Editor’s note: This commentary by retired ABC News diplomatic correspondent Barrie Dunsmore first appeared in the Barre-Montpelier Times Argus and Rutland Herald Sunday edition. All his columns can be found on his website, www.barriedunsmore.com.
[I]n accepting the Republican Party’s presidential nomination, Donald Trump aggressively assumed the mantle of fear-monger-in-chief. His speech stoked fears of hordes of job stealing illegal immigrants, a world filled with fanatical Muslims bent on terrorism, and various alien “others” who threaten America’s very being. The only hope he offered is that if he is elected he will, like some modern-day pied piper, or fairy godfather, magically fix all of American society’s political and economic woes. And implied is that he will restore the natural order of the “benign” rule of white, Christian men. In short, Trump is offering a fairy tale. And that makes me nervous.
Based on more than half a century of national and international reporting – and as a diligent student of world and American history – it is inconceivable to me that Donald Trump could be elected president of the United States. Yet as I examine the presidential contest which according to polls is more or less tied going into the final stages of the campaign, I am filled with a deepening sense of unease, that against all historical precedent and political logic Trump may well prevail in November.
It is not that the convention was a monumental success. Actually it often looked like an unmitigated disaster. But Trump not only seems to survive the chaos he creates – he thrives on it, while his hard core supporters are oblivious to his flaws which for any other presidential candidate, at almost any other time, would be disqualifying. Instead they dismiss his critics as validation of Trump’s brilliance and their support for him – and there seems to be no way to shake their blind faith.
I keep hoping against hope that at some point, it might begin to matter to at least some of his supporters that Donald Trump is virtually unable to tell the truth. But failing that, I believe the mainstream media must continue to repeatedly drive home to independent and undecided voters that Donald Trump does not tell the truth most of the time. I’m reminded of the old comedy line, “How can you tell if the man is lying?” Answer: “When his lips are moving.”
The fact checkers of various news organizations have been seriously challenged by Trump. Recently, Politi-Fact identified 34 of Trump’s statements “Pants on Fire” lies. The Washington Post fact checked 46 Trump claims and gave 70 percent of them its worst rating — four Pinocchios.
After agreeing to an interview last month, Schwartz told Mayer, “I put lipstick on a pig. I feel a deep sense of remorse that I contributed to presenting Trump in a way that brought him greater attention and made him more appealing than he is.”
This past week the New York Times devoted nearly two full pages to a story with the headline, “Trump’s Deals Rely on Creativity With the Truth.” The Times reports, “Based on the mountain of court records churned out over the span of Mr. Trump’s career, it is hard to find a project he touched that did not produce allegations of broken promises, blatant lies or outright fraud.” The paper lists some of those cases. “The Trump University students and Trump condo buyers who say they were fleeced; the public servants from New Jersey to Scotland who now say they rue the zoning approvals, licenses or tax breaks they gave based on Trump’s promises; the small-time contractors who say Mr. Trump concocted complaints about their work to avoid paying them; the infuriated business partners who say Mr. Trump concealed profits or ignored contractual obligations.”
USA Today reports that there have been 3,500 law suits filed in the courts involving Mr. Trump.
Still my disquiet at the prospect of a Trump presidency goes beyond his compulsive lying and highly dubious business practices. Here in the D.C. area, among the chattering classes at least, a spirited debate is underway. Washington Post editorial board member Fred Hiatt (normally, no bleeding heart) put it this way. “The debate is not over the man’s fitness for office — few people privately will make the case that Donald Trump is qualified or temperamentally suitable to be commander-in-chief — but over how much damage he might do. Some say that Trump could be more disruptive than any previous leader. Including propelling the nation toward fascism.”
Hiatt then goes on to ask what Trump might do if faced with a Supreme Court decision denying him the right to round up and deport 11 million undocumented immigrants. Would he ignore the court? Hiatt thinks he might. “Given the contempt that Trump expressed for the judiciary, and the ignorance he has displayed of the Constitution, that scenario is not so far-fetched. At such a moment, laws could not save you. Only people could.”
I must confess I was taken aback by that scenario. But a few days later in the New Yorker, the specter of a Trump presidency became even darker.
Jane Mayer, who is one of the magazine’s top reporters and recently the author of a highly revealing book on the Koch brothers, has a blockbuster last week – an explosive interview with Tony Schwartz, the ghost writer of Donald Trump’s 1987 memoir, “The Art of the Deal.” As Mayer reports, in writing the book, Schwartz spent 18 months and hundreds of hours closely observing Trump. The book became a major bestseller and did much to create the myth of Trump as a charmingly brash entrepreneur, with an unfailing knack for business. According to Mayer, “The prospect of President Trump terrified (Schwartz.) It wasn’t because of Trump’s ideology — Schwartz doubted that he had one. The problem was Trump’s personality which he considered pathologically impulsive and self-centered.” He also reveals that Trump has a dangerously short attention span. After agreeing to an interview last month, Schwartz told Mayer, “I put lipstick on a pig. I feel a deep sense of remorse that I contributed to presenting Trump in a way that brought him greater attention and made him more appealing than he is.” Then comes his true zinger. “I genuinely believe that if Trump wins and gets the nuclear codes, there is an excellent possibility it will lead to the end of civilization.”
I strongly recommend the entire article in last week’s New Yorker, under the title, “Trump’s Boswell Speaks.” It is indeed a chilling analysis.
