thebulwark--2020-06-29--The Dean of BDS?

The Dean of BDS?

There is something about the BDS movement against Israel ( Boycott , Divestment , Sanctions ) that causes smart people to stake out unreasonable positions .
The most recent example comes in the form of a post from John K. Wilson on the AAUP ’ s Academe Blog , titled “ In Defense of Ilana Feldman and BDS Supporters.
” For those who are unaware , Prof. Ilana Feldman is a well-known BDS supporter who generated controversy when she was appointed interim dean of the Elliot School of International Affairs at George Washington University .
In the face of protests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Dr .
Feldman will not be a candidate for the permanent position.
” According to Wilson , “ there was only one reason : Feldman supports the Boycott , Divest , Sanctions ( BDS ) movement against the Israeli government.
” While “ support ” for the BDS movement should indeed be protected under academic freedom , Feldman had gone further , signing and co-sponsoring this pledge : Such a commitment , is much more than an expression of an academic view .
It is a stated intention to violate the academic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holding an administrative position at an American university .
A dean—even an interim dean— can not perform her job if she has announced in advance that she will not collaborate with other academic institutions on the basis of nationality .
Feldman ’ s pledge can not be waved away by characterizing it as merely a “ personal ” commitment that she would not have imposed on the university .
If Feldman were to have been made a dean and then to have refused to “ collaborate on projects and events involving Israeli academic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violated her obligations as dean—which include impartially facilitating the work of her students and colleagues .
Including those who do not share her aversion to Israel .
What would Feldman have done if an Elliot School professor proposed co-sponsoring a conference with Hebrew University ?
Or if a graduate student proposed a joint project with a department at Tel Aviv University ?
Facilitating such participation would have violated her pledge , which included a “ call ” for other professors to join the academic boycott , but withholding the dean ’ s resources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At the very least , Feldman ’ s pledge would have had a chilling effect on students and faculty even suggesting cooperation with an Israeli institution .
In the legal ethics world , this is called an unresolvable conflict of interest .
The dean of a school of international affairs must help build bridges to other universities , not create categorical barriers .
That is a requirement of leadership irrespective of a candidate ’ s personal beliefs or political positions .
A physician who pledged “ never to facilitate the termination of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue to practice at a non-sectarian hospital , consistent with their personal beliefs .
But she could not serve as the head of the gynecology department , because the pledge would be inconsistent with the demands of the position .
Likewise , a religious person who pledged never to “ collaborate ” with non-believers could certainly not hold an administrative position at a secular university .
( And possibly not even at a religiously-affiliated university , depending on the interpretation of anti-discrimination law . )
Thus , the dean of a school of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pledge to exclude cooperation with academic institutions on the basis of nationality—as that could deprive students and faculty of meaningful educational opportunities .
The obvious truth is that professors have options that administrators do not .
If Prof. Feldman chooses on principle to refrain from publishing in Israeli journals , or to abstain from attending certain conferences , that is her own business .
But a dean ’ s refusal to collaborate with Israeli universities potentially affects everyone in the Elliot School , and is therefore disqualifying .
There have evidently been overheated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support for BDS amounts to anti-Semitism and that it indicates a disregard for Jewish students .
Feldman has a right to her personal and political beliefs , including support for BDS .
A pledge , however , is not merely an expression of belief .
Feldman herself has reportedly said that the BDS “ boycott is a political act and not just a statement of position.
” Professor Feldman is a highly accomplished anthropologist , specializing in the Middle East , who surely knew what she was doing when she signed the BDS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggest that she does not intend to honor it now .
Feldman herself has not publicly disavowed her anti-collaboration pledge .
I emailed her asking if she still stands by it ; she did not respond .
I believe in defending the academic freedom of BDS supporters .
But that does not include a right to impose their beliefs on others .
The AAUP , of which I am a life member , admirably opposes all academic boycotts , but that will become meaningless if the boycotters are placed in positions of administrative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their objectives .
Professor Feldman has not been banned or punished for her views .
Rather , George Washington University has belatedly realized that her pledge was inconsistent with the obligations of a deanship .

There is something about the BDS movement against Israel (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) that causes smart people to stake out unreasonable positions. The most recent example comes in the form of a post from John K. Wilson on the AAUP’s Academe Blog, titled “In Defense of Ilana Feldman and BDS Supporters.”
For those who are unaware, Prof. Ilana Feldman is a well-known BDS supporter who generated controversy when she was appointed interim dean of the Elliot School of International Affairs at George Washington University. In the face of protests, the university provost eventually announced that “Dr. Feldman will not be a candidate for the permanent position.”
According to Wilson, “there was only one reason: Feldman supports the Boycott, Divest, Sanctions (BDS) movement against the Israeli government.”
Wilson is wrong.
While “support” for the BDS movement should indeed be protected under academic freedom, Feldman had gone further, signing and co-sponsoring this pledge:
We pledge not to collaborate on projects and events involving Israeli academic institutions, not to teach at or to attend conferences and other events at such institutions, and not to publish in academic journals based in Israel.
Such a commitment, is much more than an expression of an academic view. It is a stated intention to violate the academic freedom of others—which is absolutely inconsistent with holding an administrative position at an American university.
A dean—even an interim dean—cannot perform her job if she has announced in advance that she will not collaborate with other academic institutions on the basis of nationality.
Feldman’s pledge cannot be waved away by characterizing it as merely a “personal” commitment that she would not have imposed on the university. If Feldman were to have been made a dean and then to have refused to “collaborate on projects and events involving Israeli academic institutions,” she would have necessarily violated her obligations as dean—which include impartially facilitating the work of her students and colleagues. Including those who do not share her aversion to Israel.
What would Feldman have done if an Elliot School professor proposed co-sponsoring a conference with Hebrew University? Or if a graduate student proposed a joint project with a department at Tel Aviv University?
Facilitating such participation would have violated her pledge, which included a “call” for other professors to join the academic boycott, but withholding the dean’s resources would have betrayed her professional obligations. At the very least, Feldman’s pledge would have had a chilling effect on students and faculty even suggesting cooperation with an Israeli institution.
In the legal ethics world, this is called an unresolvable conflict of interest. The dean of a school of international affairs must help build bridges to other universities, not create categorical barriers. That is a requirement of leadership irrespective of a candidate’s personal beliefs or political positions.
A physician who pledged “never to facilitate the termination of a pregnancy,” for example, could continue to practice at a non-sectarian hospital, consistent with their personal beliefs. But she could not serve as the head of the gynecology department, because the pledge would be inconsistent with the demands of the position. Likewise, a religious person who pledged never to “collaborate” with non-believers could certainly not hold an administrative position at a secular university. (And possibly not even at a religiously-affiliated university, depending on the interpretation of anti-discrimination law.)
Thus, the dean of a school of international affairs cannot take a blanket pledge to exclude cooperation with academic institutions on the basis of nationality—as that could deprive students and faculty of meaningful educational opportunities.
The obvious truth is that professors have options that administrators do not. If Prof. Feldman chooses on principle to refrain from publishing in Israeli journals, or to abstain from attending certain conferences, that is her own business. But a dean’s refusal to collaborate with Israeli universities potentially affects everyone in the Elliot School, and is therefore disqualifying.
There have evidently been overheated attacks on Feldman, claiming that her support for BDS amounts to anti-Semitism and that it indicates a disregard for Jewish students.
That is plainly wrong.
Feldman has a right to her personal and political beliefs, including support for BDS. A pledge, however, is not merely an expression of belief. Feldman herself has reportedly said that the BDS “boycott is a political act and not just a statement of position.”
Professor Feldman is a highly accomplished anthropologist, specializing in the Middle East, who surely knew what she was doing when she signed the BDS pledge. It would be patronizing to suggest that she does not intend to honor it now. Feldman herself has not publicly disavowed her anti-collaboration pledge. I emailed her asking if she still stands by it; she did not respond.
I believe in defending the academic freedom of BDS supporters. But that does not include a right to impose their beliefs on others. The AAUP, of which I am a life member, admirably opposes all academic boycotts, but that will become meaningless if the boycotters are placed in positions of administrative authority and given the power to enforce their objectives.
Professor Feldman has not been banned or punished for her views. Rather, George Washington University has belatedly realized that her pledge was inconsistent with the obligations of a deanship.


