GETTING AN ELEPHANT TO MOVE
(IF NOT DANCE)
As stated on the "Initial Thoughts, Not Yet Proposals" page, climate activists might be missing a chance to actually get Trump to change his position on global warming; and, they need to begin thinking and talking, seriously, about how they might be able to do it. So, rather than trying to tell climate activists how to do it, two possible approaches are described on this page, in the hope of at least stimulating some thought along these lines.
STRATEGY 1: STUDY LOU GERSTNER, AND LOOK FOR "TENDER SPOTS"
Lou Gerstner was a genuinely great business leader. After rising through a series of positions – by doing well in all of them – he was appointed CEO of IBM, in 1993, not as a reward, but as a challenge. IBM was not doing well, at all; among other things, it had fallen seriously behind what had been merely a two-man startup company, called Microsoft, because IBM had failed to allocate enough of the right resources to develop the software that everyone knew would be needed to run the new class of machines (which were called "IBM Personal Computers" at the time). And, to make things even worse, everyone knew they would not be able to remain the dominant maker of those machines for long, because the main patents on the hardware components would soon expire. And, to make things even more worse, they had failed to stay out in front of the industry that was designing and making computer chips for those new types of computers, so they had to buy THOSE crucial (and VERY expensive) components, from another company – called Intel – that had started out small, but had also overtaken IBM.
Nevertheless, Gerstner turned IBM into a genuinely good and powerful company, again, by making not just one but an entire series of good management and strategic decisions, to help them figure out what to do, as they had to move beyond the failed opportunity to dominate the realm of desktop computers.
So, after he retired, he wrote a memoir of how he had done it. And, his book was called, Who Says Elephants Can't Dance? The concept behind that phrase was, and is, "Figure out where their tender spots are, and THAT is where you poke them, with a broomstick."
So . . . instead of merely giving up on the thought and the possibility of ever changing the way Trump does things, maybe climate activists should, instead, begin giving serious consideration to where Trump's "tender spots" are.
And, if they can be convinced to do so, they should ponder a profound insight into human nature, widely attributed to Buddhism (although, as with the Golden Rule, different variants can be found in pretty much every religion and culture). That insight is this: the things that make people unhappy, are the things that they want, but do not have. Therefore, Buddhism encourages people to learn how to stop wanting the things they don't have. However, when one ponders that advice, it's not hard to understand why it has never really caught on, in America, which prides itself in being "the land of opportunity", rather than "the land where you can learn how to stop wanting things." As evidence of how that works, advertising probably is a bigger industry, in the US, than anywhere else in the world. And, the basic role and goal of advertising is to make people want the things that are being advertised. In other words, advertising is designed, and crafted, to deliberately and intentionally make people unhappy – at least, unhappy enough to go out and spend their money on the product being advertised.
So . . . perhaps climate activists should begin focusing on what Trump truly wants, but does not yet have. Because those are likely to be the best places for "poking the elephant", in Gerstner's terms. And, it's not hard to figure out what those things are, because Trump makes no efforts to keep them secret. So, here are three obvious candidates, which may offer the best opportunities to put genuine, serious pressure on him, in ways that might be able to actually get him to at least move, somewhat, in some way other than just counter-attacking.
Potential Tender Spot 1: Trump truly wants a Nobel Peace Prize.
He has talked about that want, wish, hope, and goal, multiple times. And, his underlings have told various allies (Netanyahu, etc) that they are more likely to get what they want from Trump, if they will openly and publicly announce that their country has formally nominated Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize (in a written letter, which the leader of that country must publicly show to TV cameras, and provide to the press). And, he has sent his minions out in public to openly declare that they truly believe he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. And, he has even made a few open and public comments which clearly are directed at Norway and/or the Nobel selection committee, which appear to be early, initial probing efforts, to find out whether direct pressure (or inducements) from him, either for or against Norway, might be able to increase his chances of getting the Peace Prize (as in, what might Norway want, that he, as President, could help them get? And, why would anyone in Norway want to offend Trump, of all people, if he can turn around and punish all of Norway, via tariffs and/or other penalties?)
