It’s the Character

 

TrumpI 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
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 111 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Joseph Stanko: So in addition to immigration he also backs Trump’s protectionism on trade.

    Congratulations on your Obama class false dilemma! TPP isn’t exactly about free trade, and opposition isn’t just protectionist.

    How bad is the Trans Pacific Partnership – the monster trade deal negotiated in secret?  You could imagine, but you’d under estimate it:

    Part of the trouble with the TPP is the remarkable lack of balance within the intellectual property chapter. For example, early drafts of the agreement that featured provisions emphasizing balance and the public domain were opposed by the U.S. and ultimately removed. The lack of balance is also evident in how new rights are treated as mandatory requirements, but user-focused provisions are typically just optional.

    Of course.  Users haven’t dropped boatloads of cash into the pockets of politicians.  Copyright owners have.

    … extension of criminal penalties for rights management information violations,

    Because it’s too costly to sue people who infringe, and so instead they should be jailed.  Because campaign contributions, or something.

     Criminalization of trade secret law runs counter the established approach in most TPP countries and is the direct result of U.S. Chamber of Commerce lobbying efforts.

    Because campaign contributions.

    This is precisely what you would expect to come out of a smoke filled room.  To look at this is to entirely understand the Trump phenomenon.

    • #91
  2. Mister D Inactive
    Mister D
    @MisterD

    BD:Mona Charen is an Open-Borders Republican. A lot of Republicans are desperate to have anyone listen to them when they ask for the immigration laws to be enforced. The GOP had many years to deal with the issue. Even now they are trying to ignore it.

    And that does not address a single complaint. Trump, contrary to his view, was not the only candidate opposed to illegal immigrants.

    • #92
  3. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    RyanM: Many of us are not saying that immigration is unimportant

    Unfortunately, that’s not what the campaign staff and heavy money guys of the remaining serious non-Trump candidate say. Or rather, they say immigration is important, that’s why they want so much more of it. I know that “follow the money” and “personnel is policy” are cliches, but they’re cliches for a reason.

    Whatever Cruz’ stated positions are, his new BFFs are solidly on board with the UniParty immigration agenda.

    Speaking of BFFs: what electoral strategy has Soros backing Kasich to the tune of a couple of hundred thou in addition to his front groups supporting the fascist disruptions at Trump rallies?

    • #93
  4. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    Then there’s the fact that Rubio supports Obama’s immigration agenda (his objection was procedural – he didn’t like the fact that it was done by executive order; the content he liked) and Charen supported Rubio. Rubio had promised to enact Obama’s agenda by piecemeal legislation (piecemeal to keep critics from noticing that real nature of the scheme) if elected.

    Supporting a candidate implies support for all of the candidate’s positions?

    • #94
  5. TerMend Inactive
    TerMend
    @TeresaMendoza

    Joseph Stanko:

    kylez: Is there currently a movement of millions of Americans to ban people with PhDs coming to the US? Is that all Mona wants, even though we already have it? If not, this is a straw-man.

    H1-B visas are typically for people “who earn PHDs or bring other skills” and these have become a hot-button topic, with some (presumably including Mona) wanting to expand the program while others would eliminate it altogether.

    Wait. Like model Melania Trump?

    • #95
  6. TerMend Inactive
    TerMend
    @TeresaMendoza

    Suspira:

    V the K:I am emphatically not a Trump supporter.
    But it frustrates me to no end to see the GOP stubbornly dig in and refuse to engage on any form of self-examination whatsoever.

    Trump is but a mote in the eye of the GOP.

    Good grief. I’ve seen all kinds of self-examination from conservative thinkers. Most, including Mona, concede that there is legitimate anger. But unending mea culpas will do no good if we don’t act decisively to stop the impending suicide of the conservative movement.

    If memory serves, I’ve read reports that those who amount to “movement conservatives” are not voting for Trump. Is this really a suicide, or a mugging?

    • #96
  7. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    Unfortunately, that’s not what the campaign staff and heavy money guys of the remaining serious non-Trump candidate say. Or rather, they say immigration is important, that’s why they want so much more of it. I know that “follow the money” and “personnel is policy” are cliches, but they’re cliches for a reason.

