Winner Take All

Winner Take All

  • A battle that you win cancels any other bad actions of yours. In the same way, by losing one, all the good things worked by you before become vain.
  • Men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, because it belongs to everybody to see you, to few to come in touch with you.

      Niccolo Machiavelli

President Trump was interviewed by Leslie Stahl of CBS’s Sixty Minutes the other night.  One of the questions she asked, was how the President justified mimicking the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford.  Ford testified that as a teenager, she was sexually attacked by Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh.

Stahl:  And you mimicked Professor Blasey Ford.  You mimicked her. 

President Donald Trump: Had I not made that speech, we would not have won.  I was just saying she didn’t seem to know anything. 

The telling point:  had  “I” (Trump) not done that, we would not have won.  To the President, it’s all about “winning and losing.”  Trump believes that his actions opened the way for Republicans in the Senate, and in general, to attack Ford’s testimony.  It allowed them to deny her “truth” as a victim, and opened the way for others to arrive at the contorted logic of Senator Susan Collins; that while she believed Ford was a victim, she didn’t believe Kavanaugh was the attacker.  Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court: the outcome is “everything.” What happens along the way is simply “collateral damage.”

He applies this same logic to the fate of Jamal Khashsoggi at the hands of the Saudi government.  Regardless of who’s at fault for the torture, death and dismemberment of Khashsoggi, “winning and losing” is about defense sales to the Kingdom.

Trump:   I tell you what I don’t wanna do. Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, all these com– I don’t wanna hurt jobs. I don’t wanna lose an order like that. There are other ways of– punishing, to use a word that’s a pretty harsh word, but it’s true.

Winning:  it’s about the deal Trump made with the Saudis.  It’s about money.  It really doesn’t  have much to do with morality, the focus is on tangible cash.  Winning is the central image of the “Trump Brand,” and the central goal of the Trump Administration.

Of course this has been the trajectory of the Trump Administration since it first began: burning all bridges as he came down the golden escalator in Trump Tower, calling Mexicans drug dealers and rapists. Trump found a sympathetic rhythm with some of the electorate; worn thin by changing mores and political correctness. The common morality:  respecting others, not calling people names, not intentionally lying; these were no longer important, at least to those who found common cause with him.

It is the basis for the opposition outrage, beyond what many felt for even Ronald Reagan when he was first elected.  Trump, daily, challenges the rules of behavior we hold in common, and “gets away with it.”  Put that in contrast with President Barack Obama, known for his calm, cool, and empathetic actions, and the extremes exacerbate the situation.  The “Resistance” not only disagrees with his policies, but they see the man himself as a profanation of what the President of the United States should be.

From a political perspective, does Trump’s behavior represent a “sea-change” in American politics, or is it just an aberration restricted to only him?  Democrat Michael Avenatti demands that the Party fights “fire with fire,” willing to use the same concepts of morality to combat him.  He claims that Democrats are “too nice” and “too bound by rules.”  Other Democratic leaders, Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder, have said similar things.

The problem with that, is it requires Democrats to accept the “ends” as well as the “means.”  For many Democrats, steeped in the liberal tradition of empathy and civil liberties; using those “means” to achieve anything, is in itself an unacceptable “end.”

To Trump, it’s all about winning, at whatever the cost.  President Trump proposed another tax cut last night, and called on Congress to pass them before the mid-terms.  He knows Congress is in recess until after the mid-terms, but it doesn’t matter.  He threatens to send the military to the border to stop a “caravan” of migrants coming north from Central America, even though that would violate the law.  He says he will protect Medicare and Social Security, even as his Party’s majority leader plots to cut them.

It energizes his base, and undermines another pillar of the foundation of truth.  But if he can “win” on November 6th, then it doesn’t matter.  The modern father of politics, Machiavelli said it best:  A battle that you win cancels any other bad actions of yours.

But Democrats can take some heart in the second part Machiavelli’s phrase:  by losing one, all the good things worked by you before become vain.

We can only vote – and hope.

Author: Marty Dahlman

I'm Marty Dahlman. After forty years of teaching and coaching track and cross country, I've finally retired!!! I've also spent a lot of time in politics, working campaigns from local school elections to Presidential campaigns.

One thought on “Winner Take All”

  1. And ted Cruz is accepting his endorsement. I’m not sure how to combat such willingness to win at all costs. I know. Vote.

Comments are closed.