Editor’s note: the reflections of an ancient Roman orator and philosopher do not necessarily reflect the views of the Socotra House Editorial Board, the Department of Defense or the American Red Cross. The views expressed are those of the noted lecturer. But I worked for the PFD, too.- Vic
Tacitus Speaks
The PFD
I’ve been wanting for some time to explain why I’m not worried by the prospect of a Trump presidency – indeed I’m comfortable with it. The reason stems from my experience with the PFD.
Who was the PFD? How did I get to know him? Well, he was my boss once upon a time. PFD is an acronym which, when expanded, was his nickname – one only spoken behind his back. I got to know him when the PFD was the J2 – the Director of Intelligence – on the Joint Staff in the Pentagon. I was his Executive Assistant. Not that I volunteered for the job. No, he picked me, much to my surprise. And, honestly, fear. I knew the PFD’s reputation and had really hoped to avoid the basilisk gaze. For the first couple weeks of my tenure as EA I expected to be executed momentarily (professionally or maybe literally). Then I realized that I really could do this thing, exacting thought the PFD’s requirements were. Then I began to find the whole thing fascinating, an extremely valuable experience. By the end of my time with him I felt, if not comfortable, at least valued. He treated me very well. And, to be purely mercenary about it, I received as quid pro quo for my work a very substantial career boost from the PFD’s patronage.
The PFD’s style was all go-go aggressiveness. The pace was furious from the first moment to the last, although happily he was no workaholic and managed to package his typical day into a mere (by Joint Staff standards) twelve hours. While his predecessor as Joint Staff J2 had demanded little of the hundreds of people working for him – choosing instead to depend on his personal skills – the PFD expected a great deal from J2 personnel. He actually had them running sometimes. Miracles were demanded at close of business, deliverable first thing the next morning. Failure to produce drew ferocious rejoinders from the PFD, scathing commentary which, while it may have been true, was certainly not nice. Nobody liked being on the receiving end of the PFD’s wrath. Some wilted immediately. Others nursed grudges. He was unloved by his peers and a problem child for his administrative superior, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. On the other hand he was warmly appreciated and fiercely defended by his operational boss, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Chairman wanted good intel and didn’t care too much how it arrived. The PFD always delivered good intel.
Some other factors concerning the PFD: He was a homely fellow with a lovely (and rich) wife. He had two fine daughters. Near as I could tell his home life was harmonious – this in stark contrast to most of his peers, who were divorced. The PFD was a big believer in “genes.” He thought capabilities were innate, not learned. Certainly he operated primarily on instinct. He dominated other people because it came naturally to him. He offended them because that came naturally too. He was totally honest, which of course contributed greatly to the matter of giving offense. He had no use for bureaucracy and little for staying in his organizational lane. In 1992 – the year I went to work for him – the PFD voted for Ross Perot for President. He was drawn to mavericks and out-of-the-box solutions. I don’t think he had a motto, but if he did it would have been “fortune favors to bold.”
The way to succeed with the PFD was to do your job quickly and well. There really was no other way to get on his good side. Who suffered under his regime? The mediocre, mostly. Intelligence bureaucrats in general. Any rival. His sorting process for subordinates and peers was swift – and occasionally unfair. It was good to win, bad to lose.
I see parallels between the PFD and Donald Trump. Trump too has an intuitive style, a penchant for aggression, a willingness to offend, and is relentless in pursuit of success. Like the PFD, Mr Trump is a homely guy with a lovely wife and some first-rate children. Trump of course is rich as Croesus and loves to flaunt it. He has a crude sort of honesty, making no real concession to the conventional graces. If the PFD supported Ross Perot back in the day, the Donald is the Perot of our day – and then some.
If you look closely at Trump’s approach to his work as a new-made politician, one observer described his method as “pace and lead.” He paces the public by picking up on their concerns and giving voice to them, often with hyperbole. Once he’s demonstrated that he’s with us, he then leads by quietly shifting toward less extreme – but more doable – solutions. The mainstream media likes to call this “flip-flopping” or “backtracking” but as usual they’ve got it wrong. Another way to look at the Donald’s method is in business terms. He stakes out a going-in position, usually extreme, and then negotiates his way to the final deal, always less extreme. He certainly doesn’t expect his going-in position to be his final one. It’s all in the art of the deal, you see.
