Gabe… IMO this is your most thoughtful and well-articulated column ever. You’ve captured the essence of government based on the showmanship and rantings of a sociopathic madman.
The two sole constants of the post-1968 Republican Party are what they have been since 1968: cutting taxes on rich people and using racism to get white people to buy into doing this by telling them that cutting taxes hurts black and brown people
Trump is not an anomaly: he is the epitome of the post-1968 Republican Party. He is what you get when Ronald Reagan kicks off his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi. The only reason the Republicans might change is because their efforts to bring Latinos into their fold were wrecked by Stephen Miller
With regard to the future of MAGA believers and by default the current Republican Party full of politicians practicing self-empretzelment, The Queens real estate mob boss sundowning as President not only has no plans or concepts of a plan for the future, he is a walking stroke waiting to happen. His “leaving the stage” will happen sooner than later and the reality of the residue left in his place will not be so much a war that tears his coalition apart, but a puff of wind that blows them all away.
Trump is evil incarnated. His doctrine is to get rich and use everyone to make himself richer. He wants to own everything and be seen as a king. He will have a lasting impact: the millions and millions of people who died by his ignorant, greedy policies. He tapped RFK Jr and Musk to dismantle USAID and NIH, and because of that, millions of children have died and will continue to die. Him and Stephen Miller, Noem, Bondi, etc. are solely responsible for enacting the cruelest immigration policies ever seen. Torturing, kidnapping, raping, murdering migrants (sometimes citizens, legal residents, etc.). No lasting impact? Millions of families have been shattered. The Miccosukee tribe in Florida suffers from the destruction of their land because of Alligator Auschwitz and from tRump vetoeing policies that would help keep their communities safe. His policies seek to enrich gas, oil, and coal executives, devastating our precious environment. Death and destruction is the tRump doctrine. And we should all be wise to remember that. To speak so nonchalantly about the extreme toll his policies have taken on millions of people is deeply saddening. We must all do better to remember that he is the face of fascism. Maybe if a high profile white man or woman was kidnapped and sent to a cage surrounded by clouds of mosquitos without clean food or water, more people would finally admit how Trumpism is one of the most xenophobic, destructive, toxic doctrines known to the world. But because that happens to migrants, usually men of color, some people continue to speak about Trump like he's just a "nonimpactful president". What is happening to thousands of migrants every day, to our environment, and to children around the world is because of Trump and his horrifying administration and its really sad that nowhere in this article is that even mentioned. The legacy of Trumpism is right next to the legacies of Maduroism, Hitlerism, Putinism, Castroism, Stalinism, and any other fascist dictator with a well-deserved inferiority complex that led them to cause so much pain and suffering. His doctrine is the same as all other fascists: government by the few, for the few, and f**** whoever stands in their way.
Trump wants to be the hinge on which outcomes turn. If helping Ukraine makes him look decisive, he helps. If threatening to withhold support makes him look powerful, he withholds. The country is secondary to the performance. In other words: There’s a Trump instinct, not a Trump doctrine; and instincts don’t bind themselves when the spotlight shifts. If we were to distill any of that into some form of a doctrine or pattern, it would be: “Trump does what he thinks is best for Trump.”
I came to say the same thing. You can combine part of Glassman’s and Fleischer’s post: Trump Doctrine is a zero sum view on what “his own mind” thinks is fair, but ultimately what is fair depends on his personal winning or losing.
Denmark is small and it’s unfairly winning by having something big like Greenland, but Denmark could change my mind by letting me in on the winning ($).
Russia is big and should win the war against Ukraine because it’s small, but why is Russia taking so long to win, maybe Ukraine is actually winning and Russia is losing so I should send missiles to Ukraine.
Illegal immigrants are winning by coming here for “free” and America is losing, but we would be winning if we get smart or sexy immigrants.
The Central Park 5 are going to lose the court case and I want to be on the winning side, here’s my newspaper ad.
Red states are good because I’m the winner when you look a graphic of an election result and blue states/cities are bad because I’m the loser of an election result.
It all comes down to him not looking like a loser, and that can change depending on current events or whoever spoke to him last.
I think this is a very apt description: "Trump governs with a NON-IDEOLOGICAL SPONTANEITY that can’t really be boiled down to a doctrine." The only area of Trump's behavior, I believe, that you can guarantee to be a Trump doctrine is that he'll support anything that he thinks can make him and his family money.
Very well (and quickly) written column, as was yesterday's. And your intro includes quite a litany of feedback this administration is getting in response to its self-righteous and reactionary spontaneity.
Support for a popular president implies a capacity for leadership towards a perceived "rightness". It is difficult for anyone to follow him, except the entitled, and those who believe denigration of the "other" will deliver them. Their perception of "rightness" is not right. It lacks empathy, which is a constant element of what's "right". Further, as you have so artfully pointed out, a doctrine requires consistency, and effective planning and execution.
