Making Sense of POTUS: Part II--Traits 1 and 2

At the end of Nine Consistent Things About Donald Trump, I promised more on the traits that I identified in the post. You may remember that the first two are:

1. There is nothing more important than being successful and admired.
2. Morality in general, and honesty in particular, are instruments (among others) used to achieve success and admiration; neither carries an imperative.

Needless to say, there is an abundance of proof of the President's obsession with success and admiration. Indeed, my second post to this blog (To be-or not to be-surprised by Trump: Part II--On the Couch) discussed exactly that. Of course, the Donald keeps replenishing the supply, too.

To understand Mr.Trump's use of morality and honesty to amass more success and admiration, consider how he responds each time he's confronted about his crass commentary. Three episodes, occurring early in the primary season, will amply prove the point.

Take a look at how he defended his remarks about Carley Fiorina's face, Megyn Kelly bleeding, and Mitt Romney being on his knees. His reference to Fiorina's face was metaphoric, he said. And he was referring, he claimed, only to those orifices that are north of Kelly's neck. While Romney being on his knees was, Trump said, an allusion to begging. 

Each of these explanations is just 

plausible enough that the Donald can significantly minimize blow-back by denying that he meant what he clearly implied, and enjoy the political results of having said something outrageous at the same time. 

In other words, he uses the truth for political gain, which he defines as success and admiration. He does not tell the truth for its own sake.

Making Sense of POTUS: Part I--Nine Consistent Things About Donald Trump

Here are nine consistent things about Donald Trump, gleaned from his public persona. In upcoming posts, I'll talk about each one in detail.

1-There is nothing more important to the

   President-Elect than being successful and   

   admired.

2-Morality in general, and honesty in particular, 

   are instruments (among others) used to achieve 

   success and admiration ; neither carries an    

   imperative.

3-The Donald will not take responsibility for any   

   ill-conceived action or comment, however 
   intense the blowback is.

4-When Trump is forced to confront his bad 
   behavior, he ignores it, denies it, or rationalizes 
   it as the result of being victimized.     
    
5-The POTUS-Elect feels entitled to special 
   treatment and thus also feels victimized by 
   others' criticism of him.

6-When Donald feels victimized, he becomes 
   angry and publicly shames the object(s) of his 

   ire.

7-Mr. Trump is   neither insightful nor prone to guilt, partially

accounting for his ability to tolerate his own contradictions and hypocrisy.

8-In his worldview, people are tools and not 

   intrinsically valuable.

9-In his worldview, history, precedent and 

   protocol are irrelevant.

Overall, not a pretty picture.

Stay tuned for more on each of these.

[There is a problem with the mobile reformatting of this post. My apologies.]

Post-Modern Political Honesty: Part IV--Trump's Surreal Denial of Russian Hacking

As I said in Part III of this series, Donald Trump has raised Post Modern Political Honesty to new heights, or depths if you like. That is, to the level of surreal denial. 

Take, for instance, his continued refusal to admit that the Russian government hacked into the Democratic National Committee's computer network.

We have before us what has become a ubiquitous question. Why is Trump maintaining this position in the face of fairly convincing evidence to the contrary? Discarding the knee-jerk, albeit accurate, answer--because he's Donald Trump--we are left with the following answers. (None is exclusive of the others.) The POTUS-Elect is maintaining this position on Russian hacking because he is:

1. Espousing a neo-post World War II foreign relations approach
2. Apathetic about the potential implications of such a declaration
3. Subject to dramatically narcissistic perceptions about the 2016 election and Vladimir Putin

I'll talk about each of these in this, and my next, post.

A Neo-Post World War II Foreign Relations Approach

Mr. Trump is consistent (enough), in his infidelity to history in the name of opportunity, that his style can be categorized as a foreign policy approach. To begin defining what his neo-post World War II international relations approach is, let's consider what it is not. First, an approach is not a policy. Foreign policies are specific strategies to protect national interests and reach goals in the international space. Second, an approach is not a philosophy. Philosophy concerns itself with the fundamental nature of knowledge, truth, reality, and existence. This may seem impressionistic to some and a gratuitous shot to others--and both would be right--but the Donald just doesn't come across like someone who would be interested in this sort of thing.

So, what IS the POTUS-Elect's neo-post World War II international relations approach? Otherwise asked, which of the structures set in place at the end of WWII does Trump want to change? These are not difficult questions to answer. Germany has been reunited and the Iron Curtain was drawn. It is but the contest between the West's North-Atlantic-Treaty vision and the Soviet's post-Yalta expansionist vision that remains. The current iteration of this is the US and NATO versus Russia and its client states.