Success in a Trump Administration, I expect, will be a matter of performance, not posturing. He’ll expect his subordinates to deliver. He’ll demand the moon and stars but be quite satisfied when the sensible Secretary of Whatever returns with something that meets the President’s broad objectives but isn’t exactly what he ordered. Who will suffer under his regime? Stuffed shirts. Process men. Conventional thinkers of all varieties. The thin-skinned. Betrayers. Oh, yeah, and anybody who crosses him and some who didn’t mean to.
Rush Limbaugh said that his opponents takes Mr Trump literally but not seriously. Trump’s supporters take him seriously but not literally. I think that’s correct in both cases.
Bear in mind that, unlike Democrat Presidents, a President Trump will face significant limiters. The “you can’t say that, you can’t do that” crowd will be out patrolling every day. More significantly, checks and balances will return to government. The principle of separation of powers will return to the fore. People right, left, and center will insist on scrupulous adherence to every word and clause in the US Constitution. Trump will be bound by all that. Even if he wanted to rule as a royalist (which I don’t think he does) he won’t be granted that dispensation.
This election comes down to a choice between risk and certainty, between change and the status quo, between the not-so slow slide toward systemic failure and Trumpian turmoil. Me, I choose risk, change, turmoil. I’ve already figured out where the other choice is taking us and I don’t want to go there. In 1980 I knew I didn’t want Jimmy Carter to be retained as President. But I was sufficiently buffaloed by leftist propaganda – masquerading as conventional wisdom – to think I couldn’t vote for that unsteady actor-cowboy Ronald Reagan. So I cast my ballot for third party candidate John Anderson. What I did was throw my vote away. I won’t make that mistake again.
If I could survive and indeed prosper under the PFD you can do well with the Donald. So take a chance on success. Don’t worry too much about the rough edges.
Copyright 2016 Tacitus
www.vicsocotra.com
Tacitus Speaks: The PFD
Editor’s note: the reflections of an ancient Roman orator and philosopher do not necessarily reflect the views of the Socotra House Editorial Board, the Department of Defense or the American Red Cross. The views expressed are those of the noted lecturer. But I worked for the PFD, too.- Vic
Tacitus Speaks
The PFD
I’ve been wanting for some time to explain why I’m not worried by the prospect of a Trump presidency – indeed I’m comfortable with it. The reason stems from my experience with the PFD.
Who was the PFD? How did I get to know him? Well, he was my boss once upon a time. PFD is an acronym which, when expanded, was his nickname – one only spoken behind his back. I got to know him when the PFD was the J2 – the Director of Intelligence – on the Joint Staff in the Pentagon. I was his Executive Assistant. Not that I volunteered for the job. No, he picked me, much to my surprise. And, honestly, fear. I knew the PFD’s reputation and had really hoped to avoid the basilisk gaze. For the first couple weeks of my tenure as EA I expected to be executed momentarily (professionally or maybe literally). Then I realized that I really could do this thing, exacting thought the PFD’s requirements were. Then I began to find the whole thing fascinating, an extremely valuable experience. By the end of my time with him I felt, if not comfortable, at least valued. He treated me very well. And, to be purely mercenary about it, I received as quid pro quo for my work a very substantial career boost from the PFD’s patronage.
The PFD’s style was all go-go aggressiveness. The pace was furious from the first moment to the last, although happily he was no workaholic and managed to package his typical day into a mere (by Joint Staff standards) twelve hours. While his predecessor as Joint Staff J2 had demanded little of the hundreds of people working for him – choosing instead to depend on his personal skills – the PFD expected a great deal from J2 personnel. He actually had them running sometimes. Miracles were demanded at close of business, deliverable first thing the next morning. Failure to produce drew ferocious rejoinders from the PFD, scathing commentary which, while it may have been true, was certainly not nice. Nobody liked being on the receiving end of the PFD’s wrath. Some wilted immediately. Others nursed grudges. He was unloved by his peers and a problem child for his administrative superior, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. On the other hand he was warmly appreciated and fiercely defended by his operational boss, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Chairman wanted good intel and didn’t care too much how it arrived. The PFD always delivered good intel.
