These meetings should not have any cost to their reputation and for the most part they don't. No matter what you think of the President, it is unquestionably good for America for our savvy CEOs to be advising him.
People trying to punish the CEOs who advise him are harmful to our country, and worse than the politicians that make decisions to further their own careers instead of do what's best for their country/state/county.
That would be true if the purpose of the meetings --- really, for any President, but maybe most especially with this one --- was to advise. But it's not: it's to endorse. The way you know that is, the meetings pointlessly include several competing big names simultaneously, and are organized around a photo op.
If you want to dispute that these meetings are done for their optics and not for their productivity, fine. You won't convince me, or I think many other people, but that doesn't mean you're not entitled to hold your own opinion about them.
All I'd like to establish is that it is, at this point in the conversation, not reasonable for you to write as if you don't understand the objection people have to these meetings.
If the meetings are done for optics and not productivity, why have Musk and Kalanick not mentioned that? Musk said he left on principle, and Kalanick said being on the council was getting in the way of his goal.
You're repeating yourself needlessly. Obviously, people who leave these groups have decided that the liabilities of endorsing Trump outweigh all potential benefits.
> Obviously, people who leave these groups have decided that the liabilities of endorsing Trump outweigh all potential benefits.
Obviously. The point of my OP was that there shouldn't be liabilities to advising the president (liabilities for endorsement are another matter).
> You're repeating yourself needlessly.
Because the central point of our disagreement is whether being on the economic council is an endorsement or not. Musk and Kalanick both being on the council and loudly leaving it, but not telling any of the public that the advisory council is an empty photo-op seems unlikely to me. So I wanted to get your explanation for why that would happen, but you twice didn't respond to the question.
I don't really even concede the validity of question.
Despite what they may say, tech leaders don't go to these things in the hope of seriously influencing the administration. They're grown ups, and most of them pay lobbying operations. All of them understand that nothing important starts at a giant polished wooden table occupied by their competitors on one side and the news media on the other.
You honestly believe Tim Cook woke up the morning of that last meeting and thought to himself, "the best thing I can do with my time today is to sit down at a table with Donald Trump and Eric Schmidt"? Of course you don't.
The reality is: Trump's invitation to these events is coercive, in the sense that Cook will make news by not attending, and 50% (well, OK, 39.2%) of the US market will be irritated by that news. Attending is problematic, but if he shuts up, it's less problematic than not attending. So that's what he does.
It's for a similar reason that Musk and Kalanick don't hold press conferences decrying the theater of these photo op meetings. The political photo-op is as old as cameras, and tilting at windmills offers them nothing but downside.
Which brings us back to the reason we're irritated that Cook and Schmidt go to these things. The current calculation they're making says they lose less by going, and effectively providing a soft endorsement, than by boycotting. That's because their own employees --- who overwhelmingly oppose the Trump administration --- are allowing them to get away with it. If even 5% of Google's employees credibly threatened a work stoppage of any sort over Schmidt's co-opting of their work to endorse Trump, Schmidt would not be allowed to attend; the costs to Google would outweigh the benefits.
Being quiet to not irritate the 39.2% of their customers is plausible, but in the case of Musk and Kalanick they didn't stay quiet. They left, and stated publicly the reasons why they left. I'm still inclined to believe that if the council was nothing more than a photo-op for Trump, Musk and Kalanick would've said that when they left. It would've made them look even better than they do now to that 39.2% ("I want to give my advice but the council is just a photo-op" is better to that segment than "I'm not giving my valuable advice because it's no longer a net-positive for my career/company").
Since, again, the fact that these are giant round-table meetings, of a sort that never occur in the industry itself, performed largely in front of cameras and with every word recorded, I think the extraordinary claim here is yours, and the evidence you've supplied is essentially nil.
That said, I think I've been pretty clear that I don't expect you to agree with me; I simply expect you to stop writing as if you can't imagine any reason other than (I suppose) bloody-mindedness that people would have a problem with Cook and Schmidt and Pichai attending these meetings.
