I think I heard a story about Donald Trump some time ago. That when he was young he went to some sort of bridge opening ceremony, and noticed that nobody really recognized the name of the architect who built that bridge. That he was determined not to be overlooked like that.
I don't know if that's true or not, since I can't recall where I read it and can't find a link (searching 'Trump', 'bridge' and 'architect' brings up a whole bunch of other stuff). If true, though, I think it shows something about Trump's driving need for recognition. Something anyone with any passing familiarity with him would recognize, since he plasters his name on everything. (obligatory warning: I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist, I do not know him personally, and I'm just guessing based on things I've read and seen. Take it for what it's worth).
This obviously sets him apart from other wealthy individuals, since many are not well-known outside their own circles. Your average person can name someone like Warren Buffet or Bill Gates, but not much beyond that. It's assumed celebrities and CEOs are at that level of wealth, as well, though you shouldn't always make that assumption. And if you've been paying attention to wealth inequality and our political troubles, you'd know that the Senate and House of Representatives are mostly composed of millionaires.
I don't know what created such an intense drive for recognition, of course. But for someone desperate to get his name out there, becoming president should ease some of that pressure. I mean, say what you will about Trump (and I disagree with much about him), nobody is going to forget his name any time soon.
Children will learn to recite President Trump along with all the other presidents they get taught about in school. Historians will be debating his presidency fifty years or more from now, just as they still write about Andrew Jackson, Richard Nixon, Lyndon B. Johnson, and even the less well known presidents (like Rutherford B. Hayes, John Tyler, Franklin Pierce, etc. Though who could forget the sideburns on President Martin Van Buren?)
Now, it's one thing to make it into the history books. It's another thing to be considered a positive force in history. Hence why so many people like to discuss a president's (any president's) legacy. You may get recited by schoolchildren, but do you want to go down as a George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and FDR? A Richard Nixon or Warren Harding? Or just get as close to forgotten as any president can get, like some of the presidents I listed above?
So here you've got this guy who is highly driven for name recognition, and to a certain extent he's achieved that. (That would be disturbing to anybody, in and of itself, since once you've achieved a lifelong goal you're left wondering "what next?" Once you've reached the summit, what purpose do you have?)
Except I don't think he's had time to reflect on that, and as embattled as he's been since before he even took office, I doubt he considers it achieved.
I'm going to take a slight detour now, but it's with a sense of purpose I promise.
I, like almost anyone who has ever held a job, have sometimes been overruled and the group decides to do something I don't agree with. (Shocking, I know!). For the most part, I believe in contributing to the discussion while it's still a discussion...but once that decision has been made you have to support the decision. With certain exceptions, like if it's immoral, illegal, or unethical of course.
Some of that may be my military background (when you're taking direct fire, it might be better to go left or to go right, but if you stand in the open arguing about it the question is soon moot as you'll all be dead.) But there are other reasons, and it's not just because I'm nice or unwilling to speak out.
It's because only two things are possible then - I'm either right, or I'm wrong. If I'm right, it'll be obvious enough on it's own. If I'm wrong, then Hey! - I learned something.
But if I actively try to undermine (or even sabotage) the effort than I actually just muddle the issue. I make it easier for them to believe the problem was my lack of support, rather than their own bad idea. Sure, they may still finger point and find some other excuse (and life is complicated enough that they might even be right)...but at least I'm not the one providing the fig leaf.
Which means that, barring extreme cases like I listed above, once the decision has been made I'll do what I can to make it work. (This has caused problems, of course, since sometimes I find myself trying to tell my people to follow a policy I personally don't agree with in the first place. Deciding when it's too much is a personal decision we all have to make for ourselves.)
So anyways. When thousands of women protested Donald Trump the day after his inauguration, I felt it was a little - premature. I get why they did it, I understand and saw some of the same things they did, and I won't tell them they shouldn't do it. But I, personally, did not participate and did not feel it was the right time. (I know I have a personal line where I would take action. I did call my Representative about healthcare, for all the good it did. Don't plan on voting for him in the next election, but I wasn't really planning to in the first place. I do plan to vote, obviously. And if someone actually tried doing something stupid like forcing Muslims to register I'd probably go down and register as Muslim myself...because that's Just Not Right. But I'm throwing that out there as an obvious example of what would cross the line, not as an indication I think it will happen or that there isn't a line before that.)
The thing is, Donald Trump has been so embattled by opposition that it almost makes you feel sorry for him. Plus he really puts a bee in the bonnet of all the rather self-satisfied and insular 'establishment' that we all like to hate so much. But then he keeps tweeting horrible things, and suggesting horrible policies, and hiring horrible people. It's like...the Democrats are giving him a fig leaf, except it's a bit too small to cover up all the problems.
So to bring this back to my earlier point, that becoming president is a guarantee of your place in the history books...
Donald Trump has achieved a level of name recognition that must be close to what he's clearly desired. Yet he can't really appreciate that, and go through the stages of figuring out who he is without that driving need for recognition, because in a way that name recognition is threatened by the massive level of opposition (and in some cases, I'm sure, active sabotage.)
