A Warning by “Anonymous,“ a senior Trump administration official, provides an insider’s view of three years in a turbulent administration, where aides have tried to deter President Donald J. Trump from making disastrous decisions and to mitigate the fallout when they’re unable to stop him.
Published in November 2019, the book is a followup to the author’s New York Times op-ed column, also published anonymously, on September 5, 2018, chronicling the efforts of “The Resistance,” a group of senior White House aides who worked to keep Trump from implementing reckless, petty, or illegal decisions. The op-ed piece was meant to assure Americans that there were “adults in the room,” who were working behind the scenes to protect the country’s interests from an immoral president, who put self-interest first.
However, the book argues that the resistance effort didn’t work—subsequently, the “guard rails” have come off. Trump has fired or driven away nearly every principled advisor, and he is running amok, like a twelve-year-old indiscriminately pushing buttons in an air traffic control tower. The author argues that Trump is unfit to be commander in chief and the nation must “fire” him before he destroys our democratic system.
The book is written anonymously in hopes of keeping the focus on the message rather than on attacking the messenger, although “Anonymous” doesn’t rule out revealing his or her identity at some point in the future.
Trump’s principled advisors thought of themselves as a Steady State, keeping the presidency on track, as opposed to Trump’s imagined Deep State, which he claims is secretly undermining his presidency. However, on December 19, 2018, the firewall failed and Trump made a reckless foreign policy decision. It signaled the beginning of the end for the pragmatists in the White House, who thought they could contain him.
In this incident, Trump suddenly tweeted that the U.S. had defeated ISIS in Syria and he was withdrawing U.S. troops there. However, administration officials had just testified in Congress that ISIS remained a threat and had pledged not to leave Syria. Trump’s announcement alarmed and confused allies, hung the Defense Department out to dry, and raised concern about the safety of troops on the ground. Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis resigned the next day.
It shattered the illusions of those who still thought they could bring discipline to a chaotic administration. The Steady Staters ultimately found Trump to be “unfit for the job” because:
From the beginning, Trump’s impulsiveness and inattention defied any attempts to create order. His demands of aides typically fell into one of three categories: dumb, impossible, or illegal.
Staff referred to the process of dealing with a sudden Trump impulse to do something rash as a “five-alarm fire drill.” The scenario often started with Trump seeing something on television that bothered him and having a knee-jerk reaction—for instance, deciding to fire the Federal Reserve chairman. If staff received even a small amount of notice, they would rush to mobilize an effort to influence his views before he tweeted them out. This process of decision-making became the norm and was so exhausting for aides that they’d schedule frivolous campaign rallies to get Trump out of town.
Trump’s inattention was another problem. He wouldn’t read long papers or even summaries. Briefers learned to reduce their messages to a single point and keep repeating it, even when Trump veered off on another topic. If a briefer didn’t keep things short and sweet, Trump was likely to shout, “What the f-ck,” and throw the papers at the presenter.
Trump had no interest in or ability to manage daily functions of government. He couldn’t lead because he didn’t understand how the executive branch worked. Departments and agencies were confused about what to do and who was in charge. Policies weren’t thought out or coordinated; issues were ignored until they reached a crisis point.
Adding to the chaos, Trump liked to keep officials on edge by commenting publicly on their job performance or fueling gossip by complaining about someone. White House officials were perpetually on “deathwatch,” waiting to be fired by presidential tweet.
Until Trump ousted him, Chief of Staff John Kelly managed to rein in some of the president’s ad hoc decision-making. However, trying to improve the process was just applying a Band-Aid. Changing the system couldn’t fix Trump.
The United States has a system of checks and balances, based on three co-equal branches of government, to deter presidential abuses of power. The Trump presidency has proven to be one of the system’s biggest tests. Trump has undermined and attacked all three branches:
Members of the Steady State learned that Trump would abuse any power at his disposal: “No external force can ameliorate his attraction to wrongdoing. His presidency is continually jeopardized by it, and so are America’s institutions.”
Trump has “flipped the script” on American foreign policy by cozying up to enemies and distancing us from our friends.
For example:
While flattering dictators, Trump has no qualms about alienating our closest allies and personally insulting their leaders, whom he claims are taking advantage of U.S. assistance. Besides his insults, Trump is damaging these important relationships with threats and punitive actions. For instance,
Contrary to what Trump says, our allies aren’t taking advantage of us. And we need them. Unfortunately, however, they no longer trust us. Many are planning to either live without us or deal with us as a rival.
By using his soapbox to sow division, insult, and animosity, Trump has eroded our national conversation. His words migrate from his tweets to people’s conversations at home and at work. According to a Pew Research survey, a majority believes that Trump has changed the tone of our national discourse for the worse.
A worse trait than Trump’s desire to divide people is his dishonesty. He makes wild claims and spreads conspiracy theories and clearly false information—for instance, insisting that millions of people voted illegally in the 2016 presidential election. While some dismiss this as just his style, too many others believe whatever he says because he’s the president.
Trump is distorting our perceptions of truth. To Trump, there’s no objective truth. If people believe something, then it’s true. “A tree is only a tree to him if we all agree it’s a tree. If he can convince us it’s a sheep, then it is a sheep.”
It’s increasingly difficult for citizens to find common ground because they can’t agree on what’s true. We can’t solve problems when we can’t agree on the facts about the problems. Lies that are repeated often enough gradually change public perceptions of what’s true. This can create chaos in a free society. When we’ve lost our ability to reason and separate truth from falsehoods, we’ll have no defense against authoritarianism and other threats to democracy.
Our last hope for truth and our bulwark protecting democracy is a free press—which Trump also is working relentlessly to undermine in an all-out battle against journalists.
During the 2016 campaign, Republican leaders were nearly united in their assessment of Trump as unfit to be commander in chief. However, today a majority are Trump apologists, who enable him to the detriment of the country and their party.
Trump has two kinds of apologists:
1) The sycophant: This person is a “true believer,” who fell instantly for Trump and demonstrates admiration by buying anything with Trump’s name on it, whether it’s Trump Stakes or Trump Vodka. They eat up his talking points, slurs, and denigration of opponents. They’re driven by a desire for power and by tribalism.
2) The silent abettor: This person knows that what’s going on in the Trump administration is wrong, but doesn’t say anything. Silent abettors are motivated by the desire for power and by fear, having subordinated their principles to self-interest.
It’s disheartening how many on Trump’s staff and in the Republican Party are staying silent when their voices are so urgently needed. This applies especially to members of Congress, who have a constitutional duty to scrutinize the president and the executive branch. Unfortunately, Republican members haven’t stepped up to criticize Trump when he deserves it. If they can’t applaud him, they go silent.
There’s no doubt about the verdict on Donald Trump. Despite a number of accomplishments, Trump is:
Roman statesman Cicero identified four moral qualities that define a leader of character. On every count, Trump fails:
1) Wisdom: Trump believes and spreads false information.
2) Justice: He’s unfair and dishonest in his dealings with others.
3) Courage: Trump blames others for his failures.
4) Temperance: He’s immoderate in nearly everything.
The Steady State can’t fix the situation. The question is how to remove him from office. There are three options:
1) Invoking the Twenty-Fifth Amendment: Under the amendment, if Vice President Mike Pence and a majority of the cabinet believed Trump couldn’t perform his duties, they could remove him. However, there’s a grave downside, which is why the option “wasn’t seriously contemplated” by the Steady State: It would be viewed as a coup and create civil unrest.
2) Impeachment: As this book was written, an impeachment inquiry was underway into whether the president abused his power for political ends and obstructed justice. However, no one should take joy in it. Rather than hoping Trump is guilty and wishing further division on the country, we should allow the process to play out, following the facts where they lead. Democrats shouldn’t rush to judgment and Republicans shouldn’t try to block justice.
3) Electoral defeat: Ultimately, elections are the best way to keep leaders in check. Let voters examine Trump’s performance and decide whether he’s fit for the office and whether his conduct reflects the nation’s values.
The consequences of reelecting Trump couldn’t be more dire. His administration is a catastrophe, the result of his weak morals. Any accomplishments are far outweighed by the damage he’s done to the nation. Another four years could very well sink the ship.
Fortunately, candidates more honorable (and stable) than Trump have stepped up. Hopefully, additional candidates who appeal to a broad spectrum of voters in our polarized political climate will join them. Much remains up in the air, but the most important thing is that we not be afraid to make a change.
A Warning by “Anonymous,” a senior Trump administration official, provides an insider’s view of three years in a turbulent administration, where aides have struggled to steer President Donald J. Trump away from making disastrous decisions and to mitigate the fallout when they’re unable to stop him.
Published in November 2019, the book is a followup to the author’s New York Times op-ed column, also published anonymously, on September 5, 2018, chronicling the efforts of “The Resistance,” a group of senior White House aides who worked to keep Trump from implementing anti-democratic, reckless, foolish, petty, and/or illegal decisions. The op-ed piece was meant to assure Americans that there were “adults in the room,” who were working behind the scenes to protect the country’s interests from an immoral president, who put self-interest first.
However, the book argues that the resistance effort didn’t work—subsequently, the “guardrails” have come off. Trump has fired or driven away nearly every principled advisor and he is running amok, like a twelve-year-old indiscriminately pushing buttons in an air traffic control tower. The author argues that Trump is unfit to be commander in chief and the nation must “fire” him before he destroys our democratic system.
The book is his account of what it’s been like in the White House since Trump’s election in 2016 and a warning about where the country is headed unless we act.
This administration will go down in history as one of the most turbulent, characterized by Trump’s erratic and rash decision-making and the ripple effects throughout the government. Trump’s advisors were hopeful at first, but ultimately found him unfit for the job because:
White House officials considered extreme measures to warn the country of the president’s lawless and rash behavior—for instance, resigning en masse the way several top officials did during the Nixon administration after the president fired a special prosecutor, an event dubbed the Saturday Night Massacre. However, Trump’s advisors ultimately rejected the idea for fear it would make things worse—although they got worse anyway.
How bad things were hit home for the author when Trump reacted with pettiness and vindictiveness to the August 25, 2018, death of war hero and former senator and presidential candidate John McCain.
McCain was one of the country’s great statesmen. After his military service, he built an extensive legacy as a public servant, including service as a member of Congress, a two-time presidential candidate, and a U.S. senator. Speakers at his memorial services, including former presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, extolled McCain for embodying the principles of service and duty. However, Trump hated McCain and resented the attention he received in death.
His bitterness toward McCain surfaced in 2015 when he told a campaign audience in Iowa that he didn’t consider McCain to be a war hero. “I like people who weren’t captured,” he said. Trump seethed when McCain withdrew support for his candidacy after the Access Hollywood tapes revealed Trump making vulgar comments about women. Trump also resented McCain’s criticism of his actions as president.
Despite Trump’s history of animosity toward McCain, he stunned aides by using his office to downplay recognition of McCain’s service:
For the author, Trump’s open disrespect for a veteran and hero was the final straw. “Anonymous” drafted the New York Times op-ed about Trump’s immorality and capriciousness—and the efforts of the Resistance to constrain him and keep the government functioning. (Shortform note: As usual in our summaries, we’ve written as much as possible from the perspective of the original author, “Anonymous.”)
