Marvin Leibstone’s Post

I watch debates differently than you do. (For better or worse.) Just before the Kamala Harris-Donald Trump debate, my neighbor asked if my work influences how I tune in to such spectacles. The answer was a simple “yes.” Of course, I watch as an American citizen and a concerned voter to do my homework to make an informed decision. But I also watch as a practitioner. A lot of my job is to take inputs from all sources—the news cycle, the political arena, the social scene—digest them and assess how they might affect my clients’ reputations and then plan for how to mitigate those risks. The outcome of a presidential election can have immediate and far-reaching consequences for our business clients. Changes in tax laws, trade agreements or labor regulations are standard with administration transitions, all of which impact a company’s bottom line, its workforce and its ability to compete. Being clear eyed about these possibilities empowers executives to prepare for both risks and opportunities in the decisions they make both during the election cycle (heads down, folks) and after. That’s why I watched this latest presidential debate both as a voter (and a mom) but also as an analyst to help my clients anticipate where potential issues might be lurking. Here’s a quick snapshot of the matters CBL is continually monitoring during this cycle: A manufacturing client in the Midwest could become the next John Deere if they misstep. A major trade association we represent in Washington, DC, is front and center in the debate over housing. A land grant-university president I advise is continuing to assess how to manage geopolitical issues stemming from the Israeli-Gaza war and responding to “woke” agenda critiques by right-wing talking heads. Our energy client in California is assessing how to balance the politics of the state’s push for a clean energy economy versus the Republican platform of drill, baby, drill. All of these businesses have a stake in the outcome of Nov. 5, and it’s up to our team to help them decipher how they react to the election results, no matter who wins. Our philosophy: Business leaders must proactively engage in scenario planning to ensure their organizations are ready for any political, economic or regulatory changes that lie ahead. By considering multiple possible pathways, companies can mitigate risks, seize opportunities and maintain operational continuity regardless of the winner. In a world that feels like the only certainty is uncertainty, the ability to plan for disruption is not just a competitive advantage—it is a necessity for long-term survival. Another certainty? You can guarantee I'll be watching and scheming and looking out for my clients' reputations until November and beyond. #crisiscommunications #issuesmanagement #scenarioplanning

THIS PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE WILL BE HISTORIC -- AND HUGE! The upcoming debate between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump will be historic in several ways, primarily because there will be no audience for the candidates to play to, and because it is the earliest such presidential debate in the modern era. And something significant is bound to happen that could greatly affect the outcome in this incredible election. Memorable lines from previous debates such as the "there you go again" debate quote used by then candidate Ronald Reagan to President Jimmy Carter really established Reagan as a viable candidate the American public could trust. Similarily, upstart candidate then Gov. Bill Clinton was moving ahead of then President George H.W. Bush with the "its the economy stupid" campaign; but Clinton needed to show he was very capable of becoming president. In their townhall debate, Bush was shown looking down at his watch in the midst of the debate, indicating he just wanted the debate to be over. However, it really symbolized that Bush was disengaged overall, and just didnt get it that the economy was such an issue. And the first Trump-Biden debate in 2020 was the beginning of the end for Trump, who lost that debate after looking overbearing and rude in constantly interupting Biden. Polls showed it turned a lot of people off to him. Their 2024 debate comes at a critical time, as Trump tries to overcome his recent felony conviction and Biden has to show that he has the mental accuity to overcome questions about his age. The biggest challenge for both is that they dont make a major mistake by saying something stupid that becomes the relentless bit that will be aired constantly and go viral on social media. Biden has raised questions about his aging by garbling some of his own policies and appearing a bit lost and confused at times. Trump also has a tendency to get carried away and ramble on about something inane and off the wall. The key for each is to get the other candidate off of his basic talking points. Trump should refrain from attacking in a harsh way but could ask Biden a question like: Hey Joe; how's the Biden family business doing these days? Do you think people really believe you did not have conversations with Hunter about his business interests in Ukraine and China. C'mon man! And Biden can try to get under Trump's skin by asking about his role in the Jan. 6 uprising at the Capitol as a means of undermining our democracy. Wasnt he really trying to set forth a political coups then to overturn legitimate elections. Most members of the public already have made up their minds going into the debate, but whatever happens could have impact on that 3 or 4 percent who havent yet made up their minds, including the "double haters." GAME ON. THE OUTCOME OF THIS DEBATE ON THE ELECTION IS SURE TO BE HUGE!!!

