The resurgent debate about President Trump’s mental health prompts me to update a piece I wrote for THCB last June. That piece drew lively comments and debate.
It’s also the one-year mark of the Trump presidency.
As The New York Times editorial page recently asked, bluntly, on Jan. 11: “Is Mr. Trump Nuts?”
Since last summer, that question has gained more traction and spurred more earnest debate. The results from Trump’s medical and “cognitive” exam on Jan 12 are unlikely to quell concern. (More about those results below.)
Nearly every major newspaper and magazine has run stories. Print media columnists and TV commentators dwell on it constantly. It’s catnip for late night comedians. It’s been a trending topic on social media for months. And, of course, it’s a topic of discussion and banter almost everywhere you go.
Lawmakers have finally joined in, too, after reluctance for the better part of 2017. Some even render an opinion publicly.
Articles have begun to pop up in medical journals, too—most recently Dr. Claire Pouncey’s piece in the New England Journal of Medicine (Dec. 27, 2017).
And then there’s the book, which sparked Dr. Pouncey’s piece as well other articles and reviews since it came out last fall. I’m not talking about Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House by Michael Wolff—although that book is certainly relevant in this context.
Rather, I’m talking about The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President, edited by Dr. Bandy X. Lee, a specialist in law and psychiatry at the Yale School of Medicine.
The Dangerous Case will almost certainly go down in history as a breakthrough academic book in the field of presidential psychology and medical ethics and law. It also represents a breakthrough because it bucks the Goldwater Rule.
That’s the American Psychiatric Association (APA) policy—dating back to 1973—that strongly recommends mental health professionals not render diagnoses of people they have not personally treated, especially public figures. It’s called the Goldwater Rule because it was prompted by publication in 1964 of a magazine article arguing that conservative Republican nominee Barry Goldwater was unfit to be president. The article was based in large part on the results of a survey sent to 12,356 psychiatrists. Of 2,417 responses to the survey, 1,189 said Goldwater was “mentally incapable” of being president. The other 1,228 psychiatrists declined to make a judgment.
Goldwater sued the now-defunct magazine for $50,000 and won. Thus, while the Goldwater Rule is meant to apply only to mental health professionals, it de facto extended for decades to the media.
No longer. The media is clearly not going to play along anymore—with Trump and likely any president that follows him. And, now, a growing number of mental health professionals concur. The book’s authors assert that they have a duty to apply their knowledge and skills for the greater public good. This duty, at this time, surpasses (trumps) the Goldwater Rule, they say.
The Dangerous Case is a no-holds-barred indictment of the president’s mental health, character, and boorish behavior. The book’s 28 essays put scholarly and academic meat on the bones of the speculative psychoanalyzing and character assessment (some would say assassination) that has grown in intensity since Trump announced his candidacy in 2015.
The authors examine almost every angle of Trump’s character and behavior, and present a portrait of a man with a somewhat unique confluence of dysfunctions and personality traits.
Many diagnoses—labels—are applied. You’ve heard some. But you may not be familiar with others, such as: malignant narcissistic personality disorder and “extreme present hedonism.”
Malignant narcissism consists of antisocial behavior, paranoia, and, most notably, sadism—in addition to the usual narcissistic traits of (a) persistent exaggeration and grandiose statements about one’s self and achievements, (b) the belief that one is superior to other people, (c) needing and expecting constant praise from others, (e) ever-present defensiveness.
“Extreme present hedonism” is characterized by living in the present moment in a way that denies, negates or dismisses what has happened in the past (even perhaps just the day before or hours before) or what consequences one’s statements and actions might have for the future. People with this condition seem to lack the ability to track their behavior or statements over time, or simply don’t care; they say and do what they want “in the moment” to get what they want in the moment. They also display marked impulsiveness.
Both these diagnoses seem spot on for Trump. His flaming and frightening narcissism can’t really be disputed at this point, and the paranoia and sadism have become more evident over the past year. Accusing Obama of wiretapping him, for example. Or the constant tweets with shocking personal attacks, even on people who are highly regarded public figures (like Meryl Streep).
As well, even casual followers of the news and Trump’s policy and political flip-flops can’t have failed to notice the jarring disinterest he and the White House have in consistency and coherence over time.
