Friday, September 4, 2015

Peggy Noonan on the Candidates

I don’t know where you go to find engaging insights into human psychology, but I would recommend that you avoid the psychiatrists. Some psychologists, those of the cognitive and even those of the social psychology variety often have interesting things to say, but one needs to be careful: their theories are often contaminated by ideology. Certainly, you should ignore the psychoanalysts… but I’ve said that before.

In truth, you do not go out looking for insights into human psychology. As Picasso once said, you find them. Today I found an interesting tidbit in a column by Peggy Noonan. Admittedly she is uncredentialed, but as David Foster has often pointed out, we suffer from a tyranny of credentialism. One way to counteract it is to take seriously people who do not have advanced degrees in psycho subjects. Like Peggy Noonan.

After all, Peggy Noonan is a speechwriter. In the old days she would have been an authority on rhetoric, the art of persuading people and of moving an audience. Someone who write speeches must have some very good ideas about audience psychology.

In her column today, Noonan was musing about the candidacies of Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. She chose well, given that the two candidates who once seemed inevitable now appear, in her word, to be “evitable.”

All things considered, Noonan believes that Jeb, having a lot of money on hand, will not go down without a fight. I do not know whether he will ever be able to lay a glove on Trump, but if he feels he has nothing to lose he might rouse himself from his torpor.

To Noonan, Hillary is floundering. A candidate who seemed great on paper seems mediocre and incompetent in the flesh.

As everyone knows, Donald Trump seems to have developed a new kind of Teflon. Not only does nothing seem to penetrate it, but any shots fired in its direction seem to boomerang on the assailant.

Noonan borrows an idea from Chris Christie and suggests that the only person who can really bring down Donald Trump is Donald Trump. One day, perhaps, Trump will sabotage himself. Then again, perhaps it’s all a whole load of wishful Establishment thinking.

But, why would someone who is riding so high sabotage himself. Noonan answers that what might look like self-sabotage is the dawning sense of reality. A candidacy might have begun as the glimmer of an idea in someone’s head. It might have seemed like an interesting and fun thing to do. When you are a colossus in the business world, you have nothing to lose. As everyone likes to say, Trump is more vigorous and intemperate than anyone else because he has nothing to lose.

But, if said candidate, who might have done it for his brand or even on a lark, starts thinking he can win, he might start thinking about whether or not he can really do the job. If he thinks that a 79 year-old billionaire investor is best qualified to be Treasury Secretary... perhaps he's not ready for prime time.

Noonan writes:

My thought, which is really a question, is that candidates for president, while natural competitors, sometimes get to the point where they think they are going to win, and it messes with their heads. Maybe they fear, deep down, that they’re not quite up to the office—their skills don’t match its demands, their psychological makeup can’t withstand its burdens. They start to think: A guy like me shouldn’t be president! At that point they begin to undermine themselves with poor decisions and statements. I’ve wondered about what Mr. Trumps’s inner workings might tell him in this area. Sooner or later we’ll find out if he has any taste for self-sabotage.

Then, Noonan adds a caveat:

That of course would only happen if in his mind the White House, the office of the presidency, holds a certain mystique, certain historic vibrations: “Lincoln walked here.” “FDR found out about Pearl Harbor in this room.” I’m not sure everyone has those feelings anymore. They used to. Poor Nixon wouldn’t put his shoes up on a hassock unless he covered it with a towel, because it was White House furniture.

I am not totally with her on the last point. If you have been a great success in two fields of endeavor—like real estate and reality television—becoming the presidency of the United States puts you in a position to damage your reputation… irremediably. If you fill up your speeches with encomia to your own greatness, do you really want to risk it all on a job where you are going to have to walk the walk?

Trump has shown uncommon skill in beating down the media, both the liberal and conservative media, but dealing with foreign leaders and foreign policy crises is quite something else-- especially when you do not even know the names of the players.

One might say, justly, that our current president, a walking mediocrity who found himself in over his head has seemed to be able to rise above it all. He can sell out the nation and convince his political party and many in the mainstream media to continue to sing his praises. But Barack Obama did not bring a good reputation into the White House in the first place. He did not ride in on the back of significant political or business achievements.

Trump has nothing to lose by running. He has a lot to lose if he becomes president.