It's impossible for a zero-sum narcissist to do that -- Trump can't think beyond enriching and aggrandizing himself -- in real estate, that's done transaction by transaction. Everything is a "deal". A "big deal" here is that he has access to a highly effective military, which can do precision strikes better than anyone. That tool is deadly in the wrong hands, unencumbered by vision, objectives and execution beyond the immediate awesome mission. There will be nothing left when he leaves office except the mess he made while in it.
I was wondering whether Trump's claim to be the "Acting President of Venezuela" would be illegal or unconstitutional. Based on some preliminary research, it appears that it might not be. The Foreign Emoluments clause prohibits any person holding an "Office of Profit or Trust" under the United States from accepting "any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State." However, Trump could argue that a) there is no compensation (emolument) associated with this position and b) he didn't accept the position: he took it.
I am not completely sure that Trump’s inability to commit to a policy position indicates a complete absence of political philosophy. (The discourse around “doctrine” tends to restrict that term to matters of foreign policy.) It’s not that I would credit Trump with an especially broad-minded or humanistic political philosophy. It’s just that when you combine an exceptionally self-focused leader like him with a political faction that has always embraced self-justifying morals and social power as a mark of personal worth, a group like today’s Republican party is what you get. Why should we think they ever cared about persuasion when they resort to force at every chance? When we have Stephen Miller, for instance, numbering might making right as one of the “iron laws of the world since the beginning of time”? What ever would have persuaded them that Trump, that man of great personal strength who did NOT embody their professed morals in any meaningful way, was on the latter account an unsuitable person to carry their regime of social control into effect?
We don’t really have to imagine what the Trump legacy will look like. The Republicans will just gloss over his verbal and policy inconsistencies and adopt Trump as his generation’s example of the delivery of political and social control into the hands of the conservatives and none others, just like Reaganism has come to do.
Trump's overriding doctrine TACO and its all about me
There is a story about two factions in a synagogue They are having a disagreement over a part of the service, whether they stand or stay sat They are arguing over the tradition
They decide they are going to go see one of the oldest members who can no longer attend services
They go see him and tell him the problem One side insists that they stand and the other side insists they sit All we do is argue over the tradition He declares, "THAT'S THE TRADITION!!"
While I think you make interesting and valid points here I appreciate your column most when you report first hand on the activities of the courts and chambers, and explain them in the context of the law and history. Opinions about Trump are available everywhere.
Gabe… IMO this is your most thoughtful and well-articulated column ever. You’ve captured the essence of government based on the showmanship and rantings of a sociopathic madman.
The two sole constants of the post-1968 Republican Party are what they have been since 1968: cutting taxes on rich people and using racism to get white people to buy into doing this by telling them that cutting taxes hurts black and brown people
Trump is not an anomaly: he is the epitome of the post-1968 Republican Party. He is what you get when Ronald Reagan kicks off his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi. The only reason the Republicans might change is because their efforts to bring Latinos into their fold were wrecked by Stephen Miller
With regard to the future of MAGA believers and by default the current Republican Party full of politicians practicing self-empretzelment, The Queens real estate mob boss sundowning as President not only has no plans or concepts of a plan for the future, he is a walking stroke waiting to happen. His “leaving the stage” will happen sooner than later and the reality of the residue left in his place will not be so much a war that tears his coalition apart, but a puff of wind that blows them all away.
Trump is evil incarnated. His doctrine is to get rich and use everyone to make himself richer. He wants to own everything and be seen as a king. He will have a lasting impact: the millions and millions of people who died by his ignorant, greedy policies. He tapped RFK Jr and Musk to dismantle USAID and NIH, and because of that, millions of children have died and will continue to die. Him and Stephen Miller, Noem, Bondi, etc. are solely responsible for enacting the cruelest immigration policies ever seen. Torturing, kidnapping, raping, murdering migrants (sometimes citizens, legal residents, etc.). No lasting impact? Millions of families have been shattered. The Miccosukee tribe in Florida suffers from the destruction of their land because of Alligator Auschwitz and from tRump vetoeing policies that would help keep their communities safe. His policies seek to enrich gas, oil, and coal executives, devastating our precious environment. Death and destruction is the tRump doctrine. And we should all be wise to remember that. To speak so nonchalantly about the extreme toll his policies have taken on millions of people is deeply saddening. We must all do better to remember that he is the face of fascism. Maybe if a high profile white man or woman was kidnapped and sent to a cage surrounded by clouds of mosquitos without clean food or water, more people would finally admit how Trumpism is one of the most xenophobic, destructive, toxic doctrines known to the world. But because that happens to migrants, usually men of color, some people continue to speak about Trump like he's just a "nonimpactful president". What is happening to thousands of migrants every day, to our environment, and to children around the world is because of Trump and his horrifying administration and its really sad that nowhere in this article is that even mentioned. The legacy of Trumpism is right next to the legacies of Maduroism, Hitlerism, Putinism, Castroism, Stalinism, and any other fascist dictator with a well-deserved inferiority complex that led them to cause so much pain and suffering. His doctrine is the same as all other fascists: government by the few, for the few, and f**** whoever stands in their way.
