Donald Trump and his supporters think of him as a decisive, top-notch executive.
He gets quickly to the heart of matters, to what is most fundamental, to what he really needs to know. He is then able to speak plainly, even bluntly, about these matters, in language that his listeners find easy to understand. He doesn't go into a lot of detail; he keeps to the most important points of policy and delegates the rest. He makes up his mind and sees things through relentlessly. He leads, and he lets his subordinates manage. He got to where he is by exercising his natural ability over many years in the highest business circles; he has both the talent and the experience.
But it's all just pasteboard. Take a little piece of his NAFTA mischief. Back in June, he sent out a tweet that Canada charges the U.S. "up to 300 percent on dairy - hurting our Farmers, killing our Agriculture!" He said it quickly, and he certainly said it simply, and he definitely hasn't wavered at all. He's said it again, and again, and again, almost exactly the same every time, without fetching up any additional details. Canada has taken advantage of the U.S., and it's "Unfair!" Simple as that. He leaves the detail to his NAFTA negotiating team, and publicly threatens Canada, the Canadian team, and even Congress that they had better cooperate or they'll be sorry.
There isn't any factual content. The "heart of the matter" that he has discovered is nothing more than that three hundred percent has a big sound to it. He hasn't said anything about supply management, or about American farm subsidies, or about the relative importance of the Canadian dairy market, because he doesn't know anything about these things. His listeners, in turn, find what he has to say "easy to understand" because there isn't much of anything to be understood. He's nothing more than a cheerleader shouting, "Boo, Canada!" He's leading rather than managing, but only because he certainly isn't managing.
He's not bright enough or interested enough to be even minimally competent. He's never shown any interest in his country's affairs or worked to understand them better; he's been selfish and egotistical at every turn. All he's ever had is money; all he's ever wanted is adulation and more money; and now he has confirmed for the world that in America, you can get by without anything else. As John Kenneth Galbraith pointed out, people associated with large sums of money are often considered - and they consider themselves - to have some special genius, and it's just a mistake. Coincidentally, Galbraith had occasion to comment on how the public saw Trump back when he was just a - well, a whatever. Trump, said Galbraith, "is said not to be broke; he was, however, described in recent news accounts as having a negative net worth."
He was never even a talented businessman. People who have much more money than the people they are dealing with have easy advantages that have nothing to do with personal ability or hard work. Even if their business amounts to nothing more than shaking dice, they can win by keeping the game going and doubling down until they get a lucky throw. Or they can sue their poorer opponents until they can't afford to go any further.
At a recent news conference Chrystia Freeland, Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs and principal NAFTA negotiator, executed a sly comparison with almost no effort. She was asked what she thought of the president's recent threats. She replied that her American counterparts, Robert Lighthizer and his team, had shown only the highest standards of professionalism and good will. Then she declined to answer questions about details of the negotiations because she and Mr. Lighthizer had agreed "not to negotiate in public." She then apologized for not being able to tell the reporters any more; she had been a reporter herself, she said, and she understood their frustrations. In three deft strokes she drew a portrait of what the president is not. He's unprofessional and breaks his word. He raves in public with no regard for the people he is talking about. And he entirely lacks the good journalist's appetite for the truth. It was done politely, straightforwardly complimentary to the American negotiating team and to the reporters, and honestly faithful to her agreement with Mr. Lighthizer. Canadians, of course, recognized it easily and laughed; it became an instant classic.
I'm sometimes tempted to think we should be a little more charitable with him. To some extent he's just an unlikeable version of Chance the Gardener in Being There, a selfish version of Forrest Gump, bumbling along without ever knowing what's going on. Maybe he really just doesn't understand that the world isn't a simple place, or that simple answers can't solve complex problems. And many people crave simplicity. They want to hear that the problem with America is this, or that, or the other; that they, whoever they are, are doing it to us, and that we should fight back. That's run-of-the-mill populism. It involves tough talk, and a populist has never been required to be a real gentleman, although until now there were limits to how much boorishness was acceptable. And most populists believe at least some version of what they say. Maybe this latest one is just more naïve than usual.
What does puzzle me is that politicians who project populist simplicity are normally subject to some constraints. Imagine Harry Truman or William Jennings Bryan as billionaires who pal around with shady Russians, who somehow can't manage to retain loyal colleagues, whose behaviour is more pathological than anything Sinclair Lewis could ever have invented. If you want to project yourself as a plain speaker, an outsider come in to advocate for the forgotten ordinary people, a Mr. Smith going to Washington, you face narrower boundaries than if you present yourself as a sophisticate. To take a common example, populists even today are usually expected to say something about Jesus, about how much Jesus means to them, and how they try to imitate Jesus in their own falling-short fashion. George W. Bush said Jesus was his favourite political philosopher. Trump on the other hand says nothing, but acts out his own personal version of the story about Jesus and the fallen woman, rewritten so that Jesus puts her up to some even kinkier shenanigans.
It looks to me like he's a rational animal except for the rationality.
Comments