Trump’s supporters chalk this up to his management style of “creative chaos” and keeping staff off-balance and competing. But there’s now ample evidence after a year that whatever such chaos did for him in real estate and reality TV does not work in politics and world affairs. (Witness the current debate over DACA and see Evan Osnos’ Jan. 8, 2018 New Yorker piece—“Making China Great Again”—on how China’s leaders are exploiting Trumpian and White House chaos.)
The book’s authors also raise the specter of sociopathy and psychopathy, although less convincingly. The common elements of a sociopathic personality ring true for Trump: lack of empathy; remorse and guilt (never apologizes); restrained affect or emotional expression (except anger and rage); chronic lying; ignoring social norms, and persistent manipulative behavior.
Trump best fits the mold of a “high-functioning” sociopath, one essay says: someone who is aware he is different from others but who sees that as a strength and seeks to exploit that for his gain in terms of power over others.
Time will tell if Trump’s sociopathic traits bleed into psychopathy. Psychopaths are essentially sociopaths and then some. They are people whose sociopathy becomes more dangerous (to themselves and others) for reasons not always well understood. More dangerous in the sense that, when triggered by social or environmental factors, they are willing to take bolder actions that could harm others. Whatever inhibitions they had seem to fall away.
In fairness, Trump seems at times genuinely empathic. Most recently, he has expressed support on numerous occasions for allowing the DACA population to gain permanent residence in the U.S. And throughout the debate over the ACA, he expressed support for legislation that was compassionate. Example: Trump called the House ACA repeal bill “mean.”
But then political expediency would quickly and easily overrun those sentiments, with no clear explanation for the change.
Cognitive issues
Then there are the cognitive issues. My initial (June 2017) post focused on those so I won’t repeat the points here. But the evidence has only mounted in the past year that Trump suffers from some form of cognitive decline, most notably in his language skills. He is often unable to string together 5 sentences without repeating himself, going off on a tangent, or using the same simple and often clunky phrases and/or words multiple times.
His supporters say he’s “plain spoken” and that this is an asset. But it’s become clear from media reports that he’s often (but not always) inarticulate and incoherent in private political meetings even when he knows the substance.
Trump’s judgment also exhibits impairment, several of the book’s essays say. While poor judgment is not by itself a sign of mental illness, impaired judgment is a common symptom of cognitive decline, emotional turmoil, stress, and many neurological or mental health problems.
Is Trump’s poor judgment tied to his personality and character, whether you consider that disordered or not? Or is it independent? That is, contrary to Trump’s claims to be a “stabile genius” who acts intuitively and “smartly” in his decision–making, is he as a person who’s actually really bad at making solid judgments about things—policy or people?
There’s certainly strong anecdotal evidence that his judgment regarding people is poor—Steven Bannon, General Michael Flynn, the Mooch, Spicey, Jared Kushner as a policy advisor. From Trump’s and the White House’s POV, allowing Michael Wolff open access to staff seems pretty stupid.
Speaking of stupid (see also “moron”), Trump’s intelligence has, of course, also been called into question. The book does not probe this. My own layman’s take is that concern and questions about his brain power, IQ or whatever devolve to his possible cognitive decline. He’s certainly not an idiot per se. He is often poorly informed—and never seems to care about that. Which is poor judgment.
The medical exam
So, what was that cognitive test all about at Trump’s medical check-up last week?
Not being a doc, I can’t render an informed medical opinion about the scope and validity of the test. But initial reports in the media indicate the test is not a detailed probe of the many forms of cognitive decline that can occur with aging. It’s more of a simple initial screening test.
As for White House physician Ronald Jackson’s performance—and it was that—I’ll wager there’ll be criticism from many quarters regarding the cognitive assessment in the days and weeks to come.
Jackson’s statements that he found: (a) “no reason whatsoever to think the president has any issues with his thought processes;” and (b) that the president is “very sharp” and “very articulate when he speaks to me and “absolutely fit for duty,” have already come in for ridicule.
In a Jan. 7 post on THCB, ethicists Art Caplan and Jonathan Moreno exhort us to remember that Trump and the White House control what results from the president’s exam are released, and that there is “a long history of prevarication, distortion, withholding and pretending when it comes to medical information generated when doctors examine a President.”
Examples: Wilson (serious stroke), Roosevelt (polio, cardiac disease), Eisenhower (massive heart attack), Kennedy (Addison’s disease), Johnson (bipolar disorder, heart attacks), Nixon (alcohol abuse, depression), Reagan (early signs of Alzheimer’s), and Clinton (high blood pressure and high cholesterol).
