“Manufactured” Crime and Other Trump Hoaxes

“Manufactured” Crime and Other Trump Hoaxes Donald Trump and AG Pam “Barbi” Bondi are grabbing plenty of media attention and headlines over the invasion of Washington, DC and takeover of local law enforcement. Keep in mind that, prior to the deployment of agents from an alphabet soup of federal agencies as well as national guard soldiers from multiple states, the DC crime rate had dropped to the lowest level in decades. These are the factual statistics that describe the level of crime and public safety in DC. It is true that DC has a large influx of non-residents and tourists who enter the city, but Trump’s takeover makes no mention of “outsider” causes for the sudden crime wave. [The only recent example of such violent incursion by “outsiders” was the January 6 Insurrection at the Capitol incited by Trump himself. Trump also took steps to criminalize homelessness and vulnerable persons with mental disorders, vowing to rid the city of vulnerable indigents. We must be mindful that Trump has not actually walked in the streets of DC since he has been in office, if ever. Nor have there been reports of any Trump Administration staff member being assaulted or robbed while in DC. Trump's “declaration” of an “emergency” because of a crime wave in DC is demonstrably contrived. It is not difficult to draw policy parallels to Hitler’s Nazi Germany purges of non-”Aryan” populations, in which Jews, people of color, homosexuals, and the mentally ill were either expelled or detained in concentration camps, with many being “exterminated” by firing squads or gas chambers. But let us turn from purpose to process. If the “true goal” of the Trump takeover were to restore “public safety,” then it would be incumbent to revisit what constitutes “public safety.” Such safety involves the actual and perceived sense of freedom from assault and intrusion into the persons and property of members of the public, and the reasonable absence of fear of such unwelcome and unwarranted intrusions. Such incursions and fear may be caused by other members of the public and in some cases may be caused by law enforcement personnel. The latter risks are supposed to be counterbalanced by established rules of due process and humane police procedures. In other words, the social contract provides that intrusions by police are to be permitted by police, but ONLY if done in accordance with due process procedures that protect the civil rights of members of the public. For example, a traffic stop or detention of an individual on the street may be permitted for purposes of “public safety” only if the police first clearly identify themselves and their authority and can articulate a specific crime or violation of the law upon which the incursion is based. We have seen documentation of police stops and interrogation of individuals without any demonstrable or articulable justification. In far too many cases, the initial encounter is prompted by internal bias and bigotry in the mind of the police officer leading to racial, religious or homophobic “profiling” which suggests to them that anyone with such characteristics “must” be engaged in unlawful or at least “suspicious” activity. The officers sometimes try to “create” a justification by making provocative statements or aggressive actions and then claiming that the person detained has been “uncooperative” or “resisting” police in performance of their lawful duties. Too often this police response to a manufactured confrontation escalates to arrest and injury to the detainee. Sometimes, but rarely, the officers are disciplined or even fired for such misconduct, but police unions typically cover up and whitewash officer misconduct. The introduction of mandatory police “body cams” intended to record and preserve evidence of their conduct, a constraint instituted because of the large body of evidence of officer misconduct and an attempt to regain some level of public trust, is only effective IF the officer has the camera operating when in action. Against this backdrop and history of police abuse of authority and misconduct, the second aspect of “public safety” must be evaluated, the absence of perceived threat to persons and property. Currently, DC residents seeking to walk the streets and go about daily activities are faced with, and often surrounded by, agents from hundreds [White House cites 400 and increasing] of armed persons from ICE, DEA, ATF, National Guard and other agencies in addition to DC Metropolitan police officers. National Guard members are soldiers untrained and totally inexperienced in local police procedures. Social media is rife with documentation of individuals without any criminal