thebulwark--2020-07-01--The Grim Lessons of CHOP

The Grim Lessons of CHOP

Early this morning , Seattle police began dismantling the barricades , tents , and signs that demonstrators had used to control several city blocks for most of the last month .
The area was originally known as the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone ( CHAZ ) , but had recently been renamed , for reasons nobody could quite explain , the Capitol Hill Organized Protest ( or Occupied Protest ) , producing the ominous acronym CHOP—as in what happened to dissenters during the French Revolution .
In recent weeks , the area had begun to acquire a correspondingly evil reputation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breaking point about a week ago with two shootings in 48 hours .
In one of them , a 19-year-old kid who was trying to get other protesters to stop setting off dangerous fireworks was shot and killed .
The protesters prevented police and ambulances from arriving at the scene .
The victim died after being taken to the hospital by CHOP “ medics , ” and no suspects have yet been identified in his death .
On Monday there was another shooting , which left a 16-year-old dead and a 14-year-old in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is some indication that the shooting may have been done by CHOP “ security ” after they had been alerted that the Jeep the victims were driving was stolen .
So much for addressing the problems of police brutality and excessive use of force .
As with the previous shooting , there are no suspects and no one in the CHOP is cooperating with police .
Both of the young men killed were black .
Now that the barricades are falling and CHOP is apparently coming to an end , we must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quickly and so thoroughly become that which it claimed to despise ?
Nobody who has studied the history of socialism and its supposed utopias should be surprised by any of this .
I have pointed out the lack of accountability in this zone of anarchy .
Unlike the police , the armed men who were patrolling CHOP were nameless , kept no records , and answered to no one .
That was precisely the case being made by a relative of last week ’ s victim : Some of the people at CHOP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safe use , ” as in “ the safe use of drugs , ” which seems to be a bit of an oxymoron in this context .
Their other big proposal was a little more draconian .
The police might be oppressive , so let ’ s create a utopia in which we have to impose a curfew in order to keep the drug addicts from killing people .
Or there was another alternative : vigilantism : “ [ One man ] appealed for those responsible to give themselves up to police , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : ‘ Turn yourself in , because if you don ’ t…it ’ s better that the police get hold of you than they do . '
” That ’ s a curious line to take for people who are running protests against excessive use of force by the police .
Folks at CHOP knew the end was coming , not just for their enclave but for its role in any larger cause : Seattle ’ s dippy mayor , Jenny Durkan , had earlier gushed that “ We could have the Summer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hedonistic heyday of the hippie movement in 1967—which might have given her pause had she reflected on the not-so-loving strife that followed it in 1968 and beyond .
Because we ’ re living through a shallower and quicker recap of all those same disasters , Mayor Durkan began having second thoughts and making vague promises about clamping down on CHOP .
After the latest shooting , Seattle ’ s police chief , who never wanted to abandon the Capitol Hill district , is saying , “ Enough is enough.
” The happy inmates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Capitol Hill district—were initially reported to be perfectly thrilled with their position at the center of utopia .
Then again , surrounded as they were by massive mobs of angry people , with no expectation of police protection , they weren ’ t exactly free to speak their minds , were they ?
There ’ s not much autonomy for those unfortunate enough to be trapped inside the Autonomous Zone .
So to carry this story full circle , the locals began suing the city to demand police protection : In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court , about a dozen businesses , residents , and property owners said they had sometimes been threatened for photographing protesters in public areas or for cleaning graffiti off their storefronts .
The owner of the auto shop Car Tender said a burglar broke in the night of June 14 , started a fire using hand sanitizer as an accelerant , and then attacked his son with a knife when confronted .
The owner and his son managed to put out the fire and detain the burglar , the complaint said , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A large crowd of “ CHOP participants ” then came to the scene and forced the owner to release the arsonist… .
The plaintiffs are seeking damages for lost business , property damage , and deprivation of their property rights as well as the restoration of full public access .
This is the massive contradiction of the whole campaign to use street protests to delegitimize and defund the police , because it ’ s now clear that the anarchic forces unleashed when the police withdraw are far more dangerous .
One of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the chaos at CHOP , blaming it on everyone and everything but themselves , is called Black Collective Voice .
Well , that ’ s the problem , isn ’ t it ?
Setting yourself up as the self-appointed voice of the “ collective ” is a great way of avoiding any actual accountability to the people you are claiming to represent .
This illusion of “ collective ” power is an old lesson of socialist utopias .
It always turns out that some people are more equal than others .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ force—especially by our would-be protectors—must be limited , controlled , and held accountable .
How can we do that ?
Perhaps by having an official roster of these protectors who are required to tell us their names , undergo background checks and training , keep records , and wear body cameras .
These protectors should be bound to appear in court to answer for any misdeeds .
Also , they should report to officials elected by the people they are supposed to protect .
In other words : the police .
Police forces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of force is controlled by the people .
The police do not always do their jobs professionally—and the people do not always do an adequate job at holding them accountable—and there are moments like now when we become acutely aware of the need for reform .
But reform means : lobbying for new rules and laws , electing new public officials , and doing the follow-up to make sure the new rules are actually implemented and lead to the intended results .
This is difficult and often unglamorous , but there is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the use of force to an unthinking , unaccountable mob and the self-appointed “ voices ” of the collective—well , we now have a perfect illustration of where that gets you .

Early this morning, Seattle police began dismantling the barricades, tents, and signs that demonstrators had used to control several city blocks for most of the last month. The area was originally known as the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ), but had recently been renamed, for reasons nobody could quite explain, the Capitol Hill Organized Protest (or Occupied Protest), producing the ominous acronym CHOP—as in what happened to dissenters during the French Revolution.
In recent weeks, the area had begun to acquire a correspondingly evil reputation, particularly after nightfall.
This reached a breaking point about a week ago with two shootings in 48 hours. In one of them, a 19-year-old kid who was trying to get other protesters to stop setting off dangerous fireworks was shot and killed. The protesters prevented police and ambulances from arriving at the scene. The victim died after being taken to the hospital by CHOP “medics,” and no suspects have yet been identified in his death.
On Monday there was another shooting, which left a 16-year-old dead and a 14-year-old in intensive care. In this case, there is some indication that the shooting may have been done by CHOP “security” after they had been alerted that the Jeep the victims were driving was stolen. So much for addressing the problems of police brutality and excessive use of force.
As with the previous shooting, there are no suspects and no one in the CHOP was cooperating with police.
Both of the young men killed were black.
Now that the barricades are falling and CHOP is apparently coming to an end, we must ask: How could a movement so quickly and so thoroughly become that which it claimed to despise? Nobody who has studied the history of socialism and its supposed utopias should be surprised by any of this.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
I previously pointed out the lack of accountability in this zone of anarchy. Unlike the police, the armed men who were patrolling CHOP were nameless, kept no records, and answered to no one. That was precisely the case being made by a relative of last week’s victim:
Stacy said she is Anderson’s godmother, and . . . wants accountability for Anderson’s death. Specifically, she wants to know why the protesters didn’t let 911 medical help arrive sooner to her godson, and if the CHOP “medics” have legitimate credentials to give medical aid and make decisions on how the teen was treated and cared for following the shooting.
Some of the people at CHOP proposed reforms:
In an open letter addressed to the CHOP leaders and organizers, a group of approximately 25 activists and volunteers proposed changes that include setting up a safe use area on the outskirts of the occupied area and creating signage that encourages intoxicated people to stay away from the protest zone.
That’s “safe use,” as in “the safe use of drugs,” which seems to be a bit of an oxymoron in this context.
Their other big proposal was a little more draconian.
The group also suggested creating curfew hours to prevent late-night activity within the zone. “The late hours of CHOP tend to give way to some problematic behavior,” wrote the group. “As such, to help lessen the load of overnight volunteer security, medics, and residents, we propose suggested CHOP hours of 8AM-8PM.”
The police might be oppressive, so let’s create a utopia in which we have to impose a curfew in order to keep the drug addicts from killing people.
Or there was another alternative: vigilantism: “[One man] appealed for those responsible to give themselves up to police, suggesting protesters would take a harder line: ‘Turn yourself in, because if you don’t . . . it’s better that the police get hold of you than they do.'”
That’s a curious line from people who were running protests against the excessive use of force by the police.
Folks at CHOP knew the end was coming, not just for their enclave but for its role in any larger cause:
Andre Taylor, who founded the anti-police-shooting organization Not This Time! after his brother was killed by Seattle police in 2016, said Monday that he had warned protest organizers that the city would need to retake the area because of the violence. “That CHOP area is attracting this kind of activity and it’s unsafe.”
Seattle’s dippy mayor, Jenny Durkan, had earlier gushed that “We could have the Summer of Love”—a reference to the hedonistic heyday of the hippie movement in 1967—which might have given her pause had she reflected on the not-so-loving strife that followed it in 1968 and beyond. Because we’re living through a shallower and quicker recap of all those same disasters, Mayor Durkan began having second thoughts and making vague promises about clamping down on CHOP.
After the latest shooting, Seattle’s police chief, who never wanted to abandon the Capitol Hill district, said, “Enough is enough.” So this morning’s police action should surprise no one.
The happy inmates of CHOP—the residents and business owners of the Capitol Hill district—were initially reported to be perfectly thrilled with their position at the center of utopia. Then again, surrounded as they were by massive mobs of angry people, with no expectation of police protection, they weren’t exactly free to speak their minds, were they?
There’s not much autonomy for those unfortunate enough to be trapped inside the Autonomous Zone.
So to carry this story full circle, the locals began suing the city to demand police protection:
In the class-action lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court, about a dozen businesses, residents, and property owners said they had sometimes been threatened for photographing protesters in public areas or for cleaning graffiti off their storefronts. The owner of the auto shop Car Tender said a burglar broke in the night of June 14, started a fire using hand sanitizer as an accelerant, and then attacked his son with a knife when confronted. The owner and his son managed to put out the fire and detain the burglar, the complaint said, but police never responded to their 911 calls. A large crowd of “CHOP participants” then came to the scene and forced the owner to release the arsonist…. The plaintiffs are seeking damages for lost business, property damage, and deprivation of their property rights as well as the restoration of full public access.
This is the massive contradiction of the whole campaign to use street protests to delegitimize and defund the police, because it’s now clear that the anarchic forces unleashed when the police withdraw are far more dangerous.
One of the organizations that was still trying to run interference for CHOP even in its final days, blaming the chaos on everyone and everything but themselves, is called Black Collective Voice. Well, that’s the problem, isn’t it? Setting yourself up as the self-appointed voice of the “collective” is a great way of avoiding any actual accountability to the people you are claiming to represent.
This illusion of “collective” power is an old lesson of socialist utopias. It always turns out that some people are more equal than others.
In a civilized society, the use of force—especially by our would-be protectors—must be limited, controlled, and held accountable.
How can we do that? Perhaps by having an official roster of these protectors who are required to tell us their names, undergo background checks and training, keep records, and wear body cameras.
These protectors should be bound to appear in court to answer for any misdeeds. Also, they should report to officials elected by the people they are supposed to protect.
In other words: the police. Police forces are the means by which the use of force is controlled by the people.
The police do not always do their jobs professionally—and the people do not always do an adequate job at holding them accountable—and there are moments like now when we become acutely aware of the need for reform.
But reform means: lobbying for new rules and laws, electing new public officials, and doing the follow-up to make sure the new rules are actually implemented and lead to the intended results.
This is difficult and often unglamorous, but there is no better alternative. When you hand over the use of force to an unthinking, unaccountable mob and the self-appointed “voices” of the collective—well, we now have a perfect illustration of where that gets you.


