When does civility become counterproductive? How about when there’s talk of Civil War?

Leaders are often trained that civility is an essential tool in the art of persuasion. But is there a point at which, for certain audiences, assuming they want to dialogue and are open to change is a waste of time? Let us know what you think of this column on a related topic, reposted from the Sunday, August 22, 2022 Waco Tribune-Herald.


by David R. Schleicher

I’m done with opinion page pieces here and elsewhere — the ones that urge me not to give up on Trump voters, to assume the very best motives of those on the other side of the political equation, to make sure “both sides” are welcomed.

Such urgings are a waste of words in a country in which a significant number of people will, given the chance, overturn any election returns they don’t like. In which a state government will gladly force a 10-year-old rape victim to carry a child to term while hindering her access to certain literature and history lessons that might otherwise broaden her mind. In which an extremely conservative member of Congress is deemed too liberal purely because she’s seriously bothered by an attempted coup involving efforts to lynch the vice president for bowing to the U.S. Constitution rather than his boss. Some of these same folks were preaching absolute fidelity to the Constitution only a few years ago.

Well-intentioned admonitions for us all to “just get along” inevitably seem to come from the left side of the political spectrum and are directed at others on the left. If someone has seen a recent column from the right urging their comrades to be more civil, please send it to me. Instead, even formerly rational friends who’ve moved further rightward suggest we might be on the brink of civil war. They say so not as a call for calm but with more of an indulgent, “isn’t-that-interesting” tone behind it.

One can only imagine the glee that must be felt from Moscow to Beijing, from Tehran to Pyongyang, as one-third of Americans ready themselves to burn their own country down while another segment urges we make sure to all take turns speaking gently in an effort to reach consensus. How easy it would be for one of these foreign powers to walk in and take over after our second civil war.

Make no mistake: American democracy will survive only if saved by a coalition of liberals, progressives, moderates, old-school conservatives, former Republicans, self-identified (and genuine) independents and, yes, some among those who ordinarily lean Republican. Civil discussion and efforts at persuasion among all these groups are essential.

The importance of the outcome for America means we also dare not write off a voter solely based on an assumption that their ethnicity or geographic location or economic status means they’re unpersuadable. Kudos here to resilient Texas Democratic gubernatorial candidate Beto O’Rourke for bravely continuing to visit “red” counties across our state, taking questions from those who support him — and, yes, some who do not but earnestly want to hear more. Consider the 45 percent of those identifying as Republican or leaning Republican who a Pew Research poll found “somewhat” or “strongly” disapprove of overturning Roe v. Wade to the point of turning women into second-class citizens.

Meanwhile, your cousin or high school classmate who wants to argue with you online about how Trump is the country’s only hope can at most be persuaded to support Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis instead — in other words, a smarter, more cunning, less bouffanty version of The Donald. Anyone still flying a Trump flag or sporting a Trump 2024 bumper sticker at this point is not going to aid you in rescuing the country from the brink of disaster. Don’t waste your time trying to persuade or reason with them. Not even a minute.

Nor should anyone delude themselves that many of these so-called “patriots” wouldn’t — given another chance — burn down the U.S. Capitol, hang Mike Pence and violently drag Nancy Pelosi down the stairs by her ankles. Save civility for those who want to discuss whether Person X or Person Y should be elected president, not whether an election loss justifies a bloody effort at a coup, including beating up the very police officers one pretends to respect and cherish. Has there ever been a dictator who saved some from persecution for having only fought him cordially?

So, please, no more preaching to the choir. Quit telling me how to be hopeful for, and obsequious to, the Trumpers, at least till they demonstrate some heartfelt reciprocation, including acknowledgement of basic facts and fundamental American principles.

So long as their fears are inflamed by dubious facts fed to them by their news networks on weekdays and their ministers on Sundays, they will not be saved from authoritarianism or nationalism, however it is packaged. Let’s delay the holding of hands and singing of “Kumbaya” until after their civil war.

