The Supremacy of the Boundless Ego*
The barrage of insults and summary judgments Donald Trump dispensed to his supposed allies at the NATO summit is only the latest drop in the bucket of humiliations, broken rules and flouted conventions he has already amassed. One might say the bucket is now full and overflowing. That is, if it made any sense to discuss the very concept of measure when confronting a man who has publicly declared that “there are no limits” to his power. If words still mean anything, this brief statement alone reveals precisely what the issue at hand is: Democracy, which was founded on the principle of shared limits, has democratically given birth to its exact opposite.
For years, people have been trying to make sense of Trump’s blatant lack of respect for others — meaning the rest of the world, not to mention roughly half of the American population. How can a United States president — the very successor to the likes of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy — conduct himself in such a crude, primitive manner? To put it bluntly, the core question is whether his behavior stems from clinical insanity, or whether it is merely a normal, albeit extreme, manifestation of political arrogance. His admirers call it commendable candor. After all, how much credit is due for candor that veers into bullying is entirely a matter of personal opinion.
In light of the facts, this question is only of secondary importance. Whatever the cause of Trump’s behavior over the last couple of years, it certainly makes for an unprecedented, history-making spectacle: a man standing before his fellow citizens and the world, sending a clear message through his words and actions: “I do what I want and say what I like. I’m in charge, I call the shots, and you would be wise to obey.”
Historical anecdotes of ancient tyrants, of the caprices and excesses of Ancien Régime monarchs, or of 20th-century despotism and its pathological relationship with cheering masses — all certainly bear a resemblance to Trump’s intemperance. But they have no place in democratic life as we have known it for generations. Social conflicts, ideological clashes and even political hatred have always been natural elements in the friction of coexistence and struggle between opposing forces that we call democracy.
Before Trump, such an idea had never been expressed so unmistakably and chillingly: the idea that a man could essentially declare, amid roaring applause, “I recognize no rules beyond myself, my own economic interests and my personal power; I am the personification of the nation and therefore my supremacy and American supremacy are one and the same.” Even Silvio Berlusconi, who certainly displayed egotistical tendencies and was a pioneer in utilizing narcissism as a political asset, was eventually made to play by the rules. If he was born a demagogue and died a liberal — at least formally — it is because the very politics he sought to mold to his liking ultimately ended up molding him.
But not Trump. Trump is like a fencer who, halfway through a fencing match, pulls out a gun and shoots his opponent dead. He makes the rules and the rules say he, and he alone, is allowed to shoot. Any accusations of unfairness or of rigging the game leave him completely unfazed. He genuinely does not understand what all the fuss is about. The recent scandal — both tragic and comic — of FIFA lifting a red-card ban during the World Cup, following direct intervention by the American president, is a case in point. Many of us could hardly believe our eyes when we first saw that news.
The real question at this point is how it came to be that such a person — someone you wouldn’t invite to a dinner party out of fear he would insult the other guests and have the cook deported — made it into the White House. The political and economic analyses we have all been reading for years, hoping to make sense of it all, only explain it to a certain extent. Sure, the working class feels betrayed by the Democrats and threatened by globalization. Sure, political correctness has gone too far and become oppressive. Sure, climate change is just a hoax manufactured by doomsayers and communists, so we can shamelessly keep our thermostat at 66 degrees and throw a whole cow on the barbecue every single day: God bless America.
But is this cocktail of unrealistic promises and tall tales about restoring a nonexistent golden age truly enough to explain Trump’s rise? Perhaps not. We must come to terms with the idea that, for many, opening fire during a fencing match is a viable and perhaps even welcome solution. In a world that leaves us scared and disoriented, any escape route can feel justified, no matter how unfair, underhanded or violent. Many Trump supporters who will vote for him or his imitators see belligerence as an appropriate response to perceived threats, whether those threats are real or imagined. Faced with the choice, who would choose to be the lamb when you can be the wolf? Better yet, to be the wolf of Aesop’s fables: “Superior stabat lupus.” The wolf stood higher up the stream, yet accused the lamb downstream of muddying his water. And under that pretext, it devoured the lamb. On social media, many would applaud.
