Latest / Diplomacy and International Relations / How Consultants and Lobbyists Shape Power

Transcript

How Consultants and Lobbyists Shape Power · Diplomacy and International Relations

0:00
In 2024, there was this highly innovative traffic tax proposal
0:06
in a major metropolitan area, and it was completely derailed.
0:09
Oh yeah. Totally shut down.
0:11
Right. And the crazy part is, it wasn't
0:13
defeated by economists running the numbers or, you know, budget
0:16
deficits. It was defeated because the
0:19
politicians in charge were utterly terrified of a voter who
0:22
didn't even actually exist. Yeah, the the imaginary voter.
0:26
Exactly. In their closed door meetings,
0:28
these leaders basically invented this highly independent
0:32
suburbanite they called the Cranbourne Man, and they
0:35
convinced themselves this fictional guy would just hate
0:37
the tax, so they killed the policy before it even got off
0:39
the ground. It's wild how often that happens
0:41
honestly. It really is.
0:42
Anyway, welcome to diplomacy and international relations.
0:46
Before we pull back the curtain today on how power and influence
0:49
actually function behind closed doors, I want to quickly remind
0:52
you to follow and subscribe. Definitely do that.
0:55
And if you want to help keep this podcast running, please
0:58
consider subscribing on our Patreon.
0:59
It genuinely makes a huge difference and your support
1:02
grants you access to extra deep dives as well as our exclusive
1:05
weekly and monthly briefings on Danish politics.
1:09
The link is right there in the description.
1:10
We've got some really great stuff in those Danish briefings
1:13
lately. Oh, absolutely.
1:14
But for today's mission, we are looking at the hidden machinery
1:17
of lobbyists and consultants. We're decoding the mental
1:21
shortcuts used by political elites, taking a really detailed
1:25
look at navigating the unique political culture of Denmark,
1:28
and examining the cutting edge tech shaping the 2025 landscape.
1:33
Because, you know, we tend to focus entirely on the
1:35
politicians stepping up to the microphone to announce a new
1:38
trade treaty or whatever, and the assumption is always that
1:41
these decisions are the result of purely rational, objective
1:44
analysis. Right, like they just sat down
1:46
and read a spreadsheet. Exactly.
1:48
But the actual machinery of power operates way before that
1:51
press conference begins, and it is heavily, heavily driven by
1:54
invisible actors and psychological shortcuts.
1:57
OK, let's unpack this, because before we can understand how
2:01
decisions are manipulated, we need to know who is actually in
2:04
the room, and the sources point to consultants and lobbyists.
2:09
Yeah, and people use those terms interchangeably on the news all
2:12
the time, but they operate under entirely different rule books.
2:15
Right. So what's the actual difference
2:17
on the ground? Well, they serve completely
2:19
different functions. Think of a consultant as the the
2:22
architect of a political strategy.
2:25
They're the ones running the voter research, drafting the
2:27
messaging, building the predictive models.
2:30
Yeah, they're mostly behind a desk.
2:31
Exactly. They operate largely in the
2:33
background and crucially, because they are not directly
2:36
petitioning the government to pass a law, they are largely
2:39
unregulated. Wow.
2:41
OK. And the lobbyists?
2:42
A lobbyist is the executor of that strategy.
2:44
They're the ones physically walking into a lawmaker's office
2:48
to influence policy, and because they're directly attempting to
2:51
alter legislation, they operate under strict legal frameworks.
2:55
Like the Lobbying Disclosure Act in the US, right?
2:58
Yes, exactly. Which forces them to declare who
3:01
they represent. And you know how much money is
3:03
changing hands. So a consultant is kind of like
3:06
the offensive coordinator up in the booth drawing the playbook,
3:09
and the lobbyist is the quarterback on the field
3:12
actually running the play. That is a perfect way to look at
3:15
it. And that playbook itself is
3:17
divided into very specific disciplines.
3:20
Yeah, the sources mentioned the Berlin Professional school
3:23
framework for this. They break consulting down into
3:26
distinct areas, but two of them really highlight this divide,
3:30
policy advice versus politics consulting.
3:33
Right, which sounds similar, but they are fundamentally
3:35
different. Yeah.
3:36
So policy advice is about the material program like the actual
3:40
technical substance of a 400 page carbon tax.
3:43
Bill, the nuts and bolts of the law.
3:44
Exactly. Whereas politics consulting is
3:47
strictly about campaigning. It's the strategy of how to
3:52
convince a senator from a coal producing state to actually vote
3:55
for that bill without losing their next election.
3:58
Which is usually the much harder part.
