What is a demagogue?

Last week USA Today called Mr. Trump a “dangerous demagogue.”  Earlier in the week, the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times in its endorsement called him “a thin-skinned demagogue.”  Dozens of other editorial boards and commentators have used the “D-word.”   But what exactly does it mean?

Demagoguery is a problem implicit in democracy, an occasional illness, if you will, to which democracies are particularly prone. Democracy gives power to the demos, or people, and from time to time the people fall prey to the illusions peddled by a strongman who manipulates them emotionally with the goal of transcending ordinary political conventions or constitutional limits.  We call such a person a “demagogue.” Hamilton warned in The Federalist against leaders who begin “paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.”  

The demagogue label is thus highly elastic. The critical question is how to distinguish between a charismatic populist politician and a dangerous demagogue. What is that line and when is it crossed? Among political scientists and historians, there seems to be a consensus that when a politician exhibits each of the following six characteristic behaviors, he or she has crossed the line and can be considered a demagogue:   

Inflammatory language. The speech of the demagogue is designed to excite popular passions and foreclose reasoned discussion; as Michael Singer, who wrote a recent study of the demagogue, put it, “bringing maximal heat and minimal light to the public discourse.”  

Lots of heat, but little light, is an apt description of the Trump stump speech, and certainly fits what we heard coming from the Trump side of the stage at the first debate. The New York Times analyzed all 95,000 words uttered by Trump during one week, and concluded: “The most striking hallmark was Mr. Trump’s constant repetition of divisive phrases, harsh words and violent imagery.”

Exploitation of popular prejudice and false belief. The demagogue appeals to the darker side of human nature, targeting the lowest common denominator in a culture, especially fear, resentment, anger, and hatred for a group of “others.”

Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson argues, “Cynically exploiting fear is an art.  And Trump is a Rembrandt of demagoguery.” Trump’s message is aimed at the darkest corners of the American psyche. By dismissing mutual respect and human dignity as only so much “political correctness,” he brought forth an eruption of latent anger, prejudice, hate, and misogyny, and rode this foul wave to the nomination. 

Intolerance of criticism. The demagogue lashes out against every slight. Rarely content with simply disagreeing with opponents, he seeks to undermine their legitimacy. The demagogue seeks to silence or eliminate critics.  

And so we see with Trump, whose “birther” libel was irresistible for its potential to de-legitimize President Obama, who wants to change the libel laws in order to silence his media critics, and who could not resist using a presidential debate to pursue a long-standing feud with another celebrity. In the same analysis of a week’s worth of Trump talk, the Times reported: “Mr. Trump tends to attack a person rather than an idea or a situation, like calling political opponents ‘stupid’ (at least 30 times), ‘horrible’ (14 times), ‘weak’ (13 times) . . . .”

Incitement to, or tolerance of, violence. Even before he embraces actual organized violence, the demagogue typically “green lights” violent acts by his supporters, and titillates his audiences by hints of violence to come. 

Trump signaled his approval of violence at his rallies (“maybe he should have been roughed up” (about a protester assaulted by Trump supporters), “I’d like to punch him in the face”).  His speeches are infused with words “kill,” “destroy” and “fight.” At an event in Raleigh, Mr. Trump was asked by a 12-year-old girl, “I’m scared — what are you going to do to protect this country?” His reply:  “You know what, darling? You’re not going to be scared anymore. They’re going to be scared.”

Rejection of normal rules of political conduct. The demagogue thrills his supporters by bucking the norms of political life. He lies with impudence, validates previously off-limits calumnies against the targeted “other,” and declines to follow rules and procedures, accusing the established order of being corrupt.  

Here Trump provides a textbook model, with a wholly unconventional campaign that violates every prior standard of acceptable political behavior, and repeated accusations that the process is corrupt and “rigged” against him.

Belief that the passions of the people justify violation of the constitution and laws. Demagogues typically do not understand or accept that in a constitutional democracy, the will of the people is limited by the rule of law.  

It doesn’t matter how many people support closing mosques or registering Muslims, it violates the constitution and cannot be done.   But Mr. Trump insists that it be done, and justifies it as the will of the people as embodied by him. When challenged that our troops might well refuse to obey an illegal order to kill the families of ISIS fighters, Trump replied:  “They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me.  Believe me. . . .  If I say do it, they’re going to do it.”

*   *   *

The rise of a modern American demagogue has been expected for a long time. In 1997 the late philosopher Richard Rorty predicted that eventually “something will crack. The . . . electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for . . . One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past forty years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion . . . All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet.”  

As so many thoughtful commentators have noted, many of Trump’s most ardent supporters share some genuine grievances and anxieties. And in many ways the system has failed them, and failed us all. But the embrace of a demagogue, no matter how valid the popular resentments that fuel him, always ends badly. Always. At some point, even his most die-hard supporters will realize, as Mark Singer put it, “they’ve been sold out by a huckster who coveted their votes only for the sake of his colossal self-regard. And that, all along, he had nothing real to offer.” 

What is fascism?

The neo-conservative Brookings fellow and Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan wrote that the attempt “to treat Donald Trump as a normal political candidate would be laughable were it no so perilous to the republic.” He called him “a singular threat to our democracy.” This is the critical point missing from most media coverage of Trump. So what exactly does Kagan mean?

What he means is that Trump presents a risk that goes beyond his lack of the skills and temperament necessary to be president. The risk is that, as a successful demagogue, he becomes the vehicle by which the virus of fascism, the great scourge of the 20th century, is unleashed in the 21st century.    

While speaking about my first novel, Christian Nation, I realized that a large part of the American public had only a vague idea of the meaning of the words “fascist” and “demagogue.” In this post I explore the meaning of fascism, and in the next I will review what we mean when we accuse a politician of demagoguery. 