*Editor's note: This article is available in its original language with a paid subscription.
For years, people have been trying to make sense of Trump’s blatant lack of respect for others — meaning the rest of the world, not to mention roughly half of the American population. How can a United States president — the very successor to the likes of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy — conduct himself in such a crude, primitive manner? To put it bluntly, the core question is whether his behavior stems from clinical insanity, or whether it is merely a normal, albeit extreme, manifestation of political arrogance. His admirers call it commendable candor. After all, how much credit is due for candor that veers into bullying is entirely a matter of personal opinion.
In light of the facts, this question is only of secondary importance. Whatever the cause of Trump’s behavior over the last couple of years, it certainly makes for an unprecedented, history-making spectacle: a man standing before his fellow citizens and the world, sending a clear message through his words and actions: “I do what I want and say what I like. I’m in charge, I call the shots, and you would be wise to obey.”
Historical anecdotes of ancient tyrants, of the caprices and excesses of Ancien Régime monarchs, or of 20th-century despotism and its pathological relationship with cheering masses — all certainly bear a resemblance to Trump’s intemperance. But they have no place in democratic life as we have known it for generations. Social conflicts, ideological clashes and even political hatred have always been natural elements in the friction of coexistence and struggle between opposing forces that we call democracy.
Before Trump, such an idea had never been expressed so unmistakably and chillingly: the idea that a man could essentially declare, amid roaring applause, “I recognize no rules beyond myself, my own economic interests and my personal power; I am the personification of the nation and therefore my supremacy and American supremacy are one and the same.” Even Silvio Berlusconi, who certainly displayed egotistical tendencies and was a pioneer in utilizing narcissism as a political asset, was eventually made to play by the rules. If he was born a demagogue and died a liberal — at least formally — it is because the very politics he sought to mold to his liking ultimately ended up molding him.
But not Trump. Trump is like a fencer who, halfway through a fencing match, pulls out a gun and shoots his opponent dead. He makes the rules and the rules say he, and he alone, is allowed to shoot. Any accusations of unfairness or of rigging the game leave him completely unfazed. He genuinely does not understand what all the fuss is about. The recent scandal — both tragic and comic — of FIFA lifting a red-card ban during the World Cup, following direct intervention by the American president, is a case in point. Many of us could hardly believe our eyes when we first saw that news.
The real question at this point is how it came to be that such a person — someone you wouldn’t invite to a dinner party out of fear he would insult the other guests and have the cook deported — made it into the White House. The political and economic analyses we have all been reading for years, hoping to make sense of it all, only explain it to a certain extent. Sure, the working class feels betrayed by the Democrats and threatened by globalization. Sure, political correctness has gone too far and become oppressive. Sure, climate change is just a hoax manufactured by doomsayers and communists, so we can shamelessly keep our thermostat at 66 degrees and throw a whole cow on the barbecue every single day: God bless America.
But is this cocktail of unrealistic promises and tall tales about restoring a nonexistent golden age truly enough to explain Trump’s rise? Perhaps not. We must come to terms with the idea that, for many, opening fire during a fencing match is a viable and perhaps even welcome solution. In a world that leaves us scared and disoriented, any escape route can feel justified, no matter how unfair, underhanded or violent. Many Trump supporters who will vote for him or his imitators see belligerence as an appropriate response to perceived threats, whether those threats are real or imagined. Faced with the choice, who would choose to be the lamb when you can be the wolf? Better yet, to be the wolf of Aesop’s fables: “Superior stabat lupus.” The wolf stood higher up the stream, yet accused the lamb downstream of muddying his water. And under that pretext, it devoured the lamb. On social media, many would applaud.
*Editor's note: This article is available in its original language with a paid subscription.
Previous article![]( "Just Leave Sports Alone")
