Getting Past the Rear View Mirror of Governance

Subscribe Today!

For the past several years, the United States has governed its people from a Rear View Mirror. Instead of calling for progress, politicians have been inviting everyone to go back and reclaim something familiar (and comfortable) from the past. Bill Stierle and Tom discuss how to go beyond this tragic leadership style and pay more attention to ushering a better future. They present campaign slogans of US Presidents that summarize either their past-minded or forward-looking administrations. The two also talk about how the current media narrative dampens Russian aggression in its ongoing war with Ukraine and the impact of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's leadership style on this conflict.

---

Watch the episode here

Getting Past the Rear View Mirror of Governance

There is a lot going on in the world internationally, especially with Russia's attack on Ukraine. As you and I have been talking and thinking about the situation, there are a few things that are coming to the forefront of our minds that we can share with our audience. Some of those things are around tragic leadership. To set the table for this episode, what we can conclude and what we want to share with our audience is that our leaders, not only now but even for the last five-ish years in the US anyway, have been governing through the rearview mirror. That's a very interesting concept that's a departure from what we have had in recent decades. Let's start with tragic leadership and start this discussion. 

This is a toughy because tragic leadership is you look for where the vote is or where the person's mindset is, and you keep validating that. It's a very limbic brain stimulus. I want to tell the person to keep buying Cheerios or Coca-Cola or Pepsi over and over again. I want to tell them messages that they are familiar with. It's rearview mirror messaging. You tell the person where they have been and how much better it was where they were rather than where they are going. People get scared about where they are going, especially with the speed at which change is taking place. Change is tough for the brain because you've got to dump all beliefs and you have to adopt a new mindset.

As business owners, you and I know that we need to change, and then change again, and then change our way, and then change our messaging and leadership. Trust a new person and then train a new person. It's a never-ending part of the change. The tragic leadership focuses on a past-minded memory or validation. This is interesting because the leader is trying to message to stimulate and create a connection to something that was in the past.

Make America great again is something that is in the past. I know that America is great. I remembered when I was growing up, I said the Pledge of Allegiance and I felt good in the classroom when I was eight years old because a word, a phrase or some things made me feel a sense of loyalty, commitment or identity to the United States as I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

All of a sudden we are into a past narrative, make America great again. Russia has that same narrative about their past, their loyalty, and their greatness. They remember when they were great and they remember when they were not so great, and then they want to want to be great. They want to feel the same way they did when they were growing up. It's unsettling, especially because the world has changed since then.

Vladimir Putin remembers the USSR and all the satellite states like Romania, Ukraine, and all these different countries that were once part of the USSR but are no longer and are these independent states. He's feeling threatened by NATO and he's like, “I want to get back to what it was and I want more buffer between us and Europe and the rest of the world.” That's leading from the rearview mirror and trying to get back to something that he perceives that lost.

It’s the perception of loss. What people don't understand, because this is a communication show, is that message or the buffer zone is a 5 or 6 on a scale of 1 to 10. It's not as high as identity or respect, which is more like a 9 or 10 on the scale in his mind. The messaging is not proportional and people will go after that because that makes sense. It's hard to restore somebody's respect and identity when the person has respect and identity about the past. How do you do that? You can't go back and say, “Do you want the USSR to come back and you want all these states back? Let's go talk to them. Maybe they want to come back to you.”

The answer is, “We are not going to go back to you guys.” It’s the train has left the station thing. He’s like, “Wait a minute. I'm going to make you go back to the way we were through oppression and dictatorship. We are not going to let people protest and all that stuff. We are not doing that.” The challenge then and what needs to take place is that you need to talk about the glory of the history, and then also set the vision for where Russia is going next.

If you have an economy that is monolithic, which is a petrol state, as people talk about it, their identity needs to be spoken about in a broader perspective because they have a vibrant middle-class. They have a vibrant thing. They are not just taking money and buying people's stuff. They are taking money and doing this because then everybody is not participating in the range of human expression, which is called the diverse economy, and they don't have one.

Leaning on the glory of the USSR and what does it take to create that honoring of all the good things that Russia stand and stood for, all the values of respect, strength, persistence, discipline and stability, all those wonderful values that we have as human beings, acknowledge that that was a part of your past, and it is a part of your future. Look at their tennis player and all these people that are representative of their achievements in space.

If they are not getting credit or credibility for the things that their scientists and people have done, what winds up happening is that they are fighting for a very limited identity called the conquers. That's not a good identity to have because then you live into that identity of that type of person instead of building a diverse economy and stuff.

It remains to be seen what's going to happen. There are a lot of uncertainties around it right now, but the things in the economy in Russia are not looking very good. I don't want to get off too much on the details of the conflict itself. There are some very interesting things to realize about America in this as well, and you mentioned make America great.

