Since the coronavirus descended, Donald Trump has committed a series of political blunders that have undone prior presidents. Because he seems to defy the laws of political gravity, this might not make much difference in November. Right now, though, polling suggests that it already is. Considering presidential history, it certainly should.
The first classic mistake is an underlying condition—plain incompetence. Warren Harding (1921-1923) knew that he was out of his depth in the White House. “My God,” he once exclaimed, “this is a hell of a job!” The realization raised Harding’s level of insecurity and anxiety the way that Trump’s outbreaks of ranting, shouting, and tweeting reveal his. To Harding’s credit, he was perfectly honest about his predicament: “I am not fit for this office and never should have been here.” He presided over one of the most corrupt administrations in American history because he could not say no to what he called “my God-damned friends.” His dilemma resolved itself with a fatal heart attack.
Gnawing anxiety did not afflict Herbert Hoover (1929-1933). He emerged from World War I with a reputation as the world’s outstanding humanitarian, for having administered the wartime American food and economic relief program in Europe. He seemed exactly the man to confront the Great Depression when it struck in 1929. Or was he? Hoover did more than any prior president to combat a depression. It was not enough. Leery of giving federal aid to needy Americans (as opposed to needy Europeans), he feared it would undermine their character. In his final days in office, he declared: “We have done all we can do; there is nothing more to be done.” The precedent for today’s multi-billion and multi-trillion-dollar relief packages was set by Hoover’s successor, Franklin D. Roosevelt. Having initially embraced FDR’s spending strategy, Trump is now undecided about more such outlays to needy Americans, at a time when even conservative economists declare that more outlays are vital. Trump runs the risk of Hoover’s fate. Like Trump with Covid-19, Hoover continually insisted that conditions were getting better—that prosperity was just around the corner despite 25 percent unemployment, homelessness, and starvation. Hoover spent the 1930s casting blame on his successor in much the way Trump blames his predecessor.
A classic example of donning a straitjacket like Hoover’s is the tragedy of Lyndon Johnson (1964-1969). American leaders stepped into the Vietnam quagmire with considerable anxiety that the war was unwinnable. But Johnson believed he had no choice: “If I don’t go in now and they show later that I should have, then they’ll be all over me in Congress. They won’t be talking about my civil rights bill, or education or [highway] beautification. No sir, … Vietnam, Vietnam, Vietnam.” He became utterly single-minded about Vietnam, in the way that Trump has taken a damn-the-torpedoes position on reopening the country, “vaccine or no vaccine.” The consequences forced Johnson out of the 1968 presidential race.
The case of Johnson, like that of Harding, cautions strongly against electing to the presidency a deeply insecure person who feels besieged by friends, enemies, or both; but neither makes the case as strongly as Richard Nixon (1969-1974). White House Counsel John Dean characterized Nixon’s notorious, secret “enemies list” as a means of “dealing with persons known to be active in their opposition to our Administration; stated a bit more bluntly—how we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.” The remarkable thing about Watergate is that, from Nixon’s political standpoint, the break-in proved utterly unnecessary: in 1972 he won 49 states with 520 electoral votes. Donald Trump, who distrusts humankind in general, makes no secret of whom he regards as his enemies. He fires inspectors general; he threatens states that want to vote by mail; his remarks about Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi could blister skin. Is he capable of comprehending Nixon’s words in his farewell speech to the White House staff? “Always remember, others may hate you, but those who hate you don’t win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself.”
Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) provides another case study that Trump might heed, had he a mind to—projecting helplessness. By his own admission, Carter became almost obsessive about the Iran Hostage crisis. Four hundred-forty-four days of constant press coverage highlighted Carter’s impotence, evoking, in Richard Nixon’s phrase, an image of America as a “pitiful, helpless giant.” In recent weeks there has emerged an op-ed literature at home and abroad inviting pity for a United States that, with no one at the helm, cannot find a course to steer. For Carter, the press drumbeat was a nightmare. Trump, though, feeds on corona publicity, staging press conferences featuring misinformation, wishful thinking, and eccentric medical advice. This may reassure his base, but it also spotlights his powerlessness over a mysterious, rampaging disease. Corona may wane; it may not; and what if, in the fall, it roars back?
Trump owns the corona crisis, like any other property, and he makes himself look weak.
