Intentional Consequences

by Charles Harris

“This is an odd situation, which is why I closed the door,” he said. “One of your students came to see me this morning, Mr. Shaquille Bryant. He was on a mission to use your personal wealth to discredit your work.”

  “He came to see me about a month ago,” Valerie said, “right after I returned from making the keynote presentation at the New York conference. Said he was writing an article about me. It was an unusual conversation, but nothing seemed to come of it, so I forgot about it.” She told Ammerman about the paint throwing incident outside the conference and the photo of it her student had found on the internet.

  “Well, a little more has come of it since.” Ammerman swiveled the computer display on his desk so they both could see it. “Here’s his article, which he apparently posted early this morning to a site called abolishtherich.com. He basically says your personal wealth keeps you from being objective. He also claims you’re using your maiden name in your professional work to hide your wealth and your bias.”

  “Sounds like what he said when he came to see me. I’ll read the article. Is there more?”

  “Unfortunately, yes. He’s orchestrated a campaign to post online comments on a lot of your articles.” Working his mouse, Ammerman pulled up some of the websites. “Here are some of the articles where they he or others left negative comments.” Moving to the student’s Twitter feed, he said, “Here’s his initial tweet of his article. As you can see, it’s gained some momentum.”

  “Amazing,” she said. “I’ve never been subject to something like that.”

  “I looked to see whether you had taught this student in earlier classes, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Do you recall any previous interaction with him?”

  “No, none.”

  “The only other thing he said was your wealth and your dishonesty in trying to hide it made him and others uncomfortable in your class.”

  “Oh, here we go. My wealth and devious efforts to conceal it are somehow triggering trauma in my students? Thank God I’m not teaching at Harvard. They’d actually believe that.”

  She paused, then went on, “I’m sorry. This is just a little hard to take. I’ll be married for 25 years this year. Most every bio on me mentions I’m married and a lot of them mention my husband. I live with him, I travel with him, I go to events with him. I get mentioned by name in articles about him. When we were married, we were essentially broke. Using my maiden name in professional matters had nothing to do with money. I just wanted to be able to carve my own career, independent of his.”

  Ammerman said, “I sympathize. You should read his article. He calls you out for misleading people about your wealth, but what I think he’s really saying is people shouldn’t trust your objectivity because of your wealth. In other words, even if you make sure people know you’re wealthy, they shouldn’t trust you or your work because you have money.”

  “So, do I publish a summary financial statement as a footnote to my papers? Do we start assigning identity factors to grade the veracity of our research? Let’s see, minus 50 for having wealth, plus 10 for being a white female, minus 80 for being a white male, plus 100 for being a person of color, and so on? Do we add trigger warnings to my class listings in the University catalog that say ‘Caution, you may be offended because this professor is married to a successful, self-made billionaire’?”

  “No, stop. You’re missing what I just said. He’s basically saying your wealth makes your work untrustworthy. At your wealth level, it’s a disqualifier. He’s saying your work has no place in the marketplace for ideas, and you have no place teaching and traumatizing innocent, impressionable students.”

  Fire flashed in her eyes as his words sunk in. “Do you believe that’s true?”

  “No, and neither will anyone else who knows you. But these are strange times. The pitch he’s making will resonate in the 2020 election, at least with the progressives who are already after the rich. If the Democrats are successful in adding wealth to their identity politics, your student may attract more followers than you think. He knows that. He’s going to do everything he can to gain publicity and credit for his prescience and his timing.”

  “Thank God I’m at least female.”

  “The troubling thing about all this is using identity flags to quash ideas and debate. Encouraging diversity and transparency in the marketplace of ideas is a good thing. Saying someone has no place in the conversation because of who they are or where they came from is not.”

  “Do you have any advice for me?”

  “I don’t know where this will go. I agree it’s good we’re in Texas, and not at Harvard. Nevertheless, politics can affect state schools as much or more as the elite private ones. Remember Beto O’Rourke came within 2.6 points of knocking Ted Cruz out of the Senate in 2018. Beto’s folksy social media videos attract younger voters, like our students. I think he’ll melt down in the debates. He’s a hollow suit wanna be, but we’ll see. Doesn’t matter what I think. Point is, his followers could have a heyday with this and that could affect the administration as well as the students.”

  “Good reminder.”

  “I have my regular meeting with the Dean next week. I need to mention this to him, so he’s not surprised. In the meantime, read the article and scan some of the posted comments. Set some online alerts. Check the student newspaper. Talk to your husband. Avoid talking to the media, student or otherwise. Also, be aware of your surroundings. Protests could be next.”

  “OK.”

  “With all that, try not to let this distract you too much. You’ll get through it.”

  Chapter 27

  The meeting was the second update session with Franks since he’d signed his engagement contract a few weeks earlier. Billings and Franks were at Billings’ North Carolina house. Bernbach was calling in over a secure phone.

  Bernbach said, “For today’s meeting, I’d like to talk about three priorities, which I’ll call stir the pot, socialize structural change and crowd control. After that, we can talk about how we implement these priorities. We can also review some of the projects Mr. Franks already has underway.”