Last week’s presidential debate provided an opportunity to discuss power dynamics at the highest level. Beyond the obvious presence and veracity of the candidates, let’s explore the more subtle domain of power plays. ADDING VALUE Those at the top of status hierarchies demonstrate strategy and competence to deliver results. Trump accused Biden of having no clear strategy and lacking competence. Biden for his part shared data on the results he delivered. But data is unmemorable, and Biden’s citing of various statistics was anything but sticky. Neither candidate gave us a strong idea of what they intend to do during their next term. What both candidates could have done to strengthen their positions was to come out with clear plans to effect future change. NATIONALISM AND STATUS Higher status is given to those who represent the values and identity of the group. Trump spoke to his own personal strength when facing world leaders, showing America was a strong nation under him. Trump also cited how Biden made America look weak in the eyes of other nations, diminishing Biden’s perceived status. Conversely, Biden spoke to protecting world order and how he led America to support other nations. Neither candidate spoke strongly to the values of this nation. What both candidates could have done was position themselves as torch-bearers by speaking more to the values that we share as a nation rather than mere national identity or policy. REACTIVITY IS WEAK Both candidates reacted to one-another. Reaction signals that the other person’s words are the dominant point of discussion, making the other person appear more powerful. The most obvious moment of reaction was when Trump and Biden got into a scuffle about golf handicaps. What both candidates could have done was speak to the American people's interests rather than react to the words of their opponent. GO OUT WITH A BANG At the end of great startup pitches, successful founders conclude with a vision. Neither Biden nor Trump used their last few minutes to rally listeners to a visionary point of view. Biden’s final words attacked Trump. Biden also gave some vague general ideas he could pursue in office next term, but his words sounded more deliberative than solidified plans. Deliberation does not add value, plans do. Trump hit back by saying Biden didn’t do anything in office. Trump positioned some of his accomplishments at the end, showing results orientation and thus value-add, but nothing big. What both candidates could have done was end with a vision of where they want to take this nation. Nothing is more powerful than ending with a vision. Politics appears nasty, but it doesn’t have to be. The most memorable Presidents of the past were those who left us feeling good, not those who left us seeing their opponents as bad. It’s time to refocus on values, create action plans, and lead us towards a new vision

Wall Street Journal Good morning from Chicago. In 32 days, the Democratic Party has undergone a remarkable transformation. Until President Biden dropped his re-election bid July 21, the party was divided and dejected, convinced that Republican Donald Trump would win in November. Tonight, barely a month later, Democrats are united and eager to watch Vice President Kamala Harris accept the nomination to close out their convention. Of course, this could also be the peak of Democrats’ euphoria, just as was the case for Republicans on their last night in Milwaukee, two days before Biden made his fateful decision. There may not be another similar jolt in store after the DNC ends, but if the 2024 election has taught us one thing, it’s to expect the unexpected. —Ben Pershing, politics editor  What We're Watching The DNC: Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris is scheduled to address the convention in the evening. Follow the Journal’s live coverage of the convention now. (Live Updates) Economy: Existing home-sales for July are set to be released at 10 a.m. EDT after jobless claims at 8:30 a.m. and purchasing managers indexes at 9:45 a.m. The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City’s annual Economic Policy Symposium begins in Jackson Hole, Wyo. (Live Updates)