In turning coronavirus policy over to the states, and leadership in the crisis over to governors such as Andrew Cuomo and Gavin Newsom, Trump has reverted to the precedent of yet another predecessor, James Buchanan (1857-1861). As the Civil War came on and the United States began to unravel, Buchanan froze. He considered slavery evil but denied that Washington had any authority to interfere with it. He thought the states had no right to secede from the Union but drew the line at stopping them. Seven slave states had walked out before Abraham Lincoln replaced Buchanan. Trump raises anew the federal-state conundrum, a question we had considered settled. For 160 years, Buchanan held the record for dithering in a crisis. Now he has a challenger.
Each of these past presidencies poses a warning to Trump, whose frequent allusions to history—“I believe I am treated worse” than Lincoln—demonstrate that he does not know any history. In conversation after conversation with other historians, I have heard them declare that they would bring back any prior president to replace the current one. I certainly would. No past president has remotely threatened the foundations of American democracy the way Trump has. The corruption around the White House today makes Harding’s cronies look like dime store shoplifters. No president has lied with the wild abandon Trump displays. And while a few earlier presidents have struggled with mental decline or depression, none prior to Trump has been unhinged. Compared to Trump, a James Buchanan or a Warren Harding seems strikingly balanced. As Theodore Roosevelt’s daughter Alice once remarked, “Harding was not a bad man. He was just a slob.”
About the writer. John Broesamle is Emeritus Professor of History at California State University, Northridge. His books on American politics and society include Reform and Reaction in Twentieth Century American Politics, Twelve Great Clashes that Shaped Modern America: From Geronimo to George W. Bush (with Anthony Arthur), and, most recently, How American Presidents Succeed and Why They Fail: From Richard Nixon to Barack Obama.
About the artist. The portrait of Donald Trump is by Sandy Treadwell whose work may be viewed at sandytreadwell.com. In an earlier life Sandy was New York Secretary of State from 1995-2001 and Chairman of the New York Republican State Committee from 2001-2004. From 2004-2008, he was a member of the Republican National Committee from New York.
Madge Schaefer’s third sentence in her comments on John Broesamle’s Guest Blog led me to believe her judgment is questionable. As a moderate Republican whose beliefs line up side-by-side with John’s, I find it easy to call him “one of the nicest…” but hard to qualify that sentence with “liberals” as did Ms. Schaefer, who goes on to admit she’s taken to watching the White House press conferences. That statement confirms her judgment is not to be trusted. As a Republican and a simple human being who is neither a student of history nor a news junkie, I stopped watching these poorly disguised campaign rallies. As for John’s “questionable sources” they are the president’s own words. As for the president’s promised goals, if Ms. Schaefer can actually find them it might make a nice Guest Blog. Of course she would have to read more print journalism and watch less cable news, since the current administration has reminded us television is geared to be entertaining.
I’m not writing this simply to defend the thoughtful writings of a learned historian’s approach to the current dilemmas facing our country, but to defend the Rinocracy Blog itself. I find this to be a very fair haven for “Republicans in exile,” as well as comforting in the blog’s tagline with clarity for all and malice toward none. In keeping with that, I will omit comments about Ms. Schaeffer’s lack of clarity in favor of malice regarding Nancy Pelosi and refrain from mentioning anybody’s skin and hair.
A brilliant historical perspective on Trump’s presidency which I found very clarifying and valuable. I personally wish it could be read by every American, but that’s my optimism and love of placing realities into a historical context speaking. I’ve often wondered how historians years from now might write about Trump. Now I believe I’ve just been treated to a preview! Thanks so much.
Well said John. I only disagree with one point. I think Buchanan should have let the south secede and wished them well on their way. Just think how different our politics would be if we didn’t have to consider opinions from below the mason Dixon Line. Trump would have found our part of America uncongenial and would have had to content himself with screwing up Florida politics from his home at Mar y Lago.. I write this as a DOC but more importantly as a DAR!
I guess I shouldn’t presume to comment, as I am no historian. But I thought Jon Meacham, who is a historian, said it best a few days ago when he commented that we’ve never had a President so publicly express the level of “self-pity and rage,” Trump routinely does (daily/multiple times daily)…and as near as I can tell, to the exclusion of almost everything else.
My own theory (not that anyone shd care…see “not historian,” above) is that Trump neither understood nor really wanted the “job.” He expected to lose, and as anathema as the notion of “being a loser” is to him, he intended to (1) claim that he lost due only to voter fraud; and (2) use the platform he’d gained to tout his “simplistic solutions” to complex problems on his own TV show, and attack the incumbent (in this case, Hillary Clinton, but wouldn’t have mattered).