It’s not easy to paint a clear picture of fascism, which is a type of nationalist authoritarianism.  It takes on the character of the place and age in which it arises. But wherever and whenever it erupts, fascism generally is characterized by six features: 

·      Nationalism.  Fascism glorifies “the nation,” and is almost always nativist and xenophobic.

·      Resentment of “others.” Fascism usually is based on a narrative of exaggerated humiliations designed to create a sense of victimhood. This narrative in turn always requires someone to blame, whether it be minorities in general, or a specific group like Jews, gays, intellectuals, or immigrants.

·      Fetishization of strength and power; contempt for the rule of law. Fascists and their followers are always marked by the crude worship of strength and machismo. They disdain weakness, which they see as explaining the many humiliations suffered by the nation. They show contempt for the rule of law, which they see as a type of weakness.

·      Aggression. The fetishization of strength and power manifests itself in an approach to foreign and domestic policy that is inevitably aggressive.  Fascism in power endorses violence and almost always results in war.

·      Disdain for the truth. Fascists assert that their core narrative is a type of truth that is “greater” than conventional objective truth. They show contempt for reason and learning. Fascist movements are always characterized by casual and effective lying.

·      Rejection of political convention. Fascist movements transcend and demolish conventional politics. They do not fit neatly on the conventional ideological spectrum. Fascist movements are not about policy, they are about the strongman and his narrative of redressing past insults, restoring national greatness, and eliminating the hated “other.” The fascist disdains the niceties of democratic culture. Because the fascist breaks all the normal rules and conventions of political life, he confounds elites and institutions, which do not know how to deal with him.

The concordance between these six core elements of fascism and the essential features of Trumpism should concern every American, regardless of ideology or politics. Consider each of them in turn:

·      Nationalism. “Make America Great Again” is the archetype of a nationalist slogan. It encompasses Trump’s narrative of decline due to weakness, and of the strongman as redeemer of national destiny (“I alone can fix it.”). “America First” (Trump’s catch-phrase for his foreign policy) was the name of the isolationist anti-Semitic organization that, prior to Pearl Harbor, urged the United States to appease Nazism. Trump has named his policy after America’s last and most disturbing outbreak of proto-fascism.

·      Resentment of “others.” Trump’s narrative is classic:  all will be well if we rid ourselves of the illegals and prevent further immigration. This time it is not Jews, but immigrants in general and Muslims in particular, who bear the blame for economic frustration, national decline, and feelings of insecurity. Trump’s adviser Newt Gingrich called for re-creating the notorious House Un-American Activities Committee to investigate citizens sympathetic to Islamism. Trump tells his most ardent supporters that they are victims of globalization, elites, China, immigrants, and bad trade deals; others are to blame for their troubles. 

·      Fetishization of strength and power; contempt for the rule of law. Trump says that our national humiliation (we are no longer great) is due to weakness: “We have been disrespected, mocked, and ripped off for many many years by people that were smarter, shrewder, tougher.” Of course he admires Putin; I am thunderstruck every time a journalist or pundit finds this to be inexplicable.  Trump admires Putin for his “very strong control over a country,” for his ruthless use of power, and for his authoritarian instincts. Trump’s narrative of strength and weakness is woven into every speech: “the military is going to be so strong” that “nobody is going to mess around with the United States.” And, as is so typical of the proto-fascist, his respect for brute power is matched by his disdain for the restraints posed by the rule of law. In 1989 Trump took out a full-page ad stating “Civil liberties end when an attack on our safety begins.” The New York Times recently gathered the views of legal scholars of all ideological persuasions who concluded that Trump had “a constitutional worldview that shows contempt for the First Amendment, the separation of powers and the rule of law.”

·      Aggression. Given the single axis of the Trump universe (winner/strong vs. loser/weak), it’s no surprise that his policy instincts tend toward the aggressive use of violence, whether the forced deportation of illegal immigrants or, in foreign policy, his promises to: “quickly and decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS,” “take the oil out of Iraq,” use torture “much worse” than waterboarding; and order U.S. troops to assassinate the families of ISIS fighters. Trump’s campaign rhetoric also is typical of nascent fascism, with its veiled approval of violence directed at his enemies (“maybe he should have been roughed up” (about a protester assaulted by Trump supporters), “I’d like to punch him in the face”).

·      Disdain for the truth. Trump’s unprecedented disdain for objective reality is the subject my previous posting, Trump and the truth.

·      Rejection of political convention. In seeking the presidency, Trump broke all the rules: he became a candidate without any prior political record, ran a wholly unconventional campaign, and violated every prior standard of acceptable political behavior. He committed repeated political suicide and yet survived (e.g., calling war hero McCain a loser for being captured, calling Judge Curel a Mexican and thus disqualified, disrespecting a Gold Star mother, etc.). His politics, such as they are, are hard to pin down along the ideological spectrum. His primary opponents and party leadership were confounded and unable to respond effectively. The pundits failed to understand him, and tenaciously predicted his political demise. The elites were in turn condescendingly dismissive and apoplectic. And the people loved it, enough to win him the nomination and perhaps even enough to win him the general election.   

As hard as it is to swallow, there can be no denying that by these six measures, Trumpism is a proto-fascist movement (“proto” in this case meaning rising, or precursor to).   

One reason this is hard to accept is that it requires us to take Trump more seriously than he deserves. But this too is a warning sign. Fascism always tends toward the farcical, and is rarely taken seriously in its early stages. American journalists returning from Germany in the 1930s reported of the fascist leader: "This guy is a clown. He's like a caricature of himself." This was consistent with the view of many Germans, who dismissed him as a self-obsessed “dunderhead,” “fool” and “big mouth.”    

