The Naked King
The Naked King:
An Editorial
After the events of the week, I find myself in a quandary needing to re-examine my somewhat neutral stance on the Trump presidency. Actions demand a response and so I am reacting to a series of tweets made by the president on January 2, 2018, the January 8, 2018 Michael Wolff essay on Trump in New York Magazine ("Donald Trump Didn't Want to Be President"), and the Trump administration's attacks on Mr. Wolff's forthcoming book.
Foremost, some of the tweets are self-made myths, some are comical, and others are inaccurate or dangerous statements. No one will care about the president's media awards; no matter what he says, President Trump's actions have not made airline travel safer; and there is no "big" nuclear button on his desk. However, we should not be surprised by any of this. Donald Trump has not changed! Mr. Trump is the same person that he was forty years ago. Years ago, before Twitter, he made outrageous statements to reporters and gossip columnists. Ego and hype were and remain Mr. Trump's strengths and weaknesses. Mr. Trump spoke to anyone who listened to him. Sometimes it was just babble and other times it was clever self-promotion. He is doing the same thing now, just on a platform that reaches an international audience. People listened then and are listening now. The only difference is that he is now the president of the United States and his words suddenly have greater meaning!
Michael Wolff, in his article and forthcoming book, has provided significant evidence to add the perspectives shared by many of Mr. Trump's critics. That's Donald Trump lacks the knowledge base, skills, and temperament to be president. Mr. Wolff stresses that Mr. Trump did not want to be president, was not prepared to be president, and was using his campaign to seek greater economic gain. According to Mr. Wolff, Mr. Trump was shocked by his victory.
More than a year after the election, it is still morning in America. Metaphorically, the embers are still burning and the nation remains in a state of shock. How did such a shoestring campaign prove successful, and how did such a limited candidate win? To my mind, none of those questions are still relevant. What continually needs to be questioned, however, is the mindset of the American people, the values of the nation's leaders, and the direction of America as a nation.
If I were teaching a class, I would preface my remarks as a "historical editorial". This is opinion mixed with facts to steer an audience to a desired conclusion.
Numerous voices have suggested that the American voter was "tricked" into supporting Trump. They, the voters, were pushed by right learning sources (including Ann Coulter, Steve Bannon, the Prince Family, the Mercer Family, and the Koch Brothers) in larger than normal numbers to support a weak candidate. That the Trump victory was part of a growing American backlash. My viewpoint does not reject these sentiments, but essentially sees this election as a win-win situation. This election, in my estimation, was an economic revolution. It is the rise of the elite at the expense of the majority. Such sentiments have been evident in the Republican Party for a long time and were exposed to a broader audience in Mitt Romney's closed door 47% speech to wealthy donors during the 2012 presidential campaign.
Mr. Romney failed to unseat President Obama because he refused to admit what he was. That he had been a popular governor in a liberal blue state. Mr. Romney, after all, was the architect of Obamacare! What makes Mr. Trump's role in this political process so important is what he represented to the middle American as well as the wealthy American. It wasn't as important if Mr. Trump, an actual elitist, could win, but if he could appeal to a Republican base as well as to Joe Sixpack! The promotion of Trump, not as a Republican but as a populist and as an anti-intellectual candidate, encouraged an angry and frustrated populous to villainize Ms. Clinton, a moderately skilled candidate. If Clinton won, the wealthy would do well, but if Trump won they would do better! The result of the Trump presidency is the transformation of the Republican Party and an unchecked sense of balances. On countless levels, it is a wholesale destruction of traditional American values to make such a revolution possible and acceptable.
There are countless signs that anti-intellectualism was at play. There was a movement to uncouple the Republican party from the more intellectual neo-conservatives. For over two years, the news media and nightly comedians demonstrated that "average" Americans were ignorant or unaware of laws, political figures, policies, and campaign issues. There is a distinct difference of political orientation between the Reagan-Bush-Bush Democrats turned Republicans, the Tea Party Republicans, and the Trump Democrats turned Republicans. Between 2014 and 2016, so-called "average" Americans could not equate coal with health care issues or the fact that the national economy has been on the rise and that unemployment is at an all-time low in spite of stagnant wages and constant underemployment. Revisionist history, or better yet alternative history, would like us to believe that "average" Americans were angry but they couldn't articulate their feelings without the assistance of Donald Trump.