  Billings said, “Let’s start with stirring the pot. To effect radical political change that will alter the structure of American government for decades, we need to leverage the frustration and fear of the American people, from the political class to the people in the streets. Not just the Democrats or the Republicans. Everybody, including the independents.”

  Bernbach said, “To do this, we need to keep the frustration and anger building. Encourage the activists. Stoke the radical ideas and fears about socialism. Cue up the bitter old man and the angry schoolteacher, Warren and Sanders. Play up divisive issues like abortion rights, health insurance and immigration, even reparations for slavery. Let identity politics run. Emphasize the House investigations, Trump’s coverups and the cries for impeachment. Weaken the centrists and consensus builders. Accentuate the intraparty disputes between Pelosi and her far-left progressives. We want to see passion, fear and resentment, and people reacting to those emotions.”

  “Where do you see the race card?” Franks asked.

  Bernbach said, “Front and center. Count on it. With Trump running his mouth on Twitter, the AOC gang on the attack, the Democratic candidates out to get Biden and the media painting Trump as a racist, we won’t need to do anything but stay out of the way and cheer.”

  Franks said, “Understand. The irony is Trump’s not much of a racist if you look at his business career. He’s an elitist with an unlimited ego, and he thinks he’ll lose his base if he calls anybody else out for being racist. Until he figures that out, he’ll play into our hands. The Democrats think his whole base is racist. Fact is, most of them are no more racist than the white union members in the Democrats’ camp. Whites on both sides could use some more appreciation of what it means to be Black in America.”

  Billings said, “To have the effect we want, the partisan bitterness and anger lurking below the surface need to be visible. People need to see that ang
er, feel the risks and fear their families or friends could be caught up in it. The more real and localized the animosity, protests and even violence are, the better.”

  Franks said, “I’m compiling a list of protest movements, activist leaders and political wannabes we can leverage. With the number of presidential candidates coming, generating regional and local news will be easier than usual. Our initial goal should be opportunistic—take advantage of things already going on, where we can sharpen the controversy. As we go forward, we’ll supplement that with our own creations. Once we get beyond the initial debates and the Democratic crowd begins to narrow, the intensity will pick up and opportunities for incitement will grow.

  Bernbach said, “We need to build on the anger surrounding identity politics. Race and sexual identity are givens, but we also need to look at income inequality and age. A lot of the Democrat candidates and progressive activists will be slamming the rich with new taxes and personal attacks. Fear and greed will play well there.

  “Age is also lurking behind the curtain. We can’t tax the rich enough to afford all the progressive programs. U.S. birth rates are down, below breakeven. Old people are becoming a much larger percentage of our population, making it even harder for younger workers to fund the taxes needed to pay for the social safety net for people who are no longer contributing to the economy. Whether it happens in 2020 or 2024, the conversation will eventually turn to a choice of taking care of the old or improving the lives of the people who are still productive. You can almost hear it now, if we cut Medicare benefits for end of life care, we can use the savings for Medicare for All, or for free college, or some other giveaway. Getting that issue out there will scare the hell out of the old people and help stir the pot.”

  Franks said, “Wealth will be easy. Abolish the rich and all that, and not just for taxes but to alter the balance of power. Age could be interesting. We’ve got 40 years’ difference from Buttigieg to Biden and Sanders. Age will start out with tropes and euphemisms. It’ll be cast in terms of energy and new ideas and commitment to change, which are more polite than saying Biden is old, but the implication will be clear, and the media will make that point. We can help. The big step will be when spending priorities get discussed in terms of improving the lives of those who are building America’s future. If you’re old, it will feed your fear. If you’re young, it will drive your greed.”

  Bernbach said, “We’ll want to use our Boston think tank to produce articles and research we can plant on traditional and social media.”

  Franks said, “I’ve already started a list of topics and assignments.”

  Billings said, “I want to add some context here about platform issues. We see a difference between the progressive platform planks—such as higher taxes, Medicare for All or the Green New Deal—and proposals that would change the structure of our government. “Both help stir the pot. At this point, we don’t really care how the platform issues go, if they generate controversy and disagreement. In contrast, the proposals for structural change add substantive value to what we’re trying to accomplish. So, one of our goals is to socialize structural change in a positive light. We want the traditional and social media to increase the public’s willingness to consider and accept structural change. Just like they came to accept same sex marriage. Just like they rushed to support the #MeToo movement and other liberal causes.”

  “We’ve all seen the lists of potential changes,” Billings continued. “Things like eliminating the electoral college, packing the Supreme Court, changing the structure of the Senate and dropping the voting age to 16. We want to frame the conversation about these changes and mold public opinion toward them. Buttigieg’s intellectual approach can be helpful here. We’re going to need help with academic support, print media placement, social media campaigns.”

  Franks said, “Watch for Buttigieg to help with this. He’s a good debater who comes across as an objective intellectual on structural change. His euphemisms for packing the Supreme Court are great. But he’s street fighter. He knows exactly what he’s doing and why structural change is so important to accomplishing progressive platform goals.”

