Monthly Archives: January 2018

Why Insult the Mentally Ill?

Media, Politics

 

Pundits on both sides are having a field day with the release of Michael Wolff’s Fire and Fury.  Many, including MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, claim it adds to what he and others had been hearing from Trump’s inner circle and Republicans on Capitol Hill. Trump allies have attacked the book as “fiction” or “garbage,” but most have not challenged specific excerpts.  (Perhaps they believe Wolff  actually does have them on tape whether he does or not.)

No one has enjoyed Wolff’s throwing gasoline on an already dysfunctional West Wing more than I have, but there is one thing I wish was not part of the conversation, attempts to assess Donald Trump’s mental stability.  Last night, there finally emerged a voice of reason.  Dr. Allen Francis, professor emeritus of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University Medical College appeared on The Beat with Ari Melber (MSNBC) and urged viewers not to confuse loutish behavior and unenlightened tweets with mental illness.

This was not the first time Dr. Francis raised this point.  In a February 14, 2017 letter to the editor of the New York Times, Francis wrote:

Bad behavior is rarely a sign of mental illness, and the mentally ill behave badly only rarely. Psychiatric name-calling is a misguided way of countering Mr. Trump’s attack on democracy. He can, and should, be appropriately denounced for his ignorance, incompetence, impulsivity and pursuit of dictatorial powers.

In other words, not only is labeling Trump “mentally unstable” inaccurate, it masks the fact that the conman-in-chief is a despicable human being by choice, not due to any biological dysfunction.  He is not losing it.  He is the same Trump he has always been.

So let’s get off the mental instability bandwagon and focus on the damage he is doing to the the nation, the Constitution, the institutions which are the foundation of a democratic society and the rule of law.

POSTSCRIPT: NOW A WARNING?

Some of you may recognize the title of this postscript as a quote by Madeline Ashton (Meryl Streep) from the film Death Becomes Her.  Last night on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, Michael Wolff related a conversation he had with his publisher about the size of the first-run of Fire and Fury.  Wolff thought the book was “old news” and would have limited readership.  In his mind, the only contribution he made was to pull together in one place a more detailed and sourced chronicle of what has dribbled out from major news outlets over the past year.  And what every member of the White House press corps already knew was worse than the tidbits which had made the papers and cable news.

If this is true, then Wolff’s book is as much an indictment of the press as it is of the Trump administration.  If, in fact, White House correspondents were aware members of Trump’s own inner circle believed he was unfit for the job of president of the United States, why did they wait for Wolff to fire the first volley and then take the heat?  In the Colbert interview, Wolff responded, “I’m the only person who was willing to say this because I’m the only one who doesn’t have to go back.”  In contrast, members of the White House press corps feared losing future access to Trump and senior administration officials.

Let me get this straight.  You know the center of national power is dysfunctional and you’re more worried about your job than the national interest.  The fourth estate may not be, as Trump calls it, “the enemy of the people,” but failing to pursue stories which are in the national interest doesn’t make it our ally either.  Again, I ask, where are the next Katherine Graham and Ben Bradlee, who will risk not just their jobs but everything to ensure the people stay informed?

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

What Do These Folks Have in Common?

Politics

 

Thanks to Michael Wolff we now know one more major topic of disagreement in the Trump White House.  Donald’s inner circle cannot decide what is the appropriate nomenclature for their boss’ intellectual aptitude.  Idiot?  Moron? Bleeping moron? Unfit?  Child?  As Wolff tells it, most of these descriptions are expressed following policy discussions be it health care, tax policy or dealing with an international situation.

But, if you really want to understand Trump’s cerebral limitations the best example is how he decides what is in his own best interests.  If only he had listened to the two people who tried to help save him from himself:  Sally Yates AND Steve Bannon.  Bannon?  You must be kidding.  Doesn’t he represent everything that is wrong with Trumpism, in general, and it’s namesake in particular?  Patience.  All will be revealed.

In the case of Sally Yates, it is pretty obvious.  After reviewing Michael Flynn’s January 24, 2017 interview with the FBI, Yates’ first instinct (and the correct one) was to inform the White House their newly appointed national security advisor had been compromised.  She did not go to the press or to Democrats in Congress who would have given a major part of their anatomy to have such information within days of the inauguration.  Instead, she did something no other “loyal” member of the inner-circle did.  She gave White House counsel Don McGahn a heads up that Flynn was a serious problem and suggested they might want to preempt any negative repercussions before this revelation became public.