Trump wants to be the hinge on which outcomes turn. If helping Ukraine makes him look decisive, he helps. If threatening to withhold support makes him look powerful, he withholds. The country is secondary to the performance. In other words: There’s a Trump instinct, not a Trump doctrine; and instincts don’t bind themselves when the spotlight shifts. If we were to distill any of that into some form of a doctrine or pattern, it would be: “Trump does what he thinks is best for Trump.”
I came to say the same thing. You can combine part of Glassman’s and Fleischer’s post: Trump Doctrine is a zero sum view on what “his own mind” thinks is fair, but ultimately what is fair depends on his personal winning or losing.
Denmark is small and it’s unfairly winning by having something big like Greenland, but Denmark could change my mind by letting me in on the winning ($).
Russia is big and should win the war against Ukraine because it’s small, but why is Russia taking so long to win, maybe Ukraine is actually winning and Russia is losing so I should send missiles to Ukraine.
Illegal immigrants are winning by coming here for “free” and America is losing, but we would be winning if we get smart or sexy immigrants.
The Central Park 5 are going to lose the court case and I want to be on the winning side, here’s my newspaper ad.
Red states are good because I’m the winner when you look a graphic of an election result and blue states/cities are bad because I’m the loser of an election result.
It all comes down to him not looking like a loser, and that can change depending on current events or whoever spoke to him last.
Chris, the best analysis of all
I think this is a very apt description: "Trump governs with a NON-IDEOLOGICAL SPONTANEITY that can’t really be boiled down to a doctrine." The only area of Trump's behavior, I believe, that you can guarantee to be a Trump doctrine is that he'll support anything that he thinks can make him and his family money.
Very well (and quickly) written column, as was yesterday's. And your intro includes quite a litany of feedback this administration is getting in response to its self-righteous and reactionary spontaneity.
I love your columns- I always learn a ton! Thanks
Support for a popular president implies a capacity for leadership towards a perceived "rightness". It is difficult for anyone to follow him, except the entitled, and those who believe denigration of the "other" will deliver them. Their perception of "rightness" is not right. It lacks empathy, which is a constant element of what's "right". Further, as you have so artfully pointed out, a doctrine requires consistency, and effective planning and execution.
It's impossible for a zero-sum narcissist to do that -- Trump can't think beyond enriching and aggrandizing himself -- in real estate, that's done transaction by transaction. Everything is a "deal". A "big deal" here is that he has access to a highly effective military, which can do precision strikes better than anyone. That tool is deadly in the wrong hands, unencumbered by vision, objectives and execution beyond the immediate awesome mission. There will be nothing left when he leaves office except the mess he made while in it.
I was wondering whether Trump's claim to be the "Acting President of Venezuela" would be illegal or unconstitutional. Based on some preliminary research, it appears that it might not be. The Foreign Emoluments clause prohibits any person holding an "Office of Profit or Trust" under the United States from accepting "any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State." However, Trump could argue that a) there is no compensation (emolument) associated with this position and b) he didn't accept the position: he took it.
Just saying...
Excellent analysis Gabe! Very insightful and well written.
Well, I certainly don't want the future Republican Party striving to know "what Trump would do".
I'm just waiting him out (and hoping for more principled Republican leadership in the future).
(and for that principled leadership to not hold majority positions in Congress).
I am not completely sure that Trump’s inability to commit to a policy position indicates a complete absence of political philosophy. (The discourse around “doctrine” tends to restrict that term to matters of foreign policy.) It’s not that I would credit Trump with an especially broad-minded or humanistic political philosophy. It’s just that when you combine an exceptionally self-focused leader like him with a political faction that has always embraced self-justifying morals and social power as a mark of personal worth, a group like today’s Republican party is what you get. Why should we think they ever cared about persuasion when they resort to force at every chance? When we have Stephen Miller, for instance, numbering might making right as one of the “iron laws of the world since the beginning of time”? What ever would have persuaded them that Trump, that man of great personal strength who did NOT embody their professed morals in any meaningful way, was on the latter account an unsuitable person to carry their regime of social control into effect?
We don’t really have to imagine what the Trump legacy will look like. The Republicans will just gloss over his verbal and policy inconsistencies and adopt Trump as his generation’s example of the delivery of political and social control into the hands of the conservatives and none others, just like Reaganism has come to do.
DJT cannot spell Doctrine.
Trump's overriding doctrine TACO and its all about me
There is a story about two factions in a synagogue They are having a disagreement over a part of the service, whether they stand or stay sat They are arguing over the tradition
They decide they are going to go see one of the oldest members who can no longer attend services
They go see him and tell him the problem One side insists that they stand and the other side insists they sit All we do is argue over the tradition He declares, "THAT'S THE TRADITION!!"
While I think you make interesting and valid points here I appreciate your column most when you report first hand on the activities of the courts and chambers, and explain them in the context of the law and history. Opinions about Trump are available everywhere.