Yet, what did the average American know about Donald Trump? And, conversely what did they know about Hillary Clinton? How did two people from the same state with similar baggage prove to offer such divergent paths to the future security of the nation? And how did the voters interpret their past and present politically based actions?
In New York City there are famous and wealthy people on every corner. While they may be hated political rivals, they socialize with each other for economic insurance and political power. The Trumps and Clintons both operated in this world. President Clinton and Mr. Trump played golf together, their daughters are best friends and the Clintons attended Mr. Trump's last wedding. None of this means that they liked each other, but they needed to co-exist in spheres of New York politics. Donald Trump, the businessman, contributed to every Democratic and Republican candidate who could help him. He also acknowledged that he became a Republican solely to run for political office. The key to success in New York is seizing opportunities. Or, better stated, to minimize your enemies and develop a wide range of political, social and financial alliances. Any New York state or city newspaper could easily document which famous or wealthy figures had the biggest circles of allies or the greatest number of enemies.
A clear path to victory in most presidential elections is winning your home state. During the 2016 election both candidates claimed New York as their official residence, so someone would have to lose their home state. Perhaps, then, the nation should have listened to the voices of New Yorkers before casting their votes. In many ways, the old adage is true, that the people who know you best, are often the best judges of your character.
The voters should have paid more attention to that fact because if you are not well liked in your home state, you might not be well liked elsewhere. Let's look at local politics: if you had done good or bad things in your neighborhood people will remember. We have all seen the news reports where the axe-murder is always described by neighbors as being a bit weird. New Jersey's Governor, Chris Christie, was a perfect example of such framing. Folks loved him when he screamed "get the hell off of the beach" before an impending storm, and they hated him when he was photographed sunbathing on a closed public beach during a state financial crisis. When Governor Christie embraced President Obama during Hurricane Sandy, he thought it was the right thing to do. To his surprise, politicians of both parties seized on that moment and used it against him. Yet, Mr. Christie still thought he had earned enough gravitas from working with both Democrats and Republicans when he decided to run for president. However, he learned a painful lesson as his national popularity rating was favorable, but his approval rating in New Jersey was negative throughout the campaign. It hurt him and made him an invisible candidate. Leaving office, this January, his approval rating stands at 15%, the lowest in state history.
Voters, when possible, should also look at the friends of candidates. President Trump's relationship with his friends allegedly focuses on loyalty. However, most of the president's friends are more loyal to him than he is to them. One simply needs to learn about Russell Simmons, Thomas Barrack or Carl Icahn and their relations with Mr. Trump to see how the bonds of friendship work in the Trump world. Yet the best and most visible example of a Trump "friendship" exists between Chris Christie and the president. Mr. Christie and Mr. Trump had been friendly for years. In fact, Governor Christie had been a supporter of Trump, the casino owner, when affairs in Atlantic City went south. Because of Governor Christie, it is believed that Mr. Trump's million dollar casino fines were lowered. Upon withdrawing from the presidential campaign, Mr. Christie supported Mr. Trump and was even picked to co-chair his transition team. Yet, in the course of the primary season, the national election and the transition, Mr. Trump often belittled and betrayed the governor, and ultimately pushed him out of the transition team.
Based on our current knowledge, we can admit that this election season was different for many reasons. But, it seems that something in the traditional analysis following the election is wrong. The general consensus is that voters thought they knew Ms. Clinton and they felt that they did not like her because the Clintons were not trustworthy. Similarly, that viewpoint is that the voters thought they knew Mr. Trump and considered him arrogant, but felt that a non-politician would shake up the country and provide for those who were dissatisfied with the status quo.