Even so, Trump is no Franco, Hitler, or Mussolini. What he flirts with is a new type of fascism, adapted for the age. Carl Bernstein calls it the “fascinating intersection of celebrity and neo-fascism.” Who would have thought, Kagan asks, that after a long absence, fascism would again rear its head in America, not with jackboots and Nazi salutes, but “with a television huckster, a phony billionaire, a textbook egomaniac.”

Nonetheless, the lessons of history are clear: when politics drifts in the proto-fascist direction, it can no longer be business as usual, and the moral burden of stopping it falls on our individual shoulders, nowhere else.

Character

Accusations about shortcomings in character have become a standard part of every political campaign and in this one many people in good faith raise legitimate questions regarding his opponent’s character.   But the Trump phenomenon has turned the whole character question on its head.   He and his most ardent supporters do not defend against the charges of defective character, instead they celebrate his inversion of the norms of civil society:  greed, vulgarity, boorishness, bullying, ignorance, selfishness, pettiness, short-temper, cruelty, and bold dissembling have become markers of Trump’s toughness, his status, and his solidarity with his supporters.   As Catherine Rampell, writing in the Washington Post (May 16) put it, for Trump “every vice is a virtue.”   This may be unusual in the political realm, but not the celebrity realm, where British philosopher Simon Blackburn observes “the divinity that surrounds our celebrities is scarcely dinted and might even be enhanced by the most absurd behavior.”  After all, what is “reality” TV other than people behaving badly?

Apologies for a particularly long posting, but I believe it is merited by the importance of the subject.  In my last posting I discussed Trump and truthfulness.  What about the other elements of good character? 

To understand what modern pre-Trump Republicans considered the essential elements of good character, I consulted a book written by Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of Education and Chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities, Edward J. Bennett, The Book of Virtues.    Praised by conservative leaders ranging from Margaret Thatcher to Rush Limbaugh, Bennett tells stories that illustrate the meaning of ten human virtues:  self-discipline, compassion, responsibility, friendship, work, courage, perseverance, honesty, loyalty, and faith.   Of course this is not an exhaustive list.  Others, such as André Comte-Sponville in his hugely popular A Small Treatise on the Great Virtues, would add politeness, prudence, temperance, generosity, mercy, gratitude, humility, tolerance, gentleness, humor, and love.

Not all of these virtues are relevant to the job of president (you can be a decent president without humor, friendship, or faith, for example).  And because ambition, expedience, and compromise are at the heart of modern American politics, it certainly does not raise eyebrows when a candidate lacks the full desired measure of loyalty, good faith, fidelity, simplicity, purity, or gentleness. 

Here is my list of the virtues that traditionally have been regarded by both left and right as vital for the person into whose hands we entrust the presidency, the greatest power and responsibility a human being can have:

Self-discipline.   This is the great marker of personal maturity.  It signals that a person has learned to control the tempers, appetites, passions, and impulses we all share.  As Robert Gates, who has served eight presidents and was Secretary of Defense under both Presidents Bush and Obama put it, “when a president shoots off his mouth, there are no do-overs.”  Because every word uttered and action taken by the U.S. president is so enormously consequential, self-discipline, moderation, and self-restraint may be the traits we seek most in candidates for the job.   As has been widely noted, these are traits in which Trump seems most lacking.   For decades, he has demonstrated a lack of inclination, or perhaps inability, to control his impulsiveness.  

Prudence.   Prudence is the quality that tempers toughness and courage.   Toughness and courage also are virtues, but without the tempering effect of prudence, they can turn you into a bullying thug.   The more power you have, the more prudence is required.  Decisions made in anger or by impulse can lead to war or worse.   Prudence is the virtue that counsels care when you are inclined to be reckless, patience when you are inclined to be impulsive, and thoughtful consideration of alternatives when a course of action seems obvious.

Trump seems fueled instead by reckless anger.  He lashes out when minimally provoked.  There is no calibration or tempering of his responses to provocation.   As one prominent psychology professor put it, his personality traits suggest a president who would be “highly combustible . . . [a person] who never thinks twice about the collateral damage he will leave behind.  Tough.  Bellicose. Threatening.  Explosive.”   This is what most of the commentators mean when they say that Trump lacks the “temperament” to be president.

Compassion.  The president leads but also serves, and he or she must have an authentic compassionate interest in the citizenry.  Bennett defines compassion in a way that illuminates why it is often so lacking in narcissists such as Trump.   He writes that it is the virtue “that takes seriously the reality of other persons, their inner lives, their emotions, as well as their circumstances.”  Most narcissists cannot, as Bennett says, “take seriously” the interests of other people, who have no standing in comparison to the narcissist’s own desires.  

And the nexus between compassion and behavior?  A person with compassion, Bennett observes, is unable to treat anyone with “callous disregard.”  Trump appears to treat almost everyone with “callous disregard.”  As his ghostwriter observed, “People are dispensable and disposable in Trump’s world.”  Trump’s meanness, coarseness, crudeness, and vulgarity also are reflections of the absence of empathetic compassion because, as British philosopher Simon Blackburn explains, “Good manners are a small but constant adjustment to the reasonable expectations or needs of others.” 

Note that the narcissist is always a master at creating the illusion of compassion when necessary in order to achieve some desire or to make himself look good.  But narcissists rarely follow through, because their ends are generally served by the announcement of the good deed, and not its actual doing.   Reporters from the Washington Post could find evidence of only $10,000 in actual donations from millions of dollars Trump publicly promised to charities over the past seven years. 

Finally, the energy he inspires in his most ardent supporters is fueled by the antithesis of compassion, which is hate, the ultimate anti-virtue whose corrosive acidity dissolves what is left of our better selves.