Since the column’s publication on September 5, 2018, the instability in the White House has only gotten worse. The president still lacks a moral compass and even minimal leadership qualities.
At the time the column was written, Trump’s senior appointees sought to control his worst impulses. They wanted his administration to succeed and supported much of his agenda, but were unsettled by is “unstable” behavior in public and private. They thought of themselves and their efforts as the “Steady State,” in contrast to the so-called Deep State, which Trump believed was a conspiracy of civil servants secretly working to undermine him.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller cited the internal efforts in his report investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election: “The president’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the president declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.”
While senior aides have saved Trump’s presidency many times, those voices of reason are dwindling as Trump fires those who challenge him and as others resign, tired of defending and appeasing him. Every departure by a person of principle heightens the risk to the country, as it leaves Trump surrounded only by those who validate and abet him.
The Steady State effort seems increasingly unsustainable. Things will get even more precarious if Trump is reelected in 2020, despite his outrageous conduct and the threat of impeachment. The guardrails provided by the Steady State will be completely gone, he won’t have to worry about maintaining public support, and he’ll feel free to do whatever he wants.
The 2020 election may be the nation’s last opportunity to hold Trump accountable.
Constructive criticism of the president is legitimate and patriotic, contrary to Trump’s attempts to characterize any and all criticism of him as disloyal or as a threat to national security.
The president deserves criticism for poor decisions on extremely sensitive issues, both classified and non-classified. (This book doesn’t discuss any classified matters.) Our government provides processes for whistleblowers to raise concerns about sensitive issues, and some people in government have appropriately used them to raise red flags about Trump.
Trump wrongly attacked the whistleblower who revealed his request that Ukraine investigate political opponent Joe Biden. By using the power of his office to retaliate against whistleblowers or political opponents, he’s “setting a chilling precedent for the use of executive authority.”
There’s such a storm of criticism around the Trump administration that it’s difficult for many people to separate truth and fiction and keep track of what’s important. This book is an attempt to clarify the issues and our choices.
This book will:
Many of the criticisms in this book are shared by others in the administration as well as those who’ve left it, although they’re afraid to speak publicly.
Despite new controversies and turmoil generated by the administration daily, this book is focused on characteristics of the Trump presidency that aren’t going to change. Each chapter describes an issue voters should weigh in deciding whether to reelect Trump in 2020.
The author of A Warning chose to remain anonymous in hopes of keeping the debate focused on the message rather than the messenger.
In 1787, the three writers of The Federalist Papers (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay) wrote anonymously in support of a proposed Constitution for the same reason—they wanted citizens to debate the message, not attack the authors. In today’s social media environment, the tendency to attack the person and ignore the ideas is even more prevalent than it was during the heated debate between the federalists and antifederalists.
The author indicates that at some point, he or she may choose to speak publicly by name. But at this point, it’s vital to keep the focus on Trump’s character and record. (Shortform note: “Anonymous” answered questions (anonymously) on Reddit on November 27, 2019. View the thread here.)
December 19, 2018, was a watershed moment in Trump’s presidency, in which the firewall of Steady State advisors failed and Trump made a rash foreign policy decision. It signaled the beginning of the end for pragmatists in the White House who thought they could contain him.
While White House staff were focused on saving an aid program in Latin America that Trump was threatening to scrap, he veered in a different direction, suddenly tweeting, ”We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump presidency.”
The news that he’d decided to withdraw U.S. troops spread quickly. Senior staff had cautioned him against doing this, emphasizing that ISIS was still a serious threat and would regroup and plan further attacks. Also, withdrawal would empower Syria’s dictator as well as Russia and Iran and lead to the slaughter of the Kurds.
Trump’s announcement alarmed and confused allies, hung the Defense Department out to dry, and raised concern about the safety of the troops. The military scrambled to make plans to protect soldiers on the ground. It shattered the illusions of those who still thought they could bring order to a chaotic administration. Secretary of Defense James Mattis resigned the next day, providing a departure date of Feb. 28 to allow time for an orderly transition for a successor. However, an angry Trump tweeted that the Pentagon’s second in command would take over on Jan. 1, then bragged that he’d fired Mattis—and thus, another pragmatist was gone.
Signs of trouble began emerging even in the formative stages of the Trump presidency.
The Trump transition team was behind from the start because they were inexperienced, unprepared, and didn’t expect him to win. Then, Trump dumped his team leader, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, replacing him with Mike Pence, the vice president-elect. Pence had to start from square one.
Things were in disarray, and instead of forming a Lincolnesque “team of rivals,” Trump ended up with “rival teams” jockeying for advantage. Factions and conspiracies developed, and the early days in the White House became a real-life version of Trump’s former TV show, The Apprentice. As he’d done on his show, Trump encouraged infighting.
Nonetheless, a cadre of respected, experienced Republicans signed on with the administration, resulting in a fairly competent cabinet. Their presence helped ease worries about his disruptive style and also diminished some of the infighting.
But because they didn’t know Trump, the newcomers were unreasonably optimistic they would be able to focus on governing. Immediately upon interacting with the new chief executive, they could see something was off. Trump remained obsessed with his victory, carrying around electoral maps, which he introduced into nearly every discussion. He continued to focus on defeated opponent Hillary Clinton as well as on his predecessor, Obama.
Quickly displaying his impulsiveness, Trump issued a stream of executive orders intended to negate Obama policies, slash regulations, and spark economic growth. While many on staff agreed in principle, the orders were poorly conceived and some backfired. An example was the travel ban on people from “terrorist” countries. It prompted a public outcry and legal action, and cost the administration time and goodwill.
Then, Trump decided to put Steve Bannon, his chief political strategist, on the National Security Council, although the council isn’t supposed to be political. Trump’s experienced staffers were appalled, and although he backed down later, they remained wary of what else he might do.
In Trump’s chaotic world, the newcomers joined in a sort of alarmed fraternity akin to bank robbery hostages united in fear of the unknown.
The Steady State isn’t sabotaging the president. It’s not the Deep State feared by the Right nor a campaign to subvert the president, as the Left might wish. Early on, the Steady State formed “to keep the wheels from coming off the White House wagon.”
By conferring with each other informally, members of the Steady State realized the administration’s problems were systemic, driven by two traits—Trump’s impulsiveness and inattention.
Both traits surfaced when staff tried to brief the president on issues. Briefers soon learned that Trump wouldn’t read long papers or even summaries. They needed to present information in a handful of PowerPoint slides with few words plus graphics to get his attention. The key was to reduce their messages to a single point and keep repeating it, even when Trump veered off on another topic.
If a briefer didn’t keep things short and sweet, Trump was likely to shout, “What the f-ck,” and throw the papers at the presenter. If he liked a simple graphic he’d talk about it constantly, carry it around to show others, and even tweet it. For instance, he fixated on a graphic depicting interlocking gears to explain government and industry relationships. He kept showing it to puzzled Oval Office visitors. Another time he tweeted out a parody poster on Iran sanctions, built on a Game of Thrones theme. This resulted in memes mocking the graphic. The lesson for the Steady State was that they were “glorified government babysitters.”
Staff referred to the process of dealing with a sudden Trump impulse to do something rash as a “five-alarm fire drill.” If they received any notice, they’d mobilize an effort to influence his views before he tweeted them out. In the early days of the administration, a five-alarm fire drill might work like this:
This process became the norm and was so exhausting for aides that they’d schedule unneeded campaign rallies to get Trump out of town, where he would theoretically cause less trouble. This gave his staff a breather. However, it wouldn’t be long before he’d raise the bad idea again. Today, Trump gives little or no notice of his decisions.
Trump showed no interest in or ability to manage daily functions of government. This continues to be a problem. He can’t lead because he doesn’t understand how the executive branch works.
Departments and agencies are confused about what to do and who’s in charge. Trump may tell the secretary of defense to do something that’s the job of the secretary of state. He sometimes tells son-in-law Jared Kushner to do the jobs of multiple people. Policies aren’t thought out or coordinated; issues are ignored until they reach a crisis point. With its haphazard processes, the administration is prone to violating laws, ethics, and normal procedure.
Some aides and supporters want to believe there’s a method to Trump’s madness, which will be revealed in time—that “it’s part of his genius.” Senior advisor and campaign holdover Stephen Miller encourages chaos as a deliberate strategy. For instance, early on, he urged that the White House “flood the zone” with as many policy pronouncements as possible, regardless of legality, to overwhelm Democrats. Top officials soon began trying to insulate their departments from Trump’s mismanagement and inappropriate requests.
Members of the Steady State have observed that the president’s requests typically fall into one of three categories: dumb, impossible, or illegal. Here are some examples:
Proposals that are dumb, impossible, and illegal, often revolve around the issue of immigration, which Trump views as the greatest crisis in U.S. history. For example, he wanted to designate immigrants as “enemy combatants”—the designation used for terrorists—so the administration could keep them out of the country. He brought it up randomly, eliciting “those polite smiles reserved for a deranged relative.”
When he didn’t get pushback, Trump discussed shipping immigrants to Guantanamo Bay as a deterrent to trying to enter the U.S. Word got out and a career diplomat characterized it as “completely batshit.” Advisors told him it was too expensive because Trump sometimes found cost arguments persuasive. They managed to squelch the proposal, although there’s never any guarantee a bad idea is gone for good.
Some of Trump’s worst ideas could have cost him his presidency if implemented. Yet the people working to protect him from this were the ones he ended up wanting to fire.
Trump delights in the image from his reality television days that he’s a tough boss ready to fire anyone and everyone. He likes to keep officials on edge or make them do what he wants by commenting publicly on their job performance or tenure. Or he fuels gossip by complaining about someone, knowing that listeners will spread it. White House officials are always on “deathwatch,” waiting to be fired by presidential tweet. Victims change from week to week.
Chief of Staff John Kelly managed briefly to counter Trump’s ad hoc decision-making with a system. However, trying to improve the process was just applying a Band-Aid. Changing the system couldn’t fix Trump. In the spring of 2018, he reverted to keeping people on edge and in line, his way. He eliminated anyone who seemed to challenge him, including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions; others like Defense Secretary James Mattis left of their own accord.
Trump announced Kelly would be gone soon, although he had trouble finding a new chief of staff and finally appointed budget director Mick Mulvaney in an acting capacity. Trump’s third national security advisor, John Bolton, resigned when he got tired of the chaos and Trump’s bungling of foreign policy. Trump tried to make it look like he fired Bolton.
With the guard rails created by the Steady State disappearing, the future began looking grimmer. Bad ideas have become more frequent and few people speak up other than those who tell Trump what he wants to hear. Yet the president of the most powerful country in the world needs to hear dissent.
The Steady State was never going to be able to guide Trump or bring order to the White House. His staff can’t change who he is. In reality, playing the role of the “adults in the room” and “keeping the president in check” isn’t the Steady State’s job.
It’s the job of the voters and their elected representatives, who express their faith or lack of faith at the ballot box. Each of the remaining chapters in this book examines important aspects of the president’s character and performance that should inform this decision.
