Editor’s note: This commentary is by David Russell, of Perkinsville, who is retired renewable energy and securities consultant and whose writing appears in venues including the The Hill and Huffington Post.
[F]rom the very beginning of this populist era of Donald Trump we have been convinced that understanding “The Donald” was all about narcissism and money. The question was how long it would take for the world and Republicans to wake up to this conviction and what would happen when the awakening came. We are beginning to see how that all plays out.
For those of us steeped in business it is easy to see when someone has been “bought.” By bought it is meant the point where appeasing the source of financial support overrides all sense of principle or decency. While progressives have railed against the influence of money in politics, the affected players at least had the decency to deny the connections and act as if they had principled policy stances.
Watching President Trump grovel at the feet and seat of Vladimir Putin removed his façade. Putin — or more appropriately, his gang of oligarchs — owns Trump. In a meticulously researched article by Craig Unger that appeared in The New Republic, Unger details as much as can be known at this point about the history and process by which buying Trump took place. The article answers a lot of the questions regarding Trump’s business history.
Questions like: How does a man with colossal real estate failures continue to get financing? How does someone throw his name around “branding” every marginal business idea and make it pay? Unger tells a convincing story. Trump essentially failed in the early ’90s. Coincidently, the Russian elites making personal fortunes in the aftermath of the USSR dissolution needed places to hide and protect their money, and Trump’s real estate became a convenient parking spot. Without them there was no reason why he wouldn’t have simply crashed and burned.
The fact that these oligarchs fell in love with the Trump name is a little mystical. The ease with which Trump provided them vehicles to mask their U.S. investments was not. Further, the access to Trump’s business holdings enabled them to launder dirty money. Unger does not maintain that Trump was directly involved in money laundering but shows how he provided the stage and the vehicles by which it was accomplished. The smarmy character of Russians with which he dealt is alarming.
So, ask yourself the following questions: If you were a totally self-absorbed, unprincipled person whose financial existence was exclusively dependent upon a gang of oligarchs, especially oligarchs connected to a guy who has a reputation for eliminating dissent, where would your loyalties lie? Then ask yourself how this colossal stroke of good fortune of being “bailed out” might play on your self-image? Then layer on the impact of 16 years as a prime time TV superstar and guess how that plays on a person’s sense of invincibility.
Trump was not a threat to them. He was, in fact, an “empty suit.”
While the supplicant loyalty aspect of the president to Russians explains some things, the failure of his party’s leadership to confront or deal with this “compromised” man does not. Here, it is important to focus on two things: first, he wasn’t expected to win and second, since he did, his victory provided a windfall for conservative policy initiatives.
We start with an understanding of the party leadership. Sen. Mitch McConnell is a devilishly smart politician whose cynicism successfully frustrated the prior administration and led to the success of congressional Republicans in recent elections. Rep. Paul Ryan is no slouch either, although he does not hold a candle to McConnell’s skill set. Both concluded early on that “this man will sign anything” so long as he can spin it as a success to his base.
What they didn’t count on was the fact that there are other devilishly smart people in their party who simultaneously recognized that they could pursue their own agendas or respond to constituent pushback with impunity. Trump was not a threat to them. He was, in fact, an “empty suit.” McConnell tried to enforce party unity with his “secret negotiations.” Ryan used threats and concessions to move things along. The result has been chaos and no significant legislative achievements.
In the end, the special prosecutor either will or will not establish the extent to which the Trump election activities are criminal or impeachable events. Trump’s public threats about firing the special prosecutor if he “goes anywhere near the Trump family businesses” is the closest thing to a red flag as we need. Given the history of the president in his business pursuits and the evolving insights we are getting of his true character, it seems a foregone conclusion that things will not end well for him.
While Trump’s fate is still murky, there are a few things that are clear. First, Republican candidates will separate themselves from Trump without ever admitting that they are doing so. Given the blind loyalty of 36 percent of the population to the Trump image and the ill-informed nature of many in the voting public, Republican candidates for the Senate and House will trumpet (poor choice of words) their “traditional” Republican positions while ignoring the contradictions to Trump’s tweets. They will play on the disconnection or confusion that characterizes Trump’s support. After all, these Trump supporters claim success even though “repeal and replace” hasn’t happened, the “wall” hasn’t been built, the Iran contract hasn’t been trashed, manufacturing isn’t returning the U.S., and 3 percent growth in the economy and millions of new jobs is not a reality.
Second, Democrats have shown a glimmer of hope by refraining from the impeachment drumbeat. They have become aware of the old adage “be careful of what you wish for.” A Trump impeachment or simply declaring the president unfit and removing him through the use of the 25th Amendment gives us President Pence. It is genuinely painful to think of what that would mean. Democrats understand the value of a disorganized opposition.
Third, Democrats have started to focus on a positive message. “We have the fixes to the Affordable Care Act if you will work with us.” They have embraced the impressive effect that grassroots opposition has had. They are increasingly embracing the popular uprising that has sprung up since the women’s march in January and the unrelenting pressure being brought to bear on congressional leaders. It might also be that Democrats have come to understand that they can no longer live on hollow promises to their base. They will have to produce and they seem to be ready to ride this wave as it develops.
