Okay! A very interesting take on the man. I've wondered about him ever since he appeared on the political scene. His repulsive features tend to attract most attention ... an analysis of his personality, not so much.
In fact, why people act as they do, especially when they are exceptional people, is a very interesting topic ... but not one that's really subject to some sort of scientific analysis.
We can theorize, but we cannot have testable theories, ones that could be disproved by finding some disconfirming evidence. (I suppose some very simple theories could be tested, e.g. "Anyone who lost their mother before the age of two and was raised by their father, will behave in such-and-such a way." But probably all such simple theories are easily refuted and don't see the light of day.
Analyses of great world political/military leaders, great scientists/great writers -- these are common. Almost anyone who writes a biography of Cromwell, Napoleon, Lincoln, Lenin, Mao, Hitler, FDR, JFK ... wil try to explain some of their personal characteristics by reference to their childhood.
No doubt the CIA has a thick file trying to explain Mr Putin and Mr Xi.
But it's an art, not a science. The analysis above is as good as any and probably better than most -- assuming anyone has tried to explain Mr Trump's behavior before, his unwillingness to be absorbed into the political class, to court the approval of the liberal intelligentsia.
We should also consider the social/historical context. Ronald Reagan didn't care much about what liberals thought of him ... but when he was President, it was 'morning in America'. The country faced challenges, but it was not rotting from within. Those challenges were outside, namely, the USSR.
Trump probably senses, at some level, that the real enemy now -- the mortal enemy, the implacable foe -- is within.
I am of course the first person to admit that character analysis is an art and not an exact science. Remember that my first prediction here was wrong - I looked at how bad Trump was at delegating, and at enacting the wild things he had promised, and concluded that he would fumble at least one of his judicial appointments too. But he didn't. This whole essay is an attempt, in hindsight, to make sense of my own error.
That said, I think you are being a bit too generous with Ronald Reagan. Yes, Reagan almost certainly believed that dealing with the USSR was more important than confronting America's internal problems. But at the same time, Reagan rode to the White House by promising one part of his coalition that he would try to get Roe v. Wade overturned, and another that he would roll back the New Deal regulatory state.
So when Reagan (tacitly) abandoned those goals once in office, he was stabbing his base in the back. He probably thought he was doing it for a good cause.... but then again, if he really believed that abortion was unimportant next to showing a united front to the Russians, he should have said that when he was running.
This is where Trump is different. Trump respected his base enough to always put some effort toward doing the things that he told them he was going to do, even when the rest of the political class thought those things were stupid or useless. His efforts were often inept and watered-down (witness the failure of the wall) but on the matters where he had the most independence, he succeeded, not only on SCOTUS appointments but also on moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, which is another thing that Reagan and the Bushes promised to do, but did not do, for pretty-much the same reasons.
Now, to return to the subject of character-analysis, I think it's important to begin by noting - and rejecting - the standard liberal answer, which is to say that Donald Trump is the way he is because he exemplifies every negative character trait known to man (i.e. he is cruel, domineering, narcissistic, arrogant, impatient, stupid, racist, sexist, greedy, sadistic, lecherous...). If you're on the scientific/materialist side of things, you'll probably express this belief with a slurry of terms from the DSM-V; if your on the more spiritual/occulty side, you might say that Trump is the reincarnation of Benito Mussolini. But they're really just two ways of saying "I hate you" to Trump and his base.
Or if you are like some people on the conservative side, you will paint Trump as a Messiah. But I prefer a more nuanced view - basically, that Trump has a mixture of strengths and weaknesses just like you and me and everybody else, and the question of how those strengths and weaknesses will manifest themselves is largely determined by environment. (Also, the question of what kinds of men can become president is determined by the broader political environment - Donald Trump could not have won the White House in 2000 any more than George W. Bush could have done it in 2016).
But in closing, I will admit again that a lot of what I have said is speculative and should be taken with a grain of salt, since after all I failed to see this coming when Trump was still in office!
