But Seriously, About Donald Trump...

Nothing against Alec Baldwin and the SNL crew, or Stephen Colbert or Trevor Noah or Jimmy Kimmel, or any of the other professional jesters who have found a goldmine in the 45th presidency of the United States, but...

I can't laugh at Donald Trump any more.

On October 25, 2017 - the day after Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Arizona) announced his resignation because of "Reckless, outrageous and undignified behavior...from the top of our government" - Ron Reagan, appearing on Chris Matthews' "Hardball," summed up the matter by saying, "Donald Trump is a deeply damaged human being." (8:15 in this clip)

Matthews laughed.

I suspect that it was the type of reflexive laugh that sometimes occurs in response to scary things. To seriously consider the humanity of a political figure can be scary, both because it can force us to lay aside the comfortable contempt with which we sometimes regard them, and because it may show us something of ourselves in them. I don't fault Matthews for laughing, but I think it's unfortunate that doing so prevented the serious conversation that might have occurred, about what to do with a President who is not well. 

Too many of us have laughed too much for too long at a man whose constant need for adulation leads him to make boasts that go beyond being merely false and are consistently absurd:

It's funny once or twice. Maybe even thrice. But after a point, this constant, craven craving to be the smartest, the biggest, the most successful, the best - not only now, but in all of history - becomes sad. It's not enough for us to dismiss the perpetual hyperbole as a con man's habitual selling, when there are no transactions involved, when there is no material benefit to be gained. In fact, that may be the most telling characteristic of these tall tales - beyond being false, or even absurd, they are totally unnecessary. They serve no discernible purpose, other than slaking - but never satisfying - his perpetual thirst, providing morsels for his insatiable hunger.

That thirst and hunger make Donald Trump, not a comic figure, but a tragic one.

Trump's perpetual self-praise does not merely shows a deep neediness. It also raises a question: "How much of what he says does he himself believe?" Because the less that he believes what he says, the more dishonest he is. But the more that he believes what he says, the more deeply delusional he is.

Trump's neediness, dishonesty and delusion make him, not only a tragic figure, but a dangerous one.

In "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President", Gail Sheehy (author of "Passages") contributes a chapter titled, "Trump's Trust Deficit Is The Core Problem," in which she points out that "Donald Trump has boasted of his total lack of trust...his father trained him to be a 'killer,' the only alternative to being a 'loser.'" In the closing paragraph, she writes:

"Beneath the grandiose behavior of every narcissist lies the pit of fragile self-esteem. What if, deep down, the person whom Trump trusts least is himself? The humiliation of being widely exposed as a 'loser,' unable to bully through the actions he promised during the campaign, could drive him to prove he is, after all, a 'killer.'" 

Yesterday, Jan. 2, 2018, Trump's need, and possibly his delusion, manifested with new boldness:

Like a cop who responds to a mentally ill person with a knife by shooting them dead, Trump escalated, rather than de-escalating, a situation that put him on edge. This is a bad way for America's chief diplomat to respond to a diplomatic challenge, and all by itself, it shows that Trump is unsuited for the job. 

The men and women of America's military deserve a more trustworthy commander in chief. 

Now I'm going to risk being accused of doubletalk, as I answer an obvious question: Am I saying that the satirists of the world need to stop highlighting Trump's absurdities?

No, I'm not. All of the people named at the beginning of this piece know their craft well enough to know that the most powerful satire is always, at bottom, deadly serious. In the face of continuing absurdity, satire may be the best journalism.

But I am recommending that we all be as serious as the best satirists are - that we all be careful to make a distinction between laughing at Trump's words and actions, and totally dismissing the man himself; that we guard our hearts against contempt.

I am suggesting that perhaps pity would be a more appropriate emotional response to the man himself; that when we laugh at his words and actions, we should honestly face the fears that they evoke. And even, for some, the rage.

Finally, I'm saying that we should let all of the emotions that Trump inspires in us move us to action. That's what emotions are for, to energize motion.

Conversing with fellow citizens about the 25th Amendment might be a good place to start. But if that's not for you, then find out what is. To quote the amazing Jenifer Lewis: DO SOMETHING.

Craig's New Mark

No, this doesn't have anything to do with the founder of Craigslist. This has to do with Idaho Senator Larry Craig, whom I first heard of today, with the news that he held a news conference to say, "I am not gay."

Um, okay, Senator. And why are you telling us this?

Well, there's a whole story here that I've totally missed til now, about how the senator was arrested back in June for disorderly conduct.

According to the AP story:

The official police complaint on Craig's case was detailed.

It said airport police Sgt. Dave Karsnia, who was investigating allegations of sexual conduct in airport restrooms, went into a stall shortly after noon on June 11 and closed the door.

Minutes later, the officer said he saw Craig gazing into his stall through the crack between the door and the frame.

After a man in the adjacent stall left, Craig entered it and put his roller bag against the front of the stall door, "which Sgt. Karsnia's experience has indicated is used to attempt to conceal sexual conduct by blocking the view from the front of the stall," said the complaint, which was dated June 25.

The complaint said Craig then tapped his right foot several times and moved it closer to Karsnia's stall and then moved it to where it touched Karsnia's foot. Karsnia recognized that "as a signal often used by persons communicating a desire to engage in sexual conduct," the complaint said.

Craig then passed his left hand under the stall divider into Karsnia's stall with his palm up and guided it along the divider toward the front of the stall three times, the complaint said.

The officer then showed his police identification under the divider and pointed toward the exit "at which time the defendant exclaimed `No!'" the complaint said.

Okay, I'm confused. While the above-described conduct may be distasteful, even creepy, how is it criminal? There's no suggestion that the senator in any way tried to make the Sgt. do anything he didn't want to do. Indeed, if Sgt. Karsnia had responded negatively to Craig's gazing-through-the-crack, rather than stringing him along for the sting, the senator would probably have stopped in a heartbeat. Nobody likes rejection, right? And there would have to be something kinda scary in that scenario to begin with. The guy in the stall could be someone who wouldn't settle for saying "Bug off!", but who would feel the need to crack bones.

So if the police report is accurate, the senator's behavior was creepy and risky. But come on - if "communicating a desire to engage in sexual conduct" is grounds for arrest, then at least a couple of billion people ought to be headed for the pokey right now. Scads of people are trying to hook up as I write this, and scads more will be when you read it. And if a bunch of them are in fact gay, so what?

Sen. Craig has now been marked as possibly being gay. But even if he is, SO WHAT? His family would have to deal with it, but how in the world is it the business of the criminal justice system?

(The foot-tapping makes me think of a "Saturday Night Live" bit from many years ago. It was set in a men's room, with three stalls, I think. And guys went into each of the stalls, and if I remember correctly, starting tapping their feet. And after a minute or so, when they were well synchronized, they began singing..."Under the Boardwalk?" Anyway, I had no idea that the whole bit was referring to "a signal often used by person communicating a desire to engage in sexual conduct.")

I won't even deal with the sheer gooniness of the responses by some of the senator's colleagues.

Well, okay, just one. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, from the same story:

"He's disappointed the American people," Romney said on CNBC's "Kudlow & Company."

Uhhh...NOT! Mitt, get a grip, and if you can't get a grip, then at least get a clue. Most of the American people can't even name their own senators, and you think they'll be disappointed in a senator from Idaho? That's too funny.

Unless you're right. Then it's really scary.