Bradley Tusk’s The Fixer is a controversial book about the interplay between individuals and politics. As the title suggests, the book focuses largely on start-ups and politics, and it calls exclusively upon US-based examples. Still, the book has a much broader relevance, at least for most European contexts, and its findings extend to worldwide links between business and politics.
Bradley Tusk relates his memories from the period between 1992 and 2011, when he worked for political heavyweights, such as Ed Rendell (former mayor of Philadelphia and governor of Pennsylvania), Michael Bloomberg (former mayor of N.Y.C. and majority owner of Bloomberg) and Charles Schumer (minority leader in the U.S. senate). This part of the book details Tusk’s work on general publicity issues and the central roles he played in political campaigns, most of which resulted in the election of the politician for whom he worked.
The second part of the book discusses the author’s work in political lobbying, which he undertook with his two firms (first Tusk Consulting from 2011, and then Tusk Ventures since 2015). This included engagements for Uber (his first client), FanDuel and DraftKings (legalizing betting on fantasy sports), Lemonade (disrupting insurance), and Eaze (legalizing on-demand marijuana usage in several U.S. States). The book culminates with eight key pieces of advice, i.e., insights into how the business community can better interact with the political sector.
A series of case studies
Tusk Ventures works with dozens of start-ups in regulated industries to protect them from adverse political events. The company focuses on start-ups as they disrupt established industries with innovative ideas. Tusk attempts to apply the same techniques that worked so well for him in politics to regulatory battles between start-ups and entrenched institutions. Very often, when a better idea or platform disrupts an industry, it also entails disruption of the political status quo. Tusk identifies the following eight guidelines for better navigating such political minefields:
1 – When seeking permission:
Who is giving you the forgiveness?
How important is this issue to your opponent?
Do you really want to take on the fight?
My own experience regarding this is as follows: It seems important not to be unreasonable when “asking”. The less important a particular issue might be framed to the opponent, the easier. He/she must not be made uncomfortable, nor to be put on the defense.
2 – In dealing with inaction from regulators:
Why are the brakes on?
How can they be moved to shift to the gas pedal?
Here, my own experience is that inactions by the regulators might have to do with differences on their side regarding how to handle a given issue. Such differences might be ideologically grounded. It often works to go to the top and suggest a relatively moderate way forward that might imply at least a “partial victory” for resisting persons further down in the hierarchy. Modifications may then be more feasible later!
3 – Do you want to mobilize customers?
Are there enough key customers?
How much do they care?
4 – How to move from a political analysis to a market-expansion strategy:
Are there any relevant supporters in the market (investors)?
Often there are others that indirectly might yield a positive influence. For example, regarding a larger real estate project that we are behind, the building permit is being held back due to a relatively minor dispute involving an access road. But, another community, at the opposite end of town, is seeing this as good for them, allowing them to now expand more-or-less on their own. This, in turn, has led the community that we are dealing with to move!
5 – Disrupt an entrenched interest:
How strong is the political influence?
6 – Take a political fight to court:
What tools do you have to your disposition?
How interested is the press?
My sense is that it typically is both risky as well as potentially expensive to go this way. It is often less risky, and less expensive to “settle things out-of-court”. But there are of course exceptions. While lower courts typically tend to have sympathy with their local municipalities, a more objective interpretation of the law may become the case higher up in the court systems. A good lawyer, plenty of time, and plenty of financial resources would be key.
7 – Are politicians who receive benefits ‘from the old guard’ fighting back?
Is the press sympathetic to the ‘old guard’?
Regrettably the press seems to be predominantly driven by “news”, above all if the news seems to be controversial! To argue “calm reason” as opposed to sensationalism might typically be futile!
8 – Can you shape new regulations?
How can you layer political analysis into a market expansion strategy?
In conclusion, The Fixer is unquestionably a brash book, but it is also an interesting one. It points out hard, even scary, realities within the political world and highlights ways to cope when these realities lead to hurdles on the path of start-ups’ successful business implementation. One might be left with a feeling that the key to success is to manipulate one’s way through the political world; but luckily, most of us realize that there is more to business success than effective political manipulation!
Comments