We need to talk about Donald – the Nightmare continues

[Tero]

This is not the Trump way!
scientist, unmolested by Trump, becomes Miss America
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/201 ... ce=copyurl

[Forty Two]

In honor of Police Officer Memorial Day, Trump will light up the White House blue --
http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... nor-police

[Forty Two]

[Hermit]

It's not often I stumble across a good article at Vox.com, but here is one:

We overanalyze Trump. He is what he appears to be.
There is no correct Theory of Trump.
Updated by David Roberts@drvoxdavid@vox.com May 12, 2017, 10:40am EDT

Why did Donald Trump fire FBI Director James Comey so abruptly, in such humiliating fashion, with no plan to communicate the reasoning behind the move and no list of replacements ready?

It is the question that launched a thousand think pieces. Even Trump surrogates were not prepared to answer it. Sean Spicer literally hid in the bushes (sorry, among the bushes).

The thing is, the answer is pretty obvious. The implications are terrifying, but the motivations are not complicated.

Trump did it because he was mad.

He was mad that people on his TV keep talking about the Russia investigation. He was mad Comey didn’t back him up on his ludicrous claims that President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower, even when people on his TV were criticizing him for it. He was mad Comey hasn’t been more loyal, convinced Comey was to blame for his bad ratings. So he fired Comey.

That’s the picture the Washington Post paints (with 30 sources!), as well as Politico. But it remains extremely difficult to accept or internalize.

I wrote a tweetstorm about this (click on this one to see the full series):

David Roberts
✔
@drvox

OK, y'all, time for some game theory. Ha ha, jk. It's actually time for some theory of mind! Gigantic tweetstorm to follow. Brace thyself.
3:40 AM - 11 May 2017

So I thought I’d flesh it out a bit here.

Why is it so hard to accept that Trump is acting out of pique, on impulse, because Comey on his TV gave him bad feels?

On Twitter I talked about “theory of mind,” a basic capacity humans develop around the age of 2 or 3 to recognize that other people are independent agents, distinct minds, with their own beliefs, desires, fears, etc. We learn to “read” behaviors as evidence of those internal states.

And because we are relentless pattern seekers, we are constantly developing theories of people, seeking to explain what they do through reference to their beliefs and plans.

This has badly misled us with Trump. Much of the dialogue around him, the journalism and analysis, even the statements of his own surrogates, amounts to a desperate attempt to construct a Theory of Trump, to explain what he does and says through some story about his long-term goals and beliefs.

We badly want to understand Trump, to grasp him. It might give us some sense of control, or at least an ability to predict what he will do next.

But what if there’s nothing to understand? What if there’s no there there? What if our attempts to explain Trump have failed not because we haven’t hit on the right one, but because we are, theory-of-mind-wise, overinterpreting the text?

In short, what if Trump is exactly as he appears: a hopeless narcissist with the attention span of a fruit fly, unable to maintain consistent beliefs or commitments from moment to moment, acting on base instinct, entirely situationally, to bolster his terrifyingly fragile ego.

We’re not really prepared to deal with that.

Trump’s dysfunction

There is clearly something wrong with Trump. But exactly what he is — or, if you prefer to medicalize it, what he has — is a matter of some controversy.

In a recent Rolling Stone article, Alex Morris explores the battle within the field of psychiatry over whether to diagnose Trump at a distance. (Vox’s own Brian Resnick also has a great piece on it.)

The nub of the disagreement comes down to whether Trump has a disorder.

There are nine traits used to identify narcissistic personality disorder (things like “requires excessive admiration” and “has a grandiose sense of self-importance”). Fitting five or more is considered sufficient for diagnosis. All nine describe Trump’s public behavior with eerie accuracy.

But a disorder, by definition, inhibits normal functioning, impedes success. And Trump is inarguably successful. He’s one of the most powerful people in the world. Whatever kind of personality he may have, some psychiatrists argue, he can’t have a disorder. He’s doing well for himself.

Whether you see this as evidence of Trump’s fitness or evidence of the power of inherited wealth in America, I’m not sure it makes much difference from a citizen’s point of view. Whether or not Trump has NPD, he clearly has the NP part.

Like all extreme narcissists, he feels a gnawing sense of inadequacy and thus requires constant adulation, admiration, and reinforcement for his oversize, hypersensitive ego. Like all extreme narcissists, he is exquisitely attuned to offense, to any hint of being the dominated party or the loser, and incredibly vengeful when he feels he’s been crossed (which is frequently).

Like all extreme narcissists, he sees every interaction, every situation, as a zero-sum contest in which there will be winners and losers. Like all extreme narcissists, he is prone to building a fantasy world in which he is always on top, always the winner. And like all extreme narcissists, he sees other people only through the lens of how they reflect or affect him.

But Trump is not merely a narcissist. There are other things going on.

