Franks said, “I do. I couldn’t do what I do without having access to the people I need. Go back to my nine circles. I can activate trusted, capable resources in virtually every area in 24 hours or less. That access is part of what you pay me for. Confidentiality and deniability are built into every relationship and proven over many years of experience. But I also believe in cutting the deck. Everything is siloed. People know only what they need to know.”
Billings said, “What about the technology areas—social media and the internet?”
Franks said, “Same answer. My relationships go back to 2008, when Obama really set the stage for what’s happened since. If the budget permits, my favorite go to player is a guy in Austin who got his start working for Obama’s 2008 campaign. One caveat: I won’t do hacking. I’m happy to take advantage of mailing lists and information that were hacked by someone else, as long as we can cover the trail. I do pay attention to defensive cyber security on our side, which is essential these days.
Billings said, “OK. My last question is how you decide what jobs to take.
“As I mentioned earlier, I’ve been a hired gun for years. I’m good at what do, and I’m well paid for what I accomplish, which gives me a lot of flexibility in selecting my jobs. I think about two factors when I’m considering an engagement: First, where I can get the most money, which includes what I can earn and the budget I have to accomplish the results. Second, where I can have the greatest impact. There’s a third factor, of course, which is whether I can be successful. If the chances of success seem poor, then the other two factors don’t matter. I won’t take the job.
“I prefer not to let my personal political preferences get in the way, but there are clearly people and issues I won’t support. In addition, I won’t take on competing interests or issues that would create a conflict for me.
Billings stood and stuck out his hand to Franks. “Thank you for coming, Mr. Franks,” Billings said, shaking hands firmly. “It’s been an interesting conversation. Jason will take you back to your vehicle and get you processed out. He’ll also give you a mobile phone to use to communicate with me securely. Don’t use it for any other purpose. Jason will explain the protocol and what to do with the phone if we don’t do business together. I’ll be in touch. Do you have any questions before you go?”
Whether or not he had any questions, Franks simply said, “No, sir, I don’t. Thank you for your time today. You have a beautiful place here.”
Stowing his AR-15 in the truck, Jason drove Franks down the mountain.
◆◆◆
After they left, Billings returned to his chair by the fireplace and sat silently watching the flames. As dusk came, he picked up his secure phone and made a call. When Bernbach answered, he said, “It’s Fred. You were right, I think we have our man. He’s good, but he’s going to be expensive.”
They talked for an hour.
Chapter 20
Friday morning, David Bernbach’s driver dropped him off at the Cambridge home of Professor Adam Stanton, one of the leading professors at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. Located a short walk from Harvard Square, the historic two-story frame house had hosted discrete meetings of political and intellectual elites for 125 years. Surrounded by well-kept gardens, the house was a local landmark built in 1888 and extensively restored over the years. Even at Harvard, for a professor to own a home like this meant he had either married well or been highly successful as a consultant. A close advisor to two Democratic presidents, Professor Stanton had done both.
Stanton’s guests were Bernbach, Professor Peter Kahn of the Harvard Law School and Leonard Mayer of the Sentinel Observer Media Group. The men all knew each other and, within limits, trusted one another. The official topic was the future of the press in America. The real reason for the meeting was the 2020 election. The meeting invitation had come from Professor Stanton. The impetus for the meeting had come from Bernbach.
The weather was still too cool to enjoy the brick patio in the rear yard, where crocus and daffodils were announcing the arrival of spring. The men met in the dark-paneled library in the front of the house—a venue that reflected the privacy of the conversation and the intellectual standing of the participants. Dressed in wool suits and silk ties, they sat in leather chairs around the library’s old brick fireplace. Heavy drapes framed the tall casement windows. Crystal decanters of aged sherry and port sparkled on the buffet. Norman Rockwell would have placed the scene at the Harvard Faculty Club.
They spent the first hour discussing the growing field of Democrat candidates for the 2020 presidential race. Professor Kahn said, “The party needs fresh faces. Biden’s a good man, but he’s too old, he’s got a trainload of baggage from his years in politics and he’s lost his compass. After sitting out 2016, he wants it too much, and he’s too willing to compromise his views to be credible. By the time he finishes apologizing for everything he’s done in his eight years in the White House and thirty-plus in the Senate, he’ll look like the weakest presidential candidate in history. And that’s before he starts pandering to the progressives on platform issues and fumbles on the debate stage. He needs to get out of the way before he smothers the other moderates and problem solvers like Delaney and Hickenlooper.”
Mayer said, “The progressives are the flavor du jour right now, at least in the media. But as the campaign evolves, progressive daydreams aren’t going to do it. The party’s going to be looking for someone who can win, and that’s Biden. My question is whether what Biden has to say to win the primaries will kill him in the general election.”
Bernbach said, “Trump will be ready to use Biden’s primary concessions to the progressives to paint him as a socialist by the time he gets to the general election.”
