A wearying, numbing, amount has been written about the US election result. Sifting through it to find anything of much value seems to me to be a rather miserable and barren enterprise – and the hyperbolic tone of much of this coverage I find actually dangerous, certainly damaging to any attempt to truly understand it.
One comment from the run up to the election, below the line in the Financial Times online, has stuck with me though as it seems genuinely and generally useful and applicable:
The Clinton’s problem is one of strategic pollution. They’ve taken too many decisions with short-term benefits and long-term costs. Typically the benefits were financial or sexual and the costs reputational. End result, they have the financial support required to take the presidency but don’t have the respect needed to use it successfully.
I haven’t come across the term strategic pollution before, and it seems genuinely useful to describe the build-up of damaging tactical outcomes, largely from a reactive tactical focus. (A Google search also brings up only strategies related to environmental pollution.) Continue reading “Strategic Pollution”