Voters have the responsibility to weigh a president’s temperament and moral qualities—that is, character—when deciding whether that person is fit to continue in the role of president. The Roman statesman Cicero spelled out the moral qualities he felt were most important, and they are still a useful way to measure our leaders today. This chapter will look at how Trump measures up.
The Oval Office evokes awe and respect. At its center stands the Resolute Desk, a gift from Queen Victoria in 1880, where presidents make decisions that set the course of our country and from which they address the people.
In 1986, Ronald Reagan spoke from behind the desk after the Challenger space shuttle explosion. From the same spot, George W. Bush issued a call for unity after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Trump, however, holds forth in the Oval Office in a different way:
Such comments are a window into who Trump really is. Often, he’s vulgar, furious, and close to losing control. Other times, he comes across as charming or amusing, especially to people encountering him for the first time. Many find it refreshing that he says whatever crosses his mind, in comparison to the scripted presentations of most politicians. But while we’ve had other undisciplined presidents, Trump is in a class by himself. For those who work with him, amusement quickly turns to alarm and apprehension.
In our nation’s history, unprincipled presidents have at times succeeded. They’ve broken promises or cheated on their wives, while still pursuing wide foreign policy or championing important domestic causes.
But the good must outweigh the downside rather than the reverse. James Buchanan has been deemed our worst president because his immoral defense of slavery and Southern slaveholders outweighed his efforts to stave off civil war, which might have been a good.
In the end, a president’s character defines his or her presidency. Further, the president’s behavior sets the tone for public discourse and models civic engagement for young people.
History shows us that power tests a leader’s character. Trump has been tested and his character revealed. His character overshadows the character of all Americans because his reputation is also ours. We need to ask ourselves whether it reflects who we are or aspire to be.
The Roman statesman Cicero believed that to be good or moral, a leader had to demonstrate the “cardinal virtues” of wisdom, temperance, courage, and justice—and that morals determined behavior. The rest of this chapter looks at how Trump measures up to Cicero’s moral qualities necessary for a person of character.
Cicero defines wisdom, not as being all-knowing, but as “learning the truth”—which requires diligence in seeking the facts and getting to the bottom of issues. Cicero warned against falsely claiming to know something and allowing yourself to be distracted by trivial matters. He said it’s “dishonorable to stumble…to be ignorant and be deceived.”
However, Trump clearly fails this test by constantly falling for and spreading conspiracy theories and false information or “fake news.” Misinformation and disinformation are Trump’s stock-in-trade. For example, before being elected, he was a fan and promoter of conspiracy monger Alex Jones. He also was a vocal proponent of “birtherism,” the false belief that Barack Obama was born in Kenya (Obama has been proven to be a U.S. citizen). When Sen. Ted Cruz was a primary opponent, Trump asserted that Cruz’s father was involved in the Kennedy assassination. Those are only a few of the many examples.
The president constantly makes or repeats false claims, especially via Twitter. When called out for a false statement, he shrugs it off. So much of what he says is untrue that his appointees and the public are no longer surprised when his lies are revealed. Whether Trump believes the conspiracies he touts or whether he just spreads them to get attention or manipulate others is a matter of speculation. Probably, it’s both.
In terms of Cicero’s admonition that a person of character should diligently pursue the facts and not be ignorant, Trump again fails the standard. He lacks curiosity and has made little attempt to learn what he needs to know in order to do his job.
Trump says he lacks time to read, but he has plenty of time for golf, tweeting, and binge-watching cable programs. Or he insists that he doesn’t need to read because he has common sense and is highly intelligent. He’s been touting his genius and his “very good brain” for years. He often interrupts briefings by saying, “Yeah, I get it. I’m pretty smart, okay?” Yet, Trump can’t remember things he’s said or what people have told him.
He regularly claims to be an expert on issues on which he has scant knowledge. For instance, he has asserted that “nobody knows more than me” about: campaign finance, the courts, trade, taxes, ISIS, the U.S. government, and technology, including drones. Yet, officials have seen him stumble on every topic. Aides have described him as “an idiot and a moron with the understanding of a fifth or sixth grader.” Those are the milder descriptions—most involve a series of expletives.
When Cicero discusses justice, he’s referring to how a person treats others. He defines a just person as one who:
The president has a different concept of justice: it’s whether he’s being treated fairly or unfairly, in his view. On the perceived unfairness side of the scale, he’s suggested that television networks should be investigated and punished for making fun of him. He spends a great deal of time complaining about news coverage or critics, then “sends White House aides on an endless quest to ‘fix it’.”
Trump’s treatment of others is ruthless rather than “just,” in the way Cicero means it. He has tweeted: “When someone attacks me, I always attack back...except 100X more.” He picks fights with his own appointees, sports stars, and foreign leaders alike. For instance, he attacked Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, whom he appointed, asking on Twitter, whether Powell or China’s dictator is a bigger enemy of the U.S. Like a schoolyard bully, he assigns his critics derogatory nicknames, often focusing on physical features.
Through intimidation, Trump believes he can get what he wants, rather than what is fair, by Cicero’s standard. He brags about his tactics—for instance, he loves to tell his staff stories about filing spurious legal claims to intimidate rival companies. During the 2016 campaign, he told journalist Bob Woodward that “real power” is achieved by generating fear.
He lacks any sense of proportion. He views political opponents as enemies forever. He’s tweeted about 2016 opponent Hillary Clinton hundreds of times since taking office and pondered how to use his power as president to prosecute her. Trump wants more than electoral defeat—he wants to destroy her.
Another component of justice, according to Cicero, is keeping your promises. Trump’s career is littered with unkept promises, including: unpaid contractors and employees, unpaid bills, and contract violations. He has treated philanthropy similarly, making false promises and claims and using the Trump Foundation to further his business and political interests.
(Shortform note: In November 2019, a New York judge ordered Trump to pay $2 million in damages to a group of charities to settle claims that the foundation misused funds. The foundation is in the process of dissolving.)
It’s clear that Trump doesn’t possess the moral quality of justice, in the sense of treating others fairly. Instead, his focus is self-promotion and destroying anyone who stands in his way.
To Cicero, courage means standing up for what is right. Trump sees himself as fighting for a number of issues. But while leaders take both credit and blame for the way their initiatives turn out, Trump only takes credit. When he loses a fight, he blames someone else for fear of being labeled a loser. For example, he promised repeatedly to repeal and replace Obamacare. When the effort failed, he blamed “weak” senators and his staff.
When it comes to true personal courage, Trump failed a significant test by dodging the draft during the Vietnam War. He avoided service with four deferments for education and one for questionable medical reasons—bone spurs.
Additional components of courage, according to Cicero, are:
In foreign policy, he opts for chest-thumping, like comparing “nuclear buttons” or the size of U.S. nuclear forces with the missiles of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. However, these eruptions tend to distract at best and, at worst, threaten to escalate a problem into a crisis.
Also writing about courage, Aristotle warned of the danger posed by a leader who is overconfident, rash, a braggart, and “a pretender to courage,” which is a fair description of Trump and the antithesis of Cicero’s calm, stable leader.
Cicero described a person who is temperate as showing restraint, modesty, and seemliness, or “conducting oneself in an inoffensive manner.” Also, such a person isn’t careless, and he doesn’t do things rashly or randomly without thinking them through. He or she can handle criticism and isn’t easily triggered.
Again, Trump is the opposite of inoffensive. He’s also completely lacking in restraint— he erupts unpredictably. His behavior is unseemly, from his vulgar comments to grandiose public bragging.
The epitome of vulgarity is Trump’s attitude toward women. Many on his staff are disgusted by his misogynistic behavior, for which he has a long record. Trump talks about women in terms of their appearance and sex appeal—bimbo, great in bed, chubby, not hot, ugly, fat ass, stupid, dog, and so on. In 2015 he tweeted about Hillary Clinton: “If (she) can’t satisfy her husband, what makes her think she can satisfy America?”
Many women may find his comments predatory. He once reportedly said this about himself (in the third person): “Women find his power almost as much of a turn-on as his money.” Of course, his comments on the Access Hollywood tapes about groping women are well-known. Around two dozen women have accused him of sexual misconduct.
In meetings, Trump comments on women’s appearance, clothing, makeup, and weight—sometimes to their faces. He addresses women both inside and outside his administration as “sweetie” and “honey.” Trump is the “Fred Flintstone of the ‘MeToo’ era.”
Temperance, according to Cicero, also means thinking things through rather than acting carelessly or recklessly. Trump, however, is infamous for acting on impulse. He brags about making decisions on gut instincts, rather than facts and strategy.
What Trump sees on television is a constant distraction. He’s literally “channel-surfing his way through the presidency.” Television interrupts meetings and Trump’s commentary about it sidetracks conversations. His obsession with TV coverage leads to embarrassing eruptions. On one busy day, when there were important developing issues, he instead focused media attention on minor criticism by George Conway, wife of senior advisor Kellyanne Conway, that had irritated him.
Temperate leaders take criticism calmly and with a grain of salt. However, Trump always takes it personally. He can’t imagine not pushing back aggressively. To him, temperance isn’t a virtue.
The August 12, 2017, white supremacists’ rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, tested Trump’s ability to respond to a civil disturbance. His response answered any remaining questions about his character—he failed the presidential character test. It was a turning point for some members of his staff too.
Organizers of a “Unite the Right” rally had gathered in Charlottesville to protest the removal of General Robert E. Lee’s statue from a park. The night before the scheduled rally, a rogue group of white supremacists marched through the University of Virginia campus, chanting racist slogans. An encounter with university students turned violent.
A counterprotest at the next day’s rally was organized, resulting in more violence. A white supremacist from Ohio drove his vehicle into a crowd of counterprotesters, injuring more than thirty people and killing a woman. The city declared a state of emergency and Charlottesville became international news.
Trump issued a statement from his golf course in New Jersey: “There’s no place for this kind of violence in America.” But he also made waves by condemning the hate and “the violence on many sides,” while failing to denounce the extremists. He couldn’t bring himself to denounce them because they were pro-MAGA supporters. In subsequent days, in spite of his staff’s efforts to redirect him, he repeatedly defended the extremists.
While white supremacists hailed Trump’s statements, they drew bipartisan condemnation. His response to the violence revealed him to be demagogic, shallow, and lacking in courage. To the author, he demonstrated that he’s not in the same league as the American leaders whose portraits hang in the White House. “He isn’t a man of great character, or good character. He’s a man of none.”
The Greeks and Romans were concerned about the character of their leaders. The Roman statesman Cicero listed the moral qualities he felt were most important: wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance.
How do you define character: What moral qualities are most important to you and why?
How do you see these standards reflected by the president and your representatives in Washington currently?
How important do you think character is in a U.S. president versus his or her policy positions?
How do you reflect these qualities in your political discourse? How can you be more true to your standards?
The president’s views are paramount—they set the direction of the administration and determine congressional priorities. They build public confidence and trust. Yet Trump’s views are constantly changing, depending on his whims, the last person he spoke with, or something he saw on television. They’re unconnected to any core beliefs or principles.
He reverses himself constantly, whether on health care, abortion, trade with China, or gun control. From the early days of his administration, he amazed staff with his inability to stick with a position. It provides fodder for comedians, memes, and even the sale of novelties, such as Trump flip-flop sandals with differing messages on the right and left soles.
