Making Impact In A Debate
Subscribe Today!
Leaders on stage often do not understand their languaging styles and hijack their own speeches. In this episode, Bill Stierle and Tom share their thoughts on the recent debate among the Democrats. Believing that the four horsemen are being used by the current administration to keep us polarized and to keep us opposing each other and not working together, they review the four horsemen of communication apocalypse and where the candidates are probably trapped. Join Bill and Tom in this episode as they use the domino metaphor to explain how to get to your moments of truth.
---
Watch the episode here
I’m excited to speak with you because we have had the first debates on the democratic side of the aisle. There were some big moments and some people stood out and some other people didn’t, but to me, it’s like, “What a tough environment and situation with 60 seconds of an answer to communicate to the country your vision and why they should be in your camp.” What did you think?
It was tough because messaging is everything. Are you ready to answer a question? Are you ready to make an impact? Which one are you going to do? Many times, answering the question is not how you make an impact. To make an impact is the ability to come in and say a sentence that is going to be able to connect deeply with the person so they can see that you are more of the leader, that you are the person commanding the room. That you’re the person that has the confidence, not necessarily the ability, but the confidence to deal with toughness and tough issues and tough moments of communication. Regrettably, what happens is the people get caught in the weeds answering the question. They get caught and trying to land their talking points. What do they want to be known by? Instead of being identified as a communication master that can lead things going forward. A lot of people think they could do it but it’s easier said than done.
I’m wondering if this takes us back to an earlier episode that some obstacles that maybe got in the way for some of these candidates.
It does take us back to an earlier episode and we’ll have to fish out which one, but I remember that we had a huge impact on this one when we talked about the four horsemen of a communication apocalypse and the candidate’s truth. If a candidate is going to have the truth, they’ve got to be able to handle and resist using the four horsemen. Resist it. When you do, what happens is you become an adversary to the person that they’re going to be an adversary. More importantly, you bring all the baggage of that horseman into the conversation. Let’s go through the four horsemen again. You can see what those things are and you can see where the baggage is. Horseman number one is the horseman called criticism. As soon as you use criticism, what winds up happening is anybody that has had a tragic experience with criticism, they’ll say, “Don’t criticize the other person.” We’re going to get to this at the end is how do you use an impact without using criticism?
Number two is defensiveness. As soon as you go to defensiveness, even though you’re advocating for truth, you’re going to get creamed and the post, people are going to go like, “Why was he or she so defensive?” It brings up all the baggage that defensiveness brings. You remember a defensive spouse. You remember a defensive parent. You remember a defensive moment where you felt crappy because you were defending a truth but that was not helpful. Number three is contempt. The experience of saying, “This makes me sick. You broke the relationship. This is not the kind of people we are.” As soon as you put contempt to somebody else on stage, contempt to a situation or contempt in this case to Donald Trump, you will bring up all the baggage of contempt. It’s all coming forward and the candidate has got to have that on the shoulder, then create a difficult message and then they’re going to have a lot of trouble. They scored a point. They might’ve won the battle but they’re going to lose the war.
The fourth horseman is withdraw and stonewalling. These two particular concepts are in the same group. If I’m withdrawing, I am backing up and being quiet on stage. I might be compassionately or respectfully allowing the other person things but the audience and everybody is seeing me shut down. They’re not seeing me having an active role. I’m letting somebody else slug it out.
Withdrawing and/or stonewalling regrettably, whether you agree with this or not, is what the administration is doing to the courts and the Congress, “You guys are in charge. We’re stonewalling you. We’re not sending any of our people because that’s the way we’re playing it. We’re going to run out the clock, stonewalling and withdrawing. Get the American people tired of you and your ranting of criticism, defensiveness, contempt and withdrawal and we are not going to pay attention to you because the court can be something that you can stretch out and tire out.”
Making an impact means coming in and saying something that is going to connect deeply with the person.
CLICK TO TWEET
You can tire out the defendant, you can tire out the money people, you can run out their money, which Donald Trump has done. He’s used the courts to starve people that he owed money to. He used the court and ran them out. Why? “I have this big bucket of change over here that I can spend with my attorneys to run the clock out. You, little contractor, you architect. Yes, I had a signed contract but I’m not paying you and you could sue me. You could be right but I have more money than you and I’m going to run out the clock and I’m not going to pay you.”
That’s exactly what he has done. It’s frustrating. We’ve seen that even the run-up to the last election, all the reports on that.