history and not engaged in any activity other than standing, sitting or walking, surrounded by three or more of these agents who confront, detain and escalate. In other examples, persons standing in public spaces video recording actions by the officers [a clear first amendment right] are confronted and sometimes assaulted or detained. Officers defensively claim that the person recording their activity is "interfering” with law enforcement activities, when the agent need only have ignored the bystander. Context: When George Floyd was murdered by a police officer abusing his authority, video recordings by onlookers served as a major source of evidence leading to the officer’s conviction. So, recording agent activity serves an important "public safety” purpose. Seeking to capitalize on this massive incursion and takeover of DC, Trump’s Administration has taken advantage of the old adage: “Numbers don’t lie; but you can do a lot of lying with numbers!” For example, AG Bondi recited a number of supposed “arrests” in DC since the introduction of federal agents. First, the documented history of misrepresentation by Bondi and the Trump Administration makes the reliance upon the cited number of arrests dubious. But even if accurate, the evidence of false and unjustified arrests by overzealous and untrained agents provides marginal confidence that such detentions represent any meaningful impact on “crime” in the city. Nor does the White House break down how many of those arrests were made by DC police doing their jobs as would have occurred without Trump’s involvement. In contrast to Trump claims that DC residents were “afraid to go out in public,” actual residents and business owners provide a very different story. They say that residents did go out in public less and businesses suffered AFTER the Trump takeover and huge influx of armed personnel, and only recently have begun to return to more normal activity once they adjusted to changing their routines and avoiding the presence of federal agent concentrations. So, Trump’s claim of a fearful hiding public was a lie and a hoax. Another aspect of this authoritarian “savior” meme and hoax being cast by Trump is the threat to take over other cities in America because of similar crime issues. This hoax is so superficial that it would be laughable, were he not serious about carrying his plan forward. Racist dog whistles of criminality by people of color are readily sucked up by Trump’s “base” which he needs to try to distract and recapture in light of the nagging issue of his involvement with Epstein, pedophilia, and sex trafficking. While his base often seems to have no moral compass at all, it seems that a line has been crossed by suspected Trump involvement with molestation and trafficking of underage girls procured by Maxwell and exploited by Epstein and his cabal. Trump’s long close history with Epstein, along with his own separate history of sexual assault, makes his involvement presumptive rather than just “possible.” So, his public and very demonstrative actions of sending federal agents and military troops to American cities run by Mayors who are POC and whose populations are heavily or predominantly POC is a performative act of "throwing red meat” to his base, another hoax. Trump has chosen DC primarily because his intemperate “invasion” of Los Angeles resulted in push back and rulings by judges that Trump exceeded his authority. The law against deployment of military for purposes of local law enforcement was breached because of the 10th amendment, which technically does not apply to DC which does not have statehood. He might make the same racist threats against Baltimore, Chicago and Philadelphia [all led by Mayors who are POC] but would face the same problem of the 10th amendment as in California, but now with the existence of judicial precedent to support the resolve of judges, including those threatened by Trump. Unfortunately, journalistic professionalism has been abandoned or compromised by Trump to the extent that true investigation and analysis is virtually absent. Either by making threats to Media company executives, or by revoking access to White House briefings, he has largely succeeded in stifling any media outlets publishing stories critical of Trump’s agenda. Instead of doing the job of investigative reporting, such media outlets resort only to publishing “news” of the rise of public backlash to Trump’s claims and actions. The resistance apparently must come from members of the public to try to protect and defend their own “public safety” from an arrogant narcissistic authoritarian president who disregards the Constitution, rule of law, and regard for members of the public.