I'm not going to put this all on the Donald Trump administration, although they certainly led from the rearview mirror in spades. I was thinking about this having seen the highlights of President Joe Biden's first state of the union address. Remembering back to him on the campaign trail, the major slogan that he sells America on to vote for him is restoring the soul of America. That is no less a rearview mirror theme.

It's very challenging to talk about the soul because there's a spiritual element to it. It's hard to go and it almost would have worked better as restoring America's values. I would have gone simpler. Values first. Respect, truth, trust, cooperation and collaboration, we are doing those. I would have gone after values and handed it to them.

Instead, it was more of a pissing contest between one rearview mirror vision and another. There were enough people tired of the one from Donald Trump and more people voted for the one from Joe Biden. What was opening to me, Bill, as we thought about all the previous administrations going back to Ronald Reagan even. Barack Obama was about hope and change. That's not a rearview mirror message. That's a future, set the vision, forward-thinking. Bill Clinton was bouncing the budget. What was his theme song from Fleetwood Mac? I think it’s, “Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow.”

He had a very forward-looking theme. Even Ronald Reagan’s government spending is bad. His vision was a future vision, whether you are good with it or not of changing the American government to being less dominant in our country. It wasn't trying to get back to something in the '50s. In fact, it was a change away from that or a future vision.

JFK was the moonshot. He set the vision, “We are going to go take a man to the moon and restore him safely to Earth.” Even FDR, you go back to the early 20th century and the New Deal. These are all future vision setting things. There's a big distinction and a shift that has taken place here since 2015 and 2016 in the idea of governing from the rearview mirror. It may not even be an idea of theirs, but it is what the last two administrations are doing.

If you think even further about JFK, it's like, "Don't ask what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." That's inspiring because you are saying, "I'm not going to take the take out. I'm going to see what I can do for my country and what is my individual engagement.” Whereas, make America great again, turns into a handout world. It's when things were easier. When things were easier is when you had enough money to buy stuff. When did you have enough to buy stuff? When we were working and spending money on the products and there was a building of the middle-class. If we want to do that, let's do that. 

When this was happening, the government spent time building the middle-class and they did some short-term/long-term goals about building the middle-class to a certain level so that we can have that level of affluence. You had enough money and you could buy stuff. You could have enough money for a two-week vacation. You only have one job to be able to have that, and then you had a personal life in the evening.

You were able to watch some TV, and your kids are going to school, and there are no tons of pressure on you. There's enough on you to keep you in the motivation of what it takes to run a capitalist system because you got to have some things to strive for. Countries that have more things given to them sometimes go like, “I don't find that as valuable because I have already had that given to me.”

We are pesky creatures. We have to have both the front part of our brain engaged to say, “Here are some of our attributes that we need to see.” The back part of our brain is going like, "We have stability. We have some safety here. We have some predictability. I know what's going to happen with my budget over the next months 2, 3 and 4. I'm not as much living paycheck to paycheck. I'm not as much doing that. I do have some consistency in my world and I'm not as nervous, anxious, worried or scared."

Tragic leadership pushes on those things. It says, “You need to be nervous, anxious, worried and scared about the other side, those Democrats and Republicans,” instead of going, “I love the Republicans. They are interested in creating a balanced budget and creating stability and certainty. They would like a system at the border that would be fair and equitable, and we need to build them one of those things. It's not a wall but let's build a system that does work.”

You just amplify what they want to achieve and serve up a real solution. At the same time, you peed on the fact that the reality is the wall isn't going to do it, in a nice way.

Any Republican that mentions the wall, I would literally say, "How did that work for Russia and East Germany? Did that wall work? Didn't Reagan say, 'Tear the wall down?' Do we need to build a wall in order to tear it down? Is that what we are doing here? How about if we do something different?”

The other wall that you could point to that makes walls look decidedly ancient solution to a modern problem is looking at the Great Wall of China.

Let's build one like the Great Wall of China. Let's see if we can build one like that. How well is that used?

Is that effective today?

I don't think that that's effective today.

It’s a monument.

It was a wall because they didn't have any planes to get over it. Illegal immigration, 60% of it is because people fly over. Only 20% of it is by foot. What are you building the wall for? That's not effective.

Speaking of China, it’s interesting to think about the Communist Party in China and leader Xi Jinping, they also have a rearview mirror style of leadership in terms of wanting to bring Taiwan back into China. They are wanting to get more control over Hong Kong. There's this concept of one China that's everything. These independent states that are struggling and fighting to remain independent do not want to go back to the way things were under Chinese rule.

