SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Trump was immune to anything remotely factual and felt no compulsion to act with decorum during the debate, turning it into an interruption-fest and essentially forcing Joe Biden to unleash his contempt back at Trump. (Photo: Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images)
Trump and the Lost Country
We're a hypermilitarized global absurdity.
Oct 01, 2020
Where, oh where, is the United States of America--global leader, creator of democracy, hope of humankind? It certainly wasn't up there on the debate stage last night.
When 9-year-olds start slinging insults at each other--"Is not!" "Is too!"--it's hard for platitudes to step in and re-establish a sense of situation normal. Indeed, the almost total absence of platitudinous rhetoric during the debate may be the one positive takeaway from this bizarre event, which otherwise put a naked president on display before the world, showing off his dystopian immaturity.
The unofficial term for Donald Trump's condition may well be "hubris syndrome," as discussed several years ago in an Atlantic article by Jerry Useem, titled "Power Causes Brain Damage."
Useem, quoting psychiatrists David Owen and Jonathan Davidson, defined hubris syndrome as "a disorder of the possession of power, particularly power which has been associated with overwhelming success, held for a period of years and with minimal constraint on the leader." He goes on to describe some of the syndrome's clinical features: "manifest contempt for others, loss of contact with reality, restless or reckless actions, and displays of incompetence."
So there you go. As far as I'm concerned, this is the best context in which to ponder the debate. Who the hell are we? This question matters far more than who "won" the debate or which way it pushed the poll numbers. Trump set the tone by making sure the debate was about nothing--that is, nothing except his greatness and incredible success, over and over, as the answer to every question and every challenge.
He was immune to anything remotely factual and felt no compulsion to act with decorum during the debate, turning it into an interruption-fest and essentially forcing Joe Biden to unleash his contempt back at Trump, at one point declaring: "It's hard to get any word in with this clown."
Biden also said: "You were the worst president America has ever had. Come on." To which Trump replied: "I've done more in 47 months than you've done in 47 years." It was these sorts of exchanges that began turning the debate into a barely watchable joke and, I fear, a naked expose of the true state of the union.
We're a hypermilitarized global absurdity. Indeed, Trump at one point brought up his creation of the space force--a new, science-fiction-esque military branch meant to give the United States dominance in outer space--as one example proving the accuracy of the statement he'd just made: "There's never been a president who's done more than I've done."
It wasn't like I'd expected much from this debate. But I did expect Trump's narcissism to remain a little more quietly in the background, expressing itself not as raw reality but hiding behind right-wing platitudes. That's what an American presidential debate is supposed to be. It's what the media expect to cover and ultimately pronounce a winner and a loser, based on how skillfully the platitudes are articulated . . . and other factors, such as, for instance, Richard Nixon's five o'clock shadow and sweaty forehead in that first debate with John F. Kennedy. Indeed, the era of televised presidential debates has seemingly amplified the significance of superficial factors in determining presidential fitness.
This, in the era of nuclear weapons! Not to mention climate change, along with all the issues, such as racism, that have always been part of the nation's social infrastructure. For sixty years now, we've been mixing those real issues in with such matters as a candidate's clothing and other trivia.
This has cheapened and waylaid the national, or at least the presidential, discussion of our serious issues. As a nation, we should by now be addressing such matters as racist policing, but instead we're still at the point where the racism itself--is it bad or is it OK?--is what we're debating. Thus when Trump was challenged by moderator Chris Wallace--"What's so radical about racial sensitivity training (for police)?"--he responded: "They were teaching people to hate our country, calling it a racist country."
In other words, calling America a racist country because it's a racist country is just plain wrong.
And, oh yeah: "All the violence is from the left wing, not the right wing. Somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left."
I repeat once more the name of the Atlantic article I quoted: "Power Causes Brain Damage."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Robert C. Koehler
Robert Koehler is an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist and nationally syndicated writer. Koehler has been the recipient of multiple awards for writing and journalism from organizations including the National Newspaper Association, Suburban Newspapers of America, and the Chicago Headline Club. He's a regular contributor to such high-profile websites as Common Dreams and the Huffington Post. Eschewing political labels, Koehler considers himself a "peace journalist. He has been an editor at Tribune Media Services and a reporter, columnist and copy desk chief at Lerner Newspapers, a chain of neighborhood and suburban newspapers in the Chicago area. Koehler launched his column in 1999. Born in Detroit and raised in suburban Dearborn, Koehler has lived in Chicago since 1976. He earned a master's degree in creative writing from Columbia College and has taught writing at both the college and high school levels. Koehler is a widower and single parent. He explores both conditions at great depth in his writing. His book, "Courage Grows Strong at the Wound" (2016). Contact him or visit his website at commonwonders.com.