Trump Takeover of DC - Plantation 2025

 If we are brutally honest, the Trump move to take control of Washington, DC law enforcement is a metaphorical modern day "lynching" serving as race-baiting and a distraction for his MAGA cult. Consider that the population of DC is 64% non-white and over 93% are US citizens [i.e. not an immigration problem] The actual violent crime rate is at an historic LOW and has been dropping steadily, so there is no ACTUAL public safety emergency. Unfortunately, DC is a vulnerable and relatively easy target for Trump's "plantation" style tactics. Nothing really NEEDs to be done to enhance law enforcement or violent crime reduction, but we will not have data to show that nothing was effectively done for months. Meanwhile the defamatory media rush will hang over DC and its government and be inflamed by Trump Administration rhetoric. The LAST person who should be entrusted with the public safety of a city, especially one populated primarily by people of color, is AG Pam Bondi. Her ethics, professionalism and racist mentality are disqualifying. as well as her slobbering subservience to Trump's every whim.

It is questionable whether the Posse Comitatus prohibition on using federal forces for local law enforcement applies because of DC's special non-state status. So, Trump declares an "emergency" and that the folks of color have created a "crime wave" making the city unsafe. As with most of Trump's pronouncements, there are no facts to support this race-baiting accusation. But his MAGA followers are eager to latch on to any form of bigotry and hate. It is an effective media distraction but terrible and shameful policy. JMO🧐

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/dc-mayor-responds-to-trump-s-federal-takeover-of-city-police-department/vi-AA1KkhED

Of "Distractions" and Effective Responses

 One has to wonder WHEN Democrat elected officials [and the DNC] will wise up and ignore the obvious deflection and chaos Trump tries to produce in order to steer attention from his illegal and morally indefensible conduct. The cloud hanging over Trump regarding his knowledge of and likely participation in sex abuse and sex trafficking of minors is something he needs to deflect attention from at any cost. He has been able to rely upon surrogates like Netanyahu, whose brutal and criminal genocide in Gaza has captured media attention. But even that heinous activity has not been enough to entirely distract media attention.

Seriously, his attacks on UNESCO, USAID, DOE, FEMA, Federal Reserve Chairman, NPR, Washington Commanders name change, PGA/LIV dispute, and the host of other controversies he is addressing are all important "issues," but are they truly the PRIORITY issues for the president of the USA? And does precipitating chaos while resolving NOTHING do anything to advance the interests of Americans?

In my view, at least two things should happen. First, try to ignore the almost daily distractions and focus on "bread and butter" or "paycheck" issues and continue to hammer on them DAILY without regard to Trump's chaotic daily moves to divert attention. For example, give specific documented examples of how tariffs are causing loss of jobs and consumer product price increases [or shortages]. Give specific documented examples of how Trump's immigration crackdown is not only endangering communities but harming specific flesh and blood citizens and properly documented immigrants with NO criminal history. Reports of the critically ill child who is a citizen and was deported without due process, the grandfather who was kidnapped, "disappeared," and whose family was told he had died, will resonate. PUBLISH and REPEAT stories like these. "One and done" reporting plays to the short attention span of the news cycle. Focus on a strategy that builds cumulative MOMENTUM. The media cannot be relied upon to do the groundwork and use editorial integrity to publish grounded and reliable stories to inform the public. So, they must be fed reliable information to counterbalance the sensationalist fluff and bluster that appeals to their laziness and attention seeking proclivities.

A second suggestion is twofold. Large law firms willing to sacrifice millions in billable hours for free to appease Trump should agree to donate similar resources for a national network to prepare and file lawsuits to attack and enjoin Trump executive orders in EVERY state. This is not unprecedented, as Democrat presidential campaigns have regularly assembled networks of lawyers covering every state to volunteer pro bono services to address campaign and voting rights issues. In this case, the primary issues would be voting rights and due process. Large donors like Soros and PAC funds should also support this effort to create a kind of legal "national specialized guard" so that petitions for injunctions can be filed the same day that any Trump fiat is issued.

The third suggestion is twofold. Local and grassroot organizations, aided by PAC funding, should focus on recruitment of articulate and properly vetted candidates on the local and state level. The goal is not just to replace and incumbent, but to UPGRADE representation with candidates who respect the needs and voices of constituents. These candidates should be supported with documentation indicated above of instances in which incumbent GOP members of Congress have supported measures that directly hurt constituents. Funds should be used to buy persistent attack ads while the developing candidates build grassroots support and campaign infrastructures.

Finally, I reluctantly tend to agree with the principle espoused by California Gov. Newson regarding retaliatory gerrymandering. While manipulating voting districts to favor or disadvantage certain groups is detrimental to "free and fair" elections, when one side is rigging the electoral maps to make voting UNFAIR, some measures to balance the process may be necessary. We KNOW that the current Supreme Court cannot be relied upon to strike down biased and discriminatory redistricting. So, it is incumbent upon Blue State legislatures to redraw their maps to counter unfair measures undertaken in Red states like Texas. In short, Democrats need to be prepared to take the struggle directly to the GOP and to fight with bare knuckles when necessary. Until now, Democrats have been like the proverbial pugilist trying to fight under the Marquis of Queensbury Rules, only to be assaulted by a kick in the groin by an opponent who respects no rules. If "fighting dirty" means fighting on a level playing field, so be it.