Danielle Pletka critiques U.S. leadership, focusing on Presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump. She highlights the insider knowledge in Washington D.C., using it to discuss Biden's alleged cognitive decline and leadership inadequacies, citing a Wall Street Journal article that many agree with despite partisan defenses of his capabilities. Pletka also targets Trump, noting his controversial actions, character flaws, and the blind loyalty of his enablers. She explores the repercussions of either leader's potential re-election, foreseeing Biden as a lame duck president, undermined by his administration and a Republican Senate, while predicting a Trump second term might stray further from seasoned advice towards yes-men, risking erratic governance. Pletka paints a bleak picture of the electoral options, questioning Biden's mental state and Trump's ethics, alongside other flawed candidates. She implies voters might choose the known over the uncertain, foreseeing a preference for openly flawed candidates. Her commentary sharpens the focus on profound issues in American politics, stressing that the forthcoming election is more about choosing the least harmful leader than the best one, urging voters to approach with full awareness of the stakes. Danielle Pletka's incisive critique, while focusing on the United States' leadership conundrum, underscores a broader, global democratic dilemma. The stark depiction of choosing between lesser evils be it due to cognitive decline, questionable moral compasses, or outright incompetence is not unique to the U.S. political landscape. Worldwide, voters often feel forced to choose the "lesser evil" rather than being inspired by genuine leadership. This dissatisfaction with political options is common across various systems and is more acute in some places. People swing between far-right and far-left, with centrists struggling to compete against bolder, yet often simplistic or extreme viewpoints. Corruption and incompetence further exacerbate this issue, diluting trust in potential leadership. Often, political arenas are run by self-serving figures, making voters doubtful of true leadership. This fuels disillusionment, leading to apathy or resentment and enabling demagogues who thrive on general discontent. Pletka's observations, through the lens of the American experience, resonate on an international scale, highlighting a critical challenge to modern democracies worldwide. The situation calls for urgent global political rejuvenation, advocating for reforms that emphasize integrity and real choices for voters. It demands a shift in democracy to nurture trust and optimism, steering away from disillusionment to a more hopeful and inclusive future. #globalaffairs #usa #politics #elections2024 #biden #trump #democracy Substack Danielle Pletka

Watching the political reactions to President Biden’s unsettling debate performance last week has been disturbing—even more disturbing than watching the debate itself. It’s not just the denials and the weak, self-serving excuses. For many Democratic pundits and politicians, the main assessment seems to be whether Mr. Biden can still win and, if not, whether his replacement can win if Mr. Biden elects not to run for re-election. For the pundits and pols, it’s all about winning, which means finding some way of perpetuating the scam on the American voters that the President is just fine. They are hoping a few carefully curated interviews can reverse years of events and the debate disaster. The substantive question of whether the President is fit to lead and govern 24-7 seems to be secondary if asked at all. Joe Scarborough, the liberal/progressive co-host of MSNBC’s popular Morning Joe show, nailed the distinction in the accompanying quote. He's right. No public company board or any venture capital, private equity or other institutional investor would allow a CEO to continue with President Biden’s cognitive challenges. They would not trust their CEO to lead, to manage, to negotiate, to assess and navigate challenges and threats, or to take advantage of opportunities. They would not be comfortable having the CEO represent the company across its various constituencies. They would not trust the CEO’s judgment, candor or truthfulness. Worst of all, they would wonder who was enabling this charade and running the company instead of the CEO. Make no mistake, they would fire the people who misled them. Business leaders understand that cognitive capacity is not just a relevant skill. It is an essential prerequisite, 24-7. Cognitive capability that comes and goes or drops beneath some minimum level is a disqualifier that cannot be offset. As business leaders, we need to speak out. Regardless of our respective politics, we have a lot of dogs in this fight. We care about America. Our businesses will be affected by the policies adopted in the post-election Congress. Preserving American democracy matters more today than it has in decades. Having an alert, cognitively capable Commander in Chief when the phone rings in the middle of the night can be essential to our national survival. Check out the New York Times editorial of June 29 entitled “To Serve His Country, President Biden Should Leave the Race.” https://lnkd.in/eyzXuTSe . Dramatic change can lead to others. Maybe we can end up with two new candidates instead of just one.

A bit overstated, I think, but some good points made. Trickle down has never worked and never will. It’s a hard sell convincing the average citizen that trickle up has worked either, though. Not with prices of goods so much higher now than they were. During COVID, our government printed more money, without anything to back it up, other than more debt. Then they gave it to everyone, regardless of need. That raised prices. It was an economic certainty. The rising of oceans of money raises the boats of pricing. Giving everyone money during COVID, regardless of need, was a mistake. I know the government had to act quickly, and maybe complete need-based hand-outs were impossible in that situation. Still, that action greatly contributed to our current situation. Our debt was already too high. Now it’s so high it’s become a sick joke we force ourselves to ignore. That debt can never be paid back. We don’t care, though, as long as our standards of living remain reasonably unaffected. They are, even if our boxes of Cheerios are smaller and pricier. When China and Russia finally join forces to take over the world, I guess we can give the finger to China, and wipe out a ton of our dept. What good will it do at that point, though?

