A mother gives birth to a child. And a family is born. Within that family is bred a feeling of concern not only for the child, but for every member of the family. The child both consummates the love between the parents and solidifies their ongoing relationship. Most of us feel an obligation to nurture this familial relationship born of mutual concern, though, sadly, some abandon it. For the nurturers, however, it is easy to extend concern to other families, to a paternalistic or maternalistic concern for communities, and even for a nation state. Roman law and organization, for example, were built upon the concept of paterfamilias (“father of the family”), though before 3500 B.C. it was the Mother Goddess who reigned supreme. In either tradition, family was at the center of society and the focus of concern. Sociologists have long related that familial concern to the humanistic values of every known culture and civilization.
But perhaps human concern for others runs deeper and mirrors our relation to the physical world. We can look at the world in its most basic stance, as it exists in se (in itself). Philosophers used to call this metaphysics, or the study of being. Eastern belief systems offer an experiential awareness of this abstract concept through such practices as transcendental meditation. Our modern physics explains it through quantum mechanics, wherein the basic components of all being are particle/waves. Every atom of our human body is composed of these tiny elements, as is everything else in nature. The waves they produce have frequencies, literally a chaotic chorus quite unlike the Pythagorean “harmony of the spheres.” Nevertheless, each of us is part of this chorus that exists within and resonates without. Our science can explain the physical nature of being, but each of us experiences it uniquely. And that personal experience connects us both to our most basic sense of existence in the natural world and to each other. If you share that experience, then you will likely feel connected to the human family and to a physical environment to which we are all intrinsically connected at the very core of our being. And, therefore, you probably already accept the obvious conclusion: we have every reason to be concerned for each other and the world we inhabit.
The birth image with which this blog began has a broader connotation. It reflects a creativity in humans that extends beyond a mother’s conceiving of a child. The word “conceive” comes from the Latin concipere, “to take in” or “conceive.” When we “take in” the natural world, we “conceive” images in our mind and represent them in words. We may share our words, but they do not always mirror the images we create individually. Too often what we mean, or the image in our mind, bears only partial relevance to the reality we share. In a sense, we can create an “alternate reality.” That “reality” may reveal more about our limited perspective than what is real. We are even capable of conceiving a still born, that is, words that distort reality. Worse, we may nurture this false reality as if it lives in the real world and defend it with all the vehemence of a mother protecting her child. We can term this type of conception and its verbal expression as a “conceit.” It may be no more than a fanciful opinion or a strained metaphor. It can also appear as an arrogant expression of a personal belief based upon nothing other than a bloated assessment of self-worth or virtue. Such a conceit pretends to need no justification. Facts or evidence are irrelevant. Its words convey conclusions without premises and persuade solely on a narcissistic superiority divorced from reality. This type of conceit is unable to show concern for others or for the world they inhabit. A psychologist might disagree with my use of the word “narcissistic.” It literally implies a self-love for one’s personal appearance, or metaphorically, for one’s ego. In my use of the term, it is not just ego that is favored, but the id.
If conceits can control a person’s behavior, how does that person manage in the real world? Advice from others has no weight against them. Facts or evidence simply do not register in an inflated ego’s alternate reality. A truly conceited person can survive in the real world only by establishing personal superiority and by exercising control over everybody and everything. Therefore, such a person will be unwavering in craving and/or holding onto a position of absolute authority as if it was his/her right. It is the same claim made by monarchs and dictators. Conceit drives one to control without concern for anybody or anything other than the preservation of a personally conceived reality. Moreover, to the extent the id is involved, such a conceit may prefer the baser instincts of the human psyche over any more altruistic interests benefiting either society or even the individuals that compose it.
Though no psychologist, I do have an opinion about how the foregoing is relevant to America’s President. It may help us understand why he considers himself a “stable genius” who is his own expert on foreign affairs, criminal justice, trade management, immigration policy, environmental hazards, and anything that crosses his desk. His inaugural address cemented the promise of his campaign. He stated that “only he” could save the American dream which “is dead” and stop “the American carnage” which resulted in part from enriching and defending our allies. The “American first” agenda he then announced more than justifies the foreign policy he now conducts as a zero-sum game. America, after all, must win, and every foreign relation must be a contest. While he pretends to embrace our adversaries and distance America from its longtime allies, his trade policies tend to isolate America from international markets. He even threatens withdrawal from the World Trade Organization that America championed. His zero-tolerance immigration policies violate the Constitution (the 5th and 14th Amendments) and international law. And he lacks any concern for the physical environment that supports us all, as evidenced by his overturning the suspension of flood building standards, of the proposed ban on potentially harmful pesticides, of the freeze on new coal leases on public lands, of the anti-dumping rule for coal companies, of the offshore drilling ban in the Atlantic and Arctic, of the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews, and of so much more. Perhaps most indicative of his disregard for the world in which we all co-exist is his withdrawal of America from the international climate change accord.