Curiosity and Wisdom.   An active curiosity is what drives you to seek out a deeper understanding of a problem and a variety of perspectives, including those that conflict with your own.   Without curiosity, you cannot have knowledge.  And without knowledge, you cannot have wisdom, which is knowledge tempered by judgment and experience.   Tony Schwartz observed in Trump an “absolute lack of interest in anything beyond power and money.”  Trump is not a reader.  His short attention span limits his ability to absorb information.  The Wall Street Journal editorial page observed after the foreign policy forum “he shows so little knowledge about the world that it’s impossible to know how he would react.”  President Bush’s Defense Secretary calls Trump “stubbornly uninformed about the world.”

Humility.    Humility tempers confidence and allows a leader to seek and take advice, admit mistakes, and inspire others.  Trump has none.   Instead, he is an incessant braggart, crippled by the overwhelming vanity of the narcissist (described by Blackburn as “greedy desire for the admiration and envy of others”).  Crippled, because he simply cannot help himself.  His egomania is not a tactic or matter of choice.  His primary campaign consisted in large part of an extended boast about his poll results, but over the years he has bragged on the record about his IQ, his wealth, the size of his penis, even his humility.    On golf:  “Do I hit it long?  Is Trump strong?”  On business:  “Everything we’ve touched has been a big success.”   And this, in front of a national television audience:  “ . . .he referred to my hands -- 'if they're small, something else must be small.' I guarantee you there's no problem. I guarantee."  His book is “number one,” his defunct vodka, “a big success.”  Independent fact checkers at Politico said “his personal and professional boasts . . .rarely measure up when checked against primary sources.”   Thomas Moore called humility “that low, sweet root, from which all heavenly virtues shoot.”  Its absence in Trump may be the single animating source of his other character flaws.

Integrity.   Many of these virtues reinforce each other and resolve into a character trait we call “integrity.”  The idea of integrity has its origins in the concept of wholeness.   Although it includes honesty, it is something much greater than that.  Integrity is a consistency of character governed by a determination to do the right thing.  If your actions are governed by a coherent set of moral principles, then your behavior will be predicable and consistent.   You will do the right thing.   When you lack this kind of integrity, your actions are unpredictable and inconsistent. 

*   *   *          

So what does this brief review of the essential virtues tell us?  Highly conservative Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens, with whom I rarely agree, put it well:  “The central issue in this election isn’t Mr. Trump’s ideas, such as they are.  It’s his character, such as it is.  The sin, in this case, is the sinner.” Or, on the more centrist side of GOP punditry, columnist David Brooks wrote: “Donald Trump is an affront to the basic standards of honesty, virtue and citizenship.  . . . He has already shredded the unspoken rules of political civility that make conversation possible.” 

Neo-conservative commentator Robert Kagan asks the key question that we must all ask ourselves before voting:  “is a man like Trump, with infinitely greater power in his hands [as president], likely to become more humble, more judicious, more generous, less vengeful than he is today, than he has been his whole life?  Does vast power un-corrupt?”

Trump and the Truth

No one has ever doubted that truth and politics are on rather bad terms with each other, and no one, as far as I know, has ever counted truthfulness among the political virtues.

            Hannah Arendt, “Truth and Politics” (1967)

I think the pundits are missing the essential point when they simply call Trump a liar.

First of all, it is hardly a disqualifying attribute. We all are liars. Social life is lubricated by lies (“Thank you, Aunt Martha, it’s a beautiful sweater, I love it.”). Most politicians twist and bend the truth to their purpose. Many have been accomplished liars and the accepted script for contemporary political life calls for pretty constant fib and spin, where the question is how far the politician can depart from the “whole truth” without getting into too much trouble (the Clintons being masters of this). And needless to say many 20th century presidents, including those generally considered a success (FDR, JFK, etc.), lied about all sorts of things.

So what is it about Trump and the truth that is different?

Narcissists rarely behave as if truth is some static objective reality. Instead, the typical narcissist regards as “true” (in the sense of “valid”) that which he says and thinks in the moment, that which makes him look good, and that which will get him what he wants. So for Trump, truth is not the way things are, but the way things ought to be given the overriding validity and importance of the narcissist’s narrative about himself (e.g., I’m the most successful person ever, I’m a winner, I alone can solve our problems). Truth is what it needs to be to get him what he wants. This deep conviction allows the narcissist to stray from the truth without conscience or shame, because a small thing like objective reality is nothing compared to the greater truth of the narcissist’s specialness and the overwhelming imperative to fulfill his desires. As a result, narcissists tend to be relaxed and brilliant liars.  

This typical narcissistic trait is confirmed by those closest to Trump. Tony Schwartz, the ghostwriter of Art of the Deal, observed that lying seemed to be “second nature” to Trump. He reported, “More than anyone else I have ever met, Trump has the ability to convince himself that whatever he is saying at any given moment is true, or sort of true, or at least ought to be true. . . . He has a complete lack of conscience about it.” When confronted with opposing facts, Schwartz said that Trump would double down, repeat himself, and grow belligerent. Schwartz observed this in the mid-1980s and nothing has changed. All of us have observed this pattern repeatedly over the course of the campaign. (See, for example, the transcript of Trump’s radio interview with conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt, who helpfully suggested that perhaps his Obama-as-founder-of-ISIS remarks were metaphorical. “No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS,” Trump replied.  “But . . . he’s trying to kill them,” the host pushed back. “I don’t care.  He was the founder.”)

This core narcissistic trait explains how Trump is able repeatedly to assert the manifestly untrue with enormous conviction and without any of the ticks or signs of embarrassment the rest of us exhibit when lying. It explains how he was able to drift into the dark waters of the birther crackpots and remain impervious to mountains of contrary evidence. The Economist called him “the leading exponent of ‘post-truth’ politics – a reliance on assertions that ‘feel true’ but have no basis in fact.”  