This is the opposite of what the Republican Party is supposed to stand for. The GOP, which has long considered itself to be the party of principles, should be disturbed at Trump’s style of tossing out random ideas to see what “sticks.” Trump has indeed advanced a number of Republican causes, including making conservative judicial appointments and regulatory changes. However, most of the credit should go Congressional Republicans or the senior White House staff, who convinced him to stay the course. He made a shambles of other Republican principles.
Early in the 2016 campaign, Republican members of Congress, like most people, viewed Trump as an irritant and didn’t take him seriously. But as his momentum grew, so did their alarm.
In response, House Speaker Paul Ryan developed what he called “the Trump inoculation plan.” It was a set of conservative policy proposals, to which he tried to commit Republican members and the party as a whole. The idea was that as the Republican nominee, Trump would be “boxed in” or forced to go along with the program. It might have worked for any candidate but Trump.
He wasn’t driven by conservative principles. He’d changed his party registration five times over thirty years, praised Hillary Clinton, and donated to Democrats. He declared himself a conservative when it suited his interests, treating conservatism as another Trump product to be gussied up and branded with the Trump name.
Some Republicans recognized him as an imposter, including the late columnist Charles Krauthammer and at first, radio host Rush Limbaugh. Instead of campaigning on substance, Trump spent his time demeaning other candidates; he treated the primary debates like playground battles. When he did express views, they were anti-conservative—for instance, he expressed interventionist ideas for the economy. He kept winning and Ryan’s inoculation plan failed.
With Trump as president, the Republican Party is now a mass of contradictions. Trump’s greatest deviations from conservative principles have concerned the size of government, defense, immigration, and the economy.
Trump is a champion of big government, although he decries Democrats for having socialist views. In some ways, the government under Trump is even larger and more wasteful than it was in the previous Democratic administration.
Due to the 2011 Budget Control Act passed by Congressional Republicans, the deficit was shrinking under Obama. However, in a deal with Democrats, Trump discarded the act’s spending limits. The deficit has risen each year of the Trump administration—the government will soon be spending a trillion dollars more than it brings in. In addition, the U.S. debt (money we borrow from other countries) has reached another record. Trump proposed a record-high budget in 2019.
This profligacy betrays conservative principles and breaks Trump’s promises of fiscal responsibility—he pledged to eliminate the debt during his time in office, apparently just to lull conservatives into supporting him.
He appears to be as unconcerned about bankrupting the country as he has been about driving his businesses into bankruptcy. According to sources, when a handful of conservatives cautioned him on the dangers of runaway spending, he answered, “Yeah, but I won’t be here.” Trump’s love for grandiose things apparently includes a big federal government, when it can be used to enhance his power.
Trump pledged to strengthen Defense and Homeland Security, and his policies have led to superficial improvements—for instance, greater military spending (which has increased debt). He’s sought to raise pay for troops and modernize U.S. forces. But his conduct toward the military has been disastrous.
Rather than respecting military leaders as nonpartisan defenders of the U.S., he refers to them as “my generals” and treats them as chess pieces he can move at whim. Although he ducked military service himself, he likes to project toughness and pull the military into the political debate—for instance, proposing to bring back torture, until aides convinced him terrorists would use it as propaganda.
Many in the military are dismayed at Trump’s poor leadership and foreign policy decisions, which have undermined U.S. security. For instance, he’s seesawed on Iran, first proposing an unprecedented face-to-face meeting with Iranian leaders, then swinging the opposite direction. He wanted to respond with a military strike when Iran shot down a U.S. drone in 2019. But he suddenly called it off when warplanes were only minutes from their targets. Within a few weeks, he was talking again about a face-to-face meeting. It’s one thing for Trump to keep changing his mind about something like military uniforms, but when he does it with air strikes, he’s courting disaster. (The full story of the risk he has posed with his impulsiveness won’t be revealed for years.)
Trump has turned the vital issue of homeland security on its head. To him, the most important aspect is “The Wall.” He brings it up in meetings more often than any of the other issues he raises randomly.
An inside joke among White House staff is that being tasked with designing Trump’s border wall is the worst job in the administration because his ideas about it are ever-changing. So far he’s promised reinforced concrete, a solar wall that generates electricity, a wall you can see through, a steel wall with openings, an artistically designed wall, and a wall of steel and concrete. He has asserted that construction is underway, that Democrats or the courts are blocking it, or that he will build the whole thing without involving Congress. At times, staff find it laughable. In fact, his construction efforts have been limited to replacement of older fencing.
In any case, experts say hundreds of miles of new wall wouldn’t solve the immigration problem.
Migrants will still be able to come to border entry points and file for protected status; they will then be admitted for years, while their cases wind through the courts. That’s the problem he should be addressing.
Meanwhile, Trump has reversed America’s reputation as a nation of immigrants, though the conception of the U.S. as a haven for people seeking a fresh start has long been part of Republican dogma.
Without a doubt, Trump is anti-immigrant; immigration is on his mind at virtually every meeting, whether it’s the subject of the meeting or not. During one anti-immigration diatribe, Trump imitated a Hispanic accent, while saying: “We get these women coming in with like seven children. They’re saying, ‘Oh, please help, my husband left me.’ They’re useless.”
Although he’s drastically cut the number of refugees being admitted to the U.S., Trump has proposed a total admissions ban on those fleeing persecution. He’s announced a variety of new restrictions on immigration, including a wealth test.
Republicans need to affirm that having an “open door” for immigrants doesn’t mean having an open border. We can have sensible immigration policies without shutting the door on immigrants, who historically have strengthened our country.
Perhaps Trump’s biggest betrayal of conservative principles has been his rejection of free trade—he’s a stubborn protectionist. Trump has imposed new trade barriers based on a wrongheaded view of economics. He doesn’t understand trade but doesn’t listen when experts try to explain it to him.
Trump believes placing tariffs or fees on imports will make our country wealthier, when actually, it will make the things we buy more expensive.
Here’s an example of how Trump thinks tariffs work: If we put a 20% tariff on sweaters from India, we’ll get $6 on every imported sweater. In effect, Indians will be paying us to buy them. With sweaters selling for higher prices, U.S. manufacturers will start making them again and have an edge over India because U.S. companies won’t be paying the $6 per sweater fee. It will create jobs as well.
However, what will really happen is that Indian manufacturers will raise the price of sweaters they sell in the U.S. by $6. U.S. companies will lose money because a greater share of consumer dollars are going to the more expensive imported goods instead of other things they could be buying.
Trump’s tariffs are a back-door tax on Americans that will cost them more than they saved under his 2017 tax cut. Further, some experts estimate his actions have already caused the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. The effects will continue to spread to every industry. Ultimately, low-income Americans who depend on low prices will suffer the most because they’ll have to work longer hours and extra jobs.
It’s time for Republicans to acknowledge that Trump’s economic policies violate conservative principles and are bad for the country.
Besides destroying the Republican Party, Trump has used the powers of his office to attack the foundations of our democracy. Every American, no matter what his or her politics are, should be alarmed.
In his business and personal life, Trump has always treated competitors and challengers as enemies to be eliminated—an attitude that’s carried over into the White House. This attitude is antithetical to the ideals of democracy.
After the election, Trump began considering ways to use federal investigators—in his mind, they’re his investigators—to punish his political opponents, especially the Clintons. While most people shrug off his threats as jokes or hyperbole, Trump really believes he can prosecute and jail anyone who challenges him. He’s furious when his lawyers and the law don’t bend his way. He’s been especially upset that the Justice Department hasn’t persecuted the Clintons.
He styles his improper demands as hints or innocent suggestions that he can deny later if necessary. For instance, he suggests that while he could order someone to do something, he hopes he won’t have to. His appointee knows exactly what Trump wants him to do. Attorney General Jeff Sessions ignored Trump’s signals to investigate the Clintons, which was a factor in his firing. Trump soon began sending the same signals to his new attorney general, Bill Barr.
Our nation’s founders designed a system of checks and balances to deter such presidential abuses of power. The Trump presidency is proving to be one of the system’s biggest tests. He has undermined and attacked all three branches of government.
Trump launched an immediate offensive against government employees, the civil servants who carry of the daily work of government under Republican and Democratic presidents alike. They ensure that laws and policies are applied as intended, not abused for political purposes.
To Trump, however, civil servants constitute a Deep State trying to thwart and destroy his presidency. What Trump really fears is that they’ll expose his incompetence or self-serving actions. Trump’s flunkies and his promoters on cable television echo the Deep State fantasy to curry favor with him and his base. In reality, members of the Deep State are people Trump doesn’t like.
The idea of a traitorous Deep State has permeated the administration. Public servants in the executive branch may be cut out of the loop on suspicion of being disloyal. Meetings are designated as being for “politicals only,” or restricted to presidential appointees. Sometimes they take place in the secure Situation Room to prevent civil servants from overhearing anything.
Among the problems with the Deep State obsession are the following:
Employees in the U.S. intelligence community, including the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security, are critical to our safety and security, yet they’re among Trump’s most frequent targets.
Even before taking office, Trump resented their conclusion that Russians were interfering in the election campaign to benefit him. Once elected, Trump continued to ridicule intelligence assessments and dismiss the agencies as political hacks or part of an Obama conspiracy.
What’s worse, Trump has handled sensitive information recklessly. For example, Trump tweeted a photo of a failed Iranian missile launch in the summer of 2019 to taunt the Iranian government. But the photo, from a U.S. spy satellite, had been shown to Trump at a classified meeting. Before long, online hackers identified the satellite.
Trump frequently politicizes intelligence. He expects it to support his agenda—he thinks
intelligence officials should be loyal to his agenda rather than honest. For example, Trump was furious when top intelligence officials told the Senate in January 2019 that ISIS hadn’t been defeated and that North Korea wasn’t likely to give up its nuclear weapons. Trump excoriated them on Twitter, then called them to his office and had a photo taken, making it look as though they’d come to repent. He released it with a claim that they’d been misquoted. A few months later, Trump fired the director of national intelligence, Dan Coats, and his deputy for not toeing his political line.
Claiming the intelligence agencies had “run amok,” he finally succeeded in pressuring the Justice Department under Bill Barr to investigate the intelligence community and its findings about Russia and the 2016 election.
However, Trump may not be as in control as he thinks he is: an intelligence community whistleblower’s complaint soon launched an impeachment inquiry into Trump’s effort to strongarm the Ukranian government into investigating a 2020 political opponent, Joe Biden, and his family.
Our Judicial system is divided between the executive branch, which investigates and prosecutes crimes, and the courts, which determine guilt or innocence. Trump has worked to undermine both branches. Besides attacking his own defense lawyers, he pressures those investigating him and attacks judges in an effort to get favorable decisions.
He tries to force his lawyers to say what he wants to hear, pushing them to the edge of what’s legal until they go beyond it. When he’s about to ask his lawyers to do something inappropriate, he checks for note-takers in the room. For example, he once shouted at an aide who was taking notes: “What the f-ck are you doing? Are you f---ing taking notes?” The aide apologized and stopped.
Former White House counsel Don McGahn had the courage to oppose him. However, when those around don’t do what he wants, Trump turns to less scrupulous outside lawyers like Michael Cohen and Rudy Giuliani.