NATO Secretary General congratulates President Donald J. Trump on his inauguration

Trump's approach has revealed itself through his public commentary, on several occasions, in which he questioned whether the US should continue to honor its obligations under the Treaty. Specifically, he suggested that the US might not respond to the invocation of Article 5 by countries whose organizational dues are in arrears. Alternately phrased, the POTUS-Elect may not honor its promise to respond to an attack on any NATO country as if it was an attack on all member states. 

Non-participation by the US would neuter the last post-WWII boundary still in place.

At other points, the POTUS-to-be has wondered aloud about whether NATO's interminable mediocre performance, and unyielding biases, should result in its dissolution. Both non-participation by the US, and the dissolution of the Treaty, would allow Russian imperialism to continue-and exponentiate-unchecked. While NATO is, admittedly, flawed and has not prevented Putin's recent land grabs in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, it's the ONLY buffer we have at the moment. 

Dissolving the last post-WWII structure standing also virtually guarantees another world war.

In my next post, I'll explain the other reasons why Trump is denying the Russian DNC hacking. They are, that he is:

• Apathetic about the potential implications of such a declaration
• Subject to dramatically narcissistic perceptions about the 2016 election and Vladimir Putin

Musings on 11/28: Multitasking While Cabinet Building

Co-Opting Competitors, Tormenting Turncoats, & Burnishing the Brand

This post is dedicated to the 17 year old who knows more about politics than most adults, Joshua Montgomery-Patt.

   The eyes of the political world are on President-Elect Donald Trump, as he goes through the process of making cabinet choices and appointments. Pundits and parties are busy watching the parade of visitors summoned by Trump, guessing who the candidates and picks will be, and commenting on the potential policy consequences of selecting this or that contender.

    But, as seems to be his pattern, he's multitasking. Several media outlets have reported that some of his VIP visitors are not under consideration for cabinet positions. So, what else is going on? The answer is that the President-Elect has three other goals to achieve through this process. They are:

1. rehabilitating his relationships with rivals and detractors
2. meeting out Trump-Justice to political turncoats and offenders
3. polishing the Trump brand to remove the scratches and scuffs acquired during the election

Let's consider each of these individually.

REHABBING

    To compliment his cabinet-pick-entree, Trump has added a side order of rehabilitating his relationships with his rivals. There are several reasons for this. First, it's consistent with his exhortation to the country to do the same. [While this may not seem worthy of commentary, consider the rarity with which the POTUS-Elect has exhibited this sort of integrity.] His public behavior suggests several hypotheses to me. One is that he's combining the narcissistic gratification that he gets from being magnanimous, with his recognition, albeit a very, very late one, of his obligation to engage in and model appropriate behavior. Trump may be able to pull this off with concerted effort. But, what he has shown of himself over the years does not bode well for this hypothesis also being a reflection of personality change.

    The second reason for going to relationship rehab is that the POTUS-Elect needs some of his former opponents and major detractors. For instance, Mr. Trump is currently interviewing (among others) two high profile former rivals, Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Governor Mitt Romney, for the position of Secretary of State. The third reason is that it keeps his rivals in check. Co-opting competitors by giving them cabinet or other significant posts decreases the potential for them to become challengers in 2020. Just meeting with them may also quiet what would otherwise be the ceaseless sounding of sirons by a few who are also media favs/whores.

TAKING REVENGE

    The second vested reason for Trump playing Meet the Candidates is revenge. Let us not forget that what can be gleaned from his public behavior are the personality ingredients for being a revenge seeker. He takes no responsibility, usually feels victimized, and is often angry. (See Musings on 05/31: The Real Donald Trump T-Shirt for an elaboration of this.) His past is full of examples.

A current look finds none other than sitting New Jersey Governor Chris Christie in his sights. Maybe it was having called the President-Elect a ridiculous, thin-skinned, naive, whiner and moaner, at different times during the primary; Maybe it was Christie's well known brash and aggressive style; Maybe it was that Trump wants more of a sycophant than Christie, who publicly criticized the President-Elect for the latter's comment's on 9/11, Muslims, the Kahns, and more; Or, maybe it was the effect of Christie having successfully prosecuted Charles Kushner, his son-in-law's father, a decade ago. Trump's son-in-law is Jared Kushner, who is intricately involved in Trump's transition team. The conflicts between Kushner and Christie, during Christie's tenure on the team, have been well publicized. Whatever the reason for it, Trump's vengeance came in the form of giving Christie a series of bones (for instance, allowing him to act as a surrogate, run the transition early on, and be interviewed for a cabinet position) without, in my opinion, any intention of ultimately giving him a position in the new government. Christie was dismissed from his transition job and finally seems to understand that he has nowhere to go in Trump-land.