In the case of ordinary politicians in a democracy, the lie is a mainly defensive tool, used only occasionally to hide or deny conduct or circumstances that would be embarrassing or inexpedient. But without conscience or even an underlying preference for objective truth, Trump’s rhetoric drifts constantly between the real and the fictional. When Politico reporters fact-checked 4.6 hours of Trump speeches and press conferences, they found more than five dozen untrue statements, or one every five minutes.

So, crippled by a real disability in relation to truth telling, why has Trump prospered? The great chronicler of 20th century authoritarianism, Hannah Arendt, would not be surprised: “Since the liar is free to fashion his ‘facts’ to fit the profit and pleasure, or even the mere expectations, of his audience, the chances are that he will be more persuasive than the truth teller [emphasis added].” She also observed that in a democracy (i.e., before belief in lies is enforced by an authoritarian state), “deception without self-deception is well-nigh impossible” (i.e., for the liar to succeed, his audiences need to embrace the lies voluntarily). If you doubt the truth of Arendt’s observations, watch and listen to the New York Time’s video compilation of Trump rally audiences here.

So does Trump’s unique disdain for the value of objective truth matter? The answer is yes, it matters a lot. This is because respect for objective truth, and a broad social agreement that politicians and policies can and should be judged by how far they stray from it, is one of our prime defenses against authoritarianism (either of the right or of the left). Hannah Arendt pointed out that in the 20th century authoritarians were more hostile to facts that were inconsistent with their core narratives than they were to opposing political opinions. And one of the turning points on the road to authoritarianism was when objective reality (e.g., Obama’s birthplace or the greenhouse effect) was undermined to become a mere matter of political opinion. So yes, politicians have always lied. But a generalized disdain for objective reality in favor of the “greater truth” of the egomaniacal strongman is the core of what Tom Friedman called “the moral and civic cancer that Trump has [been] injecting into the body politic.”

The Competence Question

I completely understand the longing on the part of some voters for greater competence in our federal government and their instinct that it might be a good idea to turn the whole mess over to a successful businessman. And for the 20.7 million weekly viewers of The Apprentice, Donald Trump was portrayed as the epitome of a successful businessman. So is it true?

There is no doubt that Trump is “successful” in the way that “reality” TV celebrities like Kim Kardashian are successful. And Trump does appear to have managed to turn that celebrity into a fair bit of cash. So he is clearly good at marketing himself, and this skill has translated into his success as a political candidate. But skill at marketing the Trump brand is not the skill required to make the federal government run in a more business-like fashion.    

For that, we need to consider Trump’s record forming and running an actual business. His business empire is famously opaque, and without his personal tax returns we cannot say how much he has grown the company and wealth he inherited from his father (who also co-signed his early contracts, lent him money to get started in Atlantic City, and helped him when he needed bailing out). Today, the Trump Organization itself is small.  It develops, owns, and manages a collection of commercial, residential, and golf course properties and, most distinctively, conducts an active licensing operation that seeks to exploit the Trump brand. A Bloomberg report estimated that the business has no more than a dozen “key staffers.” Surprised by the modest size of the enterprise?  I was.   

Without a window into the Trump Organization’s financial results (it is closely held), what can we glean from the public record? Let’s start with bankruptcy. Any single bankruptcy can be explained by specific circumstances, and even a string of them can be explained by market conditions affecting an entire industry (like casinos). In addition, failure is mother’s milk to an entrepreneur, and a few bankruptcies along the way can be forgiven. But six spread over 25 years? 

            Bankruptcy #1:  Trump Taj Mahal (1991)

            Bankruptcy #2:  Trump Castle (1992)

            Bankruptcy #3:  Trump Plaza and Casino (1992)

            Bankruptcy #4:  Plaza Hotel (1992)

            Bankruptcy #5:  Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts (2004)

            Bankruptcy #6:  Trump Entertainment Resorts (2009, emerging in 2016 with Trump having lost the entirety of his interest)

Whatever you make of Trump’s string of bankruptcies, these turn out to be only the tip of an iceberg of business failure. Consider the following:

Trump Shuttle.   Trump purchased the DC-NY-Boston shuttle in June 1989, with a loan from banks. The aging fleet of 727s was redone with faux luxury interiors, including chromed seatbelt buckles bearing the letter “T” and faux marble sinks with fake gold fixtures in the lavatories. Despite Mr. Trump’s purported business acumen, he failed to realize that chromed Trump seat-belt buckles were not the main things customers wanted from a shuttle airline. The man hired to run Trump Shuttle said in an interview last year that Trump “didn’t understand the business” and “I cringed every time he opened his mouth.” Among other things, Trump accused his competitor, Pan Am, of being unsafe, which was not only untrue, but broke one of the fundamental unwritten rules of the aviation business. The Trump Shuttle never turned a profit. In September 1990 the loans were defaulted and ownership of the airline passed to its creditor banks. Three years after his purchase, in April 1992, the Trump Shuttle ceased to exist.   

Trump Vodka.  Trump chose Drinks America as his partner, a penny-stock company that was not in compliance with SEC requirements, and lent his name in exchange for about half the profits. Branded “the world’s finest super premium vodka,” ads for the garish gold-colored bottle, bearing the tag line, “Success Distilled,” claimed that the spirit would “demand the same respect and inspire the same awe as the international legacy and brand of Donald Trump himself.” Trump promised in 2006 that the T&T (Trump and Tonic) would become the #1 drink in America. Two years later, when the failure of Trump Vodka already was imminent, Trump doubled down: “Everything we’ve touched has been a big success . . . We launched a vodka that became tremendously successful. My book just went to number one and we think the vodka, likewise, will be number one. It’s been one of the most successful launches ever in the history of this business.” In April 2009, when sales had plummeted, the bottle maker had sued over unpaid invoices, and the company was in financial distress, Trump was still speaking publicly about “how well Trump Vodka is doing.” Two years later, in 2011, production of Trump Vodka ceased.  