Tom, I promise this, they’ll see my tax records. We’re sitting a few years in. We haven’t seen the tax records. Do you know what? They’re auditing it. Auditing what? Is there any word when the audit is going to come back?
No. If he has his way, he’ll be in the perpetual audit.
He is not showing those things because there’s the possibility of it showing something. The probability, the way some other investigators and other people are getting to that, there’s some stuff on there that is junky and is not going to be very respectful. It’s not going to be high in integrity. It’s not going to have the quality that we would like in the experience.
How can we look at some of the candidates and see where they maybe got trapped in some of the four horsemen and maybe even talk about what they could have done differently? That would be really fun to do.
One of the biggest challenges is how the voices of criticism, defensiveness, contempt and withdraw. How those voices, those styles of language, those tactics of protection because they’re all protective strategies. How will they get you a temporary win? You will get a boost but it doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re going to win the battle, win the war. You’re going to win the battle, but you might not win the war because the acts of criticism, defensiveness, contempt and withdraw will create bitterness. It will start to lose respect points and integrity points as a candidate and/or a precedent. It will lose those. This is the thing to get ahold of this that these tragic messages and these tragic strategies will do that. One of the things that happen is if somebody is like Vice President Joe Biden becomes and moves into a place of defensiveness, how did he get there? How did he get to the defensiveness? What could he have done differently not to get stuck in that corner? The criticism was clear. Would you vote differently about busing? Busing affected a lot of people. Would you vote differently? How many years ago was that? How’s he going to take his brain now, go back there and fix that? He was doing the best he could at that time.
Nobody thinks about that or said that.
Nobody thought about it. Kamala Harris goes, “If you were going back and looking at that, would you think differently and do something different back then?” He’s going like, “What happened back then?” He’s not ready to respond to that. His brain went to the only languaging strategy it knew, defensiveness regarding truth. That’s all it knew. It didn’t know what to say back to her.
It was almost like the argument, “I first voted against the war before I voted for it and it becomes explanation.”
It becomes an explanation instead of compassion for the impact and compassion for the decision. That’s what was needed next. Joe Biden’s next best response is, “You had a tragic experience.” Better yet, “This experience affected you deeply and the race is something deeply that divides us as Americans.” As president now, I would use different thinking than I did back then as a public leader. Back then, we were doing the best we could to deal with racial tensions at that time. People who are trying to figure out how to get a divided nation back together again. Now, as a leader, as the president, we have to rethink things. The things you experienced back then, the same things that are happening now. Clearly we have a way to go, whether it’s in South Bend, Indiana, which would now take Pete Buttigieg out. Whether it’s South Bend and the things Mayor Pete Buttigieg is dealing with.
That would have been brilliant. If he could have kept his head about him but he got to the place of contempt where he was personally offended.
He went from defensiveness to contempt and now he’s stuck. She moves up ten points on the polls.
She hijacked the whole event right there and to a lot of Americans who watched that debate, it was people 55 and older for the most part who’s watching it. That’s some of the stats that came out. That’s a whole other interesting dynamic that we’ll have to get into in the future. For the people that are watching, a lot of them while they like Uncle Joe who’s been with us for a long time, they in reality are like, “She is African-American. She can’t understand that.” They get to more black and white thinking, pardon the unintended pun.
It is. It’s both all or none of an experience. It is the all or none always, never, can’t, couldn’t, should, shouldn’t, all those languages of polarizing thinking that show up. Her experience, her story as this young girl that had to deal with busing and racism, that had to go through that experience of confusion, of bewilderment. What race we want to play with this kid and this kid won’t play with us because the mom won’t let her play with us and she gets a tip, bring out that story which is true. It creates a moment of compassion first. It drips into sympathy and she then launches into a moment of criticism. Would you use a different decision than you did back then? He stuck in how can I defend this? The truth is I was the vice president of an African-American president. How could I not be an advocate for?
He gets defensive in this and says, “I don’t have a racist bone in my body.” It doesn’t matter what you say in that regard, it isn’t going to be received well, but you’re absolutely right. If he had gone into it with compassion for her and acknowledging that it’s different now than it was then, wouldn’t that have been so much different? The pendulum would not have swung so far over to Kamala Harris. It would have stayed much more in Joe Biden’s court.