Brace for Bankruptcies

In the wake of the worst economic recession that the U.S. has experienced in the last 90 years and the worst health crisis in the past century , we now must brace ourselves for an impending bankruptcy crisis as well .
A tidal wave of bankruptcies is almost guaranteed if Dr. Fauci ’ s recent warning that the U.S. response to the pandemic is “ going in the wrong direction ” proves to be correct .
It also doesn ’ t help that there might be no replacement for the support to companies and households under the $ 2.3 trillion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lapse at the end of this month .
The staggering depth of the economic recession would be reason enough to fear a record rate of bankruptcies later this year .
According to the IMF ’ s latest economic forecast , the U.S. economy could contract by as much as 8 percent in 2020 before partially recovering by 4.5 percent in 2021 .
This would be the worst recession that the country has experienced since the Great Depression , and it would leave unemployment above 10 percent for most of 2021 .
The IMF @ @ @ @ @ @ @ baseline forecast might be , matters could be appreciably worse if the U.S. were to experience a second wave of the pandemic .
( That “ if ” is looking more and more like a prayer . )
That would almost certainly slow the pace at which the current restrictions on economic activity could be lifted .
In that context , the recent surge in new infections in the South and West is a major cause for concern , especially for the human toll .
While previous hot spots like New York are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is now back to its previous peak level .
Another reason to expect a major rash of bankruptcies is that the pandemic has hit some sectors of the economy much harder than others : Airlines , hotels , restaurants , brick-and-mortar stores , and other service-related industries have all been disproportionately hurt .
Until a vaccine or treatment for COVID-19 becomes widely available , these parts of the economy will likely continue to bleed cash as they are forced to operate at a fraction of their normal capacity .
Other crucial , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are also at risk .
With international oil prices likely to remain low for as long as the global economy remains so weak , it ’ s only a matter of time before large swathes of the domestic shale oil industry need to file for bankruptcy .
That industry employs 9.8 million people , or almost 6 percent of the U.S. workforce , according to the American Petroleum Institute .
Matters could be even worse for the commercial real estate sector .
One of the likely long-run effects of the coronavirus pandemic is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which the U.S. economy was already becoming more digitized , with more employees working remotely and more businesses opting for virtual interaction over face-to-face meetings .
With more shopping done online , will we really need so many brick-and-mortar stores ?
With more workers working from home , what happens to the existing stock of office space , garages , and public transit ?
To date , despite the U.S. economy having recorded its worst quarterly performance on record , the pace of bankruptcies and defaults has been relatively contained .
This should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ takes time before companies burn through their cash reserves and exhaust their existing credit lines—not to mention the massive temporary support provided to both households and companies by Congress and the Federal Reserve .
But the major provisions of the CARES Act are about to come to an end .
Without a generous replacement bill , households and businesses of all sizes could run out of options besides default .
To be sure , the Federal Reserve has been and can continue to be helpful in delaying bankruptcies by its massive credit market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fed ’ s lending has been , it ’ s hard to solve a debt problem by adding more debt to struggling companies ’ balance sheets .
If the Fed insists on trying to do so , it risks repeating the Japanese mistake of hobbling the economy with zombie companies and distorted credit markets .
Hopefully , U.S. economic policymakers will not allow the short-term bounce that is bound to accompany the lifting of lockdowns to blind them to the lurking danger of mass bankruptcies .
Rather , they should lose no time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ replace the CARES Act .

In the wake of the worst economic recession that the U.S. has experienced in the last 90 years and the worst health crisis in the past century, we now must brace ourselves for an impending bankruptcy crisis as well.
A tidal wave of bankruptcies is almost guaranteed if Dr. Fauci’s recent warning that the U.S. response to the pandemic is “going in the wrong direction” proves to be correct. It also doesn’t help that there might be no replacement for the support to companies and households under the $2.3 trillion CARES Act, which is due to lapse at the end of this month.
The staggering depth of the economic recession would be reason enough to fear a record rate of bankruptcies later this year. According to the IMF’s latest economic forecast, the U.S. economy could contract by as much as 8 percent in 2020 before partially recovering by 4.5 percent in 2021. This would be the worst recession that the country has experienced since the Great Depression, and it would leave unemployment above 10 percent for most of 2021.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
The IMF cautions that, as gloomy as its baseline forecast might be, matters could be appreciably worse if the U.S. were to experience a second wave of the pandemic. (That “if” is looking more and more like a prayer.) That would almost certainly slow the pace at which the current restrictions on economic activity could be lifted. In that context, the recent surge in new infections in the South and West is a major cause for concern, especially for the human toll. While previous hot spots like New York are recovering, the nationwide daily infection rate is now back to its previous peak level.
Another reason to expect a major rash of bankruptcies is that the pandemic has hit some sectors of the economy much harder than others: Airlines, hotels, restaurants, brick-and-mortar stores, and other service-related industries have all been disproportionately hurt. Until a vaccine or treatment for COVID-19 becomes widely available, these parts of the economy will likely continue to bleed cash as they are forced to operate at a fraction of their normal capacity.
Other crucial, though less obvious sectors of the U.S. economy are also at risk. With international oil prices likely to remain low for as long as the global economy remains so weak, it’s only a matter of time before large swathes of the domestic shale oil industry need to file for bankruptcy. That industry employs 9.8 million people, or almost 6 percent of the U.S. workforce, according to the American Petroleum Institute.
Matters could be even worse for the commercial real estate sector. One of the likely long-run effects of the coronavirus pandemic is that it will accelerate the pace at which the U.S. economy was already becoming more digitized, with more employees working remotely and more businesses opting for virtual interaction over face-to-face meetings. With more shopping done online, will we really need so many brick-and-mortar stores? With more workers working from home, what happens to the existing stock of office space, garages, and public transit?
To date, despite the U.S. economy having recorded its worst quarterly performance on record, the pace of bankruptcies and defaults has been relatively contained. This should have been no surprise, since it takes time before companies burn through their cash reserves and exhaust their existing credit lines—not to mention the massive temporary support provided to both households and companies by Congress and the Federal Reserve.
But the major provisions of the CARES Act are about to come to an end. Without a generous replacement bill, households and businesses of all sizes could run out of options besides default.
To be sure, the Federal Reserve has been and can continue to be helpful in delaying bankruptcies by its massive credit market support. But as beneficial as the Fed’s lending has been, it’s hard to solve a debt problem by adding more debt to struggling companies’ balance sheets. If the Fed insists on trying to do so, it risks repeating the Japanese mistake of hobbling the economy with zombie companies and distorted credit markets.
Hopefully, U.S. economic policymakers will not allow the short-term bounce that is bound to accompany the lifting of lockdowns to blind them to the lurking danger of mass bankruptcies. Rather, they should lose no time to fashion some kind of support to replace the CARES Act.


