There are many who have made up their mind about Donald. Some see strengths in his extremely pragmatic judgment, which is counter to the conservative’s doctrinaire adherence to the Reagan era; some see opportunity in Donald’s intellect, that is, his ability to see the state of affairs differently; some see a new public representative to the corporate world and among the one-percent – those who believe corporatism is the path to US strength and prosperity.
Others see Donald as politically incompetent and dangerously uneducated at a time when certain mistakes and improper behavior may be destructive; some see disruption to the establishment by his disregard for old-school liaisons; some see a collapse of multidimensional government because he has no allegiance to public wellbeing.
Still others see Donald as morally corrupt and untrustworthy; some see life-long cronyism and business relationships dominating his perception of what is important; some see his narcissistic disorder, pathological lying and his aberrant ego as disqualifying.
To be honest, all these perceptions of Donald have some validity – some have more merit, others less. Factually, Donald does not react normally to doctrine, morality and public perceptions; Donald is all that everyone sees.
Granting Donald with a free pass to the Presidency, accepting the whole person, will he do the nation some good? To answer that question, another one: what does the President need to provide to our nation? Ponder the second question broadly. Some examples using other Presidents (mariner’s perceptions):
George Washington provided weighted stature to a young, helter-skelter nation. He won the war with England, never wore anything but his military garb, and defended the idea that independence could not co-exist beside authoritarianism.
Andrew Jackson was an outsider like Donald (much ado in social media about similarities). When Andrew moved to the White House, he rode in the front door on horseback. Andrew had no allegiance to decorum; he was a racist; he ordered the Trail of Tears; he closed the Central Bank; he started the Democratic Party. Like Donald, his report card was not all A’s in any case. But Andrew gave the nation what it needed. The following quote from Tablet Magazine clarifies the contribution Jackson made to the US versus that expected from Donald:
“….Jackson preferred a republic without a special class of uniquely privileged aristocratic rulers: a democratic republic, in short. Democracy was a pressing matter, in his estimation, and not just a utopian aspiration. Modern capitalism, with its sophisticated system of banking and credit, took root in the United States in the 1810s and ’20s and was proving to be a mixed blessing. The new economic sophistication allowed the financiers to assemble vast piles of capital, which was good. Only vast piles could pay for ambitious new industrial enterprises. But the new sophistication also allowed and even encouraged a swindler’s economy, based on unsecured loans and misrepresentations. Swindler capitalists began to set off one financial crash after another—the Panic of 1819 was the first—which were devastating to ordinary working people. Jackson and his followers worried that swindler capitalists were going to establish themselves as a malignant new aristocracy, on top of the traditional old aristocracy. And Jackson and his political movement became the enemy of swindler capitalism—the enemy of financial frauds and exploitations in their own time, and the enemy of swindler capitalism for the American future.
On this count alone, Andrew Jackson was not a Donald Trump. Jackson was an anti-Trump. The whole style of Trump’s business empire, with its systematic bankruptcies, tax evasions, and mountains of debt, is a throwback to the swindler style that Jackson found offensive….
….[Andrew] tried again in 1828. His party was by then on its feet. The party mobilized the largest electorate by far in the history of the world—a mass of people who in many cases were enjoying for the first time their political rights. The immense size of the electorate guaranteed victory. It was a revolution. And, in his triumph, Jackson succeeded in ascribing his preferred meaning to the American Revolution and to the United States, which was democracy, and not aristocracy: a democratic republic, and not an aristocratic one. Today we do not remember Jackson’s achievement because we assume it. We cannot imagine the United States in any other light, and therefore do not give the matter any thought. But we had better give it some thought.”
Abraham Lincoln was a rare politician in that he firmly followed virtuous objectives. Abe knew in a practical sense that the nation was splitting further apart over slavery. It was a conflict between citizens engaged in a slave economy and citizens (who did not use many slaves) engaged in an industrial economy. Yet underneath there was a democratic Republic that would not survive a split economy. Abe saw that the ideals of the nation would be destroyed as two economies put pressure on the US culture. He had the fortitude to press the slavery issue to closure. He knew that the slave states would be exposed to economic collapse that would require decades for recovery. He signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Six hundred thousand citizens died in the Civil War that followed but the concept of freedom, liberty and justice for all was restored and the nation remained whole. The nation needed a virtuous imperative at any cost.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected President at a time when the US was broke. Not just in debt, broke. The banks were closed. The citizens were broke; the economy had failed. As in every economic model that lasted long enough to dominate world economies and alter the morality and ethos of its time, the unique economic freedoms were abused to excess. In the time of FDR, it was about to roll over a nation losing the core experiment on which the US was founded: freedom, liberty and justice for all. Among many Presidential acts and decrees, and a government dominated by Andrew’s Democratic Party, FDR resuscitated the nation. Despite the firm disrespect for FDR by conservatives and establishmentarians that exists even today, FDR provided what the nation needed to survive.
It is time again to require a powerful and virtuous President. The nation’s old economy, a typical tail end era of hodge-podge banking practices, disappearing middle class, over assimilation of wealth, growing numbers of poor, and inadequate regulations on the economy have again threatened the survival of virtuous and multidimensional beliefs that support a signal concept among nations. The framers of the Constitution wanted a democratic republic founded on the crazy idea that the citizens should manage the nation – not authoritarians, plutocrats, totalitarians, or kings.
The citizens must take note, however, that their votes for a virtuous President come only from citizens who have virtue in themselves. Loyalty to the survival of a democratic republic is a voter’s number one responsibility – especially now!