Think of it like this. You and I are moving through the field of time and as we’re moving through the field of time, there are these different dominoes that are being set up. We’re putting the dominoes down as a nation. We’re putting the dominoes down as two human beings. We’re putting dominoes down of language. In those events, different people are having different experiences with those different dominoes that are being set up. People are building evidence and validation about what their perceived truth is about the world. They’re building evidence based on one of the first dominoes that got set down. That’s what they’re doing. If you have parents that got divorced and I have parents that stayed together. Our dominoes are very different regarding the relationship. If Joe Biden has the experience of white middle-class Americans and Kamala Harris has the experience of African-American, growing up the way she did in her experience. She has that set of dominoes.
The only way to get to those moments of truth is to, like dominoes, you’ve got to deal with it at this moment. You can’t be defensive about that moment. That moment is already indefensible. I can’t say, “Tom, if your parents only would’ve,” or mine is, “My parents stayed together but what a rough ride.” It’s like, “If they would have.” I’m sitting in a place of criticism. I have to defend them more you have to defend your experience. There are moments of contempt that shows up in our bodies. The moment of withdrawals, “I don’t want to talk about this because it was too painful.” That’s where the conversation gets lost in them. We get caught in a language nuance and style of should-shouldn’t, can’t-couldn’t, right-wrong, good-bad, truth-non-truth and my perception-your perception, we get caught there. Instead of the moment of compassion for both Kamala Harris’s experience growing up, African-American’s experience now.
That’s where the win was for Joe. The wind was compassion for her experience. It must’ve been difficult growing up as an African-American back then. There is no way I could ever have that same experience that you had. This is one of the really important moments that we, as Democrats, need to reunite around because that is the thing that will divide us. Right now, we have a divider and chief in charge. It’s creating points for him. It’s creating his people. The ones that believe that there is a thing called others in the United States. We’re human beings here. Our unique strength as Americans are. See what has changed, Tom?
It would be an absolute game-changer in that debate. The interesting thing I’m wondering now as we’re talking about this is Kamala Harris, on that night, on the debate stage was the only black person on the stage. She used that and said, “I’d like to comment on that since I’m the only black person on the stage.” She said something like that and inserted herself in a conversation. She used her experience to make a statement, to make a big point. Was her communication skill the best it could have been right there? Did she make the biggest point that no one else on the stage had the skills to be able to have that conversation with her? She won the battle. Did she run out the clock because no one else was prepared? Was it a good communication point, regardless?
As a litigator, criticism is one of the strategies that lawyers use in the courtroom. Criticism of and picking the nuance of truth and framing the nuance of truth to look the way they would like. It was a little bit of a circular firing squad moment. She took a shot across the circle. He could have turned it to, “We’re all standing here unified.” He could have unified all the ten people on the stage as well as the other ten that weren’t there. He could have unified the whole thing. Everybody has, “One thing that we’re good at, we can fight cleanly.” “We can fight cleanly?” “Yes, I could clearly see that whatever Senator Kamala Harris went through is something that I did not, but as somebody that has supported African-American issues.” “Yes, my mind is different now. My maturity, my wisdom, my experience now has taught me.”
Talk about being the adult in the room.
Be the adult in the room. That’ll be the defensive person trying to clarify the truth that she was impacted by a state’s choice. True but not helpful. Say it impacted me and I’ll start feeling better. True but not helpful.
That’s a good example because she got a huge bump. No question. She stepped on the national stage. She sees the opportunity.
She is much more known and she’s getting more donors. She’s definitely rising in the polls because of it. She won the battle.
She won the battle, which is not bad. It’s not terrible. If I want to really get her to be more of an adult and not be the ranting child, which she wasn’t, but the wounded adult that had a childhood experience, not to say that it’s wrong. We’re all wounded. We’re all limping in all different ways. Our vulnerability, our humanity is essential to leadership. It’s either wounded that you’re able to as an adult deal with your wound and to act in an adult way or not to take a shot but be a wounded president and blame everyone else about your wound. That’s what Trump does. They’re wounded. Those people caused you to harm and I’m going to do something about it. No, he’s not going to do anything about it. Whatever he’s going to do, whatever he’s promising, it’s not going to be proportional and it won’t work. I can have a 12-foot, 20-foot, 90-foot wall on the border. It isn’t going to work. Did he ever notice China? How has that wall worked or not worked? No, it didn’t work at all. Did it last? No. The Great Wall of China, what did they use as fill for the Great Wall of China?
I don’t know. What did they use?
It’s anybody that died while building it.