thebulwark--2020-07-01--A Terrible Pick for a Big Pentagon Job

A Terrible Pick for a Big Pentagon Job

Two weeks after Senate voted not to convict President Trump on the impeachment charges brought by the House of Representatives , he fired the undersecretary of defense for policy , John Rood .
The military aid to Ukraine that figured so prominently in Trump ’ s impeachment could , under U.S. law , only be released if the person serving in that Pentagon role—abbreviated as “ USD ( P ) ” —determines that the Ukrainian government has taken the proper actions to combat corruption .
Apparently , Rood ’ s sin was that he had performed his legal duty and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the release of the aid by approving of the Ukrainian government ’ s anti-corruption campaign .
Two months later , the president nominated Anthony Tata , a retired Army brigadier general , to succeed Rood .
This is a terrible and very troubling nomination .
To see why , let ’ s first discuss the job and then discuss the man .
The USD ( P ) is one of the most important roles in the U.S. national security apparatus .
The officeholder has to handle arms control diplomacy ; the promotion of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy planning ; coordinating with treaty allies—especially NATO ; budgeting ; counternarcotics policy ; the oversight of special operations ; helping with the development and implementation of the National Defense Strategy ; planning for potential future conflicts ; and much more besides .
It is an extraordinarily difficult job , one that demands intelligence , experience , stamina , and wisdom .
The USD ( P ) is a civilian position , and the roster of past incumbents since the position was created in the late 1970s reads like a list of many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in national security , including : • Fred Iklé , who held the position under Reagan , was a lifetime civilian , an MIT professor , and a veteran of Nixon and Ford administrations .
• Paul Wolfowitz , one of the greatest intellects of the Republican party national security intelligentsia with a long résumé in government and academia .
Long before Iraq ’ s invasion of Kuwait , Wolfowitz had ordered developing a plan for a potential war with Iraq , which significantly contributed to the U.S. military ’ s success in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a career Foreign Service Officer with a variety of national security positions in different administrations .
• Eric Edelman , a career Foreign Service Officer , deputy assistant secretary of defense in the George H.W .
Bush administration , and national security adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney , who remains a respected conservative national security expert .
( Disclosure : He is a friend and professor of mine at Johns Hopkins University , SAIS . )
• Michèle Flournoy , Obama ’ s first USD ( P ) , had previously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DOD as a civilian and later would teach as a professor at the National Defense University .
When out of government , she co-founded the Center for a New American Security .
In a Biden administration , she would surely be a leading candidate for secretary of defense .
• James Miller , with a career as a House Armed Services Committee staffer , think-tank scholar , and the principal deputy to Flournoy .
As you can see , former USD ( P ) s have tended to be been smart , professional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ studied and practiced—and many of them taught—diplomacy , military strategy , and policy as civilians .
And now along comes Anthony Tata , who has none of the aforementioned qualifications .
Tata has never had a civilian job in national security .
( Since retiring from the Army , he has , in addition to his gig on Fox News , been a school administrator and the transportation secretary for North Carolina . )
His military career ended prematurely upon forging court documents and charges of adultery against U.S. military code .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any position that involved policy , strategy , or long-term planning , and his highest responsibilities were on the operation level .
By the requirements of the position and by the standards of his predecessors , Tata is simply unfit for the job .
His apparent chief qualification ?
He has been a bombastic , pander-to-the-base commentator on Fox News .
That ’ s a good enough criterion in the Trump administration .
But wait , it gets worse .
Tata is a notorious bigot .
And he is a conspiracy theorist .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but here are some of his greatest hits .
Example 2 : On Obama as a Terrorist Example 3 : On Obama and Islam Elsewhere , Tata suggested that Obama ’ s nuclear deal with Iran was “ sorta from [ Obama ’ s ] Islamic roots to help Iranians and the greater Islamic state crush Israel .
.
.
.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck , it ’ s probably a duck.
” Example 4 : Throwing Around Charges of Treason Tata has also called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ baiting racist ” and Speaker Nancy Pelosi a “ violent extremist , ” and he tweeted that Don Lemon , a black CNN anchor , was on the “ the liberal plantation.
” Imagine how America ’ s Arab allies would feel sitting across the table from Tata for arms negotiations—which is a part of the USD ( P ) ’ s portfolio .
Another part of the portfolio is negotiating with Congress over the military budget ; it is safe to say there is no goodwill on the part of Speaker Pelosi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Perhaps most importantly , however , is the effect that his appointment will have on the morale of minority troops—including Muslim servicemembers .
Tata ’ s nomination is not only a mistake in terms of qualifications , it ’ s also a mistake in terms of his temperament , reason , and prudence .
A man so unfit , with so many glaring disqualifications , has never been nominated to such a senior position at the Department of Defense .
Recently , senior alumni of the Department of Defense—both civilian and military—have come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ practices that are undermining the institutional strength of the department .
Tata ’ s nomination is another threat to the department ’ s strength , society ’ s trust in the civilians at the DOD , and the military ’ s morale .
Those leaders should once again speak out to urge the withdrawal or defeat of Tata ’ s nomination .

Two weeks after Senate voted not to convict President Trump on the impeachment charges brought by the House of Representatives, he fired the undersecretary of defense for policy, John Rood. The military aid to Ukraine that figured so prominently in Trump’s impeachment could, under U.S. law, only be released if the person serving in that Pentagon role—abbreviated as “USD(P)”—determines that the Ukrainian government has taken the proper actions to combat corruption. Apparently, Rood’s sin was that he had performed his legal duty and given his honest assessment and hence cleared the release of the aid by approving of the Ukrainian government’s anti-corruption campaign.
Two months later, the president nominated Anthony Tata, a retired Army brigadier general, to succeed Rood. This is a terrible and very troubling nomination. To see why, let’s first discuss the job and then discuss the man.
The USD(P) is one of the most important roles in the U.S. national security apparatus. The officeholder has to handle arms control diplomacy; the promotion of human rights; mid- and long-range military policy planning; coordinating with treaty allies—especially NATO; budgeting; counternarcotics policy; the oversight of special operations; helping with the development and implementation of the National Defense Strategy; planning for potential future conflicts; and much more besides. It is an extraordinarily difficult job, one that demands intelligence, experience, stamina, and wisdom.
The USD(P) is a civilian position, and the roster of past incumbents since the position was created in the late 1970s reads like a list of many of both parties’ best and brightest in national security, including:
Fred Iklé, who held the position under Reagan, was a lifetime civilian, an MIT professor, and a veteran of Nixon and Ford administrations.
Paul Wolfowitz, one of the greatest intellects of the Republican party national security intelligentsia with a long résumé in government and academia. Long before Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, Wolfowitz had ordered developing a plan for a potential war with Iraq, which significantly contributed to the U.S. military’s success in the Desert Storm.
Frank Wisner, a career Foreign Service Officer with a variety of national security positions in different administrations.
Eric Edelman, a career Foreign Service Officer, deputy assistant secretary of defense in the George H.W. Bush administration, and national security adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, who remains a respected conservative national security expert. (Disclosure: He is a friend and professor of mine at Johns Hopkins University, SAIS.)
Michèle Flournoy, Obama’s first USD(P), had previously served in the Clinton administration’s DOD as a civilian and later would teach as a professor at the National Defense University. When out of government, she co-founded the Center for a New American Security. In a Biden administration, she would surely be a leading candidate for secretary of defense.
James Miller, with a career as a House Armed Services Committee staffer, think-tank scholar, and the principal deputy to Flournoy.
As you can see, former USD(P)s have tended to be been smart, professional, and largely uncontroversial individuals who have studied and practiced—and many of them taught—diplomacy, military strategy, and policy as civilians.
And now along comes Anthony Tata, who has none of the aforementioned qualifications.
Tata has never had a civilian job in national security. (Since retiring from the Army, he has, in addition to his gig on Fox News, been a school administrator and the transportation secretary for North Carolina.)
His military career ended prematurely upon forging court documents and charges of adultery against U.S. military code.
While in the Army, Tata never held any position that involved policy, strategy, or long-term planning, and his highest responsibilities were on the operation level.
By the requirements of the position and by the standards of his predecessors, Tata is simply unfit for the job.
His apparent chief qualification? He has been a bombastic, pander-to-the-base commentator on Fox News. That’s a good enough criterion in the Trump administration.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
But wait, it gets worse.
Tata is a notorious bigot. And he is a conspiracy theorist.
He has deleted most of his tweets, but here are some of his greatest hits.
Example 1: On Islam
Example 2: On Obama as a Terrorist
Example 3: On Obama and Islam
Elsewhere, Tata suggested that Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran was “sorta from [Obama’s] Islamic roots to help Iranians and the greater Islamic state crush Israel. . . . If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.”
Example 4: Throwing Around Charges of Treason
Example 5: Secret Signals and Imaginary Assassination Threats
Tata has also called Rep. Maxine Waters a “vicious race baiting racist” and Speaker Nancy Pelosi a “violent extremist,” and he tweeted that Don Lemon, a black CNN anchor, was on the “the liberal plantation.”
Imagine how America’s Arab allies would feel sitting across the table from Tata for arms negotiations—which is a part of the USD(P)’s portfolio.
Another part of the portfolio is negotiating with Congress over the military budget; it is safe to say there is no goodwill on the part of Speaker Pelosi or really any Democrat for Tata.
Perhaps most importantly, however, is the effect that his appointment will have on the morale of minority troops—including Muslim servicemembers. Tata’s nomination is not only a mistake in terms of qualifications, it’s also a mistake in terms of his temperament, reason, and prudence. A man so unfit, with so many glaring disqualifications, has never been nominated to such a senior position at the Department of Defense.
Recently, senior alumni of the Department of Defense—both civilian and military—have come out against the Trump administration’s practices that are undermining the institutional strength of the department. Tata’s nomination is another threat to the department’s strength, society’s trust in the civilians at the DOD, and the military’s morale. Those leaders should once again speak out to urge the withdrawal or defeat of Tata’s nomination.


thebulwark--2020-07-01--How Has Donald Trump’s Mental State Affected His Presidency?