Where, oh where, is the United States of America--global leader, creator of democracy, hope of humankind? It certainly wasn't up there on the debate stage last night.
When 9-year-olds start slinging insults at each other--"Is not!" "Is too!"--it's hard for platitudes to step in and re-establish a sense of situation normal. Indeed, the almost total absence of platitudinous rhetoric during the debate may be the one positive takeaway from this bizarre event, which otherwise put a naked president on display before the world, showing off his dystopian immaturity.
The unofficial term for Donald Trump's condition may well be "hubris syndrome," as discussed several years ago in an Atlantic article by Jerry Useem, titled "Power Causes Brain Damage."
Useem, quoting psychiatrists David Owen and Jonathan Davidson, defined hubris syndrome as "a disorder of the possession of power, particularly power which has been associated with overwhelming success, held for a period of years and with minimal constraint on the leader." He goes on to describe some of the syndrome's clinical features: "manifest contempt for others, loss of contact with reality, restless or reckless actions, and displays of incompetence."
So there you go. As far as I'm concerned, this is the best context in which to ponder the debate. Who the hell are we? This question matters far more than who "won" the debate or which way it pushed the poll numbers. Trump set the tone by making sure the debate was about nothing--that is, nothing except his greatness and incredible success, over and over, as the answer to every question and every challenge.
He was immune to anything remotely factual and felt no compulsion to act with decorum during the debate, turning it into an interruption-fest and essentially forcing Joe Biden to unleash his contempt back at Trump, at one point declaring: "It's hard to get any word in with this clown."
Biden also said: "You were the worst president America has ever had. Come on." To which Trump replied: "I've done more in 47 months than you've done in 47 years." It was these sorts of exchanges that began turning the debate into a barely watchable joke and, I fear, a naked expose of the true state of the union.
We're a hypermilitarized global absurdity. Indeed, Trump at one point brought up his creation of the space force--a new, science-fiction-esque military branch meant to give the United States dominance in outer space--as one example proving the accuracy of the statement he'd just made: "There's never been a president who's done more than I've done."
It wasn't like I'd expected much from this debate. But I did expect Trump's narcissism to remain a little more quietly in the background, expressing itself not as raw reality but hiding behind right-wing platitudes. That's what an American presidential debate is supposed to be. It's what the media expect to cover and ultimately pronounce a winner and a loser, based on how skillfully the platitudes are articulated . . . and other factors, such as, for instance, Richard Nixon's five o'clock shadow and sweaty forehead in that first debate with John F. Kennedy. Indeed, the era of televised presidential debates has seemingly amplified the significance of superficial factors in determining presidential fitness.
This, in the era of nuclear weapons! Not to mention climate change, along with all the issues, such as racism, that have always been part of the nation's social infrastructure. For sixty years now, we've been mixing those real issues in with such matters as a candidate's clothing and other trivia.
This has cheapened and waylaid the national, or at least the presidential, discussion of our serious issues. As a nation, we should by now be addressing such matters as racist policing, but instead we're still at the point where the racism itself--is it bad or is it OK?--is what we're debating. Thus when Trump was challenged by moderator Chris Wallace--"What's so radical about racial sensitivity training (for police)?"--he responded: "They were teaching people to hate our country, calling it a racist country."
In other words, calling America a racist country because it's a racist country is just plain wrong.
And, oh yeah: "All the violence is from the left wing, not the right wing. Somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left."
I repeat once more the name of the Atlantic article I quoted: "Power Causes Brain Damage."