They entombed them in the wall. How about that? That’d be a very interesting thing for a candidate to draw a parallel. Even the idea that China, thousands of years ago, built a wall and its old technology. It can be cast that way. It hasn’t worked long-term. It hasn’t kept people out. All it served to do is be one of the few things you can see from space on earth that’s manmade. Are you going to try and reinvent that wheel?
Testimony to human beings doing something, stating something, committing to something. At one point, China had the largest naval fleet in the entire world. All the ships were made out of wood but it was the largest fleet in the world. The next emperor lit all the ships on fire and went to isolationism. It’s what America is attempting to do now. It’s like, “Read a history book.”
We’re going to have fun when we get to debate between Donald Trump running for reelection and whoever the challenger is. That’s going to be great material.
The purchasing truth, a big part of the candidates’ truth and the four horsemen of the apocalypse. These four horsemen, the criticism, the defensiveness, the contempt and the withdraw. The big challenge is these four things, what they do is set up a narrative that gets them battling against each other. Let me show you what I mean by that. They get it battling between each other because when a person, what happens is that we get these four points of view that start arguing between each other. Criticism, contempt starts fighting with us with each other. Defensiveness and withdraw start fighting with each other. That’s happening now.
Defensiveness is fighting with withdraw in the court systems to get people to come in, you got to subpoena them. A subpoena is a defensive position. You have to fight. They’re going to lock-in. I got two horsemen already sitting in there. Contempt, Trump is doing criticism, contempt back and forth. They are doing this to me. Isn’t it a shame? They’re to blame. They’re the wrong person.
Contempt, criticism, contempt, withdraw, it’s keeping the Democrats in a defensive prosecutorial position. It’s a different time now than it was. It is the essential challenge that we have as human beings is we need to apply compassion and empathy as this battle shows up. That’s the thing that gets us back to having a healthy adult conversation which we’re not having now. Does that make some sense?
It makes complete sense. Is that the issue? It seems like it’s the issue not only for those candidates who are jockeying for position and trying to climb to the top of the heap as a Democratic candidate, trying to get to the top of the polls but also as a country. It seems the four horsemen are being used by the administration to keep us polarized, to keep us opposing each other and not working together.
We’re getting pinned there because we are doing the best we can as human beings, trying to fight the battle a little bit better. If you say a criticism sentence in my direction and I have an adult language that sees through the criticism. Give it a little bit of validation because it is true. Senator Kamala Harris went through that experience. The first thing that any candidate could have said to draft off of what she did was what Senator Kamala Harris went through is exactly what we’re doing and dealing within South Bend. We’re dealing with the same thing. For many Americans, the needle hasn’t moved at all from what Senator Kamala Harris went through to what we’re dealing with in South Bend.
That’s what Mayor Pete Buttigieg could have said, “We’re doing the best we can like Vice President Joe Biden went through when he was dealing with the same issues back then in the ‘60s, ‘70s. How do we get the Americas and the people that we have here to collaborate and cooperate more effectively?” Mayor Pete Buttigieg is now gaining ten points. They’re all moving up in the point and the ones that are sitting on the sideline that don’t know what to say, that don’t know how to be in an adult conversation. They’re all on the stage in the position of withdrawal trying to think, “How can I get my talking point in?” That’s all they’re thinking about. My talking point doesn’t fit. No need for a talking point. Be present to the moment of pain. Be present to what is happening. What is happening is the question was asked. As a leader, you need to be present to the moment of pain. Don’t be present to what the talking point you need to reinforce. Be present to what’s alive.
In that forum, you barely get a minute to speak or respond to anything. You don’t have the ability to have the conversation you want to have. You’ve got to go with the conversation that’s happening right there. You have to respond at the moment. Are there some tragic examples of some candidates that were ill-equipped and don’t seem to have the communication skills necessary?
My mind is going like, “Here’s where they all were coming through with their talking points, trying to make their talking points but using the language of criticism, defensiveness or contempt and withdraw to try to get the job done.” Instead of using and allowing compassionate truth to lead the narrative. Compassionate truth, I’m thinking of Marianne Williamson, would have looked like I can appreciate all the wonderful doctors that are doing the best they can to deal with the health crisis and the crisis in our healthcare system. It’s clear we need to get on the positive side of this thing. We need to start talking about the causes not at always dealing with the effect of it. What I would do as president is I would launch a health-healthcare system where we focus on health. What does health look like? What does healthy food look like? How do we keep our chemicals out of our bodies? How do we keep and protect the environment? Let’s talk about the health-health system, not the sickness-health system. She criticized the system she wants to change. Instead of saying, “Why don’t you honor where we are and know that we funded, we have reinforced and have paid people to fix sickness after they’re sick, not before it?”
