Stormy Daniels for President – Stormy Daniels 2020!

By now everyone in America who has a computer, television, radio, or other news media devise should know the name “Stormy Daniels” – the porn star who just released her book, Full Disclosure, in which she reveals a bit more about herself as a person – a human being, and in which she chronicles her adulterous affair with the current and 45^th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump. Recently, and as a throw-in to lighten the spirit in a discussion, I suggested “Stormy Daniels for President” in the upcoming 2020 Presidential Election. Everyone in the laughed…but on a serious note, I asked, “How many of you would vote for Stormy Daniels for President?” The laughter got louder and there was one young man inclined to raise his hand, but looking around, he saw no one else responded. Even in politics we like to follow the crowd as we are social-in-group beings, always not wanting to know someone else thinks so or share that view. I proceeded to ask, “On a serious note though, why couldn’t she run for President of the United States?” She qualifies by virtue of the requirements spelled out in the Constitution – Stormy Daniels has attained 35 years of age, she is a natural-born citizen of the United States, she has resided in the United States for more than 14 years, and as far as we know, she has no criminal background that disqualifies her from being eligible to run for President. The answer to people’s lack of endorsement of Stormy Daniels for President of the United States was quite obvious - her profession as a porn star! Interestingly, this seems to point to a matter of integrity based on the historical and moral context in which our society places porn star and those whom work in the sex industry.

As a society, we characterize individuals like Stormy Daniels as lacking integrity and immoral by our individual and even broader social standards. However, and not defending porn or its adherents and exponents such as Stormy Daniels, we could ask several questions in light of recent politics:

1. Has Stormy Daniels ever lied to us individually or collectively as a nation?
2. Has Stormy Daniels used racist, stereotypical, disrespectful and other demeaning language and speech to characterize entire race, religion, people or nation?
3. How many times has Stormy Daniels lied to the media and public in the past 2 years – 5,000 or more times?
4. Has Stormy Daniels ever consorted with the enemies of the United States, whether sexually or politically? Has she ever praised Vladimir Putin or done one of her porn scenes/films with him?
5. Has Stormy Daniels hidden her taxes and refused disclosure despite multiple calls and the need for transparency in governance or financial oversight?
6. How many men and women have come forward accusing Stormy Daniels of sexual assault of any type?
7. Has Stormy Daniels been known to cheat others in business dealings and other contractual commercial endeavors?
8. Has Stormy Daniels made concerted and repeated efforts to obstruct justice?
9. Has Stormy Daniels mocked the disabled, women, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and the like?
10. Has Stormy Daniels advocated against First Amendment Rights for anyone including curtailing individuals’ civil rights and civil liberties, or abridgement of freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of expression or the like?

We could go on and on with these questions, and the answer to all of them with regards to Stormy Daniels would most likely be a resounding “No!”. However, the same cannot be said of Donald J. Trump, the 45^th and current President of the United States. In fact, the President would miserably fail all these questions as over the past 2 years, we have seen numerous examples of his dishonesty, his lack of respect for other people, his zest to curtail Constitutional rights guaranteed under the First Amendment for the media and his “enemy” non-supporters of his policies and values. Furthermore, we have seen how the President constantly cozies up with Vladimir Putin, praises him, and how he admires ruthless dictators such as Rodrigo Duterte, the 16^th President of the Philippines who kills with total immunity and disregard for human life. We could list so many other character and integrity flaws of President Donald J. Trump, including his gross incompetence as a public administrator thus far as evident from unprecedented turnover – Woodrow Wilson, 28^th President of the United States from 1913 to 1921, and who was a founder of Public Administration as discipline and practice in this country, would have been utterly shocked by such incompetence. From the above, we can literally compare President Donald J. Trump with Stormy Daniels and we may surprisingly, if we are honest and objective, make an honest conclusion as to who has more integrity and character flaw! Hence, why cannot Story Daniels run for President of the United States in 2020?

About the Author

Dr. Donovan A. McFarlane teaches in the fields of Political Science and Public Administration to include courses on American Government, The Presidency, and Public Policy. He has extensively taught in the fields of Business and Management at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Some of the major courses he has facilitated include International Business, Organizational Behavior, Marketing, Strategic Management, among other courses. He currently writes articles in several areas for his Blog, Forum of Business, Organizations, and Society (FOBOS): http://businessorganizationssociety.blogspot.com/

Is There a Non-Legal Basis for Presidential Impeachment?

