@layman,
Having seen him a few times on TV before he joined the White House, I was pretty surprised by his profanity ridden rant to the NYT reporter. He always came across as well spoken and even keeled. He also seemed, at least when I saw him, fairly moderate... to the extent that he disagreed with some of the wilder claims and suggestions of Trump Supporters who were appearing with him.
The stuff that is going on between him and Priebus and Bannon is a marked departure from the image he previously displayed. I hope it's an aberration that he will discard, because Trump certainly doesn't need a Communications Director who communicates in the same way he does.
I figured a shakeup in the White House was coming and thought it was needed, and, at first, I thought it was a great idea to bring in the Mooch, but it certainly seems like he might think he was brought in to replace Priebus as Chief of Staff. If he was, all fine and well, but Trump needs to make it happen clearly and quickly and not allow chaos to replace dysfunction.
It seems like he thinks it's good executive management to set his subordinates against one another in a managerial dog fight, on the theory that the one most suited to the task will prove victorious.
If that's the way he ran his business, it's amazing he had any success. It's stupid and self-defeating on numerous levels and not the least of which is that the winner is always going to harbor resentment that he or she was forced to go at a rival with fang and claw, particularly if that winner was an incumbent.
This sort of Darwinian Management Theory seldom works and is more likely to lead to a revolving door for subordinate executives than long term stability or
loyalty. It's usually employed by the senior most guy as much for sport as effectiveness, and, of course, never involves him or her.
I've never met a senior executive (and I have met many) who after going through this sort Gladiatorial School of Management themselves decided it was the way they would run their company.
I really thought that as a successful business man Trump would nail this part of the job, but it's where most of his problems are coming from. There is such a thing as creative destruction and temporary chaos can sometimes bring out the best leadership qualities in people, but rarely can it happen when the chaos is prolonged or manufactured by the boss. When a company is beset by externally sourced adversity that can lead to temporary chaos in the executive offices, generally speaking the executive group will come together to work as a team to save their collective asses. There will always be those who care only about their personal posterior and the company be damned, but they are easy to spot and eliminate. However there will also often be one or two individuals who shine. Sometimes the leadership exhibited will be unexpected, but that doesn't make it any less valuable.
In the absence of any leadership, problems won't be solved and the chaos will not eventually be overcome by order. If that happens the company is doomed and the rats will all leap off the sinking ship. Even good and strong executives will eventually be worn to dust by never ending chaos and strife.
His inability to coherently and effectively manage the White House is causing me increasing irritation and frustration. Whatever model he is applying, if any, is clearly not effective, and the dysfunctional environment of the White House is hamstringing his agenda. It pisses me off because I voted for him hoping he would get certain things done. He's come through on several of those things which means he's capable of coming through on others, but self-inflicted wounds are making that harder and less probable...and it's such an easy thing to fix! Or it should be for someone who has a brilliant master plan.
I don't want to him to be a total failure because only a partisan **** heel ever wants the president to totally fail (Failing on certain agenda items is one thing but going down in flames is something entirely different) and I support a lot of items of his expressed agenda.
As well, I think it will set a horrible precedent if the Resistance is successful with their soft coup. They don't bother to think about it because they smugly believe a Democrat could never be in the same position as Trump, but this ignores the fact that much of the position he is in is due to their actions. If they are successful, when Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders becomes the next elected president it doesn't take a genius to predict the immediate creation of a new Resistance...on the Right
I also freely admit that I don't want him to go down in flames because I don't think I could stand the self-congratulatory gloating of the Resistance. I might have to become a Taoist monk and live out the rest of my life in a cave.