Thoughts of The Journey: Where We Are, Where We Have Been

 I have been pondering, largely in an attempt to avoid falling into despair, the state of the world and especially the place of the USA in that global society. Let me add, in preface, that I have also thought about the role of "influencers" in today's digital morass.  I am not and do not care to be an influencer, someone who tries to seduce people to adopt their beliefs or strategies based upon purported superior knowledge. I am an observer, analyst, critical thinker, and sometimes perspective taker. I do not encourage others to adopt my beliefs or opinions, but do invite others to consider facts, logic, and moral constructs and come to their own conclusions.

This brings me to an assessment of the current state of world affairs. We have a democratic republic that has withstood more than a century of developmental strife and has moved toward "a more perfect union" based upon common acceptance, if not belief in, a set of principles embodied in a foundational "constitution. Yet it is not hyperbole to say that this representative democracy stands on the brink of disintegration with the ascendance of a narcissistic despot who would be king. He has, through intimidation and fiat, with the help of wealthy oligarchs and ideological zealots, disrupted the global economy and eroded the fundamental principles of liberty, due process, and the rule of law. In his regime, whatever he declares is to become "law" and anyone who disagrees or resists becomes a criminal. Basic concepts that have been taken as universally accepted, such as innocence until guilt is proven has been overtaken by Trump Administration agents who simply declare that individuals are "criminals" or "illegals" without proof and often without any basis in fact. In his regime, the arrogation of executive power has come through the declaration of an "emergency" when there is no demonstrable or rational proof that a real emergency exists. 

This usurpation of power has been used to summarily deport individuals, including citizens and sick children, to unlawful detention and to foreign concentration camps without due process, and to impose taxes in the form of tariffs without authorization or approval of Congress. The national severe weather warning system designed and established to provide detection and early warning of natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods has been disabled along with cutting funding for FEMA to help regions respond to and reconstruct damage from such natural disasters. Cancer research and access to vaccines that can prevent deadly pandemic disease have been hobbled and put in the charge of an incompetent moron who does not believe in science or vaccines. International diplomatic relations built and reinforced over the past 80 years have been undermined, if not destroyed. The United States is now viewed as both a laughingstock and an untrustworthy ally by most European nations, and as a "useful tool" that can be bribed and manipulated by middle eastern regimes that have been previously opposed for their funding of terrorism, oppression, murder of a journalist, and the attack on the US soil on 9/11.  The list of degradations could go on, but the picture has been outlined. 

But all of these travesties are not, in my view, the worst aspect of our current state of affairs.  There is a just and rational basis for putting an adolescent in jail for the first shoplifting offense [unless the teen happens to be of color], because it is possible that the adolescent "did not know better," did not appreciate the gravity and wrongfulness of the offense. In contrast, repeat offenders are often given longer and more onerous punishment because it is accepted that the defendant was fully aware that the criminal actions were wrong, unacceptable, and commanded punishment. As a society, there are processes of evolution when the concepts of liberty, freedom, and common humanity mature and expand to embrace rights previously denied. Many Americans did not know what the American society would be like, how it could survive, without chattel slavery which had been in existence since the nation was founded. Over time, abolition developed and became accepted. For the majority of years of the republic, women were denied full citizenship and the right to vote or hold property in their own name. But suffrage and gender parity have changed and continue to evolve. 

The salient point here is that the American public has been in similar circumstances before. Eras of blatant discrimination based upon skin color, gender, sexual orientation, and religion have been experienced. Denial of fair treatment, a safe working environment, and fair wages for workers has been identified and remedial actions have been established. Even the insidious and pernicious manifestations of systemic racism have been assailed by anti-discrimination laws. As a citizenry and society, we KNOW that these practices, policies, and behaviors currently manifested by the Trump Administration and condoned by Congress are WRONG. One might argue that the Trump Administration executive orders to remove certain materials from libraries, curtail and circumscribe teaching of history, and attacks on academic freedom are based upon fear that knowledge of these past wrongs is a threat to the current regime. We also know that, as a society, we can do better. The remedies are not easy or simple to establish and maintain. But the nation has experienced the kind of cruelty, injustice, and moral depravity that these current policies represent and inflict and has grown to become a more just society. 