I am no longer share that conclusion, and I posit there is something deeply wrong in the analysis of the presidential election, its outcome, and the current status of the nation and the presidency.
Donald Trump's popularity ratings in New York were positive, but not better than Hillary Clinton's. Nationally, both candidates hovered around 50%. Pollsters currently believe that Trump was seen more favorably in private than he was in public. I think that this is because there were "secret" Trump voters. These were people who approved of what Trump was saying but chose not to share their views in public settings fearing that they might be labeled as despicable or "deplorable." Castigating a percentage of voters as "racists and rednecks" might work if the election was held in the South, but this is a national election. Therefore, it is important to analyze the election on a statewide basis to determine critical factors. How do issues of race, gender, sexuality, class, religion, and understandings of immigration, terrorism, and criminality fit into the minds of the (local and national) Trump voters?
The New York election results had Clinton with 58.8% of the vote, with Trump receiving 37.5% and the remainder going to Jill Stein and Gary Johnson. Clinton beat Trump by 1.5 million votes. The national results were 48.2% Clinton and 46.1% Trump, with Clinton receiving about 3 million more votes.
If we simply consider the votes, they only tell a part of the story. Elections in America are often based on party affiliation, personal familiarity with a candidate, and association with issues. Voters often respond to what is promised rather than what has been achieved. I raise this point because, I think it would be extremely difficult for most Americans to point to what Mr. Trump has done that ranks as an achievement. They know that he is wealthy, he was on television, and that he has built buildings, but they don't know how he financed or built the buildings or runs his companies. With traditional politicians, voters often have a better idea of pieces of legislation a candidate has authored, co-authored or supported. There is a difference in the types of achievement.
Foremost, some of the tweets are self-made myths, some are comical, and others are inaccurate or dangerous statements. No one will care about the president's media awards; no matter what he says, President Trump's actions have not made airline travel safer; and there is no "big" nuclear button on his desk. However, we should not be surprised by any of this. Donald Trump has not changed! Mr. Trump is the same person that he was forty years ago. Years ago, before Twitter, he made outrageous statements to reporters and gossip columnists. Ego and hype were and remain Mr. Trump's strengths and weaknesses. Mr. Trump spoke to anyone who listened to him. Sometimes it was just babble and other times it was clever self-promotion. He is doing the same thing now, just on a platform that reaches an international audience. People listened then and are listening now. The only difference is that he is now the president of the United States and his words suddenly have greater meaning!
Michael Wolff, in his article and forthcoming book, has provided significant evidence to add the perspectives shared by many of Mr. Trump's critics. That's Donald Trump lacks the knowledge base, skills, and temperament to be president. Mr. Wolff stresses that Mr. Trump did not want to be president, was not prepared to be president, and was using his campaign to seek greater economic gain. According to Mr. Wolff, Mr. Trump was shocked by his victory.
More than a year after the election, it is still morning in America. Metaphorically, the embers are still burning and the nation remains in a state of shock. How did such a shoestring campaign prove successful, and how did such a limited candidate win? To my mind, none of those questions are still relevant. What continually needs to be questioned, however, is the mindset of the American people, the values of the nation's leaders, and the direction of America as a nation.
If I were teaching a class, I would preface my remarks as a "historical editorial". This is opinion mixed with facts to steer an audience to a desired conclusion.
Numerous voices have suggested that the American voter was "tricked" into supporting Trump. They, the voters, were pushed by right learning sources (including Ann Coulter, Steve Bannon, the Prince Family, the Mercer Family, and the Koch Brothers) in larger than normal numbers to support a weak candidate. That the Trump victory was part of a growing American backlash. My viewpoint does not reject these sentiments, but essentially sees this election as a win-win situation. This election, in my estimation, was an economic revolution. It is the rise of the elite at the expense of the majority. Such sentiments have been evident in the Republican Party for a long time and were exposed to a broader audience in Mitt Romney's closed door 47% speech to wealthy donors during the 2012 presidential campaign.