His agenda for America reflects the alternate reality he has created for himself and demands the world to accept. For the last 70+ years, millions of Americans have participated in building a more inclusive America and an international system based upon cooperation and a growing set of international norms and laws. President Trump’s conceit would instead make America reflect him: a bully who suffers no critique and demands obeisance to his will or every whim. Further, this conceit isolates him from any concern for individuals or families. How else can we explain his willful policies to separate children from their parents at the border or his total disregard for nearly three thousand Puerto Rican hurricane victims.
Who believes there is no need to reference history or the institutional wisdom of career civil servants in the conduct of foreign affairs? Who thinks that maximizing penalties for non-violent crimes and contracting more for-profit prisons will reduce violence in our cities and reduce the costs for crime prevention? Who claims that isolating America from international trade agreements will enhance America’s export capabilities or magically benefit American consumers by eliminating low cost imports? Who denies that a zero-tolerance immigration policy is inconsistent with a nation born of immigrants and increasingly dependent upon their labor to offset the impact of declining birthrates? Who accepts the reality of mercury in our drinking water, dangerous pesticides in our food, poisonous air in our cities, and the defilement of our most precious national parks? The answer to all these questions is the same: a man driven by a conceit born of a fractured psyche and a debilitating delusion but, nonetheless, empowered to enforce his conceit upon us.
In defense of President Trump, I should add two points: he is a father whom his children apparently love; and not anyone of us is devoid of conceits. In fact, any person who seeks the Presidency must have a certain amount of arrogance. The position is replete with moral hazards. A President may feel impelled to start a preemptive war to defend against terrorists or conduct drone attacks within the borders of sovereign nations where civilian casualties cannot always be eliminated. Likewise, a President may extend healthcare to millions while offending the religious beliefs of an anti-abortion constituency. The principle of the “greater good” is not easily enacted in governmental policy or practice. Any attempt to “do no harm” can be very difficult to attain, especially in complex legislation or broad administrative application of the law. Except for the opposition Party, the general electorate tends to give our Presidents a bit of leeway in the general conduct of their office. Nevertheless, some of our former Presidents have fallen short of the electorate’s expectations. Two have been impeached; and one was forced to resign. Only the latter left office before the end of his term. But each of these men (yes, they, like all our Presidents, were men) failed to reflect the high moral character erroneously attributed to them by the electorate. Further, amongst our last eight presidents, only President Carter and President Obama avoided the cloud of a special prosecutor’s investigation. For their part, none of these Presidents represented himself as a person of low moral character. President Trump is the first to do so.
The President’s supporters, both foreign and domestic, seem less concerned about his morals and integrity than what he promised to deliver to them. Except for the 150 multi-billionaires at the top of the food chain, most Americans are waiting to see whether the President’s policies will benefit them. How will the Presidents tax and trade policies affect wages and the living standards for most Americans? How will his regulatory reform and healthcare initiatives effect safer environmental conditions and better medical treatment outcomes? Will the nearly ten-year economic recovery end abruptly because of wage stagnation, the cost of imports, debt infused high interest rates, or the effect of the Administration policies on the fastest growing segments of the American economy, namely, healthcare and energy?
The answer to these questions seems almost irrelevant in the context of the Trump Administration. The President’s interest lies elsewhere, specifically, in extending his influence and control. When he rails against his intelligence institutions, the FBI, and the DOJ, his criticism focuses on his lack of control. He wants to bend them to his will, rather than their defined missions to serve the Constitution and the American people. When he decries “fake news,” “witch hunt,” “dishonest” or “hateful” reporters, he not only discredits the free press but the First Amendment. His animosity towards the press is two-faced in the sense that he is gleeful about his dominance of the news cycle while at the same time advocating jail time for reporters whom he terms “the enemy of the people.” He not only wants to control the news cycle, but the substance of the news as well. He has cowed fellow republicans in Congress to either do his will or slither in silence away from reporters. Do you recognize an Orwellian reference in this behavior?
On the international front, he conducts foreign affairs as a zero-sum game where even our allies must submit to his positions without reference to historical alliances or negative outcomes. He has specifically targeted two of our closest allies from previous Administrations, that is, Canada and Germany. These two countries have played a key role in supporting America’s economic interests and its foreign wars. But the President prefers to bully them into submission rather than to maintain our partnership with them.