    Wait! You mean Ted Cruz and his wife worked in the George W Bush administration?

    A Texas politician hired Texans?

    Someone who worked for Mitch McConnell supports Ted Cruz?

    This is outrageous!

    Further evidence the term establishment means nothing more than, republican I do not like.

    It boggles the mind to think people look at things like this and find it disqualifying but donations to HRC, Clinton Foundation, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, support for gun bans, support for abortion and PP, single payer healthcare, etc … are disregarded. SMH

    • #97
  8. Ball Diamond Ball Member
    Ball Diamond Ball
    @BallDiamondBall

    Klaatu: Further evidence the term establishment means nothing more than, republican I do not like.

    Nice Alinskyite debasement of the language you have there.  Control the terms of debate; control the debate.

    People like me use the term “establishment” as a descriptive, not a pejorative.  Believe me, my pejoratives are an order of magnitude more effective than this clunky Latinate dog.  We typically add pejoratives to the word, because in itself it is merely descriptive.  The faux-bewilderment as to meaning and pearl-clutching upon hearing the term is disingenuous.

    Here is a definition of the word: the ruling class or authority group in a society; especially, an entrenched authority dedicated to preserving the status quo.

    It is this sense in which we use the term.  Note that the term points to its own membership — any person would be hard-pressed to put a specific person in “the establishment”, and only a fool would attempt to bound the set more tightly than this definition.  If you believe that there is no stratification on the Republican side of things along an establishment axis, that there are some more satisfied with the status quo than others, and particularly that there is no predictable bias toward upper-crust persons and figures of authority being more establishment than others, then your statement is consistent with your beliefs.

    Usurpers pretend unity.  The genuine article is  proud to be separate.  The establishment exists, and to claim otherwise is simply a motivated dishonesty — present company excepted, naturally.

    • #98
  9. Liz Member
    Liz
    @Liz

    Ball Diamond Ball:

    Liz:

    [snip]

    [S]he started it — do you find the article agreeable…? […] [S]he’s on the warpath.  []I’ve been gracious here before, and I’ve been heated, and she’s not reading this anyway — she just skims to award points for sycophantic mots bon.

    [snip] We don’t care about the things she is hollering about, because when we forwarded principled, ideologically consistent conservatives, we got hollered at for not knowing how things work in DC. Stupid Tea Party rubes, the same people whom Mona and Jay have derided as crazy wingnuts since Trump was a mere millionaire.

    [snip]

    I appreciate your response. No, I do not find the article agreeable; it is horrifying that the man Mona accurately describes is the GOP front-runner. Her portrayal of his character doesn’t tell the half of it. What, specifically, is your objection? Why should Trump’s character be off-limits? How is that “starting” anything?

    Regardless of whether Mona reads this, it is, in my view, unworthy of an R> member to attack the author instead of the piece. You don’t deny the truth of her description, but argue (now) that it is irrelevant because, according to you, Mona has long attacked the principled Tea Partiers you supported before. I don’t think that’s true, and it doesn’t explain your support of Trump when Cruz is still in the race. If character is immaterial, does that go for Hillary, too?

    • #99
  10. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    The only people debasing the language with Alinskyite tactics are the Faux-conservatives who label two first term Tea Party senators “establishment” because they are single issue voters or sleeping nationalist-protectionists. Now the entrenched billionaire crony-capitalist who buys and sells politicians as easily as breathing and who is a major donor to his potential opponent is the outsider who will disrupt the system because he insults people and brags about the size of his penis on national television.

    Those that are debasing the language with leftists tactics aren’t those of us who are standing on principle but those whose Herculean efforts in goal post shifting have turned a leftist democrat into the great conservative hope.

    • #100
  11. Ball Diamond Ball Member
    Ball Diamond Ball
    @BallDiamondBall

    Not for nothing, but I’ve never called Cruz “establishment”.

    • #101
  12. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Ball is right, he has never called Cruz establishment, I have seen it from others on the Trump Train – see Drudge and Breitbart.

    • #102
  13. Robert E. Lee Member
    Robert E. Lee
    @RobertELee

    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. 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.