Mr. Romney failed to unseat President Obama because he refused to admit what he was. That he had been a popular governor in a liberal blue state. Mr. Romney, after all, was the architect of Obamacare! What makes Mr. Trump's role in this political process so important is what he represented to the middle American as well as the wealthy American. It wasn't as important if Mr. Trump, an actual elitist, could win, but if he could appeal to a Republican base as well as to Joe Sixpack! The promotion of Trump, not as a Republican but as a populist and as an anti-intellectual candidate, encouraged an angry and frustrated populous to villainize Ms. Clinton, a moderately skilled candidate. If Clinton won, the wealthy would do well, but if Trump won they would do better! The result of the Trump presidency is the transformation of the Republican Party and an unchecked sense of balances. On countless levels, it is a wholesale destruction of traditional American values to make such a revolution possible and acceptable.
There are countless signs that anti-intellectualism was at play. There was a movement to uncouple the Republican party from the more intellectual neo-conservatives. For over two years, the news media and nightly comedians demonstrated that "average" Americans were ignorant or unaware of laws, political figures, policies, and campaign issues. There is a distinct difference of political orientation between the Reagan-Bush-Bush Democrats turned Republicans, the Tea Party Republicans, and the Trump Democrats turned Republicans. Between 2014 and 2016, so-called "average" Americans could not equate coal with health care issues or the fact that the national economy has been on the rise and that unemployment is at an all-time low in spite of stagnant wages and constant underemployment. Revisionist history, or better yet alternative history, would like us to believe that "average" Americans were angry but they couldn't articulate their feelings without the assistance of Donald Trump.
Yet, what did the average American know about Donald Trump? And, conversely what did they know about Hillary Clinton? How did two people from the same state with similar baggage prove to offer such divergent paths to the future security of the nation? And how did the voters interpret their past and present politically based actions?
In New York City there are famous and wealthy people on every corner. While they may be hated political rivals, they socialize with each other for economic insurance and political power. The Trumps and Clintons both operated in this world. President Clinton and Mr. Trump played golf together, their daughters are best friends and the Clintons attended Mr. Trump's last wedding. None of this means that they liked each other, but they needed to co-exist in spheres of New York politics. Donald Trump, the businessman, contributed to every Democratic and Republican candidate who could help him. He also acknowledged that he became a Republican solely to run for political office. The key to success in New York is seizing opportunities. Or, better stated, to minimize your enemies and develop a wide range of political, social and financial alliances. Any New York state or city newspaper could easily document which famous or wealthy figures had the biggest circles of allies or the greatest number of enemies.
A clear path to victory in most presidential elections is winning your home state. During the 2016 election both candidates claimed New York as their official residence, so someone would have to lose their home state. Perhaps, then, the nation should have listened to the voices of New Yorkers before casting their votes. In many ways, the old adage is true, that the people who know you best, are often the best judges of your character.
The voters should have paid more attention to that fact because if you are not well liked in your home state, you might not be well liked elsewhere. Let's look at local politics: if you had done good or bad things in your neighborhood people will remember. We have all seen the news reports where the axe-murder is always described by neighbors as being a bit weird. New Jersey's Governor, Chris Christie, was a perfect example of such framing. Folks loved him when he screamed "get the hell off of the beach" before an impending storm, and they hated him when he was photographed sunbathing on a closed public beach during a state financial crisis. When Governor Christie embraced President Obama during Hurricane Sandy, he thought it was the right thing to do. To his surprise, politicians of both parties seized on that moment and used it against him. Yet, Mr. Christie still thought he had earned enough gravitas from working with both Democrats and Republicans when he decided to run for president. However, he learned a painful lesson as his national popularity rating was favorable, but his approval rating in New Jersey was negative throughout the campaign. It hurt him and made him an invisible candidate. Leaving office, this January, his approval rating stands at 15%, the lowest in state history.
