Judge Trump's Motives, Not Just His Methods
From the G-File on The Dispatch
Hey,
I'm going to try to make a single point in response to what is shaping up to be the standard, smart, defense of a lot of Donald Trump's doings.
That defense usually starts with a series of correct observations about the left's attacks on Trump's actions and/or some correct complaints about Joe Biden's or the Democrats actions.
Let's take the recent firings in the Pentagon, which critics call, not indefensibly, a 'purge.' I won't use that word—even though I think it's defensible—because the people who use it want to make Trump's actions sound as sinister as possible. And that tendency is often the first thing Trump's defenders seize on. The dirty bathwater of exaggerated complaints often offer an opportunity to toss the baby of the core complaint out with it.
The leftwing outrage holds that the military should somehow be independent of civilian control. Sometimes this argument is made with a lot of nuance. Sometimes not. The nuanced position is that Trump's firings are pretextual, unusual, and in violation of all manner of norms. The less nuanced ones cover a broad spectrum, from accusations of excessive politicization to banana republic autocratic shenanigans to 'literally Hitler.'
But what unites these critiques is the insinuation or declaration that somehow the military is out of the purview of the commander-in-chief. The smart defenders of Trump are absolutely correct that this is an unsupportable claim. One of the most important bedrock mechanisms of our constitutional design is that the military answers to civilian leadership. As National Review's Dominic Pino put it on the Editors podcast, 'I think it's completely wrong, the Democrats' argument that somehow the military is this independent thing that politicians don't get any say over, that's not right. As a constitutional matter, the president is the commander-in-chief. So he gets to do this.' Or as Charlie Cooke puts it, 'You know, civil control of the military is one of the important defining features of, separating, normal, healthy democracies from authoritarian countries. And so, I don't have any issue with it, on its face.'
I have no objection to the core of this argument. I do, contra Charlie, have 'issues.' Because looking at this 'on its face' is definitionally superficial.
Charlie goes on to say, 'The case that I keep reading, including in major serious newspapers, seems to imply that the risk of Trump's having switched out staff is that the people he has chosen instead will be unwilling to defy him, will be unwilling to push back, will be unwilling to tell him no. But they shouldn't be telling him no.'
Well, I want generals willing to say 'No.' And I don't think Charlie really disagrees with me. It depends on the what, why and how they tell him no. Military officers don't just take an oath to follow the president's orders, they also take an oath to defend the Constitution and abide by the chain of command as laid out in regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I don't want any generals who will put obedience to the president above obedience to the Constitution. And, again, I am quite positive Charlie doesn't either. So if President Trump orders a general to shoot protesters, an idea he allegedly floated during protests outside the White House during his first term, I want generals who will refuse that order. They should be honest about it and resign rather than carry out an unlawful order.
But even beyond that, I want generals who will say no, or at least forcefully push back, against stupid or immoral orders. Again, it shouldn't take the form of sabotage or secret conspiracies. No one should say 'yes' to the commander-in-chief, then refuse to follow through. But if Trump ordered the Navy to surround Greenland in a show of force to intimidate a NATO ally, I would like it if the generals went to considerable lengths to explain to the president why the order was a bad idea and, ultimately, one they would refuse to carry out. Then face the consequences as a result.
The president both practically and as a matter of law and statecraft is entitled to loyal officers. He's not entitled to unquestioning yes-men.
Here, too, I suspect Charlie agrees.
But my point isn't to argue about civil-military relations, or pick a fight with Charlie, a good friend and someone I admire greatly. Rather, my point is that I think focusing on civil-military relations illustrates my problem with what I've been calling the smart conservative approach generally.
This approach of taking each controversy as a single, isolated argument amounts to debating single trees while ignoring the forest.
To be blunt: This approach's fundamental problem is it treats Trump as a kind of academic abstraction. What can the president do? rather than the more pressing question: Why is this president doing this?
Treating Trump as a depersonalized Constitutional officer can be very clarifying on specific controversies. But it ends up erasing the broader context. The theme of the pudding gets lost in arguments about the ingredients.
Consider the scandal—and it is a scandal—with the case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. When Trump's Justice Department told them to drop the corruption charges against Adams because he was getting in line with Trump's preferred immigration policy, prosecutors who put professional ethics ahead of the whims of the president quit—and that's exactly the way Trump wants it. He doesn't want DOJ officials who are loyal to any other commitments.