Robert C. Koehler
Robert Koehler is an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist and nationally syndicated writer. Koehler has been the recipient of multiple awards for writing and journalism from organizations including the National Newspaper Association, Suburban Newspapers of America, and the Chicago Headline Club. He's a regular contributor to such high-profile websites as Common Dreams and the Huffington Post. Eschewing political labels, Koehler considers himself a "peace journalist. He has been an editor at Tribune Media Services and a reporter, columnist and copy desk chief at Lerner Newspapers, a chain of neighborhood and suburban newspapers in the Chicago area. Koehler launched his column in 1999. Born in Detroit and raised in suburban Dearborn, Koehler has lived in Chicago since 1976. He earned a master's degree in creative writing from Columbia College and has taught writing at both the college and high school levels. Koehler is a widower and single parent. He explores both conditions at great depth in his writing. His book, "Courage Grows Strong at the Wound" (2016). Contact him or visit his website at commonwonders.com.
Where, oh where, is the United States of America--global leader, creator of democracy, hope of humankind? It certainly wasn't up there on the debate stage last night.
When 9-year-olds start slinging insults at each other--"Is not!" "Is too!"--it's hard for platitudes to step in and re-establish a sense of situation normal. Indeed, the almost total absence of platitudinous rhetoric during the debate may be the one positive takeaway from this bizarre event, which otherwise put a naked president on display before the world, showing off his dystopian immaturity.
The unofficial term for Donald Trump's condition may well be "hubris syndrome," as discussed several years ago in an Atlantic article by Jerry Useem, titled "Power Causes Brain Damage."
Useem, quoting psychiatrists David Owen and Jonathan Davidson, defined hubris syndrome as "a disorder of the possession of power, particularly power which has been associated with overwhelming success, held for a period of years and with minimal constraint on the leader." He goes on to describe some of the syndrome's clinical features: "manifest contempt for others, loss of contact with reality, restless or reckless actions, and displays of incompetence."
So there you go. As far as I'm concerned, this is the best context in which to ponder the debate. Who the hell are we? This question matters far more than who "won" the debate or which way it pushed the poll numbers. Trump set the tone by making sure the debate was about nothing--that is, nothing except his greatness and incredible success, over and over, as the answer to every question and every challenge.
He was immune to anything remotely factual and felt no compulsion to act with decorum during the debate, turning it into an interruption-fest and essentially forcing Joe Biden to unleash his contempt back at Trump, at one point declaring: "It's hard to get any word in with this clown."
Biden also said: "You were the worst president America has ever had. Come on." To which Trump replied: "I've done more in 47 months than you've done in 47 years." It was these sorts of exchanges that began turning the debate into a barely watchable joke and, I fear, a naked expose of the true state of the union.
We're a hypermilitarized global absurdity. Indeed, Trump at one point brought up his creation of the space force--a new, science-fiction-esque military branch meant to give the United States dominance in outer space--as one example proving the accuracy of the statement he'd just made: "There's never been a president who's done more than I've done."
It wasn't like I'd expected much from this debate. But I did expect Trump's narcissism to remain a little more quietly in the background, expressing itself not as raw reality but hiding behind right-wing platitudes. That's what an American presidential debate is supposed to be. It's what the media expect to cover and ultimately pronounce a winner and a loser, based on how skillfully the platitudes are articulated . . . and other factors, such as, for instance, Richard Nixon's five o'clock shadow and sweaty forehead in that first debate with John F. Kennedy. Indeed, the era of televised presidential debates has seemingly amplified the significance of superficial factors in determining presidential fitness.
This, in the era of nuclear weapons! Not to mention climate change, along with all the issues, such as racism, that have always been part of the nation's social infrastructure. For sixty years now, we've been mixing those real issues in with such matters as a candidate's clothing and other trivia.
This has cheapened and waylaid the national, or at least the presidential, discussion of our serious issues. As a nation, we should by now be addressing such matters as racist policing, but instead we're still at the point where the racism itself--is it bad or is it OK?--is what we're debating. Thus when Trump was challenged by moderator Chris Wallace--"What's so radical about racial sensitivity training (for police)?"--he responded: "They were teaching people to hate our country, calling it a racist country."
In other words, calling America a racist country because it's a racist country is just plain wrong.
And, oh yeah: "All the violence is from the left wing, not the right wing. Somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left."
I repeat once more the name of the Atlantic article I quoted: "Power Causes Brain Damage."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.