Voters, when possible, should also look at the friends of candidates. President Trump's relationship with his friends allegedly focuses on loyalty. However, most of the president's friends are more loyal to him than he is to them. One simply needs to learn about Russell Simmons, Thomas Barrack or Carl Icahn and their relations with Mr. Trump to see how the bonds of friendship work in the Trump world. Yet the best and most visible example of a Trump "friendship" exists between Chris Christie and the president. Mr. Christie and Mr. Trump had been friendly for years. In fact, Governor Christie had been a supporter of Trump, the casino owner, when affairs in Atlantic City went south. Because of Governor Christie, it is believed that Mr. Trump's million dollar casino fines were lowered. Upon withdrawing from the presidential campaign, Mr. Christie supported Mr. Trump and was even picked to co-chair his transition team. Yet, in the course of the primary season, the national election and the transition, Mr. Trump often belittled and betrayed the governor, and ultimately pushed him out of the transition team.
Based on our current knowledge, we can admit that this election season was different for many reasons. But, it seems that something in the traditional analysis following the election is wrong. The general consensus is that voters thought they knew Ms. Clinton and they felt that they did not like her because the Clintons were not trustworthy. Similarly, that viewpoint is that the voters thought they knew Mr. Trump and considered him arrogant, but felt that a non-politician would shake up the country and provide for those who were dissatisfied with the status quo.
I am no longer share that conclusion, and I posit there is something deeply wrong in the analysis of the presidential election, its outcome, and the current status of the nation and the presidency.
Donald Trump's popularity ratings in New York were positive, but not better than Hillary Clinton's. Nationally, both candidates hovered around 50%. Pollsters currently believe that Trump was seen more favorably in private than he was in public. I think that this is because there were "secret" Trump voters. These were people who approved of what Trump was saying but chose not to share their views in public settings fearing that they might be labeled as despicable or "deplorable." Castigating a percentage of voters as "racists and rednecks" might work if the election was held in the South, but this is a national election. Therefore, it is important to analyze the election on a statewide basis to determine critical factors. How do issues of race, gender, sexuality, class, religion, and understandings of immigration, terrorism, and criminality fit into the minds of the (local and national) Trump voters?
The New York election results had Clinton with 58.8% of the vote, with Trump receiving 37.5% and the remainder going to Jill Stein and Gary Johnson. Clinton beat Trump by 1.5 million votes. The national results were 48.2% Clinton and 46.1% Trump, with Clinton receiving about 3 million more votes.
If we simply consider the votes, they only tell a part of the story. Elections in America are often based on party affiliation, personal familiarity with a candidate, and association with issues. Voters often respond to what is promised rather than what has been achieved. I raise this point because, I think it would be extremely difficult for most Americans to point to what Mr. Trump has done that ranks as an achievement. They know that he is wealthy, he was on television, and that he has built buildings, but they don't know how he financed or built the buildings or runs his companies. With traditional politicians, voters often have a better idea of pieces of legislation a candidate has authored, co-authored or supported. There is a difference in the types of achievement.
New York's voters did not waver much from their traditional Democratic and Republican strongholds. In recent years, Republican businessmen rather than politicians have run for New York's governorship and have lost. Perhaps, using this construction, Trump was considered by New York voters as another Republican businessman. Does this mean that New Yorkers maintained their traditional voting practices, or does this mean that they voted for personality? The Trump zones of New York were more rural than suburban, and more suburban than urban. More poorer than richer, and less educated than educated. More white racially, and more blue collar in employment. Upstate and western counties voted more for Trump, and the cities and more educated suburban and wealthier districts voted for Clinton. Closer to their homes, Clinton carried New York City, Nassau County, and Westchester County, but the Trump voter emerged in the outer boroughs, especially in Staten Island, and in Suffolk County on Long Island.
I think that the New York results reveal that: (1) New York remained a heavily Democratic "blue" state, and (2) Clinton had a better and more proven track record than Trump despite her range of unfavorable ratings. Ultimately, that "average" New York voters saw a difference in achievement over promise.