Some other factors concerning the PFD: He was a homely fellow with a lovely (and rich) wife. He had two fine daughters. Near as I could tell his home life was harmonious – this in stark contrast to most of his peers, who were divorced. The PFD was a big believer in “genes.” He thought capabilities were innate, not learned. Certainly he operated primarily on instinct. He dominated other people because it came naturally to him. He offended them because that came naturally too. He was totally honest, which of course contributed greatly to the matter of giving offense. He had no use for bureaucracy and little for staying in his organizational lane. In 1992 – the year I went to work for him – the PFD voted for Ross Perot for President. He was drawn to mavericks and out-of-the-box solutions. I don’t think he had a motto, but if he did it would have been “fortune favors to bold.”
The way to succeed with the PFD was to do your job quickly and well. There really was no other way to get on his good side. Who suffered under his regime? The mediocre, mostly. Intelligence bureaucrats in general. Any rival. His sorting process for subordinates and peers was swift – and occasionally unfair. It was good to win, bad to lose.
I see parallels between the PFD and Donald Trump. Trump too has an intuitive style, a penchant for aggression, a willingness to offend, and is relentless in pursuit of success. Like the PFD, Mr Trump is a homely guy with a lovely wife and some first-rate children. Trump of course is rich as Croesus and loves to flaunt it. He has a crude sort of honesty, making no real concession to the conventional graces. If the PFD supported Ross Perot back in the day, the Donald is the Perot of our day – and then some.
If you look closely at Trump’s approach to his work as a new-made politician, one observer described his method as “pace and lead.” He paces the public by picking up on their concerns and giving voice to them, often with hyperbole. Once he’s demonstrated that he’s with us, he then leads by quietly shifting toward less extreme – but more doable – solutions. The mainstream media likes to call this “flip-flopping” or “backtracking” but as usual they’ve got it wrong. Another way to look at the Donald’s method is in business terms. He stakes out a going-in position, usually extreme, and then negotiates his way to the final deal, always less extreme. He certainly doesn’t expect his going-in position to be his final one. It’s all in the art of the deal, you see.
Success in a Trump Administration, I expect, will be a matter of performance, not posturing. He’ll expect his subordinates to deliver. He’ll demand the moon and stars but be quite satisfied when the sensible Secretary of Whatever returns with something that meets the President’s broad objectives but isn’t exactly what he ordered. Who will suffer under his regime? Stuffed shirts. Process men. Conventional thinkers of all varieties. The thin-skinned. Betrayers. Oh, yeah, and anybody who crosses him and some who didn’t mean to.
Rush Limbaugh said that his opponents takes Mr Trump literally but not seriously. Trump’s supporters take him seriously but not literally. I think that’s correct in both cases.
Bear in mind that, unlike Democrat Presidents, a President Trump will face significant limiters. The “you can’t say that, you can’t do that” crowd will be out patrolling every day. More significantly, checks and balances will return to government. The principle of separation of powers will return to the fore. People right, left, and center will insist on scrupulous adherence to every word and clause in the US Constitution. Trump will be bound by all that. Even if he wanted to rule as a royalist (which I don’t think he does) he won’t be granted that dispensation.
This election comes down to a choice between risk and certainty, between change and the status quo, between the not-so slow slide toward systemic failure and Trumpian turmoil. Me, I choose risk, change, turmoil. I’ve already figured out where the other choice is taking us and I don’t want to go there. In 1980 I knew I didn’t want Jimmy Carter to be retained as President. But I was sufficiently buffaloed by leftist propaganda – masquerading as conventional wisdom – to think I couldn’t vote for that unsteady actor-cowboy Ronald Reagan. So I cast my ballot for third party candidate John Anderson. What I did was throw my vote away. I won’t make that mistake again.
If I could survive and indeed prosper under the PFD you can do well with the Donald. So take a chance on success. Don’t worry too much about the rough edges.
Copyright 2016 Tacitus
www.vicsocotra.com