Professor Stanton said, “The progressives will clearly move the Democrats to the left, but I still don’t think an irate progressive like Sanders or Warren can win the general election. I don’t want to see us nominate another Mondale or McGovern, particularly when Trump is such an easy target. At least Biden has a shot at appearing more mainstream.”
Mayer said, “If the party goes with an angry progressive, we could get killed in November. But an all-out war between the progressives and the moderates could produce the same result.”
Bernbach said, “Let’s go up a couple of levels, above the candidates and the platform issues. I’d like to talk about two topics. First, I think the country is more susceptible to radical political change than it has been since the thirties. I believe we can use that over the next two presidential elections to usher in single party rule that will last for generations. I don’t want to see us squander that opportunity. Second, I think the progressive movement we’re seeing poses a serious risk to the elites who have controlled the party for decades—not because of platform issues, but because of changes in demographics and the technology of how elections are funded and won.”
Stanton said, “Well, David, I’m glad you don’t want to talk about anything important.”
Bernbach said, “You don’t accomplish things if you don’t set goals. I’m not saying we wipe the Republicans off the map. We just put them in permanent minority status. Remember what FDR did to Hoover in 1932 and Alf Landon in ‘36. Look at the legacy of Democratic dominance he left behind.”
Mayer said, “Well, sure. But we were in the worst economic crisis in our nation’s history. That’s hardly the case today. The Democrats can tell their base only the rich are benefitting from the economy, but the facts paint a different picture. A lot more blue-collar voters are employed today than under Obama.”
Kahn said, “True enough. We have the best economy we’ve had in at least 50 years. Fortunately, we’ve also got a lot of fear, anger and frustration from other circumstances. The question is how we fire up and manipulate those angry, frustrated people.”
Bernbach said, “This is simple. Our goal should be to put the pieces in place so the Democratic primaries will determine who wins the presidency and who control
s the Congress and, over time, the makeup of the Supreme Court. If we take advantage of the current anger, we make this happen. Just like California is effectively a one-party state today.
“To do it, we need to sweep the 2020 elections and make the structural changes that will give us the power to enact a progressive agenda regardless of Republican opposition. We don’t have to do everything on David Faris’s list, but that’s as good a roadmap as any. Incidentally, despite his efforts to look like an intellectual policy guy, Pete Buttigieg gets the importance of immediate structural change better than most of the Democratic presidential prospects.
“For the 2020 presidential contest, we need to go beyond trying to elect a candidate. We need to create a propaganda machine that takes advantage of how we crystalize public opinion in a post-internet world. If we build the right machine, we’ll have our pick of the candidates. We’ll be essential to their success.”
Mayer said, “Alright, David, let’s move to your second topic.”
Bernbach said, “If we can accomplish radical change, we have to make sure the right institutions and elites are in power after the change occurs. Our primary focus needs to be on how the strings are pulled and who gets to pull them.
Kahn said, “What are you concerned about, David?”
Bernbach said, “Think about the theories popular back in the twenties, when socialism was also a popular topic in American politics. Theories from people like Bernays, Lippmann and Trotter, all focused on the critical roles our social and political institutions and elites have in making democracy work.”
Mayer said, “Yes, yes. Without these institutions, the theory goes, democracy would get out of control because there would be no socio-political stereotypes to keep the demands of the masses within bounds acceptable to society, or to be more candid, acceptable to the power structure represented by the elites.”
Bernbach said, “Right. So, let’s bring those ideas forward to today. Trust in government and our other major institutions is at an all-time low. Anger is high. Revenge has dominated our politics since Obama was elected, maybe back to Bush v. Gore. If the voters lose confidence in our existing socio-political institutions and elites, they’ll replace them with others. Or worse, they’ll ignore them and adopt direct democracy with no constraints on the demands and emotional desires of the masses. Think about that when you hear candidates say they want to return American democracy to the people.
“Everyone claims they want to drain the swamp, but the changes so far haven’t wiped away the institutional infrastructure that keeps democracy working for the people who matter. Trump has come closest, which by the way is why he scares the hell out of everybody, including the media and his own party.”
Bernbach added, “Take the progressives’ attacks on the wealthy. Raising taxes used to be a way for Democrats to fund new social programs. The rich paid a few bucks more for a few years and waited for the Republicans to reduce taxes again. Today, taxes are becoming a vehicle to reorder our economy and alter the structure of power. If the progressives’ attacks on the wealthy create class warfare we can’t manage like we’ve managed the identity politics of race and sex, we could lose the financial and intellectual elites that form the core of the party, not because they’ll vote Republican—and this is the key point—but because our own evolving progressive base will reject them. So those elites will end up on the outside looking in.”
“You’re beginning to sound like a plutocrat, David,” Mayer said.
“Or maybe a Republican,” Stanton added.
Bernbach said, “Hardly. It may not be polite conversation, gentlemen, but remember there are two classes of Democrats—the elites and everyone else. Look around this room, not just at the people but at these elegant surroundings. Don’t forget where we fit in.”