Unfortunately, an accurate portrayal of the real Trump voter is not visible in the election analysis. However, "Trump Country" in New York and elsewhere was not a singular place but a place of mind. It is clear that some wealthy whites, upper middle class whites, and poorer whites (largely males) voted for Trump whether in Manhattan, Long Island, or another part of the state. That corporate interests were equally as invested in a Trump victory. And outside of New York State, where Clinton was less known, coalitions of wealthy and lower middle class groups vocally and silently supported the Trump backlash movement. The only remaining issue was how would the spoils of a Trump victory be doled out to the Trump voters?
I think that the New York results reveal that: (1) New York remained a heavily Democratic "blue" state, and (2) Clinton had a better and more proven track record than Trump despite her range of unfavorable ratings. Ultimately, that "average" New York voters saw a difference in achievement over promise.
Unfortunately, an accurate portrayal of the real Trump voter is not visible in the election analysis. However, "Trump Country" in New York and elsewhere was not a singular place but a place of mind. It is clear that some wealthy whites, upper middle class whites, and poorer whites (largely males) voted for Trump whether in Manhattan, Long Island, or another part of the state. That corporate interests were equally as invested in a Trump victory. And outside of New York State, where Clinton was less known, coalitions of wealthy and lower middle class groups vocally and silently supported the Trump backlash movement. The only remaining issue was how would the spoils of a Trump victory be doled out to the Trump voters?
If examining New York State for Trump's issues, the nation would have seen some telling signs. Healthcare, taxes, jobs, and infrastructure were all important in the minds of New Yorkers. Immigration was not as large an issue although terrorism is a major concern. Yet, how has Mr. Trump, the businessman, dealt with these issues and then how President Trump dealt with these issues with his base in his home state?
Mr. Trump, as a businessman, has been well known for not paying contractors and paying low wages to non-essential staff. During the campaign, he could not provide information on the types of insurance he offered his employees. Mr. Trump also did not provide information on the number of jobs he created, however it is known that he subcontracts most of his businesses. Mr. Trump has only built housing and hotels for the extremely wealthy, he has never built housing for the poor or middle classes. His prominent contributions to the common good are the renovation of the ice skating rink in Central Park and several Adopt-A-Highway programs near Trump developments. The Trump Foundation does not publicize its charitable gifts to New York concerns.
In the course of Mr. Trump's first year, it was clear that attempts to repeal and replace Obamacare would have harmed those in New York's Trump Country. That no new jobs have been created by Trump policies in the areas of the state with the greatest unemployment and underemployment. The evidence shows that President Trump is using his new tax law to gut many of the resources of his home state. New Yorkers already pay some of the highest taxes in the nation, and they are extremely high on Long Island. And now they will be unable to deduct the state and municipal taxes from their federal taxes. Many will be forced to move or watch their housing prices decline. And, more recently, the Hudson Rail Tunnel, a major infrastructure plan that would have aided the region and provided jobs, was canceled by the president.
In the course of Mr. Trump's first year, it was clear that attempts to repeal and replace Obamacare would have harmed those in New York's Trump Country. That no new jobs have been created by Trump policies in the areas of the state with the greatest unemployment and underemployment. The evidence shows that President Trump is using his new tax law to gut many of the resources of his home state. New Yorkers already pay some of the highest taxes in the nation, and they are extremely high on Long Island. And now they will be unable to deduct the state and municipal taxes from their federal taxes. Many will be forced to move or watch their housing prices decline. And, more recently, the Hudson Rail Tunnel, a major infrastructure plan that would have aided the region and provided jobs, was canceled by the president.
President Trump has done nothing for New York or the average New Yorker! He has assisted wealthier New Yorkers retain more of their wealth. What some people in New York realized, and what many more now realize is that their native son is extremely flawed. And that Mr. Trump is not interested in helping "most" of them.
