The challenge in responding to such a candidate who has used anti-establishment statements and personal attacks to drive through long held rules of the road for etiquette has so far been lost for words. The open letter is a kind of shout reminding that technology skills and genius is not a color but a humanity that together with free movement, access to education and freedoms have been the corner stone of the American society. Indeed, the letter confirms that many of the world leading technology companies would not have existed without it.
This is what happens when a single issue political technique is used to attack an opponent head on. As we have seen in the UK Brexit campaign using felicitous “facts” as a means to the end clearly works when in times of large scale groups of people who have a perceived or real grievance in this case immigrants or lack of employment and money. This is a very old political method of using a single issue of emotional concern to break through. It becomes a self-reinforcing mechanism as the carrier of the message then believes that it can be used to fix other issues and it spreads to be the answer to everything. Again this has been evident in the UKIP and the post Brexit narrative of saying that they can fix the establishment in all parts. This same hubris is similar in the Mr Trump’s acceptance speech and his wiliness to take on the injustices described by single issues he has raised and reinforced with the electorate and to fix them with meetings and commercial negotiations.
Ironically most all of the signatories in the open letter may never on a daily basis ever be in contact with non-technical or non-users of the digital revolution through lack of income, education and location. I admit myself and others on my Facebook realize that we don’t see other counter views as they are outside our social network “bubble”. We don’t connect, a paradox of the digital era where we have 247 internet, more TV and web sites we can imagine or consume yet we seem even less in touch with our fellow people who may have real hardships and grievances we don’t fully see. It’s easy to be an armchair strategist and to procrastinate and rationalize it all away in an evening. Yet myself and others will also listen and get involved in the other side of the argument and seek to address both sides, not erect walls.
A key step must be to separate the emotion from the reality, clearly Mr Trump had got under the skin of Ted Cruz citing insults to his family. Yet this is so far from the real world of responsible lawmakers and a service to real society issues that want a future and a prosperity.
Emotionally not preventing skills workforce movement, the investment of time and capabilities in the US companies innovation must be allowed to flourish. My experience of technology teams and leadership can be summed up as “my kingdom for a good technical architect!”. Having good quality tech skills is a vital necessity be it in digital tech or any other knowledge based industry. Just look at Silicon Valley and the famous or infamous alleged agreements of Steve Jobs with other companies not to poach good employees. Whether it’s true or not the point is that tech companies need and will pay for the best people anyway. The cost of visas and applications and living will be part of this in the senior ranks and critical skills. What is more of an issue is if the lower ranks of skills are also not available from the local employment base if these have to be sourced overseas currently. This argument goes for restrictions based on religious beliefs or race that seem so at odds with an economic need or just plain basic common sense in human decency and rights.
Yet seeking to try to be objective in this matter, if globalization and jobs are being lost to immigration or that companies access to national markets will be impact by a Trump Presidency putting up trade barriers in playing hardball to negotiate better deals seems an aggressive unilateral decision. One of the underlying issues to national and international trade is how access to markets, skilled people and investment is equitable for all. Unfair trading practices of either swamping markets or manipulating currencies or trade rules is why international trade bodies exist. This is true event at local issues of cross board trade with Mexico and Canada illustrates again the Mt Trump’s tactic of using a “single issue” political hammer to seek a quick fix to something that he cites doesn’t work the way it should. In the matters of defense and payments as raised by Mr Trump in regard to NATO the same single issue threat of withdrawing support is used as a negotiation tactic.
In both cases, this adversarial action runs counter to how 21st Century mutual defense systems and integrated digital economies work. The flow of investment and market access is critical. Objectively on the economic front a rebalance of market trade that places more emphasis on all parties may have a valid argument. For those who have seen their neighborhoods and livelihood changed by moving factories or offices it’s a real issue. Its ok if you cannot see this in your field of vision in a smart city, yet as with social media you can easily get a “blind spot” in the digital sense of not seeing these issues in the wider real world. We have to keep reminding yourselves that this is the case as the TV or social site political game shows shout of point after point.
It remains surprising that flagrant racism and bigotry is dressed up as “being ok” and responding to the excesses of political correctness and suggested as a reason that has stopped the less fortunate or the digitally divided members of society to blame experts, cosmopolitans, cause gentrification of streets and the excesses of company boards and traders. It is still racism and bigotry that is used as a knife, a “single issue” to cut people down that reduces the value of society principles as a whole. It should not be allowed and a better recognition of failure and rights should be made. The recent Chilcot report into Iraq war by the UK government for all its manifold of issues was right for a mature democratic society to be able to challenge itself and state what is wrong rather than say nothing. Like the South African Apartheid Justice, reconciliation and atrocity investigations these where important steps. Even if it is not perfect it a reminder of the excesses of people and social groups that in times of change, deep economic depression can fester views that tread on the rights of people.
Mr Trump is a Pegasus, hopefully a once in a generation one trick pony that may, if no real response is put up, get to ride all the way to the White House.
The open letter was a call to say that civil liberties are not something that are taken and used as a tool to attack people and races. It needs responsible good politicians and good government that recognize the difference and take action to help people and make a better society for all, not the 1%. It is the purpose of government to construct and legislate better outcomes for the society that voted and put them in power.
If you keep being an “anti-establishment” figure the irony is that if you “win” you then become the “establishment” and then who do you attack next with the rhetoric. That’s the difference between single issues and a party in politics. Single issues are not a political party but a cause and sales campaign that mobilize the crowd from one thing to the next, itis not sustainable as it falls down when it hits the real world barriers as President Trump will do when he “takes on” Asia , Mexico , the Legal system, media and everyone else. A political party on the other hand is different, it is a set of beliefs and values that will deliver a set of behavior changes that members of that party and the wider society will be part of. It is no coincidence that Mr Trump fails to get endorsements or positive views from some quarters as a result.
Yet many have voted for Mr Trump. It is that message that needs to be retaken back into a proper context that the Republicans, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, industry leaders and others must listen to. The Open letter was one step in this direction, but the next steps from now to November will be critical in address these gaps.
By Mark Skilton, Professor of Practice at Warwick Business School
Reference: An open letter from technology sector leaders on Donald Trump’s candidacy for President