So he feels threatened and lashes out. All of which makes things even worse, of course.
I don't know if that's true or not, since I can't recall where I read it and can't find a link (searching 'Trump', 'bridge' and 'architect' brings up a whole bunch of other stuff). If true, though, I think it shows something about Trump's driving need for recognition. Something anyone with any passing familiarity with him would recognize, since he plasters his name on everything. (obligatory warning: I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist, I do not know him personally, and I'm just guessing based on things I've read and seen. Take it for what it's worth).
This obviously sets him apart from other wealthy individuals, since many are not well-known outside their own circles. Your average person can name someone like Warren Buffet or Bill Gates, but not much beyond that. It's assumed celebrities and CEOs are at that level of wealth, as well, though you shouldn't always make that assumption. And if you've been paying attention to wealth inequality and our political troubles, you'd know that the Senate and House of Representatives are mostly composed of millionaires.
I don't know what created such an intense drive for recognition, of course. But for someone desperate to get his name out there, becoming president should ease some of that pressure. I mean, say what you will about Trump (and I disagree with much about him), nobody is going to forget his name any time soon.
Children will learn to recite President Trump along with all the other presidents they get taught about in school. Historians will be debating his presidency fifty years or more from now, just as they still write about Andrew Jackson, Richard Nixon, Lyndon B. Johnson, and even the less well known presidents (like Rutherford B. Hayes, John Tyler, Franklin Pierce, etc. Though who could forget the sideburns on President Martin Van Buren?)
Now, it's one thing to make it into the history books. It's another thing to be considered a positive force in history. Hence why so many people like to discuss a president's (any president's) legacy. You may get recited by schoolchildren, but do you want to go down as a George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and FDR? A Richard Nixon or Warren Harding? Or just get as close to forgotten as any president can get, like some of the presidents I listed above?
So here you've got this guy who is highly driven for name recognition, and to a certain extent he's achieved that. (That would be disturbing to anybody, in and of itself, since once you've achieved a lifelong goal you're left wondering "what next?" Once you've reached the summit, what purpose do you have?)
Except I don't think he's had time to reflect on that, and as embattled as he's been since before he even took office, I doubt he considers it achieved.
I'm going to take a slight detour now, but it's with a sense of purpose I promise.
I, like almost anyone who has ever held a job, have sometimes been overruled and the group decides to do something I don't agree with. (Shocking, I know!). For the most part, I believe in contributing to the discussion while it's still a discussion...but once that decision has been made you have to support the decision. With certain exceptions, like if it's immoral, illegal, or unethical of course.
Some of that may be my military background (when you're taking direct fire, it might be better to go left or to go right, but if you stand in the open arguing about it the question is soon moot as you'll all be dead.) But there are other reasons, and it's not just because I'm nice or unwilling to speak out.
It's because only two things are possible then - I'm either right, or I'm wrong. If I'm right, it'll be obvious enough on it's own. If I'm wrong, then Hey! - I learned something.
But if I actively try to undermine (or even sabotage) the effort than I actually just muddle the issue. I make it easier for them to believe the problem was my lack of support, rather than their own bad idea. Sure, they may still finger point and find some other excuse (and life is complicated enough that they might even be right)...but at least I'm not the one providing the fig leaf.
Which means that, barring extreme cases like I listed above, once the decision has been made I'll do what I can to make it work. (This has caused problems, of course, since sometimes I find myself trying to tell my people to follow a policy I personally don't agree with in the first place. Deciding when it's too much is a personal decision we all have to make for ourselves.)
So anyways. When thousands of women protested Donald Trump the day after his inauguration, I felt it was a little - premature. I get why they did it, I understand and saw some of the same things they did, and I won't tell them they shouldn't do it. But I, personally, did not participate and did not feel it was the right time. (I know I have a personal line where I would take action. I did call my Representative about healthcare, for all the good it did. Don't plan on voting for him in the next election, but I wasn't really planning to in the first place. I do plan to vote, obviously. And if someone actually tried doing something stupid like forcing Muslims to register I'd probably go down and register as Muslim myself...because that's Just Not Right. But I'm throwing that out there as an obvious example of what would cross the line, not as an indication I think it will happen or that there isn't a line before that.)
The thing is, Donald Trump has been so embattled by opposition that it almost makes you feel sorry for him. Plus he really puts a bee in the bonnet of all the rather self-satisfied and insular 'establishment' that we all like to hate so much. But then he keeps tweeting horrible things, and suggesting horrible policies, and hiring horrible people. It's like...the Democrats are giving him a fig leaf, except it's a bit too small to cover up all the problems.
So to bring this back to my earlier point, that becoming president is a guarantee of your place in the history books...
Donald Trump has achieved a level of name recognition that must be close to what he's clearly desired. Yet he can't really appreciate that, and go through the stages of figuring out who he is without that driving need for recognition, because in a way that name recognition is threatened by the massive level of opposition (and in some cases, I'm sure, active sabotage.)
So he feels threatened and lashes out. All of which makes things even worse, of course.
No comments:
Post a Comment