Elections and Airplane Crashes

            A few years ago, Malcolm Gladwell wrote a wonderful book called Outliers: The Story of Success.  He offered intriguing theories about life and achievement, including the notion that real competence in any endeavor requires doing that endeavor for 10,000 hours. Leaving aside the fact a few social scientists scoffed at Gladwell’s 10,000 hour rule because, they contended, he offered insufficient empirical data in support of it, we’ve found the 10,000 hour idea, and others he advances, compelling.  One of those offers a path for analyzing the election, his way of looking at airplane crashes.

Gladwell devoted most of his attention to cultural factors, like inadequate cockpit communication born out of the reluctance of co-pilots from some cultures to challenge captains about things they saw going wrong because to do so would have been to question authority in a way their societies don’t permit.  Gladwell, however, also made a point some others make about air crashes – that many result from the cascading effect of little things going wrong that add up to a major catastrophe. In most instances, removal of any one of these “little things” from the equation would have averted the crash.  As we think about Gladwell’s view of air crashes, the more parallels we see with the election.

Little Things The issue of race figures prominently in most analyses we’ve seen of the election.  Pundits point out Donald Trump’s support among white working class voters, add in his offensive rhetoric about ethnic groups, and the instant analysis says Trump won because of a white backlash against immigrants, Muslims, the first black president, etc. More left-leaning analysts saw Trump’s appeal to white voters in general, and Hillary Clinton’s weakness among them, and concluded that out-and-out white racism decided the election.

Then, there is the matter of Clinton’s complicity in her own defeat.  People supporting this theory look at both the technical/strategic and the personal.  At a technical/strategic level, they point to her campaign’s failure to see—until it was too late – Trump’s surge in the upper Midwest and her selection of Tim Kaine as a running mate instead of a Hispanic, like Housing Secretary Julian Castro, who might have produced a larger Hispanic vote for the Democrats.  These analysts, in effect, argue that Clinton could have denied Trump the White House just by running a better railroad.  On the personal front, others take her to task for the flaws that created some of her heaviest political baggage, such as her penchant for privacy and secrecy that likely led to installation of the private e-mail server. Another variation of this argument focuses on ill-advised decisions Clinton (and her husband) made before the campaign – giving the Wall Street speeches, how the Clinton Foundation operated, filling her circle with corporate and social elites instead of cultivating more relationships with working class people.

Happenings Then, of course, some things just happened, beginning with FBI Director James Comey’s meddling in the election in the name of keeping a promise to Congress.  Nothing required Comey to make that promise in the first place and nothing compelled him to speak on either of the two occasions he did during the last days of the campaign --- October 28 when he dropped his first bombshell letter and the Sunday before the election when he tried to clean up the mess with an exculpatory letter. The damage was done.

We could go on with the list of theories about why Trump won and Clinton lost, but we’ve made the point. Any of these things, if changed just a little, could have altered the outcome of the election.  In that sense, the 2016 election resembles the air crashes Gladwell describes in Outliers.  No one will ever explain the result by reference to just one thing or one set of things. The outcome just shows how complex and nuanced a world we inhabit.

Lessons What do we learn from looking at the election through this disaster prism?   Three lessons, we suggest.  First, be careful about drawing broad simplistic conclusions.  As journalist Mark Shields reminded us last week, many of the rural and small town areas in Michigan and Wisconsin that Trump carried so solidly went for Barak Obama in 2008 and 2012.  That should give us pause about automatically casting the inhabitants of those areas as bigoted, narrow-minded racists promoting mass backlash. Without absolving them from complicity in Trump’s nastiness, we can acknowledge that maybe they mostly seek a magic bullet that will expunge the effects of the things that make them feel left out of the new economic and cultural order.  Obama promised “change” too. Maybe that message, not the color of the messenger, rings truest with them.

Second, campaigns matter.  Trump ran a terrible campaign as measured by traditional standards of the craft. But, it didn’t matter, given his celebrity status. Clinton, on the other hand, supposedly the superior technical politician, made critical mistakes.  The three of us are avid sports fans and we know what will get any football or basketball team beat, no matter the difference in talent – turnovers.  Hillary turned the ball over plenty in this campaign and it eventually caught up with her.

Finally, in campaigns as in air crashes, some things happen that no pilot can control. If the tail section breaks off no amount of pilot skill can save the plane. That’s probably the best analogy for the Comey letters.  Sometimes things just happen.

A zillion ways exist to look at this election. For progressives like us, it was a disaster of the first order. But trying to assign one simple explanation makes it all the more likely something like this will occur in the future. We need to know all the possible causes, no matter how small.                                       

The Struggles of Charlie Strong: Is the Handwriting on the Wall for the Texas Football Coach?

Even as the Presidential election gets stranger, we’ve kept some attention on college football.  Two-thirds through the season many fans are turning their attention to (1) the playoffs and (2) the coaching carousel. A few schools (e.g. LSU, Purdue) have already fired coaches and will finish the season with interims.  Other heads sit on the chopping block and we expect pink slips right after Thanksgiving – which brings us back to where we started this blog, the plight of Texas coach Charlie Strong.