Other failed ventures:

Trump Mortgage (founded in 2006 with a business plan apparently consisting mainly of the idea “Who knows more about financing than me?” (Trump to CNBC), run by a man hired by Trump who was reported to have been a registered broker for only six days, and shut down within 18 months)

GoTrump.com (an on-line travel service, which he called his “biggest venture to date,” launched 2006, shut down one year later)

Trump University (opened 2005 as a non-accredited for-profit “university;” little more than a “get rich quick” scam, it morphed into “The Trump Entrepreneur Initiative” before ending operations one year later.  In 2013, the New York Attorney General sued Trump and the “university” for $40 million alleging "persistent fraudulent, illegal and deceptive conduct")

  Trump Magazine (launched 2007, failed 18 months later)

Trump Steaks (launched 2007 as the “world’s greatest,” subsequently discontinued (a similar venture involving bottled water, “Trump Ice” also appears to have been abandoned))

Trump: The Game (launched 1989, discontinued one year later; launched an Apprentice-based version in 2005, also failed)

New Jersey Generals/U.S. Football League (acquired team in 1983 and later acquired Houston Gamblers and merged them into the Generals, almost immediately thereafter the league folded, with ESPN reporting “it was Trump’s strategy for the league that is widely considered to have led to its demise.” (See interesting January 2016 article in Esquire, “How Donald Trump Destroyed a Football League.”))

Perhaps you see a trend. Most of these ventures seem to have been based on the conviction (even after repeated evidence that it was untrue) that attaching the Trump name to virtually any product would assure success, without much attention to the substance of the product or other aspects of conventional business planning. Many failed an extraordinarily short time after launch, as if the launch and attendant publicity were the point, with the entrepreneur lacking the attention span to make a sustained effort (as a Trump associate involved in the U.S. Football League stated, "It's all about him and the brand and moving on to the next thing if it doesn't work out.") Too often, the core business idea was to sell the illusion of luxury, not the reality of luxury, in many cases to those who could least afford it. Some ventures, such as Trump University, whether or not adjudicated to be outright frauds, were at the least morally abhorrent, cynically preying on the most vulnerable.

And then there is the question of how Mr. Trump does business. One of the Wall Street Journal’s columnists reports “more than 4,000 lawsuits” and that Trump “routinely shortchange[s] his suppliers.” When I asked a New York real estate insider about Trump’s business reputation, he said that he was regarded as “a joke,” and that “we wouldn’t do business with him.” His Art of the Deal ghostwriter concluded that “almost everything” about Trump’s Hyatt Hotel deal had “an immoral cast.” Hank Paulsen, a Republican who ran both Goldman Sachs and the U.S. Treasury (under President Bush), was pretty clear in his assessment:  “Trump is a phony . . . When Trump assures us he’ll do for the United States what he’s done for his businesses, that’s not a promise — it’s a threat . . . In essence, he takes imprudent risks and, when his businesses fail, disavows his debts.” The pattern seems long-standing. In a 1985 profile (before Trump was in politics), a New York magazine cover story on his real estate business revealed what the author called  “a fugue of failure, a farce of fumbling and bumbling.”

Before Mr. Trump gets to run the Federal government, he has to run his own campaign. In an echo of that 1985 assessment of his competence in business, one GOP insider called the convention run by the Trump team “the most shambolically mis-run convention in memory.” GOP columnist David Brooks, noting that Trump’s business career leaves him “epically unprepared” to be president, also notes that, consistent with the lack of follow-through on his business ventures, he is running for office “with less preparation than most of us would undertake to buy a sofa.” The business-savvy Economist calls a Trump presidency “an appalling prospect.”

The moral of this short story:  if you are longing for a competent hand to take the tiller of government and apply a dose of business discipline to our federal bureaucracy, you might need to look elsewhere than Mr. Trump.

Theater of the Absurd

Why is he under continuous audit by the IRS? According to Trump, it may be because is such a “strong Christian.”

And the Mexicans are going to pay for The Wall. (“Dad, I’m going to drop out of school and go hang out on the beach for a year.” “No you’re not.” “Yea, I am.  And what’s more, you’re going buy me a beach house and a year’s supply of weed.”)

And Trump says that as president he will “take the oil in the Middle East.”

And President Obama “is the founder of ISIS.”

And his plan that will replace Obamacare: “something terrific.”

As one Tweet put it, “We have passed the point of  ‘are you f---ing kidding me?’”

What do we call the world beyond that point? This is not ordinary political spin and fib (the Clintons’ league), or even the world of the authoritarian “big lie,” both of which, while probing the limits of credibility, function within the boundaries of the possible. Instead, it is a type of theater of the absurd, in which the boundaries of the possible dissolve. It is the world of the preposterous.

Preposterous is a word with a slightly antiquated tone. But I have noted a distinct rise in the use of the adjective by amazed commenters from all points on the political spectrum. They have a point.  The word “preposterous,” as most commonly defined, means contrary to reason, nature, or common sense; utterly absurd or ridiculous. 

A few examples:

·      The verdict of his supporters at the Wall Street Journal on his statement that he would “take the oil in the middle east:” “preposterous.”  

·      President Bush’s Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, appearing on Fox News to discuss Trump’s immigration proposals:   “I think his ideas are preposterous.”

·      The New Yorker on the Mexico paying for the wall:  “plainly preposterous.” 

·      Trump’s idea that immigration officers could stop Muslims from entering the country by simply asking people, “Are you a Muslim?”: “The more you think about it, the more preposterous it becomes.” (Former U.S. foreign service officer Philip French)

·      Trump’s claim that if he doesn’t win on November 8 it means the election was “rigged”:  called preposterous, toxic and pernicious by CNN and politicians from both sides

·      Trump’s repeated statements that journalists should be fired for criticizing him: called “preposterous” by the conservative National Review

·      Trump’s claim that he could “get rid of the $19 trillion in debt . . . over a period of eight years:” called by the Washington Post “nonsensical.”