It seems so clear now .
In June 2016—roughly seven weeks before Donald Trump formally received the Republican nomination for president—I wrote an extended essay in the Huffington Post assessing his behaviors .
The title was self-explanatory : “ Too Sick to Lead : The Lethal Personality Disorder of Donald Trump.
” By then , Trump had supplied us with overwhelming evidence of an ineradicable pathology which utterly disqualified him for the presidency .
But few political observers wanted to touch such a volatile subject .
His party feared him .
The media put him in their customary analytical boxes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he were something grander , yet more normal , than a mentally disordered demagogue bereft of principles and starved for adulation .
And those mental health professionals who dared address the obvious were chided by their peers for psychoanalyzing a man they had never met .
But we had met him—ceaselessly , for decades , and never more than in the year before June 2016 , when cable news frequently broadcast his appearances in their entirety .
His character disorder was klieg-lit ; central to Trump ’ s pathology was his uncontrollable need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his psychological illness is the utter consistency of his behaviors .
My descriptions of his pathology , and how it would operate in office , are as applicable today as they were four years ago .
Save for factual references specific to 2016 , I need not change a word .
This owes nothing to my special insight , and everything to Trump ’ s inability to be anything other than what he was and always will be : a man far too disturbed to occupy the White House .
That he does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Will a critical swath of voters , despite all we ’ ve learned about his unfitness for the presidency , return this man to power ?
No longer can we rationalize away his disabling instability—not for tax cuts , or judges , or ideology writ large .
By deliberately averting their eyes from the incessant manifestations of his feral inner landscape , the GOP and much of the news media became complicit in his Electoral College victory—and the damage he has inflicted on our democracy and society .
To capture Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 article by describing a telling example from his past : his disturbingly bizarre and infantile practice of pretending to be someone else while calling a reporter to brag about his own romantic life .
After describing an audiotape of Trump ’ s pseudonymous 1991 phone call to People magazine boasting about his supposed romantic involvement with several ultra-famous women—made despite the fact that he was living with his future wife Marla Maples—I pointed out that this behavior was not merely “ self-aggrandizing ” but also “ gratuitously cruel , heedless of all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for attention ” and , therefore , that it reflected on Trump ’ s “ psychological fitness to be president.
” With this indubitably aberrant practice as preface , I argued that there is “ only one organizing principle ” that can make sense of Trump ’ s “ wildly oscillating utterances and behavior—the clinical definition of narcissistic personality disorder.
” The Mayo Clinic describes it as “ a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance , a deep need for admiration and a lack of empathy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in selecting a spouse or a friend .
But when applied to a prospective president , the symptoms are disqualifying .
With Trump ever in mind , try these .
An exaggerated sense of self-importance .
An unwarranted belief in your own superiority .
A preoccupation with fantasies of your own success , power and brilliance .
A craving for constant admiration .
A consuming sense of entitlement .
An expectation of special favors and unquestioning compliance .
A penchant for exploiting or disparaging others .
A total inability to recognize the needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see those you meet as separate human beings .
An unreasoning fury at people you perceive as thwarting your wishes or desires .
A tendency to act on impulse .
A superficial charm deployed to disguise a gift for manipulation .
A need to always be right .
A refusal to acknowledge error .
An inability to tolerate criticism or critics .
A compulsion to conform your ever—shifting sense of “ reality ” to satisfy your inner requirements .
A tendency to lie so frequently and routinely that objective truth loses all meaning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rules .
An array of inconsistent statements and behaviors driven by your needs in the moment .
An inability to assess the consequences of your actions in new or complex situations .
In sum , a total incapacity to separate the world from your own psychodrama .
The annals of business are filled with such people , some of whom wind up in jail , others of whom die rich .
But however puissant they become in their chosen realm , their sickness of mind and spirit can not ruin a country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Indeed , Trump ’ s rise simply swells his unwarranted belief that he can stride the world like a colossus—naked of judgment , knowledge , temperament or preparation .
This reflects a fatal deficit in those who suffer this disorder—they can not see themselves as they are .
To the contrary , their grandiosity is a defense against feelings of inadequacy too deep and painful to acknowledge .
By the consensus of mental health experts , this emotional impairment has a last fatal ingredient—there is no cure .
For a man like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , no path forward save to continue as you have until , like Icarus , you fly too close to the sun .
This disability involves far more than a set of discrete character flaws , however grave , including those which suggest a lack of trustworthiness .
We survived the dishonesty and paranoia of Richard Nixon , after all , albeit at considerable cost and only after forcing him from office .
But in many ways Nixon was well-equipped for the presidency , capable of navigating the larger world and understanding complex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders .
He did not reflexively substitute a grossly inflated sense of self for knowledge , strategy or preparation .
His tragedy , and ours , was that his crippling inner wounds outstripped his proven strengths .
Donald Trump is altogether different—and infinitely more dangerous .
He is afflicted with a comprehensive and profound character disorder which leaves no corner of his psyche whole .
And this dictates—and explains—every aspect of his behavior .
Take his recourse to bullying and slander .
“ I ’ m a counterpuncher , ” he rationalizes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ responding to what they did to me.
” Now we understand , Donald—your enemies made you do it .
Really ?
So Heidi Cruz made him ridicule her looks on Twitter ?
That handicapped reporter made him imitate his disabilities at a rally ?
.
.
.
And on and on—the list of enemies he must demean is infinite .
A recent example typifies his psychological imbalance .
Speaking at a rally in San Diego , he tried to shame an otherwise obscure federal judge in the city , who is presiding over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called the Indiana-born judge a “ Mexican , ” a “ hater of Donald Trump ” and a “ very hostile person ” who had “ railroaded ” him .
Heedless of his position or his audience , Trump wallowed in his personal grievances so long that his listeners grew restive .
And so , yet again , the campaign for president descended into the poisonous murk of Trump ’ s inner world .
This astoundingly graceless and unpresidential behavior is far too pointless and indiscriminate to qualify as strategy or tactics .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ out—often at those who can ’ t fight back—is that it has nothing to do with issues , or anything else one would expect from a normal candidate .
It is another symptom of Trump ’ s pathology—the visceral reflex to humiliate and degrade anyone who displeases him , no matter the context or situation .
Take the media .
Where , one might ask , would Trump be without its constant and credulous attentions ?
But , like everyone else , the media can never do enough to feed his needs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ reprisals by the federal government , talks of changing libel laws to facilitate lawsuits for statements which affront him , proposes revoking FCC licenses for media which ruffle him .
CNN is “ very unprofessional ” ; like so many others , Fox has treated him “ very unfairly.
” He refers to the media which cover him as “ scum.
” He singles out by name reporters who dare to challenge him .
.
.
.
After all , Trump says , he ’ s “ fighting for survival ” —ever victimized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his innate superiority .
Opposition of any kind enrages him .
He incites reprisals against protesters .
He threatened violence in Cleveland as payback for the GOP ’ s “ unfairness.
” He fuels anger against Hispanics , Muslims , and other minorities whom he perceives as inimical .
And never—not once—does he take any responsibility for stirring these toxic pots .
For one of the symptoms of his disability is an absence of conscience or accountability .
So what did women do to him , one wonders ?
The offense was obviously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and , it seems , uncontrollable .
One can but identify the same symptoms which drive his comprehensive impulse to demean—the need to dominate , displeasure at feeling thwarted and , of course , a profound lack of empathy for anyone but himself .
But for “ Trump , ” ever beset , his empathy is boundless .
His view of others vacillates wildly based solely on their deference—or lack of it .
.
.
.
Which brings us to a central problem of Trump ’ s warped psychology—he believes that filling the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself .
This gives the lie to GOP ’ s most craven rationalization of its own capitulation : that a suddenly docile Trump will , as president , defer to a cadre of wise and experienced advisers drawn from the party establishment .
This is pernicious nonsense .
Consistent with his character disorder , Trump proudly insists that his chief adviser is himself .
Even were he so inclined , in order to learn from others he must know enough to discern good advice from bad .
But such is his pathology that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of anything from anyone .
And so , from the beginning , he has plunged us down the bottomless rabbit hole of his intellectual emptiness .
His ignorance and grandiosity form a lethal compound .
He disowns NATO , unaware that he is playing into Putin ’ s hands .
.
.
and imagines negotiating one-on-one with North Korea ’ s psychotic leader .
.
.
.
Oblivious to the appalled reaction around the globe , he promises to compel the respect of world leaders through “ the aura of personality.
” His @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as they may be , reflect nothing but the unreality of his own self-concept .
.
.
But to talk of Trump in terms of issues is to flatter him .
Most of what he says is provisional , ever subject to change , and based on nothing but his needs at the moment .
.
.
.
One can forecast the inevitable day-to-day damage to our country—the lashings out , the abuses of power , the mercurial and confidence-destroying lies and changes of mind , the havoc his distorted lens would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But most dangerous of all is the collision between a volatile world , a leader unable to perceive external reality , and the often-unbearable pressures of the presidency .
That Trump ’ s judgment would crack time and again is certain—the only question is how dangerous the moment .
