Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
It’s the Character
I first became aware of Donald Trump when he chose to make cheating on his first wife front-page news. It was the early ’90s. Donald and Ivana Trump broke up over the course of months. Not that divorce is shocking, mind you. Among the glitterati marriage seems more unusual. Nor is infidelity exactly novel. But it requires a particular breed of lowlife to advertise the sexual superiority of one’s mistress over the mother of one’s children. That was Trump’s style. He leaked stories to the New York tabloids about Ivana’s breast implants — they didn’t feel right. Marla Maples, by contrast, suited him better. She, proving her suitability for the man she was eager to steal from his family, told the papers that her encounters with the mogul were “the best sex I’ve ever had.” It wasn’t just Donald Trump’s betrayal that caught my eye, nor just the tawdriness – it was the cruelty.
That’s the part of the Trump rise that is quite shocking. Most politicians, for as long as I can remember, have been at considerable pains to present themselves as nicer, nobler, and more empathetic than they really are. Since many of them (not all) are selfish egotists, this requires some skill. Now comes Trump unblushingly parading his viciousness – by, for example, mocking a handicapped man, toying with white supremacism, or encouraging political violence — and still gaining the loyalty of a plurality of Republicans.
One can imagine why voters might tolerate a little nastiness in certain situations. It’s possible that the threat of ISIS-style war crimes makes a would-be leader who vows to commit war crimes of his own seem palatable, or even “strong.” It’s not a total surprise that a regime of stifling political correctness would evoke a reaction.
But voters are venturing way out on a plank with Trump – and I’m not speaking here of the fact that he is overwhelmingly likely to lose to Hillary Clinton if he’s the Republican nominee. No, I’m referring to the copious evidence that if he won, he could cause catastrophic damage to the country.
Donald Trump is not emotionally healthy. No normal man sits up late at night tweeting dozens of insults about Megyn Kelly, or skips a key debate because he’s nursing a grudge against her for asking perfectly ordinary questions, or continues to obsess about her weeks and months after the fact.
A normal, well-adjusted man does not go to great lengths to prove to a random journalist that he has normal sized fingers. Some may think it was Rubio who introduced the “small hands” business, but it actually dates back to an encounter Trump had 25 years ago with journalist Graydon Carter. Carter had referred to Trump as a “stubby fingered vulgarian” in Spy magazine. Trump could not let it go. Carter told Vanity Fair in 2015:
To this day, I receive the occasional envelope from Trump. There is always a photo of him — generally a tear sheet from a magazine. On all of them he has circled his hand in gold Sharpie in a valiant effort to highlight the length of his fingers . . . The most recent offering arrived earlier this year, before his decision to go after the Republican presidential nomination. Like the other packages, this one included a circled hand and the words, also written in gold Sharpie: “See, not so short!”
Notice he didn’t contest the “vulgarian” part of the insult. And remember that at a presidential debate, for God’s sake, Trump brought it up himself and assured the world that “there is no problem, believe me.” I don’t believe him, and I’m not talking about his genitals.
There is an enormous problem. Trump seems to suffer from narcissistic personality disorder, an insecurity so consuming and crippling that he has devoted his life to self-aggrandizement. This is far beyond the puffery that most salesmen indulge to some degree. It strays well into the bizarre. Asked whom he consults on foreign policy Trump said “I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things.” What grown man says things like that and continues to be taken seriously? How can he be leading the race for the Republican nomination?
People with severe ego weakness are to be pitied – but also feared. Everything Trump says and does is a form of self-medication for a damaged soul. His need to disparage others, to glorify himself, and to be the “strong man” could lead to disastrous judgments by the man in charge of the nuclear codes.
Published in General
Ball, you should be above this.
But, maybe not… so I suppose I’ll point out the irony. As long as there are people like you (again, see above for more examples) who still insist that Mona is barking up the wrong tree by insisting that the character of a president is actually important, I think she’s well justified in trying to hammer the point home. Seems like a mission doomed to failure, but maybe through repetition? I’d encourage you to keep reading.
Not strange when confronted with stuff like this.
Perhaps because that’s what Trump would do and they’re emulating him.
The most ridiculous thing about the whole “short-fingered vulgarian” imbroglio is that Spy never had a circulation over 200K. (By comparison, Time and People each have over 3 million. And Better Homes & Gardens has over 7 million.)
But Trump is still smarting over a 25-year-old comment in a magazine with a tiny circulation and which ceased publication 18 years ago. That is a whack job.
Hey remember how the actions of a totally unrelated person in no way justify the actions of a completely different and unrelated person. I think my parents taught me that when I was 3.
[redacted]
Well, problem is, she doesn’t think he has any. But Go Ted!
You’ve babbled your unpleasant way to incoherence. I neither solicit nor welcome your advice on having my mind changed through exposure to repetitious droning.
I think there’s a decent point, politely made above, about people who are paid to write articles churning out something different every once in a while. Your rhetoric admits your hostility — hammer it home yourself.
[redacted]
Do you actually have a counterpoint? If so I’d like to hear it. Ad hominem is so boring.
The secret ingredient is Rubio’s tears.
[redacted]
In all seriousness – in what way does the idiotic actions of our anti-american president justify poor character on behalf of his wannabe successor?
Ladies and gentlemen, the CoC is in force here. There are substantivie criticisms here mixed in with personal attacks and mocking; the latter two will end now.