Of course, a nominee or a President Trump would not have the media on his side. For now the leftist media has, for the most part, refrained from criticizing him. After all, he is, in large part, the answer to their dreams.

Conservatives have been much harder on Trump than any liberals have. Which ought to tell his supporters something. Apparently, it has not.

And yet, if Trump is the nominee or if Trump is the president, the tone will shift and Trump will be demonized to within an inch of his life. Perhaps he will find sustenance in the attacks. Perhaps his supporters will love him more than ever. And yet, if the whole world thinks you are a fool or a clown or a malevolent force, you will have sacrificed a towering reputation… for what?

And what happens when you do not really make America great again? Are you going to accept being exposed as a poser, a snake-oil salesman who should have stuck to real estate? Why take the risk?

5 comments:

Ares Olympus said...

Stuart: And what happens when you do not really make America great again? Are you going to accept being exposed as a poser, a snake-oil salesman who should have stuck to real estate? Why take the risk?

Excellent questions. And the psychology of "wanting vs having", as long as you're a long shot you're in the moment, but if success becomes imaginable, then the long slog of 4 years of being responsible for every bad thing that happens to anyone seems less fun.

Like I first learned about this psychology in my late 20s from a woman friend who spent 2-3 years trying to get her boyfriend to propose, and it wasn't until he really proposed that she had to face her own doubts and uncertainty what she wanted the future to look like, and whether her fiance would be the provider she wanted, whether she could really depend on him to be there when she needed him.

I don't know if I like the characterization of "poser", that is to say I accept we're all imposters in whatever roles we're playing, and whatever duties we promise for the future, we can't be sure we'll be up to those duties, or find them as attractive as they seemed when they were just about status and adoration.

But even if we're all posers, I imagine Trump wille eventually see winning the GOP nomination and the risk of being the third failed GOP bride for America, who wants that sort of failure. Its better to go out on your own terms, lose on purpose, and perhaps that is his strategy - when you don't care if you win, you can say anything.

It is much more fun to NOT be a candidate, and watch the horse-race and be glad they can carry all the grandiosity and humiliation that is America, and the rest of us can just throw our tomatoes at the appropriate losers, and complain when they give us the big show we begged for.

Anonymous said...

It was said FDR "had a 2nd class intellect, and a 1st class character." It's Character by a mile for a POTUS.
V penetrating analysis of the qualms a Good man must feel at the prospect of being POTUS. (BTW, El Chapo, who's probably wealthier, has a contract out on Trump.)
Trump is a grandstander. But so was TR.
Unlike TR, he has no experience in government - unless currying favor and manipulating politicians counts. I think it does today.
Does he have the Character? Do any of the candidates? I don't think we'll know until one of them takes office.
I'm convinced he's a Patriot, a Nationalist, a Populist. A v bright man w/tons of charisma (originally a religious term) and energy (vigor, per JFK). No money lust, no interest in being loved by the Elites. I doubt he worries about his historical legacy.
Many Common People like & trust him. More as time goes on. Despite his gaffes.
If he wins, I pray to God (if there is a God) he has the Character. During every crisis, America has had a POTUS of Character. I hope our luck continues. -- Rich Lara

Scullman said...

Well, I guess that settles it. We're not in a crisis, and haven't been for six and half years.

'Cause we sure as hell don't have a POTUS with character.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

"One day, perhaps, Trump will sabotage himself."
I believe this is likely. Especially if he keeps piling on with Megyn Kelly, which is an unnecessary sideshow.

"When you are a colossus in the business world, you have nothing to lose."
Incorrect. When you are a colossus in the business world -- especially real estate -- you get there by hard work, and a determination to win. Trump wants to win, Trump likes to win. Trump likes negotiation because it's a game. When you meet true business competitors with a lot of money, they will tell you that the challenges and games just scale... the game keeps going on, and it gets bigger. Trump makes billion-dollar contracts. It's a high-stakes game. He has an army of lawyers and accountants to protect his wealth and create entities that spread out his risk. He's never going to be destitute. But he gets up every day and keeps playing the game. Why would you do that if it were just about the money? He's got enough money. He enjoys the game, and loves to win. Like Patton said, Americans love winners.

