Peter Wehner

American politics and conservative thought.

IN NYT, January 22, 2017

A year ago, I declared on these pages that despite being a Republican my whole life, I would not under any circumstances vote for Donald J. Trump for president. Since then, I’ve been asked by other Republicans if I kept that promise (I did) and whether I regret it (I don’t).

Republicans who disagree with my stance make the following argument: Mr. Trump, while flawed, is preferable to Hillary Clinton. His cabinet appointments, they say, have been reassuring, and it’s true that several of them are. In addition, the nominee to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court is certain to be more of an originalist than a Clinton appointment would be. On top of that, Republicans are in control of Congress, meaning they are likely to drive much of the agenda, particularly given Mr. Trump’s notable lack of interest in policy. Whatever misgivings anti-Trump conservatives might have had about him, he’ll undo much of the agenda of his liberal predecessor while Mrs. Clinton would have built on it.

This case is hardly irrational, and over time it may be proved right. President Trump may govern well and in a conservative manner, and my concerns about him may eventually look misguided and silly.

But I doubt it.

To understand why, it’s worth keeping in mind that my chief worries about Mr. Trump were never strictly ideological; they had to do with temperament and character.

This isn’t to say that I didn’t have worries based on Mr. Trump’s deviations from conservatism, a political philosophy he seems to have no real interest in or acquaintance with. Yet it was always a guarantee that on policy he would do more things conservatives would like than Mrs. Clinton would. But that was outweighed by other considerations.

The more pressing concern many of us had about Mr. Trump is that he simply isn’t up to the job of being president. And much that has happened during the transition period has confirmed those concerns. One example: Last weekend Mr. Trump gave an interview to the Washington Post in which he said his administration would quickly put out its own health proposal, which would cover everyone now insured and cost much less.

One problem: There is no Trump proposal. As Yuval Levin, my colleague at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, points out, it was the creation of his own imagination. Republicans on Capitol Hill and Mr. Trump’s own team were utterly perplexed by what Mr. Trump said, and not for the first time. The extraordinary and unenviable task facing the White House staff is to contain Mr. Trump, to keep a dysfunctional president from producing a dysfunctional presidency.

Beyond that, Mr. Trump has continued to demonstrate impulsivity and narcissism, an affinity for conflict and vindictiveness. Which leads to my main worry about Mr. Trump: His chronic lack of restraint will not be confined to Twitter. His Twitter obsessions are manifestation of a deeper disorder.

Donald Trump is a transgressive personality. He thrives on creating disorder, in violating rules, in provoking outrage. He is a shock jock. This might be a tolerable (if culturally coarsening) trait in a reality television star; it is a dangerous one in a commander in chief. He is unlikely to be contained by norms and customs, or even by laws and the Constitution. For Mr. Trump, nothing is sacred. The truth is malleable, instrumental, subjective. It is all about him. It is always about him.

The easy part, the transition to power, is over. The hard part begins now. So this concern arises: When President Trump is buffeted by events — when hard times hit, when crises arise, when other politicians and world leaders do not bend to his will — pernicious things will happen. Rather than try to address the alienation and anger that exists in America, he will amplify them. He’ll create yet more conspiracy theories. He will also go in search of enemies — the press, the opposition party, other nations, even Republican leaders — in order to create diversions that inflame his most loyal supporters. And when he locates his targets, he will do what is second nature to him, which is to try to delegitimize and destroy them. What’s different now is that he will have the additional, awesome power of the presidency at his disposal.

We cannot know the outcome of events in advance, but we can draw reasonable inferences. One of them is this: In failing to distinguish between the good of the nation and his own vanity, the danger is that Mr. Trump will fail to see the limits of his authority and will try to use both the bully pulpit and the power of government — the I.R.S., the F.B.I., regulatory agencies and others — to settle personal scores. He’ll do what he needs to in order to get his way. That has been the animating force in his life.

In “The Abolition of Man,” C. S. Lewis wrote, “I am very doubtful whether history shows us one example of a man who, having stepped outside traditional morality and attained power, has used that power benevolently.”