David Schleicher, a local attorney whose clients include federal law enforcement officers, is a former chair of the McLennan County Democratic Party. He was a Republican until age 30.


by David R. Schleicher

How does a group of people come to be so under the spell of a leader that they become willing to do things that in the absence of that leader they would consider appalling? It’s a question that has fascinated me since childhood. The 2016 English translation of Volker Ullrich’s Hitler: Ascent, 1889-1939 (whether in print or by audiobook) provides some clues. Between that book and related reading and research on the topic, I gleaned this…

If there was one lesson the Führer understood better than most, it was that history is not inevitable. A slight change here or there—more opposition or less resistance—can turn the tide in a completely different direction. And so it was—85 years ago—he nervously awaited public reaction to Operation Hummingbird–what he later would label the “Night of the Long Knives.”

Just some 15 months earlier, his party had won the 1933 elections with less than 44% of the vote. On one hand they appeared to have taken control of the country. United by nationalism, beneath the surface they nonetheless were a collection of divergent forces with competing goals and centers of power. While rivals were encouraged to compete against each other for his approval, in the end he could not tolerate equals or half-allies.

Consider his Chief of Staff, Röhm, head of the storm troopers—a man whose brutality had been instrumental in their mutual rise to power. But also gay, showing socialist tendencies, and too often treating Adolf as an equal readily subject to criticism. And so Röhm made the cut for the Night of the Long Knives.

Then there was Kurt von Schleicher, a general, former Chancellor, and master of political intrigue. At one point he was certain he could tame Hitler, eventually resigning and recommending Hitler be appointed to take his place. Even that was not enough acquiescence. Adolf had a very long memory for those who had crossed him. Warned of the threat the Führer posed to him, Schleicher scoffed. The Night of the Long Knives would prove him deeply mistaken.

Elisabeth Schleicher, Kurt’s recent bride, would die that night too. If there was to be any regret from the mass massacre of the Führer’s enemies, it would be her death. Operational sloppiness. Risking turning public opinion against a plot so evil that widespread support was essential. Historian Volker Ullrich notes Goebbel’s view that “No mistakes other than Frau Schleicher also going down. A shame, but no changing that.”

90 confirmed kills, the actual number possibly twice that.

When needed, Adolf Hitler could charm a crowd of businessmen, reassuring them he was entirely sane and had their best interest at heart. But for something like Operation Hummingbird, he would work himself into a frenzy, his voice at times becoming a high-pitched squeal. Yet it would have to be sold to the public as a rational matter of national security: the death of “a small clique of professional saboteurs” a small price for peace.

It was genius, really, not hiding it as a shameful act of terror by an insecure dictator, instead openly taking responsibility for the murders. Relying on the kind hearts and trusting nature of the citizenry to come to agree such heinous acts had been essential to the survival of the nation. The victims were accused of “high treason”—leaving the Führer no choice but to take emergency action to avert disaster.  The legislature would be asked after the fact to pass a law justifying what was portrayed as having saved the country from civil war.

The real surprise was how little surprise followed. Even men like Franz von Papen, with a long career in public service and whose colleagues had been murdered, offered praise rather than protest. Elder statesmen like Hindenburg were no obstacle either: he sent Hitler a congratulatory telegram for having saved the populace from a serious threat.

Uncertainty over the bloodshed gave way to what Goebbels described as a widespread “limitless enthusiasm.” The Führer went from admired to deified. Even academics justified the slaughter, writing that the Hitler had acted within the bounds of law. Meanwhile a countryman from exile in Switzerland wrote of the Führer and those around him being “gangsters of the lowest sort,” reflecting “decadent stupidity and bloodthirsty humiliation.”

As with his invasions that easily could have caused an early end to his reign had they not been responded to with muted alarm and an assumption that it would be easy at a later point to halt such behavior, the success of Operation Hummingbird persuaded Hitler that there truly were no limits to his power. The line from Night of the Long Knives to Kristallnacht was one of progressive brutality, for a country who numbly came to view it all as normal.

A person who lied so often his own staff wondered if he understood the concept of truth, it would take overwhelming evidence to convince the Führer his power was at its end. Bombs making a wasteland of what had been one of the most modern and largest of European cities. Nearly 70,000 tons of British and American explosives dropped on Berlin.

