Intentional Consequences

by Charles Harris

  “Well, I never had that happen before. Yes, I’m fine. Thanks for getting us out of there so quickly. Is this part of your security protocol?”

  “Yes, Ma’am, falls under what we call non-life-threatening harassment. The best way to deal with it is to avoid engagement and exit as quickly as possible.”

  While her driver gave a report to her threat management people, Valerie called Rakesh, who was on the way to the restaurant in another car. Following calls with his security team, Rakesh and Valerie decided not to report the incident. The security team and Rakesh’s PR people would scan the internet for any mention of it and prepare ‘no comment’ releases as a contingency.

  As they neared the restaurant, Valerie asked, “Are you armed for this assignment?”

  “Yes, Ma’am.”

  “Did you pull your weapon back there?”

  “No, Ma’am. We’re trained to draw our weapon only when we’re prepared to fire it. There was no need for that back there.”

  Rakesh was already at the crowded mid-town restaurant when Valerie arrived. Their table was in a small, private room at the top of the stairs leading to the second floor of the restaurant. The room’s glass walls were surrounded by full wine bottles held in horizontal racks eight feet tall. Inside, the effect was like being in the middle of an intimate wine cellar. The rectangular table for eight was set for two, with Rakesh and Valerie in the middle, across from each other. The setting reflected the glamour wealth afforded and the discretion it demanded.

  Rakesh stood up and hugged Valerie deeply when she was shown into the room. “You OK?” he asked as he held her. She nodded yes and smiled.

  Rakesh was wearing the same blue chalk-striped suit and red, white and blue silk tie he had worn for his day of meetings. As the Malbec was served, he loosened his tie and watched at Valerie, finally breaking his stare with a smile. Valerie was still wearing the outfit she had worn for her keynote address, with a couple of extra buttons on her shirt left open to provide some romance.

  “You’ve had quite a day!” Rakesh said. “I’m so glad you’re alright. Do we need to talk some more about what just happened, or should we talk about the rest of the day?”

  “I need to get my mind on to other things.” She took a deep breath and exhaled.

  “How was the presentation?” Rakesh asked.

  “It went well. The slides flowed nicely. Sally Jones gave me a kind introduction and the audience seemed attentive. I did have one conversation during the reception that was a little unnerving.” She told him about the professor who had urged her to manipulate her research to support issues and about the protestors outside the auditorium.

  “How were your meetings,” Valerie asked. “Were you able to see everyone?”

  “They were good. Lunch ran a little long, but we recovered the schedule. The meetings with Goldman and J.P. Morgan went about as expected. The customer meetings in the afternoon were very promising. There’s huge interest in what we’re doing—AI analysis of big data sets, cloud computing customized to the needs of specific companies, hybrid cloud systems integrated with their own computer resources. Reinforced our need to keep hiring more good people.

  “Lunch was the most interesting discussion of the day. We started out talking about AI but ended up talking about politics. Bill shares my concerns about how polarized our politics have become. He’s particularly worried about what may happen if the Democrats expand their identity politics to target the wealthy. The bank’s strategy people are concerned it could lead to theft, vandalism and even social unrest. They’re already seeing an increase in ‘entitlement’ shoplifting at high-end stores here in the city. They think things will get worse if the Democrats move from ‘pay your fair share’ to ‘we need to take your money because you don’t deserve to have it’.”

  Valerie said, “This isn’t the first time we’ve faced progressive and even socialist ideas in this country. FDRs New Deal changed America but didn’t make us socialist. Despite that, I think we’re more exposed to a sea change in our system of government today than we’ve been in a long time.

  “I’m most concerned about the combined effect of social and political factors we’ve never seen come together before: fake news and disagreement over the most basic facts; partisan bitterness focused on revenge, clearly made worse by identity politics firing up passions and hate; sharply falling trust in major stabilizing and enabling institutions like government, business, religious organizations and the media; and significant change in our media, both social and traditional, with very little understanding of what those changes mean to our democracy.”

  “That’s a sobering list,” Rakesh said.

  Their dinners arrived. Fatigue setting in, they ate quickly and silently. After dinner, their car took them back to the hotel. The ride was uneventful.

  Changing into their pajamas, they held one another in stillness as they overlooked the lights of Central Park from their suite at the Pierre. Finally, Valerie said. “We should get some rest. Long day today.” They fell asleep quickly in one another’s arms, leaving the drapes open to the lights of the city as they always did. Valerie dreamed about the grandchildren she hoped to have someday playing happily with their cousins on Memorial Day at their house in Aspen. Rakesh dreamed about a bomb going off at a bi-partisan Memorial Day celebration in Virginia.

  Chapter 11

  The next morning, Rakesh and Valerie met David Bernbach for breakfast in the Pierre. Bernbach greeted them warmly as they entered the restaurant. “Rakesh, so good to see you again,” Bernbach said, shaking hands with him. “You must be Valerie,” he added, extending his hand to her. “It’s wonderful to meet you finally. I enjoyed your latest book.”