In addition to attacking lawyers and investigators, Trump demeans and undermines judges who rule against him:
Such statements and actions indicate that Trump feels he is above the law. Another indication is his preoccupation with the president’s power to pardon convicted criminals. He’s told appointees that if they break the law at his request, he’ll pardon them. For example, he advised those working on his border wall that he’d pardon them if they got into trouble for ignoring regulations. When the comment leaked, aides said he was joking. Trump has even argued that he can pardon himself. Does his obsession with pardons suggest he intends to follow the law?
The idea of being investigated sends Trump into orbit. Trump fired FBI Director James Comey on May 9, 2017, in what looked like an effort to protect himself from investigation, although he claimed Comey had lost the public’s trust. Later, Trump changed his story and publicly cited the Russia probe as one of the reasons. Aides worried these moves would bring down his administration.
The Justice Department’s second in command, Rod Rosenstein, decided on May 19 to launch an independent investigation into Russian interference and appointed former FBI director Robert Mueller as special counsel. Trump immediately began looking for ways to oust Mueller. He told White House counsel McGahn to fire Mueller, but McGahn refused multiple requests on the grounds it could be considered obstruction of justice. When the media learned of Trump’s demand, he requested that McGahn lie about it; again, McGahn refused.
Mueller’s report on his Russia investigation cited Trump’s public attacks on the probe as a “witch hunt,” his efforts to control it, and his pressure on witnesses to not cooperate. Hundreds of former federal prosecutors signed a letter decrying Trump’s efforts to derail the investigation as obstruction of justice. If he weren’t president, they said, he’d face “multiple felony charges.”
The FBI has been one of the most unfortunate victims of Trump’s efforts to vilify investigators. Like other public servants, FBI agents want to serve their country and learn the truth. Yet Trump constantly attacks them as “crooked,” “political actors,” “dishonest,” and the “worst in history.” He claims the FBI is a center for the Deep State.
Unfortunately, not many of those surrounding Trump have objected to these attacks and told him to stop. Trump has encouraged the public to disbelieve our top law enforcement agency and believe his conspiracy theories instead.
It’s also the role of Congress to act as a check on the president. But Trump finds it intolerable that congressional committees have the authority to oversee federal agencies.
Trump has told appointees to ignore or defy rules that require them to work with Congress. For instance, instead of giving Congress advance notice before proceeding on weapons sales (to Saudi Arabia), Trump invoked an emergency provision, so he could inform Congress only at the last minute and proceed as he wished.
Rather than send nominations for key positions to the Senate for “advice and consent” as the Constitution requires, Trump appoints people to serve in “acting” capacities without approval. Because of their tenuous status, they’re inclined to accede to his wishes without question.
The president actively impeded congressional inquiries. He has instructed lawyers and appointees to ignore subpoenas or oppose them on the grounds of executive privilege (which is supposed to be restricted to the disclosure of confidential information).
This has been a deliberate strategy to block congressional oversight since Democrats won control of Congress in the midterm elections, although this stance makes it difficult for aides to promote Trump’s policies on Capitol Hill. Of course, when they won a majority, House Democrats intended to use investigations to bring Trump down. Several current investigations are clearly political rather than substantive. However, others fall within Congress’s watchdog role—for instance, investigating whether ethics were violated or actions were taken for political reasons.
Under our democratic system, the White House doesn’t decide what Congress investigates. One of its constitutional roles as a “co-equal” branch of government is to act as a check on the president. By fighting this, Trump is setting a precedent “for future government malpractice.”
Besides attacking all three branches of government, Trump uses the powers of office for political purposes. He fails to differentiate between normal politics and brazen corruption. For instance, he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that he’d consider accepting dirt on a political opponent from a foreign government like China or Russia.
Just a few months later, Trump decided to use the power of his office to coerce Ukraine to investigate Democratic presidential candidate Biden and his son, Hunter. The latter was paid to serve on the board of a Ukrainian gas company, while Biden was involved in U.S. policy toward Ukraine while serving as vice president.
The proper way to investigate any potential crimes would have been through the Justice Department—American presidents don’t ask foreign leaders to investigate political rivals as a “favor.”
Members of the Steady State, “who have seen these sorts of reckless actions again and again, wanted to slam our heads against the wall.” It was clear Trump hadn’t learned anything from the Mueller investigation, but members of the Steady State learned he would abuse any power at his disposal. The upshot was that “No external force can ameliorate his attraction to wrongdoing.”
An example of Trump’s attraction to wrongdoing is his repeated efforts to punish what he calls “Democratic states”—those where a majority voted for Clinton in 2016. Despite the fact that he also has supporters living in those states, he constantly looks for ways to make residents’ lives difficult.
There’s no state Trump hates more than California, which he believes “stole” electoral votes from him by allowing supposedly illegal immigrants to vote. In retaliation, Trump wanted to cut off federal disaster assistance when wildfires took lives and property, although aides didn’t act on it. Trump also targeted California in other ways:
These threats and actions deserve scrutiny if Congress wants to investigate abuse of power by the president for political reasons.
The primary way our leaders keep America safe and secure is through foreign policy. The president must have a well-considered strategy, implemented in conjunction with close allies, for distancing ourselves from adversaries and keeping them from harming us or our interests.
There are several problems with Trump’s foreign policy:
1) He has retreated from America’s role as the leader of the free world.
2) He lacks a coherent strategy.
3) He’s “flipped the script” by distancing us from our friends and cozying up to enemies.
No one knows what “America First” really means. He doesn’t listen to foreign policy experts and changes important policy positions at whim.
For much of our history, regardless of which party has occupied the White House, Americans have seen our country’s role as spreading democracy around the world. Our nation’s Founders believed America would one day to create a global “empire of liberty.” As the nation grew, we began spreading democratic ideals abroad. Over the last century, almost every president has advanced this view. Except Trump.
After being sworn in, he advocated stepping back from the global leadership and turning inward. He criticized foreign involvement. He contended the U.S. was spending trillions subsidizing other countries’ armies and defending their borders, while our infrastructure fell apart at home and past administrations refused to defend our own borders.
These are mostly false and shortsighted claims. We’re better off for having helped our allies get stronger—these financial investments mean we don’t face hostile nations without support. They’ve also improved our economic status. As the world has become more democratic, more markets have opened for our goods.
However, we’re at a pivotal moment. America’s dominant role is threatened as growing nations aim to compete against us. While competition is a fact of global life, it’s cause for concern if the new rivals don’t share our values and undermine efforts toward a more democratic world. We should be strengthening our alliances and promoting democratic principles. If we step back, our foes will step up with their own agendas. Rather than strengthening the “empire of liberty,” Trump is opening the way for ambitious competitors.
Trump announced his “America First” foreign policy theme in April 2016, resurrecting the old isolationist slogan, intentionally or not, of those who opposed U.S. involvement in World War II. He also argued that we needed to become more “unpredictable” and stop alerting other nations to what we plan to do. Although his meaning wasn’t clear, the word unpredictable does sum up Trump’s foreign policy.
Partly for lack of direction, Trump’s national security team was slow in coming together. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Defense James Mattis had international experience, but they weren’t on board with Trump’s isolationist views. Trump fired his national security advisor Mike Flynn after a few weeks for lying to the FBI about his contacts with high-ranking Russians. For a while, no one seemed to be in charge until Gen. H.R. McMaster replaced Flynn and tried to get everyone on the same page.
The problem was that no one knew what to expect from Trump. He might try to end a trade agreement with Canada after getting angry over a phone call with the prime minister. Or he might want to cut funding to an ally. His actions created a sense of policy whiplash on his foreign policy team at home and abroad. His calls with foreign leaders were an embarrassment—he would make strange pronouncements, brag about himself, or fly off the handle.
The president is required by law to produce a national security strategy. Since Trump couldn’t articulate his goals, McMaster’s staff put together a proposal supporting NATO and other U.S. alliances and taking stronger action to counter foes like Russia and North Korea. However, Trump didn’t read it. Consequently, not only are Trump’s advisors in the dark on our country’s direction, so are our allies, who can’t coordinate with us.
While our unpredictability can keep enemies off guard at first, it means they eventually stop taking us seriously. Trump is the boy who cried “wolf!”—our friends and enemies are shrugging him off. As one foreign official said, “...we do our best not to pay attention.”
As a candidate, Trump decried Obama’s overtures to dictators in China, Saudi Arabia, and Cuba; he criticized Obama for letting Putin gain influence. However, as president, Trump has gone far beyond that, lavishing praise and admiration on some of the worst “strongmen.”
After the brutal murder by Saudi hitmen of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018, Trump refused to criticize crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, although the evidence indicated he was behind it.
“I want to stick with an ally that in many ways has been very good,” Trump said. Also, he said he believed bin Salman’s denial of involvement. He vented to staff: “Oil is at fifty dollars a barrel. Do you know how stupid it would be to pick this fight? Oil would go up to one hundred fifty dollars a barrel. Jesus. How f---ing stupid would I be?”
Making matters worse, he publicly thanked bin Salman for keeping oil prices low and told reporters it was a reason he wouldn’t criticize bin Salman. Trump may have been influenced by Jared Kushner, who’d become friends with the crown prince. Kushner urged administration officials to go easy, arguing that the Saudis were surrounded by enemies and we should put ourselves in their shoes—which implied that under those circumstances, we’d murder journalists, too.
Most people in the administration wanted to punish the Russians for interfering in the 2016 election. But Trump had cheered them on when he urged them at a campaign event to find the Clinton emails. For a U.S. presidential candidate to urge a foreign power to spy on his opponent was a first for this country. That same day, Russians hackers attempted to access to Hillary Clinton’s personal office. In subsequent weeks, Trump delighted in Russia’s leaks of stolen emails. Even though Russia was trying to manipulate the election, Trump had only praise for Putin: “If he says great things about me, I’m going to say great things about him,” he told reporters.
Trump was furious when Congress sanctioned Russia in summer 2017 because he felt Congress was getting in the way of his warm relationship with Putin. When Russia responded by kicking out hundreds of U.S. embassy staff and seizing U.S. diplomatic compounds, Trump thanked him for helping to “cut down on payroll.”
Trump’s admiration for Putin mystifies members of the Steady State. Some have likened it to Trump being the skinny kid on the playground groveling to the bully. Commentators have speculated that Putin has some sort of leverage over Trump, but no evidence of that has surfaced. Whatever is behind Trump’s infatuation for Putin, it’s resulted in his biggest foreign policy misstep: America’s failure to respond to a blatant Russian attack on our democracy.
This naivete makes Trump’s secretive interactions with Putin and other foreign leaders all the more alarming.
Trump’s insistence on meeting privately with Putin in Helsinki was especially disturbing: 1) It was foolish in light of the allegations Trump had colluded with Russia in the election interference, and 2) His refusal to give any reason for the meeting and his insistence on hiding the details from his own staff were unprecedented. We should be concerned about what secret promises Trump is making to countries like Russia and why he wants to hide them.
If he’s reelected, it’s guaranteed that he’ll make more dishonorable requests of foreign leaders that we’re unlikely to learn about.