When a person leaves with criticism and even though it’s true, it’s not helpful. Her statement was true and what made her statement even wobbly is that she did it from the framework of criticism, not from the framework of compassion. For the system that’s so, the same thing for the insurance companies. There are hundreds of thousands. There are over a million people working in the medical insurance business that are dealing with these forms. All of those people, we’ve got to get them to support each other so it goes better. They’re voters too. They are hearing, “You’re going to take down my job? I’ve been processing these forms.” How’s that going to work? You’re scaring one-sixth of the economy to say we’re taking that one-sixth away. How is that not affecting the limbic part of their brain going like, “I don’t like Donald Trump but at least he’s not taken away what I have.” What’s going to happen with my job in processing insurance forms? That’s all I do all day. I’ll vote for the person that is more stable with my job than the person that wants to change everything and make it better than I don’t know what it’s going to look like. I’d rather do the status quo. Thank you very much.”
Their need for safety is not being met by Marianne Williamson criticizing their industry.
It’s like we are going to take what is available to us right now. We’re going to work off the foundation of insurance that our nation, private insurance. We’re working off that foundation. We’re going to take the best of those processes and still allow people to choose to have those systems in place. We’re also recognizing that there are other systems that are working better than ours. We’re going to take the best of those things because that’s what Americans do. We take the best of things and we make them better.
That’s him right there. I don’t get why anybody’s talking about it again, it becomes very polarizing thinking, absolute, has to be this way or that way. It can’t be in the middle. As I understand it, a lot of the countries that have a strong public healthcare system also still have a private insurance system on top of that. It works well. It doesn’t have to be either or you can have. If you’re Bernie Sanders, you can have Medicare for all but still have a private supplemental industry on top of that.
Here’s how Bernie Sanders could get ten points back that he lost. Here’s Bernie Sanders’ next message. It would be something like this, “It’s important to stabilize our healthcare system. We’re going to stabilize it and take the best practices in order to stabilize, reform and restructure it so that whatever level of protection that American wants, they get to choose to do. It’s important that if someone is feeling scared and fearful and they want to spend extra money to have private insurance, they get that choice and that option. If certain doctors would like to work inside that structure, it’s important for them to have the choice to do that and to get to pay the value that they would like to get paid.” The doctors are fearful too because they’re thinking, “What’s going to happen to the money in the pipeline?” They’re getting paid through the insurance folks and they’re getting the insurance people but how do you get the high-end money too? I’m sitting with my money problems and the way my economy has worked and the way I have wealth as a doctor. The voices of criticism, defensiveness, contempt and withdraw force politicians into fighting between the values instead of having an adult best-practices mindset. Instead of getting to the adult narrative of, “You’d like to get paid and we have the bigger issue, we’re trying to fix the bigger issue and we still want to get you paid too.”
It seems that during that debate, there were so many opportunities for candidates to address the issue that was being discussed or the question they were being asked. If they communicate their message properly, use communication skills, which some of them don’t seem to have. It not only indicate their position and come out on top but also at the same time be attacking the administration, which should be the whole goal of all of these candidates.
The awareness piece is that you’ve got to be the person that can lead to the stage that has access to certain sentences that you can use when a criticism style president, a contempt style president that is going to continue his message all the way through to the end. He is not changing his message. He’s not going to gain awareness or consciousness. He’s not going to become, “More presidential.” Everybody was hoping that he would. He’s been using these four things and using the various different systems to get around him to use the voice of criticism, defensiveness, contempt and withdraw. To even bounce it to Kellyanne Conway, he uses the four things all the time, all the talking points on Fox News. Even all the other newscasters, regrettably start arguing between criticism, contempt and withdraw. This exhausts me from time to time if I don’t put my compassionate ears on. I’m going to like, “Why are you picking? You have made it worse.” You are fighting for truth, but that’s not helpful. It’s not essential to do truth first because compassion for the tragic sentence is essential in order to have an adult conversation because otherwise, we have middle schoolers fighting on a playground. I don’t mind labeling and diagnosing.
It is so true though. It is to me tragic that these aspiring leaders do not understand this.