There's that make China great again and restore it all to one. It's interesting to think about the leadership style that all of these different leaders have. Shockingly, it has happened here in the United States with both different parties in the last two administrations. It's happening in more authoritarian regimes or undemocratic regimes, for sure. That's very illuminating to me.

I appreciate that insight. The diversity element of the United States is problematic with that one identity. I can empathize with and see the point. Did you ever see the clip of the White Nationalist guy saying, "I love Vladimir Putin?" There's a clip out there. There was a rally that’s like, “How about Russia? Let's give some love to Russia.” This was a White nationalist who was doing this.

I haven’t seen that.

I will find that clip. He was admiring Russia because of its one race. He's in the mindset that's a White nation. He's literally admiring that one identity and stuff, and then he was admiring China because it was one race. Those people are staying in that one race and one identity. That's a limbic brain mindset, which is I am going to look at a person that looks like me, and therefore, I feel good about myself because I don't have to think of other human beings taking other forms. There's this whole diversity of the way human beings look. We look a lot different in different parts of the world.

The part of the limbic brain that's very unsettling is that it's a very tribal hunter-gatherer. This is our group of 35 people that are roaming around and trying to be in the world somehow. That mindset is that if there's anything that's outside that loyalty and certainty, it's outside the way I think. Therefore, it's very hard for me to see them as humans because they are not like I am.



It does take a stretch to walk through a crowd of people at a concert that does not look like you because there's a part of our mind that goes, “Not like us is dangerous,” instead of “Not like us is accepting, tolerant, appreciative and curious.” It's unsettling. We got to watch how our brain is taking the message, and then also not walk by on how to use that to create community and to create a sense of connection, appreciation and delight when we are in the world.

Let's come back to the conflict in Ukraine for a moment because when we talk about governing from the rearview mirror, we see what's happening over there. There are all these tragedies going on with all the Ukrainian people and mass exodus from the country, and then some of them are fighting for their Homeland and lives. It's interesting to see what the media is doing and how they are covering this. I think you have some thoughts on that.

I think that the media keeps walking by opportunities. The opportunities they walk by is that his brain or thinking needs recognition, respect and acknowledgement. The frustration that he has had of not being able to walk forward his country into the modern world, he has had some trouble there. One of the off-ramps that's available to media is to help the world know the value of Russia and why this is tragic so that the Russian people see that we see their value. Therefore, we don't like your guy but we like your values and what you've stood for. Your culture has conviction, art, ballet, discipline and athletism. You've got such a wonderful history to say, "This is what you guys went through. That was a tough thing to go through. This is what came out of that. This is what we went through as a country. This is what another country goes through."

Ukraine has that same thing. This is the Ukrainian culture that is being overrun by this. All of a sudden, it's the pride and restoration. You are helping the country and the person to look at the past as what it is a collection of good and bad things, but we are going to focus on what the brand goodness is rather than the things that are lost. This is where we were, but this is where we are now. It's weird to say that Kyiv came first, and Moscow came second. It's hard to say that this was here.

If you look at Russian history, this other part of the world was more developed and Moscow was farmlands while Kyiv was a city. It's getting us to have a perspective and honor the perspective of this is the way that history looks. This is how to honor it. The off rank ramp is how do we help ourselves with a positive perspective of these two countries so that we can start to say, "Why are we doing all this?"

When we damp in the past-oriented get back to where my ideal was, instead of going, “We are going to honor the entire process of this. Can we work together where we are now? Where we are now is you are not going to get us to go back to that other thing that we once were. We are not going to do that.”

It's a very interesting idea of helping highlight the identity of a country or a culture and gives them respect in a positive way. As a means to not only highlight or give respect to them but then have the obvious contrast with the tragedy going on right now, is that who you want to be?

Is that who you want to be? Is that who Russia wants to be? You are dampening the aggression and you are dampening the will of the aggressor. You go like, “Do you want to be a country?” They are talking about Russia as a pariah state like North Korea and Iran. They are talking about them in that category. It's like, “What are you doing?”

That's unfortunate. We are seeing stories and obviously, there are a lot of stories yet to unfold. There are a lot of uncertainties but we are seeing stories of Russian soldiers driving vehicles and Ukrainians standing in front of them. The Russians like, “I'm not going to run over you people.” Even reports of Russian soldiers who didn't think they were being sent to invade a country, but doing some peacekeeping, exercises or something else. 



It seems like they had no idea they were going to be shot at. That's at least the latest messaging that I have received. You and I know how propaganda works. We have got a small piece of message, and then we pass on that message as if it's true. There is a truth that only certain people knew that we were going in and certain soldiers did not necessarily know the full vision of things, and what are we supposed to do.

