When I wrote “The Rule of the Primate,” I was speculating how wars between nations are reminiscent of raiding troops of chimpanzees. Like the chimps, “war fever” may be no more than an instinctive dictate devoid of any moral compass. My concern at the time was the mounting pressure on the President to unleash cruise missiles on Syria. That pressure was created by the President’s “red-line” statement in 2012: “a red line for us is when we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.” Most people interpreted his “calculus” would include military action. That interpretation I termed logical because it followed a well-worn path in the history of nation states’ interactions and conflicts. Whereas the golden rule may be the moral force governing the interplay of individuals, it has much less influence over the disputes and contests between nations. These very often involve military attacks, sometimes escalating into war. In other words, primate logic too often rules amongst nations. My inspiration for this thesis was that foremost expert on chimpanzee aggression, Jane Goodall.

After watching the Presidential Debate last night, I once again thought of Jane Goodall. She draws a surprising contrast between the loving, peaceful life of a chimpanzee troop and its preemptive raids on neighboring troops. As described in her book “My Life with the Chimpanzees,” these violent raids required a dominant leader, an alpha male like her Mike, to rally the troop into frenzied action. He maintained his dominance by creating a spectacular display or ruckus to intimidate his rivals. As quoted in James Fallows article in the October issue of “The Atlantic,” Goodall said she “would be thinking of Mike as she watched the upcoming debates.”

Humans, of course, do not have to stomp around, wave branches and throw rocks to create a spectacular display. But gestures, facial expressions, wild accusations, frequent interruptions, and the citing of supportive lies accomplish the same thing. After the debate, fact checkers counted nineteen false statements, eighteen of which came from Mr. Trump alone. I counted more, including inventive “allusions” that further distracted from a consistent line of thought. Apparently, his intent was to win the debate by dominating the focus of attention.

Mr. Trump opened by stating his position on trade agreements. He showed outrage at former President Clinton’s approval of NAFTA, “the worst trade deal ever approved in this country.” The problem, of course, is that expert analysis on NAFTA has proven him wrong on every aspect of his analysis—especially distorting its miniscule impact on jobs during a massive increase in employment. After this forceful beginning, his performance gradually deteriorated into bluster, incoherence, emotionally charged facial distortions, and finally threats of more devastating personal attacks. After the debate he bragged about his restraint from attacking former President Clinton for his past indiscretions. The fact that those indiscretions do not implicate Hillary Clinton and have nothing to do with her candidacy seems not to register with Mr. Trump. What does register is his need to win. He wants to dominate the stage with a smokescreen of falsehoods, intimidate his opponent with his demeanor, and embarrass or humiliate her with preposterous allegations. His concluding remarks are that “she doesn’t look like a President—she doesn’t have the stamina.” For her part, Mrs. Clinton stood her ground, passing off his antics as those of an unruly child.

I believe Mr. Trump’s anger is genuine. Even a limited review of his legal and tax issues reveal the combative nature of his business career. Whether he believes what he says or not, I have no doubt that his emotional intensity is authentic. He is battle tested in the arena of mega-business deals and of IRS audits over tax loopholes—a field in which only the very rich can play. But he cannot possibly speak for those who feel left behind by the forces of technology and globalization. He has never shared their experience and is an empty vessel for their legitimate concerns. In fact, his use of undocumented workers and of foreign labor sources puts him in direct opposition to them. He does, however, represent a revolt within the Republican Party against those who have courted the far right factions while limiting their impact on policy. Oddly, he promises these factions nothing more tangible than the forceful projection of his voice. His border wall will not control the flow of undocumented immigrants. He will not deport all those already here without visas and not any of their American born children. He cannot and will not bar Muslims from obtaining visas. He cannot and will not torture enemy combatants or kill the families of suspected terrorists. We are still a country that follows the rule of law—both the dictates of our Constitution and the Geneva Conventions. So what Mr. Trump offers is nothing other than his authentic self, a brash kick-down-the-door alpha male who promises to shake up Washington and intimidate the world. He gives a truly spectacular display to rally his troops and, nonsensically, to “make America great again.”

If it is true that nation states too often succumb to primate violence, then the last thing the world needs is an alpha male in the White House. Given the very real problems we face (reference “The Only Thing We Have to Fear . . .”), would not his election be a case of double jeopardy?