Will this president and White House go for full disclosure and transparency? Caplan and Morena doubt it and urged renewed consideration of President Jimmy Carter’s proposal in 1994 that a non-partisan panel of doctors monitor the president’s health. A chapter in The Dangerous Case, by Nanette Gartrell and Dee Mosbacher, recommends similar action.
It is, indeed, now very clear that current policies and rules are inadequate to the task of fully assessing, and then quickly removing, a president who may either be physically or mentally unable to do the job.
Debate will continue on professional ethics
Meanwhile, the Goldwater Rule debate is far from resolved. Pouncey’s main arguments, with which I agree, are these:
- Protecting public health and safety is part of the ethical commitment physicians make.
- Many of Trump’s behaviors and actions, so far, can be interpreted as presenting a threat and danger to public health and safety (on multiple levels).
- Standards of medical ethics and professionalism change with time and circumstance, and psychiatry’s reaction to one misstep in 1964 does not inform the situation in 2017-18.
The APA disagrees. In March 2017 the APA broadened the Goldwater rule to apply to “any opinion on the affect, behavior, speech, or other presentation of an individual that draws on the skills, training, expertise, and/or knowledge inherent in the practice of psychiatry.” That’s an expansion, notes Pouncey, that would further silence psychiatrists.
APA past president Jeffrey Lieberman, now at the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York, went further. In Psychiatric News, he wrote that The Dangerous Case is “not a serious, scholarly, civic-minded work, but simply tawdry, indulgent, fatuous tabloid psychiatry.” And in a letter to NEJM at the end of December, commenting in Pouncey’s piece, Lieberman wrote:
“Although moral and civic imperatives justify citizens’ speaking out against injustices of government and its leaders, that does not mean that psychiatrists can use their medical credentials to brand elected officials with neuropsychiatric diagnoses without sufficient evidence and appropriate circumstances. To do so undermines the profession’s integrity and credibility.”
He concluded in that letter: “I believe that Pouncey and Lee and her coauthors are acting in good faith and are convinced they are fulfilling a moral obligation. But I believe this is a misguided and dangerous morality.”
Two important final points. One—made in the book but also by The New York Times editorial board on Jan 11, and in other recent articles—is that Trump’s unfitness for office can and should be assessed independently of his mental health status. As the Times put it: that’s “beside the point.”
The presence of mental illness would not always be a reason to dislodge a president. (Nor should it ever be a reason to keep a president—dismissing his or her deeds using mental illness as an excuse.) The stakes are too high. That line of reasoning and decision-making only serves to add to the stigma that, sadly, remains attached to mental illness. Lincoln suffered from depression. Maybe Lyndon Johnson, too. Grant was an alcoholic and had bouts of depression.
As should be more obvious in today’s world, the presence of mental health problems does not dictate character or ability or the value of a person or a life. Hundreds of millions of people worldwide with mental health conditions lead productive lives, with and without treatment.
Rather, Trump’s behavior, actions (whatever their origin) and his effectiveness in office must be what we ultimately judge him by.
And a last point: One of the essays in The Dangerous Case, as well as another recent book—The Twilight of American Sanity-A Psychiatrist Analyzes the Age of Trump (by Allen Frances)—assert that Trump has had a profound and mostly negative impact on the nation’s psyche.
The essay calls it “Trump anxiety disorder.” You could also think of it as collective trauma. On the surface, it manifests in the free-floating angst and cynicism that’s almost palpable among the president’s detractors. But Frances also notes that Trump has the dictator’s gift of bringing out the worst in his followers, playing on their prejudices, exacerbating their anger and irrational thinking, and—yes—their racism and misogyny.
This impact on the public’s “mental health” should be a part of the conversation.
Steven Findlay is an independent health policy analyst and journalist
Categories: Uncategorized
Thanks for this comment. I concur.
Relevant to the dialogue here, I noted this today from a news feed last week:
The New York Times: Trump’s Physical Revealed Serious Heart Concerns, Outside Experts Say —
Cardiologists not associated with the White House said Wednesday that President Trump’s physical exam revealed serious heart concerns, including very high levels of so-called bad cholesterol, which raises the risk that Mr. Trump could have a heart attack while in office. Dr. Ronny L. Jackson, a rear admiral and the White House physician, said Tuesday in his report on the president’s medical condition that Mr. Trump was in “excellent” cardiac health despite having an LDL cholesterol level of 143, well above the desired level of 100 or less. (Shear and Kolata, 1/17)
Stat: Will Trump’s ‘Incredible Genes’ Keep Protecting His Health?
