Ubu Trump?Trump Roi!

The zig-zag of Trump Tower in Manhattan on a grey and rainy day

A reassuring constant during much of the presidential primaries and then again during the general election campaign was a seeming consensus between political journalism, opinion polls, and betting markets that the odds of Donald Trump winning were small. This failure to predict the future based not just on observation and opinion but also extensive analysis of demographic data lead to much hand-wringing after the primaries, only to be repeated half a year later after the election. In retrospect however, it almost seems predictable that journalists, pollsters, and bookies would get it wrong. After all, predictive models work best for a narrow band of normal events. Yet as I will argue in this essay, Mr Trump’s campaign strategy and motivation for running are anything but normal. Interestingly, the data does support the hypothesis that voters, unlike professional soothsayers, were well aware of Mr Trump’s outlier status: Critical majorities only formed during the last few weeks of the primaries and before the general election alike, with voters apparently having decided to hell with it!

The liberating effects of flirting with nihilism notwithstanding, large parts of a society becoming devoted disciples is bound to end badly. Ironically, it is a former pundit, Andrew Sullivan, who realizes the full extent of the threat and argues that the US has never been so ripe for tyranny in an equally insightful and chilling analysis-cum-essay published a few days before Mr Trump’s primary victory. Mr Sullivan’s final exhortation—that in terms of our liberal democracy and constitutional order, Trump is an extinction-level event—seems as acute today as it was in early May. Despite all its merits, Mr Sullivan’s account suffers from one short-coming: Having been published more than half a year ago and exploring some of the larger societal and cultural forces, it is necessarily short on the particulars of Mr Trump coming to power and thus presents only an incomplete picture. As I am advancing through my own version of Kübler-Ross’s five stages of grief—starting with physical shock upon learning the election result, then seething anger at this country’s voters, then fantasies of starting a new life far away, then deep and inconsolable depression—I am hereby offering my own, complementary analysis as an entry ticket to the fifth stage, principled rejection of Mr Trump and everything he stands for.

Nonetheless, the goal of this essay is to offer an objective historical analysis, insofar as can be written by a contemporaneous witness. For that reason, all major claims link to supporting evidence. I may only provide one representative link, but each claim is easy enough to corroborate. Having said that, distinguishing between truth and fiction amongst the totality of Mr Trump’s public statements can be challenging. Yet, his public record on electoral strategy, the presidency as a business opportunity, economic nationalism, and authoritarian tendencies is in fact consistent—with many of the same statements predating his presidential run. In short, if you try to objectively analyze Mr Trump’s campaign and record, I would be surprised if you arrived at a radically different conclusion.

The Donald Starts a Circus

Any understanding of Donald Trump must start with an acknowledgement that he intuitively recognized and flawlessly executed a brilliant strategy for winning the US presidency. That strategy is centered around three pillars. First, he recognized that established political wisdom for once is too forward-looking: The US population shift towards a more balanced racial and ethnical distribution has only just begun. In the trend-setting age bracket of 0 to 4 inclusive, the share of non-Hispanic whites recently dropped below 50%. That same trend is much less pronounced for eligible voters, with the share of non-Hispanic whites dropping from 71% to 69% over President Obama’s second term. This is hardly surprising, since eligible voters necessarily are older than our trend-setters. If you factor in voter turnout, which further skews towards old age, the effective US electorate still is very much white. Now, whereas educated whites tend to be aligned with the Democratic Party, less-educated or non-college whites are underserved by the mainstreams of either political party and thus can become election-making—if they can be motivated to vote.

Second, the cost of mounting a national campaign is rapidly becoming prohibitive, with only the best connected professionals, i.e., politicians, standing a chance and only if they spend most of their time fundraising. So what is a non-professional and property tycoon of uncertain wealth to do? Conveniently, his target constituency tend to be low-information voters, who are more susceptible to emotional appeals. So Mr Trump sets out to punk the media. With an outrage a day, he generates plenty of free headlines and dominates the discussion on television, where pompous airheads sell sensationalism and outrage as news. Twitter turns out to be the perfect platform for stoking the fire. Its 140 character limit invites oversimplification at best and invective at worst. It also ensures that almost any post can serve as thrilling soundbite. Maybe for that reason, Twitter enjoys must-read status amongst media types, who so adore the microblogging service they usually quote posts with styling and interactive features intact. In short, many media organizations seem all too happy to serve as clowns to Mr Trump’s ringmaster and to provide maximum amplification for his over-the-top pronouncements.