Months ago when dozens were killed in Las Vegas, the president flew to the city and consoled families. However, when there were terror attacks in New York City, not miles from Trump Tower, the president did nothing. He did not personally congratulate the brave policemen or first responders. He did not publicly speak to the families of the tourists killed or injured in the street attacks. Nor did he speak to the parents of local residents killed in the truck attack. The president did not pledge additional funds to protect those in his hometown. Yet, New York City spends thousands daily to protect Trump Tower, and every presidential visit to the tri-state area costs the taxpayers of New York and New Jersey millions.
And what about "draining the swamp?" Western New York, in particular, needs jobs and investment. However, President Trump's cabinet, filled with billionaires, has not crafted policies that the president can use to help that sector or any other sector. In contrast, these billionaires refuse to accept that they are public servants and instead are taking advantage of government resources for their own benefits. They are not concerned with the traditional Republican ideas of deficit reduction. Lobbyists and PACs, not government officials, are writing legislation and directing President Trump's political agenda. The administration is steering its economic efforts to Wall Street not Main Street. As federal regulations disappear, the Stock Market soars past 25,000 making those invested, including his cabinet members, wealthier. The swamp has simply moved into the White House!
This is where Mr. Wolff's work illuminates the concept of a class-based revolution. He depicts Trump as an "idiot" through the gaze of his supporters. Readers see media capitalists like Rupert Murdock and Roger Ailes working with the candidate and establishing elements of "Trumpism," a campaign that would capture a significant number of disillusioned Americans. These allies, not he, designed Trump's imagery of the "swamp", one that was a source of public anger-the corporate America that foreclosed on mortgages and took jobs overseas. Mr. Trump's allies and investors were able to capitalize on that image through mass media.
Whether the entire book is factual is immaterial. Mr. Wolff is an intimate in New York's elite circles and his juicy tidbits have enough truth to help readers construct a realistic story. Donald Trump was always a blowhard, chauvinistic, and a poor financial manager. But, he was a great self-promoter. Despite all of his short-comings, he was the perfect pitchman for the new America First image. And here is where Mr. Trump succeeded-Trump's construction of the sources of American anger would not be harmed by his ranting against them. He would allow corporate America to benefit as soon as he was in office as he removed the regulations that held them in check! And, he could praise them if their actions "conditionally" met his agenda. So, everyone would be happy as they counted their money!
"Real New Yorkers" have no problem seeing the "Trump" that is described in Wolff's book. Regardless of the details, this is the essence of Donald Trump. Someone who cares only about himself and his money. And that as president, he is an irrational figurehead of a people's revolution, but is secretly serving as a mercenary for corporate interests that actually own him. That his comments against the Chinese and Russians are also hollow threats. (As they own him too!) Now, nationally and internationally, readers will finally be forced to acknowledge what many New Yorkers already knew. They will learn that he was and is naked. And as he fancies himself as a king, that he is a naked king.
A naked king is a person who egotistically emphasizes winning an election and arguing how much better he is than the defeated candidate. Mr. Trump continually tries to show how unpopular and disliked Ms. Clinton was and remains. He draws on the election as if he had killed great dragons. Only a naked king would draw more attention to unwanted scrutiny by being so un-American as threatening to sue an author and publisher while loudly trying to ban a book. Such actions easily denounce the "free speech" aspects of the American Constitution. It only makes one wonder what will happen when the nation demands to see the results of the president's annual physical examination? What will happen later this year when people ask to see the president's taxes? What more will we learn of the Russian adventure in Trump Tower or talk of possible collusion? We already have our answer-the president's staff will stall and try to suggest that it is only a ploy of the media to get this information. We can already take this week as our roadmap to the future. Our naked king will dig up charges on the Clintons, will call names, and will try to punish some innocent. He will deflect to some other issue. And our naked king will stir the pot of conspiracies against him by suggesting that a "Deep State" exists in the government to destroy his presidency.
As of this week, most New Yorkers are more united in their views of the president than ever before. They see a life of drama, entitlement, and self-promotion. Not a life of achievement, but one of failure. They see streaks of hypocrisy in his life story. Many more failures than successes. Not a self-made man, but one who inherited a fortune, a playboy, an adulterer, a baby-daddy, and a con-artist. The New York votes Mr. Trump received in 2016, will not be easily earned in 2020! However, one segment of the Trump's New York coalition, the ultra-wealthy, will gladly support his re-election.