Is There a Non-Legal Basis for Presidential Impeachment?

The U.S. Constitution is by no means such a limiting document as described by legal and constitutional scholars when it comes to administering and seeking justice, ensuring the rights of the people, guaranteeing a republican form of government, and penalizing and holding members of government and the President accountable and responsible for their behaviors and their duty to the nation and its people.

One of the legal and constitutional legal debate that has been ongoing ever since Donald J. Trump was sworn in as the 45^th President of the United States, is that of impeachment of the President. Most of the debate and arguments seem to surround the legal and Constitutional basis of impeachment. This makes it rather difficult to hold presidents accountable for their actions and behaviors that harm and jeopardize the nation and the republican form of government described under the Guarantee Clause (Article IV, Section 4), since if sufficient legal basis is lacking, impeachment does not become a potential to limit, extinguish, or eliminate bad executive actions and behaviors that are characterized by legal vagueness because the Constitution did not explicitly identify, list, and characterize such behaviors as standards or causes for impeachment or removal of government executives and officers, and particularly, the Chief Executive or President of the United States. Legalists – particularly those who are legal professionals or trained as such by earning an LL.B. in former years, or the equivalent J.D. in today’s law schools, seem to have been instrumental in putting forward the notion of specific legal requirements as basis for impeachment of the President only within the framework of legal language evident in Article II. Furthermore, the U.S. Constitution specifically spells out the standards for impeachment in Article II, Section 4, giving them the iron-hammer logical from which most argue: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors (U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 4). This (Article II, Section 4) might seem rather limiting at first glance; however, it does state, “other high Crimes” and this, regardless of what current laws are, is subject to time, actions, and interpretation, and most importantly, the current and emerging needs of the nation and people. While we might peruse the list of felonious and federal crimes, we might still not agree on a sufficient legal basis for presidential impeachment given presidential power and immunity – another area limited to Constitutional legalese and textual interpretation.

It was in 1982 that the Court recognized Presidential immunity from civil liability for official acts committed as President. However, there are limits to Presidential Immunity, and non-personal matters determine such limitations. While a sitting President might have certain immunity to civil liability on official duties, when it comes to unofficial conduct, that might not be the case. This however begs the question: When is the President not the President of the United States? As such, can we really separate personal from non-personal matters while a person is President of the United States? In the capacity of President of the United States for the entire four years or a single term or two terms (8 years), the President should best not be seen as ever acting on a personal level, and thus, all matters related to the President’s actions and decisions must be treated as official! This will certainly eliminate the legal and constitutional ambiguities that evolve and create confusion and present loopholes for presidents to act in compulsive ways and even abuse their presidential power to achieve personal gains whether within the intimate settings of home and family or in the public.

Limiting impeachment requirements to the standards alone established in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution is limiting the Constitution and the law, broadening Presidential and executive powers, and providing opportunities for abuse of power and authority by presidents. The Framers of the Constitution could not have possibly written down every single intended word and proscriptions, and hence, looking at the concerns and overall documents, recognizing the values of the men whom drafted the Constitution, there must be both moral and ethical bases for impeaching the President or any government executive in the United States. By moral and ethical bases, this writer is referring to non-legal requirements as explicitly defined and communicated under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution and the entirety of laws administered across the United States. The moral and ethical conduct of the person occupying the position of President of the United States was more of a concern for the Framers of the Constitution than the legal challenges. This is evident in their actions in appointing a man of unquestionable ethical and moral character and convictions as the first Constitutional President of the United States. The Framers envisioned a morally and ethically upright person whose conduct would be an example for the people and the nation, and this is why the first President after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, President George Washington, was seen as the ideal candidate to serve as model for future presidents of the United States. Thus, the personal and institutional presidencies both have adequate basis for impeachment - both having requirements in law and morality and ethics. Unfortunately, we have often reached far beyond the latter when we seek to evaluate presidential or executive conduct, making impeachment a legal battle for the Senate. So far, only two presidents have been subjected to impeachment process – Andrew Jackson and William Jefferson Clinton (Bill). Given the responsibilities and duties of the President of the United States and the expectations of the Framers, the importance of moral and ethical leadership, and the needs of the republic and democracy, there is never any need to search for a legal basis to impeach a President of the United States or any government executive – personal conduct and behavior are sufficient basis based on moral and ethical expectations in relation to their constitutional duties, responsibilities, and actions.

