Paying too much attention to the President??

I have to write this, just to blow off some steam that has been building for months.

First, with whom to be disappointed?  
Some prominent possible choices are: Donald Trump, Trump family members, the approx 1/4 of the US electorate who voted for Trump  the approx 1/2 of the US electorate who did not vote, and, finally, the "institution" of the US electoral college.

- Trump? No. I never expected anything good from him.
- His family members? No. That they would moderate his tendencies was a fantasy promoted by some, I suppose out of desperation and grief.
- Those who voted for Trump? Probably.  I'm tempted to say to them now: "How's that working out for ya?"  But most of them probably think it's fine.  And they have one vote each, more or less, just like me.
- Those who did not vote? Yes!!  If more Americans do not get involved, I can see clearly where the nation is headed.  Young people, minorities, the poor, the less educated: where were you on election day?  Do you care?
- The electoral college? Yes!!  This is hardly an "institution", but more just a set of rules, but a set of rules that are unfair (at least in a democracy).  This antiquated relic of a political compromise, over 200 years old, has now burnt progressive Americans twice in the last 16 years, and we can see the negative consequences: Iraq war, Trump, etc.  Could it be changed? Yes.  Will it be changed? Very unlikely in my opinion, since it currently favors the right, and why would they be willing to participate in changing it, and their participation would be required.

Second, "Trump approvals".  
As usual, we watched to the PBS NewsHour Friday night, which on Fridays includes a session of the political analysis and commentary of Brooks and Shields (except this time it was Brooks and Marcus).  David Brooks is the more conservative of the two.  They were commenting on Trump's European trip, including his speech in Warsaw and his meeting with Putin in Hamburg as part of the G20 meeting.

Regarding the Warsaw speech, Brooks gave Trump some good marks, especially on his comments about "Western civilization".  I can not concur.  To suppose that Trump is a defender of Western civilization is ludicrous.  I doubt that without a teleprompter, Trump could speak at any length about what Western civilization is, or what is good about it.  When prompted, he may say nice things about it, it may say that he is here to defend it, etc.  But his actions are just the opposite.

A clock that is not running is still correct twice a day.  But to say that "the clock is correct sometimes" is a very misleading statement.  I am not comparing Trump to Hitler, but even Hitler probably did some good things for Germany; made the trains run on time, maybe?  That does not mean that we should speak approvingly of his speeches about German culture or civilization.  Likewise to complement Trump because he made a few positive (or even true) remarks is like approving the child who did not study for his test, but got some of the answers right.

David Brooks has a strong moral component to his thinking, and he thinks in the long term, traits which I admire. Part of my disappointment with Brooks goes way back the the days of "W", when Brooks admired Bush's "strategic vision".  Bush had no strategic vision.  Whatever drove his foreign policy it was not a strategic vision.  It may have been revenge, it may have been the influence of Cheney and/or Rumsfeld, but it was not any strategic vision arrived at on his own.  He may have been a interesting guy to have a beer with, but not to discuss long-term visions or strategies.  Bush and Trump share at least one common trait: they were both born on 3rd base, and think they got there by hitting a triple.

Brooks also made some positive remarks about Trump's strategic thinking.  Again, just because someone gets a few things right,  does not make him a role model or a strategic thinker to be admired or complimented.   For many persons, being complimented on a good deed or utterance, might reinforce more of the same behavior.  I don't think it works that way with Trump.

Trump is being treated often in the media the way Bush was, as a simple, not-very-deep thinker, who is to be praised when he says or does something seemingly profound or good.  This dumbing-down of expectations is what many seem to be worried about.

Lastly, unending analysis and discussion about Trump and what he says or Tweets.
As with many other issues and incidents, there has been almost unending commentary in the media in the last two days about Trump's meeting with Putin: who said what, what did they mean, that there were no notes taken, who won or lost as a result of the meeting, who is up/who is down, what's the spin afterwards, etc, ad infinitum.

So much energy and time is being spent in the media parsing what Trump says or Tweets, what his motivations are, as though there was a glimmer of intelligence there.  Psychiatrists debate whether or not they should speak out about Trump; thanks, but I don't need your professional opinion to decide what I think about Trump!  We now know all we need to know.  He is self-centered, unfeeling, insensitive, and preoccupied with his public perception and "winning".  The worst thing for Trump is not negative press, but NO press; "call me anything but just don't call me late for dinner."  Claiming the press as his adversary is a gift to himself.

Could we dial-down the coverage?  For sure, let's focus on what Trump and his administration actually do; what concrete actions do they take, of which there have been many.  But let's ease up on the reporting and analysis of what he says.  For we know that Trump is never confined or invested in what he has said.  If it still works for him, then it's still good; if not, then it's not what he meant, or he never really said that, or it's "fake news", or all of the above.  There will be no end to chasing after meaning or information in what he utters.

After saying all this, I realize how unreasonable it is.  David Brooks and all the media make their living by writing and saying things that will be read in papers, watched on TV, or listened to on the radio.  Much of the public, and especially many who voted for Trump, love this stuff; it replaces the soap operas and reality TV; it is the new reality TV, filled with drama.  Therefore, it must be reported.

There is a small glimmer of  hope in our personal realms.  Recently, on several occasions, Nadine and I have gone to lunch or dinner with friends, and I have requested, as we sat down together, that we not discuss Trump for the duration of the meal, typically between one and two hours long. The first time I asked this, the immediate reaction, after a small pause, was "OK".  The next statement, somewhat jokingly, was "So, what will we talk about?"  But we did manage to talk about a lot of other things.  So refreshing and freeing!!  Am I hiding my head in the sand.  Maybe, but at times I need that.

Thanks for listening.  I feel a little bit better for having gotten these thoughts off my chest.