  Bernbach said, “We’re putting the final touches on our issues Super PAC, which will help with funding of some of these initiatives. Because the PAC will be dealing with issues only, it won’t be subject to contribution limits it won’t have to disclose the names of its contributors. We plan to use some PAC funds to fuel social media campaigns—both positive and negative, including fake news and disinformation projects. We’ll also fund payments to professors, researchers, opinion leaders and other elites for articles and research reports that support our points of view. Mr. Franks, as we’ve discussed, you’ll have access to funds from the Super PAC, but you won’t have to deal with the dollars or the contributors. The PAC’s management will handle all that.”

  Billings said, “That brings me to another one of our goals, which is crowd control. Given the growing field of Democratic candidates for president, a lot of this will happen by default. We don’t need to waste time or money knocking out the weak players who have no chance of making it.”

  Franks said, “We may peak out at 20 candidates or so, but most of them are kidding themselves. If they’re running for anything, they’re running for a long shot at being somebody else’s VP. By fall, the field’s going to be slashed by lack of money and support. The party rules on who gets in the debates this summer will knock out a few people, but the fall debate rules will take out a lot more. I expect the crowd will be cut in half by year end, and some of those will just be hangers on hoping for a break or a VP slot.”

  Billings said, “Later on, we’ll want to get our marketing machine behind one or two strong candidates who can best help us achieve what we’re trying to accomplish. When we get to that point, we may need to take out some remaining candidates who could hurt our picks.”

  Bernbach said, “We’re building a machine that can win in 2020 and beyond—a machine any presidential candidate would want to have behind them. When the time comes, we’ll align that machine with a leading candidate who will give us the influence we deserve. In between, we’ll use the machine to influence who makes it into the final pack. The main question at this stage is whether there are any likely survivors we’d prefer to damage sooner rather than later and, if so, how we do it.”

  Franks said, “Virtual assassinations are an easy and effective tool. I’ve never seen a time like this, when one or two claims by someone no one’s ever heard of can take down the career of a person who has spent his or her life building a stellar record of commitment and service. This isn’t just #MeToo stuff. Actions and positions that were fair, logical and legal 20, 30 or 40 years ago get dredged up and used to demolish a good person. As crazy as the progressives are likely to get this cycle, even being part of the Obama administration may be enough to destroy somebody. The media plays a huge role here, perhaps because they’ve been emboldened by doing everything they can to ravage Trump.”

  Bernbach said, “Anybody you’d put on the easy target list today?”

  Franks said, “Have to include Biden. He’s immensely popular with the Obama crowd, he’s far more likely to beat Trump than the avowed socialists and he can raise big bucks the traditional way. So, he’ll be a survivor even though everybody will be shooting at him. If his centrist views create stability you don’t find helpful, he needs to be on the targeting short list before he attracts even more support. Biden will be an easy hit. You pick a few examples like race and women’s issues showing his lack of sensitivity to current progressive ideals. You can count on Harris and Booker to paint him as a racist at some point. If the attacks help their standings in the polls, it’ll be open season on Joe. Even Biden’s good work for Obama will get thrown in his face. We can be ready to build on all that.”

  Bernbach said, “Who else?”

  Franks said, “Kamala Harris could be another easy target. Like Biden, she’s going to take shots for the job she did earlier
in her career as a prosecutor and attorney general. Her law enforcement work is out of style with progressives today. She’s also open for characterizing herself as a poor minority girl who did well, when in reality her dad was a Stanford professor and her mom was a medical researcher.”

  Bernbach said, “Not as bad as claiming to be a Native American with one or two percent genetics. Anybody else?”

  Franks said, “Buttigieg. He’s attracting a lot of attention early on, but the bloom may fade as the race goes on. His weak spots are his youth and his lack of experience on national issues. Plus, he’s got baggage from his police department in South Bend, which has been criticized for bad race relations before and during his tenure. Whatever he tries to handle the situation, it’s going to dog him. The gay issue won’t make much difference in the primaries, but you can bet Trump will use it in microtargeting if he makes it to the general.”

  “So, would you play any of these now?” Bernbach asked.

  Franks said, “Not immediately, but we should keep the topic on our weekly agenda. After the initial debates in June and July, we should consider some opportunistic test shots.”

  Bernbach said, “I’d prefer to leave Biden and Buttigieg off the attack list for now. With 20 people gunning for Biden, he may need some help as the race unfolds. May sound crazy today, but I can see Biden-Buttigieg as a ticket we could support to produce radical structural change. Far different from Biden-Klobuchar, which we don’t need. Look at how to play Warren while you’re at it. She’s going to create a lot of emotion among her followers and detractors, and she could be hard to corral to our interests if she’s the last Democrat standing. If Sanders fades, she could dominate the progressives.”

  Franks said, “Do we have a position on progressives versus moderates?”

  Bernbach said, “Not at this point. The main goal for now is to use the progressive/moderate battle to stir the pot. Play fear and greed on both sides. Use the far-left progressive issues to spread bitterness and anger and set the stage for structural change.”