Many narcissists are quite well-regulated. Using other people to one’s advantage takes not only in-the-moment charm but an ability to think ahead, as in a game of chess. Succeeding requires fooling other people, and fooling other people requires an ability to hold a complex social map in one’s head, to sustain a consistent performance over time.

Trump does have some crude cunning to manipulate people in the moment. He can sense what they want and what will elicit their approval.

But he lacks any ability to hold beliefs, commitments, or even deceptions in his head across contexts. (On Twitter, I compared him to a goldfish.) He is utterly unable to step back and put his gut emotions in larger perspective, to see himself as a person among people, in social contexts that demand some adaptation. He is impatient with attempts to influence him to take a larger view — he demands one-page memos, for instance.

Matt Yglesias says that Trump lies all the time. And it’s certainly true that he says false things all the time. But even to say “lie” seems to suggest a certain self-awareness, an ability to distinguish performance from reality, that Trump shows no signs of possessing.

Trump does have consistent attitudes, and that has given his actions some consistency. Above all, he is utterly terrified of, and hostile to, weakness.

Fear of weakness helps explain why Trump mocked John McCain for being taken prisoner, why he mocked a disabled reporter, why he’s been so consistently racist. Somewhere in his reptile brain, he views being captured, disabled, or persecuted as weakness, as being dominated.

It also explains his fondness for autocratic strongmen — the ones who dominate.

But these attitudes, these instincts, do not seem to yield persistent beliefs or principles. Trump is highly attuned to dominance and submission in the moment, but each moment is a new moment, unconstrained by prior commitments, statements, or actions.

Trump defies our theory of mind because he appears to lack a coherent, persistent self or worldview. He is a raging fire of need, protected and shaped by a lifetime of entitlement, with the emotional maturity and attention span of a 6-year-old, utterly unaware of the long-term implications of his actions.

Grappling with the truth of Trump

We are not accustomed to having someone so obviously disordered in a position of such power. Trump is surrounded by people — not only members of his administration but Congress, the press, pundits, conservative ideological groups, industry lobbyists — eager to invent stories to make sense of his behavior.

Politicos and journalists need a story in which Trump’s stumbling and grasping can be construed as a savvy media strategy, a “distraction” from some other wrongdoing he has going on, or a “pivot” from his current omnishambles. Those are all versions of political maneuvering with which they are familiar. They need for Trump to want things, to be after things, to have a plan.

Politicians, journalists, analysts, the public — everyone wants some kind of story, some Theory of Trump. And so Trump surrogates try to provide it, scrambling to weave a coherent narrative around his careening, erratic lies.

But there’s no there there. He’s lunging this way and that, situation by situation. Firing Comey? Trump just got mad. He wanted Comey and the Russia investigation off his TV. There’s no deeper story than that.

This is an utterly terrifying conclusion. A Machiavellian Trump — one who was merely acting the fool, manipulating the public and media in service of some diabolical long-term agenda — is less frightening than a purely narcissistic and impulsive one.

No agenda guides him, no past commitments or statements restrain him, so no one, not even his closest allies (much less the American public or foreign governments) can trust him, even for a second. He will do what makes him feel dominant and respected, in the moment, with no consideration of anything else, not because he has chosen to reject other considerations, but because he is, by all appearances, incapable of considering them.

This makes him, as many others have noted, extremely vulnerable to being manipulated by whoever happens to talk to him last, whoever butters him up and makes him feel important. (And that includes the TV.)

It’s one thing when that involves a wild Twitter accusation or the firing of a staff member. All Trump’s crises so far have been internal and self-inflicted, more or less.

But what will happen when he gets into a confrontation with North Korea, when Kim Jong Un deliberately provokes him? Will his response be considered and strategic? Will he be able to get information and aid from allies? Will he be able to make and keep commitments during negotiations?

There’s no sign of hope for any of that.

More likely he will prove, as he has in literally every confrontation of the past several years, congenitally unable to back down or deescalate, even if doing so is clearly in everyone’s best interests.

More likely he will be desperate to maintain face and will listen to whatever his security staff whispers in his ear.

More likely he will make rash and fateful decisions with insufficient consultation and no clear plan.

That’s who he is: a disregulated bundle of impulses, being manipulated by a cast of crooks and incompetents, supported by a Republican Party willing to bet the stability of the country against upper-income tax cuts. We need to stop looking for a more complicated story.

[Forty Two]

I suppose it also could be that Trump, like most every major figure commenting on the issue, thought Comey was not good for the job. The Democrats were sure Comey was in cahoots with Trump, and they led with their calls for Comey's resignation and their expressions of deep dissatisfaction and loss of confidence. They wanted Comey gone. What they did not expect, since they were sure Comey knowingly helped Trump get elected, is for Trump to fire him. So, their only choice after Trump fired him Comey was to either (a) say that finally Trump did what they were calling on him to do, or (b) switch positions and say that Comey should not have been fired.

