What Does It Take To Win A Political Election In The World Of Outrage? | Capability Amplifier

Welcome to Capability Amplifier, the show for business owners and entrepreneurs who want high performance upgrades for their brains, bodies and bank accounts. Hello. Hello. Welcome to another episode of Capability Amplifier with Dan Sullivan and me, Mike Koenigs. And we're talking about politics today. Oh, what a dirty subject. How are you doing, Dan?

Well, I love politics because politics is how great social change happens without viol, because of all sorts of tricks that humans have learned on how to deal with difficult subjects without resorting to killing each other. So I'm a great believer in politics, and I'm an avid history buff, especially looking at how America, the United States, actually developed over time. And so it's a topic that I have followed avidly since the first presidential election that I was aware of, and that was Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952. So this is a subject that I've been following since I was 8 years old. So very, very interested. And the thing is that America is a country where people have extraordinarily strong political views as part of the strong political views clashing with each other, which has actually created new political policy, new political foundations, new structures, and it's hardball. Americans play politics hardball. They don't play softball.

Well, there's so much at stake. And I want to frame this conversation because, first of all, I wanted to do this with you for a little while because I want to talk a lot about influence and media and your perspective of what it takes to get elected. We live in this Trump era right now. Let's just face it where my perspective is. Here's a guy who is a absolute liar, cheat. I think he's of poor character. And that has nothing to do with some of the policies that are benefiting businesses right now. I can separate all this stuff. But he manages to bowl his way through the media. Absolutely. Make up whatever he wants to make up, be the loudest guy in the room and still get his way. And as of now, hasn't really gotten caught or slowed down. It's full freaking amazing. You know, and the other reason why I wanted to have this conversation with you today is because as soon as we're done with this conversation, I'm actually going to be speaking with a president elect. And I don't know if I've ever mentioned this to you before, but one of my very good friends that I grew up with since grade school days is married to Amy Klobuchar from Minneapolis, who is right now running for president. And then I also have a connection with another president elect who's going to announce his intention to run. And then the fourth one is, I'm communicating with a gentleman from Central America who wants to run for president of his country and has asked me to support him. So my selfish reason for this is I want to go down the path of what would it take to win an election through your lens? And how do you create jobs? How do you create at least the story that you're creating jobs? Because, you know, if you can win on the basis of money and jobs, you usually can win an election. So that's a big handful. But I thought, why it ought to be a fun intellectual challenge and a good conversation for a historian like you.

Yeah, well, I think the place that I would start is that the emergence of politics in an organized way, you know, really started as a result of some experiments in northwest Europe. And it was kind of the Dutch, basically the Netherlands, that actually got a handle on it. And it's when economics really became possible where it wasn't based on land. So the crossover where economics became based on trading. And Holland was a big trading company because basically it's a little country and they have always had to import their food so they would trade things. And then it jumped in probably the mid-1600s, late 1600s, to Great Britain. And Great Britain was a commercial and trading powerhouse. They started to develop all sorts of rules that went back two or 300 years. Basically, you have to get a handle on if politics is going to be good, it has to be based on capitalism. Okay? And the more that your operating system for a country is based on capitalism, and I'm going to give you four rules of capitalism. Number one, the value of things is determined by the pricing mechanism of the marketplace. That is, things are worth what people are willing to pay for them. And that's protected by law, and it's protected by systems. Number two is that the truthfulness of any economic organization is based on profit and losses that can be verified. In other words, it can be audited. And there isn't government interference into the pricing. There isn't interference into whether the books say profitability or you're losing. The third one is that your success in pricing and profitability can be translated into personal property that is protected by the law. So that's the trifecta. And then you get prosperity out of that. So the whole question is that being sort of the operating system, what is the governing system around you that allows from time to time, new, fresh people to take over the governance of the society? And what allows power to move from one group of people to another that's recognized as valid by everybody in the country. And it changes that. One political party will get tired and they won't be producing results anymore. And there's an orderly process of moving power from that group to another group that basically the English speaking world has done the best job of this. If you look at the entire English speaking world, starting with Great Britain, Canada, the United States, New Zealand, Australia, and then a lot of little places that are basically part of the British commonwealth with the exception of the United States, there's orderly ways of actually handling this process. And these happen to be the most prosperous countries in the world. So I just want to say that, that when I look at history, I have from birth almost always supported one political party in the United States. Without exception, I've supported one because I'm an entrepreneur and was an entrepreneur. And I look for the party whose policies and their support generally support entrepreneurism. So it's not that I'm, you know, a conservative or a liberal, or I'm a Republican or a democrat. It's that I'm for entrepreneurism and I'm for the party that most supports entrepreneurial growth and in the country, which means reasonable, not punitive taxation, reasonable regulations that just make the game kind of operate fairly, and then trade policies that mean that we're not being disadvantaged by other countries for political reasons and kind of letting people kind of live their lives and pursue their dreams without trying to make them better human beings. I'm against any government policy that says our job is to make you into a better human being. So that's my general position. And politics isn't the center of my life. You know, the person I love is at the center of my life. My company is at the center of my life, and various other communities and friends and everything else is at the center of my life. And every once in a while, politics, I have to pay attention to it every couple years or every four years. And so that's my attitude, that politics is not the center of my life.