Okay! A very interesting take on the man. I've wondered about him ever since he appeared on the political scene. His repulsive features tend to attract most attention ... an analysis of his personality, not so much.
In fact, why people act as they do, especially when they are exceptional people, is a very interesting topic ... but not one that's really subject to some sort of scientific analysis.
We can theorize, but we cannot have testable theories, ones that could be disproved by finding some disconfirming evidence. (I suppose some very simple theories could be tested, e.g. "Anyone who lost their mother before the age of two and was raised by their father, will behave in such-and-such a way." But probably all such simple theories are easily refuted and don't see the light of day.
Analyses of great world political/military leaders, great scientists/great writers -- these are common. Almost anyone who writes a biography of Cromwell, Napoleon, Lincoln, Lenin, Mao, Hitler, FDR, JFK ... wil try to explain some of their personal characteristics by reference to their childhood.
No doubt the CIA has a thick file trying to explain Mr Putin and Mr Xi.
But it's an art, not a science. The analysis above is as good as any and probably better than most -- assuming anyone has tried to explain Mr Trump's behavior before, his unwillingness to be absorbed into the political class, to court the approval of the liberal intelligentsia.
We should also consider the social/historical context. Ronald Reagan didn't care much about what liberals thought of him ... but when he was President, it was 'morning in America'. The country faced challenges, but it was not rotting from within. Those challenges were outside, namely, the USSR.
Trump probably senses, at some level, that the real enemy now -- the mortal enemy, the implacable foe -- is within.
Doug,
As usual, you have the best comments.
I am of course the first person to admit that character analysis is an art and not an exact science. Remember that my first prediction here was wrong - I looked at how bad Trump was at delegating, and at enacting the wild things he had promised, and concluded that he would fumble at least one of his judicial appointments too. But he didn't. This whole essay is an attempt, in hindsight, to make sense of my own error.
That said, I think you are being a bit too generous with Ronald Reagan. Yes, Reagan almost certainly believed that dealing with the USSR was more important than confronting America's internal problems. But at the same time, Reagan rode to the White House by promising one part of his coalition that he would try to get Roe v. Wade overturned, and another that he would roll back the New Deal regulatory state.
So when Reagan (tacitly) abandoned those goals once in office, he was stabbing his base in the back. He probably thought he was doing it for a good cause.... but then again, if he really believed that abortion was unimportant next to showing a united front to the Russians, he should have said that when he was running.
This is where Trump is different. Trump respected his base enough to always put some effort toward doing the things that he told them he was going to do, even when the rest of the political class thought those things were stupid or useless. His efforts were often inept and watered-down (witness the failure of the wall) but on the matters where he had the most independence, he succeeded, not only on SCOTUS appointments but also on moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, which is another thing that Reagan and the Bushes promised to do, but did not do, for pretty-much the same reasons.
Now, to return to the subject of character-analysis, I think it's important to begin by noting - and rejecting - the standard liberal answer, which is to say that Donald Trump is the way he is because he exemplifies every negative character trait known to man (i.e. he is cruel, domineering, narcissistic, arrogant, impatient, stupid, racist, sexist, greedy, sadistic, lecherous...). If you're on the scientific/materialist side of things, you'll probably express this belief with a slurry of terms from the DSM-V; if your on the more spiritual/occulty side, you might say that Trump is the reincarnation of Benito Mussolini. But they're really just two ways of saying "I hate you" to Trump and his base.
Or if you are like some people on the conservative side, you will paint Trump as a Messiah. But I prefer a more nuanced view - basically, that Trump has a mixture of strengths and weaknesses just like you and me and everybody else, and the question of how those strengths and weaknesses will manifest themselves is largely determined by environment. (Also, the question of what kinds of men can become president is determined by the broader political environment - Donald Trump could not have won the White House in 2000 any more than George W. Bush could have done it in 2016).
But in closing, I will admit again that a lot of what I have said is speculative and should be taken with a grain of salt, since after all I failed to see this coming when Trump was still in office!