10:20do you do that to a company yeah so alot of this is actually you can actuallyborrow concepts actually from militarystrategy on this which is sort of thedifference between sort of strategy andtactics right at a difference betweengoals and tactics so I think it’sincredibly important to have a reallyvivid clear idea about where you want toget in the long run that you stick toand that you’re very solid on and thateverybody agrees to and then I think youwant to be very very flexible in thetactics and I think the problem is youit’s a dichotomy right it’s a it’s acontradiction so you have to you have tothink about terms you have to think itfrom a long-term standpoint but also youhave to think in terms of day-to-daytactics and this is where you know I’vebeen very critical in the past to thisidea of like fail fast because like Ialways things like fail fast is like thekey word in there is not fast it’s failand failure sucks and success is awesomeand we should be trying to succeed notfail and I think the fail fast thing ispeople thinking because I think failfast makes a lot of sense on tactics ifthe tactics Network doesn’t work find adifferent tactic I think fail fast iscatastrophic if it’s applied to strategyand if it’s applied to goals and I thinka lot of founders frankly even stilllike talk themselves out of what aregoing to be good ideas in the long runbecause they’re not getting immediatetraction and so again it goes back tolong term like we just ruled by data andwhat cited by their gut that’s actuallyso that is actually a racing point sothat is one of the things that happenswhich is in the old day in the old dayswhen I when I was running short pantsyou just didn’t hat you didn’t have allthe data it was much harder to get asense of how well you were doing and solike on the one hand you you you feltless concrete connection to what you’redoing but on the other hand you didn’thave this cascade of data coming at youand now is you know like in all of thesebusinesses today you have daily weeklyif you want you have data to the minuteto the second to the microsecond of howwell or poorly you’re doing and it’sreally easy to get distracted by that bythat short term data and it’s reallyeasy to draw a long termLucian’s based on short-term data andyou do see companies that have gotten inreal trouble over that mm-hmmconversely you see companies you knowthat worked for a very long time onsomething that people think is justcompletely nutty and they get heavilycriticized along the way and by the waysometimes those work and sometimes theydon’t but when they do work that is howyou do something like for all this wholething about how everything’s supposed tobe speeding up it still takes a decadeor more to build something reallysignificant I mean it you know in thisworld like it still really does so whenit comes to like interesting productsthat seem to be sort of jerked around bytheir own data or were for a long time
It’s not accidental or because they are stupid. Its often confusing and vague on purpose. Some of the greatest corruption scandals in history have happened thanks to jargon.
A few Republicans have managed—really—to work successfully with the president. Here’s what the new speaker could learn from them.
But there’s no formula for successfully negotiating with this mercurial, ad hoc chief executive. Pelosi’s first attempt to do so, an agreement in September 2017 to protect the Dreamers from deportation in exchange for border security funding, fell apart not long after it was announced.
Still, there’s no reason to think Pelosi, or anyone in the nation’s capital, can’t find a way to a win with Trump. Here’s what we’ve learned about the art of making a deal with Trump from the few successful people in Washington who have figured out how to get what they want out of the president.
Convince Him He’ll Be Loved
Trump may want nothing more than to be well-liked and appreciated. The bipartisan criminal justice reform bill seems to have been sold to him as an opportunity to do just that. Versions of the First Step Act, a major reform that liberalizes federal prison and sentencing laws, had floundered in Congress for years. The policy already had support from across the political spectrum—but it needed a Republican president who could provide political cover to bring enough members of the GOP on board.
Trump wasn’t an obvious champion for sentencing reform. He ran a campaign promising “law and order” and selected the tough-on-crime Jeff Sessions as attorney general. Sessions’ Justice Department had issued reports critical of the bill. The president has suggested that convicted drug dealers deserved the death penalty. To get his support, the criminal-justice reformers would need to conduct a conversion.
The evangelist was White House adviser Jared Kushner, who, all accounts say, worked hard to persuade his father-in-law. Kushner met with everyone from members of the Congressional Black Caucus to Koch-funded interest groups to the news media to bolster an already large coalition. It helped that Kushner was able to deliver plenty of groups and individuals on the right.
“I think the broad popularity of the policy was the gateway,” says one of the bill’s advocates, who watched the process at the White House up close. “The president was also given a booklet of dozens of conservative organizations and individuals making supportive statements on the bill to show grassroots political support. And then it took some convincing that law enforcement was on board.”
The last piece proved crucial, because there’s perhaps no interest group Trump cherishes more than law enforcement. The marquee names—the
- Fraternal Order of Police, the
- International Association of Chiefs of Police, the
- National District Attorneys Association—
were enough to get the president on board. With seemingly few people opposed (Tom Cotton, otherwise a devoted Trump ally, the most prominent) and even staunch critics in the media like Van Jones making the trek to kiss Trump’s ring at the White House, Kushner and his partners succeeded in selling Trump on the most important provision of the First Step Act: Mr. President, you will be loved for signing it.
It won’t be easy for Pelosi, but the Democratic speaker may be able to use similar tactics to goad Trump into supporting some bipartisan health-care initiatives. The administration has already begun proposing some form of federal intervention to lower prescription drug prices, while Democrats have long argued that Medicare should negotiate with Big Pharma on bringing down drug costs. Some kind of compromise bill could get the support of both Capitol Hill and the White House. Your older, Medicare-using base will love you for it, Pelosi might tell the president. That would get his attention.
Remind Him of His Campaign Promises
Earlier this month, Trump and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul were having one of their frequent conversations about the American military presence in both Syria and Afghanistan. Paul, a persistent, longtime critic of the continued deployment of troops in the Middle East, has found the strongest ally of his political career on the issue with Trump.
After their discussion, Paul sent the president some news articles supporting his view that the time was right to withdraw from Syria, says top Paul aide Doug Stafford, who says Trump sent back a note alerting him that he would “see some movement on this soon.” On December 19, Trump announced the forthcoming withdrawal of the roughly 2,000 U.S. troops fighting ISIS in Syria. The move was resisted by just about everyone around Trump, inside and outside the administration, including John Bolton, Jim Mattis and Lindsey Graham. All, except Paul.
“I think people mistake it like Rand is trying to get him to do what Rand wants. But this is what Donald Trump ran on,” says Stafford. “Rand sees his role more as keeping the president where he wants to be and where he said he would be against some people who are inside of the White House and other senators who are trying to push him off of his beliefs and his position.”
Trump’s argument with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer over the wall shows he has no interest in policy, he just wants to “have fights with Democrats … on camera,” says Ezra Klein. John Heilemann and Kimberly Atkins join Lawrence.
If Trump wanted the wall, he wouldn’t have televised the meeting. The difference in funding is relatively small, but Trump offered nothing to trade. If he really wanted the wall, he would have offered citizenship for the Dreamers, which could have been popular for both sides.
In the closed door session, Trump said Mexico will pay for the wall one way or the other. He said the new Nafta will allow the government to collect money.
A reconsideration of tactics is in order.
- They could create a proposal on 1 piece of paper, deliver it and walk out