Today Fleckinstein welcomes comments from brother-in-law Michael Mulroe which were part of our exchange in early November in regard to the second Trump administration.
I do not, as a rule, read the essays posted by my brother-in-law Matthew, but, as I was the inspiration for his post “Do I Have Concerns About Another Trump Administration?” I felt obliged to see what he had to say.
Some background. After the outcome of the 2024 election was decided I sent a note of congratulations, and the following question about Donald Trump to several friends and relatives who had voted for him:
“I am interested to know whether, given his (in my opinion) tendency to prioritize his own self-interests, and the recent evisceration of constraints on abuse of presidential authority, you have any concerns going into his second term as president.”
It seemed to me to be a fairly apolitical question that did not touch on the rationale for voting Trump vs. Harris. And while Matthew begins his essay by stating that I (Michael Mulroe) am “deeply troubled by realities” of migrants, global warming, etc., the truth is that my biggest concern about a 2nd Trump presidency is the threat, in my opinion, of his pushing the country towards autocracy. There is nothing I have seen since last week’s inauguration that has assuaged my concerns.
What follows is the response I gave to Matthew back in November after reading his essay.
=====================================
Matthew,
As my initial query to you was about potential abuse of Presidential authority, I am responding to just the middle third of your essay where you elaborate on why you do not believe DJT poses a threat.
You begin with the following statement:
“Regarding his egotism and potential for abuse of Presidential power I am not greatly concerned for three reasons.”
My query did not write “egotism”, however. I wrote “tendency to prioritize his own self-interests” which I believe is a different and, in this case, more dangerous thing.
I have the following thoughts on your 3 arguments in Trump's favor.
YOU WROTE
1. Ross Douthat is right: he is not a power broker; he is a vain, self-centered man, desperate for attention. My daughter said "He is not a fascist; he is a big baby." He has little interest in policy, ideology and power. He wants everyone's attention. He is an entertainer; he is performing for the crowd. What he says is not to be taken literally; it is entirely histrionic, performative, attention-seeking. In his four years of power, he did not maximize it. For example, a real tyrant would have used the covid emergency as an opportunity to monopolize power: he let the states do their thing and deferred to Fauci.
I RESPONDED
I find it interesting that you use the phrase “what he said is not to be taken literally”, as one of the most astute quotes I have heard about DJT is (roughly) “do not take what he says literally, but take it seriously”. When he says something provocative I believe it is more than attention seeking, but rather a window into what his driving motivations are and what he is willing to do.
He is, indeed, vain, self-centered and desperate for attention, but in his mind money and winning out in “the deal” are his ultimate ego boosters. His M.O. is to use whatever means are available to structure things to his advantage. In his world everything is a transaction, and relationships are only as valuable as the benefit he derived from the last transaction. Is that a problem? In the business world maybe not. As the President of the U.S. I think so.
But he was like this in his first term, so what changed? I believe 3 things:
1) Autocrats (I believe that is a better fit here than tyrant and it is what I believe he can become), do not pop up out of thin air. They are often rightfully elected into power and take office intending the best for the people they serve. But over time they morph as they learn they can manipulate the system to their advantage and create a narrative discourse that enables them consolidate power. DJTs rhetoric demonizing his opposition (“the enemy within”), threatening the press (“fake news”, threatening to cancel broadcast licenses), claiming election fraud (“stop the steal”) all take time to seep into the national psyche. He had insufficient time in his first term to make this transition.
2) In his first term he had to temper his actions with considerations about re-election. In a second term that is moot.
3) In his first term it was unclear as to how much the courts would let him get away with. The Supreme Court has pretty well rolled out the carpet for him.
I am not claiming he intends to remain in office after his second term is up, but I believe there is a strong likelihood that he will act in autocratic ways that will harm our governmental institutions.
YOU WROTE
2. He surrounds himself with good people, he delegates to them, he defers to them as he himself lacks strong inner convictions. This is what has made him successful on such a grand scale. Paradoxically, he has a certain humility in that he does not claim expertise but defers to others with specific competence. For example, unlike the arrogant Biden who was sure of his competence about Afghanistan, he would not have overruled his generals and pulled out of there with such devastation.
I RESPONDED
His “grand scale success” is in the eye of the beholder and I will defer debate on that to another day.