It's very difficult. It's very hard to realize that leadership forgets to give a clear message, and then also the values that are supporting that message. That's one of the things that Volodymyr Zelenskyy is doing. We are not going. We are going to be here. We are fighting for our identity and our culture, and we need some help to protect ourselves. That message is translating throughout the world. We are not moving. I am not leaving here. I'm staying here.

He's a heck of an example of leadership.

He's standing for the value of identity instead of meeting his own need for safety. He is standing for the need for respect and protection. As a person that is saying, “This is something that I'm going to lay my life down for. Their people are going to hunt for me.” There is a one-piece of media that I digested that some Chechen rebels came in and the Ukrainians caught up before they got in. There was a team of assassins and stuff.

It's that high need to say, “This is what my conviction and discipline is. I am fighting for this country. These people elected me to do it and that's the job." The job is not to take sniper shots on social media about what the other side isn't doing. It would have never happened if I was here. You had no idea that he's been prepared for eight years for this. That's the indicator right now. It is that Vladimir Putin has been planning for this for eight years.

Ever since he took over Crimea.

He's been planning for this. He's been trying to Bulletproof himself from sanctions.

How has that worked out? I'm not so sure this is going to end up the way he wanted to. I know it's still early and everything isn't settled here. It certainly looks like there are some very heavy consequences for Vladimir Putin himself and the oligarchs in Russia. The Russian people as a whole are going to pay for this because the economic sanctions are going to negatively impact the leaders at the top first, but every citizen of that country.

There's going to be a point and I don't know if there is a point here because Ukraine saw this coming because they wanted to get into NATO. The powers that be around NATO were going, “If we let them in, Russia is going to do something terrible.” The answer is they did something terrible. They have done it. Whereas, if that was there already or that was in place, then it would have been something that would be a step forward to protecting them.



What is the end game? Everyone is asking what is the end game here. It's hard to say if it's going to get worse, which it's going to get somewhat or extremely worse. A part of me is saying that a little future-oriented, and then another part of me says, “Will the people in the military say that we are not going to do this? That is disobeying laws, commands, and certain things that have been established. If there are 6,000 people that have been arrested for protests, how many people does it take to overflow that system? Is it going to be 300,000 people protesting, trying to get erased? What are you going to do to arrest all these people?

Where are you going to put them all? Does it take the 300,000, the 500,000 mark of going like, "Go and arrest me? Where are you going to put us all?" That's a little dangerous too because there are some countries that are good at rallying up a lot of people and keeping them engaged for a long time. It's very difficult to see how this is going to shake out because it can escalate from the outside, from World War III to internal implosions.

Will it be an internal implosion or will the economic and diplomacy side of things succeed in pulling back and not being willing to accept the consequences the rest of the world is rallied together? It's pretty amazing when you see Switzerland that's pretty neutral. Sweden and Finland, these states that have always loved to line up against Russia. The whole world is coming together here to say, "This is not acceptable, and we are not going to sit by and take it." It’s interesting to see what happens. I appreciate thinking about how all the biggest countries in the world are leading from the rearview mirror. That to me was eye-opening.

A very important to notice is that when you listen to politicians or leaders, you want to listen to how much are they messaging toward the mission or the vision that's happening in the future, and how much are they talking about how great they have been in the past? It's not to say the past narrative isn't valuable. I'm very happy to sing The Star-Spangled Banner. I know that it's from the past. I can appreciate those men and women at the time that fight was going on and our flag was still there.

The history is very important but the history is in the past.

That courage and ability to stand for something needs to translate to this moment. What am I standing for at this moment in reference to my country? What level of my commitment am I going to take towards it for making sure that we are looking at both the needs of the individual, but also the needs of the community city, state and country? It's like we have to look at that. I want my individual freedom, but not at the expense of somebody else's life, property or business. I'm interested in balancing those things, but I'm not interested in getting my needs met at this hyper-competition pace.

Not at the expense of others.

It leaves us at a good place here to say there is an off-ramp for Vladimir Putin, which has to do with a combination of his past narrative with the vision that Russia is going to be. Right now there is no future vision that's viable with the current course. There needs to be a new vision to say, "What is the new relationship going to be between Ukraine and Russia now not as a subservient state?" If it's like that, they are in for 5, 10 or 20 years of occupation.

How many years did we spend in Afghanistan? How did that go? Way too many. We tried so much to hand things off to say, “Come into the modern world here,” but it was too much for their limbic brains to do. Some human beings cannot move, and the rest of the world is going to move. It's going to leave them behind, but it's a little tough like that.

Thanks so much. I appreciate your perspective and discussing this with me.

Thanks for doing this. I appreciate it.