What we're not really seeing in the reporting is the acknowledgment that the Democrats are acting politically too. They are trying to torpedo Trump, so they take issue with everything having to do with the firing. Instead of being in Trump's camp, now Comey was busy investigating Trump for nefarious doings relative to Russia and he was getting too close to comfort. So, Trump fired him to protect himself...from the guy who knowingly got him elected and worked to undermine Clinton's bid for the Presidency....

But, since the major media outlets are in the camp of the Democrats, they can get away with it. So, they choose the path that they think does the most damage to Trump.

Who knows what the truth is? I don't know. But, I sure as shit am not getting on some bandwagon movement to posture the Democrats as the good guys working hard to protect us from the evils of the GOP and Trump.

[Hermit]

WTF? Diceman is the USA's Commander in Chief, and you are trying to be serious?

[Brian Peacock]

It's not often I stumble across a good article at Vox.com, but here is one:

We overanalyze Trump. He is what he appears to be.
There is no correct Theory of Trump.
Updated by David Roberts@drvoxdavid@vox.com May 12, 2017, 10:40am EDT

Why did Donald Trump fire FBI Director James Comey so abruptly, in su.....

This is what Sam Harris meant before the election when he said of Trump that what you see is what you get - "Trump isn't hiding his light under a bushel; he's all bushel."

[Brian Peacock]

It's not often I stumble across a good article at Vox.com, but here is one:

We overanalyze Trump. He is what he appears to be.
There is no correct Theory of Trump.
Updated by David Roberts@drvoxdavid@vox.com May 12, 2017, 10:40am EDT

Why did Donald Trump fire FBI Director James Comey so abruptly, in su.....

This is what Sam Harris meant before the election when he said of Trump that what you see is what you get - "Trump isn't hiding his light under a bushel; he's all bushel."

[pErvinalia]

Who knows what the truth is? I don't know. But, I sure as shit am not getting on some bandwagon movement to posture the Democrats as the good guys working hard to protect us from the evils of the GOP and Trump.

The problem is that the consequences of the truth are so serious that it deserves a massive investigation to get to the heart of it. You can't blithely dismiss this as political games. It's far more serious than that.

[Animavore]

Why argue with a cultist?

[Brian Peacock]

I suppose it also could be that Trump, like most every major figure commenting on the issue, thought Comey was not good for the job. The Democrats were sure Comey was in cahoots with Trump, and they led with their calls for Comey's resignation and their expressions of deep dissatisfaction and loss of confidence. They wanted Comey gone. What they did not expect, since they were sure Comey knowingly helped Trump get elected, is for Trump to fire him. So, their only choice after Trump fired him Comey was to either (a) say that finally Trump did what they were calling on him to do, or (b) switch positions and say that Comey should not have been fired.

What we're not really seeing in the reporting is the acknowledgment that the Democrats are acting politically too. They are trying to torpedo Trump, so they take issue with everything having to do with the firing. Instead of being in Trump's camp, now Comey was busy investigating Trump for nefarious doings relative to Russia and he was getting too close to comfort. So, Trump fired him to protect himself...from the guy who knowingly got him elected and worked to undermine Clinton's bid for the Presidency....

But, since the major media outlets are in the camp of the Democrats, they can get away with it. So, they choose the path that they think does the most damage to Trump.

Who knows what the truth is? I don't know. But, I sure as shit am not getting on some bandwagon movement to posture the Democrats as the good guys working hard to protect us from the evils of the GOP and Trump.

Who does it benefit to keep this a partisan issue, other than those with partisan political interests? As long as the he-said-she-said is the main focus then this issue will remain a battleground for political interests and egos, but the possibility that US democracy has heen or is being systematically undermined by a domestic political organisation benefitting from foreign espionage and collusion - at the highest level - is charge which deserves thorough and serious, politically independent investigation.

Those who say the charge is a story made up by the losers as an excuse for losing are actually declaring a judgement, a truth, without grounds - one which is itself being used as an excuse to do nothing.

This is not a partisan issue. It involves everyone in America because when it comes to choosing your government everyone in the USA is unavoidably politically involved - not just the main political parties.

[Forty Two]

[Forty Two]

Even Fox News knew it....

[Forty Two]

They don't even hide it. In July, Comey drops the Hillary investigation, and Democrats pound home the talking points that he's proven them right, and Hillary didndonuffin, and Comey was a great FBI chief.

Comey reopens investigation, and they pound home the talking point that he is in the tank for Trump, has participated in an attack on the credibility of the electoral system, and should resign - they lost confidence in him - he was not right for the job. He had to go.

Trump fires Comey, and the firing is unethical, and an attack on the integrity of the justice system, and Comey was actually not in the tank for Trump, but rather was busily investigating Trump's nefarious Russian doings....

[pErvinalia]

The Democrats have nothing to do with the possibility of treason within the Trump administration. Stop focussing on them and start focussing on the real issue.