Now, suppose a bunch of climate activists began to openly and publicly counter those Pro-Peace-Prize talkers, with comments along the lines of, "Trump needs to realize that the Nobel selection committee, in Norway, actually understands global warming, and what it is doing, and is going to do to this entire planet, far better than Trump understands it. The Nobel committee knows, all too well, that global warming is going to be the driving factor behind some of the most brutal and deadly wars this planet has ever seen, during the coming century. So, there is no way the Nobel Peace Prize is going to be given, to someone who is actively and aggressively doing things which, as the Nobel selection committee knows, will end up making those wars even worse. And, Trump and his minions need to realize the facts. Global warming, climate change, and sea level rise are most emphatically NOT a hoax, as Trump keeps falsely saying. Instead, they are the most important things happening to this planet, in this era, and they are going to be contributing to making wars more frequent, and making them worse. The Nobel selection committee knows that, all too well. So, they regard Trump's efforts to dismiss global warming as a hoax, as the exact opposite of what a Nobel Peace Prize winner, or nominee, actually should do. Perhaps, if Trump would do a hairpin turn, and claim he has suddenly had an 'epiphany' (which can be explained to him), and claim that he had something like a 'road to Damascus conversion' (which also can be explained to him), and if he were to begin taking steps that would slow down global warming, instead of making it worse, then he might actually have a chance at being seriously considered, for a Nobel Peace Prize. But, short of that, we don't see any chance, at all, of the Nobel committee giving a Peace Prize to someone who is working actively to create even more wars, and kill even more people. Nor should they."
I would ask any and all climate activists to seriously ponder this paragraph: If Trump desperately wants a Nobel Peace Prize, and if large numbers of smart and serious people were to begin openly and publicly stating, time and again, that he absolutely MUST reverse his position on global warming, in order to have ANY CHANCE at actually winning one – and, if the argument and reasoning they use is logical, and makes good sense – and, if people in Norway who are in positions to be familiar with how the Nobel Prize selection committee actually works, begin to be quoted, openly and publicly agreeing with the climate activists . . . how would Trump respond? If all he does is get angry at the people making that argument, that will not help him win a Nobel Prize. And, he is smart enough to recognize that.
The bottom line is, Trump truly and clearly wants, very much, to win a Nobel Peace Prize. So . . . if he is openly, candidly, and honestly informed, not just by a few people, but by an entire chorus of important decisionmakers, that dramatically and publicly changing his position on global warming might be his ONLY chance to actually win that prize . . . what would he do?
Potential Tender Spot 2: Trump truly wants people to believe (and publicly agree) that he is a truly great genius.
Another potential "tender spot" that might be "pokable" is this: Trump truly and genuinely wants people to believe (and, to publicly agree and acclaim) that he is a genuine, legitimate genius, who truly deserves to be ranked up, not just alongside the greatest military leaders of all time (Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, etc.), but also alongside the greatest artists of all time (where other artists merely created paintings or statues, he actually transformed entire cities and city-scapes; and, now that he's President again, he can prove, to the entire world, how great an artist he is, by re-directing the Kennedy Center, and choosing who gets to be in his Garden of American Heroes, and putting himself in charge of America's 250th birthday commemoration).
So, a question that perhaps climate activists might want to consider, can be phrased as, What if Trump's intelligence began to be repeatedly attacked, questioned, and challenged, by people saying things along the following lines:
"If Trump was actually and genuinely intelligent, then he would never, ever be doing what he's doing, to make global warming, and sea level rise, even worse. As Forrest Gump said, `Stupid is, as stupid does.' And Trump is doing one of the most colossally stupid things that any President has ever done. And, he is doing that extra-stupid thing, on what is – by far – the most important problem, challenge, and danger that he, or this nation, is facing today, or has ever faced, at any time in its history. Unless he can find a way to show that he is actually smart enough to figure out, and understand, global warming and sea level rise, and unless he is also smart enough to replace the yes-man sycophants in his cabinet, with new hires who are actually and genuinely intelligent enough to understand global warming, then, fifty years from now, millions and even billions of people will be talking about Trump, not as a genius, but as one of the most stupid, most ignorant, arrogant, and uninformed people who ever somehow rose to a position of power. And, once the mega-disasters of global warming begin getting even worse than they have recently become, people all around the world, including in America, will come to see Trump as one of the absolute worst mistakes America ever made. Actually, most of the rest of the world, outside America, already sees him that way. Because he has shown, time and time again, that he is just plain not smart enough, not intelligent enough, to be able to figure out the biggest, most important problem facing the world today."
As a straight-forward question . . . how do climate activists think Trump would respond to THAT type of challenge/attack? Obviously, there would be a big, big surge of anger, and lashing out, when it first begins. But, if the drums keep beating, and reasonable, intelligent, calm-voiced people keep saying the same things, again and again, about 'Stupid IS, as stupid DOES', and about how genuinely and even terribly, pathetically STUPID he appears to be, IF he cannot understand (and will not even try to figure out) the most important problem anywhere on this entire planet . . . and, if global warming and rising oceans keep getting worse and worse, more and more rapidly . . . what would he do THEN? If he is confronted by reports showing that the "Actually, he's really not very smart, after all" arguments are gaining traction, and that people are paying serious attention to, "Stupid is as stupid does, and he is doing one of the stupidest things ever" . . . what would he do THEN?