It is neither far-reaching nor illogical, but only difficult to imagine the non-legal basis for impeaching and removing the President as being fully within the Constitution and constitutional because as a society and nation, we have drifted and deteriorated morally and ethically on individual and collective levels. Our standards of right and wrong, and our values have become so warped and we now are bound by spurious relativism and conscienceless moral and ethical tolerance that vices have become pervasive and valued across all contexts and institutions including what the Framers would have regarded as the “sacred and office” of the President of the United States. Many lawyers and legal scholars will certainly disagree with the viewpoints communicated herein, but a true interpretation and understanding of the U.S. Constitution implies and supports a moral and ethical basis for impeachment rather than just a legal one or legal standards generally interpreted in line with Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution. There is a non-legal basis for presidential impeachment and this basis is the behaviors and personal moral and ethical conduct of the President of the United States.

Image source: Palm Beach Post (2018)

About the Author

Dr. Donovan A. McFarlane teaches in the fields of Political Science and Public Administration to include courses on American Government, The Presidency, and Public Policy. He has extensively taught in the fields of Business and Management at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Some of the major courses he has facilitated include International Business, Organizational Behavior, Marketing, Strategic Management, among other courses. He currently writes articles in several areas for his Blog, Forum of Business, Organizations, and Society (FOBOS): http://businessorganizationssociety.blogspot.com/

China and the U.S. Economic Power War - Reversal of Wealth and Fortune?

The economic war between the United States and China has been mostly a silent, passive, and masked one before the Trump Administration. The U.S. had long feared losing its global economic power, and this reality is becoming more the case as China flexes its global economic and political ambition and engage trade under both absolute advantage and zero-sum neo-mercantilist strategies. After all, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, taught us that you cannot expect to take a dragon’s treasures and gold without suffering some form of loss or devastation. The U.S. is at the better and more positive end of the spectrum in doing business with China when compared to poor, developing, and underdeveloped nations. 

China is currently the world’s second largest economy and growing, and this growth won’t be curbed by U.S. economic strategies as China has been investing rapidly across the globe and the outflow and inflow of foreign direct investment (FDI) for China will be net positive when compared to its trading partners, including the United States. Furthermore, China’s fixed capital formation is increasing rapidly as multinational corporations are still building manufacturing and other plants and offices in China due to its cheap labor and mastering of economic incentives in an effort to outdo the U.S. and maintain the current prosperity it is enjoying. The Chinese represents a large percentage of the world’s emerging wealthy consumers and the Chinese government has no plans in curbing the modern materialism engrossing and fueling Chinese workmanship, belief in the competence of their government, and Chinese destiny that has always exalted Chinese leadership as directly descending from Heaven. The U.S. at the height of its imperial hegemony declared a Manifest Destiny, but the Chinese Myth of Creation has long communicated and sustained their own despite the transformations and changes that the Chinese people, their nation, and society have undergone over the last few thousand years. Thus, the Chinese resolve has been long established within its mythical and divine origin, its approach to life and philosophy of relationships and foreign affairs. The nations under Imperial Tang within Asia and the Korean Peninsula knew this all too well from long before English and U.S. histories were written.

The recent decision by the Trump Administration to impose tariffs on China represents sort of similar strategy that China in its past was noted for using against Gorguyeo, Silla, and Baekje (The Three Kingdoms of Korea) in an effort to not only demonstrate political power, but cement its rule in Asia and in the northern and central parts of the Korean Peninsula and the southern and central parts of Manchuria. Thus, China is used to such kind of game and the Trump Administration might be making a futile effort in getting China to retract its ensnarement of trade and opportunities. After all, which nation will easily give up its advantages in economy and trade in a tightening century of global competition and declining resources where a future of overpopulation, drastic climatic changes, and war over resources including basic food and water resources might be the most fervent stimuli for an ultimate apocalypse?