Or consider the walking scandal that is Ed Martin, a MAGA lawyer who has defended January 6, 2021, defendants and who attended Trump's speech before the riot at the Capitol building that day. He is the new U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. Responding to the flap between the Associated Press and the use of Trump's preferred term of the 'Gulf of America,' he posted on X, 'As President Trumps' [sic] lawyers, we are proud to fight to protect his leadership as our President and we are vigilant in standing against entities like the AP that refuse to put America first.' The lawyers in that office are the 'president's lawyers' only in the narrow, trees-over-forest, analysis I referenced above. But in the broader context, they are not Trump's lawyers. They are the presidency's lawyers, not this president's personal henchmen. But Trump does not recognize a distinction there.
Just last night, Trump ordered that Covington and Burling, a law firm representing Jack Smith, the prosecutor overseeing the federal cases against Trump before Trump's election made them a dead letter, be punished for lending aid and comfort to Smith. The message is not subtle. The federal government is Trump's personal machinery of retribution. Can he do that? Yes. But should he do it is the far more important question.
Paul Ingrassia, Trump's new White House liaison with the Department of Homeland Security, is a social media troll and goon who supported the imposition of martial law to keep Trump in office in 2021. The head of the FBI, Kash Patel, is a red-pilled zealot who wrote children's books about a King Trump and a helpful wizard named 'Kash.' Patel's new deputy director is Dan Bongino. Though he is a former Secret Service officer, he has zero significant or relevant management experience in law enforcement, and no experience within the FBI whatsoever. But he is a loyalist.
Indeed, across a vast swath of government—pretty much all of it—the overriding criteria for appointment aren't professional qualifications, experience, or commitment to the Constitution or even good government, but personal loyalty to the president. The sine qua non of staffing the administration is whether you can be counted upon to follow Trump's orders and ape Trump's obsessions. Candidates for top intelligence jobs, for example, were asked whether January 6 was an 'inside job,' who were 'the real patriots' on that day, and who won the 2020 election.
Oh, and let's not forget his blanket pardons for January 6 rioters, including those found guilty of brutalizing police.
From law enforcement, to national security, to the administration of justice, it's hard to refute the claim that Donald Trump wants enablers, yes-men, and loyalists, who make their top priority Trump's aggrandizement.
Even his foreign policy requires a daily display of loyalty to his lies about simple, but very important, moral truths.
It also seems increasingly clear that he wants a press corps that sees nothing wrong with that, which is why this supposedly 'pro-free speech' administration is going after the AP for refusing to recognize the 'Gulf of America' name change and playing other petty games with the White House press pool.
Now, it's fine to beat up on the press for its stunningly high self-regard, or to point out its excesses. I've been doing that for 30 years. It's also fine to point out that the president can do all of these things (or most of them, pending court approval).
It's also fine to argue, as Rich Lowry does here, that the Biden administration politicized the Pentagon or, as many have argued, that it politicized the Department of Justice.
But not all politicizations are equal. By which I mean, Trump's politicizations are utterly self-serving. They are not connected to a larger ideological or intellectual framework. I've struggled to articulate why this is different from previous presidential projects. One term I've found helpful is personalism. Another, with regard to Trump's foreign policy, is 'sovereigntism.' But those are unsatisfying to me because they lend an air of intellectual rigor to a man who rejects intellectual rigor as a challenge to his will-to-power. So, I went with Trump's mobster worldview.
Jonathan Rauch, borrowing from Max Weber, offers another fancy word that fits quite well: Patrimonialism:
Patrimonialism is less a form of government than a style of governing. It is not defined by institutions or rules; rather, it can infect all forms of government by replacing impersonal, formal lines of authority with personalized, informal ones. Based on individual loyalty and connections, and on rewarding friends and punishing enemies (real or perceived), it can be found not just in states but also among tribes, street gangs, and criminal organizations.
Whatever framework you apply, I think the underlying truth, the actual fact patterns, are all the same. And that's my problem with the smart defenses of a lot of Trump's actions. They depend on imposing a constitutional vision—a vision I share—on a political actor who, to the extent he thinks about it at all, sees the Constitution as a relic and impediment to his desires and little more. He may adhere to its bright lines, but not out of fidelity to it or out of a commitment to an alternative theory of how it works. He stays within the constitutional guardrails—to the extent he does—solely out of political necessity. And his appointments and actions signal that he will leap over those guardrails whenever he finds it in his interest to do so. He surrounds himself not just in his administration, but in the political and journalistic industrial complex built up around him, with people—including foreign populists and nationalists—who are willing to pretend, or eager to believe, that Trump is, in the words of conspiracy theorist Jack Posobiec, 'the living embodiment of the Constitution.' This provides a kind of permission structure that rationalizes each step toward some later violence to the Constitution, which will, like Hemingway's definition of bankruptcy, progress slowly until it's sudden.
