You see, this is the thing. Or rather, these are the things.
They disliked Hillary so much that they just couldn't see what a disaster Trump was going to be, and for much more fundamental reasons. Hillary might be ideologically noxious and personally obnoxious. She might even have been the most prominent spokesperson (with the possible exception of President Obama) for the opposing ideology. She might have pulled some really dumb stunts, like using a private, insecure email server to send classified information and mishandling the Benghazi crisis.
But Donald Trump was Donald Trump. He might be less noxious personally to American conservatives, and he might be on our side (at the moment) on things like abortion. He might be a better bet to appoint Supreme Court justices who would interpret the Constitution rather than try to rewrite it to fit their personal notions of what it ought to say. But as questionable as some of Hillary's behavior has been, Trump's behavior was nearly always bizarre. "Erratic" might as well have been his middle name.
The guy simply wasn't fit to be allowed into the White House on a tour.
Many years have passed since William Buckley's withering analysis of Trump's personality, in which he perceptively mocked the real estate tycoon's narcissism. Now, narcissism is a dangerous quality in a world leader, not only because narcissists are apt to think of their personal interests first and the interests of the nations they lead later, if at all. Even more, it's a problem because narcissists are so easily manipulated. Because they themselves and their egos are what is most important to them, anyone who criticizes them- even if the criticism is friendly and well-intentioned. and obviously justified- becomes their enemy. Conversely, anyone who praises and flatters them becomes their friend.
For that reason in Singapore, the head of the most vicious and inhumane police state on the planet, a pariah nation shunned by virtually every government in the world, was legitimized and extolled by the President of the United States and granted a legitimacy the nations of the world had rightly denied it for decades. This is a regime in which it is against the law to be a Christian, and in which Christians are imprisoned and even killed for the Faith. Yet American Christians cheered as their president glorified the man responsible, and thus betrayed those confessors and martyrs. Americans who profess to revere the Constitution and the rule of law applauded as Mr. Trump publicly glorified a man who is fond of having people who personally offend him shot with anti-aircraft guns, thus sparing everyone the necessity of burying the body.
And he got absolutely nothing in return for it- nothing but vague promises to halt North Korea's nuclear program promises Kim Jong-Un has made and broken many times before. That, and Kim Jong-Un's lavish and effusive personal praise.
President Trump even went on North Korean radio to offer his own contribution to Kim's cult of personality by praising this vicious tyrant in glowing terms to the very tormented, starving people who suffer under Kim's misrule. And this, without the slightest apparent shame.
A version of the picture below hangs in the office of one of Vladimir Putin's publicists. It was displayed at one Trump election night party. From left to right, we have French ultra-nationalist Marine LePen, Mr. Trump, and Putin. LePen supporters used it during the last French presidential election.
Three ultra-nationalist right-wing authoritarians. They have a great deal in common. And it is no surprise that Putin sees in Mr. Trump a kindred spirit. He, too, feels that a hostile press (and for that matter, anyone who criticizes him) is "the enemy of the people."
It is not surprising that Putin has always effusively praised Mr. Trump. But it is disturbing that Mr. Trump has always been so fond of Mr. Putin, an authoritarian leader whose political opponents meet with unfortunate accidents in real life as often as Hillary Clinton's did in the fevered imagination of Mr. Trump's more extreme tinfoil-hat wearing supporters.
Several years ago, when Donald Trump, Jr. mentioned that a "disproportionate" amount of his father's investments were in Russia, eyebrows were raised. Apparently no red flags, so to speak, went up in the minds of many American conservatives. But in the interval between the election and Mr. Trump's inauguration, questions were raised about a possible conflict of interest. I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting that President Trump's investments have affected his attitude toward Russia and Putin. But it does create the rather uncomfortable appearance of a conflict of interest. Former National Security Advisor Gen. Michael Flynn is an open admirer of Putin. Former Sec. of State Rex Tillerson (who, as it turned out, acquitted himself reasonably well in office) was once decorated by the Russian government. Questions were raised around the time of Mr. Trump's inauguration as to whether that apparent conflict, as well as the money he stood to make from dignitaries staying in a Trump hotel close to the White House, might put him on the wrong side of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, which forbids Federal officials from profiting from their positions by receiving favorable treatment from foreign governments.