I'm having trouble deciding whether this breathtakingly naive or breathtakingly cynical. It seems like you're arguing that CEOs and corporations should abstain from any kind of moral reasoning no matter what political indicators suggest. This seems odd to me, if only because consumers are quite likely to to adjust their purchasing decisions if they feel politically alienated by a firm's involvement with government.
It's cutting off your nose to spite your face. No one is better off by sabotaging our economy except those who want to further their political careers by saying "I told you so" at the end of his term. It's politicking of the worst kind and damages the democracy.
Good democracy:
- fierce competition in the election
- choose winner
- work together as much as possible to do what's best for the country
Replacing step 3 with "do as much as possible to obstruct the winner and hurt the country until we win again" is stupid. It slows us down and weakens the functioning of the democracy.
Nothing wrong with anyone saying "We are fully against policy X". There is something wrong with "We are fully against policy X, so we will harm unrelated things: Y and Z (the economy in this case)".
"Work together as much as possible to do what's best for the country" -- this is a two-way street. Do you believe the Trump administration is sincerely trying to work with anyone?
Where's the policy evidence of that? Musk's involvement came to nothing, he resigned abruptly in response to yet another executive order that went against his values.
It seems more like Trump sits at the table with people to have his own photo taken. Which is not much of a surprise because that has been his entire career for the past 30 years.
The last bullet I could've better stated as "work together as much as possible to do what both parties believe is best for the country". I'm not saying the opposition party should support all the policies of pres, but they should support the ones that they believe are good. It is good for the admin to have input from leaders of economy, and the dems believe that.
Since the Democrats generally do not believe that the purpose of these meetings is to provide the President with operating advice for the country or the economy, it is not incumbent on them to support the meetings. And so, they do not.
Saying you're 'fully against policy X' while cooperating with someone who is implementing policy X is a self-contradictory position. It seems as if you're assuming different policies to be totally independent of each other and that there is some objectively good direction for the the economy as a whole which is clear to all.
I'm curious, do you feel the same way about insurance companies that expressed dissatisfaction with the Affordable Care Act and stopped participating in the exchanges, or do you view that decision as purely business-motivated?
> Saying you're 'fully against policy X' while cooperating with someone who is implementing policy X is a self-contradictory position.
No it's not. The president has an enormous jurisdiction, and you can cooperate on some issues and abstain on others. And you can advise on all of them.
> there is some objectively good direction for the the economy as a whole which is clear to all
It is clear to all that the economy is best off if the titans of our economy give their thoughts to those making policy and decision. I'm not saying everyone has to help the pres do whatever he wants, but withholding advise from the president in the area of economy because you disagree with his stance on immigration is nothing but spite that harms the country.
It is clear to all that the economy is best off if the titans of our economy give their thoughts to those making policy and decision.
Count me out of this, please. If there's evidence of a pattern of bad decisions that are deleterious to the economy as a whole - something each person has to decide for themselves, obviously - then I think it's better not to assist with that process. Otherwise you risk enabling bad outcomes.
> It is clear to all that the economy is best off if the titans of our economy give their thoughts to those making policy and decision.
I don't think that's clear to all, but, in any case, the “titans of our economy” or going to do that whether or not they participate in formal executive commissions or not.
This is absolutely not "clear to all". You're always out on a treacherous rhetorical ledge when you try to speak for "all" in a contentious discussion, but here you've run right off the edge, Wile-E Coyote-style.
That's an irrelevant question, because Trump has demonstrated no interest in input from leaders of the economy.
A more relevant question is whether it's worth it for leaders of the industry to publicly pretend to give input to a person who they know will ignore it.
I disagree. Doing that legitimizes this president and their actions, which is something that plain should not be happening.
Not to mention that it was clear from the start that Trump was never going to listen to them anyway. Just about everyone on that board said no to the Muslim ban. He did it anyway.
This is exactly right. Trump seeks legitimacy for his policies, and by attending these meetings, tech executives give it to him. They get nothing in return. Sad!
People trying to punish the CEOs who advise him are harmful to our country, and worse than the politicians that make decisions to further their own careers instead of do what's best for their country/state/county.