The following is not new. It’s from an essay written by Rebecca Solnit and published back on May 30th: The Loneliness of Donald Trump: On the Corrosive Privilege of the Most Mocked Man in the World. It’s an erudite piece filled with some pretty keen psychological insights. It’s also a revenge piece, written, I suspect, in an effort at self-therapy. If the Trump phenomenon is an unending insult that produces psychic and physical wounds, sometimes it’s healthy (or, at least it seems necessary) to punch back and be mean in return. The value of the piece doesn’t lie in the satisfaction of that impulse. You should read it not for your sanity but because between all the counterpunching, there are opportunities to learn things of value.
The rich kids I met in college were flailing as though they wanted to find walls around them, leapt as though they wanted there to be gravity and to hit ground, even bottom, but parents and privilege kept throwing out safety nets and buffers, kept padding the walls and picking up the pieces, so that all their acts were meaningless, literally inconsequential. They floated like astronauts in outer space.
Equality keeps us honest. Our peers tell us who we are and how we are doing, providing that service in personal life that a free press does in a functioning society. Inequality creates liars and delusion. The powerless need to dissemble—that’s how slaves, servants, and women got the reputation of being liars—and the powerful grow stupid on the lies they require from their subordinates and on the lack of need to know about others who are nobody, who don’t count, who’ve been silenced or trained to please. This is why I always pair privilege with obliviousness; obliviousness is privilege’s form of deprivation.
You can be a successful and powerful person and fall into this kind of trap quite easily, and it doesn’t require that you’re a raging narcissist. If legitimate competition or simple paranoia causes you to lead with caprice and fear, your subordinates will cease being honest with you. If you’re a child of privilege who has always been shielded from the natural consequences of your excesses, mistakes, and failures, you may not realize that your floor is not sturdy. Your opinion of your capabilities and the defensibility of your position may be dangerously inflated without you needing to have any kind of clinical psychological disorder. Even a child who rose to the top strictly on hard work and merit, like Bill Clinton, can run aground when given too much power and too much deference.
Our current president, however, suffers from than more than the deprivation of sycophancy. He actually requires it.
There is a difference between succumbing to the trappings of power and failing to listen to those who might give you needed reality checks and being the kind of person who is so insecure that they can’t endure any criticism at all.
Our president gives us the worst of all worlds. His behavior cannot be corrected. It is not possible for him to get better advice. His pathologies feed on themselves. Thus:
The man in the white house sits, naked and obscene, a pustule of ego, in the harsh light, a man whose grasp exceeded his understanding, because his understanding was dulled by indulgence. He must know somewhere below the surface he skates on that he has destroyed his image, and like Dorian Gray before him, will be devoured by his own corrosion in due time too. One way or another this will kill him, though he may drag down millions with him. One way or another, he knows he has stepped off a cliff, pronounced himself king of the air, and is in freefall. Another dungheap awaits his landing; the dung is all his; when he plunges into it he will be, at last, a self-made man.
Donald Trump wanted and got something he could not have. He can’t do this job and he knows it. He must now seek an exit, but he will want “safety nets and buffers.” He will seek padded walls and for someone to pick up the pieces. But there will be no one to do this for him, now.
In the recovery community, there’s a saying that the addict is like the eye of a hurricane. At the center, things seem calm and it is hard to understand why all this damage is being created all around them. The desire to drink or get high seems like such a small thing to satisfy, how could it cause all this carnage? If people didn’t complain about it so much, my addiction wouldn’t be such a big deal.
Well, addicts (for so long as they are in active addiction) are the most self-centered people in the universe. They are also the most cunning, manipulative and adept at creating padded walls for themselves. They will keep going until all avenues are blocked.
Narcissists are similar in every regard, and our president will have to have his way blocked soon by the people with the power to block him. In the meantime, we’re all living in his destructive vortex.
We have a culture and social institutions that create many, many addicts of all kinds and even some without an identifiable substance. The by-product is that it also creates people like Trump.
But this culture and society’s self-story is that we are the ultimate destiny of human history (thank you, Francis Fukuyama for giving words to the claim). Interesting that story of “the greatest economy in the world”, “the greatest military in the world”, “the leader of the Free World”, and all the taglines that the media and politicians have saturated us with since World War II.