“Willful ignorance” best characterizes Trump’s attitude toward our enemies.
According to a former FBI official, Trump once dismissed U.S. intelligence information about a rogue country’s missile capability. He said Putin had told him something different, and that’s what he was going with. “I don’t care. I believe Putin,” the official quoted Trump as saying.
Meanwhile, Trump’s lax attitude toward Russia’s election interference has emboldened it to expand its attacks on American interests. Former national intelligence director Dan Coats testified in January 2019 that Russia is still spreading discord in the U.S. through operations designed to influence public opinion. A few months later, Robert Mueller told Congress the same thing. This should provoke national outrage and demands for action against the Russian government, yet our president ignores it.
North Korea is another example of Trump becoming infatuated with a dictator. For instance, Trump has said admiringly of Kim Jong Un’s ascension to power: “He goes in, he takes over, and he’s the boss. He wiped out his uncle, he wiped out this one, that one. I mean, this guy doesn’t play games.”
He wanted to meet with Kim during the presidential campaign, but North Korea rejected the idea as a propaganda ploy. Once elected, though, he reversed course, announcing a policy of “maximum pressure” and punishing aggression. But Trump couldn’t stand firm. The dealmaker desperately wanted a deal with Kim, whom he called “a pretty smart cookie.”
When South Korean officials, who were visiting Washington, conveyed a message that Kim wanted to meet personally, Trump agreed immediately. While White House officials painted it as a breakthrough, they felt North Korea should have made concessions to earn a meeting. Trump ruled otherwise. He was immediately caught up in the drama rather than substance. He wasn’t concerned about details but about the chemistry he wanted to create with Kim.
The summit didn’t produce anything meaningful, yet Trump considered it a great success. “I like him. He likes me,” he said later at a rally. He described the talks this way: “We went back and forth, then we fell in love. He wrote me beautiful letters and they’re great letters. We fell in love.”
When disarmament talks stalled, U.S. negotiators decided to put pressure on North Korea. In late 2018, the U.S. sanctioned three North Korean officials for human rights abuses. Trump furiously demanded, “Who did this? Kim is my friend!”
Senior White House officials are mystified by Trump’s attraction to autocrats. One suggested that dictators have what Trump wants: “total power, no term limits, enforced popularity, the ability to silence critics for good.” It sounded about right.
Of Kim Jong Un, Trump said admiringly: “He speaks and his people sit up at attention. I want my people to do the same.”
He complained to Putin about his troubles with a free press: “You don’t have this problem in Russia, but we do.”
Trump doesn’t see our adversaries as threats to our security. To him, they’re trading partners with whom we just need to haggle until we get a good deal. He doesn’t understand that governments like China, Russia, and North Korea are organized to oppose us. Their values are the opposite of ours. We can’t paper over that with a deal.
While Trump claims that U.S policy should be unpredictable, it’s a cover for not having a plan. Our enemies realize he’s a pushover—they aren’t afraid of his chest-thumping. They know he’s easily swayed by flattery and he’ll take any deal that he thinks will make him look good. They see him as someone they can take advantage of or just ignore.
While Trump cozies up to dictators, he has no qualms about alienating our closest allies and personally insulting their leaders.
An example was his behavior at the 2018 G7 summit in Canada. To begin with, Trump had a bad attitude about the summit because he wasn’t getting star treatment, he’d have to interact with other leaders who disagreed with him, and he wasn’t interested in many of the issues on the table. Also, he’d alienated many of the allies by imposing new tariffs. He was getting criticism for implementing new trade barriers while G7 leaders had long worked to eliminate barriers.
Instead of mending fences or focusing on mutual interests, Trump went on the attack:
We pay a price for Trump’s behavior—American officials get a cold shoulder when we need a foreign partner’s help on something.
Besides his insults, Trump is damaging our relationships with allies and our long-term security with threats and punitive actions. For instance,
Some of our allies have learned how to play Trump, rather than waiting for an attack. For instance, after watching dictators flatter Trump, Israel’s leaders have similarly stroked his ego to get what they want. They’ve named settlements after him and found other ways to appeal to his vanity to get concessions. This shouldn’t become the norm for U.S. foreign relations any more than Trump’s insults should.
Remember that our foreign policy—the relationships we build and the actions we take to deter countries out to harm us—is the way we ensure our security. Contrary to what Trump says, our friends aren’t taking advantage of us. And we need them. Unfortunately, however, they no longer trust us, thanks to Trump’s insults, lies, bullying, and erratic conduct. Many are planning to either live without us or deal with us as a rival.
In the past, the United States has shaped world history. Winston Churchill recognized this in appealing for America’s help to turn the tide of World War II. He wrote: “How heavily do the destinies of this generation hang upon the government and the people of the United States… Will the United States throw their weight into the scales of peace and law and freedom while time remains…?”
The question is whether we’re still willing to weigh in for the cause of freedom or be spectators instead. Would we rather be in “a small club of thugs” than “a big club of free nations”? The world doesn’t know which way we’ll go. Surveys show our international reputation has taken a nosedive under Trump. Others believe we’re failing to step up to address global concerns. Positive views of the U.S. are at a record low, according to the Pew Research center.
Henry Kissenger said that “the goals of America’s past—peace, stability, progress and freedom—will have to be sought in a journey that has no end.” We and our leaders have to choose clearly between right and wrong, friend and foe. In that, Trump has failed us.
America’s Founding Fathers worried about mob rule overtaking our democratic system. They viewed Ancient Greece as an example of how self-government can fail. Greece was a direct democracy, where the majority ruled; citizens voted in an assembly. However, a mob mentality eventually took over. Overcome by passions, the people could be stampeded by the majority into disastrous decisions.
A turning point came in 427 BC. Athens was at war and there was a debate over how to respond when one of their allies joined Athens’ enemy, Sparta. Some wanted to slaughter everyone in the rebel city; others wanted to win them over. One speaker, Cleon, a rich bully, who shouted and used abusive language, argued for slaughtering the rebels. The audience was split, but reason eventually prevailed and an atrocity was averted. However, mob assemblies prevailed in subsequent instances—Greece annihilated the inhabitants of an island and later put Socrates to death. The country soon succumbed to tyranny.
Our democracy also faces a turning point. The tone of our national discourse has deteriorated into vitriol. We’ve split into ideological camps. But we face critical decisions that require us to engage in civil debate and compromise.
Our democracy, with its boundaries on majority rule, is being tested. We have or own Cleon in Donald Trump—a foul-mouthed populist politician who uses rhetoric to attack and incite. We are suffering several harmful consequences:
A president’s words are important because, not only do they speak for the nation, they set the tone of our national conversation. They influence how we participate in self-government, meet challenges, and solve problems. They foster unity or division.
The words of our presidents—their writings and speeches—are compiled in volumes called The Public Papers of the Presidents, which are on display near the official entrance to the White House. The words in these volumes shaped our nation and the world. For instance, Abraham Lincoln’s words helped heal the wounds of the Civil War. Rather than inspiring national unity, however, Trump’s words further polarized us and weakened democracy.
His presidential papers will begin with the gloomy portrait of the country—a scene of “American carnage”—painted in his inaugural address: of mothers and children trapped in poverty, factories decaying, our education system failing our children, and rampant crime. And while we hand out money to other countries, they steal our innovations and destroy our jobs.” Trump vowed that under his administration, Americans would start “winning again” and be “unstoppable.”
While these scripted remarks were aggrieved and gloomy in tone, they were far more articulate than most of what Trump says, which is unscripted, crude and divisive.
Trump’s words encourage insult and animosity. In his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump memorably described his Democratic opponent as “a nasty woman”—however, he’s proven to be a truly nasty man as president.
Trump’s words are sowing division among Americans. His words migrate from his tweets to people’s conversations at home and at work. We’re more partisan than ever. Our divisions mean we don’t trust each other or our government and we’re pessimistic about the country’s future—looking ahead to 2050, we envision further economic disparity, decline, and division. A Pew Research survey found one thing we do agree on: that Trump has changed the tone of our national discourse for the worse.
Trump’s take-no-prisoners style gets in the way of accomplishing his goals—he’d can’t get agreement in Congress on even the most innocuous issues. There might be more hope for a spirit of bipartisanship if Trump didn’t treat Democrats as enemies to be destroyed. Many times, while Trump’s aides are making progress in negotiating an issue, Trump torpedoes the effort by public attacking those his aides are negotiating with.
For example, the issue of improving the nation’s crumbling infrastructure has widespread, bipartisan support and could have been a success for Trump. However, he jettisoned his talking points for a meeting with Democratic leaders and went on a diatribe because he’d seen something on cable that angered him. He stormed out of the meeting, saying he wouldn’t talk until they stopped investigating him.
A worse trait than Trump’s desire to divide people and pick fights is his dishonesty.
He constantly makes wild claims and spreads clearly false information. While some dismiss this as just his style, too many others believe whatever he says because he’s the president. Of course, everything Trump says isn’t a lie, but much of it is. According to a Washington Post analysis, he made eleven thousand false claims in nine hundred days in office, which averaged about ten per day.
His falsehoods range from white lies to big, obvious ones such as his insistence at times that he won the popular vote. More problematic are lies underlying policy—for instance, that he’s reduced crime or he’s building the wall—and lies that shape public attitudes. He damages our democratic institutions when he persuades people that, for instance, the FBI is corrupt, the media are the “enemy of the people,” or the judicial system or elections are rigged.
Nonetheless, Trump “spreads lies he hears. He makes up new lies to spread. He lies to our faces. He asks people around him to lie.” His spokespeople try to avoid admitting the president was wrong, which leads to more convoluted and misleading statements. Rather than trying to sort it out, it’s easier for the public to either believe everything he says or reject everything as a lie.
Trump is distorting our perceptions of truth. To Trump, there’s no objective truth. If people believe something, then it’s true. “A tree is only a tree to him if we all agree it’s a tree. If he can convince us it’s a sheep, then it is a sheep.”
Senior advisor Kellyanne Conway memorably described this as presenting “alternative facts.” She argued, in effect, that whatever the White House says must be true. As a result, she and other spokespeople have become “reality contortionists” to please Trump.
Trump’s supporters believe his lies because of their confirmation bias, a human tendency, now abetted by social media, to interpret new information in a way that supports our existing views. Trump exploits this by reinforcing his supporters’ prejudices with false information. For instance, if you think government is corrupt, you’ll believe Trump’s conspiracy theories about a Deep State that’s out to destroy him.
It’s increasingly difficult for citizens to find common ground because they can’t agree on what’s true. We can’t solve problems when we can’t agree on the facts about the problems. Lies that are repeated often enough gradually change public perceptions of what’s true. This can create chaos in a free society. When we’ve lost our ability to reason and separate truth from falsehoods, we’ll have no defense against authoritarianism and other threats to democracy.
Our last hope for truth and our bulwark protecting democracy is a free press—which Trump also is working relentlessly to undermine.
He’s conducting an all-out battle against journalists. While many Republicans have no problem with what they see as retaliation for a longstanding media bias against their party, the media, despite their flaws, have a vital role in a democracy that’s constitutionally protected. As an entity that can’t be censored, they’re our defense against government overreach.