Again, I am happy to point out (again) that he's not the first president to hold views along these lines. Woodrow Wilson certainly believed the Constitution was a relic holding him back. But pointing out such things should not be a defense of what Trump is so obviously doing—it should be part of the conservative indictment.
I do not think the smart conservatives I have in mind necessarily disagree with me in whole or in part. But the tendency to fall back on those academic—and correct!—arguments about the president's power often hinge on a false assumption about Trump's motives. The motives of a president matter a great deal. His politicization of government institutions is not simply a needed corrective to past politicizations, as sorely deserving those politicizations were in need of correction.
This is not normal. Trump's program isn't really ideological and certainly not 'conservative' in any traditional sense. If Trump were overseeing the imposition of Reaganism, or even some ideological agenda I disagreed with, those arguments would have greater purchase with me. But MAGA at its best is a pretext, and more often it's not even that. This is the faux-ideology of one person, one person's vanity, grievances and personal glory.
That's why I think the 'why' of it all is much more important than debates about 'can.' Sure, he can do a lot of things, because the Founders really didn't envision someone like Trump as president. They envisioned the man who presided over the Constitutional Convention, George Washington. At CPAC last week, Trump noted that Bill O'Reilly said that Trump was a better president than George Washington. To which Trump responded, 'I love beating George Washington.' The audience swooned.
Exactly.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'Coward' Elon Musk Mocked On His Own Platform After Bending The Knee To Trump
Elon Musk went into damage-control mode early Wednesday as he tried to mend fences with President Donald Trump after their spectacular falling-out last week. And his critics are mocking his public show of fealty on his own platform. Musk spent some $291 million during the 2024 election cycle, most notably to help Trump, according to and became a constant presence by his side. Once in office, Trump put Musk in charge of the 'DOGE' initiative to cut government spending. But Musk left his role, attacked Trump's signature 'big beautiful bill' as a 'disgusting abomination,' and went scorched-earth against his one-time ally in a series of posts on X last week. Musk wrote that Trump won't release the files of late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein because the president is named in them, shared a post in support of impeaching Trump and replacing him with Vice President JD Vance, and floated the creation of a third political party. Trump in turn threatened repercussions for Musk's businesses and warned him of 'serious consequences' if he backed Democrats for office. But Musk blinked on Wednesday. He wrote that he regretted some of his posts about Trump and said some of them 'went too far.' He also deleted many of those messages. His critics fired back:
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Scofflaw Strongman
DONALD TRUMP SAYS HIS LATEST VENTURE into dictatorship—deploying the National Guard and Marines against American citizens, over the opposition of state and local officials—is about safeguarding the rule of law. 'If we see danger to our country and to our citizens, we'll be very, very strong in terms of law and order,' Trump told reporters on Sunday, as protests escalated in Los Angeles against his deportations. 'It's about law and order.' Don't believe it. Trump is using the Guard and the military to enforce his will, not the law. The evidence of his insincerity is what he did four years ago: When rioters were on his side, he didn't call in the Guard. He embraced the criminals, pardoned them, and purged the law enforcement officials who prosecuted them. He's a despot and a scofflaw. In the Los Angeles uprising, Trump—like every authoritarian before him—claims to be saving his country from chaos. 'Violent, insurrectionist mobs are swarming and attacking our Federal Agents,' he declared on Sunday afternoon. 'These lawless riots only strengthen our resolve.' A few hours later, he called for 'bringing in the troops . . . RIGHT NOW!!! Don't let these thugs get away with this.' And on Monday afternoon, he ridiculed any suggestion that the protesters were peaceful. 'Just one look at the pictures and videos of the Violence and Destruction,' he wrote, 'tells you all you have to know.' Insurrectionist mobs. Lawless riots. Videos of violence. We've heard such alarming descriptions before. And on January 6, 2021, we saw how little Trump cared about them. Share AT 1:21 P.M. THAT DAY, AS TRUMP returned to the White House after instructing his supporters to march on the Capitol, he was told twice by a member of his staff, 'They're rioting down at the Capitol.' The exact moment of this encounter was captured in a photograph. Trump replied, 'All right, let's go see.' He went to his dining room and watched on TV as the riot proceeded. For the next hour, TV networks aired videos of the violence and destruction. Like this week's videos from Los Angeles, they told the president all he needed to know. But Trump did nothing. Toward the end of that hour—somewhere between 2:13 and 2:24 pm, according to the final report of the House January 6th Committee—Trump's chief of staff, Mark Meadows, informed White House