    The jury is still out on whether Mitt Romney will get the same treatment. There is a good argument for it. Romney held a presser on March 3rd of this year, in which he said some particularly scathing things. To summarize, he called Trump a con-man, a phoney, a bully, a misogynist, and a show off, who engages in absurd third-grade theatrics. Because, in my opinion, the President-Elect sees Romney as a peer, a fellow billionaire if you will, he was especially injured by this. His work to rehabilitate the relationship has paid off, but the big payoff may not have happened yet.

POLISHING

    Even Donald Trump would admit that his public image took a beating during the primary and general elections. This, despite his shock and awe response to even the smallest of perceived slights, and his denials of the responses that earned him too much blowback. So what is the POTUS-Elect doing for all the world to see? He's being a magnanimous, gracious host, surrounding his guests with opulence. By all accounts, Trump is earnestly interested in, and deeply thoughtful about, what his guests/interviewees have to say. And, he's doing this day after day, with cameras rolling. 

    This is NOT just 'cleaning up good' in preparation for assuming the Presidency. Its burnishing the Trump brand for use after his term(s) end(s). You see, he's not involved in real estate in the ways he used to be. He stopped developing real estate about a decade ago, turning to licensing his name instead. In other words, he sells permission to use the Trump name on real estate that is owned by other parties (which tends to substantially increase its value). If his reputation is tarnished, the value of his name decreases. Clearly, he has significant financial interest in making sure the Trump name shows neither scuffs nor scratches.


As usual, nothing is simple with Donald Trump. But one thing's for sure. There's never a dull moment!

Post-Modern Political Honesty: Part III--Plausible Deniability... Everybody's Doing It!

Plausible deniability is a term coined by the CIA in the early 1960's and popularized by President Bill Clinton in the 1990's.

Clinton popularized the phrase by using the technique so much, though he never uttered it publicly. Instead, his playbook was incrementally publicized through the interviews and written offerings of his strategists and advisers, once they were untethered by his reelection. So, it was about twenty years ago that we learned that, as a rule, Clinton calculatedly quashed blowback by applying the concept of plausible deniability to explanations of his questionable political moves and conflicting remarks made under oath. I give you Bill's iconic semantic defense, enshrined in the many definitions of the phrase sexual relations and the word is, as THE seminal example.

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have certainly adopted this tactic.

Consider how Trump responds each time he's confronted about his crass commentary. Three episodes, occurring early in the primary season, will amply prove the point. Take a look at how he explained his remarks about Carley Fiorina's face, Megyn Kelly bleeding, and Mitt Romney being on his knees. His reference to Fiorina's face was metaphoric, he said. And he was referring, he claimed, only to those orifices that are north of Kelly's neck. While Romney being on his knees was, Trump said, an allusion to begging. Each of these explanations is just plausible enough that the Donald can deny that he meant what he clearly implied.

Hillary, on the other hand, incrementally reshapes her message in response to political and media pressure, in hopes that enough people will have a that's reasonable reaction to the latest tweak that disinterest will prevail. Witness her ever-morphing talking points about her handling of classified information on her personal server and network.

1. There was no classified information on my device.
2. "I did not send or receive any classified information on my email."
3. "I did not send or receive any  information marked classified on my email."
4. "I did not send or receive any  information marked classified at the time it was sent or received."

As each one proved to be false, she proceeded to the next. But, at each turn her delivery remained unchanged, blurring the lines between the iterations and giving the impression that she'd been saying the same thing all along. When FBI Director Comey's recent Senate testimony on point demonstrated that version 4 was false, Hillary made a crass and cynical decision to implicate her staff. The (paraphrased) message evolution looked like this:

1. My staff would not send me any information marked classified at the time it was sent.
2. My staff would not knowingly send me any information marked classified at the time it was sent.
3. The members of my staff are professionals; And I resent the implication that any of them would knowingly send me any information marked classified at the time it was sent. (In the mind of John Q. Public, defining and sticking up for her staff acts to separate her from them, and amplifies the staffs' supposed culpability.)

