Young Man Trump: Or the Portrait of a President as a Young Man

Effective presidencies are all alike; ineffective presidencies are ineffective in their own ways. Recounting and explaining why the Trump presidency is ineffective has become a cottage industry.  Two recent books, John Bolton’s The Room Where It Happened and Mary Trump’s  Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man  are the latest of a collection of expose books on Donald Trump that describe a dysfunctional presidency and why. While Bolton describes the ways the Trump presidency is ineffective dysfunctional, Mary Trump offers the reader a psychological portrait of a president as a young person, locating the roots of a troubled presidency in a troubled upbringing where the worst of Donald Trump’s behavior which is presently reinforced by his staff was originally imprinted upon him by his family, and especially his complicated relationship with his father

            Biographies of effective presidents tell the same story.  James MacGregor Burns, perhaps the best scholar on presidents ever tells in Leadership that the mark of all great leaders is a set of skills that include selflessness, an ethical vision, and an understanding of needs and beliefs of their followers.  Simply put:  Leaders put themselves second, the people they serve first, and they exercise power guided by principle.  Others, such as Richard Neustadt’s Presidential Power, locate the core of presidential authority in the power to persuade, with a cluster of similar factors determining effectiveness and greatness in a presidency.  Stephen Skowronek echoes  much of what Burns and Neustadt argue, while also emphasizing historical context  as key to what makes for a great president.  The lessons of history tell us what matters in determining what are the attributes and traits of an effective presidency.

            Yet while effective presidencies share common traits, as Leo Tolstoy nicely stated in Anna Karenina’s opening line “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” Among the worst presidents, James Buchannan, Andrew Johnson, and Richard Nixon there was a unique Hamlet like fatal flaw that doomed them, with the source of their problems located in their personalities and characters.  Erik Erickson’s Young Man Luther was the first in a line of powerful psychobiographies that located adult behavior and struggles in family upbringing  and lessons learned as adolescents.  James David Barber’s Presidential Character applies psychobiography to the study of upbringing to explain presidential behavior.  All presidents have the same constitutional powers, yet some perform better than others and we can locate in family upbringing the source of  why some do what they do and whether they learn the skills needed to be good leaders.

            This is potentially why Mary Trump’s book is so interesting.  She is the president’s niece but she is also a Ph.D. in psychology.   Her book is part psychoanalysis, biography, and yes even self-revelatory.  There is no question she has issues with her uncle and she is part of the larger dysfunctional family she describes in her book.  Her uncle is not her patient and therefore American Psychological Association ethics rules preclude her from offering a diagnosis of him and, even if she did, it would be colored by the conflicts of interest of being related to him.  Yet nonetheless her book offers a psychological and biographical context for understanding the Trump presidency.

            John Bolton is  not the first to tell us that Donald Trump is a self-absorbed narcissist. Trump does not read his intelligence briefings, he makes hasty emotional judgments, ignores advice, and simply is lazy and disinclined to accept advice, criticism, or lean anything about what his job entails.  Had he any work ethic his presidency would have lived up to what his supporters wished and his distractors feared.    Bolton’s book offers no new accounts of the problems within the Trump presidency.

            Mary Trump tells us why.  Reading her book,  we learn two major points.  One,  as quoted numerous times in this essay, Leo Tolstoy’s comment about unhappy families is true—they are unhappy in unique ways. The Trump family into which Donald was born was  unhappy and dysfunctional.  It was a family with an overbearing father Fred who coddled Donald.  It was Donald who learned quickly how to play off people’s weaknesses, how to self-promote and self-indulge, and  lie to achieve what he wanted.  His family reinforced this.  As did first the New York City social and financial circles.  Then  the national media, then the cult he created with the Apprentice.  The message of her book is that father son and sibling rivalries  of Donald Trump’s youth produced the person he is today.  Trump is narcissistic and insecure because of his family.  Had Mary Trump been a Freudian, she could have located Donald’s neurosis in some masculine  competition and insecurity regarding penis size, as evidenced by his famous 2016 debate statement  about his private parts and his need to conquer women.    Stormy Daniels’ calling Donald Trump “tiny” was the comment that most got the president’s goat in the last four years.