The primary quality of the people he surrounds himself with is loyalty to DJT. Jeff Sessions, whom I presume you would consider to be a good person, did the right thing by recusing himself from investigations involving DJTs 2016 run for office. But it was not a great career decision. So to whatever extent he is delegating to his subordinates they know that loyalty to DJT comes first and they are out of a job if they waiver.
Whatever humility he has apparently does not appear to extend to dealing with foreign leaders, most notably Vladimir Putin and Kim Song Un. A private meeting with Putin and no record of what was said? And then siding with him over U.S. intelligence services on Russian interference? I suppose that is a certain humility. Granting North Korea a degree of international recognition with nothing in return? Or maybe less in return? He assumes that his knack for business dealing carries over to international relations. I would call that hubris.
As for Afghanistan, that should have been handled better. But generally forgotten is the DJT set the wheels in motion by signing an accord with the Taliban in February 2020 that established a timeline for U.S. withdrawal, to a large extent limiting Biden’s options.
It is interesting that as I was writing this news broke that Matt Gaetz is the pick for AG. A man with limited qualifications for the job, and apparently of questionable moral character, but possessing the traits that DJT admires most – unwavering loyalty to DJT and the willingness to act as an attack dog on his behalf.
YOU WROTE
3. Lastly, our basic institutions are resilient, rooted, stable and resistant to someone so unfocused, unhinged, and infantile. He was restrained by his own advisors but also by establishment Republicans, the courts, the Democratic opposition, and the durability of our institutions. His election denial was rejected by all kinds of courts and most Republicans (notably Bill Barr). The alleged "insurrection" was overcome in a few hours and the actual election validated immediately, by both parties, with his own Vice President presiding.
I RESPONDED
You are more optimistic about the state of our institutions than I am.
I think back to December 2000. The outcome of the Presidential election was in doubt not because of voting fraud, but because of a technical glitch with voting machines in Florida that left a sizable number of ballots unprocessed. Working towards a deadline imposed by the Supreme Court county officials were conducting a hand tally of those ballots when Roger Stone (who will resurface to foment false claims of fraud in the 2020 election) helps to orchestrate the “Brooks Brother riot” whereby those officials were cowed into stopping their work and allowing the clock to run out in George Bush’s favor. All this occurring during a far more stable period of our nation’s history.
Your recollection of the aftermath of the 2020 election does not quite line up with mine.
I agree that the courts uniformly rejected the suits brought forth claiming fraud.
And while Barr did eventually state that the DOJ had found no evidence of widespread fraud, he made statements before the election sowing fear that fraud could occur. Barr also further helped stoke claims of election fraud by sharing with DJT info about an ongoing FBI investigation into a case of discarded ballots in Luzerne County, PA – a case that was subsequently found to have no basis in fraud but was used by DJT to push claims that there were.
True that DJT received pushback from multiple fronts, but I disagree that this restrained him, as he continued to pursue the only viable paths open to him to overturn the election. The January 2021 attempted coup of the DOJ was thwarted only because DJT did not have sufficient loyalists in DOJ leadership – a mistake he will not make in the coming term.
Regarding Jan 6, I find your phrasing ‘alleged “insurrection”’ troubling. From our subsequent conversation I understand that you object to that term being used by the press, as it was not the basis for any of the legal cases coming out of that day (although its close cousin Seditious Conspiracy was). But on paper your statement comes across (to me) as downplaying the events of the day. You also wrote separately to me that Jan 6 was similar in kind to the BLM protests of the preceding summer and while on the whole I would agree, there is one key point in which I believe they differ. In the BLM protests any violence or destruction that occurred was directed at some, essentially random, symbol of authority – one police or fire station was as good as the next. Jan 6 was a different animal. The objective was not even the Capitol per se, but the specific action that was taking place inside the Capitol on that day.
A repeat of 2020, however, is not what most concerns me.
DJT is a master of using the court system to his advantage. Bankruptcy, frivolous lawsuits, delay tactics – they all served him well as a businessman. Even as former president he masterfully worked the system to insure that no trial would occur before he had a chance for reelection.
But, how much does that even matter now? The Supreme Court’s decision granting immunity for “official” acts pretty much gives him free reign to do what he wants – he just needs a subordinate to provide coverage in advance. And if a case is filed in response to some action he takes, recent history indicates that it will take months to work its way through the system.
His initial list of potential appointees (Gaetz especially so) is also telling…. Short on qualifications for the position, long on loyalty to DJT.
I hope that your optimism about the next four years pans out. I fear, however, the Trump supporters have made a Faustian bargain.
