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. 

The Perils and the Price of "Trusting Trump"

The American electorate, especially the MAGA followers and devotees, are not quite as stupid as their actions in electing Trump might suggest. First, it must be understood that more eligible voters chose not to vote than actually votes for Trump. But those who did vote for and still support Trump were given a target and focus for their anger and hate, which motivated and bound them to his cause more tightly than any rational assessment of their own self-interest. In short, they placed their trust in Trump. The more educated and intelligent voters did not follow that lead, and many professional politicians initially noted publicly that the election of Trump would be a mistake, and possibly a disaster. They neither agreed with his hyperbolic claims nor trusted that he could fulfill his promises. Yet these knowledgeable politicians caved in and switched allegiance, either because of weak character or fear of political retribution from the well-heeled Trumpian juggernaut that had captured the GOP.

It does not take professional experience or genius to figure out that the driving force of Trump policies and disruptive actions have nothing to do with government efficiency or improvement of the economy for average Americans. The driving force is his narcissism and egocentric megalomania. Regardless of impact, regardless of who is harmed, each of his actions is designed to force others to kneel to his whims and do his bidding, or fact retribution. It really is that simple.

The disruption [destruction?] of global alliances took only 2 months, and now former allies have stated publicly that the US can no longer be trusted or relied upon as an ally. Free trade relationships and mutually beneficial commerce agreements have torn up and been tossed aside, with negative repercussions for American consumers of inflation, stagflation, and possibly a recession. Yet the only discernible "gain" to be achieved from such actions is that world leaders will be obliged to send envoys to Washington, DC to "talk" with Trump. Given what we have seen so far, there is no assurance, consistency, or predictability as to what demands Trump may make in exchange for relief from his threats. And there is no assurance that he will not renege on any purported "agreement" a week or a month later. He behaves like a petty tyrant, a spoiled child.

There are, however, positive signs arising from recognition that Trump and, because he currently is its voice, the United States cannot be trusted. European nations to which Trump has issued demands for more expenditures for military and security are seriously looking at suppliers other than the US for weapons systems. The EU wants to break its security dependency on the US and buy more European weapons | AP News Not only are US weapons of questionable "superiority," but Trump's actions call into question reliability of delivery and longer-term maintenance commitments for such systems. Australia and other nations, as indicated by this article, are exploring other suppliers, customers and trading relationships. Australia seeks alternative partners for beef. beef-industry-figures-reveal-why-the-us-just-shot-itself-in-the-foot/ar-AA1CbR3W This is a perfectly sensible response when a former trading partner has attacked and betrayed former trade and security relationships.

Trump's ego suggests to him that, despite acknowledgement of near-term pain and suffering his actions inflict, that "in the long run" the adversaries that he is creating will bend to his will. As Sen. Kennedy [R-LA] stated: "In the long run, we’re all dead. The short-run matters too. I don’t care what the experts say. We do not know yet the impact of these [tariffs]. … We just don’t know, and anybody who tells you otherwise that says they know has been smoking the devil’s lettuce.”

The more likely outcome is that rational nations and companies will choose strategies and implement them over time that reduce risk and do not rely upon the United States. They will seek out and develop alternative investments and trade relations that meet their needs and do not depend upon the "good faith and integrity" of America that has been the foundation for international relationships for decades.

The curious and fragile nature of "trust" is that it is far easier to destroy than it is to build. Once broken, it is doubly hard to re-establish. The United States has had egotistical presidents in the past, Nixon and LBJ were noteworthy for their pride and sometimes abusive use of authority, but they were reasonably competent and respected the Constitution. [Nixon resigned upon Constitutional impeachment.] And the nation has had presidents of marginal competence, as in the case of George W. Bush, who could be manipulated to abuse authority. But at no time in the history of the nation has a president displayed the combination of narcissism and hubris, combined with ignorance and incompetence [including his closest officials and advisors] that enabled him to wreak as much havoc and destroy international and domestic trust in the national government in so short a time as Trump has done. And the chaos continues while Trump rants and raves on Truth Social over any and every perceived slight or criticism.

The extent of the damage will not be fully appreciated for some time. The period of recovery, if ever, from his hubris and erratic ravaging will take years. And, like trust, the time required to rebuild the economy and international relations will doubtless take far longer than the time it takes Trump to destroy.