Unless someone swipes one of President Trump’s used forks from the Mar-a-Lago dining room and sends it to 23andMe for DNA analysis, the world will simply have to guess what the White House physician meant when he told reporters on Tuesday that Trump “has incredible genes, I just assume.” “Incredible genes” may seem like hand-waving, but there’s no question some genetic variants protect against heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, and other killers. (Begley, 1/17)
Also: there’s yet another inside-the-Trump-White-House book out next week that reports staffers coined a term for another one of Trump’s behavior patterns: “Defiance Disorder.” Apparently, Trump routinely pays no attention to or defies his staff by doing the opposite of what they recommend–even if the recommendation is a consensus position among staff. The book is “Media Madness–Donald Trump, the Press, and The War Over the Truth” by Howard Kurtz. Get this: Kurtz works at Fox News.
It’s interesting how quickly the discussion devolves into attacks upon, or defenses of, the President, as well as a re-hashing of post-election grievances and justifications. Whether this is another example, as proposed in your essay’s closing remarks, of his bringing out the worst in people, or just a reflection of today’s highly polarized and hostile political climate, could be debated. (For that matter, it might be that the election of Trump, a highly polarizing and disruptive person in many respects, is itself a manifestation of that climate and thus more an effect than a cause of social and governmental dysfunction; this, too, could be debated.)
But it’s hard to argue that, professional ethics aside, it isn’t relevant or important in an elective democracy to be able to discuss the mental health and fitness of a prominent leader. This alone should shelter professionals who render opinions at a distance from the shoot-the-messenger responses we’re seeing. The real question is: What do we do with information that suggests — I would say in this case compellingly — that a leader exhibits or suffers from pathologies? If nothing could be done and no advantage could be had by recognizing his or her illness, the exercise would be a waste of time and long-distance diagnosis would be wrong on merely practical grounds.
We can, however, do many things with the knowledge that a leader’s capacities are diminished. We can supplement their shortcomings, excuse their foolishnesses, damp down their excesses, and steer against their missteps. We can use democracy’s checks and balances to … well, check and balance. And we can reflect on how and why, when a leader’s deficits were abundantly evident before their election, we chose them nonetheless: on what that means about us as a society and a nation, and what sort of conditions or states of mind might afflict us collectively that we should have done so.
Bottom line: For me, it’s the mental health of the nation that’s important, and evaluation of the President’s cognitive, emotional and general mental status — by professionals, whether or not based on personal examination — offers a view into that health. Whatever privacy objections might be raised are, I think, overcome by the public interest and the fact that someone seeking high office (and particularly this someone and this office) have no realistic expectations of privacy. Let’s have the discussion; let’s make it as well-informed as possible; and let’s use it as an opportunity to get healthier … all of us.
Steve, I don’t think you hate America and one might refer to me as a conservative though that might not be the best description. I do know that by supporting Trump I was called a deplorable not only by Hillary, but by a lot of Democrats as well.
I think both parties are out of line.
I seem to remember what people called Reagan and how stupid Reagan was supposed to be. We all learned otherwise and now it is hard to randomly find a lot of people who admit voting against Reagan.
It is not easy to work for Trump because at least according to the private bankers I know one has to be on their toes and produce. They say he hires well, but the political world is a bit different so I think there was somewhat of a learning curve for him and we are seeing a better management style today. Who would have thought the FBI would have been weaponized and then find 5 months of missing emails during the most critical time period leading up to Mueller’s appointment?
That is right, Steve, there were no polls on Trump existing prior to his running for office so your opinion was just your opinion. I have maintained a second home in Manhattan for decades and before that lived in NYC., so when you claim exclusive knowledge of the city you are wrong. I remember Trump’s first building going up, to Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue, and beyond. I remember Wolman rink and I remember his battles with some of the politicians. I don’t think he was disliked by the public, not until he became a Republican in a left-wing city. He was controversial and to some, he was an adversary so I don’t know that those people would have any love for him. Competition in NYC is very fierce.
“No one who knows Churchill would argue that he is like Trump,”
No one said that. Here is what was said: “Churchill, one of the great men of the 20th century, was quite eccentric as well”
It’s true Churchill was better read, and in fact better read than most people, but he had financial problems. Trump doesn’t read that much, but he does know his business and how to read the financials and deal with complex things that created his empire. So far he has done quite well despite the fact he didn’t get much help from either side. Look at the economy. Oh, but you casually say it is improving at the same rate as under Obama, really?