4:00
You really need both to get anything done, but what is truly
4:03
interesting is how this applies on a global scale.
4:06
Oh, this was fascinating. Right.
4:08
The research on Danish diplomacy introduces this great concept.
4:11
Diplomats are essentially operating as lobbyists, but
4:15
instead of representing all corporate interest, they are
4:18
lobbying for entire nation states.
4:20
A nation state lobbyist. That is such a cool way to
4:23
reframe what an ambassador does and they use a specific strategy
4:28
for this the the Bhd framework, brand hinterland and decision
4:33
makers. Yeah, let's break that down.
4:35
A diplomat obviously has to manage the brand of their home
4:38
country in the eyes of the host nation.
4:40
Make their country look good, reliable.
4:42
Exactly, and they have to target the decision makers in that host
4:45
country to get favorable policies passed.
4:48
But the hinterland is the part people usually ignore.
4:50
The hinterland? What exactly does that refer to
4:53
in this context? It refers to the mandate and the
4:55
political backing they receive from their own government back
4:58
home. It's honestly arguably the most
5:00
difficult aspect of a diplomat's job.
5:02
Wait. Harder than dealing with the
5:03
foreign government. Oh totally.
5:05
Think about it, A diplomat might spend 2 years negotiating this
5:09
brilliant complex free trade agreement with a host country,
5:13
but if their hinterland is unstable, like say their home,
5:16
parliament suddenly flips to a protectionist majority.
5:20
Oh man, their leverage is just gone.
5:23
Exactly. They have 0 leverage.
5:25
They're constantly lobbying in both directions, right?
5:28
Managing the expectations of the host country while
5:31
simultaneously managing the volatile politics of their own
5:34
capital. That sounds exhausting and to
5:36
manage all that they kind of have to adopt different
5:38
personas. The research outlines several
5:41
diplomatic archetypes and contract.
5:43
Interesting. Just two of them shows how
5:44
differently this game is played. Yeah, take the Machiavellian
5:47
diplomat versus the cosmopolitan diplomat.
5:49
Right, so imagine both are tasked with securing access to
5:53
AI. Don't know a critical mineral
5:55
supply chain in a developing nation?
5:57
OK, good scenario. So the Machiavellian diplomat
5:59
views the world strictly as a 0 sum game of power.
6:02
Very old school realism. Yeah, very much so.
6:06
They will leverage military threats, offer transactional
6:08
financial incentives and operate entirely in secret to secure an
6:12
exclusive deal that locks out rival nations.
6:15
But the cosmopolitan diplomat approaches that exact same goal
6:19
completely differently. They try to build a broader
6:21
international order. Right.
6:22
They'll attempt to establish a multi nation regulatory
6:25
framework for mineral extraction, focusing on long
6:28
term cooperation and international law.
6:30
So you have this massive ecosystem, an army of
6:34
consultants running, data, lobbyists executing the plays,
6:37
and diplomats shifting between Machiavellian and cosmopolitan
6:41
archetypes, and they were all spending billions to influence
6:44
the political elite. Which naturally forces us to
6:47
look at the targets themselves. Yeah.
6:48
How did these politicians process this massive influx of
6:51
pressure in information? Well, the research from
6:54
Sentencia Consulting is pretty blunt about this.
6:56
They basically say they don't do it rationally.
6:59
They simply cannot afford to. Political elites rely heavily on
7:03
heuristics, which are, you know, cognitive shortcuts or mental
7:06
rules of thumb. Because the general public likes
7:08
to imagine that when a complex issue comes up, a politician
7:11
just sits down, reads a 500 page objective briefing, and makes
7:15
the mathematically optimal choice.
7:17
Which is basically fiction. The reality is a relentless 204
7:22
seven news cycle, incredibly complex problems, and just
7:25
massive information overload. They literally do not have the
7:29
cognitive bandwidth to process everything.
7:31
So their brains default to shortcuts.
7:34
Exactly. Shortcuts based on experience,
7:36
ideology, urgency, and honestly, self-interest.
7:39
Which brings us back to that transport network pricing or TNP
7:42
proposal from the top of the show, that highly innovative
7:45
traffic tax I know. It's a perfect case study of
7:47
this in action. It really is.
7:49
It was designed to reduce congestion by implementing this
7:52
complex user pay system based on peak times and zones, and
7:56
economically the modeling was incredibly sound.
7:59
It would have actually solved the traffic issue, yeah.
8:01
But the politicians reviewing it completely ignored the
8:03
economics. They ran it through a three-step
8:06
decision tree focused entirely on political survival.