Just think, if the White House had followed Yates’ advice, there would have been no need to fire James Comey.  Mike Pence would not have lied about his knowledge of the Flynn affair.  There would be no special prosecutor.   Trump’s personal attorney John Dowd would not have had to falsely take responsibility for a tweet in which Trump admits to obstruction of justice.  Trump demands loyalty from everyone he comes in contact with, but fails to appreciate it when someone ACTUALLY demonstrates such a trait.

Yeah!  Yeah! But what does Steve Bannon have to do with all this?  As we now know from Wolff’s book, Steve Bannon believed the June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower borders on treason.  (NOTE: Although there is legitimate concerns about Wolff’s veracity, Bannon has not disputed this statement.  And the fact Axios has reported Wolff taped many of his interview subjects suggests Bannon and others know there is tangible proof of their contributions to Wolff’s research.)  While this may be the first time the general public learned Bannon feared the effect the Russia investigation would have on Trump’s tenure and his agenda, reporters at virtually every mainstream news outlet have confirmed Bannon voiced these same concerns as early as March, 2017.  He continued to share his concern including a September 10, 2017 appearance on 60 Minutes in which he characterized the Comey firing as Trump’s biggest mistake.

In other words, like Sally Yates, Bannon was a lone voice in the wilderness telling Trump and anyone else who would listen the Russia investigation could bring down the administration.  Therefore, they needed to do everything they could to reinforce their claim of innocence.  Let the investigation run its course.  Do not protect those who may be guilty of wrongdoing.  Bannon was a LOYAL soldier, giving his commander the best and correct advice.  And like Yates, instead of carrying the day, he too was fired.

In yesterday’s Washington Post, columnist Aaron Blake posited three theories to explain Bannon’s cooperation with Wolff.

  • Bannon was just spouting off.
  • Bannon is indeed trying “to burn it all down.”
  • Bannon is trying to distance himself from the Russia probe.

But there may be a fourth and perhaps more plausible explanation.  In Wolff’s book, Bannon describes the approach  by the Trump brain trust of Manafort, Donald Junior and Kushner to deal with the Mueller investigation as “They’re sitting on a beach trying to stop a Category Five.”  I believe his message is, “This is not a job for amateurs.”  Bannon’s Thursday declaration that he still believes in the Trump agenda (whatever that might be) further confirms this theory.  Bannon, through Wolff, is once again imploring Trump to clean house.  Get rid of neophytes like Ivanka, Jared and Hope Hicks.  Again, he is right, but good luck.  It takes someone with a modicum of intelligence to see it.

If only Donald Gump had paid attention to the advice offered by his long-lost cousin Forrest, “Stupid is as stupid does!”  QED

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

But Who’s the Puppeteer?

Politics

 

Image result for trump marionetteAs hard as one might try, it is next to impossible to forget the exchange between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump during the foreign policy debate (October 2016), when each accused the other of being a puppet.  As we approach the first anniversary of this national nightmare, it’s clear the evidence is on Clinton’s side.  Without a moral compass, the marionette-in-chief seems to have abandoned almost every populist position voiced during the campaign in favor of someone else’s agenda.  So, the question is no longer whether Trump is a puppet.  The only issue still open is exactly who is pulling the strings.

Today’s headlines provide a pretty good starting point for answering this question.  Hours ago, the Washington Post reported Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Session III will announce “he is rescinding a trio of memos from the Obama administration that adopted a policy of non-interference with marijuana-friendly state laws, according to a source with knowledge of the decision.”  This position contradicts Trump’s campaign pledge to let states regulate both medical and recreational use of cannabis.  Why the reversal?  Follow Big Pharma donations and Sessions’ ignorance about the benefits and risks of weed.

