 |
| Or as Elizabeth Warren said at the DNC about Trump and Vance, "shoot, I wouldn't let these guys, I wouldn't trust them to move my couch." If Trump could be honest he'd say it about himself. |
This brings me to the subject of Trump's character.
Rich Lowry (see profile), the editor-in-chief of The National Review, wrote about Trump in this NY Times guest opinion piece (subscription).The title of the piece, "Trump Can Win on Character" made me jump like I'd stepped on a red hot nail. What the blank, "is this guy certifiably insane" I thought this even before I read the article.
Then I read it.
Below is the paragraph that I'd submit for consideration in the assessment as to whether this guy should be pink-slipped for a psychiatric evaluation to determine it he's delusional.
“Presidential races are won and lost on character as much as the issues, and often the issues are proxies for character,” he wrote. “Not character in the sense of a candidate’s personal life, but the attributes that play into the question of whether someone is suited to the presidency — is he or she qualified, trustworthy and strong, and does he or she care about average Americans?
Breaking this down, he first says that 'presidential races are won and lost on character as much as the issues, and often the issues are proxies for character.” On that alone if one takes the usual meaning of character, below, it disqualifies Trump.
The mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual
• the distinctive nature of something: gas lamps give the area its character.
• the quality of being individual in an interesting or unusual way
• strength and originality in a person's nature
• a person's good reputation
Then he redefines the word to say "not character in the sense of a candidate’s personal life, but the attributes that play into the question of whether someone is suited to the presidency."
I'll reluctantly give him the right to slaughter the English language for the sake of argument. He's wisely eliminated character as related to Trump's personal life for obvious reasons. If possessing personal character was a requirement for being president Trump would be disqualified. I won't go on a riff as to why this is.
Then Rich Lowry lists as questions his own attributes of character which should be emphasized so Trump can win:
- Is he qualified?
- Is he trustworthy?
- Is he strong?
- Does he care about average Americans?
Let's give Trump number one because if you want someone to implement Project 2025 he's qualified as long as he leaves all of the major work to others.
Number two depends on what you mean about being trustworthy. Can you trust him to do what he says he'll do? The answer is along the lines of "when it suits him." Can you trust him to honor promises?
 |
| Photo AI |
Just ask those who got their degrees at Trump University and everyone else he grifted. Ask Melania how she felt when she found out about Stormy Daniels.
Is Trump strong?
This one is complex because strength can be defined in different ways. Philosophers often pair strength with strength of character and having the courage of ones convictions in the face of adversity. Psychologists view strength as being part of self-awareness and the ability to be self-critical. This includes not needing others to stroke their egos so they feel good about themselves.
Last one about caring about average Americans is a no-brainer.
As Bill Clinton said in his Democratic National Convention speech:
“[H]ow does Donald Trump use his voice? Mostly to talk about himself—his vengeance, vendettas, complaints, conspiracies,” he said.
“The next time you hear him, don’t count the lies, count the I’s. He’s like the tenor warming up before the opera: me, me, me, me.”
Oddly, following the paragraph which I quoted Lowry writes:
Presidential races, in this sense, are deeply personal; they usually involve disqualifying the opposing candidate, rather than convincing voters that his or her platform is wrongheaded.
The Obama team hammered Mitt Romney on the issues in 2012, but pretty much every policy argument went back to the core contention that he was a heartless, out-of-touch capitalist who valued the bottom line more than people. That ended up being the winning argument of the campaign.
He is describing Romney as a heartless, out-of-touch capitalist who valued the bottom line more than people. Doesn't he realize he is actually describing Donald Trump?
Update:
Bonus AI image:
Addendum: I was quoted in Salon today...
Chauncey DeVega is senior politics writer for Salon, the American progressive and liberal news and opinion website created in 1995.
His essays can also be found at Chaunceydevega.com. He also hosts two weekly podcasts, The Chauncey DeVega Show and The Truth Report. Chauncey can be followed on Twitter and Facebook. For the third time he quoted me in a column. You can read the column here:
Read previous blogs here.