In any case, Vladimir Putin has always seemed to have a soft spot for Trump, and the affection has generally seemed to be returned (for that matter, Mr. Trump has always seemed to have a soft spot for the authoritarian leaders of foreign countries). Now, in the wake of the indictment of twelve Russian intelligence operatives for the DNC affair, Mr. Trump has stood beside Vladimir Putin while the later denied that his government had anything to do with the incident without saying a word.
It seemed odd that he so strongly defended Putin and the Russians when the CIA and the FBI concluded that they had been responsible for the hacking. In fact, it became an article of faith among Mr. Trump's supporters that there was "no evidence" of that. The indictments brought that assertion crashing to the ground, and now Mr. Trump himself has finally acknowledged that the American intelligence community had been right- even bizarrely claiming to have "misspoken" when he said otherwise only days before, in Putin's very presence- and in a context which simply does not permit the conclusion that he had meant anything other than exactly what he had said!
One wonders whether his followers will also finally admit that Trump had been wrong. Preliminary evidence seems to suggest that most of them have yet to be updated as to the party line.
Interestingly, another Russian operative, one Marina Butina, apparently played a key role in funneling Russian money into the Trump campaign through the NRA.
There is a common thread here. Granting that Mr. Trump likes the authoritarian style of leadership, and granting a certain ideological affinity for Vladimir Putin, Putin has always lavishly praised Mr. Trump- and once again, a narcissist will embrace pretty much anybody who will praise him, even to the point of failing to stand up for his country's interests as Mr. Trump did at both Singapore and Helsinki.
It is a dire threat to national security that we have a president who can be so easily manipulated by foreign leaders.
Many close to the Israeli government said at the time that when Mr. Trump, whose lack of filters is legendary, blurted out information which compromised an Israeli intelligence asset to Russian diplomats in order to impress them with his knowledge that sharing sensitive information with Mr. Trump was a danger to Israeli national security. The president's impulsiveness and lack of filters caused many inside the American intelligence community and outside to question whether we can really afford to have a president who might, under the right circumstances, blurt out almost anything to anybody.
Mr. Trump's espousal of the bizarre "Obama was born in Kenya" meme and other nutty conspiracy theories have long since raised questions about his judgment. But it's hard to avoid the conclusion historians and experts on diplomacy and the presidency have long since reached: that, to put it diplomatically, Mr. Trump's conduct in the international arena has been, well... unique.
He loves our nation's enemies and the enemies of freedom. At the same time, he can't seem to talk enough trash about our friends and fellow democracies. He questions the need for NATO and falsely claims that our NATO allies aren't meeting their financial obligations to the alliance. He insults Germany with the bizarre accusation that it (!) is under Russian control. He has gone so far as to say that not Russia, not China, not Iran, not North Korea, but the European Union is our greatest geopolitical enemy!
The damage he has done to our alliances is incalculable. And his rather consistent tendency to buddy up with our nation's enemies to the detriment of our own interests is disturbing to anyone not so blinded by partisanship as to be unable to see the obvious.
Which, it seems, a large part of the American right, if not most of it, is.
Supreme Court or not, this erratic, immature, unstable man is not fit to be President of the United States. He is a danger to the nation and to its interests. With all her faults, and as bad as she would have been, Hillary Clinton would never have made such a wreck of things in the international arena as Donald Trump continues to make.
Moreover, he has started trade wars with several of our most important trading partners. Already Iowa and the farm belt, as well as Detroit and the automotive industry, are starting to feel the consequences of Mr. Trump's bull-in-a-China-shop handling of trade. People voted for him in 2016 in the mistaken belief that he would protect American jobs. While so far his unwise policies have not wrecked the Obama recovery for which he strives so mightily and so implausibly to take credit if he continues on this path many, many Americans are going to lose their jobs because Donald Trump is president, and we may well be plunged right back into recession.
One can debate whether Bill Clinton or George W. Bush- or both- were responsible for the Great Recession. But it happened on Dubya's watch, and most Americans blame him for it. A second such economic catastrophe under as many Republican administrations would probably mean the end of the Republican party as a viable option for American voters.
And it will be a disaster which probably would not have happened under Hillary. I foresaw in 2016 that once Donald Trump- whose reputation as an erratic narcissist with very questionable executive qualifications was well known- became the nominee, winning the election would be a far greater disaster for the Republican party than losing it. Better four years of Hillary than presidents of her ideological persuasion in perpetuity.
But here we are, with an unstable, immature, easily-manipulated narcissist in charge, humanly speaking, of our common fortunes, and a blabbermouth with no filters in charge of every single secret this nation has.
Do you begin to see the problem here?
Comments