In a striking editorial the NYT raises a possibility unprecedented in mainstream U.S. politics since the Civil War:
But his behavior this week raises a more disturbing scenario. Perhaps he has given up on winning through civil means and does not care about the consequences of his campaign of incitement.
It’s a radical proposition, and one with about as much chance of success as Ammon Bundy and Co.’s occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge i.e. virtually none. It would be extremely personally unwise for the candidate, his family, and his business interests, and would probably destroy the Republican Party for the foreseeable future. It would also, of course, be a tragedy for the country: a grievous self-inflicted wound. But could they be right?
That’s how I read their conclusion: he might have given up on winning, so he doesn’t care if there’s domestic unrest.
So, in other words, still inside the electoral process, but with some collateral damage (hurt people).
I read it as: he wants to win by any means necessary — including by inciting unrest — not that he has given up. After all, they don’t write that he has given up, only “given up on winning through civil means.” Either way, it’s a tragic forecast with potentially long-lasting consequences, most directly for the GOP, but for all of us as well.
… and unable to summon the humility or even simple self-reflection, necessary to extricate himself from a process that had begun to overwhelm him some time ago. Simply put, he’s lost in maze of unacceptable choices and overwhelming feelings and has no idea how to get out. I feel sorry for him. And us.
All the other ‘theories’ assume Trump is in control, that he consciously chooses to act in this manner. When, in fact, e’s likely caught between desperately needing and being quickly overwhelmed by the adulation and reaction and his own self-image which doesn’t allow him to be overwhelmed or needy. This is, in fact, likely why he chose, first real estate, then luxury-item salesmanship and finally television: each of these things can be done in discrete, easily managed, elements. It’s probably why he plays golf, too…
The giveaway is the hair. His self-image won’t allow baldness and so he goes to incredible feats of styling and engineering (with likely a dose of chemistry for hold) to assuage his self-image. That he, it appears, refuses to be fitted for a wig suggests he really needs what’s left of his own hair to compensate for the encroaching baldness: a wig is likely worse than balding and balding is simply unacceptable. We all think this is just a silly affectation, and so it might be in someone else, but with Trump it is a clue to his very being: he will go to great lengths to not feel overwhelmed and he will go to even greater lengths to feel virile. That neither the adulation nor magic feats hair styling can ever truly substitute for virility simply means he’s playing a game he cannot win against an ego that cannot lose.
As with the hair, there is no outrage he cannot top if the previous outrage led to a backlash that leaves him feeling overwhelmed, or if the process itself is overwhelming him. He simply cannot deal with being overwhelmed and his self-image and training won’t allow him to think of himself as someone who can be overwhelmed.
With, what…? Three months to go to the election It’s only going to get more intense for him. I really do feel sorry for him.
I am, however, beginning to hate the people who attend his rallies and push him on. And the GOP establishment that’s ‘accepted’ him. They are the true villains in this piece.
Thanks! Of course, you’re right about the Republicans who continue to support him, but I suspect there are very few true believers there. Thus, as it becomes increasingly apparent that he won’t win, they will fall away like the false, or opportunistic, supporters they always were (Chris Christie, looking at you, sir). Still, it’s appalling he has gotten this far.
Those of us who have raised children know that a toddler — 3-5 years old — MUST have limits to test, it is the nature of children.
A loving parent knows to set boundaries in a safe and enforceable way — “You are allowed to go as far as the sidewalk, and no further”. The toddler will ALWAYS go that far, turn around and look at you, and then take another step. The toddler NEEDS to know that the parent will, at that point, pick the toddler up, say “NO”, and bring it back to safety.
Parents who try to avoid setting such limits explicitly rather quickly learn that their children will force them to discover, through trial and error, what the parent’s limits actually are. Too many children get hurt because those limits are in fact truly dangerous to the child or others.
I think Donald Trump is doing the same thing. I think he is, intentionally or not, trying to see what the limits of society actually are. I think that, like a toddler, his behavior and speech will become more and more extreme until those limits are reached.
I think the question for society is whether or not we will find a way to set those limits explicitly, before tragedy happens. I suggest that if we do not, we will discover where the limits SHOULD HAVE BEEN, after a tragedy.
The dark forces in America that Mr. Trump summons forth are truly dangerous to all of us. The question, to me, is whether the rest of us have the courage to do something about it before it’s too late.
In theory, a fine suggestion. In practice, this is the problem that many in the GOP have been grappling with for months. Should the media, for example, stop televising his speeches? He is the Republican nominee, after all, duly selected by millions. Should he be charged with making threats against Hillary Clinton? Even Trump has first amendment rights, that are broadly important. What do you think?
These are tough questions. Like dealing with a toddler, the easy answer is to be lax and attempt to ignore the issue. The result is likely to be tragic.
There is a middle ground between blacking out his speeches and taking the false-equivalence path now practiced, especially by CNN. The media is well able to report bizarre comments while properly framing the context — nobody is confused about the wild mutterings of David Duke or a home-grown terrorist.
When Mr. Trump says bizarre things — “No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do,” Mr. Trump said. “He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton” — they need to be reported as either the rantings of a lunatic or the lies of carnival barker working a crowd.
Yes, he should be charged with inciting violence against Ms. Clinton and against federal judges. If you or I were to say something similar in a public forum with federal authorities in earshot, I am confident we would be rather quickly hustled into jail.
We have long since agreed that First Amendment protections do not extend to falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. Telling an already passionate (and utterly ignorant) mob that Ms. Clinton and federal judges deserve a “Second Amendment remedy” is well across that line in my opinion.
My fundamental point here is that as outrageous as his behavior and speech has already been, Mr. Trump will get more and more outrageous until he is stopped.
What do you suppose America will do if some crazy shoots Ms. Clinton in the head (along with dozens in her entourage), or assassinates U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel?
We can either face these tough questions now or live through years or decades of agony after we do nothing and tragedy strikes (two links).
After I posted my comment, I ran across this Washington Post piece:
…at attempting to chaperone Trump while assuring crowds that Trump and the RNC are totally simpatico. Meanwhile Trump told a rally today that the only way he can lose PA is if the Clinton campaign cheats, never mind she has an 11-point lead in the latest PA poll or that PA hasn’t voted GOP for President since 1988.
A lovely phrase from Jack Beatty.
…and what they might do about it. Even in the most trying times in our history we have maintained our regularly scheduled elections and peaceful transfers of power. The only real exception is how the South reacted to the election of Lincoln.
This:
https://twitter.com/KatyTurNBC/status/764462377177849856
I’m sure this will end well.