Not Even The Worst President In History Wants To Be Associated With His Party's Hateful Brand

There are plenty of putrid Democrats kicking around. Take anti-progressive fanatic and corporate conservative Clintonista Neera Tanden, whose function has always been the same— making things less progressive in Democratic circles. After the Senate refused to confirm her the head Biden’s OMB, Biden promised to find her another job and appointed her to be an advisor. Now she’s slated to replace Susan Rice as head of Biden’s Domestic Policy Council. The thought of her in a key role make me want to puke but… she’s not nearly as bad as the best possible advisors someone like Trump or DeSantis would bring in to the White House.

This morning, writing for The Atlantic, Charlie Sykes looked at standards, particularly the kind of standards applied to one particular person applying for one particular job, a far more important job than the one Biden is giving the wretched Tanden.

He began by pointing out how an error of Alexander Hamilton’s has saddled us with the extremely anti-democratic electoral college. Hamilton expected that institution to keep the presidency from falling “to the lot of any man, who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” Trump may be the best example of how wrong he was even if not the first example. Hamilton’s fear of “low intrigue and the little arts of popularity” came long before Trump— think Warren Harding, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, John Tyler, Herbert Hoover— and, in the case of George W Bush, not that long before. Hamilton expected the Electoral College to guarantee a presidency “filled by characters preeminent for ability and virtue.”

Sykes, hardly has to say Hamilton has been proven grievously wrong. “As the E. Jean Carroll trial wraps up,” he wrote, “I find myself reflecting on the fact that at least 26 women have accused Donald Trump of sexual assault or misconduct. Even in the era of #MeToo, the volume of charges is staggering. Carroll has accused Trump of rape. The other two dozen women have described various other forms of assault, abuse, and groping… There is, of course, a lot more evidence that suggests that Trump is not a character of preeminent virtue. The twice-impeached, defeated former president has been indicted on multiple felony charges and may face more. He is a chronic liar and fraudster. He also played a role in fomenting the January 6 insurrection. Trump has called for the suspension of the constitution, dined with a white supremacist, and traffics in racist invective and conspiracy theories.”

Sykes, never says Trump should be dragged in front of a firing squad and put out of his misery, let alone that all of his closest advisors should be standing there waiting their turns on the same day. He doers remind his readers that voters put Trunmp in the White House before— even if he had inordinate help from the Kremlin— and that he “is now poised to seize his party’s nomination for a return to office. An NBC poll last month found that two-thirds of Republican voters stood behind Trump. Given the mathematics of the Electoral College in which Alexander Hamilton invested such high hopes, Trump has a good chance of winning the presidency again.”

To put this in context: Try to imagine anyone like this surviving in any other segment of our society— business, entertainment, sports, the military, even politics. Just ask Harvey Weinstein, or any of the other moguls, executives, and celebrities who no longer have careers.

No publicly traded company would consider naming Trump to an executive position, or even to a position on its board. None of his billionaire friends would trust him with their money. Even in our debased political culture, the cascade of rape allegations and indictments would force Trump’s resignation as a senator, governor, or legislator.

Trump would not be allowed to own an NFL, NBA, or MLB team, and no one would even think of giving him a management job at a local Burger King. It’s impossible to imagine him being given any position of authority at any school or university in the United States.

Hamilton thought that he had fireproofed the presidency from mountebanks and charlatans because we would seek out only the best and the brightest among us. Instead, we have apparently saved our lowest standards for the presidency.

At this point, the Senate would be unlikely to confirm Trump’s appointment to any other position of trust. Someone with Trump’s character would not be granted a security clearance at any level of government. We wouldn’t let the man babysit our children or even walk the dog. We would definitely not buy a used car from the guy. But we might give him back the nuclear codes and control over the military, the FBI, the CIA, the IRS, and the Department of Justice. Americans might make him, once again, the face of America.

Before Trump, the occasional scoundrel made his way to the Oval Office. But the presidency itself remained part of the national mythology. Children learned about George Washington’s honesty and Abraham Lincoln’s decency, because these were the stories we told ourselves and the ideals we celebrated.

This was the contrast that I had in mind the one and only time I spoke with Trump. In 2016, he had been insulting the looks of the wife of one of his rivals. “I expect that from a 12-year-old bully on the playground,” I told him. “Not somebody who wants the office held by Abraham Lincoln.”

Back then, I thought that most conservatives would agree. Former Education Secretary William Bennett, the author of The Book of Virtues and one of the most prominent virtucrats of the right, had repeatedly emphasized the importance of the president as a role model.

“The President is the symbol of who the people of the United States are,” Bennett wrote. “He is the person who stands for us in the eyes of the world and the eyes of our children.”

But like other Republicans, Bennett reversed himself in 2016, saying that conservatives who object to Trump “suffer from a terrible case of moral superiority and put their own vanity and taste above the interest of the country.”

In other words, the presidency was too important for voters to have moral or ethical standards for its occupant. We know the rest of the story, at least so far.

After the release of the Access Hollywood tape, the GOP decided that character did not, after all, matter. Seven years later, neither the indictments for paying hush money to a porn star nor the accusations of assault— and rape— are disqualifying for Republican voters. In the 2024 contest for the presidency, they hardly even register.

Hilariously, Trump feels to regain his magic touch, he has to distance himself from the Republican Party— even if the feeling is not mutual. Vaughn Hillyard and Jonathan Allen reported this morning that Trump tends to not even mention the word “Republican.” Who could blame him? Hillyard and Allen wrote that “Since he hit the campaign trail in early March, according to an NBC review of Trump’s speeches, interviews, video posts and face-to-face interactions with voters, the front-runner for the Republican Party’s 2024 nomination has used the name of the party he seeks to represent in sparing fashion— and typically to disparage other party luminaries. ‘Fox News and Mitch McConnell and the Republican donors have basically signed a pledge to stop Trump at any opportunity. So, why should he be touting the Republican Party?’ Steve Bannon, host of the War Room podcast and the CEO of Trump’s 2016 campaign, told NBC News. ‘He shouldn’t be loyal to the Republican Party. They haven’t been loyal to him— they’ve scheduled 10 primary debates to wound him.’ In essence, according to advisers and allies, Trump is returning to the anti-establishment themes of his successful 2016 bid for the presidency that rallied voters to slay the favorite totems, orthodoxies and candidates of both parties… Trump advisers say the short shrift he's giving the Republican label reflects a view that he is the leader of a movement that is broader than one party.”

Hillyard and Allen concluded that “One sign of Trump’s commitment to running against the establishment of both parties— despite his status as the last GOP president— is his refusal to pledge his support to the eventual nominee if he loses the primary… Trump proved once that he could win as a candidate that bashed the two parties and their dominance in Washington. Rather than the last war, he may be intent on fighting a central battle of the 2016 election. ‘He’s there to beat the administrative state and the uniparty, which is their political appendage,’ Bannon said. ‘You’re seeing a reversion to the original Trump.’”