The Chinese imposition of tariffs on 128 products in ending-March-April 2018 as a retaliation for the U.S.’ imposition of similar tariffs, mainly geared to secure U.S. steel and other key industries, communicates China’s resolve in maintaining its present course toward global economic dominance and power. With the elimination of term limits for current President Xi Xinping, General Secretary of the Communist Party of China and Chairman of the Central Military Commission, China is demonstrating its willingness to stay on its current prosperous and powerful economic and political course without deviation. America and President Trump can cry “unfair competition” all they want, but China will not change its lucrative age for friendship or endorsement. This stubbornness is particularly enforced by China’s modern memory and experience in the late 1800s and early 1900s with western colonialism and Japanese imperialism and the impact that weathered Chinese into being labeled the “Sick Men of Asia”. Never again will the Chinese become the “Sick Men of Asia” but the rulers of Asia as in “Asia The Invincible” [metaphorically expressed in the movie, The East is Red] whose power and transformations are mighty and unstoppable. China, as the metaphorical “Asia The Invincible” is here to dominate in the 21^st century as the world’s greatest economic and political power, and apart from its willing and overly patriotic people and culture, the Chinese have numbers and strategies on their sides, and a knack for friending the enemies of its friends. Chinese attitude toward Taiwan is only an indication of the hard stances it will take in the future on a global level as it faces and deals with challenges in Asia and clashes with the West over trade and other issues.

About the Author

Dr. Donovan A. McFarlane teaches in the fields of Political Science and Public Administration to include courses on American Government, The Presidency, and Public Policy. He has extensively taught in the fields of Business and Management at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Some of the major courses he has facilitated include International Business, Organizational Behavior, Marketing, Strategic Management, among other courses. He currently writes articles in several areas for his Blog, Forum of Business, Organizations, and Society (FOBOS): http://businessorganizationssociety.blogspot.com/

Predicting Trump’s Meeting with Putin – One of Compliments and Compromise?

U.S. President Donald J. Trump is scheduled to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin on July 16, 2018. Many are speculating on what should be a tense meeting given America’s lack of favor with Vladimir and the fact that most American politicians including those who vehemently support Trump, still see Russia as America’s great enemy. Over the last two years, we have seen how President Trump has consistently defended and complimented President Putin without any refrain, and this has created speculations and assertions by many that Vladimir has some anti-Oxyclean dirt on Trump. Whatever the case, based on President Trump’s consistently great and positive attitude toward “tremendous” Putin, we can assume that this meeting will be one of compliments and compromise. Trump has always acted in a subordinate manner to Putin, from the campaign for President of the United States right up to the present. Furthermore, if Putin really have some dirt on Trump, this meeting will certainly be one of Trump willingly negotiating and seeking leverage to get the dirt permanently buried or destroyed. The price will certainly be astronomical, and President Trump has already provided some hints as to how much he might be willing to compromise. For example, regarding Russia’s annexation of Crimea, President Trump has remarked, “We’ll see”, and John Bolton, his national security adviser, who previously met with Putin, has not made the issue clearer than his boss, as in a CNN interview, Bolton also used the same phrase, “We’ll see”. This Bolton explains, is President Trump’s approach to negotiation and meeting. This is probably indicating that nothing is off the table until the meeting. Does this also mean that the United States will lift all Russian sanctions? Probably. However, it is not likely since President Trump must balance many scales.

The fact that President Trump is far more willing to attack and criticize American politicians and party members, as well as senators, even Senator McCain who has done more than his share for his nation – demonstrates that President Vladimir Putin holds a higher regard in Trump’s mind and heart than many Americans, even those who are blindly loyal to and support Donald J. Trump in all his endeavors, decisions, and policies however questionable. One thing we are certain of is that President Trump will certainly throw anyone under the bus to defend himself, his interest, and his turf – ask “Sloppy Steve” and a few others who gave their all and then were booted from the administration and subsequently disregarded. Hopefully, this meeting will not involve too much compromise on President Trump’s part or too much loss for America, the American people and the rest of the world as Putin seeks to establish a domineering Russia and himself as a global strongman in this era. There should be no consideration on Russia’s annexation of Crimea as United States’ foreign and diplomatic policies have always opposed such aggression and oppressive hostile act by other nations. At the same time, we can see why Putin and other leaders engaging in invasion and annexation would not value American standards and blessings – we can recall the taking over of Hawaii and the elimination of its monarchy and other incidents where America itself has used force to accomplish change in sovereign states. Thus, this may not even be up for discussion and agreement with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin as he might recall America’s aided war of Afghans fighting against Russia. There are so many points of insistence and challenge that could potentially emerge in this meeting if Donald J. Trump really decides to act like President of the United States rather as just the Donald. Stepping aside from this consideration, President Trump will return even more strongly asserting that Russia had not interfered or meddled in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.