Anne Wilson Schaef did a pop psychology book a generation ago called When Society Becomes and Addict. For the time of Reagan-Bush, it is pretty interesting. Trump is very explicable in terms of its analysis.
And of course, you cast the entire GOP as the co-dependent spouse hustling the “children” who are their red-state constituencies to support the main guy.
Sarah Kendzior is more direct. She calls Trump an authoritarian like the rulers of Uzbekistan that she studied and like Putin. And she has been on target with how Trump would try to use the government to entrench himself.
Interesting that he’s bleeding the budget of the Secret Service at the time that the GOP in Congress is threatening to shut the government down. A “cry for help”?
Bleeding the SS. It’s more like destroying the SS. The last person the donald talked to told him the SS were the source of the many leaks. He wants Erik Prince and his private army to provide security.
Prince Praetorian Guard, Inc.
As I understand it, the SS has two problems: the agency budget and the annual salary cap for SS agents. The budget never contemplated a profligate spender like Trump along with a large family that the agency is legally bound to protect. The SS agents’ salary cap is $160,00/yr, not much less than what members of Congress receive. A difference is that they’re paid for when they actually work — unlike say a Marco Rubio who draws his salary regardless of whether he show up for work. A similarity is that they can’t earn more than the cap, but SS agents can be assigned to duty shifts after they’ve reached the cap which many already have this year. Putting those agents on unpaid leave until next year, isn’t an option because there aren’t enough agents that can cover for them.
Except for the odd and very rare former SS agent, they don’t talk. However, topping off a grueling schedule from January-August with a similar schedule from Sept-December with zero pay might loosen a few lips. Trump can whine but this is of his own making.
(Wonder if he’s forgoing his congressional budget for Oval Office and family WH redecorating. He does have the option of paying for it out of his own pocket as Reagan and Obama did and not being limited by the public budget. As his Oval Office redecoration has been limited to new wall paper with everything else being recycled (Reagan’s rug, Clinton’s drapes, and the Bushes couches), doesn’t look as if he’s opted for personal financing.)
Why not just lay them off until next year? Works for me.
There’s apparently no discretionary authority as to the SS obligations. Only protectees can waive their protections. (As I understand one of Biden’s children did and as Nixon did a few years after leaving office. First for Pat and then for himself as he viewed it as an unnecessary federal expense but he was a real Republican.) Nobody in the Trump clan passes on a perq.
I’m sure the SS does its best to control non-salary expenses, but there’s only so much it can do when the clan travels to and hangs out at costly locales without Budget 6 Motels around the corner for rest/sleep and they have to eat as well. Did see that the SS moved its NYC operations facility out of the Trump Tower and into a van when TrumpInc raised the rent.
As a percentage of the federal budget the SS is chump change, but old school folks believe that if the pennies aren’t watched, the dollars don’t get watched either. Why isn’t every POTUS required to live within a budget for the first family SS travel costs. They can sure preach about running government responsibly on the campaign trail, but don’t have to demonstrate that in this very small way. The Trump clan has been acting as if the budget unlimited for their business and pleasure travel to wherever whenever.
As far as I’m concerned, VPs on through former Presidents and spouses are expendable; so expendable that their ignored by those bent on assassination. In over two hundred years, only one VP has been targeted and not one former president or his spouse. (SoS Seward was targeted and he, three of his children, and three others were seriously injured in the attack.) Particularly ten years after they leave office. Sure we have lots of nuts in this country with easy access to guns, a condition Republicans helped to create and vow to maintain. Let them live with the potential risks of what they championed.
Not an option wrt a sitting President and his/her family. A president has too much power at his/her fingertips — Archduke Ferdinand is the historical guiding reference.
I think we’re still not that close to being blocked. The Charlotteville statements really did bother a number of relpublican electeds but no concrete action and tgey just hope it can be forgotten. Trump wont let them, so we’ll see.