8:08
Let me guess step one. Do the voters even care?
8:12
Exactly. Step one, Are voters currently
8:15
demanding action on this? Step 2, If we push this forward,
8:20
is there going to be resistance? And step three, are we willing
8:24
to spend our finite political capital to overpower that
8:27
resistance? And because the answer to step
8:30
one was no, I mean, voters were annoyed by traffic, but they
8:34
weren't marching in the streets demanding a complicated new tax.
8:37
The politicians instantly defaulted to what this intention
8:40
researchers call the wait and see heuristic.
8:42
They just stalled. Yeah, they didn't reject the
8:45
policy because the math was wrong.
8:46
They stalled because it wasn't worth the risk.
8:49
And to justify stalling, they engaged in a psychological
8:52
shortcut called political empathy.
8:54
Putting themselves in the voter shoes.
8:56
Right. And that's where they invented
8:58
the Cranbourne man stereotype to anticipate the pushback.
9:00
OK, I have to push back here a little bit myself.
9:03
If leaders constantly default to this wait and see heuristic just
9:06
to protect their political capital, doesn't that mean big,
9:09
necessary innovations are just doomed?
9:11
That's a very fairpoint. Because if you just sit around
9:14
waiting so you don't upset an imaginary CRAN born man, we'd
9:17
never get anything done. It sounds like an argument for
9:21
banning cognitive shortcuts in politics entirely.
9:24
Well, this raises an important question, actually, and it is
9:27
the center of a major academic debate.
9:29
You're basically touching on Daniel Kahneman's Heuristics and
9:32
Bias school of thought. OK, what does he argue?
9:34
He argues exactly your point. Kahneman believes these
9:37
shortcuts are fundamentally flawed and lead to terrible,
9:40
irrational decisions in high stakes environments.
9:43
Makes sense to me. But there's a counter argument.
9:46
Gerd Gigerenzer's fast and Frugal school.
9:49
Gigerenzer argues that heuristics are not just useful,
9:52
they are absolutely vital for survival.
9:55
Wait, how is stalling vital for survival?
9:58
Because in the real world, you never have all the facts.
10:01
Imagine a sudden, catastrophic financial crash.
10:04
OK. If a leader adheres strictly to
10:07
Kahneman's ideal right and demands A comprehensive, peer
10:11
reviewed economic study before taking action, the entire global
10:15
banking system collapses while they're reading the executive
10:19
summary. Oh, wow.
10:20
OK, I see. Yeah, in moments of extreme
10:22
urgency and complexity, leaders must use heuristics.
10:26
They have to rely on their ideological compass, their past
10:28
experience and their gut instinct to make a fast, frugal
10:32
decision to just stop the bleeding.
10:34
So the shortcut is actually what allows the government to
10:36
function in a crisis. Precisely.
10:38
All right, so if politicians in places like Washington or London
10:43
are relying heavily on these emotional shortcuts and
10:46
political empathy, what happens when a lobbyist or a diplomat
10:49
takes those same influence tactics to a culture that
10:52
fundamentally rejects them? Let's look at Denmark.
10:54
Oh, Denmark is a fascinating environment because it just
10:57
completely short circuits traditional diplomacy.
10:59
Yeah, the sources look at Hofstede's cultural dimensions,
11:02
which measure how societies handle inequality, and Denmark
11:06
has a power distance score of just 18.
11:08
Which is staggeringly low. It's incredibly low.
11:11
The society is fiercely egalitarian and independent.
11:14
The defining management philosophy in the country is
11:16
literally Danes do not lead, they coach.
11:19
And that cultural DNA stems from a mix of, you know, Viking
11:23
heritage where local villages maintain high autonomy and
11:27
Protestant values that emphasize equal rights and duties.
11:30
It basically means titles carry almost 0 weight.
11:33
It's first names only. There is no formal Sir or Madam.
11:37
Which, for a foreign diplomat, can be incredibly disorienting.
11:41
I can imagine. Yeah, ambassadors who arrived in
11:43
Copenhagen expecting red carpets, formal protocol and
11:47
immediate deference to their diplomatic status.
11:49
They usually fail. Spectacular.
11:51
They just get ignored. Pretty much they find themselves
11:54
isolated because the Danish system does not respect
11:56
hierarchy for the sake of hierarchy, it respects pragmatic
12:00
hands on expertise. And if you want to influence
12:02
policy in Denmark, the sources stress that you really must
12:05
navigate the Flex security model.
12:07
Yes, the absolute foundation of their economy.
12:10
Right. It's this mechanism that blends
12:12
a highly flexible labor market with strong Social Security.