The results are striking. According to an analysis of Federal Election Commission data by the Center for Responsive Politics, Hillary Clinton and aligned outside groups spent about 700 million dollars on her losing campaign. In contrast, Donald Trump and aligned outside groups spent only 45% as much, or about 320 million dollars. To put this in perspective, the Democratic and Republican candidates for president have been spending roughly the same amounts for 10 out of 15 races since . For the other five races, namely Goldwater vs Johnson in , Nixon vs Humphrey in , Nixon vs McGovern in , Obama vs McCain in , and of course Clinton vs Trump in , the first listed candidate outspent the second by roughly a factor of two. Yet only Mr Johnson and Mr Trump managed to beat their spendthrift opponents!

In fact, Mr Trump’s trolling on Twitter works so well, he is still at it. An instructive example are events a week and a half after the election. On that Friday, the president-elect settled three lawsuits resulting from his so-called university. Now that organization never was accredited as such and appears much closer to classic seminar fraud than an educational institution. Yet Mr Trump is able to settle for 25 million dollars, 15 million less than the plaintiffs lost by purchasing useless seminars. That same Friday, the vice-president-elect attended a Broadway show and experienced a rather confrontational reception from actors and audience alike. One might be tempted to consider the settlement the more significant event of the day, since it directly reflects on Mr Trump’s business ethics or lack thereof. But the “news” over that weekend is the incident at the Broadway show—thanks to three choice tweets by Mr Trump!

In one of these posts, Mr Trump declares that The Theater must always be a safe and special place. The emphasis on the capitalized The Theater being both safe and special is curious. After all, there is no single, unifying theater experience even on Broadway, where oddball shows such as Hamilton—the very rap musical about one of the founding fathers attended by the vice-president-elect—may just turn into run-away successes. Furthermore, a production being safe typically precludes it being special. Now, it is entirely possible that Mr Trump turns sentimental the moment he enters a midtown theater and yearns to restore Broadway to its former glory, from an age before television nonetheless. But more likely is that he simply assumes a character suitable for posting on Twitter—in this case, an aging theater queen who waxes nostalgic about bygone days while hectoring everyone alive.

Third, Mr Trump recognizes in himself the perfect person to execute this strategy. He certainly has honed the skills necessary for making concise and sometimes funny, sometimes barbed comments over years of hosting a reality TV show. He also seems no stranger to boorish behavior in his private life. At least, Mr Trump suggests as much himself in a exchange with another TV host, which was surreptitiously recorded. But he also is synonymous with a globally recognized, aspirational brand that sells a somewhat gaudy, always pretentious vision of luxury. The importance of the duality between Trump the Troll and Mr Trump, Purveyor of Recognizable Luxury, is hard to overstate. The troll makes him stand out and thus able to reach, even rouse people who feel very much neglected and hostile towards politicians. It also establishes authenticity, when people might recognize the purveyor for being a fraud. The purveyor in turn encourages people to dream of a future that may not look like a Trump luxury resort but sure feels like one. It also restores credibility when people tire of the ringmaster dominating the media circus.

Mr Trump’s strategy has clear upsides in terms of the prestige and power associated with the US presidency. But it also is exceedingly risky. It is bound to alienate many people and thus directly threatens Mr Trump’s lifestyle brand, potentially spelling an end to his business ventures. Quite obviously, such an undertaking calls for a trial run with comparably lower stakes. Looking back five years, Mr Trump seems to have done just that when he very publicly and very persistently embraced birtherism—the deeply racist fantasy that Mr Obama would not qualify for president because of a foreign birth—and encountered few negative consequences for himself or his TV show. In fact, key elements of his strategy have become more acceptable in the intervening years thanks to the Republican Party. By increasingly promoting asocial behavior as freedom, to wit healthcare, and denying basic truths, to wit climate change, the GOP has not only normalized key elements of Mr Trump’s platform but also created the conditions leading to his more or less hostile take-over of the party.