While Hillary and Trump have different methods of proffering plausible denials, their general approach is the same. That is, to control people by controlling information; this creates power. Foucault would be proud.

But wait. There's more! Donald and Hillary have sprung from Plausible Deniability to Surreal Denial...

Musings on 3/8/16: Trump's Curious Pattern of Admiring Evil People

Marrying his charisma and authoritarian style to his nationalistic, populist politicking makes for a surprisingly easy comparison of GOP front runner Donald Trump to Germany's fetid former fuhrer, Adolph Hitler. Indeed, Trump kept a copy of Hitler's book My New Order-a compendium of his speeches-at his bedside. (A Henry Ford reprise?) His recent practice of having audiences swear to vote for him is tantamount to the compulsory oaths during the Third Reich.

The Donald also recently tweeted this Mussolini quotation. 

“It is better to live one day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep.”

Before that, he seemed genuinely flattered that Russian President Vladimir Putin knows who he is.

This stands in comedic contrast to his daylong denial, last week, of knowing who former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke is. (He walked this back within 24 hours. Apparently, something exists that doesn't meet the Trump truth threshold.)

Hitler, Mussolini, and Putin are all examples of heads of state whose malignant intentions manifested in indisputably inhuman and immoral acts. So why would Trump be reading, tweeting and flushing about such people? The answer is his admiration of the type of power they exercised. Simply, it was raw. The SS, Blackshirts, and KGB wielded calculated, unpredictable, terrifying and complete power. It is this sort of power, unbridled and naked, that is surely the theme of Trump's sweetest fantasies. It is this sort of power that (in its non-violent form) has always been Trump's central pursuit. 

It is this sort of power that makes Trump admire evil people.

Musings on 3/4/16: Applied Clinton-Speak

GOP Front-runner Donald Trump may be headed for a presidency contest with Hillary Clinton, but he seems to be borrowing heavily from Bill Clinton's political playbook. That playbook was incrementally publicized through the interviews and written offerings of his strategists and advisers, once they were untethered by his reelection. So, it was about twenty years ago that we learned that, as a rule, Clinton calculatedly quashed blowback by applying the concept of plausible deniability (a term coined by the CIA in the early 1960s) to explanations of his questionable political moves and conflicting remarks made under oath. I give you Bill's iconic semantic defense, enshrined in the many definitions of the phrase sexual relations and the word is, as THE seminal example.

Now consider how Trump responds each time he's confronted about his crass commentary. Three examples will suffice to amply prove the point. None is about his public statements during his divorces; that would be too easy. Instead, let's take a look at how he explained his remarks about Carley Fiorina's face, Megyn Kelly bleeding, and-just yesterday-Mitt Romney being on his knees.

His reference to Fiorina's face was metaphoric, he said. And he was referring, he claimed, only to those orifices that are north of Kelly's neck. While Romney being on his knees was, Trump will say, an allusion to begging.

Expectedly, many shouted back that he was clearly not speaking figuratively about Fiorina's face, that he was obviously referring to

Megyn's menstruation, and that his knee narrative suggested fellatio on its face-if you will. 

Others carefully reviewed exactly what he said each time, quietly concluding that-if Trump planned this-he has irrecoverably and unceremoniously supplanted Bill Clinton as the most skilled politician ever.

To be, or not to be (surprised by Trump), that is the question: Part I

I get a kick out of people being surprised by something Donald Trump says or does. Not because I reasonably expect bad behavior and base commentary, considering his long history of public childishness, bigotry, bombast, vapidity, contradiction, and absurdity. But, because Trump's efforts to amass more power are incessant and nakedly obvious. Moreover, his efforts are generally successful, making them even more conspicuous. Consider his wealth, his empire, his campaign to become the leader of the free world. Yet, some people are still surprised.

To be fair, though, others are not. And while the unsurprised are probably Trump supporters, one still wonders how they can shrug off his crass style. Certainly, as many have said, Trumpsters are angry. They also believe that Trump will aggressively pursue reaching their goals, so-as the narrative goes- they give him a pass. This explanation is true but insufficient in this way. Angry people like to tell the objects of their anger that they are wrong. Are we to believe that there is not even one finger-wagger among all of these stewing sycophants? Of course there is, and surely many more. 

So, what is it about the dynamic between Trump and his supporters that keeps this from bubbling up?