    How is this different from any bog-standard politician?

    • #103
  14. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    Note that the term points to its own membership — any person would be hard-pressed to put a specific person in “the establishment”…

    That is precisely why it is completely useless.

    • #104
  15. Tom Meyer, Ed. Member
    Tom Meyer, Ed.
    @tommeyer

    Robert E. Lee:

    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. 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.

    How is this different from any bog-standard politician?

    Difference in scale if you ask me. Trump’s behavior — the constant braggadocio, the fixation on Megyn Kelly, etc. — are very atypical.

    • #105
  16. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Klaatu: It boggles the mind to think people look at things like this and find it disqualifying but donations to HRC, Clinton Foundation, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, support for gun bans, support for abortion and PP, single payer healthcare, etc … are disregarded.

    Trump is, as you say, who he is, though you are misrepresenting his views on health care. Also: a New York property developer making campaign contributions and cultivating cordial relations with the junior and senior U.S. Senators from New York, or a former Senator with considerable government connections? I’m shocked, shocked.

    Cruz, on the other hand, has professed a particular view on a pivotal issue. He has new allies and funders – recently his mortal political enemies – whose wellbeing is threatened by Cruz’ professed views. Those allies and funders, if their favored immigration policies are implemented, will create a permanent Democrat majority and gut what’s left of middle class outside of government employment. They didn’t sign on with Cruz for my health; given Cruz’ other ties to the (cough cough Tom Donelon crowd/financial sector) alarm bells went off for me.

    Cruz is likely to make better Supreme Court choices.

    I commend to your attention Diana West’s recent writing. She’s a bit overheated, but is an acute observer.

    Her collection of mainstream GOP rhetoric about Trump, examined in light of the concept of the language of violence is troubling, particularly in light of Cruz’ weaseling about the anti-Trump fascism.

    • #106
  17. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    Trump is, as you say, who he is, though you are misrepresenting his views on health care. Also: a New York property developer making campaign contributions and cultivating cordial relations with the junior and senior U.S. Senators from New York, or a former Senator with considerable government connections? I’m shocked, shocked.

    I’m not misrepresenting anything.
    HRC was running for president, not Senate when he last contributed to her And neither Reid nor Pelosi represent NY.

    Cruz, on the other hand, has professed a particular view on a pivotal issue. He has new allies and funders – recently his mortal political enemies – whose wellbeing is threatened by Cruz’ professed views. Those allies and funders, if their favored immigration policies are implemented, will create a permanent Democrat majority and gut what’s left of middle class outside of government employment. They didn’t sign on with Cruz for my health; given Cruz’ other ties to the (cough cough Tom Donelon crowd/financial sector) alarm bells went off for me.

    If your argument relies on you having insight into the motives of others, better not to make it.

    • #107
  18. David Carroll Thatcher
    David Carroll
    @DavidCarroll

    I will vote for Trump if he is the nominee, with all his faults. He is not my first choice. I can never vote for that shrill, cackling witch who will be running against him. As bad as he may be, his is more likely kept in check by Congress than his opponent (I can’t bring myself even to write her name). So, yes, I will vote for him if he gets the nomination and will not waste my time in criticism, because that is pointless unless Cruz gets his miracle shot.

    • #108
  19. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Klaatu: HRC was running for president, not Senate when he last contributed to her

    You’re right! She was running against – what was that guy’s name? Barry something – and Trump thought that on balance she’d make a better president, and gave her some money.

    • #109
  20. Max Ledoux Coolidge
    Max Ledoux
    @Max

    Ontheleftcoast:

    Klaatu: HRC was running for president, not Senate when he last contributed to her

    You’re right! She was running against – what was that guy’s name? Barry something – and Trump thought that on balance she’d make a better president, and gave her some money.

    I think, on balance, Bernie Sanders would make a better president than Hillary Clinton (at least he shouldn’t be in prison). I’m not going to give him money.

    • #110
  21. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    You’re right! She was running against – what was that guy’s name? Barry something – and Trump thought that on balance she’d make a better president, and gave her some money.

    Of course there were a number of conservative Republicans running that year as well.

    • #111
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.