Sadly, the two Democratic contenders directly aided Mr Trump in executing his winning strategy. While Mr Trump was honing his skills and taking out 15 other contenders for the Republican nomination, Mr Sanders was busy normalizing key elements of Mr Trump’s platform by using the same anti-globalization and “the game is rigged” rhetoric. Like Mr Trump, he also seemed a little too dependent on the adulation of his supporters, continuing his primary campaign well past the tipping point. It is, however, Mrs Clinton who all but ensured Mr Trump’s election. Fifteen months ahead of her first senate run in , Mrs Clinton embarked on a listening tour through New York State. She connected with the full spectrum of the state’s voters and crafted a broadly appealing platform out of that experience. It appears that this time around she couldn’t be bothered with the business of pressing hands for too long. Instead she spent August socializing and fundraising in the Hamptons. Fresh from her month amongst the ultra-rich, she publicly called many of Mr Trump’s supporters deplorables. Is it any surprise then that only 28% of whites without a college degree voted for Mrs Clinton compared to Mr Trump’s 67%?

President Trump Means Business

Wander through New York City’s midtown and you will encounter many a building directly inspired by Mies van der Rohe’s Second Chicago School. Its emphasis on aesthetic minimalism and the use of glass and steel provide the DNA for all skyscrapers. Technological advances may have enabled the more organic forms of Mies’ post-modern and post-post-modern successors, but modernism continues to be the standard by which all skyscrapers are judged. At first glance, the tower at the corner of Fifth Avenue and 56th Street (pictured above) does not stand out. Look a little closer and you do notice the sawtooth of the effectively diagonal cut-off. Clearly, this particular building is designed to maximize views at the cost of floor space, which makes sense for a high-end residential tower in the area. As you work your way past newly erected security barriers towards the lobby entrance, you take in the blocky lettering of Trump Tower above. It provides the definitive clue for recognizing the building as a product of the early 1980s. But you are preoccupied with the security screening and barely register the rosy-golden glow of the marble lobby, when secret service personnel whisk you to the elevator. Up you go.

And step into Versailles? The president-elect’s sitting room, in its ornate gilded opulence from marble floors to Louis XIV chairs with the Trump coat of arms to ceiling frescos, negates not only the surrounding city, which stands as the very archetype of the modern metropolis. Its stylistic language even predates enlightenment, which provides the intellectual foundation for this country. This visual tour de force is the work of Angelo Donghia, who served as the interior designer of New York’s rich and famous until his untimely death from the plague in . Mr Donghia prided himself for not forcing a particular style onto his clients but rather having his work reflect the moment and the client. No stranger to grand gestures, Mr Donghia certainly went all out and then some for Mr Trump, resulting in rooms that not only glorify their owner but also capture his sense of self, as absolute ruler over his domain. It is telling that in 35 plus years since creation of his Versailles-Upon-Manhattan Mr Trump never saw fit to redecorate, that neither the second nor third wife were able to leave their own imprint despite the design of the penthouse palace dating from his first marriage.

Viewed through the prism of the self-styled potentate, Mr Trump’s views and actions over the years at least seem more consistent. We would expect Mr Trump to name each and every business endeavor after himself. After all, there is no name like his name. We would expect him to be exceedingly comfortable with a reality TV format that bestows onto him the simultaneous roles of judge, jury, and executioner. After all, that is who he is. We would expect his family to play an outsized role in organizing the party convention, planning the presidential transition, and taking over the day-to-day of his business. After all, he is the family and the family is his. Ties created by blood and marriage always supersede the benign interests of aligned professionals. We would expect him to feel rather unconstrained by civil contracts, parting with his wealth only as long as he pleases. After all, his generosity is his to bestow and also his to withhold, even from the lawyers called upon to defend his whim. Finally, we would expect him to be oversensitive to criticism and to admire others of similar extraction. After all, he knows deep down that the emperor has no clothes and idolizes those who can pretend otherwise.

The image of Mr Trump as monarch-in-waiting resonates because it does provide a consistent explanation for some of his more visible behaviors. At the same time, it verges on caricature. Yet much of the campaign demonstrates that the spectacle of mockery and ridicule directed at Mr Trump and by Mr Trump can serve as a potent distraction while he goes for the win. So it behooves us to complicate our picture. As good a starting point as any is Mr Trump’s relationship with the press. As I have argued above, adept manipulation of what passes for television “news” in this country was an integral part of Mr Trump winning the election. In turn, the campaign circus with Mr Trump as ringmaster significantly boosted viewership of CNN, Fox “News”, and MSNBC, with the former two charging advertisers up to 40 times their usual rates. Meanwhile, more traditional news media were far more distanced and critical. Out of the nation’s 100 largest newspapers, only two endorsed Mr Trump, whereas 57 endorsed Hillary Clinton. This more critical stance was not lost on Mr Trump. In one of the campaign’s more chilling moments, he threatened the New York Times and Washington Post with open[ing] up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.

Interestingly, his objection seems less about inaccurate reporting. Instead he seems personally offended and repelled by the portrait the press is painting of him and his past. In fact, Mr Trump openly admitted to a reporter in , I don’t like to analyze myself because I might not like what I see. He further elaborated, I don’t like talking about the past, only to emphasize that it’s all about the present and the future. One bellwether of that present and future used to be the press, who kept on mentioning him. There are thousands of them a day, he boasted to the same reporter. Thousands, thousands a day. Yet despite the putative accolades, he can’t sit still. I’ve had these tremendous successes and then I’m off to the next one. Because, it’s like, ‘Oh, is that all there is?’ And so Peggy Lee’s unflinching rendition of a song written by two American Jews, inspired by a story by one of Germany’s great writers, Thomas Mann, and performed in the style of one of Germany’s great composers, Kurt Weill, marks the emotional nadir of Donald Trump, himself the grandson of a banished German draft dodger.

But what a difference an election makes! To be sure, Mr Trump still is no fan of a critical press, repeatedly ditching the pool of reporters, who are supposed to follow the president (elect) at all times, and instead resorting to the megaphone of Twitter, which keeps the backtalk to a minimum. But at least he pretends to play ball and, after some contrary foreplay on his favorite microblog, sits down with reporters, editors, and columnists of the New York Times for a lengthy on-the-record interview. Meanwhile, he directs his most menacing scorn at television hosts and executives, who trudge over to Trump Tower and present themselves as supplicants at Versailles-Upon-Manhattan. This off-the-record dressing down, immediately leaked to the press, suggests that Mr Trump is dead set on turning erstwhile circus clowns into fawning sycophants. Then again, he is right on target when criticizing TV bigwigs for not understanding the dynamics of this election. And CNN’s conduct during the election was indeed deplorable, notably when hiring former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski while still on Mr Trump’s payroll.

Based on the characterization of Mr Trump so far, we might conclude that his primary motivation for running is confirmation of his self-perceived status and elevation of his name from curiosity to chapter in the nation’s history. While both play a role, we must not forget his mercantilistic impulses, which remind me of the Ferengi, an alien race from the Star Trek universe who also are obsessed with profit and suffer the same rampant misogyny. To fully appreciate Mr Trump’s motivation, we need to consider one more factor.

One of the many existential threats to kleptocrats the world over is the law. They may rewrite the very rules that bind their societies. But they are almost always slower at rewriting than at breaking the law. And so the law may just catch up, as it did with Mr Berlusconi, who for nine years managed to evade criminal investigation after criminal investigation allowing him to become the longest-serving prime minister of Italy after World War II. But in a stunning oversight, neither the founding fathers nor Congress ever saw fit to codify the president’s outside interests. Mr Trump has made it amply clear that he is not only fully aware of this legal anomaly, but he also intends to exploit to its fullest. It’s very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it, Mr Trump stated for a profile in Fortune Magazine in . Nothing is written. In other words, in theory, I can be president of the United States and run my business 100 percent, he observed sixteen year later in his post-election interview with the New York Times. He is not content to be yet another tycoon turned a nation’s possibly corrupt leader. Rather his true innovation is to recognize the US presidency as a legitimate business opportunity. The presidency effectively becomes subjugated to and part of the Trump brand. The prestige and power of the president are now up for sale, commerce as usual.

Of the People, By the People, For the People

Even with this understanding of Mr Trump’s motivation for running for president, the question remains: What is all the innovation in campaigning and the corresponding harm to the democratic process good for? To enrich himself during his remaining years on earth as the oldest president-elect in US history? To enrich his family when worldly fortunes are typically lost by the next generation, if not the following one? More importantly, what about the people he is supposed to represent?

Let’s start with non-college whites, many of whom live across the Rust Belt of Great Lakes, Midwest, and North-Eastern states. These states served as the central hub of heavy industry and manufacturing in the US from the late 19th century well into World War II. They took a turn for the worse during the 1950s and 1960s, which was partially caused by a population shift towards the coasts, and then underwent large-scale deindustrialization over the following 40 years. Since this devastating decline was a direct consequence of globalization and its sidekick automation, inhabitants of the Rust Belt can be forgiven for being responsive to Mr Trump’s anti-globalization plank. But that same hostility towards international trade has already cost us dearly. Thanks to Mr Trump’s election and despite over a decade of preparations, major trade agreements with Pacific Rim countries and the European Union have already collapsed. For the trans-pacific agreement alone, Americans missed out on a $131 billion income boost, or 0.5% of this country’s GDP. While it is a bit difficult to miss income one never had, the president-elect is also floating a plan for a 5% tariff on all imports. Given the deep integration of global supply chains, that levy would result in higher US prices from day one. It would also trigger trade wars with our main suppliers, notably China, thus increasing prices even more. In short, non-college whites bore the brunt of globalization’s negative effects in this country and hence became election-making for Mr Trump. Yet by opposing globalization, they may have set themselves up for a second helping of misery—unless the incoming administration embarks on unheard-of and sustained infrastructure spending.

In the heady days after the election, Mr Trump’s chief strategist, Steve Bannon, indeed suggested such a tantalizing vision. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it’s the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Shipyards, ironworks, get them all jacked up. We’re just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution—conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement. To this German, who grew up in a household steeped in the horrors of the Shoah, Mr Bannon’s casual praise for the 1930s was contemptible. But more to the point, Mr Bannon articulated a viable approach for elevating the fortunes of Rust Belt inhabitants and thereby ensuring the success of the president-elect and any like-minded, if not like-named successor. But then Mr Trump started nominating the members of his cabinet. The most canny choice seems to be that of Rex Tillerson as secretary of state. When engaging Russia on rebuilding a devastated Syria or ceasing US electoral interference, Mr Tillerson can draw on almost a decade’s experience of working with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Mr Tillerson has also demonstrated that he will stand up to Mr Putin, lest his deals don’t pass muster back home. Sadly, most of Mr Trump’s other nominations are forgettable ideologues, who may be qualified to dismantle the government but not to govern the huge, multi-year, inter-departmental effort envisioned by Mr Bannon. By handing out patronage through cabinet positions instead of assembling a great team for revitalizing the Rust Belt, the president-elect missed a great opportunity for effecting positive change. He also failed his main constituency.

Meanwhile, the new Republican congressional majority, which was elected on the same day as Mr Trump, has been bending over backwards to explore options for repealing President Obama’s signature achievement, the Affordable Care Act. While they loudly pretended to do just that more than 60 times over the last six years, they also relied on Mr Obama’s veto for saving them from their own worst dogmatic impulses. Starting , they will not have this luxury anymore. As a result, some Republicans are belatedly becoming attuned to Obamacare’s carefully orchestrated interplay between individual mandates, government subsidies, and ban on coverage restrictions. The most benign repeal option being floated does reflect this awakening and proposes to make cosmetic changes only, while still putting on a big show about having vanquished the socialist monstrosity. More serious options for repeal are certainly still being explored, but have also become more politically sensitive since the election. In an inspired analysis, The Economist showed that there is one marginally more accurate predictor for a county swinging to Mr Trump than its fraction of non-college whites. That predictor is the prevalence of obesity, diabetes, heavy drinking, and physical activity (or lack thereof). In other words, the specific subset of Mr Trump’s voters that won him the election […] live in communities that are literally dying. Yet many of these same people are amongst the roughly twenty million people newly insured through Obamacare and given their ill-wealth and ill-health very much depend on its coverage. With Rust Belt reality putting a very human face on the issue of health care access, the concept of collective well-being is becoming less abstract than that of individual freedom. And thanks to this reversal over six years ago, the repeal effort is starting to look a bit less certain.

