I’d say he shamelessly admits to not caring for the office enough to put everything aside to run, but the word shameless is simply not in his lexicon. Standing there, with the whine of Marine One’s engines for dramatic background, Trump said, essentially, “So what? I am a businessman first, and you all knew that going in.
So what’s the big deal?”
To me, it's not a legal issue (though it might well end up one); it's a matter of his not wanting to grasp in any way, shape, or form, the hard-work nature of public service. If you really want to serve the public, you bend your every fiber to that end without losing track of your ethical compass. It is no mystery or historically-forgotten truth that many office-holders and candidates over the years have, or have had, large bank accounts, and many come from successful business careers. It is also true that some are pretty rotten folks (I know, I've worked for one or two). But most sincere candidates know that going door-to-door, using up shoe leather, staying up with staff late into the night to get mailers out, or to man phone calls, meeting every potential constituent, or attending town halls, or driving to hell-and-back on crummy days just to shake some hands of volunteers, is what it's all about. It’s about risk, sacrifice, humility, failure, and redoubled efforts—words and concepts so far beyond Trump as to be invisible to his eyes, and immaterial to his self-interests.
I remember being a photojournalist for People Magazine and joining the late John Warner and his wife, Elizabeth Taylor, on one of his campaign tours around Virginia. Say what you will about his politics, the man was not reluctant to travel to the far corners of the state to meet with farmers, small business owners, rural families, urban leaders, servicemen and women. He was up early and worked late because he wanted the job to represent his state and the people who depend on government for services, care, and security. He could be a hard ass—I know, I saw it up close—but you knew he was focused on service.
It was the same when I worked with then-Senator Frank Murkowski and traveled with him around Alaska to attend town halls and show up at early-morning radio station interviews and see to the needs of his fellow Alaskans in the far-flung reaches of that huge state. And I saw the same intensity in him when we traveled to Vietnam in the mid-1990s to open discussions with the Vietnamese about America’s missing in action soldiers; he took the mission seriously and he didn’t grandstand.
And I have countless memories (and some nightmares) of what it was to work on advance teams for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and to help staff their inaugural teams. At every step of the process--from campaign to inauguration--you knew you were working for someone who wanted that Oval Office for all the right reasons--not for self, but for others; not for money, but for country. And when those campaigns and inaugurations were over, both those Presidents made sure to thank, in person, the hundreds of us who put our lives on hold to help them to their victories. Both Reagan and Bush 41, as well as their predecessors and successors (until Trump), viewed political office as a social compact and trust, between government and the citizens.
No, they weren’t saints, nor do I offer any blind veneration simply because they were nice to me and my colleagues. Neither Reagan nor GHW Bush fully understood—or were generationally-equipped to want to understand—the plight of HIV/AIDS sufferers and the terrible way society was treating HIV/AIDS victims. While Reagan instituted (and Bush, as VP, supported) an HIV/AIDs travel ban (upheld by President Clinton), it was Reagan who first ordered a non-discrimination policy for all federal workers with HIV/AIDS.
Were these two Presidents tone deaf to the voices of the underdogs and most vulnerable in our society? I think a case can be made that they were unable to fully associate with the daily crises so many Americans were facing at the time. I don’t think either man was attuned to the daily desperations and injustices felt by and imposed on African-Americans, gays, women, or migrants. I think both Reagan and Bush glossed over many racial and in-the-weeds economic and health fault lines that were cracking across the country. They were more adept in the international arena, though even there, both men overreached with their State Department and Pentagon tools and sometimes did more long-term harm than good with their policies. Neither man was wholly supportive of the Department of Education (and, ironically, I was a Bush appointee working at Education). And there is no doubt that Mr. Bush’s “patrician” persona in the minds of many voters reinforced the impression that he was out of touch with the average person on the street.
All of their faults, their social blindnesses and blunders, their real or perceived disregard for the slow boil of domestic crises will be shoveled up, turned over and over, composted, and spread around democracy’s garden over the next few years. Neither man’s legacy will rest in peace for quite some time, for that is what we do to so many of our leaders. History, best read at least 50 years down the road, will have to be the ill-resting arbiter of this debate.
From my limited point of reference, as a 35-year federal employee and appointee (under both parties), I respected both Reagan and Bush-41 because they understood the overarching promise a president makes to the country—it’s right there in the Oath of Office:
I remember being a photojournalist for People Magazine and joining the late John Warner and his wife, Elizabeth Taylor, on one of his campaign tours around Virginia. Say what you will about his politics, the man was not reluctant to travel to the far corners of the state to meet with farmers, small business owners, rural families, urban leaders, servicemen and women. He was up early and worked late because he wanted the job to represent his state and the people who depend on government for services, care, and security. He could be a hard ass—I know, I saw it up close—but you knew he was focused on service.
It was the same when I worked with then-Senator Frank Murkowski and traveled with him around Alaska to attend town halls and show up at early-morning radio station interviews and see to the needs of his fellow Alaskans in the far-flung reaches of that huge state. And I saw the same intensity in him when we traveled to Vietnam in the mid-1990s to open discussions with the Vietnamese about America’s missing in action soldiers; he took the mission seriously and he didn’t grandstand.