Yeah. And the truth is, I agree with everything you said. Yeah, we have the exact same value system, I think, in general, you know, and at this moment in history, we live in an absolutely fascinating time. And I'm going to make two points before I kind of set up the question. So one of them is El Salvador recently had a new president elected, 39 years old, and according to a gentleman that I know who knows the inside dope really well on what specifically happened mechanically, this guy got elected because he figured out how to use social media to get elected. So there's a similarity here with Trump. He really leveraged that and knew the power and reaching the people. In Central America's case, you know, I know in Honduras, for example, there's 9 million people, about 3 million vote, and about 3 million have smartphones. Okay? So there's certainly a relationship between getting votes and who does the voting. Now, in the United States, it could be argued that social media had a lot to do with who won the election, who mastered it, who had a following, who is visible, that is a character or a movie star. We saw that with the Schwarzenegger principle, in my opinion. And there was a character at play, in this case the Donald Trump character. And again, it doesn't matter what we argue.

He.

He is what he is. But again, we live in this time where Elon Musk, I watched an interview with him on Axios, and they talked about the dangers of AI. So here are the two basic ideas, and they're fascinating. The first one is they asked, why do you think AI is so dangerous? And he said, well, for example, right now, you could take a whole bunch of cheap, commercially available drones, drop in a face recognition chip that's built into most mobile phones, and attach an explosive device to it, let the swarm go and find a person, run into them, and blow them up. Okay? He says, you can make that right now. So, by the way, darn good argument for an invisible border wall. That's another topic altogether. I'm not saying blow people up. I'm just saying if people go down this path of like, building a structure and all this business that's going on virtual walls versus physical walls. But on the other hand, here was the other interesting topic that popped up is the power of AI to write, quote, unquote, fake news. So the basic idea is, right now, AI can write pretty good fake news, and in probably a few months or a couple years, it'll write really good fake news. There's some people who recently wrote some systems that do it, and they say it's so good, they're not releasing the code. And that was actually the reason why Elon Musk left the AI company. He was involved with an OpenAI company. And what he said is, and this is the important thing, an AI could write a biased piece of content. And there are literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of fake accounts on social media that can be created with machines and build up a following purely mechanically. You know, it's easy to spoof all the systems, despite what we hear. And so the machine can post an article and test it out in microseconds and update the content in microseconds and essentially hone a message based upon current news, what's out there. And Google is organized and sorted every piece of knowledge that exists. Okay. Information doesn't have value, but using it now, and we know how to mechanically persuade human beings, artificial beings are not that far away. And so if someone's wondering, well, what in the hell does this have to do with elections and politics? It kind of has everything to do with it. His perspective is AI could manipulate humans into a war and cause an enormous amount of self destruction. And if you look at the biases that exist in this country right now, I'm sure there have been times in history where it's been very, very strong. But now you can create motion and movement and you don't know what the origin point is. And we do. I think most people agree the Russians had something to do with the election results and some of the biases and some of the nastiness that went on. At least we had a lot of computers behind the scenes and doing some manipulation of social media. So with that, that again, kind of creates a foundation for this conversation about influence and what it takes now through your lens. So I'm curious, if you're putting on your vision hat, what do you think's going on and what's gonna happen?

Well, my feeling is, first of all regarding Trump, I think people don't comprehend him because they think of him as a businessman. And my feeling is that he's a natural born politician who spent 50 years in the business world, but he's the most intuitively natural politician that I've seen in my lifetime. And that includes Reagan and Clinton and probably, you know, where it was a positive thing and the biggest thing that's causing all the crises, talk about politics, is the fact that Donald Trump won all the crises. If Hillary Clinton won, you wouldn't be talking about social media, you wouldn't be talking about anything whatsoever. Is that all the people in the United States who thought they're the smartest people in the United States, in the influencers votes, had a very, very bad election night. And I've watched the videos of all the commentators when the New York Times was saying, right now Donald Trump has an 8% chance of winning, this is at 7 o'. Clock. And then you just saw, now he's 30%, 40%, 50%, and there was a point where 90%, Trump's going to take it. And it was a Collective nervous breakdown of the entire liberal establishment class in the United States. And Donald Trump has an unusual ability to. To keep highly educated liberal Democrats permanently deranged.

It's freaking. Again, I open this up about everything I despise about him. I admire the skill because he honed it over time, clearly, and it's so freaking fascinating.

So, no, but here's the thing, and I'll just comment. Before the election, he made promises to the people who were going to vote for him. And one of them was, we're going to bring jobs back. We're going to have jobs, and we're going to have jobs for the people who actually build things. You know, we're going to have blue collar jobs, we're going to have jobs for black people, we're going to have jobs for Latinos. So that was one of the things he said. The other thing he says, we're going to start knocking down all the regulations that we have that keep really productive, creative people from doing the third one. He says, you know, we've got really bad trade laws that favor other countries workers over American workers, and we're going to change all the trade agreements that we have around the world. And he says we're paying too much taxes at the corporate level, and we're the highest of all the 10 biggest economies in the world. We have the highest tax rates on corporations, and we're going to bring that down. And all those corporations that have been parking their money offshore their profits, they're going to have one year to get back in. And not only that, the judges in the United States are favoring liberal and they're making laws from the bench that should probably be made from legislature. So every chance I get, I'm going to start appointing conservative judges to fill vacancies. And he says, oh, by the way, the immigration people coming into the country, it's out of control. And I'm going to build a wall, okay? So I can't say that there is a single thing he promised his voters that he lied on, because he's worked day in, day out ever since election day to do all those things. And the economy is probably in its best shape in 25 years. Black employment is at historical highs. Latino employment is at historical highs. It's the least amount of new regulations in any presidency in history. So from the point of view of people that he promised things to, he's actually told the truth and he's followed through. So I'm just saying he's either a liar and a scoundrel, depending on whether he was your choice or somebody else was the choice. And I totally understand that because we're all biased. We're all biased. It would be unthinkable for me to ever vote for a Democrat.

Yeah, I understand. I understand the lens, which is interesting. And part of this is the question of. So here's what I can't defend one way or another because I don't pay attention to the minutiae and the details. And this probably speaks volumes about how I think and how I process, right. And how I make my own decisions. Where my biases come from mine. I look at it and I look at what determines whether or not I respect someone is what is their character, Right. Another one is whether or not their brand representative. In other words, articulate. And then a certain amount of respect for a system and a process which he has none of. At least he doesn't demonstrate it. And again, that might. Whatever it is, whether it's an act or whatever. And as you said, keep the liberal intellectuals perplexed and confused, which is freaking genius. It's so disruptive, it's unbelievably genius. Because if you open up the New York Times, I don't know what the percentage is. Someone has to have done the math of how many articles are actually Trump related. Think of the free press. You know, Elon Musk is one of the other most disruptive marketers in the world. He's never paid for advertising or marketing ever for Tesla. And look at him, you know, and everyone's been declaring the downfall of Tesla just like they did Apple. And look at it, right? And you look at Amazon, Amazon technically, you know, they've figured out how to grab all kinds of money and not pay taxes and not post a profit. And yet they're valuable. You know, it's just a workaround inside the system of how do you create value?

Yeah. So I think some sort of new game is going on and certain people kind of understand it before others. So in presidency, there have been, in the last hundred years, there have been three, maybe four presidents who really, really understand the power of a new communication vehicle. Fdr. Franklin Roosevelt was the first person to grasp radio. That radio went national during the 10 years before he became president. And, and he could have what he called fireside chats. And he would come into your living room, dining room and he would just reassure you about what's going on in the country. Churchill was the great from the British side. And then you flash forward jfk, really, really understood television. You know, his father was in the movie business, they had the best help from the movie industry to help jfk. And Nixon was basically a radio guy and he didn't understand, you know, what he looked like on television, what debate actually looks on television. And then Reagan, of course, was a movie guy and he really understood camera angles. He really understood that humor really plays a big part in making yourself likable. And then I think Trump, first of all, he understood reality TV because he, you know, had really been a huge success on reality tv. He also understood. And here I go back to a topic we picked up on another podcast. Mike. He knows absolutely who he wants to be a hero to. He knows absolutely. And he legitimately, and I have evidence to indicate this for his entire adult life, he loves blue collar workers who make things. And he talks in a language that blue collar workers totally grasp. They totally grasp his language. And he kind of despises credentialed professional intellectuals who don't make anything. So that would include Hollywood celebrities, for the most part, the faculty of major universities, the columnists in media, the commentators in media, high members of the bureaucratic government. And he says, I just have contempt for you and these people, it's shocking to them because they've worked all their life and gotten all their credentials so that they would be seen as superior. And he comes along and he says, you know, these people are just useless. I mean, look at the people at the back, look at the cameramen, look at the reporters. These are just useless people. And you can't believe anything that the mainstream media says. It's all lies. It's fake news. You know, it's fake news. You know, so he brought a gun to a knife fight.

I'll tell you what I got out of this. And I was just talking to my wife about it today. And just to reveal one little bit, like my wife, she is the daughter of first generation Jewish, Holocaust surviving immigrants who grew up on the Upper west side of Manhattan, which is at the time it was Spanish Harlem. Very poor, real dark background. So historically definitely going to be what would be considered super left leaning. And I grew up in a conservative, Christian, Catholic Minnesota home where my dad was a very poor farmer. My mom was, you know, the product of an alcoholic, philandering fireman slash alcoholic. Right?

Yeah.

And a lobotomized mother. I mean, dark, dark, dark. And so getting back to what Trump represents, first of all, he figured out, number one, a platform that had no editors or editing, which was Twitter in his case. Right. Leveraged the hell out of it and already had A following and then blew it up right away. So direct access of communication to millions of people.

Well, it's up to 40 million now. And that's a true 40.

Yeah, right. Unbelievable. So next, as you said, I'm going to restate it. Entertainment, first and foremost, he's an entertainer. I often say he's actually a cartoon character. He's a total caricature and a master of reframing, which all great politicians are. You can basically say, no, it isn't. And whoever screams the loudest and has the most ears and casts reasonable doubt or at least perceived or in the case of. There's nothing better, you know, the closest thing to masturbation is a good old fashioned conspiracy. It really is. It's a mental masturbatory vehicle and it would be like. And the damage is already done by just saying the most outlandish, crazy, inane thing.

I'm going to actually do a personal test on those two experiences that Jim.

Okay.