We wrote in August that Strong who, like all three of us, hails from Arkansas, faced a year in which he had to win eight or nine games to survive.  He won’t win nine, at least not in the regular season, since the Longhorns are 4-4.  Winning out will produce an 8-4 regular season.

A few weeks ago, after a frustrating loss to a mediocre Kansas State team, some media types and fans had Strong already gone.  Firing coaches during the season, however, isn’t Texas’s style (it’s never happened). If Strong’s going to get the axe, it will likely fall after the November 25 finale against TCU.

Being lawyers, we like to construct analytical frameworks through which to examine situations like this. Our Strong framework includes three dimensions – pure football, the outsized Texas expectations, and race.  There are football-based reasons to fire Strong or to keep him.  Most elite college football programs have expectations that obscure reality in evaluating coaches and Texas fits the pattern.  Finally, no matter what happens to Strong, race will arise in the discussion of his departure or his continued tenure at Texas.

Just Football Make no mistake, Charlie Strong can coach football. He proved that as defensive coordinator for two national championship teams at Florida, with spots on the Lou Holtz and Urban Meyer coaching trees, and through bowl victories and double digit win seasons as head coach at Louisville. Moving to Austin didn’t make him forget how to coach.

Still, his Texas tenure baffles even his strongest (yes, we said that) supporters. Unranked California and Kansas State torched the Texas defense. Even in a much needed win over then eighth-ranked Baylor, Texas yielded over 600 yards of offense. Watching missed tackle after missed tackle infuriates ardent Texas fans (as one of us is).

As coaches tend to, Strong attributes many of his team’s problems to youth.  He has a point. Texas plays precious few seniors because it has so few good ones, a testament to what Strong found when he arrived in 2014.  The team’s inability to win away from Austin (0-4, including a loss to rival Oklahoma on a neutral field) no doubt reflects immaturity. If Strong plans to win out and survive, his team must grow up on November 5 and win at Texas Tech. 

Texas has corrected what ailed it during Strong’s first two seasons – an anemic offense.  The Longhorns average ten points more per game this year than last because of freshman quarterback Shane Buechele, an improving offensive line, a deep, talented receiving corps, and the superb running of tailback D’Onta Foreman. Most of those pieces, and much of the defense, return.  Strong himself freely says that whoever coaches Texas in 2017 will have a ten win team.

So, just in football terms, Strong’s 15-18 record in two and two-thirds seasons might deserve dismissal based on the numbers and the eye test.  Much of what Texas fans have seen has been ugly, really ugly.  We won’t sugar coat that.  Still, Strong has a young, talented team poised for future success.  Building football teams resembles baking cakes.  They aren’t ready until they’re ready.  Ample evidence exists that Texas could come out of the oven very tasty next season.  Maybe the cook who whipped up the batter ought to get a chance to put on the icing and enjoy a piece.

Texas Expectations Much has been said and written about the Texas expectations and how the school and its fans see the program. ESPN analyst Kirk Herbstreit called Texas a “cesspool” in which to coach because of the demands of the fan base.  Former Texas  athletic director DeLoss Dodds famously remarked that it was foolish to talk about Texas keeping up with the Joneses in facilities, fund raising, and other measures of success. “We are the Joneses,” Dodds declared.

At many schools Strong wouldn’t be in trouble with the record he has after two and two-thirds seasons. Many would follow the four year rule that a coach    should at least have the opportunity to get his first recruiting class through. At Texas, however, the powers that be have to decide whether to succumb to the pressure or give Strong time to finish baking the cake, regardless of the hungry, impatient crowd clamoring at the table.

The Matter of Color Our earlier blog asked whether Texas would hire another black coach if it fires Strong.  While his fate on the Forty Acres remains uncertain, it has become clear Strong won’t have a black successor.  That doesn’t necessarily result from racial animus on the part of the Texas hierarchy. Nearly everyone agrees Texas will first go after University of Houston coach Tom Herman, a former Texas graduate assistant and Urban Meyer disciple who has turned the Cougars into a national player despite not being in a Power 5 conference.  Herman, on the surface, appears the ideal man for Texas and the fact he’s not black is just the way it is.

Even if Texas wanted to replace Strong with a black coach, it would have a difficult time doing so. Texas won’t hire a FCS coach or an assistant who hasn’t been a successful head coach. Texas can’t and won’t try luring Kevin Sumlin from Texas A & M, its estranged in-state rival.  David Shaw isn’t leaving Stanford for Texas. Vanderbilt’s Derek Mason might find himself on the hot seat there. James Franklin hasn’t had the sustained success at Penn State he’d need to justify Texas trying to hire him now.  Dino Babers just got to Syracuse.

We no doubt missed a coaching prospect or two, but the point remains.  A microscopic supply of black coaches exists for a place like Texas.  The reasons begin with institutional racism and the good ol’ boy system that dictates who gets hired for the coordinator positions that lead to head coaching jobs.  That’s such a big topic we’ll have to take it up another time.

Your thoughts?