Trump likes to ‘win.’ Accept that and perhaps he can be neutralised
We all have our ways of trying to process what is going on in US politics at the moment. I have decided that my way will be to write…
We all have our ways of trying to process what is going on in US politics at the moment. I have decided that my way will be to write speculative essays thinking about how he might be defeated. You may enjoy reading them. You may even find something useful. But I can’t guarantee it. I’m doing this for me.
For today’s instalment, I have been thinking about the Trump I saw in The Apprentice. I loved that show. I admit it. Yes, it feels shameful now and it wasn’t that great a thing to admit a decade ago. But it had an appeal and I watched it with my young kids. They loved it too. The first thing we did when we got to New York was visit Trump Tower and have some ice cream. It was expensive and not that great but it was the only way to have ice cream in a cathedral of gold. My daughter wore a “You’re Fired!” t-shirt for years.
I, like many people, don’t buy the Trump is different in private than in public notion. That’s a tactic. So I think what we saw in The Apprentice was Trump as he really is. For the most part, it is the appealing picture of someone who takes a little advice and makes ‘calls.’ In many ways, it is a very Presidential view in contrast to what he has been doing on the campaign trail. I don’t know what you imagine the President of the US to do but taking a little advice and making a call seems like a good place to start.
But I also don’t buy the commentary that Trump was using The Apprentice to cultivate an image for a Presidential run. It is unlikely he has specific goals. Instead, he operates with a ‘system’ (a term I picked up from Scott Adams’ interesting life skills book). His ‘system’ is simple: he approaches everything as a contest and he wants to win every time.
In this, I think Adam Davidson, in his analysis of Trump’s economics, is spot on. The world according to Trump is always zero-sum and, thus, there are always winners and losers. He wants to be the winner. He says it all the time. This doesn’t sound too deep (not the sort of thing that qualifies for a ‘think piece’) but that doesn’t mean it isn’t accurate or useful.
The reason it is useful is that Trump contests are not what you might think. One sort of win-preferred is of the Chewbacca kind. Remember “let the Wookie win.” Why? Because he rips off arms when he loses.
Trump does not “rip off arms” when he loses. Instead, he appears to “let it go.” I know this because I saw this happen a couple of times on The Apprentice. In 2005 (in its 4th season) this happened:
Pinkett was chosen by Trump as the winner, describing Pinkett as an “amazing leader” and saying “Rarely have I seen a leader as good as you, and you lead through niceness”.[6] Moments after the announcement, Trump asked Pinkett his opinion as to whether he should take the unprecedented step and also hire the “outstanding” Jarvis too. In his reply, Pinkett asserted that there could only be one winner of the contest, a view which Trump chose to agree with.[6] This stance attracted much comment after the show, with Pinkett later defending his rationale, but making it clear he had no objection to Jarvis being hired by the Trump organization at a later date.[7] The reactions had taken Pinkett by surprise, but he later stated he remained on good terms with Jarvis. [From Wikipedia]
Notice what happened. Trump was indecisive and wanted to hire both Pinkett and Jarvis. And so he tried to change the deal. But Pinkett, in a surprising moment, said no — “there is only one Apprentice” — and so Trump actually lost and very reluctantly agreed. No one had their arms ripped off.
A similar thing happened again. In the first season of The Celebrity Apprentice, Gene Simmons was the star and Trump loved him. But very early in the season Simmons was a project leader and his team lost. Trump clearly did not want to fire him but Simmons, knowing the corner he was pushing Trump into, persistently gave Trump no choice. Trump was defeated in that negotiation.
Neither of these were ‘high stake’ negotiations so a sensible person can dismiss them. But for purely commercial reasons Trump wanted Simmons to continue in the show so it wasn’t nothing. Critically, however, it showed what happened when Trump loses. And the answer is nothing.
Having outlined this, what does it tell us about defeating Trump? The answer is that you do not need to fear defeating Trump (at least in the short-term). He will lose quickly when it is inevitable.
Not realising this has already caused Paul Ryan to fall into a trap. He has held back his endorsement of Trump in order to get something from him. Trump, of course, say this for what it was: a declaration of war. In other words, Ryan has pushed their fight into the public and so it is now something Trump has to win. Unless Ryan has a way to actually defeat Trump, this is now a big problem for him. Trump will require a full victory. Had Ryan not chosen to play the game, Trump may have been able to deal with him behind closed doors.
For the rest of us, the lesson is that it also matters what is done in public and, I believe, that the Democrats need to do much more in public with Trump than they would have otherwise planned to. But that is a topic for another day.