And I have countless memories (and some nightmares) of what it was to work on advance teams for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and to help staff their inaugural teams. At every step of the process--from campaign to inauguration--you knew you were working for someone who wanted that Oval Office for all the right reasons--not for self, but for others; not for money, but for country. And when those campaigns and inaugurations were over, both those Presidents made sure to thank, in person, the hundreds of us who put our lives on hold to help them to their victories. Both Reagan and Bush 41, as well as their predecessors and successors (until Trump), viewed political office as a social compact and trust, between government and the citizens.
No, they weren’t saints, nor do I offer any blind veneration simply because they were nice to me and my colleagues. Neither Reagan nor GHW Bush fully understood—or were generationally-equipped to want to understand—the plight of HIV/AIDS sufferers and the terrible way society was treating HIV/AIDS victims. While Reagan instituted (and Bush, as VP, supported) an HIV/AIDs travel ban (upheld by President Clinton), it was Reagan who first ordered a non-discrimination policy for all federal workers with HIV/AIDS.
Were these two Presidents tone deaf to the voices of the underdogs and most vulnerable in our society? I think a case can be made that they were unable to fully associate with the daily crises so many Americans were facing at the time. I don’t think either man was attuned to the daily desperations and injustices felt by and imposed on African-Americans, gays, women, or migrants. I think both Reagan and Bush glossed over many racial and in-the-weeds economic and health fault lines that were cracking across the country. They were more adept in the international arena, though even there, both men overreached with their State Department and Pentagon tools and sometimes did more long-term harm than good with their policies. Neither man was wholly supportive of the Department of Education (and, ironically, I was a Bush appointee working at Education). And there is no doubt that Mr. Bush’s “patrician” persona in the minds of many voters reinforced the impression that he was out of touch with the average person on the street.
All of their faults, their social blindnesses and blunders, their real or perceived disregard for the slow boil of domestic crises will be shoveled up, turned over and over, composted, and spread around democracy’s garden over the next few years. Neither man’s legacy will rest in peace for quite some time, for that is what we do to so many of our leaders. History, best read at least 50 years down the road, will have to be the ill-resting arbiter of this debate.
From my limited point of reference, as a 35-year federal employee and appointee (under both parties), I respected both Reagan and Bush-41 because they understood the overarching promise a president makes to the country—it’s right there in the Oath of Office:
“… to faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States….”
Which brings me back to Donald Trump’s comments on Thursday and later about how he admitted—nay, boasted—that running for Presidency was never going to be a top priority if it meant relinquishing his grip on the gold ring of business success (as he wished it was). Whether you like, admire, or hate, any of the previous presidents, whether you can dredge up cringeworthy—even documented—aspects of their public or private lives and post them on mile-high banners, what you cannot do is question the aspirations of so many presidential candidates to become public servants and set aside their private aspirations during their campaigns and time in office.
A man or woman who sets out to gain office in order to line their pockets, and is willing to lie about their motives in order to stay in the game, is a public cheat and a vandal who defaces the national trust. That would be Donald Trump writ large. He is aided and abetted by the strangest duo of “senior advisors” known to Washington: his daughter-wife Ivanka and her frighteningly dead-pan-faced husband, Jared, who has no earthly reason to be anywhere near matters of state. The rest of the in-house team is no less weird and unsuited for touching any of the levers of national conduct—and yet, there they are. When your Secretary of State and your National Security Advisor refuse to listen to a death tape of a man you helped assassinate, you’ve got yourself a couple of winners, there, eh, Don?
Trump’s comment about covering his bases in the event he might have lost to Hillary is also a huge tell--he cannot bring himself to step inside any arena of fair competition that might expose him as a loser; if he can't cover his bets with other people's money, reputations, or sweat labor, he simply won't play.
That some Americans still have no problem singing Hosannas to a lying, money-driven madman/mobster who embraces three known assassins (Muhammad bin Salman, Vladimir Putin, and Rodrigo Duterte), and who hires thugs and bullies to do his dirty work, is one of the great shames of the 2016 election, and an even greater stain on the fabric of our national conscience..
[As I write this, shortly after the WH announcement that Trump is planning on attending the state funeral for George H.W. Bush, it is my fervent hope that a deep fog and rain showers descend on the White House that morning—because we know Trump will not travel in the rain to honor the dead.]
Trump’s comment about covering his bases in the event he might have lost to Hillary is also a huge tell--he cannot bring himself to step inside any arena of fair competition that might expose him as a loser; if he can't cover his bets with other people's money, reputations, or sweat labor, he simply won't play.
That some Americans still have no problem singing Hosannas to a lying, money-driven madman/mobster who embraces three known assassins (Muhammad bin Salman, Vladimir Putin, and Rodrigo Duterte), and who hires thugs and bullies to do his dirty work, is one of the great shames of the 2016 election, and an even greater stain on the fabric of our national conscience..
[As I write this, shortly after the WH announcement that Trump is planning on attending the state funeral for George H.W. Bush, it is my fervent hope that a deep fog and rain showers descend on the White House that morning—because we know Trump will not travel in the rain to honor the dead.]
No comments:
Post a Comment