We could be headed toward a “Snapchat presidency.”
That’s the view of New York Times columnist David Brooks, who, in a piece on Tuesday, propounded a possible scenario in which the relationship between President-elect Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin degenerates into a “schoolyard fight,” pushing the world toward the brink of a nuclear war.
That’s the kind of thing that kind happen, Brooks said, when a president detaches himself from “the system of governance he’ll soon oversee” and, instead, fires off Tweets that at least appear to represent policy statements.
“His statements should probably be treated less like policy declarations and more like Snapchat,” Brooks wrote. “They exist to win attention at the moment, but then they disappear.”
In that sense, Brooks went on, “Trump is not a national leader; he is a national show.”
It’s a given that Trump has a lot of personality. He can be very charming and entertaining. But think about it…Is that what we’re looking for in a president? What we’re looking for is a person with an even temperament who thoughtfully considers issues that affect all Americans, while getting advice and suggestions from trusted, knowledgeable people around him. And through that process he arrives at decisions that reflect the serious consideration those decisions deserve.
**
As I read that column Tuesday morning, it immediately brought to mind Episode Eight of “The Crown,” an outstanding Netflix series about Queen Elizabeth II’s long tenure on the throne and how she grew into the monarchy from the time she acceded to the throne when she was a young woman of 25.
I had just watched Episode Eight Monday night, and one of its plot lines offers parallels to the troubling signs Trump has been exhibiting.
…In 1954, Queen Elizabeth and her husband, Prince Phillip, were preparing to embark on a trip of many weeks to visit British colonies in an effort to shore up the standing of the British Empire. A sticky problem attending their departure, however, was how the headstrong Princess Margaret, the queen’s younger sister, would handle the royal duties while filling in for Elizabeth.
Princess Margaret, in 1957
President-elect Donald Trump
Their mother, Queen Mother Elizabeth, who was also going to be away from London, had pushed for more exposure for Princess Margaret in order to “give her a chance to shine.”
In a conversation between the sisters, Margaret vows to inject “character” into the monarchy while her sister is away. Elizabeth warns her against displaying “too much character, an excess of character.” This exchange ensues:
Elizabeth: “Just remember who you’re standing in for when I’m gone.”
Margaret: “My character-less sister.”
Elizabeth: “Your queen…not a showgirl.”
Margaret proceeds to do as Elizabeth and others around her had feared, going “off script,” tossing out inappropriate one-liners and offending important people with her loose tongue.
Her performances leave Prime Minister Winston Churchill irate, and he confronts Margaret and dresses her down.
“When you appear in public, performing official duties,” he says, “you are not you…No one wants you to be you; they want you to be it…The crown. That’s what they’ve come to see — not you. The minute you become yourself, you shatter the illusion; break the spell.”
He finishes by pointing out that Henry VIII — Elizabeth’s uncle several generations removed — tried to impose his individuality on the monarchy — “and he almost destroyed it in the process.”
**
It’s becoming very clear that, so far, Donald Trump is more interested in putting on a show than he is in learning the nuances of governance and preparing to accede to the presidency of the world’s most powerful nation.
Consider another passage from David Brooks:
“Trump…is a creature of the parts of TV and media where display is an end in itself. He is not really interested in power; his entire life has been about winning attention and status to build the Trump image for low-class prestige. The posture is the product.”
…At a time like this, I sure wish a Winston Churchill was nearby to dress him down and try to set him straight…It’s likely, of course, that not even a Churchill-scale figure could rein in Trump. With each passing day, the run-up to the inauguration is looking more like a Broadway production than a serious attempt to prepare for the heavy responsibility that lies ahead.
As we all know, the most important thing on Broadway is the show must go on.
We only see what we want to see; we only hear what we want to hear. Our belief system is just like a mirror that only shows us what we believe.
I’ve had the same fears, but I think I’m a little more optimistic (cock-eyed?) than you. I’m hoping he knuckles down and gets to the business of running the country, or at least has good people around to guide him.
I haven’t given up hope that the magnitude of the responsibility will register. He is a smart person. So far he’s just been masking it with raw meat he throws out to the frustrated masses.
One wonders whether the raw meat isn’t Trump the negotiator throwing out his initial bid, soon to retreat to a more rational position privately. That seems to be what he’s done on immigration, particularly given that many of his initial positions are unconstitutional and/or, structurally or legislatively impossible.
The Times bitching about Trump? I’m stunned. Who could have predicted that?
Trump has picked a collection of producers for his cabinet. You may not like what they’ll produce, but Trump appears to be serious about becoming a change agent. As I type, Pence is up on Capitol Hill working with Paul Ryan to dump Deathcare. I’m betting within weeks Brooks will be wishing that Trump would spend more time on Twitter and less time addressing policy issues.
Sadly, I don’t think so, Fitz. It’s more likely we’re in for Reagan Redux…and not gentle like before, but bad!
No one had ever entered the White House so grossly ill informed. At presidential news conferences, especially in his first year, Ronald Reagan embarrassed himself. On one occasion, asked why he advocated putting missiles in vulnerable places, he responded, his face registering bewilderment, “I don’t know but what maybe you haven’t gotten into the area that I’m going to turn over to the secretary of defense.” Frequently, he knew nothing about events that had been headlined in the morning newspaper. In 1984, when asked a question he should have fielded easily, Reagan looked befuddled, and his wife had to step in to rescue him. “Doing everything we can,” she whispered. “Doing everything we can,” the president echoed…
…Numbers of observers contended that Reagan conducted himself not as a ruler but as a ceremonial monarch. In the midst of heated exchanges, a diplomat noted, Reagan behaved like a “remote sort of king . . . just not there.” After taking in the president’s performance during a discussion of the budget in 1981, one of his top aides remarked that Reagan looked like “a king . . . who had assembled his subalterns to listen to what they had to say and to preside, sort of,” and another said, “He made decisions like an ancient king or a Turkish pasha, passively letting his subjects serve him, selecting only those morsels of public policy that were especially tasty. Rarely did he ask searching questions and demand to know why someone had or had not done something.” As a consequence, a Republican senator went so far as to say: “With Ronald Reagan, no one is there. The sad fact is that we don’t have a president.”
I see nothing, including the infighting and political jockeying of the Manchurian President-elect’s advisors, to make me believe the coming years will be any less dangerous.
And yet we’re still here. Who knows how many other “dangerous” presidents the country has survived?
Trite, but true.
I would, however, note that Italy is also still around…not that anyone cares.
How one survives, and why, makes a difference.