Hitler would take his own life, leaving his disciples a legacy of trauma, shame, and denial. They would be left to pick of the pieces for a man whose narcissism, self-delusion, and arrogant belief in his own infallibility from the start bore the seeds of his and their destruction.

David Schleicher is an attorney who splits his time between Waco and Washington, D.C. He appreciates a pre-check of this piece done by Baylor University Professor of History David W. Hendon.


Disobedience As A Business Strategy


By David Schleicher and David Gallagher

Watching the rise of President Donald Trump, we ask if it’s time to dump or delete all those books by the experts on how to succeed in business or politics. Love or loathe him, all can agree he doesn’t play by the usual rules. He nonetheless defeated some 20 other major-party candidates on his path to the White House, also gaining a historic number of Republican primary votes and collecting wall-to-wall media attention.

Do the world’s leading experts need to recalculate their advice or is it only a matter of time before the usual rules bring Trump to defeat? His willingness to violate norms leaves some fearing doom of the American experiment in democracy. But it is that very eagerness to implode existing structures that makes his fans adore him. They take the resistance he encounters as proof he’s fighting the good fight against an out-of-touch and corrupt establishment.

Consider this common wisdom from business and political canons of the past:

  • If bad news is coming, get out in front of it.
  • To get legislation passed, be a consistent and credible source of expertise.
  • When you have greatly erred, admit it publicly and outline steps to prevent future occurrences.
  • Humility helps prevent disastrous decision-making.
  • Unnecessarily antagonizing a reporter will backfire on you.
  • Independent voters in the middle decide elections, so politicians should focus on them.

Trump, without embarrassment or hesitation, disregards all these tenets. Consider the drip-drip of bad news out of the White House, widely varied messages to Congress, the refusal to apologize for refusing to apologize, omnipresent boasting, declaring media the “enemy of the people” and a laser-like focus on pleasing his base. The combination is not coincidental.

But as much as one may “love winning,” the reality is that his legislative priorities remain stuck on the runway: repealing Obamacare, tax reform and infrastructure funding. Even with Republicans holding the White House, both houses of Congress and more often than not prevailing at the U.S. Supreme Court, his list of accomplishments is surprisingly diminutive.

Gallup polling labels Trump’s approval ratings “unusually low, unusually early.” They have reached record lows for a president’s first year in office and sit within 15 points of Nixon’s numbers at his resignation. On the other hand, Newsweek recently asserted that the “people who loved Donald Trump in November largely still love him in July.” Visit the right neighborhood in the right part of the United States and it’s not difficult to find Trump campaign signs still displayed proudly.

True, leaders who question assumptions and toss outdated norms can improve their success rate. Trump, by example, demonstrated that some who voted for Barack Obama could be converted to Trump voters and — equally valuable to him — others who turned out for Obama could readily be persuaded to stay home in spite of Obama’s strong endorsement of Hillary Clinton. We nonetheless decline to cease advising leaders to attend to core values such as empathy, clarity and purpose.

If Trump does succeed, it will not be at being “presidential.” Instead he offers a destination so different from the present that he will have gotten there because of, not in spite of, flouting the advice of experts, ignoring well-established customs, and traits and behavior previously deemed repugnant. This may be his goal; the prerequisite question for other leaders is what they hope for.

If it is to win within the current system and eliminate the dinosaurs among the competition, new methods and questioning assumptions are entirely appropriate. If you instead want to demolish an existing marketplace or political system, then feel free to start by tossing out the entirety of the wisdom of the ages and advising your experts to jog on.

Just keep in mind that when burning down a building from the inside, you are not guaranteed an escape route. If an approval rating in the 30 percent range is tolerable for you or your business, then by all means please feel free to give it a try. Someone has to star in future case studies.

       David Schleicher is an attorney representing U.S. government employees and a former DC lobbyist. David Gallagher is President, Growth Development, International, for Omnicom Public Relations Group. This originally appeared in the July 19, 2017 Waco Tribune-Herald.