As of this week, most New Yorkers are more united in their views of the president than ever before. They see a life of drama, entitlement, and self-promotion. Not a life of achievement, but one of failure. They see streaks of hypocrisy in his life story. Many more failures than successes. Not a self-made man, but one who inherited a fortune, a playboy, an adulterer, a baby-daddy, and a con-artist. The New York votes Mr. Trump received in 2016, will not be easily earned in 2020! However, one segment of the Trump's New York coalition, the ultra-wealthy, will gladly support his re-election.
The impact of Trump, the native son, as president requires further scrutiny. For example, other New Yorkers, particularly the poorer ones, are often forgotten in the assessment of the 45th president. Latinos, especially Puerto Ricans, and African Americans have made sharper contrasts. They see Mr. Trump as a bigot, a false king, a false prophet, a breaker of promises, and a liar. That Mr. Trump sells worthless products that deprived people of hard earned savings and destroyed many future dreams. That he does not want them to have the advantages that he had and better themselves.
They see a man who lives in the same city with millions of people of color and doesn't respect them or know anything about them. They remember his attacks on Obama-not just the birther controversy but the lies about him wiretapping Trump Tower, playing golf more than another other president, and failing to call the families of fallen soldiers. They recall the attacks on a Mexican American judge, and an African American congresswoman. Additionally, they see how Trump has treated Puerto Rico, and they know there are more people of Puerto Rican ancestry in New York State than any other place in the world. They see that Trump does not like or respect young black/brown men unless he is exploiting them. They remember the lies of Trump seeing Muslims dancing in Jersey City after 9-11. They have not forgotten the Trump comments and advertisements about the Central Park Jogger case.
They see a man who lives in the same city with millions of people of color and doesn't respect them or know anything about them. They remember his attacks on Obama-not just the birther controversy but the lies about him wiretapping Trump Tower, playing golf more than another other president, and failing to call the families of fallen soldiers. They recall the attacks on a Mexican American judge, and an African American congresswoman. Additionally, they see how Trump has treated Puerto Rico, and they know there are more people of Puerto Rican ancestry in New York State than any other place in the world. They see that Trump does not like or respect young black/brown men unless he is exploiting them. They remember the lies of Trump seeing Muslims dancing in Jersey City after 9-11. They have not forgotten the Trump comments and advertisements about the Central Park Jogger case.
Days ago, an American soldier of African ancestry died trying to rescue people in a burning house in the Bronx. The same president who talks constantly about respecting the troops said absolutely nothing about this hero. Hence, they see Mr. Trump as a user of people. That he believes all people of color live in ghettos. And while he urges them to support his politics, he does nothing to protect them from the crime that affects the ghettos. He suggests that federal troops should be called into poorer communities to address gang and gun violence, but has offered nothing in the way that the troops would solve these problems outside of killing people. And, it is well known that after mass shootings that the president does not address the issues of gun control.
They see that President Trump is willing to address an opioid crisis with treatment, but is pushing the attorney general to arrest other drug users. That Mr. Trump has done nothing to end the mass incarceration of people of color, that he is not ending crime in the streets, nor is he sympathetic to their cries against police brutality. Instead, the president continually uses the name of a gang from Salvador to instill fear in the minds of whites against people of color. Rather than supporting black and brown citizens of the United States, he is calling their sports heroes "sons of bitches."
They see a failed casino owner, the greed of a man that used illegal aliens to build Trump Tower, the avarice that led to the fall of the USFL, and the multiple bankruptcies. They see a man who has historically taken tons of government handouts and is still making money while in office, but is not offering any financial support to the people who voted for him.
Yes, most New Yorkers see a naked king. They see a nation at risk and a disturbing future.
And they wonder how long will it take the rest of the nation to see the same thing!
And they wonder how long will it take the rest of the nation to see the same thing!
Comments