The meeting between President Trump and President Putin is scheduled to take place in Helsinki on July 16, and is scheduled to include discussions on a range of national security issues, the relationship between Russia and the United States, and certainly economics given previous sanctions against Russia and the fallout after Russian and American responses following the Obama-era ending sanctions. President Trump has indicated that the two representatives of their respective nations may speak about Syria and Ukraine. In so doing, President Trump has never changed his tone on Russia or Putin, indicating that the talks and getting along with Russia is for the good of everyone and the world. Thus, not making the Ukraine issue a big deal might be relevant to accomplishing Russian cooperation and relationship from the perspective of President Trump. We will have to wait and see how this meeting unfolds and the impact on U.S. national and global policies and its relationship with Russia. Vladimir Putin has proven himself both shrewd and capable over the past several years, and Trump will certainly meet his counter-American match in this July 2018 scheduled meeting.

Image source: The Independent-UK (2018)

About the Author

Dr. Donovan A. McFarlane teaches in the fields of Political Science and Public Administration to include courses on American Government, The Presidency, and Public Policy. He has extensively taught in the fields of Business and Management at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Some of the major courses he has facilitated include International Business, Organizational Behavior, Marketing, Strategic Management, among other courses. He currently writes articles in several areas for his Blog, Forum of Business, Organizations, and Society (FOBOS): http://businessorganizationssociety.blogspot.com/

On Justice Kennedy’s Retirement – Untimely and Unfortunate for the Nation?

There are probably more Americans suffering from illnesses such as heart conditions, high blood pressure, and associated neurological and other conditions brought on my stress and related factors since the November 2016 campaign and election, and the emergence of Donald J. Trump as the 45^th President of the United States. Well, the number of Americans suffering from these illnesses and symptoms as a result of the drastic Constitutional and governmental changes that have accompanied Donald J. Trump is about to increase as Justice Anthony Kennedy announces his retirement and exits the Supreme Court, the nation’s highest court. President Trump has been on a winning spree since the week of June 25, 2018, with the Supreme Court holding his Travel Ban 3.0 constitutional, and now Justice Kennedy giving him a well-desired opportunity to shift the balance of the Supreme Court all the way to the right. Those Americans concerned about the following issues must worry terribly: marriage equality, immigration, First Amendment rights, Second Amendment rights, abortion, and several other issues that have played as longstanding divisive issues in creating disunity and conflicts across the American landscape.

We are not certain what Justice Kennedy was thinking when he made the decision to retire from the Supreme Court since he seems quite healthy and could have stayed until his last breath. What we are certain of is that it represents a worrisome day, not just for struggling Democrats, but for the nation as a whole. With the assertion of vague presidential authority stemming from the recent 5-4 decision concerning the Travel Ban 3.0, President Trump’s opportunity to place another justice on the Supreme Court will become another shield for his authoritative and constitutionally questionable behaviors and decisions. It is a reality that Donald J. Trump is the 45^th President of the United States, and it is a reality that his behaviors and actions are great causes for concern for both Republicans and Democrats, as well as for those who are Independents, and those without political or party affiliation and devotion. Given this concern, not only nationally, but globally, the opportunity to have another Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court could further empower President Trump in ways detrimental to how he wields his power and authority to affect democracy, this nation’s republican form of government, and even the value and reverence of the Constitution.