Note that none of these criticisms involve disagreements about ideology or policy. They involve disagreements about whether a statement, claim, or prescription lies within the realm of the real or the possible.  

With theater of the absurd, you never know what’s coming next. By being untethered to convention or reality, the plot unfolds in a way that is completely unpredictable. The normally staid and temperate Economist argues:  “He is so unpredictable that the thought of him anywhere near high office is terrifying.  He must be stopped.”

Complacency

Trump could win. If you don’t believe this, then you may not be able to put your distaste (or worse) aside and pull the lever for Hillary. If you don’t believe this, then you might conclude that it’s morally acceptable to stay at home on November 8. So I repeat, Trump could win. Here’s why.

Let’s start with Brexit. For most of the 10 months preceding the election, “remain” enjoyed a significant lead in the polls. The UK’s wagering markets reflected an even stronger conviction that Brexit couldn’t win, with Ireland’s largest bookie showing a 92% probability of a “remain” victory only a couple of days prior to the vote. Currency and financial markets agreed.  But at the end of the day, 51.9% of those voting chose Brexit.  

Why is the outcome on November 8 similarly difficult to predict? Both candidates have extraordinarily high unfavorable ratings. Recently the Real Clear Politics average of polls put the candidates within three percentage points (and some, such as the L.A. Times/USC tracking survey showed a statistical dead heat). This is a trailing indicator, with the momentum in Trump’s favor (Hillary’s lead has been cut in half during the last month). In early August the Time for Change forecasting model, which has correctly predicted the winner of the vote in every election since 1988, predicted a Trump win, 51.4% to 48.6% (putting a 66% probability on a Trump victory). Of course many take comfort in Trump’s poor showing in a number of key battleground states. But political experts agree that it is far too early to have confidence that Hillary’s margins in North Carolina, Florida, Nevada or Ohio will hold.  Anything can happen.

And it already has. Trump has enjoyed a series of extraordinarily lucky, almost unbelievable, breaks. Who could have predicted that he would stand next to the Mexican President, treated like a visiting head of state, and that the Mexican leader would fail to call him out on his many calumnies against the Mexican people or state publicly that his country would not pay for The Wall? Inconceivable, but it happened. Who could have imagined that our once vigorous press, during last week’s foreign policy forum, would hit Mr. Trump the softest possible lobs, and fail to push back as he unleashed his usual combination of blather(my main qualification to be commander in chief “is, I have great judgment”), bizarreness (repeated praise of authoritarian President Putin’s alleged 82% approval rating and the assertion that our generals have been “reduced to rubble”) and dissemblance (saying he opposed the invasion of Iraq when he is on the record in 2002 as supporting it). If Trump receives this kind of free pass in the debates, the poll numbers could move significantly. Although Trump’s “ground game” and funding lag, this too could change quickly.

The ability of experts to predict the result is further undermined by the sui generis nature of this election. Instead of two campaigns managed by political pros who play by the same rules, we have one that has discarded the rule book and expressed open disdain for the orthodoxies of American politics. The politico class on both sides, which makes its living as the high priests of this orthodoxy, is generally predicting that things will not end well for Trump, and so they must.  But the alarming fact is that no one really knows how to combat a campaign like Trump’s.  His GOP primary opponents couldn’t figure it out, and all the organization and strategic advice that money could buy failed to stop him. Imagine a professional boxer stepping into the ring prepared to fight the fight he has fought dozens of times before, but instead, his opponent unleashes a flurry of moves he’s never seen, most of which violate the unwritten rules of the sport.   

And then there is the world beyond the candidates’ control. Another terrorist attack in the United States could change the equation completely. A stock market slump or major stall in the economic recovery would add momentum to Trump. In an election where one the candidacies is propelled by an emotionally volatile mix of fear, anxiety, anger, and worse, external events could have a profound effect on voter sentiment. And now Hillary’s pneumonia, a powerful reminder that anything can happen.

So what’s my point? Complacency. It is the greatest friend of the demagogue and the greatest enemy of democracy. If Donald Trump wins this election, it will not be due to his core of ardent fans. The fault will lie with the millions of American voters who stay home on Election Day because of their ambivalence toward the other candidate and/or the mistaken belief that they are not needed to save the country from Mr. Trump.   

Statements against interest

The rules we follow in the courtroom are designed to help judge and jury ferret out the truth, or something close to it, from a blizzard of often-conflicting evidence.  One of those rules tells us that “statements against interest” – that is, a statement that comes at some cost, disadvantage, or liability to the person testifying - should be accorded a higher degree of credibility. The theory is that the person has nothing to gain, and something to lose, so his main motivation is likely to be simply telling the truth or doing the right thing. On the other hand, when the person has something to gain from making a claim, he might well be telling the truth, but we should probably be skeptical.

Applied to politics, this rule would suggest that it might not be best to form our opinions about a candidate from statements made by his or her opponent or that opponent’s team. Those claims might well be true, but are hardly the most reliable source if we are seeking the truth.

Thoughtful citizens once turned to an independent press, which today largely has been replaced by media sources that act as cheerleader-in-chief in an echo chamber of common belief. Even truly independent and thoughtful sources like PBS Newshour are trapped by the requirement to present “both sides.” So where to turn? 

One approach is to find people making “statements against interest.” Partisans have an enormous interest to see their party take the White House (their interest is defined in terms of jobs, access, influence, power, and money, as well as the prospects for their political agenda). So when party members criticize their own candidate (following the primaries, once he or she is carrying the banner for their side), these are powerful examples of statements against interest and we should afford them a presumption of credibility.