As if that were not enough evidence Trump has abdicated his role of commander-in-chief to become the commandeered-in -chief, the forthcoming Michael Wolff book on the Trump White House provides additional fodder.  For example, if you’re Trump’s chief economic advisor Gary Cohn, why else would you sell your soul by standing next to Trump, someone Cohn considers to be “dumb as sh*t” while Trump enabled the white supremacists and neo-Nazis in Charlottesville?  For the same reason, sailors on submarines invite someone “dumb as sh*t” to join their poker game.  An easy mark who can be had with little or no risk.  He got what he wanted, a tax bill which rewards Republican donors and Wall Street financial analysts and hedge fund managers.  And as they say, he is probably laughing all the way to the bank.

Add to the list the following puppeteers.

  • Vladimir Putin who has made Trump his surrogate for undermining the Constitution and democratic alliances around the world.
  • The evangelical right who is using him to pack the courts with justices who will endorse discrimination in the name of religious freedom.
  • Paul Ryan who cannot wait to justify slicing large holes in the social safety net in the name of deficit reduction (caused by the tax scam).
  • Betsy Devos who sees the Trump White House as the means of pushing her parochial education agenda.  Can you spell creationism?  I knew you could.

And this is only a partial accounting of Trump’s manipulators.  By the time you finish there are more practitioners of puppetry than participate in the biennial Festival Mondial des Theatres de Marionettes (The World Puppet Festival) in Charleviille-Mezieres, France.

No wonder Trump is exhibiting signs of stress and instability.  With so many puppet masters tugging on his strings, a marionette cannot possibly know which way to turn or when.  I wonder if, like Pinocchio, Trump too dreams of being a real boy someday.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Social Media and the Next Election

Media

Most of our assumptions have outlived their uselessness.

~Marshall McLuhan

As many of you know, my day job involves helping individuals and organizations approach life and business from a more creative perspective.  At the core of our methodology is the need to suspend judgment, those assumptions and biases which represent barriers to previously unexplored avenues of inquiry and analysis.

I could not help but think about what assumptions lay behind the Tweeter-in Chief devoting his first day back in Washington to a flood of provocative, questionably factual and in some cases inane 240-character pronouncements.  Surely, he cannot believe any of his “enemies and haters” will be swayed by the same narcissistic pontifications which are at the core of their belief he is unfit for office.

The argument, of course, is Twitter is the perfect method of communication in an era when Americans have increasingly short attention spans.   But what if that assumption is wrong.  What if the majority of voters are insulted because candidates think their constituents are swayed by platitudes rather than facts and cogent arguments.  What if the majority of voters put the same faith in Twitter feeds that they do in advertisements which promise they will become part of an awesome social experience if only they drink the right beer or brush their teeth with the right toothpaste.

Please note, I refer to the “majority of voters.”  Why?  Because I know there are living, breathing Americans who actually believe it is cool to say, “Dilly! Dilly!” much less “Make American Great Again.”  Why waste valuable time trying to convince them otherwise.  What I do know is a majority of Americans are dissatisfied with the direction  in which the country is going.  They do not agree with the economic, environmental, international and social policies of the current administration and the GOP Congress.  These voters are open to alternatives, but refuse to blindly accept a different national agenda without knowing why it represents an improvement over what is being offered by Trump and his minions.

This is why I personally choose to blog rather than tweet.  And what keeps me going, in particular, are comments from readers who refer to the research behind a post.  Consider the following example.  Following the mass shooting in Las Vegas, I published a post titled, “Just the Facts, Ma’am.”  It’s purpose was to demonstrate how failure to renew the ban on assault weapons in 2004 had statistically led to more mass shootings and resulting deaths than might otherwise have occurred.  To my surprise, a loyal reader who I knew was opposed to new gun control measures including the assault weapons ban, sent me the following email.

This was a well-done post, I appreciated all the metrics!

This is not to say Twitter and Facebook do not have their place.  Not as the vehicle for addressing complex issues.  But as “pointers” to places where interested voters can access fuller, more documented arguments in support of a policy or position.  Ranting about Congress failing to reauthorize the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) has done no good.  Instead, consider building a tsunami of public support for action on CHIP by linking voters to the research conducted by the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute.  In other words, Twitter and e-mails may raise awareness, but awareness is not enough.  What is needed in any movement are knowledgeable advocates and evangelists.  And that requires they be armed with more than 240-character slogans.

So, candidates in the 2018 mid-terms and those contemplating a run for the White House in 2020, put down your smartphones.  Don’t tweet; take the time to blog.  Don’t just tell us what we should be for; tell us WHY!

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP