“Yecch” doesn’t begin to express my disgust and revulsion regarding this development, but right now I can’t think of anything stronger, and I don’t know how to spell the sound of projectile vomiting, so…Yecch!
After informing the Republican Party that he will not pledge to support its candidate if the GOP’s choice isn’t him, Donald Trump not only plans to skip the first GOP candidate’s debate in Milwaukee this Wednesday, he is going to actively compete with it, teaming up with fellow toxic narcissist Tucker Carlson for an online interview on the same night.
It’s perfect, if you think like Donald Trump, which is to say, obnoxiously, unethically, and undemocratically. No degree of perfection in my sock drawer would prompt me to forsake it to watch the Tucker and Donald Show. “Mr. Trump’s apparent decision to skip the first debate of the presidential nominating contest is a major affront to both the R.N.C. and Fox News, which is hosting the event,” writes the New York Times, for once not being unfair to Trump. Sure, why not stick his thumb in the eyes of two organizations substantially responsible for Trump’s rise in the first place? This full-time troll who claims to value loyalty and gratitude has none himself. Naturally Tucker Carlson wants in: after all, he wants his revenge on Fox too. Nowhere in the consideration of either man, assholes that they are, are the best interests of the nation and the democratic process.
My aggravated brain is sending me so many signals that I can’t organize them into prose right now, so permit me to default to bullet points:
- Trump shocked everyone by breaking out of the pack when he was allowed to debate with the 2015, already over-crowded field of Presidential hopefuls. The public got to see all of the contenders—-Trump was considered more comic relief and ratings-bait at the time—together, as they should have and needed to. Simple reciprocity (that Golden Rule thingy) would seem to dictate that Trump give the same opportunity to others now, but Donald Trump doesn’t believe in the Golden Rule, or any ethical system as far as I’ve been able to determine. His concept of ethics is “Whatever helps me is good. Screw everyone else.”
- Let’s make that guy President again! What could go wrong?
- Trump’s justification for skipping the debate is typical: “Reagan didn’t do it, and neither did others,” he wrote on Truth Social. “People know my Record, one of the BEST EVER, so why would I Debate?” Indeed Reagan refused to debate his challengers for the Republican nomination in 1979, though circumstances were different, and Reagan consistently opposed Republicans attacking each other as destructive to the party, a policy that couldn’t be more opposed to Trump’s practice. Essentially Trump, as he is wont to do, is relying on unethical rationalizations to justify doing what he wants to, and ethics be damned. Today’s menu specials: #32. The Unethical Role Model: “He/She would have done the same thing” and Numero Uno, “Everybody Does It,” though everybody doesn’t. Say what you will about Jeb Bush, he had the integrity and the guts to put himself on a stage with Trump and others, knowing that he was the front-runner and that everyone would be gunning for him. And the American people saw that Jeb was a weenie and not up to the job, as they had every right to know.
- One way we can see how blood-curdlingly unethical and ruthless Donald Trump is: he makes Richard Nixon look admirable. Nixon would have coasted to victory in the 1960 Presidential election if he had refused to debate Jack Kennedy. But Nixon, for all of his paranoia and pathological Machiavellian instincts, was a genuine patriot, and believed (at least in 1960, before he became cynical and bitter) that the integrity of the American electoral system was paramount. He also was confident that the public would see that he was better informed and more substantive than Kennedy, which he was. Trump, in contrast, creature of the modern media that he is, knows from personal experience that a gaffe or an opponent’s sudden burst of unexpected charisma can only be decisively prevented in the debate game by not playing.
- The bottom line is that the public, the nation, and democracy benefit from debates, as flawed as they are. That’s the answer to Trump’s “why,” but in Trump World, that answer doesn’t compute.
- Needless to say, but I guess some need it said, Trump’s record as President is not “one of the best ever,” and in the crucial category of strengthening the office and maintaining its honor, dignity and status as an institution, his record is one of the worst ever, and arguable the worse.
- Carlson, meanwhile, being devoid of principles himself, is only too happy to aid and abet Trump’s debate boycott. He couldn’t care less if it hamstrings the democratic process.
- Will he ask Trump hard questions about his various criminal charges? You know Trump will only appear on the Asshole-O-Rama if Carlson pledges not to go there. Of course, that doesn’t mean Carlson won’t double-cross him: I think that’s not just a possibility, but likely. (“You knew I was a scorpion when you picked me up!) Neither of these guys is trustworthy.
Until and unless the Trump cult starts thinking about the nation and the future of the Presidency as responsible citizens should and Trump’s polling numbers start sinking as a result, the U.S. has no chance of achieving a choice in November of 2024 that doesn’t ensure disaster one way or the other—and it has scant chance of that now.
Ethics Alarms 
The US political machine is corrupt. Everything from the debates to the news coverage is carefully crafted agitprop designed to get a specific result out of the voters and that result is not in the voters best interest. It is a game and the only way for the voters to get a different result than the one they have been getting for the last century or so is to stop playing it.
Why do you think Trump supporters are not thinking about the nation and the future of the Presidency as responsible citizens should?
NP,
Your cynicism is appropriate and makes sense. That is a natural organic result of paying attention and being informed from non-propagandized sources.
The systemic corruption of our political process, the Administrative State, aka The Swamp, are topics that should be the focus of the Carlson/Trump meeting. No assholery there.
To be fair, I don’t think there are any non-propaganda sources. All I can do is try to read a wide variety of viewpoints and try to yank the truth out from under the spin they all have. The wider the net I cast the more cynical I get.
NP
My problem with these “debates” is that they are not really debates. From my understanding each will be given 1 minute to address a topic posed by the moderator. That will not be sufficient except to trot out some pre-arranged talking point.