Take the U6. It should fall slower as it approaches full employment but compare the last year of Obama and the first year of Trump. It fell 3 times as fast. The stock market had to rise under Obama for it fell way to low. Look at the graphs and take note of how steep the rise is under Trump. Consumer confidence, have you looked at the data?
You bring up more things, but the proof actually says something quite the opposite of what you are saying. Look at the company bonus’s and look at how the Schumer Shutdown was shut down. I don’t think your assessment represents a legitimate assessment at all.
Trump has had to face some pretty bad challenges all throughout government. Just look at how all of a sudden 5 months of FBI documents are missing.
Let’s get back to reality and the fact that the Goldwater Rule was good. We should have learned how psychiatry can be misused in politics from what happened in the Soviet Union. Apparently, some psychiatrists here never learned that lesson.
Just to be clear, I am not defending Republicans. I never once voted Republican, for any office, in my entire life, until now. And it’s not because I support Conservative anything.
Of course Republicans do all these things, but why do “we” have to behave the same way? And not just mach the over the top rhetoric, but take it to levels never seen before.
Frankly, the op-ed pages in the NYT and many “news” pages too, read like the Breitbart comments section during the Obama years.
Why are “we” doing that? I just don’t get it…. It can’t be because “we” think he is dumb and dangerous. We thought the same stuff about GW, and yes, said stuff to that extent, but nothing like what we are seeing now. Maybe it’s social media, which amplifies every bad thing in society. Maybe society itself is just on a natural path to destruction and this was inevitable no matter who got elected. I get that Mr. Trump is not helping things either, but this is ridiculous… We are shooting ourselves in the proverbial foot (more like head) for no valid reason. As you noted in another comment, Presidents are not as powerful as most people, including Presidents themselves, think. Every single one found that out, mostly the hard way. Whatever one may think, or rather feel, the Republic will be fine. The kids will be fine too.
Anyway, there is an infrastructure plan that just leaked today. There is immigration on the table. I don’t think it’s too late, but people need to get a grip already.
Not to get real personal, but do you have any idea how many times I have been told by conservatives that I must hate America because I sometimes vote for Democrats? (In fact, I nearly always split my vote.) Having served overseas and tried to resuscitate dying servicemen that I knew, then having to call the finance to let them know he died. All because I might be a liberal. So painting people with a broad brush is not something unique to those who dislike Trump, nor to those who like them.
So, if you want to go find people who say over the top bad things about Trump you can find them. Right wing sites like Drudge aggregate them for you so that you can believe that is what everyone on the left believes, but it just isn’t true. As I noted in this particular case, there are plenty of people on the left, in the middle, libertarians, etc who have criticized this policy w/o calling Trump or the people who support him evil.
Steve
I left out area so should have read NYC area. Excepting time in the military my last 55 years have been spent within an hour and a half of NYC or across the river. My experience has been, and since my father law ran an architectural firm in the area I may have a different view, the guy has been seen as a politically connected, self-aggrandizing crook. IOW, he is like many real estate developers in big cities. But, as I said, I would happily defer to any real data if people have it. I am unaware of any polls that exist prior to his running for office.
Steve
I really don’t have to think any more as i am well aware of Churchill’s history, especially being a military history buff. Churchill was very well read, experienced, knew what he was talking about, was erudite. No one who knows Churchill would argue that he is like Trump, except in a very few mostly superficial ways. (Would love to see someone make the case that Churchill was a populist.)
“Take note Trump has done a good job.”
Not really. The economy is improving at the same rate as it was under Obama. He should get some credit for not screwing it up, and continuing the improvement, but Presidents always get too much credit or blame for the economy. Foreign affairs, where they have the most influence, has been pretty bad. His efforts on health care reform were just awful. The guy hardly participated. (Leader? Deal Maker? Hardly!) Immigration reform? Not happening. Infrastructure? Really, about all you have to show is a tax cut, not tax reform which we really do still need, and that at a time when we have low UE. Likely just leads to more debt, but then that is something conservatives since Reagan have only cared about when a Dem is in office.
Steve
Putting Trump in same company as Reagan, GW, GHW or any R president is not fair to them. It’s an open secret in DC and on Capitol Hill that the vast majority (we are talking 80% to 90%…and even the Tea Party folks) now greatly regret they have to serve under this president. Most can’t or won’t say it in public. In private, they are miserable and have great distain for the way he has so far conduced himself in office.