My assertion that the nation has grown and evolved is not mere speculation, but a product of eyewitness experience. I entered public education the same year that Brown v. Board of Education was handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States [SCOTUS] Prior to that, public schools segregated on the basis of race and color were legal. In junior high school, where "aptitude tests" were administered, the counselor told me that I should aspire to become a carpenter or tradesman, despite my superior test scores in math and reading, because a negro could only become frustrated by aspiring to become a professional. This was not stated in malice, but because it was then the "norm" By the time I graduated from high school, I was awarded a Vice President's Nomination to the US Naval Academy from Hubert Humphrey, who was a prime catalyst for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I visited the Kent State University Campus within days of the national guard shooting of unarmed student protesters, and joined in the protests there and in Washington, DC. While attending law school, I worked as an intern at the EPA on a team that developed the Toxic Substances Control Act which was established to police and prevent major public environmental pollution disasters and hold large corporate polluters accountable for environmental contamination. As a lawyer, I participated in a group that planned and convened the first Conference on Diversity in the Profession ever held by the American Bar Association. While the trajectory of these events and experiences has been positive, the line has not been a straight one, or without setbacks. Other than a belief in a better society and a voice of protest, I could do nothing to prevent the assassinations, of MLK, Jr., JFK, Matthew Sheppard, Trayvon Martin, and the many other victims of a cancerous hated-inspired segment of society. But that is the point. The majority of Americans did believe in a better, more humane, inclusive, and just society. And with that belief, society evolved and did become more worthy of claiming its aspired values.

This brings us to where we are now. The regression and deterioration of American society, as well as the dismantling of American democracy did not take place overnight. It has been a process of erosion, the opposite of the process of evolution that brought salutary and more humane changes.  There has perhaps always been a faction that rejected the notion of "strength through unity" in favor of a belief that "might makes right" and there is never a problem with having too much that grabbing more cannot solve. This sociopathic greedy narcissism has manipulated the fears of poor and less educated whites to believe that a loss of their power and prestige is the "fault" of those in society who do not look and think as they do. They have been told that, despite their own lack of resources and need for health care, government programs to provide such aid to the needy is a wasteful expense of taxpayer funds for the "undeserving." While diverting and distracting this manipulated "base," the current regime has put in place measures that suppress the right to vote and other democrat\c processes. A system has been established which elevates the voice of wealthy corporate and PAC funding significantly above the voice of voters [Citizens United ruling] so that control of campaign funding dictates who will be the "representatives" of "the people." 

This is also a narrative we have seen BEFORE.  We have seen greed and corruption take hold of the reins of power in the nation in the days of the 19th century "Robber Barons" and the "trusts" that dictated government policy and diverted public largess to a privileged few. It took major anti-imperialist wars [Spanish-American War; Boxer Rebellion, WW1, etc.] the financial "Panic of 1907" and the "Great Depression," along with organized pressure from Progressive "Muckrakers," and the 19th Amendment [women's right to vote] to establish laws and standards to curb excessive greedy and power-hungry would-be despots. While seemingly simplistic, the gist is that it took major economic and geopolitical upheaval to dislodge the centralization of power and establish some level of democracy. 

There are mechanisms still in place that ostensibly enable constraints and "checks and balances" regarding illegal and unjust usurpation and exercise of executive power. The question is whether those who have seized power have so weakened the foundations of a representative democracy that those tools may no longer be operative or effectual.  Like the repeat offender analogy, the question is an open one whether the American public that SHOULD have known better and has seen the types of cruelty, inhumanity, and disregard to the rule of law will have to pay a heavier burden of punishment to recover a functioning representative democracy, or whether that form of governance and an inclusive societal ethic is gone forever. 

    

Don't Look Now. Northing to See Here!

 Let us be logical and honest about motives and pretense. 

IF the Trump Administration had any serious intent to identify and reduce government spending waste or fraud, it could easily have begun by identifying a few specific instances of redundant services or programs with limited justification. By starting out with credible "efficiency" moves, it could have supported a belief in an honest effort to pare down government spending.

HOWEVER, firing federal employees responsible for securing the nation's nuclear arsenal, firing air traffic controllers, targeting FEMA, and gutting the CDC function of alerting the public to pandemics [on the heels of COVID], all suggest that the motivation of Trump's cutting barrage has nothing to do with reducing "inefficient" or non-essential services. When held up to scrutiny, both the basis for the allegations or waste and fraud have lacked substance, and the purported "savings" from the cuts have not materialized.