So how have we fallen prey to a man who , by the damning evidence of his own behavior , is psychologically unfit to be president ?
When did boasting top coherence ; mindless posturing become strength ; a talent for ridicule supplant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scapegoating surpass wisdom or generosity ?
Why must we even contemplate someone with this stunted inner landscape as the world ’ s most powerful man ?
Why , indeed ?
But that was then—2016 .
In 2020 America ’ s electorate has experienced three and a half years of the most aberrant presidency in our history .
We have no excuses left .
Our president ’ s sickness is ever on display .
According to the Washington Post , as of May 29 Trump had made more than 19,000 false or misleading claims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office .
During this time , we have witnessed his manipulation of the Justice Department , attacks on the rule of law , refusal to honor congressional subpoenas , fascination with authoritarian leaders , assertions of unlimited power , and attempts to solicit or compel electoral assistance from foreign governments .
Hungry for attention , he subjects us to a constant stream of scurrilous tweets , false accusations , rank divisiveness , unhinged conspiracy theories , blatant racial innuendos , shameless denials of reality , reflexive self-pity , unbounded grandiosity , puerile insults @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claims of superior expertise in a multitude of areas where his abysmal ignorance is manifest .
His sole concern is for himself .
This confluence of anti-social behaviors would be shocking in a relative or coworker ; in a president , they are frightening and disorienting .
Since his inauguration , Trump has debased the coinage of the presidency , eroded the boundaries on presidential misconduct , and poisoned the well of civic decency .
His crippling dysfunction is now ours .
These behaviors have caused an increasing number of mental health professional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ psychological condition .
In 2017 , forensic psychiatrist Bandy X. Lee edited a book , The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump , that included essays from dozens of psychiatrists , psychologists , and mental health professionals .
And last December , two weeks before Trump ’ s impeachment , Dr. Lee submitted to Congress a petition , with 650 other psychiatrists , psychologists , and mental health professionals as co-signatories , which included this disturbing admonition : Further , Lee explained to the London Independent , Trump was “ doubling and .
.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; “ ramping up his conspiracy theories ” ; and “ showing a great deal of cruelty and vindictiveness ” in his “ accelerated , repetitive tweets.
” Recent examples include his vicious allegations that , twenty years ago , Joe Scarborough murdered a woman who worked in his Florida congressional office .
In reality , she died of a heart attack when Scarborough was 500 miles away .
But Trump ’ s cruelty caused her anguished widower to implore Twitter to delete his sadistic tweets .
A related sign of emotional instability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dominance and strength—the underside of which is a debilitating admixture of neediness and insecurity .
Recent examples abound .
Some would be seriocomic were he not America ’ s president : • As reported by Ashley Parker and Josh Dawsey in the Washington Post , Trump sidetracked a cabinet meeting with a lengthy re-enactment of his supposedly stellar performance—three years prior—on a cognitive screening test .
• After taking refuge in an underground bunker when protesters ringed the White House , he furiously denied it—claiming to have been conducting a snap inspection tour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ halting descent down a ramp after speaking at West Point , Trump delivered a rambling fifteen-minute revisionist history at his rally in Tulsa—blaming , among other things , slippery shoes .
Other examples are alarming , indeed ominous .
His constant calls to “ dominate ” the streets during protests following the death of George Floyd .
His threats to deploy active duty troops on American soil .
His misuse of military personnel to clear peaceful protesters near Lafayette Square—all so that he could hold a borrowed Bible aloft in front of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authoritarian theater .
The gnawing hunger of Trump ’ s misshapen psyche dominates Carl Bernstein ’ s appalling new account for CNN of the president ’ s conversations with foreign leaders , detailing in the starkest terms the consequences of investing someone of his pathology with the power of the American presidency .
Central to these conversations was Trump ’ s disabling absorption with himself : “ Trump incessantly boasted to his fellow heads of state , including .
.
.
North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un , about his own wealth , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president , and the ‘ idiocy ’ of his Oval Office predecessors .
.
.
.
In his phone exchanges with Putin .
.
.
the president talked mostly about himself .
.
.
[ while ] obsequiously courting Putin ’ s admiration and approval.
” Adds Bernstein : “ The common , overwhelming dynamic that characterizes Trump ’ s conversations with both authoritarian dictators and leaders of the world ’ s greatest democracies is his consistent assertion of himself as the defining subject and subtext of the calls.
” But for allies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposite of his pandering to the authoritarians : bullying , abusive , and riven with grievances .
“ Everything was always personalized , ” a source told Bernstein , “ with everybody doing terrible things to rip us off—which meant ripping ‘ me ’ —Trump—off.
” With females , Trump added a withering misogyny .
“ His most vicious attacks , ” Bernstein relates , “ were aimed at women heads of state .
In conversations with both [ Theresa ] May and [ Angela ] Merkel , the president demeaned and denigrated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ” Other consistent features of these phone calls were Trump ’ s ignorance and dissociation from reality .
“ Two sources , ” Bernstein reports , “ compared many of the president ’ s conversations with foreign leaders to Trump ’ s recent press ‘ briefings ’ on the coronavirus pandemic : free form , fact-deficient stream-of-consciousness ramblings , full of fantasy and off-the-wall pronouncements based on his intuitions , guesswork , the opinions of Fox News TV hosts and social media misinformation.
” Bernstein concludes by quoting a senior official who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personality disorder on his conduct of foreign affairs : “ There was no sense of ‘ Team America ’ or of .
.
.
certain democratic principles and leadership of the free world .
.
.
.
The opposite .
It was like the United States had disappeared .
It was always ‘ Just me.
’ ” But , for now , all else is overshadowed by Trump ’ s catastrophic mishandling of COVID-19—a case study in the literally lethal consequences of his hydra-headed disorder .
This is precisely what I meant when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the dangerous collision between “ volatile world , a leader unable to perceive external reality , and the often–unbearable pressures of the presidency.
” Trump need not precipitate a nuclear exchange for his warped psychology to cause tens of thousands of needless American deaths .
It has .
Last month disease modelers at Columbia estimated that we would have incurred roughly 36,000 fewer fatalities had Trump initiated social distancing one week earlier , and 54,000 deaths had it started two weeks earlier .
Instead , fearful that acknowledging the seriousness of the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chose misleading the public over protecting lives .
Inexorably , the deadly pandemic overwhelmed Trump ’ s self-created alternate reality—in which denying its lethality substituted for action .
So he substituted yet another fantasy : that his proactive leadership in fighting the virus had saved countless lives and defeated the pandemic .
Even as the death toll mounted , he urged state governments to reopen the economy—dismissing life-saving public health measures recommended by his own government .
COVID-19 , he told Sean Hannity , is “ fading away.
” A week later , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases since the pandemic began .
Events in the real world provide a roadmap of Trump ’ s delusions .
The coronavirus spiked in the states that were the swiftest to reopen .
The European Union has banned Americans as threats to public health .
Contradicting Trump , Anthony Fauci warned Congress that “ the virus is not going to disappear , ” adding that “ we are still in the middle of a serious outbreak.
” No matter to Trump .
In his imaginary America , the real problem became that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the count of new cases .
By then , as his pathology dictates , Trump had put blame for the pandemic on China , the World Health Organization , the media , Barack Obama , the intelligence community , and the CDC .
And he had discovered the real victim of COVID-19 : himself .
In Vanity Fair , Gabriel Sherman reported Trump telling a confidant : “ This is so unfair to me !
Everything was going great .
We were cruising to reelection !
” Instead , the pandemic has underscored @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human beings .
And not just the vulnerable , the sick , and the dead .
He insisted that West Point graduates return to hear his commencement speech in the middle of a pandemic .
He scheduled large indoor rallies in Tulsa and Phoenix , surefire super-spreaders , so that he could bask in adoring crowds .
When public health officials in Charlotte inquired about health measures for the GOP convention , Trump moved it to Jacksonville—simply to ensure himself a jam-packed arena filled with unmasked faces , risk be damned .
Over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic back in April , the Washington Post reported , Trump spoke for some thirteen hours—of which he spent two hours attacking others , forty-five minutes praising himself and his administration , but just four-and-a-half minutes expressing rote sympathy for coronavirus victims and front-line workers .
Further , the Post related in late May , “ The coronavirus pandemic has spawned a whole new genre of Trump ’ s falsehoods .
The category in just a few months has reached 800 claims , with his advocacy for hydroxychloroquine as a possible cure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , already reaching Bottomless Pinocchio status.
” As Trump ’ s confidant told Sherman : “ He lives in his own fucking world.
” In that world , Trump is free from the constraints of constitutional democracy .
To stave off defeat , he and his party are striving to prevent the universal voting by mail necessitated by the pandemic , while groundlessly asserting that the mail-in balloting currently available guarantees massive voter fraud by the Democratic Party .
Already , Trump is claiming that the 2020 election “ will be , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the history of our country , and we can not let this happen.
” This is insane .
But an increasingly serious body of opinion anticipates that Trump will try to maintain power by denying the legitimacy of the November election .
This captures how completely Trump ’ s sickness has consumed us—expecting our president to subvert American democracy is becoming our new normal .
The problem of Trump transcends party or ideology , and so does our need to be rid of him .
For there is no constitutional guarantee against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its terms—and a party too craven to stop him .
Until further notice , we have both .

