. . . and these folks don't.
Unfortunately, many if not most of those who quote and are quoted (the media and politicians) are still fooling themselves into thinking Trump will adapt to the norms. Or maybe they just can't bring themselves to acknowledge the truth publicly. It’s hard to blame them. After all, these are career politicians, pundits, what have you; they’ve been using the same analytical tool kit for decades. And as we know, that’s one of the ironies of the psychopath: His behavior is so outside the social norms that observers can’t really get their heads around it, and so instead of recognizing that this is just what they are dealing with, they expect him to normalize.
Here’s a Republican commenting on the widely held frustration that the travel ban was announced out of the blue. From the New York Times:
Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, said similar failings had emerged in the early days of previous administrations but would not be tolerated for long.
“You get a brief period you’re allowed for a learning curve, but after that, you have to get your act together,” Mr. King said.
What King doesn’t get is that this is Trump’s act. It isn’t going to change.
The New York Times editorial board actually wrote these words (emphasis is ours):
"Congress ought to demand that the G.S.A. uphold the terms of the hotel lease and shame Mr. Trump into selling his other businesses, the fortunes of which are now hitched to the presidency."
We know it’s just an expression, but they couldn’t have picked a better one? This guy is – literally – incapable of shame. Shame requires not only recognizing but internalizing that others see you in an unfavorable light.
Of course, the best example is all those folks who suggested that Trump would “tone it down” once he got the nomination. Boy were they proven wrong (with the exception of the ten days or so when Kellyanne Conway must have changed the password on his Twitter account).
There seemed to have been fewer such suggestions that Trump would make that kind of transition once he took office; perhaps the media started to learn its lesson.
However, what still persists is a fundamental confusion between what should happen and what will happen. Just because something makes sense strategically or politically doesn’t mean Trump will do it, because – as is discussed elsewhere herein – he just does not have the capacity to engage in that sort of analysis (or is he interested in it).
Even when they get it right they can veer from the point. Generally speaking, The New Yorker magazine can't be praised enough, but consider this from the February 6, 2017 issue:
"Throughout the week, the President repeated his calumny that he lost the popular vote only because millions of 'illegals' voted for Hillary Clinton. Trump’s obsession with this subject may arise from his pathological need to tally every score in his own favor, but he surely knows that his propaganda also advances the Republican Party’s efforts to extend barriers to legitimate voting by Latinos and African-Americans, through voter-I.D. requirements and other state laws."
No. He doesn't "surely" know anything. Why would you think that? What is your basis for that? This is a guy who can't see past the end of his own nose and couldn't care less about anyone's interest but his own. Why would what the Republican party wants even hit his radar? Sure, he might know, in that he might have seen some self-interest in it. But "surely"? Yes, a normal politician, surely. But make no such assumptions about this guy.
Similarly, the phrase that continues to be used is “Trump will have to.” No. An ordinary person would “have to” (were they to apply any sort of logic). But again, that has no application here.
"He will be opposed both for what he stands for and for who he is. Beyond that, he will have to prove he can translate the skills of a businessman to the messier process of legislating and presidential decision-making. The slow process of populating his new government should raise cautions."
What does that really mean? “He will have to.”
To be a good President? According to whom? Anyone other than himself? Doesn’t care.
To actually help others? Doesn’t care.
To actually lead the nation? Does. Not. Care.