the oversupply of elk. Everything else fell into place. How perfect!

The wolves started what ecologists call a “trophic cascade”. Wolves can have these wide-ranging effects because they are one of the keystone species that impact so many other species. Beavers are another keystone specie. They destroy hundreds of young trees along a riverbank. Their short-sighted destruction benefits aquatic plants, fish, otters, beaver offspring, grisly bears, birds, water quality and ground water levels. What perfect monsters!

Democracies need short-sighted perfect monsters, just like other ecosystems. Voters can become disenchanted, disengaged or despondent. Communication flows can get blocked or distorted. Deliberations can become stagnant, stalemated or toxic. Representative bodies can lose essential components like creativity, statesmanship, diplomacy and bipartisan strategies. Leaders can become politically motivated instead of policy driven. The cost of political campaigns can skyrocket. Candidates for elected offices can become scarce. Commercial agendas can infect democratic processes where the electorate no longer respects politicians or trusts their campaign promises. Investigations of suspicious activities can overtake the formulation of new legislation, policy improvements and budgetary reformulations. Journalistic priorities can get turned upside down where small issues become enormous and critical issues become insignificant. 

The Trump Administration has been profoundly destructive to complacency, apathy and disengagement at every conceivable level from citizens who did not vote to the legislators who only blocked legislation. Nothing can be taken for granted for now. Business as usual has been taken off the table. Everything is in jeopardy of getting changed somehow if people don’t speak up, show up and act up. 

The US democratic ecosystem is currently brimming with vitality. Investigative journalists have a new mandate to uncover as many hidden truths as possible before we get blindsided by them. Press outlets are experiencing a surge of new subscribers, readers and viewers. Legislators seeking reelection are under new pressures to look beyond the interests of lobbyists and campaign funding sources to the voters who put them in office. Committees in the US Senate have become energized to do a thorough job of vetting the cabinet positions nominees and investigating Russian interference with our last election.  Political parties have new priorities to emphasize their ground games and listen more closely to varied interest groups at the grassroots level. Citizens have started taking the classes, getting the signatures and running for elected office in their districts. Voters in town hall gatherings have new reasons to clarify the issues they’re focused on and to dismiss the label of “sore losers”. Voters marching in the streets have new motivation to protect consumers, minorities, refugees, educators, small investors, seniors, healthcare providers and the natural environment from the onslaught of cabinet appointments and executive orders aimed at dismantling those protections. 

There’s no way these widespread improvements in our democracy could have happened by only preaching the importance of civic engagement, begging people to get involved or threatening citizens if they did take more initiative. Senator Bernie Sanders’s presidential bid got people thinking about getting more involved. It took President Trump’s predatory behaviors to seal the deal. All these signs of revitalization could only happen with the arrival of a perfect monster. All these fixes for the broken system are simply falling into place thanks to the Trump Administration’s destructive effect on complacency. How perfect!