And, if climate activists really want to poke at a tender spot, they might find some way to have some envoys quietly and privately warn Trump that, unless he changes his claims about global warming being a hoax, they will begin to loudly and publicly ask questions about whether he suffers from an actual and serious reading disorder (such as dyslexia), and whether that mental handicap, which Trump appears to suffer from, might explain why Trump has never actually read any of the things that could and would help him at least begin to understand what is really happening, with global warming and rising oceans. Clearly, Trump does NOT want questions about whether he suffers from a reading disorder, to enter the public discussion; and, if he tries to angrily deny those questions, and counter-attack, anyone could point out that a simple and straight-forward reading test, lasting no more than 15 minutes, could provide an honest, accurate, definitive answer to the question of whether he suffers from a serious reading disorder. So, if he claims that he does NOT have a reading disorder, will he allow himself to be tested, by an objective person whose job does not depend on keeping him happy?
If confronted with that type of threat . . . what would Trump actually do? No one should try to claim that they know the answers. What they should do, instead, is "game out" various scenarios, and gradually settle on a carefully-considered analysis, to help them figure out the best and most promising pathway toward actually getting Trump to move in a positive direction, when it comes to reestablishing things like incentives to create more green energy, not as a REPLACEMENT for fossil fuels, but to help handle the additional electric power loads that will be required, in the future, to help handle things like the massive power demands that will be required by really good, world-class artifical intelligence, which America is going to need.
Potential Tender Spot 3: Trump truly wants his Presidential Library to be the greatest, most magnificent and enduring monument ever created, in all of human history, dedicated/devoted to just one person (i.e., HIM).
As a third potential "tender spot" that climate activists might want to at least consider poking at, Trump wants his Presidential Library to be the absolute greatest monument that has ever been, or ever will be, created, which is dedicated and devoted to a single person (him, of course).
But, in complete seriousness, what is going to happen – to that library – if global warming and rising oceans lead to both: (i) Florida going underwater, which scientists say is only a matter of time; and, (ii) more than a billion people die, as people along devastated coastlines lose their homes, and try to move inland, only to be met by deadly force to keep them out?
And, what is going to happen – to that library – if Trump becomes "the face of global warming"? What does he think an angry mob will do, to his library, AFTER they finish turning HIM (unfairly, of course) into the one person that millions and millions of people will associate most closely with utter, devastating catastrophes that are threatening the very survival of humankind? If Trump is indeed wrong about global warming, and if it leads to more than a billion people dying, how likely is it that HIS LIBRARY will become . . . oh, let's just say, "a site where protesters will gather"? Has Trump ever been asked to ponder THAT possibility? Has he ever been directly and repeatedly confronted by warnings that EITHER AND BOTH of the two risks described above might actually turn his library into a monument, not to a truly great man, but to hubris and arrogance?
In complete seriousness, has Trump ever been told about the short poem (a sonnet, only 14 lines long) "Ozymandias"? And, has he ever had the meaning of that poem explained to him . . . or, since it probably is impossible to ever "explain" anything to Trump, has it ever been at least discussed with him, in a way that would allow him to pretend that he already knew everything worth knowing, about that poem?
And, has he ever been asked to ponder whether he might actually become "the face of global warming"? The man who, millions (or, billions) of people likely will say, did more than anyone else, ever in history, to make global warming even worse? And, how does he think he will be remembered, and described in the history books, if his enemies (unfairly, of course), somehow manage to get future generations to regard him as "the face of global warming"?
And, has Trump ever been advised – quietly, and privately, by someone he might actually listen to, that his Library probably will last ten times as long, >> IF << he locates it in a western rock-solid Republican state, at an altitude at least 1000 feet above sea level, rather than in Florida, of all places? He needs to be warned that Florida is going to become so badly damaged, by rapidly rising oceans, and washed-out limestone sinkholes – just within the next 100 years – that Congress likely will need to begin seriously considering – just within the next 100 years – whether, and how, they can "decommission" a state, and remove it from the list of actual "states", in "the United States." Why? BECAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING.