As to the first prong of my theory, the “tell” was evidenced by his post-election victory assertion that “people from Massachusetts were bused into New Hampshire” to cost him that state. Why would he bother to do that when he won?The answer in my judgment is that he had prepared similar accusations to wield against a few of the other battlegrounds (e.g., people in Chicago bused into Wisconsin; people in NJ/NY/DE bused into PA), not to mention “illegal aliens” voting in Florida. Of course since he won WI, PA and FL, no need to unleash those accusations. (But note that he made the “illegal alien voter” accusation re: California, a state whose electoral vote loss he did not dispute, but to assert that he would have won the nationwide popular vote too, but for the “illegal alien voting” in CA.)
As to the second prong, it has been said Trump was consulting with media moguls about establishing his own TV network/show…granted perhaps not true…and we’ll never know.
I return to Jon Meacham’s phrase “self pity and rage” as the apparent theme of the Trump Administration. I have no doubt that all people who have held the impossible job of US President have felt plenty of both…and that all of them were surprised by how difficult it was…but that most of them felt a calling to lead and unite, and to achieve at least a few things of substance.
The historians on this blog can perhaps disabuse me of such romantic notions, but I’m reading “The Splendid and the Vile” right now, and would recommend it to anyone interested in learning how skilled leaders, even with all their human flaws, perform in periods of dire crisis.
Being a history professor, it seems fairly safe to assume John Broesamle researched other sources than the TV news! Certainly he gave us some interesting perspective on other Presidents’ weaknesses, perhaps to diplomatically level the playing field to a certain extent. No one has done the job without error.
But regardless of one’s sources, the extraordinary turnover in the White House under Trump’s direction creates an unstable and inexperienced administration with which to run our country. His disregard for our allies and trade partners undermines our national security and our economy. Despite the strong stock market, our debt load as a country has been vaulting steadily into the stratosphere, exacerbated by his early tax bill that favored the wealthy and reduced taxes for those who could most afford to pay them! So we are at even more of a disadvantage financially as we face the expenses resulting from a global pandemic. As world events unfold, Trump’s primary focus remains on himself. He sees himself as either the smartest person on the planet and/or the person most victimized. There has been no better illustration of this than his response to the challenges of leading our country through the impact of COVID-19. It’s clear that he wants the trappings of power – which he has – but not the actual responsibility of it. Trump’s very best move (and a rare sharing of the podium) was to let Dr. Anthony Fauci speak to the nation.
There are just too many drawbacks to having Trump as the leader of our country, regardless of what resources one listens to or reads. If history can find evidence of achievements, they will no doubt be briefly noted.
How many days until the election? Will we still be able to vote by mail?
I read Dr Broesamle’s viewpoint with great interest. I have known John for many years and admire his intellect. He is among the nicest liberals I know! He and his bride have done much to make this world a better place. Back in the day, John and I would discuss issues over a bottle of fine wine. Often, we would agree to disagree.
I must respectfully question the sources for the harsh judgement of President Trump. As a student of history, I am also somewhat of a news junkie. I have taken to watching the White House press conferences. The news reports that follow often astound me as things are taken out of context and embellished. That raises the question of John’s sources—CNN, MSNBC, Fox?
Being President is no easy job. What training exists? The last presidential election gave us a choice—Clinton, who is responsible for the horrible Benghazi tragedy, where the closest military help was told to stand down (my source is military personnel who had first hand knowledge of the stand down order) or the brash braggart who promised to empty the swamp?
From the first day after election, President Trump has been disrespected and subjected to outrageous “investigations”. Yet he has persisted in his promised goals.
Then came the coronavirus. At every turn, beginning with the shutdown of China travelers, where President Trump was called racist and Nancy Pelosi visited San Francisco Chinatown assuring people there was “no problem” to the President stating he could determine state shutdowns and the governors screaming states rights, the President was damned. For good measure let’s throw in the hydroxychloroquine issue. This “dangerous” drug was taken by troops during the Vietnam War and is still prescribed today to anyone traveling in most of the African continent. It is, like any other drug including aspirin, dangerous to some medical conditions. Using it for Covid19 is off label but so is the Botox use on Nancy Pelosi’s face. Both work to improve outcomes in some patients.
Hindsight is 20/20. I hope that the Trump years in history will be told, not by MSNBC, CNN or Fox but by what was achieved and what failed in an unbiased manner.
Thanks so much for sharing this; it’s just brilliant. As depressing as these times are, as described in John’s piece, I found it quite uplifting for its clarity and its historical perspective. If I can’t copy it in my computer, I may ask you for a copy. Meanwhile, the lengthy responses reflect how strongly affecting John’s words were. Thanks again, Tom
Comments are closed.