Since Trump can’t censor news organizations and journalists, he’s worked to discredit them by labeling their reporting as “fake news,” meaning lies. He applies it to inaccurate reporting, but more often to any reporting that criticizes him or makes him look bad—in other words, anything he doesn’t like. He’s seethed at the coverage he gets and considered ways to retaliate, from cutting off access for White House correspondents who displease him to suggesting federal investigations into reporting.
Trump has warped views on free speech. He contends that mainstream media coverage isn’t free speech. Rather, it’s “crooked” and “dishonest” for writing something “bad” about whatever Trump considers to be a good thing. However, freedom of speech includes, by definition, the freedom to criticize a president or say something the president doesn’t like.
As time went on, Trump escalated his anti-media rhetoric, branding journalists as “the enemy of the people”—a term the Soviet Union used when it jailed and tortured journalists who reported truthfully about the totalitarian state. When Trump first started using the phrase, the Senate passed a bipartisan resolution condemning it.
But Trump’s media-bashing is having the effect he wants—over half of the Republican voters polled in the spring of 2018 agreed with the president that the press is “the enemy of the people”; only 37% believed a free press is “an important part of democracy.”
This doesn’t bode well for our ability to recognize and accept the truth. Not long after the poll, a man sent pipe bombs to thirteen media organizations and personalities, whom Trump had attacked by name. It was “a chilling example” of how Trump’s words can lead to real-life consequences.
To guard against the danger of a mob mentality taking over government, incited by an unscrupulous leader, the Founders built in certain protections for rational debate. They created a representative government instead of a direct democracy and set elections every few years to avoid the passions of the moment.
However, elected leaders are no longer insulated from swings in the public mood. Digital communication via social media and email means people can harass their representatives around the clock, attacking every word or vote.
Under this pressure, members of Congress are cooperating less and are increasingly adopting the confrontational tone of their critics. Rather than working toward compromise, many try to browbeat opponents into silence.
Trump builds a mob mentality with his overheated rhetoric, then exploits it. Delighting in the way his followers rally to his causes, he uses social media to inflame them to attack anyone who criticizes him. Irrationality overcomes truth as Trump’s own “fake news” becomes instant reality to those who believe it. His lies are retweeted by tens of thousands of his followers before fact-checkers can mobilize. Digital mobs with Trump’s lies as their “pitchforks” know no limits.
Trump’s staff share responsibility when they egg him on, helping to start Twitter wars, disparage critics, and incite followers about a new cause. Trump and his team know they can easily make people angry and they do it. The craziness migrates from the digital to real world at Trump’s rallies, where he deliberately incites crowds with pre-tested incendiary one-liners and attacks on his enemies.
For instance, at a Florida rally, he expressed mounting frustration about illegal immigration, finally asking the crowd, “How do you stop these people?” “Shoot them,” someone shouted. Trump laughed: “That’s only in the panhandle you can get away with that statement.” He uses such “jokes” to signal approval. (At one time, Trump actually did propose shooting people at the border for rock-throwing. Defense Department officials had to convince him that the military’s rules of engagement didn’t allow opening fire on unarmed civilians.)
While it’s difficult for Republicans to acknowledge, there’s no escaping the fact that Trump’s words often carry a strong racial animus. During the campaign, fellow Republicans called Trump a “race-baiting xenophobic bigot.” Nothing in his attitude has changed—his views are ingrained. For example, when it comes to immigration, the people he wants to welcome are white, wealthy, and European, while those he wants to keep out are from Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East.
At a minimum, his language alienates people from each other and feeds into “hateful groupthink.” Extremists are adopting his language to promote their movements. The mass shooter at the El Paso Walmart wrote that he was “defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion”—Trump constantly uses the word “invasion” when talking about immigration.
While Trump isn’t to blame for such reprehensible actions, he’s responsible for the tone he sets, for choosing words that inflame and divide, and for creating a hostile climate that can nurture violence.
Three-quarters of Americans think “elected officials should avoid using heated language because it could encourage violence.” The question is whether Trump’s incendiary rhetoric will bring about what the Founders feared: a mob mentality that brings down our democracy.
The author characterizes freedom of the press as our nation’s last hope for sorting truth from falsehood and as an essential defense against a tyrannical leader.
How do you define freedom of the press? Why do you think it’s important—or why not?
President Trump often calls media reports he doesn’t like “fake news” and he has called journalists “the enemy of the people.” What do you think he means by this and why do you agree or disagree?
What are your primary sources of news and information? Among your sources, which do you trust most and why? How do you test the accuracy of what you read and hear?
There is a deep ideological and partisan divide in our country. It is partly driven by “confirmation bias,” or the tendency to interpret information in a way that supports our preexisting views. Social media, politicians, and partisan commentators play to this bias.
Test your confirmation bias. Think of a topic that you get fired up about—what is your strongest belief about this topic and why?
Now Google your belief statement, checking it against multiple sources, including fact-checking websites, to test its accuracy. In what ways is your belief accurate and inaccurate?
How can you reword your belief to reflect facts and nuance? How can being alert to confirmation bias affect your future conversations and reactions on the topic?
Trump was the candidate Republicans didn’t want. In the field of seventeen GOP primary candidates in 2016, Trump was nearly everyone’s seventeenth pick. At first, most in the party ridiculed him. His comments were crazy and his candidacy seemed like a stunt.
The ridicule turned to frantic criticism, as they started to realize he had a chance of being nominated. “It was a clown car that became a slow-motion accident—funny at first but soon horrific.”
Republican elected officials had harsh assessments about Trump, including:
Among Republicans today, Trump critics are few. In the administration, most Steady Staters and people willing to stand up to Trump are gone. What’s left are defenders and pleasers.
As an example of what can happen when the president’s advisors become sycophants, consider Trump’s response to Hurricane Dorian. First, he stated incorrectly that Alabama was in the storm’s path when it wasn’t. He refused to admit he was wrong. Trump displayed an old posterboard of the stormtrack that had been marked with a Sharpie to make it look like the storm was still projected to hit Alabama. He was mocked and got even angrier. But rather than urge him to issue a correction, many aides were eager to help him perpetuate the lie. At his request, they issued statements and data points disputing the reality, which of course, made things worse.
Trump’s original Republican critics were right about him. Their words remain valid, although the ethics of the people who uttered them have changed.
Over the years, in his business and television career, Trump built “an island of misfit apprentices.” During the campaign he collected even more—the campaign was “a magnet for third-rate talent.” While many of these people accompanied him to the White House, experienced political hands also were able “to push many of the lackeys aside.”
However, with the decline of the Steady State today, another group is on the rise: apologists.
Chief among them is Mick Mulvaney, who traveled a long way from vehement Trump critic to director of the Office of Management and Budget to acting chief of staff. His approach has been to “Let Trump be Trump.” Rather than challenging the president’s awful ideas, he urges staff to make them work or make them more acceptable. Mulvaney, who had blasted Trump as “a terrible human being,” now seeks to make him a bit less bad.
Embarrassing errors have multiplied.For instance, in his desire to get U.S. troops out of Afghanistan at any cost, Trump almost went through with a plan to bring Taliban leaders to Camp David to work on a deal—on the eve of September 11. Of course, the Taliban had once harbored 9-11 terrorists.
Instead of pushing back on bad ideas, ambitious apologists are busy stabbing each other in the back and jockeying for open positions. Many unscrupulous people have made their way to the head of the class—they’ll soon be subpoenaed.
An authoritarian leader typically surrounds himself with sycophants who share certain characteristics. In his book The Road to Serfdom, on how free societies devolve into totalitarianism, Austrian philosopher and economist Friedrich Hayek outlines those characteristics—which are an apt description of the people increasingly dominating Trump’s inner circle.
While Trump isn’t a dictator, as some critics have claimed, his authoritarian tendencies set him apart from almost any past president.
In a chapter is titled “Why the Worst Get on Top,” Hayek says authoritarians seek those who:
Such a team will be unfailingly loyal to an authoritarian leader and will implement his or her policies without question. They understand that doing what they know is wrong when the leader requires it is the path to promotion. Exactly these sorts of unquestioning followers, who share Trump’s animosities, have risen to the top in his world.
As noted previously, some of today’s apologists are the same people who raised alarms about Trump’s potential election. What turned them into his lackeys? The apologists are motivated by three things, which Hayek identified: power, tribal loyalty, and fear.
1) They believe allying themselves with Trump will bring them power, influence, and status. They’ll do anything and excuse anything to get it. Some hope for financial power—lucrative positions after leaving the administration. Trump keeps dissatisfied people compliant with mentions of future employment. Others revel in the power of influence—getting Trump on the phone, flying with him, being complimented in a presidential tweet. For officials seeking reelection, Trump’s approval builds support at home and deters primary challengers—“It’s easier to win with the bully on your side.”
2) Trump’s apologists often are motivated by utter devotion. Trump told former FBI director James Comey, “I need loyalty. I expect loyalty.” As he’s demonstrated, Trump expects loyalty even from people in administration positions that are supposed to be independent of political influence—for instance, the attorney general and the chairman of the Federal Reserve. Anyone who doesn’t demonstrate his or her personal submission will be on Trump’s firing list. Remember the televised cabinet meeting, early in his administration, where members, one-by-one, were required to praise him?
A Brigham Young University study found that loyalty to a group is a stronger driver of opinion than personal ideology. This could explain why so many Republicans support Trump—it’s because he’s their party’s president, not because they share his beliefs. Trump “has created a true cult of personality. Whether he is right or wrong, the tribe must protect him, even if that means forsaking their principles.”
3) Some Trump apologists are driven by fear—of Trump’s criticism, retribution, or fear of losing a job. As noted earlier, Trump wields fear to manage people. For example, he taught potential turncoats a lesson with his treatment of former chief strategist Steve Bannon. Trump sought to cut off Bannon’s Republican donors and get friends to drop him. He barred aides from speaking to Bannon and demanded they denounce him publicly. In addition, Trump likes threatening allies, spreading termination rumors, and even going after defectors’ family members. Typically, his targets capitulate.
To identify a Trump apologist, just look for the people in the room who are smiling and nodding as he goes off on an angry tirade. You don’t have to attend a White House meeting to see it—from your living room, you can see it on television. Trump often invites the media to cover such meetings to demonstrate his power over those in the room.
Trump has two kinds of apologists:
1) The sycophant: This person is a “true believer,” who fell instantly for Trump and demonstrates admiration by buying anything with Trump’s name on it, whether Trump Stakes or Trump Vodka. Sycophants are regulars at the Trump International Hotel near the White House. They eat up his talking points, slurs, and denigration of opponents. They’re driven by both a desire for power and tribalism. They’re frequently on television defending him, regardless of how much the abase themselves doing it. They’ve crossed “a moral and logical Rubicon to serve Trump’s media cravings.”
2) The silent abettor: This person knows what’s going on in the Trump administration is wrong, but doesn’t say anything. Silent abettors are motivated by the desire for power and by fear, having subordinated their principles to self-interest.
It’s disheartening how many on Trump’s staff and in the Republican Party are staying silent when their voices are so urgently needed to speak up for good government and against bad policy. They could make a difference, not necessarily by speaking publicly, but by challenging him at meetings. Ultimately, speaking up is a matter of self-interest because those who don’t will end up before the television cameras defending the indefensible.