It seems so clear now.
In June 2016—roughly seven weeks before Donald Trump formally received the Republican nomination for president—I wrote an extended essay in the Huffington Post assessing his behaviors. The title was self-explanatory: “Too Sick to Lead: The Lethal Personality Disorder of Donald Trump.”
By then, Trump had supplied us with overwhelming evidence of an ineradicable pathology which utterly disqualified him for the presidency. But few political observers wanted to touch such a volatile subject.
His party feared him. The media put him in their customary analytical boxes, parsing his every move as if he were something grander, yet more normal, than a mentally disordered demagogue bereft of principles and starved for adulation. And those mental health professionals who dared address the obvious were chided by their peers for psychoanalyzing a man they had never met.
But we had met him—ceaselessly, for decades, and never more than in the year before June 2016, when cable news frequently broadcast his appearances in their entirety. His character disorder was klieg-lit; central to Trump’s pathology was his uncontrollable need to flaunt it.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Most remarkable about his psychological illness is the utter consistency of his behaviors. My descriptions of his pathology, and how it would operate in office, are as applicable today as they were four years ago. Save for factual references specific to 2016, I need not change a word. This owes nothing to my special insight, and everything to Trump’s inability to be anything other than what he was and always will be: a man far too disturbed to occupy the White House.
That he does underscores the core issue in 2020: Will a critical swath of voters, despite all we’ve learned about his unfitness for the presidency, return this man to power?
No longer can we rationalize away his disabling instability—not for tax cuts, or judges, or ideology writ large. By deliberately averting their eyes from the incessant manifestations of his feral inner landscape, the GOP and much of the news media became complicit in his Electoral College victory—and the damage he has inflicted on our democracy and society.
To capture Trump’s singular abnormality, I opened my June 2016 article by describing a telling example from his past: his disturbingly bizarre and infantile practice of pretending to be someone else while calling a reporter to brag about his own romantic life. After describing an audiotape of Trump’s pseudonymous 1991 phone call to People magazine boasting about his supposed romantic involvement with several ultra-famous women—made despite the fact that he was living with his future wife Marla Maples—I pointed out that this behavior was not merely “self-aggrandizing” but also “gratuitously cruel, heedless of all but self, reckless in his lust for attention” and, therefore, that it reflected on Trump’s “psychological fitness to be president.”
With this indubitably aberrant practice as preface, I argued that there is “only one organizing principle” that can make sense of Trump’s “wildly oscillating utterances and behavior—the clinical definition of narcissistic personality disorder.”
The Mayo Clinic describes it as “a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others.” This is bad enough in selecting a spouse or a friend. But when applied to a prospective president, the symptoms are disqualifying. With Trump ever in mind, try these. An exaggerated sense of self-importance. An unwarranted belief in your own superiority. A preoccupation with fantasies of your own success, power and brilliance. A craving for constant admiration. A consuming sense of entitlement. An expectation of special favors and unquestioning compliance. A penchant for exploiting or disparaging others. A total inability to recognize the needs of anyone else. An incapacity to see those you meet as separate human beings. An unreasoning fury at people you perceive as thwarting your wishes or desires. A tendency to act on impulse. A superficial charm deployed to disguise a gift for manipulation. A need to always be right. A refusal to acknowledge error. An inability to tolerate criticism or critics. A compulsion to conform your ever—shifting sense of “reality” to satisfy your inner requirements. A tendency to lie so frequently and routinely that objective truth loses all meaning. A belief that you are above the rules. An array of inconsistent statements and behaviors driven by your needs in the moment. An inability to assess the consequences of your actions in new or complex situations. In sum, a total incapacity to separate the world from your own psychodrama. Recognize anyone? . . . The annals of business are filled with such people, some of whom wind up in jail, others of whom die rich. But however puissant they become in their chosen realm, their sickness of mind and spirit cannot ruin a country. That power is reserved for presidents. Indeed, Trump’s rise simply swells his unwarranted belief that he can stride the world like a colossus—naked of judgment, knowledge, temperament or preparation. This reflects a fatal deficit in those who suffer this disorder—they cannot see themselves as they are. To the contrary, their grandiosity is a defense against feelings of inadequacy too deep and painful to acknowledge. By the consensus of mental health experts, this emotional impairment has a last fatal ingredient—there is no cure. For a man like Donald Trump, life offers no lessons, no path forward save to continue as you have until, like Icarus, you fly too close to the sun. This disability involves far more than a set of discrete character flaws, however grave, including those which suggest a lack of trustworthiness. We survived the dishonesty and paranoia of Richard Nixon, after all, albeit at considerable cost and only after forcing him from office. But in many ways Nixon was well-equipped for the presidency, capable of navigating the larger world and understanding complex situations and people—as in China and its leaders. He did not reflexively substitute a grossly inflated sense of self for knowledge, strategy or preparation. His tragedy, and ours, was that his crippling inner wounds outstripped his proven strengths. Donald Trump is altogether different—and infinitely more dangerous. He is afflicted with a comprehensive and profound character disorder which leaves no corner of his psyche whole. And this dictates—and explains—every aspect of his behavior. Take his recourse to bullying and slander. “I’m a counterpuncher,” he rationalizes. “[I]’ve been responding to what they did to me.” Now we understand, Donald—your enemies made you do it. Really? So Heidi Cruz made him ridicule her looks on Twitter? That handicapped reporter made him imitate his disabilities at a rally? . . . And on and on—the list of enemies he must demean is infinite. A recent example typifies his psychological imbalance. Speaking at a rally in San Diego, he tried to shame an otherwise obscure federal judge in the city, who is presiding over a lawsuit against Trump University. Trump called the Indiana-born judge a “Mexican,” a “hater of Donald Trump” and a “very hostile person” who had “railroaded” him. Heedless of his position or his audience, Trump wallowed in his personal grievances so long that his listeners grew restive. And so, yet again, the campaign for president descended into the poisonous murk of Trump’s inner world. This astoundingly graceless and unpresidential behavior is far too pointless and indiscriminate to qualify as strategy or tactics. The common thread in all this lashing out—often at those who can’t fight back—is that it has nothing to do with issues, or anything else one would expect from a normal candidate. It is another symptom of Trump’s pathology—the visceral reflex to humiliate and degrade anyone who displeases him, no matter the context or situation. Take the media. Where, one might ask, would Trump be without its constant and credulous attentions? But, like everyone else, the media can never do enough to feed his needs. He threatens the owners of newspapers with reprisals by the federal government, talks of changing libel laws to facilitate lawsuits for statements which affront him, proposes revoking FCC licenses for media which ruffle him. CNN is “very unprofessional”; like so many others, Fox has treated him “very unfairly.” He refers to the media which cover him as “scum.” He singles out by name reporters who dare to challenge him. . . . After all, Trump says, he’s “fighting for survival”—ever victimized by hostile forces who fail to recognize his innate superiority. Opposition of any kind enrages him. He incites reprisals against protesters. He threatened violence in Cleveland as payback for the GOP’s “unfairness.” He fuels anger against Hispanics, Muslims, and other minorities whom he perceives as inimical. And never—not once—does he take any responsibility for stirring these toxic pots. For one of the symptoms of his disability is an absence of conscience or accountability. So what did women do to him, one wonders? The offense was obviously grave, for his misogyny is endless and, it seems, uncontrollable. One can but identify the same symptoms which drive his comprehensive impulse to demean—the need to dominate, displeasure at feeling thwarted and, of course, a profound lack of empathy for anyone but himself. But for “Trump,” ever beset, his empathy is boundless. His view of others vacillates wildly based solely on their deference—or lack of it. . . . Which brings us to a central problem of Trump’s warped psychology—he believes that filling the presidency requires nothing but the wonder of himself. This gives the lie to GOP’s most craven rationalization of its own capitulation: that a suddenly docile Trump will, as president, defer to a cadre of wise and experienced advisers drawn from the party establishment. This is pernicious nonsense. Consistent with his character disorder, Trump proudly insists that his chief adviser is himself. Even were he so inclined, in order to learn from others he must know enough to discern good advice from bad. But such is his pathology that he feels no need to learn much of anything from anyone. And so, from the beginning, he has plunged us down the bottomless rabbit hole of his intellectual emptiness. His ignorance and grandiosity form a lethal compound. He disowns NATO, unaware that he is playing into Putin’s hands . . . and imagines negotiating one-on-one with North Korea’s psychotic leader. . . . Oblivious to the appalled reaction around the globe, he promises to compel the respect of world leaders through “the aura of personality.” His equally spurious domestic “proposals,” such as they may be, reflect nothing but the unreality of his own self-concept. . . But to talk of Trump in terms of issues is to flatter him. Most of what he says is provisional, ever subject to change, and based on nothing but his needs at the moment. . . . One can forecast the inevitable day-to-day damage to our country—the lashings out, the abuses of power, the mercurial and confidence-destroying lies and changes of mind, the havoc his distorted lens would wreak upon our institutions and our spirit. But most dangerous of all is the collision between a volatile world, a leader unable to perceive external reality, and the often-unbearable pressures of the presidency. That Trump’s judgment would crack time and again is certain—the only question is how dangerous the moment. So how have we fallen prey to a man who, by the damning evidence of his own behavior, is psychologically unfit to be president? When did boasting top coherence; mindless posturing become strength; a talent for ridicule supplant experience or judgement; a gift for scapegoating surpass wisdom or generosity? Why must we even contemplate someone with this stunted inner landscape as the world’s most powerful man?
Why, indeed? But that was then—2016. In 2020 America’s electorate has experienced three and a half years of the most aberrant presidency in our history. We have no excuses left.