Counsel Pat Cipollone that Trump 'doesn't want to do anything' about the ongoing assault. A few minutes later, Cipollone was heard to tell Meadows, 'They're literally calling for the Vice President to be F'ing hung.' And Meadows was heard to reply, 'You heard him, Pat. He thinks Mike [Pence] deserves it. He doesn't think they're doing anything wrong.' Meanwhile, in a phone call, House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy warned Trump that the rioters 'literally just came through my office windows, and my staff are running for cover. I mean, they're running for their lives. You need to call them [the assailants] off.' Trump responded by rebuking McCarthy: 'Well, Kevin, I guess they're just more upset about the election theft than you are.' These conversations took place as Fox News, which Trump was watching, reported that police had been injured and that rioters inside the Capitol were 'feet from the House chamber.' On the screen, according to the House committee report, Fox 'was showing video of the chaos and attack, with tear gas filling the air in the Capitol Rotunda.' Throughout the afternoon, Trump's aides, family, and friends implored him to tell the rioters to go home. He refused. Not until 4:17 p.m., nearly three hours after being informed about the riot, did he comply. Join now TRUMP NOW CLAIMS that he told the rioters to be peaceful and that he offered ten thousand National Guard troops to protect the Capitol. The first claim is misleading. The second is a lie. The House report shows that before and during the assault, Trump resisted entreaties to call for peace. On January 6th, a text message to one of his top aides, Hope Hicks, said Trump 'should tweet something about Being NON-violent.' Hicks wrote back: 'I suggested it several times Monday and Tuesday and he refused.' At one point in his incendiary speech that morning, Trump did ask his followers to march to the Capitol 'peacefully.' But that phrase, according to the House report, was 'scripted for him by his White House speechwriters.' The main theme of the speech was to 'fight like hell.' Another Trump aide, Sarah Matthews, told the committee that once the riot was underway, Trump resisted pleas to call for peace. He did use the term 'peaceful' in a tweet at 2:38 p.m., but only grudgingly. Trump's press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, told Matthews that Trump 'did not want to include any sort of mention of peace in that tweet.' Trump's other January 6th story, about the National Guard, is also a sham. His acting defense secretary, his Army secretary, and his chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff all testified that he never ordered the Guard to deploy that day. He never even spoke to these officials. Instead, during the riot, he used his phone to press members of Congress to do what the mob wanted: overturn the election. It's true that before the attack, Trump talked about the possibility of needing guardsmen. But it was never about protecting the Capitol. It was, in Meadows's words, to 'protect pro Trump people' from anti-Trump protesters. In short, everything Trump decries in Los Angeles happened on January 6th, and more. A violent, insurrectionist mob swarmed and attacked police. And instead of bringing in the Guard 'RIGHT NOW,' Trump watched the assault, encouraged the mob, and waited to see whether it would keep him in power. In fact, when he returned to office this year, Trump pardoned nearly everyone who had pleaded guilty to or had been convicted of assaulting police on January 6th. He said the insurrectionists were right: 'They were protesting a crooked election.' He purged the prosecutors who had handled those cases. And in a speech at the Department of Justice, he boasted that he had 'removed the senior FBI officials' who, in his words, had persecuted the 'J6 hostages.' Share NOW, AS HE DEPLOYS THE MILITARY against protesters in an American city, Trump invokes 'law and order' as a bogus excuse. And he vows to go further. On Monday, he announced a policy of escalation against protesters. 'If they spit, we will hit,' he wrote on Truth Social. 'This is a statement from the President of the United States. . . . The Insurrectionists have a tendency to spit in the face of the National Guardsmen/women, and others. . . . IF THEY SPIT, WE WILL HIT, and I promise you they will be hit harder than they have ever been hit before.' On Tuesday, speaking to troops at Fort Bragg, Trump said he was seizing control of the National Guard and ending the tradition of consulting governors. 'We will use every asset at our disposal to quell the violence and restore law and order right away,' he declared. 'We're not going to wait . . . for a governor that's never going to call.' And in remarks in the Oval Office, Trump said his policy of escalating state violence would apply to anyone who protests the military parade on June 14, his birthday. 'If there's any protester [who] wants to come out, they will be met with very big force,' he warned. 'For those people that want to protest. . . . They will be met with very heavy force.' This is not a man defending the rule of law. This is a man continuing the project he began in his first term and tried to complete on January 6th: replacing the rule of law with himself. Share The Bulwark
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘When will enough be enough?' Ohio House Democrats introduce common sense gun legislation