The sensationalist and reckless approach logically indicate that the effort is to create a distraction of public attention from other actions. And we are seeing evidence of corruption and self-dealing by Trump and his family that may have escaped public and media attention while focused upon outrage over the decimation of key government national security, health, and public safety functions. It is the strategy of a practiced "con man" to distract and deflect attention while stealing and grifting.

After 100 days of the distraction sideshow, which has included leaking very sensitive classified military operations information, deporting children who are citizens, and pardoning treasonous insurrection participants, the corruption is now being done in broad daylight. Trump is currently in the Middle East engaged in so-called "official" negotiations regarding tariffs, while his family members and oligarchy club members are securing lucrative deals for developments and trade with representatives of Qatar, UEA and Saudi Arabia. And the corruption is so brazen that Trump joked about and chastised a reporter for questioning his acceptance of a $400 million plane as a "gift" from the Qatar regime. Of course, the "gift" was opined as legally permissible by AG Bondi whose previous "job" was as a lobbyist and adviser to Qatar with a $115 K per month retainer. Even a few spineless GOP members were caught off guard and choked on the corruption and violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution. 

The only thing "surprising" about the transactions is the lack of business acumen of the rulers of Qatar and Saudi Arabia. After all, Elon Musk "bought" Trump and a seat in the Oval Office for only about $270 million in campaign funding. So, paying a bribe to trump of $400 million seems a bit "wasteful and inefficient." He could have been bought and bribed for much less. 

Trump's "Commencement-Adjacent" Speech at University of Alabama

I believe that a few fair and germane questions should be asked about the planned involvement of Trump at a Commencement related event at the University of Alabama. The first question would be: “who proposed or initiated plans for the event?” I would speculate that, while Gov. Ivey is not known for her respect for academia or education, the impetus for the event probably did not come from her office or that of the University President. At least the event apparently will not be mandatory or included in the formal ceremony of awarding degrees, and neither students nor faculty will be compelled to attend if they should choose not to support the event.

Trump is known to be fundamentally transactional, among other traits. His primary tools of “negotiation” are the proverbial “carrot and stick.” He will either offer financial inducements to get compliance with his wishes or threaten serious punishments if his wishes are not complied with. This brings the second question: “did Trump threaten [express or implied] to cut federal funding for University of Alabama if it did not accommodate a “platform” at Commencement?” While the background politics in Alabama are favorable to Trump, the University leadership must have realized that providing Trump a “bully pulpit” at the academic ceremony would only tarnish the reputation of the institution. After all, Trump has many attributes, but none of them are related to education, intellectualism, or academic excellence.

The next logical question that should be asked is: “who benefits financially from the planned event?” It is reported that the event will take place in university facilities but will be “ticketed.” It is not reported how much the tickets will cost, but they will not likely be cheap. Where will the ticket proceeds go? Trump is well known as a “grifter,” with his fake for-profit university, sales of signed Bibles, sneakers, coins with his image, selling US citizenship for $5 million coin purchase, and other scams. He also has a long history of convening rallies requiring significant local security and traffic control costs, and then leaving without paying the local authorities who get stuck with the bill for such expenses. Keep in mind also that US taxpayers are fully funding Trump’s visit to Tuscaloosa, including security. So there is no reason to charge admission for the event, unless it is a fund raiser for the University. If the funds are going to Trump’s “campaign accounts” [and note that he has nothing to campaign for any longer] then he is prostituting the University of Alabama for personal gain. So, who will get the ticket proceeds??

The last, and probably most speculative question is: "whether there is some plan to award Trump an “honorary degree?” While it is understood that such awards are ceremonial, they have traditionally been used to recognize serious accomplishments in public service or education. To award an honorary degree is to place the institution’s reputation and imprimatur behind the endorsement of the recipient. Trump has cut funding for academic research at internationally recognized centers for academic excellence and is in the process of dismantling the US Department of Education. He has labeled academics as “left wing lunatics” and disparaged higher education, while pressuring universities to reverse efforts to diversify opportunities for higher education to students who have heretofore been marginalized and discriminated against in admissions and access. Whether liberal or conservative, each graduate of the University of Alabama was provided the atmosphere, resources, and opportunity to study, formulate and debate their understanding and views about their professions, their society and the world. To grant Trump any such an “honorary” accolade, even if only ceremonial, is to denigrate any degree previously awarded by the University of Alabama, and to insult every Bama alumnus.