Our president’s sickness is ever on display. According to the Washington Post, as of May 29 Trump had made more than 19,000 false or misleading claims in a little over 1,200 days in office. During this time, we have witnessed his manipulation of the Justice Department, attacks on the rule of law, refusal to honor congressional subpoenas, fascination with authoritarian leaders, assertions of unlimited power, and attempts to solicit or compel electoral assistance from foreign governments.
Hungry for attention, he subjects us to a constant stream of scurrilous tweets, false accusations, rank divisiveness, unhinged conspiracy theories, blatant racial innuendos, shameless denials of reality, reflexive self-pity, unbounded grandiosity, puerile insults to real or imagined enemies, and claims of superior expertise in a multitude of areas where his abysmal ignorance is manifest. His sole concern is for himself.
This confluence of anti-social behaviors would be shocking in a relative or coworker; in a president, they are frightening and disorienting. Since his inauguration, Trump has debased the coinage of the presidency, eroded the boundaries on presidential misconduct, and poisoned the well of civic decency. His crippling dysfunction is now ours.
These behaviors have caused an increasing number of mental health professional to issue warnings about Trump’s psychological condition. In 2017, forensic psychiatrist Bandy X. Lee edited a book, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, that included essays from dozens of psychiatrists, psychologists, and mental health professionals. And last December, two weeks before Trump’s impeachment, Dr. Lee submitted to Congress a petition, with 650 other psychiatrists, psychologists, and mental health professionals as co-signatories, which included this disturbing admonition:
What makes Donald Trump so dangerous is the brittleness of his sense of worth. Any slight or criticism is experienced as a humiliation and degradation. To cope with the resultant hollow and empty feeling, he reacts with what is referred to as narcissistic rage. He is unable to take responsibility for any error, mistake, or failing. His default in that situation is to blame others and to attack the perceived source of his humiliation. These attacks of narcissistic rage can be brutal and destructive.”
Further, Lee explained to the London Independent, Trump was “doubling and . . . tripling down on his delusions”; “ramping up his conspiracy theories”; and “showing a great deal of cruelty and vindictiveness” in his “accelerated, repetitive tweets.”
Recent examples include his vicious allegations that, twenty years ago, Joe Scarborough murdered a woman who worked in his Florida congressional office. In reality, she died of a heart attack when Scarborough was 500 miles away. But Trump’s cruelty caused her anguished widower to implore Twitter to delete his sadistic tweets.
A related sign of emotional instability is Trump’s obsession with projecting dominance and strength—the underside of which is a debilitating admixture of neediness and insecurity.
Recent examples abound. Some would be seriocomic were he not America’s president:
As reported by Ashley Parker and Josh Dawsey in the Washington Post, Trump sidetracked a cabinet meeting with a lengthy re-enactment of his supposedly stellar performance—three years prior—on a cognitive screening test.
After taking refuge in an underground bunker when protesters ringed the White House, he furiously denied it—claiming to have been conducting a snap inspection tour.
When a videotape captured his halting descent down a ramp after speaking at West Point, Trump delivered a rambling fifteen-minute revisionist history at his rally in Tulsa—blaming, among other things, slippery shoes.
Other examples are alarming, indeed ominous. His constant calls to “dominate” the streets during protests following the death of George Floyd. His threats to deploy active duty troops on American soil. His misuse of military personnel to clear peaceful protesters near Lafayette Square—all so that he could hold a borrowed Bible aloft in front of a damaged church, a videotaped piece of authoritarian theater.
The gnawing hunger of Trump’s misshapen psyche dominates Carl Bernstein’s appalling new account for CNN of the president’s conversations with foreign leaders, detailing in the starkest terms the consequences of investing someone of his pathology with the power of the American presidency.
Writes Bernstein:
Trump was so consistently unprepared for discussion of serious issues, so often outplayed in his conversations with powerful leaders like . . . Vladimir Putin and Turkish president Recep Erdoğan, and so abusive to leaders of America’s principal allies, that the calls helped convince some senior U.S. officials—including his former secretaries of state and defense, two national security advisers and his longest-serving chief of staff—that the president himself posed a danger to the national security of the United States . . . [and] to conclude that the president was often “delusional,” as two sources put it, in his dealings with foreign leaders.
Central to these conversations was Trump’s disabling absorption with himself: “Trump incessantly boasted to his fellow heads of state, including . . . North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, about his own wealth, genius, ‘great’ accomplishments as president, and the ‘idiocy’ of his Oval Office predecessors. . . . In his phone exchanges with Putin . . . the president talked mostly about himself . . . [while] obsequiously courting Putin’s admiration and approval.” Adds Bernstein: “The common, overwhelming dynamic that characterizes Trump’s conversations with both authoritarian dictators and leaders of the world’s greatest democracies is his consistent assertion of himself as the defining subject and subtext of the calls.”
But for allies, Trump’s manner was the opposite of his pandering to the authoritarians: bullying, abusive, and riven with grievances. “Everything was always personalized,” a source told Bernstein, “with everybody doing terrible things to rip us off—which meant ripping ‘me’—Trump—off.” With females, Trump added a withering misogyny. “His most vicious attacks,” Bernstein relates, “were aimed at women heads of state. In conversations with both [Theresa] May and [Angela] Merkel, the president demeaned and denigrated them in diatribes described as ‘near-sadistic.’”
Other consistent features of these phone calls were Trump’s ignorance and dissociation from reality. “Two sources,” Bernstein reports, “compared many of the president’s conversations with foreign leaders to Trump’s recent press ‘briefings’ on the coronavirus pandemic: free form, fact-deficient stream-of-consciousness ramblings, full of fantasy and off-the-wall pronouncements based on his intuitions, guesswork, the opinions of Fox News TV hosts and social media misinformation.”
Bernstein concludes by quoting a senior official who summarizes the grip of Trump’s personality disorder on his conduct of foreign affairs: “There was no sense of ‘Team America’ or of . . . certain democratic principles and leadership of the free world. . . . The opposite. It was like the United States had disappeared. It was always ‘Just me.’”
But, for now, all else is overshadowed by Trump’s catastrophic mishandling of COVID-19—a case study in the literally lethal consequences of his hydra-headed disorder. This is precisely what I meant when, in 2016, I wrote about the dangerous collision between “volatile world, a leader unable to perceive external reality, and the often–unbearable pressures of the presidency.” Trump need not precipitate a nuclear exchange for his warped psychology to cause tens of thousands of needless American deaths.
It has. Last month disease modelers at Columbia estimated that we would have incurred roughly 36,000 fewer fatalities had Trump initiated social distancing one week earlier, and 54,000 deaths had it started two weeks earlier. Instead, fearful that acknowledging the seriousness of the coronavirus would have adverse political consequences, Trump chose misleading the public over protecting lives.
Inexorably, the deadly pandemic overwhelmed Trump’s self-created alternate reality—in which denying its lethality substituted for action. So he substituted yet another fantasy: that his proactive leadership in fighting the virus had saved countless lives and defeated the pandemic.
Even as the death toll mounted, he urged state governments to reopen the economy—dismissing life-saving public health measures recommended by his own government. COVID-19, he told Sean Hannity, is “fading away.” A week later, we suffered the greatest number of new cases since the pandemic began.
Events in the real world provide a roadmap of Trump’s delusions. The coronavirus spiked in the states that were the swiftest to reopen. The European Union has banned Americans as threats to public health. Contradicting Trump, Anthony Fauci warned Congress that “the virus is not going to disappear,” adding that “we are still in the middle of a serious outbreak.”
No matter to Trump. In his imaginary America, the real problem became that we were testing too much, thereby increasing the count of new cases.
By then, as his pathology dictates, Trump had put blame for the pandemic on China, the World Health Organization, the media, Barack Obama, the intelligence community, and the CDC. And he had discovered the real victim of COVID-19: himself. In Vanity Fair, Gabriel Sherman reported Trump telling a confidant: “This is so unfair to me! Everything was going great. We were cruising to reelection!”
Instead, the pandemic has underscored Trump’s complete indifference to other human beings. And not just the vulnerable, the sick, and the dead. He insisted that West Point graduates return to hear his commencement speech in the middle of a pandemic. He scheduled large indoor rallies in Tulsa and Phoenix, surefire super-spreaders, so that he could bask in adoring crowds.
When public health officials in Charlotte inquired about health measures for the GOP convention, Trump moved it to Jacksonville—simply to ensure himself a jam-packed arena filled with unmasked faces, risk be damned. Over a three-week period of public statements amid the pandemic back in April, the Washington Post reported, Trump spoke for some thirteen hours—of which he spent two hours attacking others, forty-five minutes praising himself and his administration, but just four-and-a-half minutes expressing rote sympathy for coronavirus victims and front-line workers.
Further, the Post related in late May, “The coronavirus pandemic has spawned a whole new genre of Trump’s falsehoods. The category in just a few months has reached 800 claims, with his advocacy for hydroxychloroquine as a possible cure, based on minimal and flimsy evidence, already reaching Bottomless Pinocchio status.” As Trump’s confidant told Sherman: “He lives in his own fucking world.”
In that world, Trump is free from the constraints of constitutional democracy.
To stave off defeat, he and his party are striving to prevent the universal voting by mail necessitated by the pandemic, while groundlessly asserting that the mail-in balloting currently available guarantees massive voter fraud by the Democratic Party. Already, Trump is claiming that the 2020 election “will be, in my opinion, the most corrupt election in the history of our country, and we cannot let this happen.”
This is insane. But an increasingly serious body of opinion anticipates that Trump will try to maintain power by denying the legitimacy of the November election. This captures how completely Trump’s sickness has consumed us—expecting our president to subvert American democracy is becoming our new normal.
The problem of Trump transcends party or ideology, and so does our need to be rid of him. For there is no constitutional guarantee against a president too mentally ill to respect its terms—and a party too craven to stop him.
Until further notice, we have both.