Still, the spectacle of Republicans preparing to unravel the legacy of the United States’ first black president serves as a poignant reminder of the racism Mr Trump injected into his campaign from day one. During the press conference announcing his run, he introduced his idea for a Great Wall of Mexico with the assertion that these many Mexicans are bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. Mr Trump did mention one alleged Mexican by name a few weeks later, but only to argue that US District Judge Gonzalo Curiel was unsuitable to presiding over two of the Trump University lawsuits. According to the president-elect’s nicely circular argument, Mr Curiel is of Mexican heritage and thus has an absolute conflict given that Mr Trump is building a wall. Seemingly on a roll, Mr Trump next called for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States. To justify targeting only the adherents of the world’s second-largest religion, Mr Trump quoted a survey of Muslims showing rather unpleasant attitudes towards the US and her people. That same day, the survey was exposed as deeply flawed and utterly biased. Yet Mr Trump was still peddling the fabrication of a lot of them hating the US many months later. In stark contrast to Muslims, Mr Trump seems incapable of finding fault with whites and refused to disavow even white supremacist David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan.

At least, Mr Trump does not hold back and directly confronts you with his prejudices. Hence he told members of the Republican Jewish Coalition that you’re not going to support me because I don’t want your money. Moments later, he followed with the ingratiating boast, I’m a negotiator like you folks, we are negotiators. Amazingly, the group still endorsed him, if only tepidly. Hence he addressed black voters, in front of a mostly white audience to boot, with this uplifting message: You’re living in poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs, 58% of your youth is unemployed—what the hell do you have to lose? The quote likely reflects Mr Trump’s stereotypical views of black life. It may also reflect the Rust Belt location of his speech. But it certainly captures the president-elect’s nihilist message and appeal! Tragically, this divisive approach to campaigning delivered clear results, with voters’ racism and sexism being far stronger predictors for a Trump vote than economic dissatisfaction. Worse, the president-elect’s very visible division of the population into favored and non-favored groups will not end with the election. It cannot be undone. Rather, it is bound to seep into the new administration, encouraging similar though less overt biases when it comes to the allocation of government resources and thereby making the systematic violence and neglect of cities like Ferguson and Flint more likely again. And by unleashing bigotry and prejudice in service of electoral victory and personal enrichment, Mr Trump has failed all of us!

We are on the brink of a new, darker age, with nationalism on the rise again across the western world. But nationalism never has and never will solve anything. It is a scourge of civilization, and we seemingly have forgotten its destructive effects. Yet the scars are still there, for all of us to see if only we look close enough. My grandfather was a kind and unassuming man, who deeply cared and studiously provided for his family. But there were two holes in his life, for he had the great misfortune to be old enough to be drafted during World War I and young enough to be drafted again during World War II. He never talked about his experience, neither to his children nor to his grandchildren. Silence loudly announced the burden, yet the burden was his alone to bear. Still, my grandfather could find consolation in seeing his children and grandchildren grow up in a more peaceful and prosperous world, thanks to increasing international collaboration and integration. Striving towards the free movement of goods, people, and ideas remains the most effective engine for reducing poverty and increasing opportunity across the world. We urgently need more of it, not less. At the same time, this election brings home what long should have been apparent: Globalization must be tempered by social responsibility. Otherwise, the resulting, unbridled inequality is as toxic to society as the nationalism of yore. I certainly am glad that my grandfather does not have to bear the burden of this lesson as well!

In Alfred Jarry’s Ubu Roi, or Ubu the King, the titular character spends much of the play leading a revolution in Poland, destroying the country, and killing her population. Yet in the final scene, we find the proponent sitting on the deck of a cruise ship, having a good laugh with his wife and part-time opponent about havoc just wrecked and looking forward to throwing an unsuspecting France into the same maelstrom. The original run lasted just thanks to its riotous audience reception. Yet the play remains part of the proto-modernist canon. It took 120 years for reality to catch up with fiction. But with Mr Trump we are witnessing the ascendency of a true political leader, who has an uncanny ability to shape the conversation by alternating ease and force and by channeling a sardonic wit. But he also has little discernible inner life, is unbound by truth or decency, doesn’t even have the patina of ideology, and harms or discards people like playthings. Welcome to the first nihilist president of the United States. Or rather: To hell with him!