Occam's razor.
 |
| Press conference disaster |
What is the simplest, most obvious reason for Trump to have behaved so weirdly in Helsinki?
He fears Russia stole the election for him.
First, some fixed points of reference.
1. Trump had an opportunity to acknowledge Russia misbehaved by meddling in the 2016 election, but did not. Trump actually defended Russia.
2. Trump openly said he believed the assertion of Vladimir Putin over the unified reports of his own intelligence agencies. "I have President Putin; he just said it's not Russia. I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be." Trump picked sides, Russia's.
3. Trump's behavior was so apparently gullible and weak that he "broke his brand." Sitting next to Putin he looked like the sucker, and when he had a chance in the press conference to partially fix the optics, he made it worse.
 |
| Even Fox News. Turning Point |
4. Trump acted in a way to receive nearly universal criticism from Republican officeholders, and, worse for Trump, bad coverage from Fox News and Breitbart--the final Trump firewall. When Trump loses Fox he risks losing everything.
Theories are swirling:
Is Trump a "useful idiot," a person so enamored of an authoritarian strongman that he lost his judgement? The bromance infatuation theory.
Is Trump "compromised? Maybe there really is a pee-tape, or some other devastating blackmail information. If not sex, then money. Maybe Trump laundered money for the Russians to fund projects and the Russians have incriminating information. Nancy Pelosi suggests this, the treason theory.
Is Trump doing a policy change, courageously, but with mishandled messaging, re-visiting the reflexive neoconservative anti-Russian remnant of cold war thinking, and seeing Russia as a potential ally in the near east? Rand Paul is suggesting this one. The peacemaker-Trump theory.
Is it even-richer-billionaire envy? Is it fear of a narcissistic erratic person, like his father?
Is it even-richer-billionaire envy? Is it fear of a narcissistic erratic person, like his father?
What is going on?
Consider Occam's razor--the theory of parsimony. The simplest explanation is usually right.
Consider Occam's razor--the theory of parsimony. The simplest explanation is usually right.
Maybe simply Trump is defensive about his election legitimacy. He cannot get it out of his mind. It is simple, it explains a lot of data, it makes sense to Trump's history and path to the presidency, and it describes the press conference. Trump was a newcomer and outsider in New York real estate, pushing his way into the big leagues with splashy, over the top branding, marking his territory boldly, like a male dog marking fire hydrants. He feels like a male parvenue, an interloper. He over-responds. I am here. I really belong. See my tower!
 |
| Trump risks his brand and his firewall |
Then he won the electoral college vote and the presidency, but cannot seem to believe it himself. He keeps selling it. He openly exaggerates the number of people at his inauguration, he mis-states voting history to assert that only he won Wisconsin, he posits millions of illegal votes to explain the popular vote, and he keeps bringing up Hillary Clinton. I won. I really won. She didn't. I did!
And then, in Helsinki, at the press conference, when he might have been defending America's interest in our elections and restoring the optics of Trump-the-strong-leader, he excused Russia to return to the theme that he had won the election. "It was a clean campaign. I beat Hillary Clinton easily. And frankly, we beat her. . . . we won that race. . . . The Democrats lost an election that, frankly, they should have been able to win. . . . It was a well-fought battle. We did a great job. . . . We ran a brilliant campaign." And then he diverted off to make suggestions that people investigate Hillary and her email servers.
This was an astonishing sidetrack.
His popular vote loss and Russian meddling in the election coincide with a special area of insecurity for Trump--legitimacy. Maybe the stage was set in advance because Trump was in fact open to new policy on Russia and maybe indeed he had complicated--illegal even--financial dealings to fund his projects, but he could have recovered from those pre-conditions, by standing up for the US and criticizing Russian meddling. They don't explain the press conference.
What does explain it is that Trump cannot admit is that his election was questionable So he will sacrifice his brand and look like a weak, played, disloyal leader rather than risk the thing which must not be questioned.
That's the motivation. Insecurity over his election win. He needs Russia to be guiltless and will sacrifice his intelligence services and his country's elections in order to defend them.
I won. I really won. I really belong.
I won. I really won. I really belong.
10 comments:
Good analysis. At the risk of stating the obvious, he isn't the only one struggling with his legitimacy and the outcome of the election. The question is, can we salvage checks and balances when they've all but disappeared?
Great first read of the situation, but I think it's a little more complex than that, though you are certainly right that he can't believe he won the election.
In some ways Trump has a tiger by the tail, in some ways he is cornered. I have often said that those in denial can not allow one tiny admission of doubt; the whole construct collapses. I have an acquaintance who has been advocating "give them the benefit of the doubt" since the election...denial. Finally, something has happened that is blatantly un-deniable, and he changed his views 180 degrees, now saying "congress should do something". Yes, indeed.
What is un-deniable is that there is something to Trump's connection to Russia. If one dollar can be traced back to Putin we may have an answer.
Don't forget that the voters deserve most of the blame.
They took the easy way out, as it was "never Hillary" vs. "never Trump"; and it did not take much to sway many voters using inexpensive social media. Of course, Bernie was this year's version of Ross Perot, peeling off voters on the Democratic side.
Too many thought Hillary was going to win the election; too bad that her campaign forgot about an electoral college campaign, so Trump eked out a victory that surprised even the best prognosticators.
So here we are, and neither side has a candidate with gravitas to rescue the nation in 2020.
Don't forget - still need someone to win over those [silent] deplorables. The angry left and right won't be enough.
The US is not to be trusted by our allies. How can they?
Good summary. Two themes/questions crossed my mind:
1. If not this- what what will it take for mainstream Trump supporters to reconsider their allegiance to him, and realize/accept that he is not their ‘Champion’; that in reality he sold them a promise of MAGA but all along betrayed their trust?
2. Could he possibly be the “Manchurian” President?
I am always suspicious of analyses like this. Psychoanalysis at a distance has a very poor track record.
I propose it’s not just psychoanalysis. Adam Curtis offers an interesting perspective in his 2016 documentary film HyperNormalisation,”
Worth considering if you’re interested in understanding the the powerful forces that shape our world. Which is why I also read this blog :)
Replying to Anonymous, I still blame the Democratic leadership and funders for unanimously lining up behind Hillary as the 2016 nominee, long before any votes were cast.
I still cannot believe they thought MrsNAFTA could win the RUST Belt. Democrats seemed surprised that Trump made NAFTA an issue in the fall campaign -- I was surprised that they were surprised.
When they finally nominated Hillary at the tragic convention in the summer, with young Bernie supporters in tears, I felt dread in the pit of my stomach. This meant we were going to get Trump as president. Felt that dread in my stomach for months, until finally it was confirmed on election night.
Now, I continue to feel anger at the clueless, tone-deaf Democratic leadership. I could be wrong, but I don't think this Russia hysteria is winning votes. To date, anyway, most people are tuning it out. Many people believe, as Rand Paul said, that the CIA does this stuff to other countries all the time.
When Nancy Pelosi did a full day filibuster for the Dreamers, my gut told me that she just killed any hope of a Blue Wave.
I'm still waiting for Pelosi to do a full day filibuster on behalf of struggling American workers, a loud scream of protest on behalf of the NYC cabbies who committed suicide in financial despair, and all the minimum wage workers unable to meet their basic human needs.
Behaviour in.public figures with constant exposure combined with words spoken and recorded are far more than criminal profilers have to analyze. Experience has raught us that a skilled analyst does not need to be proximal to the subject.
"See my tower!" Overcompensation: priceless!
And thank you Voice. You're not alone.
Post a Comment