            The other major point we learn about Donald Trump is inspired by a quote by F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Rich Boy where he said “Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me.”    To which the critic Mary Colum said yes, they are different, “they have more money.”  Mary Trump’s book describes a family of privilege.  Donald, or rather his father Fred, buys his way into schools by hiring exam takers.  He buys his way out of the draft with questionable bone spurs. His father buys chips to buoy Donald’s sinking casinos.  Trump uses money—rarely his own—to buy access, image, and anything else he wants.  Combine a dysfunctional family with economic privilege and what do you get?  As Mary Trump stated in a recent interview, the dysfunctionalism of the Trump presidency is an  outgrowth of the same in the Trump family.   

What Bolton and others describe in the White House is  explained by  Mary Trump’s book.  Donald Trump is James Joyce’s  Stephen Dedalus  or J.D. Salinger’s Holden Caulfield gone malignant  and elected to the presidency.

 

Why Bolton is Out--and does it matter?

John Bolton’s departure–whether fired or resigned-- as National Security Advisor for US President Donald Trump is only the latest example of a presidency that is disorganized and incoherent when it comes to American foreign policy.  His departure will do little to change the basic tone or goals of an administration whose chief characteristic when it comes to foreign policy is one at war with itself; or more accurately, a president in conflict with the US foreign policy establishment.
There are two ways to think about US foreign policy–its goals, strategy, and tactics, and then its decision making style.  While much has been made of how much Trump represented a significant break with past foreign policy practice, he still comes within the normal range of a board set of goals that goal back decades.    Before Trump the US was committed to super power supremacy and support for free trade policies that favored its interests. It supported multi-national alliances such as NATO, and support for western democratic principles remained a core foreign policy objective for the US.
Despite Trump’s political rhetoric, the basic goals of US foreign policy did not change.  This was true  part because Trump’s selections for his advisors have come from the traditional US  foreign policy establishment, including John Bolton.  Although there may have been many within the US foreign policy establishment and then Trump administration who wished to take more aggressive and perhaps in some cases a more militaristic approach toward Russia, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela, such as Bolton, those who advocated more diplomatic means, both camps shared common US goals regarding these countries to contain their influence or limit nuclear capacities.
But the real problem within the Trump administration was not so much a difference of tactics or strategy among his advisors so much as it was the personal foreign policy style of Trump.  Repeated stories reveal how he ignores his advisors, does not read intelligence reports, and how he acts on personal instincts and emotion.  Trump also demands personal loyalty.
Bolton’s problem was twofold.  One, he had very strong opinions and he was not afraid to share them, even with the president. This raised the question of personal loyalty.  Second, the Trump administration’s foreign policy team has already changed over several times in less than three years, reflecting the erratic nature of the president’s personality driven approach to making decisions.  These shifts in teams reflect Trump’s own lack of a worldview or consistent way to think about foreign policy.  He has ranged from more military muscle when he brought in all the generals, to less militaristic and more focused on trade wars.    Trump right now seems focused on trade, the economy, and a more isolationist foreign policy that relies less on threats of military might than what suited Bolton.
In some ways, Bolton was out of fashion with this period of Trump’s presidency.  In reality it does not matter if Bolton was fired or resigned.  This debate is for the issue of appearances.  If he resigned, Bolton becomes another former Trump advisor who gets to criticize  the president, if he was fired the president gets to show leadership and claim Bolton failed to do his job.  The difference in resign or fired is in whose is actually making the decisions in US foreign policy, the bureaucrats and advisors or the president.
In terms of Bolton’s replacement it is not clear what foreign policy phase Trump is now in.  But at least short term Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will become even closer to the president in advising on national security matters.  Pompeo and Trump appear for now to work well together, and perhaps Bolton is out because he lost the battles he was picking with the Secretary of State.  Any replacement for Bolton will have to be someone who get along with Pompeo, suggesting perhaps Brian Hook, Pompeo’s advisor, might be a leading candidate.
Overall, look for little change in the Trump administration’s post Bolton foreign policy.  It will remain a presidency where decisions are intensively personality driven and where Trump is at odds with his own foreign policy team and establishment.

The State of the Trump Presidency Today

Note:  On Saturday I travel to Lithuania and Belarus for two weeks to teach.  But before I go some thought on what happened with Trump this week.