📖 Weekend Reading 📖 1️⃣ Francis Fukuyama issued a recall on the end of history this week in the Financial Times. 🙂 His argument is essentially that Trump’s geopolitical and economic policies (see: tariffs) not only spell the end of neoliberalism, but also classical liberalism. Importantly, this won’t be achieved directly through the policies themselves, but rather through a gradual decay of institutions implementing those policies. https://lnkd.in/d_avshgX A more interesting article on this topic is Adam Tooze’s latest in The London Review of Books, in which he reviews Bidenomics, arguing that the main lasting impact on the administration’s policies is the pivot to a more aggressive stance on China. Both articles predict the end of the globalist model we’ve become used to over the last 3 decades, but Tooze marks the beginning of this shift with Obama. https://lnkd.in/dxXvyccu Relatedly, Joe Weisenthal and Tracy Alloway interviewed Ezra Klein on the legacy of Bidenomics on Bloomberg - this was a very enjoyable and insightful conversation. https://lnkd.in/dBrYgTsN 2️⃣ Dan Luu argues that Steve Ballmer was an underrated CEO. Not only did Microsoft’s revenues ~4x during his tenure, Ballmer oversaw investments into some big bets that ultimately paid off, but were not at all sure to succeed at the time. I liked Luu’s comparison of running a big company like Microsoft to a venture capital firm—you have to make big bets, and you shouldn’t be judged based on the bad bets alone. Instead, you should look at total returns, or at least see if there weren’t corresponding successes. In the Microsoft case, it’s clear that Azure and 365 (the SaaS business) more than made up for missing the mobile moment. https://lnkd.in/duV2MXWi This argument isn’t so surprising if you’ve listened to Acquired’s episode on Microsoft by the way. They did a good job of explaining Ballmer’s influence, and how it would be a mistake to pin him as just a “sales guy”. https://lnkd.in/duARSkyA 3️⃣ For something pretty different, Tara Seshan has a great overview of “Internal Software Builders,” or essentially low-to-no-code tools—and why there have been few successes in this category. Lots of really insightful nuggets based on interviews with users. I'm guessing Tara is building something new in this category - I'm intrigued 👀 https://lnkd.in/dWHs6zix #liberalism #neoliberalism #china #industrialpolicy #bidenomics #tariffs #bitcoin #microsoft #cloud #nocode #retool #lowcode

Trump Vs. Harris! The Face-Off! Introduction The long-awaited and highly anticipated first presidential debate between former President Donald Trump and current Vice President Kamala Harris finally took place in Philadelphia at the National Constitutional Center on September 10, 2024, at 9 PM ET. It was broadcast by ABC News. The moderators were David Muir, anchor and managing editor of World News Tonight, along with Linsey Davis, anchor of ABC News Live's Prime. This debate occurred just one day before one of the most important anniversaries in modern U.S. history—the 24th anniversary of 9/11, the day when Al-Qaeda carried out one of the deadliest and most infamous terrorist attacks, crashing five civilian planes into various targets in the U.S., causing numerous civilian casualties. It was the first time that the presidential candidates faced each other directly, in front of the curious eyes of the entire nation. The winner of this debate could very well be the next president of the United States. The debate's rules were identical to those from Trump's previous face-off against current President Joe Biden in June on CNN. Biden, however, has since stepped down from the race, passing the torch to his vice president, Kamala Harris. A few key rules included the muting of the microphone of the non-speaking candidate, no audience in attendance, and no notes allowed—only paper, a pen, and a bottle of water were placed on each candidate's podium. The Debate As the candidates took the stage, Harris was the first to approach Trump, introducing herself and offering a handshake. Trump accepted, and the debate began. Economy and Costs of Living The first question was about the economy and housing prices—a topic repeatedly raised by voters—and whether America is better off now compared to four years ago. Vice President Harris was articulate and clearly well-prepared, outlining her "Economy of Opportunity" plan, which focused on boosting the middle and working classes. She pointed out that Trump only caters to the wealthy and aims to introduce the so-called "Trump sales tax" of 20%, which would disproportionately hurt the average American, adding an estimated $4,000 per year to their expenses. Of course, Trump retorted that this was a lie. He quickly shifted to discussing the economy, inflation, and the tariffs he imposed on China and other nations, which he claimed earned billions for the U.S. Then, in classic Trump fashion, he pivoted. "Immigrants are to blame for everything!" Trump declared. "They're coming from prisons and insane asylums in other countries and stealing jobs from our African-American, Hispanic, and union. They’re taking over our cities and buildings violently, and Harris and Biden brought them here. They're destroying America, and we need to kick them out." Read more here: https://lnkd.in/dykbaUfr