“popular before campaigning for office” — I would seriously question that.
And yes it’s bit about decorum and tradition….but that’s not main reason Trump is so far a truly terrible leader.
Some expected dialogue below, including those who think the arm-chair and at-a-distance psychoanalyzing of Mr. Trump is bad ju-ju and/or should be verboten. That’s the debate that’s been stirred nationwide, amateur and in the medical and mental health communities.
But I think the cat is out of the bag and they’ll be no end to the commentary on and questioning of his behavior and emotional stability, character, and mental “fitness” (a nebulous concept). It’s just too juicy an issue, and he plays into it (wittingly or not).
Some of the comments below rightly note that this becomes a political referendum this year. If the GOP loses big in the Nov elections, and polls show that’s due largely to an anti-Trump effect….well, that’ll say a lot about faith in his fitness for office, mental and otherwise.
I greatly object to Margalit’s comments that antipathy to Trump–personal or political–has to be due with antipathy towards the people who voted for him. That’s bunk. Yes, there’s a major political divide in the US right now but that does not mean that those of us who think Trump is a danger to the nation and not up to the job paint his voters with the same brush. If the polls are to be believed, his support has fallen away significantly, with a core of about 20% of the population still fiercely loyal to him…and another 10-15% of so who support him as president (and not necessarily personally) because he’s a Republican and they would never support any Democrat.
Yes, I remember an article in the NYT with a Bernie Sanders this or that title. Obviously, I clicked. It started as they all started with “the 74 year old senator who is not really a democrat… blah blah….”, and immediately proceeded to a full article about the wonders of Mrs. Clinton…. That’s when I decided the NYT is trash.
Margalit, a lot of the negative press against Trump is purely political just like it was against Bernie Sanders. The establishment people are very unhappy to find that the voters have minds of their own.
“It is not appropriate to diagnose people over the internet or from afar like this.” Steve, I agree. I think those doing so in the fashion we are seeing are unethical and are inviting the intellectual honesty of physicians to be corrupted by politics.
“By his own words he is boorish and a jerk.” I can see why he might be thought by some to be those things from afar, but I don’t think he ever called himself a jerk.
“A constant liar. ” It seems like President’s lie all the time, but IMO he is more transparent. You know what he is thinking at 2AM from Twitter. Are most of what he says a lie or an exaggeration, puffery? He is a promoter. Or maybe it is positioning something often done when trying to make a deal. Then again sometimes people change their minds. I don’t call these things lies, but I have noted the news media calling him a liar and showing pictures to prove it where those false pictures were intentional lies.
Well, they sure liked his money, seeing how they all lined up to get some, including Bill and Hillary and Mr. Romney. to name a few.
“In 10 months, the collective voters can change to a Democratic Congress and then, they can proceed with impeachment”
That is right and those people can make a joke of our Republic.
Steve, he wasn’t disliked by left-wing New Yorkers until they found out he was running for office as a Republican.
” Those of us who live in the NYC ”
That means you live in NYC. Many people have homes in the city and are very familiar with the city and disagree with your assessment. Maybe you live on the west side.
Steve2, you should think a little bit more before responding in such a fashion. Tump is eccentric and a bit brash. Churchill was eccentric and a bit brash. That is the point. People could have argued that Churchill was most of the things they say Trump is and many did just that.
Take note Trump has done a good job. You might not like a thriving economy, but a lot of people earning a lot less than you are quite happy that they have jobs especially since they weren’t as fortunate as you to have an advanced education and a trade.
Understand in three years you will have another chance to vote for someone other than Trump. In the meantime, it would be nice to recognize Trump was legally elected President and therefore is the only one who should be occupying that office.
Comparing Churchill to Trump. You win the internet today! Maybe for the year!
Steve
“it’s not that you don’t like Trump (he was very popular before campaigning for office”
Not true I believe. You have any stats to back that up? Those of us who live in the NYC have been subjected to his act for years are not generally fan, especially if we had friends/family who lived in Atlantic City. Famous? Certainly. Popular? I would expect a smallish core of people who actually liked the guy with most not really having positive feelings about him. Since you made the assertion maybe you have some polling data?