Every week seems portentous when it comes to the Trump administration.  This week was no exception.  What can we make of the events this week in terms of what they mean for the 2018 elections and the future of the Trump presidency?


McMaster Out–What does it mean?
Tillerson out, Pompeo in.  McMaster out, Bolton in.  Sanctions on China.  Congratulate Putin.  Is Kelly next?  Is there an ideology guiding Trump’s recent moves with foreign policy?  At its best it signals a shift to right in terms of US foreign policy.  More specifically, it is a stronger push toward economic nationalism and unilateral policy than was the case under Tillerson and McMaster.  It also bodes for a more confrontational policy, where Bolton is critical of the Iran deal and Pompeo pushing a more aggressive stance against Korea.  In replacing his generals (who were cautious in terms of he use of hard power or military force), Trump ironically may be replacing them with civilians who are more militaristic and likely to use force to pursue US foreign policy objectives.  In short, the new Trump foreign policy is economic sanctions and force and less diplomacy.

However, we may be giving Trump too much credit here.  Trump has largely ignored the foreign policy establishment in the US and his recent moves suggest that he is prepared to act on his gut instincts, and not from anything approaching a grant strategy.  The recent moves are more likely gut reactions by Trump that perpetuate the lack of direction in his presidency that will further weaken the ability of the US to articulate its foreign policy objectives.  Don’t expect these to be the last staff replacements.


Cambridge Analytica and what it means
How will this scandal affect Donald Trump and the prospects for his participation in the presidential election-2020? How dangerous is this incident for Trump's political career?  The bigger issue is how will this scandal add to the others in terms of affecting the 2018 midterm elections.  In and of itself much of the public is either not following or understands this issue but it is part of a ongoing story about a lot of dirty things that happened in 2016.  If Democrats take control of one or both houses of Congress the Analytica incident will have helped contribute to that.  Trump’s 2020 prospects hinge more on what happens in 2018.  Moreover, the alleged  Stormy Daniels story (payment of hush money to her) and to other women along with a pending sexual harassment suit or suits will have a broader impact on how many think about Trump.

How should one assess the role of Cambridge Analytica in the victory of Donald Trump in the presidential election-2016?  The 2016 election was one dominated by the social media and fake news.  If all the Cambridge allegations are true (and more details come out), one cannot say that their role was decisive but we can say that it had a significant impact.  One cannot discount other factors such as Clinton’s own candidacy problems and strategy as contributing factors.

Stormy Daniels: Sex, Lies, and the Presidency
In 2017 I argued that 2018 would be the year that law suits would grind the Trump presidency to a halt.  There are the existing and future indictments by the special prosecutor surrounding Russian involvement in the US elections (and Trump complicity and cover up or obstruction of justice) that will include trials this year and legal issues tht will reach beyond the 2018 midterm elections.  Unlike with Nixon when a grand jury was unsure a president could be indicted for a crime and labeled him an unindicted co-conspirator, the law and legal consensus has shifted since then.  Presidents can be indicted for crimes and Trump and his old and new legal team are worried that is a possibility here and that is why Trump is lawyering up now.

Interest groups, states, and cities will challenge many of Trump’s executive orders and administrative regulations.  And of course, sex scandals will add a third set of law suits.   Including Stormy Daniels, there are three women with credible claims of sexual harassment or cover up involving Trump.  Gloria Allred is representing one of these women (Summer Zervos) who just received permission by a judge to proceed with her case.  Look to see her seek to depose Trump in the civil suit (Trump can thank Bill Clinton and the Supreme Court in Clinton v. Jones where the Court said that civil suits can proceed against a sitting president) and also look to see more lawsuits brought by other alleged victims this year.

Talk is cheap.  Let’s see who has video tape of Trump doing what.  If such tapes exist they could have a real impact on Trump.

Conclusion:  When will the Republicans Abandon Him?
Not until such time as they conclude that he is an anchor to the party.  So far his GOP base of 35-40% are with him.  The GOP in Congress is with him...sort of.  They are in denial regarding the potential damage he can do to them in the 2018 elections.  The best thing the GOP has going for them is that the Democrats need a perfect storm to take back one or two houses of Congress.  It is possible but not guaranteed.  If the GOP goes down in 2018 then they will turn on him.  Until if and then, Trump is more popular than the Republicans in Congress and the latter cannot afford to turn on him.