  Tall and slender with a regal bearing, Bernbach was dressed in an elegant grey wool Brioni suit with a red and black silk tie. The temples of his slicked back black hair were streaked with grey. His guests were more casual, with Rakesh wearing a dark blue blazer with grey checked slacks and Valerie in a long-sleeved jersey dress with a blue and white floral print.

  As they walked to the table, Bernbach said, “I invited an old friend of mine to join us. His name is Fred Billings. He’s the founder and retired CEO of one of the largest independent chemical companies in North America. Like me, he’s an avid student of politics. When I discovered he was in New York, I couldn’t resist inviting him to meet you both. I hope it’s not an imposition to have him join us.” Rakesh and Valerie assured him it was fine.

  After the usual banter over coffee and pastries, Bernbach said, “I have a reputation for getting to the point, so let me explain why I had hoped we could get together. It’s no secret Fred and I have poured considerable money into Democratic political campaigns and action groups. We’ve both been friends of the Clintons for many years, although Fred was less enthusiastic about her 2016 run than I was. We’re both looking ahead to the next election and thinking about how to deploy our resources. We were hoping you might share your thoughts with us on two topics we’ve been discussing. First, how do you see the polarization of the media affecting our democracy and coming elections? Second, on a relative basis, how susceptible do you think the United States is to what I’ll call radical political change?

  Glancing at Rakesh with a wink, Valerie said, “I’m flattered you’d be interested in our opinion. On your first issue, polarization of both traditional and social media is at an all-time high.

  “In theory, we shouldn’t care if we still have multiple views capable of giving us the informed electorate democracy requires. In reality, that’s not happening. We’re having a harder time deciding what’s true and what’s not true, and even what’s relevant. That’s one of the reasons trust in the media has dropped so precipitously in this country. We don’t know where to go to get an objective view of the news or the issues. Walter Cronkite is no longer with us and nobody’s here to replace his calm, objective voice.

  “Polarization helps fire up each side’s base—the voters who love echo chambers. Me
dia polarization helps fuel identity politics on the right and on the left. And that contributes to more partisanship and bitterness, which fuels more media polarization. It’s a terribly dangerous feedback loop, driven in part by the media’s need to attract viewers and readers.

  “We don’t like to admit it, but most voters are poorly equipped to consider all the information and judgment factors that should go into a decision on how to vote. Although the internet has given us almost instantaneous access to huge amounts of information, the sheer mass of it all has made it harder for us to sift through the data to decide what to do. At the same time, the internet is training all of us to expect easy, immediate answers without a lot of thought. To be blunt, we’re becoming superficial and lazy. So, we look to our tribal groups and elites and echo chamber influencers for answers. Democracy doesn’t survive well when voters decide truth is whatever their tribal group wants it to be and don’t care about going to the trouble to find out otherwise.

  “How you feel about this depends on how you want to use it. If you care about democracy, you may find it disturbing. If you want to take advantage of it, you may say this is an excellent opportunity to increase your control and influence over the voters who identify with your group. Look at Fox News and CNN.

  “As for your second topic, our country is more susceptible to radical political change today than it has been since the New Deal. Much of this is due to the loss of trust in our major social and political institutions—those same organizations and elites we were just talking about, which promulgate the stereotypes that guide how we live our lives and how we view our system of government. Andrew Yang understands this loss of trust, by the way.

  “The risk of radical political change increases when the loss of trust is accompanied by anger, or ‘contempt’ as Arthur Brooks calls it. When these factors coincide, the masses are the most volatile, and most likely to act on emotion unconstrained by historical stereotypes.”

  Rakesh said, “I worry about the potential impact of a Black Swan event on this. I don’t know how we’ll find national consensus in an economic or wartime emergency if the American public can’t decide who to believe or what the facts are. Trump calls everything he disagrees with ‘fake news’. The Democrats and much of the media are doing everything they can to destroy the President’s credibility, both to make it hard for him to govern and to defeat him in the next election. If America gets into a crisis and the public doesn’t believe their president, who will they believe? Nancy Pelosi? AOC and her gang? Upwards of 20 Democratic presidential contenders? The military? And how will we decide?”

  Valerie said, “Putin understands this, and he’ll be happy to take advantage of it if he can. In our modern history, we’ve never faced risks like these before. It’s easy to blame Trump for his role in undermining presidential credibility and creating confusion about American foreign policy, but the Democrats and the liberal media are far from innocent beneficiaries. They know exactly what they’re doing. I’m not sure whether they fail to appreciate the unintended consequences that could follow, or they just don’t care about the results.”

  Rakesh said, “As bad as the consequences may be for America, maybe they think any price is worth paying to get the revenge they want.”

  Valerie said, “I hope you’re wrong on that last part.

  Bernbach said, “Valerie, what do you think about the pendulum swing argument that we’ll follow Trump with a far left progressive?”

