{UAH} Allan/Pojim/WBK: Trump debacle shows why kids shouldn’t run the campaign - The Washington Post
Trump debacle shows why kids shouldn't run the campaign

Top politicians very often have canny spouses who provide not only emotional support but also smart insights. The best ones can level with the politician. Nancy Reagan watched the White House staff like a hawk. Laura Bush chastised President Bush for macho talk like "bring it on." Neither of these political wives, however, would have dreamed of running the campaign. They and other savvy spouses (e.g. Ann Romney, Michelle Obama, Heidi Cruz) want their husband to have the best, most professional advisers. Michelle Obama famouslypressed her husband's team in advance of the 2008 race to come up with concrete plans for a victory.
Trump, however, has no top-flight people around him. He has never been able to trust or enlist people who have won presidential races. In essence, by default and, perhaps, because of his frail ego and distrust of those who know more than he does, he has turned his three adult children and son-in-law into his top campaign echelon. Ivanka Trump's husband, Jared Kushner, reportedly helped draft speeches and has overseen "virtually every facet" of the Trump campaign.
Despite all the ooh-ing and ahh-ing by the media(Look how articulate Trump's children are! Oh, the boys are so polite! At least he has those kids!), this is not a good thing.
For starters, the Trump children have zero experience running a campaign and no more command of policy than Trump himself. Ivanka Trump's great policy contribution seems to have been a child-care credit that benefits the rich. It's one thing if your child is, say, Matt or Tagg Romney, who have been through two campaigns, but if your kid is a 30-something groomed in the family business, it's better not to rely on him or her to decide presidential campaign strategy.
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is overhauling his struggling campaign amid sliding poll numbers. (Reuters)
Moreover, you cannot fire your kids, nor can they quit. Well, you can, but it's exceedingly awkward to do so. Others on the campaign are loath to go up against the kids for fear of getting bounced (as Corey Lewandowski reportedly was). Children, no matter how hard-nosed, do not view parents (especially ones to whom they owe their lavish lifestyle) objectively. The problem of getting the candidate trapped in a bubble intensifies when the children become a phalanx protecting the candidate from harsh but constructive criticism. The kids, naturally, value the relationship with the parent more than victory. If given the choice between the two, they'll look to keep the relationship intact, even at the risk of countenancing disastrous campaign decisions.
And lastly, if you live the rarefied life of a billionaire, insulated from the concerns and pressures of ordinary people, you probably don't want to surround yourself with millionaire/billionaire children insulated from the concerns and pressures of ordinary people. Their friends, experiences and perspective are as unrepresentative of ordinary America as your own. All you are doing is magnifying the blind spots and minimizing the opportunity for corrective action.
In Trump's case, over-reliance on his kids is a reflection of both his narcissism and deep insecurity (which, I suppose, is at the root of the former). He believes he knows it all. Professionals are "stupid" and "incompetent." (Some are, but he cannot distinguish between the stupid and the smart, the incompetent and the expert.) He has not the patience nor the capacity to learn policy or master the fine points of political strategy; he therefore is loath to interact with professionals who'd figure out that he, in essence, is a fraud woefully uninformed about anything beyond his own business.
Far from being an asset, the Trump kids reflect and encourage Trump's worst instincts. Codependent relationships are, by definition, unhealthy. In a campaign, they are fatal.
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who's spent months touting his ability to "win," has recently started to discuss the possibility of losing.(Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)
0 comments:
Post a Comment