"... but dealing with foreign leaders and foreign policy crises is quite something else-- especially when you do not even know the names of the players."
I suspect he will destabilize world diplomacy because people will not know what to do with him. The German high command was most concerned about Gen. Patton, because he was brilliant, ruthless, and played to win. Always. The Soviets were scared of Reagan (especially after he fired all the PATCO ATC strikers) because he was unlike the political figures and diplomats they'd previously dealt with. He had balls, and zeroed right into the Soviets' greatest weakness -- their economy -- and bankrupted it. Cold War victory without firing a shot. And again, I want to deal with this issue of Trump not knowing "the names of the players." He will learn them if he wins, because he'll have to. But he'll have an entire State Department to worry about all that. As for Hugh Hewitt's Jeopardy roster of Islamists, I'm quite confident that Trump's policy will be to vanquish and vaporize them, and that'll be okey-dokey with a wide majority of the American public.

"Trump has nothing to lose by running. He has a lot to lose if he becomes president."
One could say any of the non-political candidates have nothing to lose. But Trump has a lot to lose... he could lose. Trump's brand is all about winning. Do you think his business empire is getting the close scrutiny it may deserve in his absence? He has a lot at stake. But let's do a thought experiment: If you think he has nothing to lose by running, that makes him even more dangerous to the people of the political class who have a lot to lose.

"One might say, justly, that our current president, a walking mediocrity who found himself in over his head has seemed to be able to rise above it all... He did not ride in on the back of significant political or business achievements."
Yeah, Obama fancies himself the king of cool. He works very hard on his image in that way. But if you study him and his decisions, he's incredibly thin-skinned, and doesn't like to be criticized. He demonizes his opponents. He's a profligate spender, eschewing fiscal responsibility. He's very self-conscious about his legacy. He harbors deep resentments and venom for his political opponents. On these last two items, he has recently begun to direct that energy at Hillary Clinton. In terms of Obama not riding on the back of significant achievements, he was an empty vessel in 2008. People poured into him whatever they wanted. His pronouncements were delightfully vague. He was a celebrity candidate. In 2012, he had no achievements, and ran a campaign based solely on destroying his opponent's reputation for achievement. Trump may be a celebrity, but he's also his own man.

-- Cont'd below --

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

-- Cont'd from above --

"Conservatives have been much harder on Trump than any liberals have. Which ought to tell his supporters something. Apparently, it has not."
Well, of course. And their mouths are agape in disbelief, terrified as they realize they've lost control of the Jeb coronation. They don't know what to say. Not one of my Lefty friends has razzed me about Trump, and they know I don't support him, which would give them benign opportunity to do so. They don't know what to do about him. He is unabashedly the opposite of politically correct. He attacks millionaire press figures. He's playing to win. The so-called legacy Conservative leaders are the same way. It's like seeing the creature of the black lagoon, except this one insists on speaking English, has a wicked sense of humor and doesn't back off. People are transfixed, like they cannot believe it's going on. I'm not a supporter, but that's what it's telling me.

"Why take the risk?"
I don't know. Maybe in the deep recesses of his psyche, beyond his ego, he believes this country is going in the wrong direction, and wants to do something about it. That's the optimistic side of me, the one that yearns for someone with character and integrity.

One last thing on playing to win... Our nation's tradition in war was to destroy the enemy and conclude wars by unconditional surrender. Since the conclusion of World War II we haven't won a war because we have not defined our enemy and unleashed the military and industrial might of America to vanquish our foes. We've done limited wars, police actions, and hamstrung our commanders in the name of television politics. When we once again don't care what other people think, we will win wars. We will completely incapacitate our foe's ability to wage war and tell other nations to not even try to screw with us as we occupy and rebuild the defeated... or they'll be next. That's the way we used to do things in the USA.

This country has been on a pride hiatus. We have a president who negotiates with our greatest enemy in the world at the expense of our greatest ally in the world's most volatile region. We give in to Cuba. We embrace Hugo Chavez. We lead from behind. We bow to foreign monarchs and apologize to peoples we mean no ill toward. We divide our country and attack law enforcement because we're told we are seething racists. We let the Chinese dictate terms to us. It's crazy.

I suspect a great many people see Donald Trump as the antidote to all this malaise. I'm waiting for Obama to tell me to turn down my thermostat and tell me to wear a sweater. Trump may be a lot of negative things, many of them awful, but he's a winner. And like Patton said, America loves a winner.