12:15
So it is incredibly easy for a Danish company to fire an
12:18
employee. That's the flexibility apart.
12:20
But the state provides a massive, robust safety net and
12:24
retraining programs for that worker.
12:26
That's the security. Exactly.
12:29
And because the workers rely on this complex system, 70 to 80%
12:33
of the Danish workforce is unionized.
12:35
So for a lobbyist or a diplomat, this means you cannot just take
12:39
a corporate CEO out to a fancy dinner and expect a change in
12:42
industry regulation. Because the CEO can't just
12:45
mandate. It right, You have to engage
12:47
directly with the workers, representatives and the unions.
12:50
The power is distributed and this is reflected in the Danish
12:53
public administration as well. The hierarchy is remarkably flat
12:56
there too. Very much so.
12:58
In many countries, a newly elected minister brings in a
13:00
massive cabinet of political appointees to dictate policy for
13:03
the top down. But in Denmark, the minister is
13:06
typically the sole political appointee in the entire
13:08
ministry. That is wild.
13:11
The tuxedo metaphor in the sources perfectly captures this
13:14
dynamic. It says arriving in Denmark as a
13:16
traditional formal diplomat is like showing up to a casual tech
13:20
startup in a tuxedo. Yeah, exactly.
13:22
You're expecting a royal reception, but if you stand
13:25
around waiting for people to bow to your title, no one will even
13:28
talk to you. You literally have to take off
13:29
the jacket, roll up your sleeves, grab a whiteboard
13:33
marker and prove your technical expertise to like a 28 year old
13:37
civil servant. Because to get things done, you
13:40
completely bypass the top level. You don't demand a meeting with
13:45
the minister to discuss the technical details of a wind
13:47
energy subsidy because the minister doesn't handle the
13:51
technical details. So who do you meet with?
13:53
You have highly pragmatic, agenda driven meetings with the
13:56
permanent secretaries and the lower level civil servants.
13:59
They're the ones who hold the actual institutional knowledge.
14:02
And the meeting culture itself is just ruthless in its
14:05
efficiency. Danish civil servants simply do
14:08
not have the time or the inclination for vague
14:12
relationship building courtesy calls.
14:14
No, not at all. If you request a meeting without
14:17
a highly specific actionable agenda, your request will be
14:20
denied. And if you do get the meeting,
14:23
do not expect to spend the 1st 20 minutes chatting about your
14:26
family or the weather. The source material specifically
14:29
notes that small talk happens 5 minutes before the meeting
14:32
officially starts. Yes you do.
14:34
In the hallway while pouring the coffee.
14:35
Right. And the second everyone sits
14:37
down and the clock strikes, it is 100% business.
14:40
You better have your pragmatic slide deck.
14:43
It really requires A diplomat to completely shed their ego.
14:47
You have to act much more like a technocratic consultant offering
14:51
material policy advice than a titled dignitary demanding
14:55
favors. So we've looked at the
14:56
pragmatic, egalitarian Danes and the heuristics driven, self
15:00
interested political elites in other Western democracies.
15:04
Now let's look at the tools being used to influence both of
15:07
them as we head into the 2025 landscape.
15:09
Oh, this is where it gets really sci-fi.
15:11
Because the strategies have moved entirely away from gut
15:14
feelings and into the realm of hyper advanced data analytics.
15:17
Yeah, the shift detailed in the 2025 political Consulting trends
15:20
from Amber Integrated is just monumental.
15:23
Modern campaigns are running on logistic regression models.
15:26
Logistic regression. Break that down for us.
15:29
So instead of a strategist simply guessing which
15:32
demographic might vote for them, logistic regression takes
15:35
massive amounts of historical data and calculates the exact
15:40
mathematical probability of a specific outcome.
15:43
So it's not a guess anymore, it's an equation.
15:45
Exactly. It can tell a campaign the
15:48
statistical likelihood that a voter will change their mind
15:52
based on hearing one specific keyword in an advertisement.
15:56
That is incredibly precise, and they pair this with what the
15:59
industry calls modern grassroots, right?
16:01
It's kind of a hybrid approach. Yeah, they use the digital
16:04
tracking tools, mobile canvassing apps, real time AB
16:08
testing of messages, targeted text banking to figure out the
16:11
mathematical probability of a neighborhood.
16:13
The data tells the campaign exactly which specific door to
16:16
knock on. But they still rely on
16:17
traditional face to face organizing at that door because
16:21
the human connection is the only thing that actually builds the
16:23
trust required to close the deal.