  Valerie said, “There’s an argument that says Americans tend to autocorrect political extremes, particularly in presidential races. Some would say this kind of correction explains how we got Trump after eight years of Obama and the Democrats. Under this argument, voters would replace Trump and his right-wing politics with a left-wing progressive. This theoretical swing in 2020 helps explain why so many Democrat presidential hopefuls are rushing not just to the left, but to the far left. Much of the Democratic base sees Trump as far more than just a conservative. They see him as a far-right reactionary, and a racist at that. To them, the only realistic autocorrection is a far-left progressive. A mere liberal like Obama would not do. Of course, they’re missing the reality that common sense moderates flipped most of the new seats the Democrats won in 2018.

  “There’s an alternative version of this autocorrection theory that says voters want to replace Trump’s obnoxious personal qualities—his arrogance, his lies, his ego, his extreme partisanship—even more than they want to replace his policy platform, whatever it may be on a given day. Under this version, voters in 2020 will go for someone with more presidential character and demeanor. So, the pendulum will swing not so much from far right to far left as from a populist outsider to a more traditional insider people can respect. Some people claim Biden’s campaign people invented this version as a clever ploy to build support for him. It does fit him well.

  “There’s also a third version. This one says the pendulum will swing from our current period of bitterness, mudslinging and backward-looking criticism of America to a period of rekindled values and forward-looking collaboration to improve our country. Some call this the local government cooperation model, which James and Deborah Fallows wrote about in Our Towns. This is the alternative that keeps Pelosi and the DNC up at night. People have battle fatigue. It’s the 50th anniversary of the moon landing. If the economy stays reasonably strong, a backlash against the progressive movement, their dark views about America and the continued attacks on everything Trump does or says could give him four more years. Of course, it would help if he’d actually say something aspirational about making America great for everybody.”

  Bernbach said, “Where do you come down?”

  Valerie said, “It’s too early to make a prediction, but if I had to pick one today, I’d pick the third. Not because I like the result, but because I think it’s the more likely of the three at this moment. Whatever the outcome, 2020 is going to be ugly and emotions are going to be high.”

  They talked for another 30 minutes, until Bernbach said, “All very interesting. Thanks for getting together with us this morning. Valerie, your thoughts are very perceptive. Would you have any interest in consulting with us on the political landscape?”

  Valerie said, “As much as I enjoy consulting, I limit my paid work to non-partisan groups and activities. So, I’d have to pass on your kind suggestion.”

  Bernbach changed the subject. “Rakesh, how are you doing with JPAC? I was surprised to see you make that investment.”

  Rakesh said, “It’s been an excellent addition to our group. Our CEO, Dan Johnson, is a brilliant engineer who also has a feel for how to achieve political persuasion in our digital age. He’s always looking for more clients. You should send some of your political friends to see him.”

  Bernbach said, “Glad to hear it’s working out. Has to be a high growth business today.”

  ◆◆◆

  After the breakfast meeting broke up, Billings and Bernbach stayed behind to catch up.

  Billings said, “Interesting discussion. She’s impressive. I’m more convinced than ever we need to move aggressively. I’m set to meet with Franks later this week. I’ll call you on the private phone when I’m done.”

  Bernbach said, “Valerie would be good to have on our team, but she’s too damn objective, and too proud of it. Best we can hope for is some free commentary like we had today. She could be dangerous. We may need to take her public persona down a notch.”

  Chapter 12

  Early that afternoon, Rakesh and Valerie left Teterboro on their return flight to Austin. Before they reached cruising altitude, Valerie said, “I was thinking about your goal of building a coalition to reunite America. On the way up, you mentioned you’ve talked with some of your business colleagues. What kind of feedback have you received?”

  Rakesh said, “Virtually everyone I’ve spoken with agrees American politics is broken at the national level. They concur we’ve hit a dangerous level of partisanship and bitterness. They also agr
ee the 2020 election could be especially divisive and create unexpected results.

  “The harder part is convincing businesspeople to take a stand. Nobody wants to become a target for the activists who are ready to publicly punish anybody who says or does anything that offends their progressive ideals. If you look at the hair triggers the activists have set for anything they dislike, and the leverage they’re able to get in the traditional and social media, I understand the concern.”

  “You need to work on a list of consensus issues so you can have some concrete examples of what you’d roll out. Your message needs to be aspirational. Your topics and delivery need to echo that. Visuals, music, copy. You have to rekindle some American pride across everyone who sees your program.

  “Once you have your potential topics, spend some money on the best advertising firm you can find. Don’t try to figure that out by yourself. Ask the execs you know. This is no different than pitching a new series for Netflix. You can start with an elevator pitch, but to generate enthusiasm, you’re going to need a pilot—film in the can, as we used to say.”

  Rakesh said, “I’m thinking about setting up some meetings with senior business leaders Memorial Day weekend in Aspen. That’s not a lot of time. I need to work on the topics and find some help in developing some examples of how to pitch this to the potential sponsors and the American people.”