What Motivates Trump’s Strange Behavior?
Donald Trump waves to the crowd
A White House memo that recently surfaced details how Trump’s own staff has been pushing for our president to do something that will make him appear at least somewhat credible and responsible in dealing with the existential threat to our civilization known as climate change. The memo provided the president three options:
• Highlight the uncertainties of climate science
• Review the science
• Ignore the science altogether
Characteristically, Trump chose the third option, but why? How much effort would it have taken to opt for the first or the second? He could have said a few words during one of his speeches, e.g., “We have the very best people looking into this.” While this would have been total BS, what would it have cost him to try to appear somewhat presidential and concerned for the people’s welfare?
What makes Trump unique is that he has no interest in presenting himself as a legitimate leader of the people who elected him. With every word of gibberish that comes out of his mouth, with every flip-flop on trade policies and all the other subjects of great domestic and international importance that he clearly knows nothing about, it’s as if his number one priority is doing or saying the thing that is most outrageous, most preposterous.
Some people suggest all this is just a function of his narcissism, i.e., that he takes an enormous amount of gratification from dominating the news cycle seven days a week. Others speculate that all this has another purpose: keeping the world distracted while the billionaires double and triple their net worth at the expense of American people and the U.S. Treasury. If you think this is absurd, you may want to check out a few of the 7.9 million articles that have been written in support of the idea over the past 18 months.
The Koch brothers spent $20 million dollars influencing Congress to pass the tax “reform,” but they’ll benefit somewhere between $1 billion and $1.4 billion annually. That’s not a bad investment–but would any of this have been possible in a world in which Americans’ focus wasn’t riveted on Trump and his daily antics?
Craig,
You do realize you’re beginning to sound a little unhinged don’t you ?
I mean honestly Craig, when all you can do is repeat some rant you found on Facebook, rant about the “Koch Bros” and count the number of other rants about the President as if that some validated your unwillingness to accept reality,it might be time to take a deep breath, clear your head and make touch with reality again.
Whether you like it or not, President Trump will pursue his agenda his own way and on his own terms.
That’s both the strength and weakness of the “Executive President” style of government.
Over the next 3 years (or possibly more) the administration will not be swayed or influenced by the old style of “Washington” political rules and customs. Scandals, rants, media opposition,lobby groups, demonstrations (although those have been remarkably few) foul mouthed comedians, etc, are having no effect. The administration’s remains focused on fulfilling the commitments and election promises made during the campaign.
The administration will not be panicked or dissuaded by fluctuations poll numbers or media babble. While you may feel that the administration is somehow committing a “crime” by nullifying the previous administrations “legacy” , that’s exactly why it was elected !
You are free as an American citizen, to actively agitate and oppose the administrations policies by legitimate electoral means. What you shouldn’t do, is try to invent a parallel universe where President Trump didn’t win the election and pretend that’s reality.
That way lies a madness into which a large section of the media seem to have fallen.
In reality, science, global warming, climate change etc are no longer the key issues dominating the public agenda. The general public are more concerned with the economy, massive changes in world order and other concerns.
A large part of this ennui with the previously popular green movement was always to be expected as it’s young leftist supporters grew older and more concerned with personal circumstances. The media hasn’t helped. Becoming obsessed with inanity, old and meaningless scandals such as the “Stormy Daniels” nonsense and other distractions.
Traditional media has lost a great deal of credibility, especially as a large section of the populace see the leftist bias as a product of young, inexperienced, university educated journalists representing values not shared by the majority of the community.
The traditional media is now perceived as hypocritical, biased and unreliable. The rise of populist politicians world wide is a response to peoples discontent at being harangued, ignored, patronized and treated with contempt by a class of elite professional politicians with more in common with each other, than the average elector.
The only way to re-engage public interest in the environment is to disengage environmental issues from leftist (or any)political agenda and concentrate on credible, unbiased, positive achievements in clean technology etc.
People will switch to better products, they will revolt against ideological banning of consumer convenience or economic denial.
It’s time to stop lecturing and start encouraging.
You do realize you’ve been saying essentially the same thing about my ideas several times a week for 8+ years, don’t you? That takes a lot of work. Why?
Craig,
Eight years ? Really, has it been that long? I mean President Trump was only elected in 2016.
However, I take your point. I would love to agree with your ideas, and I used to agree with your opinions far more in the past, but as time moved on your respondents seem to shrink in number as your message became increasingly insular and biased.
Once we shared an optimistic fascination for advanced clean technology and how such technology could enrich the environment. In those days, 2GreenEnergy had quite a diverse following of eager contributors, posting ideas, news and projects involving your readers. Sadly in recent years the number of contributors seems to have dwindled.
You’ve changed from a hopeful and open minded advocate for environmental reform through developing clean tech, to a vehement political partisan obsessed with leftist political dogma and an advocate for only a few clean energy technologies.
We are both in our own ways, passionate environmental activists. Within that context I find it alarming to watch such an erudite and well-intentioned advocate, such as yourself, unintentionally do such harm to the environmental cause.
So I plug away, hoping to counteract your unintentionally counter-productive claims and disinformation, while hoping to encourage you to renew your old and more rational agenda.
My counter-balancing contributions are meant as a sincere tribute to the value of your advocacy and a respect for your ideas.
Craig,
Just thinking about the above.
You know, you can always join the debate and disprove my facts or research. If you really believe the “clean coal” technology is a “hoax” , you can always prove my sources are wrong or in error.
Oh and hey, I’d really like to know where you got the figure of 7.9 million and how was it calculated ? (or is that just another of your “trump” moments 🙂 ) ?