Stock photo of guns. (Photo by Aristide Economopoulos for New Jersey Monitor/States Newsroom.) Ohio House Democrats say they are trying to enact common sense gun laws, but face an uphill battle in the Republican supermajority-controlled Ohio Statehouse. Democratic lawmakers have introduced a series of gun-related bills so far this General Assembly that have seen little, if any movement. The one bill that has had a hearing so far is a bipartisan bill. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX 'Republicans are focused on passing laws that they hope will distract you from their failures, while at the same time trying to divide us on common sense issues like gun reform,' Ohio House Minority Leader Allison Russo, D-Upper Arlington, said Tuesday during a press conference. 'Ohio Democrats will not stand idly by while Republicans in power refuse to do something about gun violence.' Ohio had 571 gun-related deaths and over 1,700 incidents of gun violence in 2024, said state Rep. Darnell T. Brewer, D-Cleveland. Ohio ranks 21st in the nation for gun violence and gun deaths rose 42% in Ohio from 2013 to 2022, said state Rep. Cecil Thomas, D-Cincinnati. More than 1,000 Ohioans aged 19 and younger died as a result of gun violence in the last decade, according to the Children's Defense Fund. 'When will enough be enough?' Thomas asked. 'How many children have to die before you act? How many women have to be shot by their partners? How many funerals will it take before this legislation does its job? How many other officers have to be shot before we do something?' Gun-related bills introduced so far by Democratic lawmakers include — House Bill 45 — Prohibit certain firearm transfers without a background check was introduced by Thomas and state Rep. Rachel Baker, D-Cincinnati, in February, but has had no committee hearings in the House Public Safety Committee. House Bill 46 — Enact the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act was introduced by Thomas and state Rep. Michele Grim, D-Toledo, in February, but it has had no hearings so far in the House Public Safety Committee. House Bill 120 — Exempt from sales and use tax sales of firearm safety devices was introduced by Brewer and state Rep. Jennifer Gross, R-West Chester, in February and has had sponsor testimony in the Ohio House Ways and Means Committee. House Bill 235, Authorize tax credit for handgun training and firearms storage was introduced by Brewer and state Rep. Meredith R. Lawson-Rowe, D-Reynoldsburg, in April, but it has had no hearings so far in the House Ways and Means Committee. Brewer said he is introducing the community safety solution agenda which includes: A resolution to encourage responsible gun ownership by promoting safe storage practices to prevent children from accessing guns. A resolution on safe firearm storage education. The safe play act that would create a grant program through the state's unclaimed funds to help communities build safe playgrounds. Close the boyfriend loophole act which prevents individuals convicted of dating violence or under protection order from possessing firearms. An act that would create comprehensive grants for cities that declare gun violence a public health crisis. 'We do not seek to outlaw guns, rather, we want to offer common sense regulations and publicize safe responsible ownership of guns,' Lawson-Rowe said. This summer will mark six years since a mass shooting in Dayton killed nine people and more pro-gun laws have since taken effect in the state. Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine signed a bill into law in 2022 that got rid of all training, background check and permitting requirements to carry a concealed weapon. A 2021 law no longer requires people to retreat before they can justifiably hurt or kill someone with a gun in self-defense. 'What we need now is the political will, something that unfortunately continues to be absent from the Republican-controlled legislature,' said state Rep. Michele Grim, D-Toledo. Russo said she wouldn't be surprised if Ohioans try to pass a ballot initiative addressing gun violence and common sense reforms. 'I'm not aware of current efforts to do that, but you know, given how out of line this legislature is the public on this issue, and the lack of action on this issue, it wouldn't be surprising to see that perhaps in the next couple of years,' she said. Ohioans did that in 2023 by voting to enshrine abortion and reproductive rights in the state's constitution. 'Gun violence has no place in our state and in our communities,' Russo said. 'People deserve better. Our children deserve better.' State Rep. Karen Brownlee, D-Symmes Twp., shared stories of gun violence she heard from children when she worked as a mental health therapist. 'A sibling group aged six to 13 running home from the bus stop to avoid a shooting in the middle of their residential neighborhood,' she said. 'A six-year-old accidentally shooting his three-year-old brother to death with a gun left on the coffee table.' These kids would ask her how to stay safe around guns. 'Sadly, the conversations ended with me explaining that Ohio laws protect guns more than they protect people,' Brownlee said. '… We are fighting against a powerful gun lobby which is more interested in sales than citizens.' A new study from George Washington University showed more than 7,000 children died from firearm related injuries since the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that allowed states to set their own gun laws. Follow Capital Journal Reporter Megan Henry on Bluesky. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE