He's No Anti-Semite But Sean Spicer Is A Peter Principle Poster Child

I don’t believe Sean Spicer is anti-Semitic. I think he is a living, breathing example of the Peter Principle in action, someone who has risen to his level of incompetency. 

By all accounts, Spicer served ably as a PR flak for Republican organizations before being named White House press secretary. He even founded his own public relations firm. But the daily glare and grind of having to justify, explain and defend a president and administration that is constantly shifting positions and oftentimes tweeting out falsehoods would trip up even the most agile wordsmith. Spicer got caught up in a moment of downward momentum. Who among us has not been tongue-tied when confronted by a penetrating inquiry from a boss or spouse or partner? Have you ever stood before television cameras under bright lights for 30 minutes answering question after question from skeptical, cynical interlocutors? 

No, Spicer was no anti-Semite. He was regrettably, for him, exposed as incompetent and more than a little ignorant. So send Spicer to a Holocaust study camp. Instruct him in the details of the Holocaust. 

Spicer’s ignorance of history fits the pattern of ignorance exhibited by Donald Trump’s appointments. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos doesn’t know basic education theories. Rick Perry has no knowledge of, or background in, nuclear energy which he is empowered to control as energy secretary.  Environmental Protection Agency commissioner  Scott Pruitt thinks he knows more about climate change than the overwhelming majority of scientists. 

I don’t think Sean Spicer does his job well. He should resign or be fired. But not because he is anti-Semitic. 

Trump 2.0?: Now that he has fulfilled his promise to restore a conservative balance to the Supreme Court with a probable anti-abortion stance, Trump may just may be on the verge of transitioning toward a more centrist presidency. At least that’s what numerous political analysts are spitting out these days. They cite his admission that running the government is more complex than candidate Trump thought it could be and that many of the positions he took on the hustings are just not viable or appropriate now that he’s in office. 

On Thursday the AP included the following list in a story on his reign (of terror—my descriptor): 

“Over the past 48 hours, the outsider politician who pledged to upend Washington has:

“- Abandoned his vow to label China a currency manipulator.

“- Rethought his hands-off assessment of the Syrian conflict - and ordered a missile attack.

“- Turned his warm approach toward Vladimir Putin decidedly chilly and declared U.S.-Russia relations “may be at an all-time low.”

“- Decided NATO isn't actually obsolete, as he had claimed.

“- Realized the U.S. Export-Import Bank is worth keeping around.”

Those are all fine and good transitions, but he remains a mean-spirited executive of uneven temperament, especially towards issues that affect women and the health of Mother Earth. Last week Bill Maher’s New Rules segment included a scorching rebuke of Trump administration actions. See for yourself: https://youtu.be/P2QXMGYluzo

Trump has declared war not just on American women seeking control over their bodies but on women throughout the globe who need affordable, attainable health care. On Thursday, he signed a bill rescinding an Obama-era rule prohibiting states from denying federal funding to organizations like Planned Parenthood if they also provide abortion services. Federal law already restricts funding for abortions. Trump’s signature now imperils the ability of organizations to have sufficient monies to offer preventive care to women including breast examinations, family planning and reproductive health services for mostly low-income families and the uninsured. 

In late January women the world over took a hit from Trump when he re-instituted a Reagan-era ban prohibiting foreign aid to health care providers who discuss abortion as a family-planning option. Those put at risk by Trump’s actions include many of the poorest women in the world who live in countries where abortion is legal. 

Low-Tech Protection: Here’s a low-tech way to protect pedestrians from terrorists driving trucks into crowds as has happened in France, Sweden, Israel and Germany—Erect cement or metal barriers in front of buildings such as department stores, museums, government offices, theaters and tourist attractions where people are known to congregate. 

After The Oklahoma City federal office building bombing in 1995, real estate owners began placing barriers in front of their structures. They were placed there to stop car bombs from getting too close to the buildings. But the barriers could serve the additional function of keeping trucks and other vehicles from mowing down people on the sidewalk. Though a test in Germany found concrete barriers to be less than ideal, they would limit the havoc from a terrorist attack (http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/791193/Terrorist-truck-attack-German-researchers-test-concrete-barriers). 

European cities already fence off parts of sidewalks where they don’t want pedestrians to cross. It would not seem to be too cumbersome an effort to shield areas where crowds gather. 

Speaking of crowds, Ted Bernstein, the legendary copyeditor of The New York Times, must be rolling over in his grave given the excessive mistakes that find their way into print on paper and on line. Since the Internet sharply reduced the time from article conception to distribution mistakes have skyrocketed. 

They’re not all typos. Many times they are the wrong words correctly spelled, as in this example from an article on the size of the inauguration crowd I read in the print edition of The Times earlier this week:

“Upon being sworn into office, the president began to silence federal agencies from speaking out on the social media platform after the National Park Service’s official Twitter account posted side-by-side images comparing the size of the crows at Mr. Trump’s inauguration.” 

Did you catch the mistake? Spellchecker didn’t as “crows” is spelled correctly. The online version of the story published the intended word, “crowd.” 

Change of Phrase: It used to be Israel was said to be the only true democracy in the Middle East. Now, with elections in Tunisia and Lebanon, among other states, Israel has begun identifying itself as “the Middle East’s only haven for free speech, women, and minorities.” 

It’s a commendable position but not nearly as solid as its former claim, made all the more slippery by its control over 2.5 million Palestinians in the West Bank.

Did You Know Dilbert creator Scott Adams is a conspiracy theorist?

On April 6, Adams posted an article on his website claiming that the fatal Khan Shaykhun chemical attack in Syria two days earlier was a “manufactured event” designed to provoke a response (http://blog.dilbert.com/post/159264981001/the-syrian-gas-attack-persuasion?utm_source=blog.dilbert.com/share-email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=brand-loyalty).

That’s enough to make the bottom of my necktie stand up and shriek, “Noooooo, don’t make me put Dilbert on my no-read list!” 

From Dilbert to Gainsharing to a Bonsai Tree

Last Wednesday while driving around Yonkers delivering food to the elderly I heard part of a Leonard Lopate public radio interview with Scott Adams, the creator of the Dilbert comic strip which lampoons corporate America. Adams chided managements that religiously bring in consultants to improve productivity and workplace environment. They are hired in an almost flavor-of-the-month ritual.

Which got me to thinking how my former employer practiced a similar wistful approach. My memory was honed by the recent passing of the vice president recruited to handle our strategic planning and other management enhancement practices. The charming reality of it all was that Harry was hired to be our in-house expert after our president attended one of his strategic planning seminars in Pittsburgh, I believe. That had to be the ultimate consultant’s dream: Impress someone in your audience so much they offer you a full-time gig.

Not that Harry didn't do a bang-up job getting us to focus more on strengths and weaknesses as we prepared to tackle the future. It's just that sometimes we wound up doing some pretty absurd and contradictory things.

We were always looking for ways to grow the company while also reducing expenses. To that end, we were given a book whose actual title eludes me but sounded something like “A Zap to the Side of the Head.” It advocated gainsharing, the concept of rewarding staff members for ideas and actions that contributed to a thicker bottom line. 

I embraced the idea. Actually, I had already been practicing it by giving editors more money for writing special reports and supplements, many of which they had created and helped pitch to sponsors. These were $60,000-$100,000 projects during a time when our average account spent about $30,000 a year. I thought  it right to reward the editors with extra funds considering that without their input we usually would not have sold the projects which they then had to write on top of their regular assignments. Yet, I was continually questioned about the wisdom of paying the editors more money. I'd reply, to mostly deaf ears, that “Zap” advocated gainsharing.

I was tapped to be part of a Big Idea committee. We were charged with rewarding suggestions to generate more revenue, with a top prize of $25,000. For expense-saving ideas, the award would be 10% of first-year savings. Ideas poured in. The most enticing was to start a new magazine. We handed out the $25,000 but never launched the book. Somehow, in formalizing the Big Idea rules, senior management forgot to include the requirement that the idea be put into practice.

A little while later corporate thinking channeled along the lines of a “string of pearls.” Consultant Janice sold us the notion that monetary rewards were not what employees wanted. Instead, they preferred small rewards, no more than $25 in value, that showed we cared about them as individuals. To that end, everyone had to fill out lists of what they liked, such as a diet soda or cafe latte or a dozen roses. Each time a worker would receive a reward it would be like adding a pearl to a necklace they were wearing around their neck, Janice explained.

A few weeks later all managers met to hear Janice extol the program. She described how a production department staffer devised a new system to print business cards that would save the company $10,000 in the first year. Checking the worker’s list of rewards, her manager discovered she liked plants, so a $25 desk plant was presented to her. Janice was beside herself, she was so happy.

Never one to let sleeping dogs lie, I’m more likely to blurt out the emperor is walking around nude. So, naturally I couldn't take it any longer. I rose and said words to the effect, “Let me understand this. A year ago, when we had the Big Idea committee, she would have received 10% of the savings, or $1,000. Now, she gets a $25 plant. What would she get if she saved us $50,000? A bonsai tree?”

For a moment there was silence. Then laughter erupted throughout the room. From everyone save Janice and Harry. They were not happy, not with everyone’s reaction to my comment and especially not with me. In that second moment I wondered what my fate would be, but to my good fortune and surprise, the senior vice president of the company, Jim, a person with whom I did not share any values, came to my defense. 

Janice lasted another year or two as a consultant to our company. I stayed another 19 years until my retirement.