Agreed. And I said it just a few comments above. Seems not so long ago that it used to be common sense of the sort we’d tell our children: “just because Timmy did it, doesn’t mean…,” yet here we are. We’re reverting to the behavior of schoolchildren, and then we complain that Mona sounds marmish when she chides us. Is there any better proof of her point as to why it is a bad idea to put a man like that in the most influential office in the world? It should be our responsibility to reject Obama and his particularly reprehensible brand of being unpresidential, not to one-up him by finding someone even worse.
All one has to do to be labeled a trump supporter is not be driven to madness.
Its getting very tiresome.
So how about we start praising Cruz to the heavens. Trump supporters do not care, they’re gone, we need Cruz supporters and then folks who oppose Hillary. Keep it simple, but keep it pro Cruz.
It’s important, but having a clue about what’s going on is even more important… and opposing it if it’s destructive.
Under Obama, with Republican connivance, over a million “refugees” and refugees have been settled in the USA and the TPP was crammed down our throats.
Cruz, Rubio, Sanders and Clinton are all pedal to the metal on that ride.
Trump… not so much.
Plus: the only way for any Republican to win this one is by a totally different sort of campaign. Not just doing the same old thing really well. Trump gets that one. The dead GOP campaigns and Cruz…. again, not so much.
The next President will not have sterling character.
Trump isn’t an aberration – not his personality or character, that isn’t the real issue. The real issue is that as long as it’s the Grand Old Party it’s the Grand Losing Party.
I liked many of Cruz’s ideas, or did before he tied Jeb!’s campaign around his neck. But I don’t think he can get many independent voters: He sounds insincere even when he says something I’m pretty sure he really means. That’s not enough to appeal to enough independents and non-yellow-dog Republicans to beat Clinton.
I have listened to almost every episode of Need to Know for the past four years. I can say with a certain level of confidence that you are wrong.
Much as I might wish Trump could dispatch his opponents with rapier-sharp witticisms, the sad truth of our day is that our National Politics are “Ow! My Balls!” not “Firing Line.”
Guru, let us break down the points that you’re making, here.
Support of Trump means that you’re not driven to madness, correct? So, those who detract – me, obviously Mona, several others here – have been driven to madness. You can see that in the hysteric way that Mona lays out her position against having a leader who is proudly amoral, who is petty, who goes on personal attack rampages, and who holds a grudge for 20-30 years. Right? This is another version of the “trump derangement syndrome” argument that is – I assure you – far more tiresome than what you’re complaining of. It is a tactic of the left (that we’ve seen with “homophobia,” “climate deniers,” etc…), and what it does is ascribe clinical illness to your opponent so that you can take a principled argument (e.g. we ought not elevate proudly amoral men to positions of leadership) and writes it off with the waive of a hand.
I suppose you’re very happy to not be “driven to the madness” of having to consider something as irrational as personal character when it comes to high office – but why don’t you humor us all and actually argue with those of us who have apparently lost our minds?
Have you got a few good reasons why Mona’s perspective is such complete nonsense as to render her ripe for commitment? Pretend like you’re arguing this before an ITA (involuntary treatment act) judge, and feel free to use your tattered and torn copy of the DSMV.
I’m listening.
So the single issue of importance is immigration. Got it. But you’re taking a pretty broad spectrum of stances on that issue and sweeping them all away by saying that anything non-Trump (i.e. Mexico will pay for the wall!!) is basically amnesty. You’re also suggesting that Republicans colluded with a lawless and popular president by not attacking him while they lacked the power to effectively do so… that’s a subject that may not be so non-controversial as you think. Worse, you’re writing off the issue of character by saying that it is not as important as those things the con-man is trying to sell you. But isn’t it vitally important to whether you trust said individual to actually deliver in any meaningful way?
Those of us who say that Trump will result in a catastrophic defeat in congress as well as the presidency aren’t just pulling that out of thin air. And references to Trump’s particular brand of depravity are relevant both to whether we support him and whether anyone will be able to support him in a general. If immigration is so important to you – and I’m not saying that’s invalid – consider not simply that it is important, but how you can be successful in an attempt to curb it. Many of us are not saying that immigration is unimportant, but that Trump will do more harm than good.
Actually, even more strange after reading stuff like this. How someone could read about this vile behavior and not be embarrassed that such a person is becoming the face of conservatism and could potentially become the face of the country, and even worse, feel any need to defend Trump, is just beyond comprehension.
I assume you include the post in that…
“My parents taught me that at 3” is non-mockery but “you should have grown up” is redacted? “*golfclap* Feel better about yourself” is OK? Please reconsider.
As much as I want that wall, I admit his intemperance and penchant for vengeance concerns me.
I’m curious. How has Cruz tied Jeb’s campaign around his neck?
Mr. Trump is not a member of Ricochet and is, moreover, a public figure. There are, for obvious reasons, different standards toward these groups, as has long been the case on Ricochet.
Max Ledoux: This is Mona Charen on immigration: “We should swiftly deport criminals even as we should be welcoming to those who earn PHDs or bring other skills. But I also argue that illegal immigration, particularly from Mexico, is steeply declining….”
That seems to be the extent of Charen’s enforcement agenda. And she refers to people who want to enforce the current law as “restrictionists”. Has she said anything that contradicts this on the podcast?