Character

By Tom Lamia

What does President Trump’s character tell us of his prospects for his success and ours? His high energy and loose regard for truth are problematic to his governance. He is capable of charm at a high level. Both friends and enemies, in business and politics, have noted this part of his character with approval. He speaks from his core, needing no script, and says what he thinks. That, too, is often praised. But there is danger in it.

He is a storyteller who warms to his story as he tells it, making it better and bigger, skirting the truth when necessary for effect. The press has described this style as a “firehose of falsehoods” that seek to “flood the zone,” leaving no room for others. He is not the first to do this. These are techniques well-known in political messaging, but he is a master at it. He is the source of most of his stories, speaking as one who has seen or heard the event firsthand. Remember: on 9/11 he saw Muslims celebrating in New Jersey on his TV. What he says can be preposterous, but he is out front with it. Any challenge will have to deal with his “firsthand” account. The result (and intent) is to send the opposition off on a search to disprove his story while he launches yet another false message. Occasionally the lie will be so palpable and immediate that the political objective boomerangs. He ignores the ensuing debate and never admits error, leaving it open for those who want to believe. Meanwhile, the competition exhausts itself seeking evidence to disprove his lies. Remember: Obama was born in Kenya. Not good character.

Candidate Trump tried and failed to change the 2020 vote count by first going to the courts and state legislatures, and then on January 6, 2021, to mob justice. He remains convinced, without evidence, that he won the 2020 election. His assurance is based on nothing more than his professed incredulity that he could have lost. Now he has won the 2024 election, but still refuses to concede that he lost in 2020. His mantra is to deny everything and never admit error. Is this his narcissism or simply bad form? It is not good character in either case, but the voting public has not held him to account, so it is a winning formula.

The Justice Department was in the process of following the law and convicting him of numerous serious felonies during his time out of office. He escaped by winning the election. But is he feeling absolved and grateful? No. He is hell bent on using his presidential power against anyone who had a role in his prosecutions or who served him with insufficient servility. Abuse of office includes not only using it for corrupt personal gain, but also using it for corrupt vindictive punishment. They are cuts from the same piece of cloth. Both reflect bad character.

Donald Trump was lawfully elected twice. He was also impeached twice, indicted for several state and federal crimes and found liable for civil fraud against the State of New York and civilly liable for defaming a woman who accused him of rape. He was convicted by a unanimous jury on 34 felony fraud counts. That conviction still stands despite an unconditional discharge sentence as any other sentence would encroach on his ability to serve as president. Not a testament to high moral character.

Our system faces a further challenge now that the Supreme Court has ruled that presidents are immune from prosecution for their official acts. The dissenting justices concluded that the result puts presidents above the law. He agrees, offering words of apparent gratitude to the Chief Justice in the ceremonial hand shaking following the State of the Union address. He appears to have a personal rabbit’s foot that offsets his character failings.

Many of his post-election actions have been contrary to his campaign statements. Suddenly we switch sides in the Ukraine war, convert Putin to best friend, undertake the Project 2025 plan (that he knew nothing about), hosting dictator Orban at Mar-a-Lago with praise as a leadership example, using Elon Musk’s money as a threat to primary wobbly congressional Republicans, and giving plenary power to Musk to restructure the federal work force. What comes next?

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to tax and spend, including imposing tariffs. He waives Congress aside by declaring an emergency, directing the government to spend, not spend, claw back, freeze, reduce, eliminate or limit spending regardless of Congress’s budget appropriations. He uses tariffs as a principal foreign and domestic policy tool with no input from a Republican Congress that fears him more than they fear their voters. He says it’s okay because we have an emergency. The only emergency is his blatant power grab from a supine Congress. The final arbiter on this will be the Supreme Court. Its immunity decision suggests cause for concern.

In the Federalist Papers, James Madison wrote that the proposed constitution did not provide a specific solution for every possible threat to the nation. It was not to be a cure-all. Its design of a republican form, with checks and balances, would protect us from ourselves as well as from our enemies. As Madison well understood, the safety of the country will always stand on or near the precipice of a slippery slope. The tolerances between the freedom and justice and a domino progression to anarchy is finely drawn. The three branches of government each has an essential place and limits. To assume that conflicts will settle themselves without further input from the people would be naïve. The founders are not with us today, but they did understand the problem we now face. We must use their plan, our Constitution, to get through it. It will take character.