He added, “This is our time, gentlemen. We can’t miss this opportunity for single-party rule, and we can’t screw it up by finding ourselves left on the outside.”
Mayer said, “With due respect David, you may be right about the two classes, but I don’t think the progressives or whoever the party activists may be are going to seriously believe they can win without us. We bring the big money, the decades of experience in government and the policy research that experience provides. We also bring the nation’s leading newspapers, which dominate news syndication across the dwindling number of local and regional papers across the rest of the country. They’d be crazy to try to play this game without us.”
Bernbach said, “Maybe so. But technology is already disrupting those things on a massive scale. Look at the success the Democrats have had with ActBlue, their multi-candidate fundraising app. That tool captured $16 million in small-dollar contributions in 2006, almost $800 million in 2016 and twice that in 2018. One thing is clear to me: If the Democrats’ growing base of minorities decides it can mobilize the internet to win without the party’s wealthy educated elites, we’ll be facing a very different democracy in America.”
Kahn said, “I’m with Leonard. That’s not going to happen. Technology may help raise money from small contributors and influence voter opinion through social media, but it’s not going to replace decades of government experience and policy expertise.”
Bernbach said, “Be careful. Trump fired all his experts.”
Stanton said, “Nobody but Trump would have done that, which is why the voters are going to run him out of the White House. I agree with Leonard and Peter. The concern you’re raising is interesting from a theoretical standpoint, but it’s not realistic.”
Bernbach said, “You may be right. But we’re dealing with unknown consequences here. Even if the party doesn’t decide it can do without its customary elites, the progressive attacks could still drive off the intellectual and financial powerbase that’s been the heart of the party for decades. The progressives have a lot of loose cannons. Just look at AOC and her crazy gang. Look at the emerging support for Palestinian causes within the party. Is antisemitism next? Do the Jews cross over? Whatever happens, we need to be sure we continue to have the control and influence we expect. That’s where I’m putting my time and money.”
Mayer said, “I’ll give you this, David. If you’re right about radical change, it could significantly reduce the power of the current party elites. If that happens, we need to be out ahead of the change to be sure we still have influence.”
Stanton said, “I admit we’re seeing increasing alienation between the party’s traditional elites and key constituencies within the party’s base like blue collar workers, students and progressives. Some of the 2020 presidential prospects are already hammering on this—not just Sanders and Warren, but people like de Blasio and even Ryan. When de Blasio says 2020 is a battle for the heart and soul of the party, he means it.
“We’re seeing this same thing across the broader political spectrum, both in the United States and abroad. It’s a growing discontent with established institutions and elites. It’s reflected in Trump’s election and his style of governing. It’s reflected in Brexit in the UK, the Yellow Vest crowd in France and the increasing popularity of the edge parties in Europe.”
Kahn said, “Adam’s right. People are giving up on institutions that have been critical to American democracy. Church attendance and pledges are declining. Respect for Congress and other government institutions is lower than it’s ever been. Participation in civic clubs has fallen drastically. Even the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are almost out of business. We’ve lost most of our print media. Those still around are megaphones for the right or left, just like our cable news networks.”
Mayer said, “Fortunately, most of the leading print media today are megaphones for the left.”
Bernbach said, “Adam and Peter are making my point. So, if America is losing faith in its traditional institutions and elites, who or what is going to replace them? You tell me. What’s it going to be?”
Mayer said, “As a print and social media publisher, I’d argue it’s going to be the internet. Instead of
looking to our pastor or our scoutmaster or our local newspaper or our elected officials to decide what’s best, instead of going to the elites for campaign funding, we’re going to look to the internet. To be sure, the traditional elites will still have their voices on the internet, and the internet itself will include millions of other voices besides. But here’s the key point: With the internet, technology will enable some group to direct and control the persuasion that drives the mob. We need to be part of that group.”
Bernbach said, “Now Leonard’s making my point. Mob rule based on likes, dislikes and fake news on the internet doesn’t strike me as a good way to protect our interests. We must have the tools and technology in place to script and assure the outcome. Nothing is more important. We can do this. Think about it. We inflame the masses using bot-driven, AI-crafted microtargeting. The masses react and take to social media to express the views we’ve planted. Traditional media spreads the word. Corporate America and the politicians react, afraid to turn away from the voice of public opinion. The leverage is huge. We punch way above our weight. Society responds, people vote.”
Mayer said, “That may be a little melodramatic, David, but your points make sense. Where are you with the organization?”
Bernbach said, “We’re setting up the issues Super PAC now. The finance team is in place. Fred Billings is on board. We’re close to hiring a very experienced Special Ops chief. We’re looking at GMMB for our ad buys. I’m hoping Adam and Peter will continue to fuel our think tank research and publishing. We have the same shell entities and admin staff there and will be adding some new interns. Leonard, I’m also hoping you’ll be willing to continue to coordinate stories and topics among your organization and the Times and the Post. Your stipends will go up and the budget for other contributors and participants should at least double from 2016. What do you say?”
Intentional Consequences Page 13