Given the above, one can fully understand why Justice Kennedy’s retirement to which he is wholly and legally, personally entitled, can become questionable as a matter of patriotism, as a matter of love of country, and as a matter of care and concern for the things he has held dear as a preserver of American Constitution, and hence democracy, and the rights of the American people. While it is indeed difficult to understand what Justice Kennedy was thinking throughout the “considerable time” he had to make this decision, one must wonder if Justice Kennedy’s decision is not premature given the uncertainties and chaos that have accompanied President Trump to office so far, and the ensuing constitutional crisis, which is both ongoing and becoming increasingly complex. Whatever the case, we must wish Justice Kennedy great health and a long life after retirement, and demonstrate appreciation for how much this great American has loved and contributed to his nation, the Constitution, individual rights, and democracy.

About the Author

Dr. Donovan A. McFarlane teaches in the fields of Political Science and Public Administration to include courses on American Government, The Presidency, and Public Policy. He has extensively taught in the fields of Business and Management at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Some of the major courses he has facilitated include International Business, Organizational Behavior, Marketing, Strategic Management, among other courses. He currently writes articles in several areas for his Blog, Forum of Business, Organizations, and Society (FOBOS): http://businessorganizationssociety.blogspot.com/

Travel Ban 3.0: Are the Supreme Court Justices out of their Flipping Minds?

Trump’s Neil Gorsuch finally rewarded his master for his appointment and favor in landing him an associate justice job in what was no doubt the nation’s highest hall of justice until today, June 16, 2018. Today, The Supreme Court of Donald J. Trump [as it can no longer be deemed “The Supreme Court of the United States”] made a 5-4 decision to uphold the Trump Travel Ban against seven (7) countries: Libya, Iran, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, North Korea, and Venezuela. Some of these nations are predominantly Muslim. Trump has finally got his wish in banning people from these “shit-hole countries” [Trump’s language here].  The Supreme Court of Donald J. Trump has reversed a decision by the lower court, upholding Travel Ban 3.0, since 1.0 and 2.0 were struck down. This is not only a surprising verdict from what was formerly the nation’s most conscientious court, but a sad day for the United States and those citizens and residents of the seven nations against which the Travel Ban was upheld. This will certainly affect international students and nations from these nations who are residing in the United States, and who may have family, property, or other interests in the U.S. Trump must be swimming in his own saliva of caustic self-congratulation at this time – hopefully he will not stay afloat, giving all of us relief from his roller coaster presidency. In fact, even Trump himself was surprised by the verdict as evident from one of his simplest and most grammatically correct tweets thus far: “SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TRUMP TRAVEL BAN. Wow!”

            The former Supreme Court of the United States has certainly made an error, and in the words of Donald J. Trump, a “bigly” one. This will set the tone for further hostile language and discrimination against immigrants, harassment at airports, and create further tensions across the board. Trump has dubbed the ruling “a tremendous victory” – a tremendously hugely one sir!  The former Supreme Court cited “rational basis” and “legitimate state interests”. The dissent was entered by the following four sensible justices: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Stephen Breyer, and Justice Elena Kagan. Justices John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch constituted the majority opinion. In terms of the outcome, the most surprising from among these five justices is that of Clarence Thomas, as it is expected that Gorsuch will always side with his lord and master. However, minorities were certainly hoping they would see Thomas switch from his nonsensical conservatism to support minorities.

Chief Justice John Roberts who voted for upholding the Travel Ban 3.0 seems to have forgotten to take his epileptic medication, when one listens to his reasoning. The decision, while his argument deflects from broader and more serious implications, seems to focus only on upholding vague presidential authority. A pre-law college student could have provided a better reasoning than what Roberts provided, as Roberts’ reasoning was wholly devoid of consequences for democracy, America’s republican form of government, and the Constitution. Let’s continue to watch this epic movie and see what happens in the weeks and months, and even years to come!

Over and out!