I have been collecting “statements against interest” about Donald Trump made by prominent Republicans after he became their candidate. Here is a selection for your consideration:

50 Former GOP National Security Officials (including former GOP CIA directors, heads of the National Security Agency and Department of Homeland Security, US Trade Representative, etc.):  Trump “would be a dangerous President and would put at risk our country’s national security . . .Mr. Trump lacks the character, values, and experience to be President.  . . . He appears to lack basic knowledge about and belief in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws, and U.S. institutions, including religious tolerance, freedom of the press, and an independent judiciary.  In addition, Mr. Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he has little understanding of America’s vital national interests, its complex diplomatic challenges, its indispensable alliances, and the democratic values on which U.S. foreign policy must be based. At the same time, he persistently compliments our adversaries and threatens our allies and friends . . . He is unable or unwilling to separate truth from falsehood . . . He lacks self-control and acts impetuously. He cannot tolerate personal criticism.  He has alarmed our closest allies with his erratic behavior.  We are convinced that in the Oval Office, he would be the most reckless President in American history.” (August 8, 2016)

Hank Paulson (Treasury Secretary under President Bush):  His “brand of populism [is] rooted in ignorance, prejudice, fear and isolationism . . . Trump is a phony and should not be president . . . . When Trump assures us he’ll do for the United States what he’s done for his businesses, that’s not a promise — it’s a threat . . . In essence, he takes imprudent risks and, when his businesses fail, disavows his debts.  Trump repeatedly, blatantly and knowingly makes up or gravely distorts facts to support his positions or create populist divisions.”  (June 24, 2016)

William D. Ruckelshaus and William K. Reilly (former GOP EPA Administrators): “Donald Trump has shown a profound ignorance of science and of the public health issues embodied in our environmental laws.  He hasn’t a clue about Republicans’ historic contributions to science-driven environmental policy . . .

That Trump would call climate change a hoax—the singular health and environmental threat to the world today—flies in the face of overwhelming international science.”  (August 9, 2016)

David Brooks (Republican columnist): Trump is “a morally untethered, spiritually vacuous man who appears haunted by multiple personality disorders.” (July 29, 2016)

George Will (long-time conservative columnist): Will left the GOP over the Trump nomination.  Before that, he said: “Were he to be nominated, conservatives would have two tasks. One would be to help him lose 50 states—condign punishment for his comprehensive disdain for conservative essentials, including the manners and grace that should lubricate the nation’s civic life.” (April 29, 2016)

Mitt Romney (GOP Presidential nominee 2012): Trump has “a character and temperament unfit for the leader of the free world.” (May 27, 2016)

Karl Rove (Senior Republican strategist): Trump is “a complete idiot” who is “graceless and divisive.”  (June 3, 2016)

Paul Wolfowitz (long-time senior GOP official in various roles, foreign policy advisor to President Bush): Trump “says he admires Putin, that Saddam Hussein was killing terrorists, that the Chinese were impressive because they were tough on Tiananmen Square.  That is pretty disturbing . . .  I certainly think it's important to speak up and say how unacceptable he is. I'm always more than willing to do that. . . .The only way you can be comfortable about Trump's foreign policy is to think he doesn't really mean anything he says. That's a pretty uncomfortable place to be in. Our security depends on having good relationships with our allies. Trump mainly shows contempt for them. And he seems to be unconcerned about the Russian aggression in Ukraine. By doing this he tells them that they can go ahead and do what they are doing. That is dangerous.”  (August 26, 2016)

Susan Collins (GOP Senator): She noted his “constant stream of cruel comments and his inability to admit error or apologize . . . .  But it was his attacks directed at people who could not respond on an equal footing . . .that revealed Mr. Trump as unworthy of being our president.” (August 9, 2016)

Lindsey Graham (GOP Senator): Trump’s attack on Judge Gonzalo Curiel “is the most un-American thing from a politician since Joe McCarthy.  If anybody was looking for an off-ramp, this is probably it. There’ll come a time when the love of country will trump hatred of Hillary.” (June 7, 2016)

Meg Whitman (CEO Hewlett Packard, former CEO of eBay, GOP candidate for Governor of California): It is time for Republicans “to put country first before party.”  Trump is “a dishonest demagogue,” who could lead the country “on a very dangerous journey . . . . Time and again history has shown that when demagogues have gotten power or come close to getting power, it usually does not end well.”  Trump has already “undermined the character of the nation.”  (August 2, 2016)

Sally Bradshaw (GOP operative and author of GOP post-2012 strategy): “I could not abide the hateful rhetoric of Donald Trump and his complete lack of principles.”  (August 1, 2016)

Marc Racicot (Republican National Committee chair, 2001 to 2003): “I cannot and will not support Donald Trump for president.” (August 3, 2016)

Gordon Humphrey (former GOP U.S. Senator from New Hampshire): Trump is “a sociopath, without a conscience or feelings of guilt, shame or remorse.”  (August 4, 2016)

Richard Hanna (GOP Congressman): “For me, it is not enough to simply denounce [Trump’s] comments: He is unfit to serve our party and cannot lead this country.” (August 2, 2016)

Glenn Beck (hard right conservative talk show host):  (The day after the nomination he predicted that because of Trump, the US would not “elect another Republican president ever again.”)  Previously, he had said:  “I don’t want my children to look at that man and say, ‘Yeah, he’s my President.’ I won’t have that. I will not endorse it, I will not tolerate it.”  (May 4, 2016)

George P. Shultz (Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan and Secretary of both Labor and the Treasury under Richard Nixon):  On the prospect of a Trump presidency: “God help us.”  (August 15, 2016)

(Please note that I have given the dates of these statements. Trump was recognized by the RNC as the presumptive nominee on May 3. Statements prior to May 3 made by Trump’s primary opponents or their supporters cannot fairly be considered “statements against interest.” My own collection was supplemented by examples collected by David Graham for The Atlantic’s website.)