Trump needs to be warned – directly, and bluntly enough to make it sink in – that what he hopes will become the greatest and most magnificent monument of all time, will instead become a monument to hubris, failure, and disaster, if he puts it in Florida. And, THAT warning could become the vehicle for a truly powerful bit of irony, and come-uppance. The warning can and should be delivered to him, by people he genuinely trusts, who are truly trying to help him, because they truly do want to help him build a magnificent library that will endure for eons. But, the only way they can do THAT, is by telling him, bluntly and honestly, that . . . well, he is totally and tragically wrong, when it comes to global warming, and rising oceans.
Obviously, the short list above – of three things that Trump TRULY, TRULY wants – is not comprehensive. Nevertheless, it should be enough to get climate activists at least started, if they decide to begin probing for "tender spots" they can poke at, to try to get the elephant to at least change his position.
STRATEGY 2: DEMOCRATS >> AND << REPUBLICANS – SHOULD TRY TO CREATE A "TRUMP WARNER" PROJECT
By a curious coincidence, one of the US Senators, from Virginia, is named Mark Warner. His last name – WARNER, as in, "one who warns" – may offer an opportunity to persuade and recruit him into some type of “Trump Warner” project, as one of the key people who might be able to begin warning Trump, in ways that Trump will understand, about what global warming is already doing to this planet, and how badly it is threatening, not just the future of America, but every aspect of the legacy (and library) that Trump hopes for, and wants, and fantasizes about creating.
Mark Warner is a centrist and a moderate, and is one of the most respected senators in either party. He served two terms as governor of Virginia (called a "purple state,” because it is closely balanced between Democrats and Republicans), and when he left the Governorship (because of term limits, after the maximum number of terms he could serve), he had an approval rating close to 80%, from both Democrats and Republicans. People outside Virginia rarely hear about him, because he is quietly effective, rather than a bombastic talker who lunges for any chance to talk in front of a TV camera. So, because of a combination of his last name, and the respect he has earned in the Senate, Sen. Warner might become the ideal person to lead a “Trump Warner” effort, if he can be persuaded to do so.
And, if a “Trump Warner” effort begins, people should begin giving serious thought to how Republicans in Congress, and Trump supporters who have enough intelligence to truly understand what global warming is actually doing to this planet, might be recruited to help that effort. If they are invited, encouraged, and given a good opportunity to begin actively warning Trump and his cabinet secretaries about the dangers of what they are doing, they might take that opportuinity to shift into a position they may well WANT to take, but are afraid to take, as of now, out of fear of contradicting Trump. That position could be motivated and guided by a genuine desire to help create a better world, and also by concerns for their own families, including their children, and grandchildren. And, that possibility would become more likely, if Republicans in Congress are quietly but firmly and honestly warned that, fifty years from now, if global warming really does begin creating horrible worldwide damage, being the child, or the grandchild, of a Republican Congressman – that is, of a person who will be seen, remembered, and described as evil, because he helped Trump do what he did, to make global warming even worse – may end up creating more resentment, anger, and attacks, against their own children and grandchildren, than benefits, advantages, or protections. In other words, THEY (i.e., Republicans in Congress) need to be warned about what may well begin happening, to their own children and grandchildren, years from now, because of what THEY did, to make global warming EVEN WORSE.
And, people should begin asking how much the Republicans in Congress and/or Trump would need to actually do, to enable them to begin loudly claiming credit for now realizing – without surrendering or yielding, in any way, to any Democrats, leftists, radicals, or whatever other derogatory label they choose – that America needs every energy source it will be able to create (including "green energy" as a supplement, rather than a replacement, for fossil fuels), if America is indeed going to become the world's greatest center of energy-intensive things like artificial intelligence, and high-tech manufacturing? Without wanting to sound cynical, how much of a GESTURE would it take (such as, for example, simply restoring the same tax credits that previously existed, for "green energy" projects) to enable Trump and the Republicans to begin proclaiming, from every hilltop, rooftop, stage, podium, or TV studio, that THEY are the ones who are now leading America to even greater heights?
And, crafting a compromise like that also would give climate activists a chance to prove that they can at least understand several key factors that can enable things to actually get done, such as: (1) the difficulty of getting a huge mass (such as a fully-loaded train) to at least BEGIN to move, in a useful direction, when it is currently at a full dead stop; (2) how much easier it is, to enable something which has already started moving, to pick up at least a bit more speed; and, (3) the basic "Negotiating 101" strategy of identifying whatever two opposing sides can agree upon, and then using those points of agreement as a base to build upon, rather than becoming "stuck in the mud" by focusing on difficulties, differences, and disputed points, at the very start of a negotiation?