This is why I think the end game has to be pressuring Trump to resign and offering him legal protection if he does. It may not satisfy what we think of as justice, but it is the outcome most likely to lead to a Trump departure without massive violent unrest, which he will otherwise actively encourage.
I feel like it’s Groundhog Day and we’re all caught in an endless loop. Trump does something terrible, we all gasp, Republicans turn their heads, Trump followers cheer. Lather, rinse, repeat.
I am now convinced that Trump could, in fact, shoot someone on the street and not lose a single vote.
The Republicans have shown their true colors; they may or may mot be appalled by his racism and his clear loyalties to Klansmen, but they aren’t going to resist. He will be allowed to bully and bluster his way through the presidency with no major significant Republican roadblocks.
We can call him every name in the book, we can loathe him, we can call him insane, but it doesn’t matter unless we can retake seats as Democrats. And it looks like one uphill battle after another.
I don’t want us, the decent, caring, thinking Americans, to give up. We have to keep making calls to our representatives and keep their backs to the wall. I’ll keep calling and emailing Portman and Kasich and Sherrod Brown. It’s a way to fight back. We have to be heard.
Be nice if we had some kind of unified plan even a coherent one to guide us along. Or a leader, maybe a leader.
Don’t despair — everything has a tipping point.
While you and I and others find Trump appalling in every way, I try to remember that rightwingers felt the same way about Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. A rational basis for feelings can always be constructed or concocted, but unless or until they are persuasive to those that don’t share the feelings, they only live in the bubble of like-minded people and frustrate the hell out of them that others can’t see/feel as they do.
What the rightwingers did have and that slightly ameliorated their frustration as a political party that managed to effectively strike back. The structures required were in place long before they needed to be reformatted for the moment and therefore, could be quickly activated. Not all of them worked but the ones best suited to the moment did. Thus, the Gingrich Revolution and Tea Party, both effectively billed as “grassroots” and the funding opaque. The Democratic Party elites have been trying to emulate that. So far it’s not working.
I don’t want to get into the kind of Marie3 argument that happens on this site way too often — I respect your intellect and erudition, although I frequently disagree with you — but in this case it’s a more formal, abstract issue I’ve got so I’m going to dive in.
I’m not sure that Right-wing “hatred” of Obama or Clinton (either) is comparable to our hatred of Trump, even on a base emotional level. I agree that from an quasi-apolitical standpoint the two reactions seem similar — and, David-Broder-style “bothsiderism” (as it’s labeled here and on other sites like this one) encourages us to see the feelings as mirrors of each other, which may be the least egregious elements of that vantage point — but I just can’t do it; I can’t draw the comparison.
There’s not just a moral difference, and a non-relativistic difference (I think we’re right and they’re wrong, but they think the reverse — which just makes them more wrong, etc.) — there are so many other elements that ruin the balance you’re describing. There’s the influence of the worst sort of Orwellian/Fascist propaganda; there’s the “Authoritarian Mindset” (which is a real thing); there’s the influence of cult-like behavior; there’s the civilizing drive over the centuries that discourages hero-worship and demagoguery and monarchistic trends in favor of skepticism, individuality, democracy. There’s the overwhelming numbers world-wide: Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize while Trump is universally despised. (I don’t want to get into a fight about Obama deserving the prize; I’m simply talking about the balance of worldwide opinion being tipped so heavily against Trump.)
My point is that I won’t see their hatred of Obama/Clinton/Clinton as “the same thing” as my/our hatred of Trump. It just doesn’t work; there’s too much of global civilization in the way.
I wasn’t engaging in bothsiderism.
Emotions are by their nature irrational. Doesn’t mean that they may not have a rational factual component. People convince themselves that they love or hate public figures without any direct experience of that actual person. That’s irrational. But I do accept that love and hate are biologically the same for all of us. How can they not be when were all human beings?
Single issue anti-abortion voters (and there are a large number of them) have placed abortion at the very top of their list of immoral (mortal sin) behaviors. I can’t talk to or reason with them and have no doubt that they’re deeply misguided. I wish that I could say that it’s a matter of scientific ignorance, but too many educated scientists are fully committed anti-abortionists. However, that doesn’t preclude me from recognizing the depth of their hatred for those that aren’t anti-abortionists.