How do we get to find out the how candidate X will address:
Out of control spending;
Debt, inflation, and long term economic development strategy;
Border/immigration policy;
Ukrainian/Russia conflict;
China’s belt and road strategy for global domination , let alone Taiwan policy.
I just recently heard Viveck Ramiswamy’s ideas on Taiwan which turned out to be I’ll conceived and sophomoric. The Chinese issue is high on my priority list.
Maybe each candidate should be grilled for one or two hour’s individually on what they would do and how they would approach each major issue.
Maybe it is Fox News that is the asshole trying to generate ratings by creating a Jerry Springer like format.
I would prefer something more insightful than one liners.
I agree. The debates mostly consist of candidates deliberately not answering the questions they are asked and spewing obviously focus group tested talking points while moderators put on an obviously scripted performance to push their own agenda. Only a few candidates even get asked any question in particular, and who gets asked what is obviously determined by an agenda. How does that let you evaluate anything? I watched all the debates for the last few Presidential cycles and didn’t learn much aside from what agenda the media wants pushed. I suppose the media agenda is useful information for knowing what propaganda is being pushed currently, but it doesn’t help me pick a candidate for President. It’s all just agitprop.
Interviews might be more useful, but they are still affected by the media agenda. I’d like to see debates moderated by randomly selected citizens, personally. Just let Joe blow off the street ask the questions and you might get some useful, unscripted, non-tested information out of these politicians. Or at least entertainment.
Why do I think that, or why do I think Trump supporters aren’t thinking about the nation and the future of the presidency? I think that because supporting Trump, as in actively wanting him to be President, not being willing to vote for a terrible alternative because the other alternative is worse, can only be explained by wilful ignorance, denial, or cultism. Trump’s Presidency, not entirely due to his own acts but substantially, harmed the office perhaps beyond repair. Another four years could, and I believe will, wreck the entire balance of powers and ruin the unique office Washington and the rest built. Why do I think Trump voters aren’t thinking about the nation and the future of the Presidency as responsible citizens should? Because they have not been educated about our government, because they are driven by emotion, and because the news media and the Democrats have prompted them to think in terms of virtual war.
What was different about Reagan abstaining from the Republican debates?
Not trying to be contrarian, I really want to know, since it was before my time.
Reagan said the 11’th commandment was never speak ill of thou fellow Republicans. He felt that inherent in a debate was the idea of tearing down his opponents. Or so his public statement go. Behind the scenes, only the staffers know.
He likely would have “won” any debates, he wasn’t a great actor but better than a professional politician in the 70s would normally be, he had charisma and no problem memorizing zingers.
Thanks, you saved me a reply, and you’re entirely accurate. The only thing I’d add as context is that Reagan eschewed debates in California when running for governor too, but in the debates he had participated in before running he had been pretty dazzling. Also, debates in general were only slowly gaining importance, and mostly among Democrats. Nixon never had a primary debate; Ford didn’t in 1976. Carter never debated Kennedy
“Reagan said the 11’th commandment was never speak ill of thou fellow Republicans.”
Thanks! And here I thought the 11th Commandment was the one Bill Clinton breached:
Do Not Put Thy Rod In Thy Staff…
Thanks ever so much. I was disheartened by Jack’s pomposity and you whisked me away. “And here I thought” this bog is about ethics and not politics.
Huh?
“…the U.S. has no chance of achieving a choice in November of 2024 that doesn’t ensure disaster one way or the other…”
Well, let’s look at the last 20 years worth of presidential candidates and see which ones were ethical actors who put the country first. Bush Jr. vs Al Gore, nope. Bush Jr. vs John Kerry, nope. Barack Obama vs Mitt Romney, nope. Barack Obama vs John McCain, nope. Donald Trump vs Hilary Clinton, nope. Donald Trump vs Joe Biden, nope. Presumably Donald Trump vs …Gavin Newsom? I think you can guess my answer here.
I get it, Trump isn’t a nice guy. But this nice guy candidate I am supposed to support seems about as likely to appear as a unicorn. Out of the collection of human scum I outlined above, the only one I have any positive feelings for is Bush Jr., and that only because he went back to his ranch and shut up after his presidency. Either these are the type of people the American public wants in control of the presidency, or our democratic institutions are optimized for selecting people who are power hungry and narcissistic.
Also, I am very confused as to why the indictments of Trump are something he needs to answer “hard questions” about. Especially given the efforts of this very blog to outline the efforts of the democrats and the bureaucrats to sabotage his presidency using the apparatus of the justice system. Speaking of Nixon, the guy who resigned to avoid impeachment over wiretapping the DNC? Well the FBI did the same thing to the Trump campaign, at the behest of the Obama administration, while using unverified information from foreign agents that was paid for by the Clinton Foundation, and then lied about it to the FISA courts to get their warrants. And then the Mueller investigation, and the impeachment over the phone call to Ukraine, and now the indictments over documents and the Insurrection! and who knows what else. I don’t know what else Trump can say other than they’re out to get him, which of course is true.
Mason has a point.
I wonder if a plausible RICO case can be made against Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Adam Schiff, James Comey, Robert Mueller, and Andrew McCabe.
“I get it, Trump isn’t a nice guy.”
Please don’t reduce my analysis of Trump to whether he’s a nice guy or not. Almost none of our Presidents have been “nice”—“nice” isn’t a leadership requirement or even an asset.
This response really amounts to denial.
The world looked so good in the early 1990s. The Soviet Union had collapsed. The US had won. Who realised the US would most likely destroy itself? We should have read our histories. ‘They’ (those in the more expensive seats) always say “Never bet against the US”. I wonder …..