Living in a Fallacy World

One of the interesting aspects of those supporting Donald Trump is that he would be a good president because he has been a good “businessman.” We need to first suspend reality to buy into the notion that someone who has made a fortune is necessarily a “good businessman,” especially in light of six bankruptcies, criminal fraud convictions, and a history of cheating or “stiffing” his business associates and contractors who provided services upon promist of payment.

But this latter aspect is relevant to establishing the “fallacy” that success in business translates to good leadership in public office. The premise and the “rules“ of practice are quite different in these two arenas. A businessman is answerable primarily to investors to generate profits and may do so without regard to the wellbeing of suppliers, contractors or employees whose contributions generate the profits. The businessman would be expected to have some special expertise in the narrowed confines of the business enterprise being managed. To be sure, SOME business owners and managers regard healthy relations with business partners and employee safety and morale as important tools for profit making. But sharp practices and behavior some would deem unethical are only constrained by the risk of the challenge and prosecution of civil or criminal judicial process. And as Trump has demonstrated frequently, delayed judicial processes create opportunity for profit, and the costs of civil litigation serve to favor the actor with deeper pockets. This is the “ethic” that has driven Trump as a “businessman.” And it is noteworthy that if this bullying and cheating modus operandus should fail, a bankruptcy may harm investors and employees, but the “businessman” can simply start over and continue the practices with a new company, not unlike a casino gambler who has lost on the roll of the dice.

In stark contrast, the role and responsibility of an elected official, and specifically a president, is to uphold and administer the laws, not to skirt the laws and evade prosecution. This oath and responsibility to “faithfully execute” the laws and uphold the Constitution is supposed to operate in favor of all citizens and the American public. Including those who did not vote for or “invest” in the candidate for that role. Their investment was in the stability and functioning of a system where the infrastructure of democracy is sustained, and opposition voices are respected.  The risks of a failure of leadership of a president, unlike that of a businessman, could be calamitous for all Americans, not just those connected with a specific business enterprise.  Also, an elected president does not typically have the option to just liquidate the nation and start over with a new country after a failure of leadership. 

While the analogy is far from perfect, think of the distinction between a butcher and a neurosurgeon.  The butcher, not unlike the businessman, seeks the slab of meat from which one hopes to generate a profit. The meat is cut and fat is trimmed to yield the more marketable selections which can be sold publicly at the highest markup, even if the quality of the original meat is slightly embellished or misrepresented. The profits are generated for the business owners, and the only yield to employees would be a continuation of jobs. If misrepresentations as to quality of the meat were discovered, the business might be sued and eventually forced to close. 

In sharp contrast, the neurosurgeon must carefully weigh the decision to operate, considering professional standards and consultation with the patient regarding risks and benefits. The professional oath of the physician requires: “By all that I hold highest, I promise my patients competence, integrity, candor, personal commitment to their best interest, compassion, and absolute discretion, and confidentiality within the law.” The physician swears to take only reasonable fees for the services rendered and no other financial profit from the relation with the patient. In conducting surgical procedures, the surgeon must be aware of the potential impact of surgical actions on all other systems of the patient that could be adversely affected. The more radical the procedure, the greater the risk to the patient. The goal and objective is to promote, to the extent possible, the health and wellbeing of the patient and, by extension, the public.

This comparison may help in understanding the complete fallacy of placing confidence in someone viewed as a “good businessman” as a presumptively good, elected president of the nation. The breadth of expertise, the ethics of professionalism, the standards of performance and the risks of failure are very different. The risks of failure in the role of president by the so-called “good businessman” are greater by several orders of magnitude. The breadth of expertise can be bridged by the selection of subordinates and advisors, But that remedy is only available IF the person chosen as leader adheres to the principles and standards of the Oath of Office and a sincere commitment to uphold the rule of law.  If the subordinates are chosen only because they swear fealty to the president, and the president has the moral compass of the “businessman” described above, the advice and counsel given to that president will be as flawed and lacking as the character and judgment of the elected president.

And during this time, all Americans are subjected to living in a fallacy world while their future and wellbeing depend upon the reasoning and judgment of someone committed only to personal power and profit.