Similarly, while I’m a deeply flawed pacifist, my go-to place for another war is always no. Those that cheer on, promote, advocate for, etc. more war deeply disgust me. And I disgust myself by occasionally voting for such a person as the lesser evil. Those people view my disgust as irrational and have all sorts of negative words with which to label me. If I knew them and they did it to my face, I’d probably hate them. However, I’m not without understanding how they came to be the way they are and how I worked very hard to be different from that. And as I have no choice but to live in a society where I’m in a small minority on this issue, I can do no more than argue with those that possibly have some capacity for changing their views. It would be psychologically unhealthy for me to transmute my disgust into hatred for all those that view violence as acceptable if not praiseworthy.
Does it really matter if a USA stamped drone drops bombs on innocent people on the orders GWB, Nobel Peace Prize Obama, or Trump? Are they less maimed or dead by the bombs the Nobel Peace Prize President ordered?
Well, I tried.
It is absolutely not irrational. Hatred of Hitler or Idi Amin or George W. Bush is based on totally rigorous moral thinking. Trump can dismiss his critics by saying they “don’t know him” but we understand that he’s a public figure with a known record and that this complain is not reasonable. “Direct experience” of public figures — especially politicians — can be outright misleading since by definition they cultivate a specific skill at interpersonal interaction that is fundamentally fraudulent, with its psychological elements amped up to maximize their ingratiating tendencies. First-hand “direct experience” is, therefore, less rational than a cool assessment of, say, a Senator’s voting record, which can inspire totally reasonable hatred.
Sophistry. We’re not arguing about the “depth” of the hatred; we’re discussing whether it’s directly comparable (as you’re saying) or whether we’re talking about two different kinds of feelings — some of which (like, say, racial animus) we hold in low regard and instruct people to expunge, and others (like, say, disgust with bullies or adulterers) which are reasonable tenets of a functioning morality. Nobody said the conservatives don’t feel strongly, but that doesn’t mean you or I or anyone have to respect that that do or refrain from dismissing their positions or trying to fight against them or dismiss them.
Not only is this totally irrelevant and nonsensical, but by asking this, you’re specifically doing exactly what I precisely begged you not to do — changing the subject in just the way I asked you to avoid (since I saw this autonomic response of yours coming based on so many other exchanges of yours, here). But of course it doesn’t make any difference; you can’t help yourself.
Obviously, somebody getting blown up and killed by a drone strike doesn’t evince any relevant emotions either way towards whichever U. S. President gave the strike order, in the instant of their death. So what? Beyond the sensationalism of this example (and — please don’t ignore that I’m saying this — the validity of this implicit critique of Obama), what does this have to do with the subject at hand? You’re equating the emotions on both sides of our political battle lines; I’m saying this isn’t valid, because a person who views abortion as murder is not experiencing an “equivalent” emotional reaction to that of a person who regards drone strikes as murder, since War Crimes are different from the encroachment of people’s religious fantasies onto the democratic principles that protect abortion. Comparing the outrage these two things generate is a total dead end, I’m saying.
This could have gone differently, and gotten interesting, but you’ve made that impossible.
Did you really expect anything else?
Pacifist??? Hooda thunkit. And how would you have handled the WWII situation had you been around then, say advising Roosevelt?
I’m anti-war generally, but there are exceptions where the evil that’s been built up is so great that standing by passively, when measures could be taken to remove that evil, becomes an evil in itself.
I’m sorry but this is WAY more complicated than abstract concepts of political tribalism.
Case in point is Drumpf’s favorite line about “bringing back coal”. True free-marketers have no choice but to admit coal is on the decline because of MARKET FORCES, not some namby-pamby Obama era regulations that eliminated shitty, dangerous, unhealthy jobs. Coal is dead because the market killed it, mostly by an energy market awash in cheap natural gas, the result of the advent of fracking technology.
However, if you ask a Drumpf voter about coal, you get a leap into delusion, that by some miracle if you “bring back coal” (which can only mean coal subsidies, a.k.a. SOCULIZM!!!11!!!!), then the steel industry will also magically “come back” as well.