About the Author

Dr. Donovan A. McFarlane teaches in the fields of Political Science and Public Administration to include courses on American Government, The Presidency, and Public Policy. He has extensively taught in the fields of Business and Management at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Some of the major courses he has facilitated include International Business, Organizational Behavior, Marketing, Strategic Management, among other courses. He currently writes articles in several areas for his Blog, Forum of Business, Organizations, and Society (FOBOS): http://businessorganizationssociety.blogspot.com/

Cross-Cultural Marketing: Race, Ethnicity, and Other Cultural Challenges

Successful cross-cultural marketing requires today’s organizations to be socially and culturally competent entities with vast understanding of people, language, ethnicity, race, and other demographic and sociocultural challenges characterizing institutions and society. Companies must seek to bridge the gaps between people and their race, culture, and other differences. This means hiring diverse value creators, valuing social justice and equality, and keeping the focus on creating and delivering superior value and satisfaction to all stakeholders regardless of human social and physical characteristics. Business is all about acquiring, growing, and retaining customers and catering to their differences as valuable segments with unique and diverse needs.  

Organizations should accept that all instances of communication and interaction with stakeholders represent and affect marketing as these serve to affect perception of customer value via Service, Quality, Image, and Price (Weinstein’s SQIP Diamond). As business organizations witness events like those in Charlottesville unfold, they must consider how America’s current ethnic and racial challenges affect marketing communications efforts and act in ways to become more ethically and socially responsible marketers helping to address society’s causes and problems. Racial and ethnic blunders in marketing communications are not new and have been influenced by the types of events characteristic of Charlottesville, as well as deeper historical and social-cultural prejudices we have been unable to overcome for centuries.

While much of the blunders involving high profile issues of race and ethnicity seem to occur with the type of marketing communication known as advertising, they are not limited to that element of the marketing communications mix. Here are some examples of marketing communications blunders involving race and ethnicity:

1.      In April 2002, Abercrombie & Fitch debuted a line of T-shirts using Asian caricatures portraying Asian American oppression from the past as forced and indentured laborers, mocked the Buddha, and depicting various stereotypes of Asians. As a result of public outrage, the company had to recall the series of T-shirts.

2.      In August 2012, two models for Abercrombie & Fitch in South Korea took photos of themselves posing with what is known as “Asian squinty eyes” to mock Asian physical appearance, and this almost drove the company out of the market.

3.      In August 2017, Google fired a software engineer, James Damore, after he wrote what is regarded as an “anti-diversity” memo [“Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber”] questioning Google’s diversity efforts, and in which, he argued that the comparatively lower percentage of women in technical positions was a result of biological differences instead of discrimination.

Long before Abercrombie & Fitch’s sociocultural-ethnic and racially insensitive marketing, many big brand companies experienced the negative consequences of not understanding how differences in culture, ethnicity, race language, and other factors affect marketing and reception to brands. Here are several examples:

1.      Pepsi’s 1960s “Come Alive! You’re in the Pepsi Generation” campaign which in the Chinese market translated to suggest that Pepsi brought customers ancestors back to life, something both offensive and impossible to Chinese customers.

2.      In the 1980s, when KFC debuted in China, the company’s popular slogan “finger-lickin’ good” was translated as “Eat your fingers off”.

3.      In 1992, Fiat, an Italian car manufacturer wanting to target modern independent working women in Spain designed a direct-mail marketing campaign for its Cinquecento hatchback by mailing out “love letters” on pink papers without indicating that it was a promotional creative advertisement. As a result, this led to panic among thousands of women with many refusing to leave their homes.

While we have made significant progress in some areas as far as race and ethnicity issues are concerned, there is still much to be done in terms of companies being more assertive and responsible players in addressing today’s social pains. Unfortunately, there are still companies that are feature racially insensitive marketing communications. For example, Colgate is still advertising and selling “Black People Toothpaste” (Hei Ren Yao Gao) in Asia, and we still see ethnic and racial undertones in movies and television advertisements.

Marketers must be knowledgeable and aware of issues of race, culture, and ethnicity in both past and present contexts and as a result, become more socially and culturally sensitive in their interactions with customers and other stakeholders. Cross-cultural marketing practices are important and companies and their leaders and managers need to invest in responsible and respectful marketing communications. Events such as Charlottesville can be used to educate employees on racial, ethnic, and cultural awareness as they act as value creators and providers for their companies. Moreover, companies expressing and showing solidarity on social justice and equality is a major reputation or image-building strategy that can lend support to such cause.

Image source: Melaniemilletics.com, 2017

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Donovan A. McFarlane, M.I.B., M.B.A., Ed.D., is an educator in the fields of Business and Political Science. He can be reached at drd.a.mcfarlane@gmail.com