And, of course, he condemns the special prosecutor as “conflicted” and his team of attorneys as “democrats,” which is his pseudonym for enemy partisans. If he is unable to discredit Bob Mueller and his team, he will endeavor to castrate them by removing their security clearances or by terminating their civil service careers (as he has already done or promised to do with his growing enemies list of DOJ and FBI employees). He fears they are a threat to his control over the ship of state and to the image he presents to his supporters. If the special prosecutor’s office drafts articles of impeachment, will there be enough support from this base to forestall the President’s removal from office? Or will he be able to convince his supporters that the “deep state” is engaged in a conspiracy to stop his efforts to protect them from immigrant intruders and terrorists? In his deluded mind, these immigrants on our southern border are “aliens” who threaten to change our American ethnicity while all Muslims are “terrorists” who want us dead. In truth, there has never been a singular American ethnicity, just white privilege—which is a derivative of our cultural heritage and racism. And his Muslim ban was an anachronistic ploy to remind Americans of the horror and fear engendered by the 911 attacks 17 years ago. Meanwhile, we continue to wage wars abroad against foreign terrorists alongside Muslim allies who resist the perverted ideology of ISIS and al-Qaida.
While the President continues to wage a personal vendetta against his own intelligence community, the so-called “deep state,” the press, the democrats, our international allies, the special prosecutor, and his alleged scapegoats—Hispanics and Muslims, he has completely ignored any real threats to America. The most obvious of such threats is Vladimir Putin and his staged attack on the American election in 2016. That attack was an exceptional example of a well-developed Russian strategy of Kompromat. Our intelligence community terms this strategy an “advanced persistent threat.” Please note the adjective “persistent” in this context. The Russians will no more relinquish the use of this strategy than America or its allies would forego counter espionage. Their success in 2016 should assure a repeat in the coming election. In fact, if recent press reports are accurate, it has already begun. The question remains: what is the Administration doing to counter this impending attack on our democracy? In fact, the President fired his White House coordinator in charge of cyber security. Not only does the President see no evil, hear no evil, or think no evil here. But he even considered President Putin’s offer to assist the American investigation as a “generous” proposal.
(Message to President Putin: you are a brilliant strategist, but you should be wary of the man you wanted to win the American Presidency. He is destroying the economy of President Erdogan, a man he previously admired and a prospective ally on your border. He reportedly ordered the assassination of President Assad, whose authority he promised to acknowledge and an ally you have supported with arms and resources. While he has never criticized your annexation of Crimea or support for the upheaval in eastern Ukraine, he has authorized the arming of your opponents with advanced defensive weapons. Although he proposed to lift sanctions— “wouldn’t it be nice to have better relations with Russia”—he eventually caved to the will of Congress by increasing those sanctions. He will befriend you only so long as you protect or serve his interests. Be mindful that when a scorpion feels threatened, he reactively takes an offensive position. The American President is currently under siege, both at home and abroad. His natural tendency is to lash out at his enemies or to create a diversion. You could be that diversion. No American President has ever been challenged by his electorate during a time of war or the threat of military confrontation. Neither Americans nor Russians want a dangerous escalation in this ongoing contest for power and influence. Perhaps you feel in control of the situation, but the American President cannot control his basic instincts or his need for public approval.)
President Trump is not only a threat to the international world order but also to our American democracy. While most conceits have an ideological basis. His is bounded solely by his narcissism. He screams his tweets when discomforted in any way. He shows no understanding of our Constitution or the balance of powers within our tripartite system of government. He has little concern for Americans, their healthcare, environmental safety, or the security of their electoral process. His motivation, instead, comes from highly ego-centric conceits about his self-proclaimed superiority. Remember he promised that “only he” could correct the “carnage” of America and reverse his diagnosis that “the American dream is dead.” His conceit is not bounded by any ideology other than self-promotion. And it self-justifies and empowers his attempts to quash all resistance to his will and his concomitant desire to attain near tyrannical control over the institutions of government and public opinion. While Russia may be the enemy without, he is the enemy within. He is more than a hollering tweet. He is a baby with a gun.
While he golfs on most weekends and expends hours watching cable news, his government reels in chaos and reeks of corruption. While some recoil either in fear of his bogus threats from immigrants or Muslim terrorists, others are dismayed by his dismemberment of our institutions and the cowering of his own political Party. His actions trump the Flavian metaphor for the unraveling of Augustan norms and rules, that is, specifically, the image of Nero fiddling while Rome burns. But Donald Trump is no metaphor, for he holds the match.