There is NO equivalent magical asterisk thinking on the left, as a matter of fact the biggest magical asterisk the right attributes to the left is that public support produces dependency, something that has been dis-proven by decades of European economic analysis.
It all reminds me of Reagan in a way. Reagan told the most outrageous lies.
And he would get away with it.
And we were all so sure disaster was just around the corner. We predicted it with regularity. In truth we were closer than we knew or anyone new (see Reagan and the USSR circa 1983). But over time, when the sky did not fall, the public began to tune us out.
To your point: event happens. A Democrat pounces on the latest noise in a poll and screams: this is it!! We have him!! I can predict with great accuracy who will retweet a Gallup poll and when. And then Trump recovers and we are on to the next thing.
Here is where Booman is most wrong: I think Trump loves every minute of this. For he dreams nothing more than to be the center of attention.
We need, us decent caring Americans, to think. To try and understand why what we do does not work. To try and find what will. To leave aside our confident predictions, for our predictions have proved worthless for over 2 years.
I hope there are people smarter than me that ARE trying to think. And hopefully to try and listen.
Case in point: anti-trust. Do people want to breakup whttp://www.npr.org/2017/08/16/543650270/they-got-hurt-at-work-then-they-got-deporteWalmart and Amazon. Amazon has a 65-10 favorable rating. Are we really sure this is what people want? Why do we think that?
To your point – until we find something else all there is to do is make calls, and attend demonstrations, and register people to vote.
So Trump says he will let the government shut down if we don’t fund the wall. Oh goody. This could be fun. Will he be stopped or does he get his wish? He is driving that destructive vortex you speak about.
I’m going to dissent from this analysis for two reasons:
1) it makes it seem as though this ‘vortex’ originated and is caused by Trump. It’s not, it’s caused by the nihilism of the Republican Party with respect to anything that’s not tax cuts and/or hate.
The vortex has been at hurricane strength since Clinton’s impeachment when the Republicans learned that norms no longer need to be honored.
Trump has hijacked the vortex but that was only made possible because of Obama the Kenyan’s election wins.
2) Ryan’s inability to control the House, like Boehner’s inability before that, or Cantor’s primary loss are all caused by the same vortex and they predate Trump substantially.
Trump’s ignorance is only a matter of degrees worse than Palin or Quayle. His disinterest in governing is only a matter of degrees worse than Bush II. Trump’s inability to speak truthfully, even when the truth would help him, is actually not even the equal of Cheney’s mendaciousness.
So Trump is really the quintessential Republican at this point – ignorant as a post, contemptuous of anything described as intellectual, empirical, or logical, and absolutely convinced of their correctness on things like the Laugher Curve, creationism, the Bell Curve, etc.
He’s the natural embodiment of every racist Republican ideal.
Which, of course, is extremely scary because Republicans are very scary people. They are rooting for people without medical insurance to die and actively working to deny insurance to as many people as possible. They are rooting for or at least sympathetic with racist neo-Confederates and neo-Nazis. They can’t wait for America to default on its debts and possibly cause a global panic.
These are not nice people. They aren’t worthy of respect. Trump is their natural leader and every thing that’s unfit, moronic, hateful, and unconscionable about him applies in geometrically increased portions to the Republican base. And has for 20 years.
At this point, it’s safe to conclude that the GOP is for all intents and purposes a white supremacists party. As you note, what were witnessing now has deep roots, and the racial/ethnic hatred we witness today from Trump and his followers has been cultivated over the course of decades. And given that this is a party whose base willingly nominates the likes of a two-bit reality TV star (albeit one whose star had faded) with a bit of a thing for WWE, we can conclude that the film Idiocracy was not a comedy but rather prophecy. It is only a matter of time before we begin irrigating our crops with Gatorade.
Blocked … Hmm. What narcissists perceive as being blocked may not be the same as real blockage.
Mr Trump has failed spectacularly at least a few times before. How did he react then? What happened when his hands were tied in business or personal crises? That’s probably the best guide to how things might play out.
Narcs don’t usually cut and run “to spend more time with family.” And when they perceive they are being blocked an explosion usually follows.