Is Trump Machivellian?

The David Gelernter article referenced here comes from: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-real-reason-they-hate-trump-1540148467

I significantly disagree with Gelernter’s favorable view of Trump as Machiavellian.

A Machiavellian leader is intentional and unemotional in his/her decisions.

Machiavelli’s goal was stability.  The leader should appear noble, but be willing to selectively do evil things to protect power.  Part of Machiavelli’s guile was to shower others with praise so they wouldn’t envy your power.

Trump, in contrast, is overly sensitive and chaotic.  His self-praise is ridiculed and convinces people that he is incompetent.  Rather than being Machiavellian, he is easy pickings for someone who is Machiavellian because of his ego.

Trump is a terrible liar; everyone knows he is lying.  President Obama was much more accomplished in being a Machiavellian liar to USA citizens.  He was selective and effective.  Unfortunately, the left, in general, is much more accomplished at this skill.  They, with the help of liberal domination of our educational system and mainstream media, secure power by appearing to be noble while deceiving a gullible public.

Trump unnecessarily continually creates opponents and unnecessarily arms them to defeat him.

As the old saying goes “Loose lips sink ships.”  Trump may have the loosest lips of any politician in our lifetime.  You consider this to be Machiavellian behavior?

As regards international affairs, Machiavelli identified 3 approaches and recommended the second:

“Three methods have been used by republics for extending their power. One… is to form a confederation of many States, wherein none has precedence over the rest in authority or rank, and each allows the others to share its acquisitions… The second method is to provide yourself with allies or companions, taking heed, however, to retain in your own hands the chief command, the seat of government, and the titular supremacy…
The third method is to hold other States in direct subjection to you, and not merely associated with you as companions.”

Consider Trump’s international strategy:

1. His support of Israel has been good and his support of Saudi Arabia could be seen as Machiavellian.
2. He took a good strong stance on North Korea initially (for more commentary, see my blog at the time) but backed off with no results.
3. Focusing on China’s theft of intellectual property, unfair trade practices and international aggression would be a smart thing to do, but you should align your allies behind you in that move.  Likewise, you should align them against Iran, if you want to put pressure on Iran.  Instead, he unnecessarily fractures alliances.  You think Machiavelli would approve of Trump’s behavior?  Machiavelli would take on other countries sequentially, not indiscriminately and simultaneously.

In Helsinki, he not only offended the USA public, he also armed his adversary, Putin, with words that Putin could use against the USA.  Some of Trump’s praise of Putin reflects Machiavellian principles (and Teddy Roosevelt’s “speak softly but carry a big stick”), but some of it should be done privately and the public portion can be done in a way that does not undermine his support at home so much.  If his approach to Putin is Machiavellian, it is incompetent (or at best, mediocre).

Machiavelli’s goal of stability would be to unite people in a particular belief, while making them aware that they would be punished if they did not align themselves.  Rather than uniting us with a big idea, Trump continually makes enemies unnecessarily, fracturing us.

I’ve often feared our likely lack of unity if we went to war.  Trump exacerbates that risk.  If he takes us to war, the population will not rally behind him.  Again, very different from Machiavelli.

The author argued that the Democrats have no issues other than hating Trump.  I disagree.  The Democrats should have had minimal issues, but Trump and the Republicans mismanaged the situation.  Trump could have forged a positive solution to immigration, but failed to do so.  The Republicans failed to forge a good solution to healthcare.  That might not be Trump’s fault, but Trump and the Republicans allowed the health issue to be defined in a way that hugely favored the Democrats.  They also allowed the Democrats to distort the new tax law, lumping all corporate tax break as helping the 1% despite the vast stock holdings of pension plans, the bonuses and raises that resulted from the tax break and the substantial reduction in unemployment rate which occurred despite pulling a huge number of people off the sidelines and into the population of those seeking employment.

To the degree that it is true that the Democrats successfully won many seats on a “hate Trump” basis, Trump’s incompetence is exposed.  If the other party has no issues, you shouldn’t lose elections.  You should be able to retain the desired power and stability.

Yes, many liberals are elitist.  Some are fundamentally racist, as exposed by their belief that educational expectations should be lowered for African-Americans.  But even the author admits that you don’t have to hate the common USA resident to hate Trump, thereby recognizing that his argument is not strong.

Gelernter argues that Trump reminds us of the average American.  I don’t agree.  His comment also reminds me that I have always recoiled at Senator Roman Hruska’s defense of Nixon’s failed effort to appoint G. Harrold Carswell to the Supreme Court in 1970.  Hruska commented “Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos.”  Am I elitist because I want to choose leaders who are outstanding rather than mediocre?

I think you view me as an ultra-liberal (ironically, a number of people view me as ultra- conservative; when I criticize people who someone supports, that person may gloss over the fact that I also criticize the people that they don’t support), but I also am concerned about the socialist left.

In my view, President Obama’s misdeeds led to a wave of Tea Party people being elected.  Now Trump has led to some socialists being elected.  Many in the media are saying that the socialist Democrats did not do well in the election, but I question whether the Democrats and their base will interpret the election in such fashion.

Nobody can do everything right and nobody does everything wrong.  Trump has done some good things (my willingness to acknowledge such offends some of my liberal friends).  By the same token, I think some of Machivelli’s advice is sound, even though I am repelled by the “ends justifies the means” philosophy of life and his corresponding approval of unethical behavior.  (Note: this is written on the presumption that “The Prince” reflected Machiavelli’s beliefs, rather than being a satire as some people think.)