16:25
Right, the app get you to the driveway, but a human still has
16:28
to ring the bell. Precisely.
16:30
But this explosion of predictive modeling and artificial
16:34
intelligence brings us to a major structural challenge.
16:37
Yeah, the Vajrani University research highlights how these
16:40
tools really blur the lines of traditional influence.
16:43
In the past, there was a clear distinction between a think tank
16:46
providing scientific policy advice and a firm engaging in
16:50
direct lobbyism. But AI changes that.
16:52
Completely, because as AI becomes capable of generating
16:55
perfectly targeted, hyper personalized messaging and
16:59
policy drafts in seconds, that line disappears.
17:02
A seemingly objective data model presented to a politician might
17:06
be mathematically optimized to push a specific corporate
17:09
agenda. Wow.
17:10
So campaigns and consulting firms are having to scramble to
17:13
establish strict internal ethics guidelines, and not necessarily
17:17
out of altruism, but simply to protect voter privacy and avoid
17:20
regulatory crackdowns that would ruin their business models.
17:23
Exactly. They have to police themselves
17:25
before the government does. So what does this all mean for
17:28
the pragmatic, enlightened model of democracy?
17:31
You know, the idea where scientists and the public
17:34
explore problems jointly and then have a rational public
17:38
debate to find a solution? Yeah.
17:40
That ideal is under threat. Because if AI is feeding
17:43
perfectly tailored emotional triggers to the voters, and then
17:46
turning around and feeding perfectly tailored probability
17:49
data to the politicians, the rational debate is just gone.
17:53
Aren't we losing actual debate? The algorithm is just playing
17:56
both sides of the board. What's fascinating here is if we
17:59
connect this new technology back to what we discussed earlier
18:01
about elite psychology, the picture becomes very clear.
18:05
AI and predictive models are now perfectly designed to exploit
18:08
the exact heuristics politicians rely on.
18:11
Oh. Man the wait and see heuristic.
18:13
Exactly. Remember the wait and see
18:15
heuristic and the Cranbourne man stereotype and AI can instantly
18:19
analyze millions of social media posts, purchasing habits, and
18:22
mobility data to tell a politician exactly how the
18:25
modern Cranbourne man is feeling on a Tuesday morning.
18:27
That is slightly terrifying. It calculates the exact amount
18:31
of political capital required to act.
18:33
It removes the guesswork from the heuristic shortcuts,
18:37
essentially weaponizing the flaws of human psychology with
18:40
supercomputers. We have covered massive ground
18:43
today. We started by defining the
18:45
players, the consultants, drawing up the logistic
18:47
regression strategies in the background, and the lobbyists,
18:50
including diplomats acting as nation state lobbyists,
18:54
executing those plays on the ground.
18:55
A. Whole hidden ecosystem.
18:57
Truly. And we looked at the targets,
18:59
political elites who are so overwhelmed by complexity that
19:02
they must rely on heuristics just to survive the new cycle.
19:06
We traveled to Denmark to see how these influence strategies
19:09
collide with a fiercely egalitarian culture where your
19:11
title means nothing and your technical expertise means
19:15
everything. And finally, we look to the 2025
19:17
landscape, where AI and data analytics are supercharging how
19:21
these actors map our behavior and push our psychological
19:23
buttons. As we wrap up this analysis, I
19:26
want to leave you with a final thought to Mull over.
19:28
I'm ready. We established that human
19:30
political elites naturally default to the wait and see
19:33
heuristic. They want to avoid risk and
19:36
preserve their political capital.
19:39
But the new AI predictive models driving campaigns are trained
19:43
almost entirely on past human behavior.
19:47
So will these advanced technologies simply reinforce
19:51
our existing political gridlock, constantly advising our leaders
19:54
at the mathematically safest place to do nothing?
19:57
Or, as the algorithms become more sophisticated, will AI
20:00
eventually learn how to artificially manufacture the
20:03
exact kind of urgency required? To force a politician out of
20:06
their comfort zone and into action.
20:08
That is a brilliant and honestly slightly terrifying question to
20:12
end on. If you want to keep exploring
20:14
how these hidden dynamics shape our world, make sure you follow
20:16
the podcast. And please take a second to rate
20:18
US five stars. It truly helps the podcast reach
20:20
more people who are passionate about international relations
20:23
and doonish politics. It really does help a lot.
20:25
Next time you see a polished diplomatic handshake or a
20:29
perfectly timed policy announcement, remember you are
20:32
just seeing the final act of a very complex, very data-driven
20:35
backstage production. Thanks for joining us for this
20:38
deep dive, and we'll see you next time.