Steve
That’s fine. I still like you too… 🙂
What annoys me is those who never even met any of these people, reflexively using that broad brush to paint anyone who refuses to attack Trump (neutrality is not an option) as a liar, a hypocrite, a sycophant, nutcase, misogynist and racist by association, or whatever. Not even a well respected freaking Admiral escapes this treatment…. Enough already….
Want to “disdain” the President? Fine. I’m pretty sure the same people “disdained” GW and GHW and Reagan (I did too)…. see a pattern here? But what is the insane (yes, insane) rationale for character attacks on people they never met and know nothing about, just because those people refuse to join the vitriolic posse?
Also, keep this … stuff up and he will be president for 7 more years and after that you get Tom Cotton…..
It is not appropriate to diagnose people over the internet or from afar like this. This stuff should just be ignored. By his own words he is boorish and a jerk. A constant liar. That doesn’t generate an ICD code.
Steve
“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely,” attributed to Lord John E. Dalberg-Acton long-ago, might be the essence of the last twenty years when re-evaluated 7 years from now. Lord Dalberg-Acton wrote the line in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887. Previously, another Englishman William Pit in 1770 said in a letter: “Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who have it.” Given the precariousness of our times, the view of today – 7 years from now – is likely to evolve from our current mental competency concerns to eventually becoming focused on several characters in and around our Nation’s Presidency rather than just one person.
As an aside for our times, I had an occasion last week to read The Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” of April 16, 1963. It has the attention to detail found in the Cooper’s Union speech given by Abraham Lincoln in New York City on February 27, 1860. Dr. King regarding social justice and Mr. Lincoln our nation’s commitment to human dignity. The speech was the basis for Lincoln’s subsequent Presidential campaign. The Cooper’s Union speech solidified his belief that a Constitutional Amendment would be required before the end of the Civil War to ultimately save the Union.
.
Now more than 150 years later, the constraints on the opportunities for each citizen’s Social Mobility is the most serious long term challenge for adaptation during the next 30-40 years. In the meantime, our nation will likely encounter instability, yet unseen, from a doubling of our Medicare eligible citizens between 2000 and 2030, international bankruptcy from our nation’s level of health spending, global warming, world-wide population growth to 9 Billion in 2050 (and its attendant increased risk for world-wide pandemics), and the worsening consequences of a world where 86% of its citizens currently live in a nation with NO First Amendment Rights, as we know them (Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly and Petition that are enforced, all 5).
A lot of junk has been written and said about Donald Trump’s mental status. We all know some people didn’t vote for him and want him out. Apparently, some will use any means possible. They have tried collusion with Russia and a whole host of other things but lost. Perhaps it is their psyches that need evaluation.
Trump has passed his physical and even a mental status test. There is no way he would be where he is today if he were incompetent. Admittedly he is eccentric and has a brash personality. Maybe that is working, for our economy is thriving. Maybe we need more people like him. Churchill, one of the great men of the 20th century, was quite eccentric as well and to add to the mix he drank and smoked.
I think some people need to give it a rest or they may end up in the psych ward where they wish Trump to be.
You voted for Trump. I still like you nonetheless, notwithstanding this over-the-top broad-brush (and mostly a litany of irrelevance) comment.
My disdain for this brute doesn’t have shit to do with Hillary or Obama.
https://youtu.be/Elhyo-_fR0E
I never met Mr. Trump.
I never met Rear Admiral Jackson, who has been the physician of 3 Presidents so far.
I never met the authors of this so called book.
I do understand that some folks don’t like what they see on TV. I also understand that many are stunned by the fact that in a Democracy one side doesn’t get to win every political contest. I get that those who were heavily invested in the personality cult of the Clintons and Mr. Obama feel a need to seek some sort of revenge and therefore are launching their 1000 ships in every which way. I do sympathize with the many who disagree with most of the policies the Trump admin is trying to implement.
I understand how delicate souls can be offended by lack of decorum, plain or even vulgar speech, and preferential consumption of junk foods and beverages.
But at the bottom of it all, and to paraphrase the character of Ainsley Hayes in Aaron Sorkin’s The West Wing, it’s not that you don’t like Trump (he was very popular before campaigning for office). You don’t like the people. You don’t like the people who like Trump.
Ultimately, it is an electoral and associated constitutional issue. In 10 months, the collective voters can change to a Democratic Congress and then, they can proceed with impeachment. Or, NOT. In the mean time, the mental health sector as a gesture should honor the value of supporting the social cohesion of our nation’s citizens. As result, everyone’s mental and physical HEALTH will be better.