Trump apologists will deny everything in this book and Trump will direct them to do so—but would they deny politically motivated actions by the White House under oath? That’s something Congress may want to consider.
Voters should be concerned about the rise of apologists in the Trump White House, especially the bad policy decisions they’ll enable and the conduct and prejudices they’ll affirm.
Although members of Congress have a constitutional duty to scrutinize and criticize the president, Republican members haven’t stepped up to criticize Trump when he deserves it. If they can’t applaud him, they go silent. Instead of speaking up when it’s mattered most, they’ve become sycophants and silent abettors.
All the GOP officials quoted at the beginning of this chapter have become apologists:
They’ve forgotten their oath is to the U.S. Constitution, rather than to Trump or their party. Republicans who remember their oath and have spoken out against Trump are a vanishing breed: Mitt Romney, Justin Amash, Paul Ryan. Maybe there are others who share the concerns raised in this book and will find the courage to speak.
Nonetheless, it won’t be enough. Dissenters have “all waited too long to speak out, and haven’t spoken forcefully enough. Myself included.”
There’s no doubt about the verdict on Donald Trump. Despite a number of accomplishments, Trump is:
Trump “deserves to be fired.” The Steady State can’t fix the situation. The question is how best to remove him from office. Any option other than an election should only be considered as a “last resort.”
Frustration with Trump or dismay shouldn’t push us to take extreme measures. From the beginning of his presidency, those who hate Trump have entertained fantasies of an early end to his presidency—for instance, the following scenarios:
We shouldn’t wish on our nation the kind of crisis these measures would provoke.
Inside and outside the administration, people have wondered, what if Trump were to do something so bad he’d have to resign immediately in the face of widespread condemnation?
A few senior advisors even considered giving him enough rope to hang himself—for instance, letting him fire special counsel Robert Mueller and the leaders of the Justice Department. But while Trump has acted in ways harmful to the country, it would be unethical for aides to encourage bad behavior in order to punish it. Encouraging a wrong is the same as participating in it.
The few remaining members of the Steady State feel a duty to the country to keep the presidency on track and keep Trump from doing things that are self-destructive.
What if the president were mentally unfit to carry out the duties of the office? The Constitution’s Twenty-Fifth Amendment provides a path to removal, but the consequences of taking it are almost unimaginable.
However, at one point, the idea came up in informal conversation. In the weeks after Trump fired FBI director Comey, his “behavior was so erratic …that a number of administration officials worried about his mental state.”
Under the amendment, if Vice President Pence and a majority of the cabinet believed Trump couldn’t perform his duties, they could remove him by providing the Senate president and the Speaker of the House with a “written declaration” that the president is unable to perform his duties and the vice president will immediately become acting president.
This was not an action White House officials were preparing to take. While nearly everyone agreed it was irresponsible to speculate, concerns were so strong that they:
If a majority of the cabinet were prepared to remove Trump and replace him with Pence, “there is no doubt” that he would sign on. However, there was a grave downside: It would be viewed as a coup and create civil unrest.
For this reason, the option “wasn’t seriously contemplated.” While there are continuing concerns about Trump’s temperament, conversations about the Twenty-Fifth Amendment have ended. Trump’s strongest critics should also give up the idea. It should be reserved for when the president is truly unable to do the job, not when we don’t like his performance.
As this book was written, an impeachment inquiry was underway into whether the president abused the power of his office for political ends and obstructed justice.
No one should take joy in it—impeachment inquiries are divisive and difficult for the country. We should avoid politicizing the process by allowing dislike for Trump to outweigh the facts. There’s disturbing evidence of misconduct, including Trump’s demand that Ukraine’s president investigate a political opponent and his efforts to improperly influence the Russia investigation.
It’s up to Congress to decide whether they rise to the level of impeachable offenses and justify removal from office.
Rather than hoping Trump is guilty and wishing further division on the country, we should allow the process to play out and demand that it be handled objectively, following the facts where they lead. Democrats shouldn’t rush to judgment and Republicans shouldn’t try to block justice.
While the allegations have yet to be resolved, no one, generally speaking, should be surprised that Trump has ended up in this position. He puts his interests above those of the country. He constantly comes up with ways to skirt the law to get what he wants—more stories will surface in the years ahead. The idea that presidents shouldn’t use their power for personal gain is completely alien to him.
Reelection would remove any remaining constraints on his behavior, freeing him to do what he wants, regardless of the law or national interest. Unless Congress finds that he violated his oath of office and removes him, there’s only one option left—and it’s the best one—for firing Trump, that is for the people to defeat him at the ballot box.
In an essay supporting a draft U.S. Constitution, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the president’s continuance in office should depend only on the will of the people expressed at the ballot box.
The will of the people is the best answer to the problem we face today. Our democratic process is defined by public debate and elections to keep leaders in check. The voters must examine Trump’s performance and decide whether he’s fit for the office and whether his conduct reflects the nation’s values. Each of us has the responsibility to decide.
Yet in the past, many have abdicated the responsibility to others. While three-quarters of our population is eligible to vote, voter turnout is about 50%. If the pattern holds true for the 2020 presidential election, half the country will decide for us—and define us.
We will have had four years to assess Donald Trump, to determine whether he’s the most qualified candidate, whether he has a viable plan for the future, has a record of success, and whether he reflects who we are and how we want our nation to be.
Those are yes or no decisions. However, there’s also a “yes, but” option: Yes, he reflects who we are, but not what we want for the future. Maybe the 2016 election and the subsequent four years reflected our country’s divisions—maybe we got the president we deserved at the time, but now we want someone who appeals to our better natures; we want to go in a new direction.
If Trump is removed by impeachment or defeated in a close election, there’s reason for concern that he’ll refuse to go.
Trump has become enamored of the perks and the power of the office—from his ability to get what he wants at the push of a button to the pageantry of the presidency. “Trump relishes the cocoon he’s built. He will not exit quietly or easily.” That’s the reason he talks about coups and a potential civil war. He’s providing a narrative for his supporters, which could end badly.
He’s trying to generate fear, telling voters at a rally, “If you don’t support me, you’re going to be so goddamn poor. You have no choice but to vote for me because your 401(k), everything is going to be down the tubes. So whether you love me or hate me, you gotta vote for me.”
We can’t afford to be swayed by threats and assertions that we have no choice but him. Trump should be fired.
The consequences of reelecting Trump couldn’t be more dire. Take it from someone who’s seen the impact of his leadership first hand. His administration is a catastrophe, the result of his weak morals. Any accomplishments are far outweighed by the damage he’s done to the nation. Another four years could very well sink the ship.
We’re fortunate there hasn’t been a major international crisis so far in Trump’s tenure, but it’s only a matter of time. Anyone tempted to vote for him despite the scandals and evidence of misconduct might want to consider, in the event of a crisis, do we want our nuclear arsenal in the hands of a man who disdains intelligence briefings?
Fortunately, candidates more honorable (and stable) than Trump have stepped up. Hopefully, additional candidates who appeal to a broad spectrum of voters in our polarized political climate will join them. Democrats will make it difficult for Republicans to vote against Trump if they nominate a candidate whose views don’t resonate with mainstream America. If emotion overcomes reason, Trump’s fear-mongering and conservative lip service will seem preferable to a turn toward socialism.
For Republicans, the difficult choice will be to:
If we Republicans had courage, we’d consider replacing Trump on the ticket. Leading party officials would do so if a strong candidate stepped up. Republicans in Washington talk about this in private, even while they praise Trump publicly. If Republicans refuse to take a stand against Trump and Democrats nominate a divisive candidate, we’ll desperately need an independent alternative who seeks common ground.
One last way voters can push back against Trump is to pay attention to the rest of the ballot and elect senators and representatives who are willing to act as leaders by keeping Trump in check and holding him accountable.
In the end, if anything good comes from these years of turmoil, it will be that it pushes us to start bridging our divisions and recommitting ourselves to America’s ideals.
Remember the bravery of Flight 93 passengers and our nation’s unity after 9-11? We put aside our differences and put country first, inspired by a president’s message of unity and resolve.
But imagine what it would have been like had President Bush expressed skepticism, questioned whether al-Qaeda really coordinated the attacks, dismissed the intelligence community’s conclusions, and fueled conspiracy theories by calling the attacks a hoax. Or suppose he declared, “Osama bin Laden says it’s not al-Qaeda; I don’t see why it would be.” Imagine the president insisting it would be a mistake to pursue al-Qaeda because he wanted to build a “great relationship” with them.
Basically, that was Trump’s response when Russian hackers attacked the United States in 2016. Instead of inspiring Americans’ patriotism, it stirred strife.
In both instances, our enemies wanted to create chaos in our democracy and we had a choice of allowing it or not. The passengers on Flight 93 chose not to. Their courage exemplified American determination. We came together rather than letting terrorism win by sowing fear and division.
The contrast with Trump’s reaction to Russia’s election interference is stark. Ultimately, many made the choice to follow his lead and descend into the muck of conspiracies, social media wars, and alienation of friends and neighbors. Our response to the attack led to unprecedented distrust and incivility.
Our problem is bigger than just Washington politics and the next election. We can see the bogeyman who’s disrupting civility by looking in the mirror.
It’s not our representatives but those of us who pick them. Our democratic system—whether based on compromise and civility or anger and partisanship—is a reflection of us: Their cheap attacks and soundbites echo the demeaning comments and memes we spread on social media. We have the president and Congress we deserve.
We can still “drain the swamp” by firing Trump and electing a new Congress. But we need to change as well. As a nation, we need to reflect on who we once were, who we are, and who want to be.
We are headed for civic and moral collapse because we’ve lost an understanding of our history.
Most Americans don’t know why and how our democracy was created and how it works. Many can’t name their state representatives or members of Congress and many don’t vote.
We need a civic revival, in which we relearn the lessons of our nation’s founding and apply them to our modern, technologically driven world. We need to:
We have two monumental choices:
We’ll make the first choice at the ballot box and second by our conduct in the days and years to come. If we fail, we’ll go down in history as the generation that allowed the light of liberty to go out. “This is my warning: Every generation before us passed the test. Our charge is to do the same.”
“Anonymous” argues that Trump’s words “corrode national civility” and that this matters because we can’t solve our problems unless we can talk to each other respectfully.
How do you define civility and how would you assess the level of national civility today?
Think of the last conversation you had with someone about politics. Was it a civil conversation—what made it civil or uncivil? How did you end up feeling?
What is the value of civil conversation? What can you do to encourage civility and constructive discussion the next time politics comes up?
“Anonymous” argues that the people we elect reflect us and our values, that if Washington is mean, petty, and dysfunctional (a swamp), it’s because we are. He contends we need a “civic revival.”
Why do you agree or disagree with the above statement? How would you characterize the climate in Washington today? How does it compare with that of your community and life?
To create a civic revival, the author recommends reclaiming truth, re-learning civility, recreating face-to-face community, and teaching democracy. Which do you think is most important and how can you advance this goal? What goals would you add?
The author’s warning is that the light of liberty is in danger of going out, unless we act to preserve our democracy. What can you, as an individual, do about this?