I'm going to find a who. Who will do it for me. You know, it's just a Craigslist.

Attaway. It's just a Craigslist that away. Yeah, but, yeah, but, but yeah, it's about reframing and what he did is he reframed politics, news media, entertainment and social media and the influencer platform and a 70, whatever. Is he 72? Is that what he is? 70?

About that? Yeah, yeah.

By all standards, I don't know how many people are over the age of 70 on Twitter. Can't be a lot. It's absolutely freaking mind blowing.

And so I mean we can continue this because I think there's a lot of different dimensions and can I tell you, and I gave it to Peter Diamantes. So I did recent podcasts with Peter. I says in the 1970s and 1980s, something happened extraordinary. And that is up until then in human history, technologies were in individual countries and individual societies. Germans had German technology, Spaniards had Spanish technology, Americans had American technology. Sometime in the 1970s and 80s it switched and all the countries are now inside the technology, okay? Which means that since technology now goes global, everything else in society goes local. Okay? So politics will go local, economics will go local. And the whole notion that there's going to be a political governance of the world is dead in its tracks because technology takes care of most of the coordination and cooperation that humans need in the world. We don't need politicians, we don't need economic councils and that doing that, you know, we can have AI programs do most of the heavy listing there. And I think he's taking advantage that the United States is now swinging back from being the protector of the world and is coming back. Because, you know, if you look at the last 40 or 50 years, they were paid for by US taxpayers and US workers, US voters, and that they built Europe, they actually built modern China. They, they put Japan back on its feet, they put Germany back on its feet, and that was done with American dollars. Americans say, you know, it's over now. Let's come back and let's build our communities, let's improve our infrastructure, let's make sure people are actually educated and employed. Because for 50 years, it's all been about what America does for the world. And he comes back and he just hits a chord. But the Democrats are entirely about that world that used to exist and no longer exists.

It's absolutely fascinating. So this is really interesting, and I want to leave this episode with a thought. So while you're chatting, I did a little research on what it is that makes Donald Trump influential. And there's a guy who wrote an article in Psychology Today. I found the article. I'll have it in the show Notes, written by a guy named Tim David. And basically what he ends up saying is, look, I didn't vote for either Hillary or Trump. He basically provides all the things, saying, here's why I'm unbiased. And he's writing a book called Applied Influence. But here's what his perspective is on why he won. Number one, he calls it the Advertiser's Law, which is companies spend millions on advertising. He talks about neurons that fire together, wire together, and why, ultimately, it takes a minimum of seven encounters with a brand before a buying decision and can be reached. The more we're exposed to a brand, the more we like it. So first of all, everyone had heard of them in some way, shape or form. Then they go into the neuroscience of it. Next is clarity at 30,000ft, which was make America great again. And then. And what's Hillary's slogan? No one could answer that. So the blank looks, and he had a clear vision. Third blank space on the ground. He uses language in an interesting way. He focuses on power and emotion. Words, problem. Tremendous. Wrong, Better. And again, you talked about that simple language that you can make your own ideas. Number 4A, them to hate. So that was easy. It's like the Mac versus PC. And he made it really easy to conjure up hateful things. Number five, the pain button. Okay, so basically he was new Democrats. He was able to say, the Democrats are all the same Clinton, we had him for eight years. Obama's policy, Hillary's gonna give you more of the same same, same, same. So a shiny object. He says he pushed the swings. So if he doesn't win Florida, he can't win the presidency. And basically what he wound up doing is these and other statements from Donald Trump and the media created a real sense of urgency in key areas. Seven is spooking the horse brain, which again, he sold feelings, not facts. Yep, that was great. And then the last one because he's a man and then he gets into a little bit of additional juice and an update on here. But pretty fascinating article in the first glance and I think know from my perspective, nailed it. So here's what I'd like to well.

There'S other aspects that I'd just like to add. And another brilliant commentator on what happened to Scott Adams, the cartoonist who creates Dilbert. And he's got a great daily podcast, video camera.