This is where Elizabeth Warren has the potential to run out of steam because she has a plan and several different plans and things like that. A plan is a target. That’s all it is. A plan executed is great when you have everybody on board. As a business owner and myself, you’re going to have as many plans as you would like, but as a business owner, if your team is not on board with that plan, then what winds up happening is you’re in big trouble.
I have seen it many times in business and not with my own business but other businesses that I work with where the owner of the business, you would think, “He is the king of his castle. He’s the owner of the business. He can dictate because it’s not a democracy in business. He can say, ‘You’re my employees. You will do this.’” At some point, you can be that dictator but if your employees are not on board, it is not going to happen. They will undermine you. They will sabotage it even if they don’t realize they’re doing it.
Criticism, defensiveness, contempt, and withdraw right at your plan, right at your mission. The owner not having language awareness or leadership awareness jumps into criticism, defensiveness, contempt and withdraw about his employees, about the same team that needs to execute. Regrettably, these languaging styles, criticism, you should have are blame, judgment, criticism and defensiveness. “I didn’t do it. That’s not true. How could you call me this? I’m not this thing that you’re calling me.” Don’t even get in that dog fight. Be compassionate to what the accusation was. The turn is that as Senator Kamala Harris said, “As an African-American on this stage, I think I can say a thing or two about that thing.” The spotlight is now on her. She did wonderful with what she said. As an African-American, this is what they experience. As a vice president, you did this. Draft off of his credibility. Don’t take his credibility down, draft off of it. Get rid of the rest of the field within 40 seconds.
It is called being a leader.
Ask that person that did that. That was that person. Draft off of him. Take his votes but take his votes compassionately. As an African-American, this is my experience. This is what happened. As a human being, as all of us are standing up on stage, fighting for equality because I believe that we, as Democrats, are fighting for equality. She is now drafting all of their votes too. As a human being, take their votes.
Rather than trying to win and walk away from the least wounded, you could lead and bring everyone along and leading by example would lift you up higher.
Lead, don’t be known as that African-American girl who’s president. Be known as a human being that is leading a collaborative, cooperative country. How about that? Do that. There are people who are wounded because they don’t know how to be in the same room with an African-American person. They’re afraid to say the wrong thing as well as their own guilt and shame for dealing with their own fears and anxieties because they’ve been influenced. They need healing, too. They have the uncomfortability of knowing that they’ve had problems in the past dealing with race. Be a human being that I could come up to and say, “I appreciate that you included me and your story of the four-year-old, the six-year-old, the ten-year-old or twelve-year-old that was being left out of play.
My mom said that same thing to me and it cost me a good friendship when I was growing up.” Be the person to heal the other side, not to divide the other side and to drive in the guilt and shame. Just say it.
It’s somewhat inevitable that we’re going to continue to have more tragic or witness more tragic conversations in these early debates as the field gets weeded down. It will continue to be fun to watch that, analyze it and learn from it.
The next step will be the application of compassion and empathy that causes an impact and adult response that is able to mitigate the voices of criticism, defensiveness, contempt and withdraw. What we’ll go into next is what to set with each candidate’s message re-imagined. That’s what we need next. How to construct that impacting messaging? Who are we as Americans, as people and as human beings? The big why here is why this alternative, this unknown, this unaware communication pattern is needed to restore truth and get back on the path of a collaborative nation. That’s the thing that’s needed. This is the Teflon that is coated on the frying pan. This is what’s needed to make the Teflon piece because as President Donald Trump is going to realize that criticism, defensiveness, contempt, and withdraw will win you a battle, but it will not win you a war.
His brand damage is so huge. They’re taking the name off of many of his buildings and he doesn’t know about it. He’s going to go like, “Why is this name off of here?” The investors voted and they voted you out. They took your name off of it because it costs them money. He’s losing the war. He’s had enough money to win battles but what he doesn’t realize is that type of recognition, that type of respect, that type of acknowledgment, the same as a bully is it runs out until somebody stronger than you kick your butt or throws you in jail. That’s what happens next. It’s coming but it’s a painful part of our nation that we’re going to have to deal with next. Next time, we’re going to do something and on a positive note, how empathy and compassion are going to reduce the voices of criticism, defensiveness, contempt and withdraw. Let’s get back to the truth about healing America and what real leadership looks like. That’s where we’ve got to get to next.
I look forward to that. I’m enjoying this a lot. Thank you so much, Bill.
Thank you, Tom. Take care.
Love the show? Subscribe, rate, review, and share!
