institutions versus individuals

what could be ahead?

The campaign remarks Donald Trump proclaimed in New Hampshire over the weekend are the most radical position any candidate ever presented the U.S. voter. Characterising some undefined number of citizens as ‘vermin’, certainly Fascist anti-Semitic code, presages his desire to treat those people as less than citizens, depriving them of their constitutional guarantees and safety. It was fiery, provocative, violent, probably somewhat ad-libbed but assuredly a chilling message regarding his plans should he ever return as head of state.

Trump made no pretense to broaden his appeal beyond those who most vocally and openly support him as head of an unparalleled movement in American history. He does not care that his avowed pride on ‘delivering’ the Roe decision remains a rallying cry for millions unwilling to accept the repudiation of a woman’s right to health care. Nor does he seem concerned that many other aspects of his polarising remarks expunge the interests of millions of Americans.

That he remains the competitive front runner of the Grand Old Party is bewildering.

Similarly shocking is disrespect for anyone who has ever worn the uniform. Trump’s speeches over the years drop numerous hints of the need to use violence against opposition at home but it appears the bulk of military in uniform and as veterans only listen selectively to his thoughts and actions. The overwhelming characterisation I heard from military officers over the 1990s about Bill Clinton was ‘an adulterer, a pot smoker, and a draft dodger. Trump matches Clinton on two out of three (including two divorces which Clinton can’t claim) yet Trump suffers negligible damage politically. The label dogged Clinton for years and I can’t believe that pot smoking was what these people truly focused on. They did not like the behaviour but now thirty years later they see Trump as so strong. It’s a curious turn for a segment of society so sensitive to the behaviours Trump prefers.

I suspect Trump’s use of rhetoric revolving around using force appeals to many but that is merely a thought I can’t prove and don’t intend to pursue.

Reports circulate of crass remarks the former president makes privately about the men and women who serve us around the world but his antipathy certainly appears openly centered on two men, both genuine combatants.

Trump’s disdain for the late Senator John McCain first appeared during the 2016 campaign. In an eye opening proclamation early in his first campaign, Trump rejected John McCain’s as states as a ‘war hero’ because the latter had been captured. North Vietnamese forces shot down his A-4E in October 1967, which McCain survived with severe injuries. He then spent five and a half years incarcerated, beaten, and put into solitary confinement. McCain refused release unless all previous captured airmen also went home. He endured physical disfigurement for the remainder of his life. By most people’s definition, John McCain’s determination not to abandon fellow pilots made him a war hero.

Trump discussed McCain not in terms of his endurance, grit, determination, and sacrifices—and our associated thanks—but as an inadequacy, focusing on the shoot down as a faux pas rather than the survival as a triumph to be celebrated by one and all. Both Trump and McCain were privileged within their own spheres, with the former president the heir to his father’s real estate company and McCain the son and grandson of Admirals. Trump seemed completely unable to grasp why McCain put commitment to the nation over personal safety in going, much less respect for comrades over comfort. The men were bitter enemies within the Republican party through McCain’s death in 2018. Trump never could see the value of standing for something bigger than one’s self.

Similarly, Trump came to despise the Green Beret he so proudly chose as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff the year after McCain passed. Trump chose Milley over the Chief of Staff of the Air Force who both the outgoing Chairman and the Secretary of Defense advocated for the position. In absolute military tradition, POTUS made the choice, probably because Milley’s reputation was that of a gutsy warrior and brainy Princeton graduate. A man using force to push his thoughts.

The Chairman’s role in our system, of course, is as chief military advisor to the President. Trump came to hate Milley for honouring his oath of office—to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic—above any individual in power. Milley differed dramatically with Trump on interpreting ‘domestic enemies’ and how to respond to the problem.

Trump’s recent comments that Milley should be hung for treason as a result of acting upon that interpretation. Treason, like vermin, is not a word one uses lightly or without forethought in our society.

Trump evidently views the military, like the other tools of the state, as personal rather than collective for the whole of the 340 million Americans. That is his personal prerogative, of course, but his view uniquely shocks me as a retired public servant and as a citizen. Why is this so troubling? It’s such a short distance between condemning those who oppose you and the decision to disenfranchise, and ultimately strip them of their citizenship.

I have said before that I am an institutionalist rather than a personalist. I have held that view my entire life. I don’t think any institution is perfect; none is. Nor is each and every human (and by extension person holding the role as head of state) perfect. The fundamentals of rules governing our society must be inclusive for ALL those who were born here—period. This is indisputable to me. Those immigrants who pass through the rigourous process of achieving citizenship earn the same respect and application of the rules. The Constitution is crystal clear on this.

Those who are not citizens do not have the same rights as citizens but they deserve the most basic respect as humans. I fully understand this is where things really start fraying across our society. It is here that the innate American sense of justice starts to become harder as hundreds of millions of us do not share basic measures of what treatment of others entails, especially for those vulnerable in their status. We like to think of ourselves as kind, human, and fair but not in all cases. I will leave this topic for another day but wanted to acknowledge it as part of who and what is at stake.

The former president’s positions on everyone—repeat everyone—else’s rights appears malleable at best. Trump’s clearly stated intention to punish those who thwarted or disrespected him could result in rash moves to dismantle institutions he found most troublesome, such as the Department of Justice, FBI, and non-conforming military officers. His life evidences a man who does not see institutional norms as something he embraces. He also assured us in the 2016 campaign that he values unpredictability as event showed. If given a second chance to rule, he is making clear a definite preference for unfettered and unchallenged decision-making and implementation. This would affect every single person in the United States with unknown consequences.

What would this mean for our society?

Thank you for reading Actions Create Consequences today. Thoughts? Rebuttals? I genuinely want to hear as this affects each and every one of us.

Be well and be safe.

Daniel D’addario and Zeke J. Miller, ‘Republicans Condemn Donald Trump After He Belittles John McCain’s War Record’, Time.com, 18 July 2015, retrieved at https://time.com/3963612/donald-trump-john-mccain-military-service/