Donald Trump has not only spent much of his life stepping outside of traditional morality; he seems to delight in doing so. If I am right about Mr. Trump, and Lewis is right about history, then it is unlikely that President Trump will use his power benevolently. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Because Republicans control Congress, they have the unique ability and the institutional responsibility to confront President Trump.

What this means is that Republican leaders in Congress need to be ready to call Mr. Trump on his abuses and excesses, now that he is actually in office. It is a variation of the Golden Rule, in this case treating others, including a Republican president, as they deserve to be treated. They need to ask themselves a simple, searching question: “If Barack Obama did this very thing, what would I be saying and doing now?” — and then say and do it.

In anticipating a Trump presidency, I wish my hopes exceeded my fears. But Donald Trump has given us many reasons to worry. A man with illiberal tendencies, a volatile personality and no internal checks is now president. This isn’t going to end well.

Peter Wehner, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, served in the previous three Republican administrations and is a contributing opinion writer.

Nicely stated, well supported, deeply thought out.

I enjoyed reading your comments, Preston, and share many of your concerns.  As a moderate conservative, I was very uncomfortable that Trump was the Republican candidate...but I grimaced and voted for him as the lesser of 2 evils.  Hope it turns out that way. 

I would be interested in your analysis of the peculiar set of circumstances that brought Trump to become the Republican candidate.  (As we approached the November election, I couldn't help but feel that both major parties wished they could have a "do-over".) 

Thanks, again, for your thoughtful analysis.

Last summer, after the Republicans' convention and before the Democrats', I happened to be reading Malcolm Gadwell's "What the Dog Saw", and in the chapter "The Talent Myth" I was struck by the following:

"In the early 1990's, the psychologists Robert Hogan, Robert Raskin, and Dan Fazzini wrote a brilliant essay called "The Dark Side of Charisma." It argued that flawed managers fall into three types. . . . The most interesting of the three is the Narcissist, whose energy and self-confidence and charm lead him inexorably up the corporate ladder. Narcissists are terrible managers. They resist accepting suggestions, thinking it will make them appear weak, and they don't believe that others have anything to tell them. 'Narcissists are biased to take more credit for success than is legitimate,' Hogan and his coauthors write, and 'biased to avoid acknowledging responsibility for their failures and shortcomings for the same reasons that they claim more success than is their due.' Moreover:

'Narcissists typically make judgments with greateer confidence than other people . . . and, because their judgments are rendered with such conviction, other people tend to believe them and the narcissists become disproportionately more influential in group situations. Finally, because of their self confidence and strong need for recognition, narcissists tend to "self-nominate"; consequently, when a leadership gap appears in a group or organization, the narcissists rush to fill it.'"

Dead-on and, unfortunately, prophetic. Let's see whether the Republican Congress will step up and fulfill its responsibility to rein in our President, or leave it to the courts to do so.

Unfortunately, Mr. Wehner's concerns regarding President Trump were all-too prophetic. In addition, the Republican-controlled Congress, initially, and the Senate, now, have utterly failed to follow his advice: Ask, "What would I do if Barack Obama said or did this," and then do it. Worse, the Senate has, to the degree possible in the face of ultimately ineffective resistance from Democrats, rubber-stamped a couple of hundred, lifetime, judical nominations--including one for a hijacked Supreme Court opening--to reduce the likelihood of the courts providing a check on the President's self-serving decisions, as intended by the Constitution. It is a very sad day for our country.

Well here we are in 2020 with a pandemic raging, protests in the streets, the economy failing, a loss of respect around the world and still no leadership at the top levels. The "grim reaper" Mitch McConnell is living up to his moniker, as legislation that would move the nation forward pile up on his desk. The Republican party seems to have turned into a boot-licking, gaggle of sycophants more concerned about getting re-elected into their comfortable jobs with good pensions and healthcare provisions, than representing and serving their constituents. 

My question is: What are conservative voters going to do now?

The USA is at a critical juncture, I'd say a tipping point. Our children grew up with a broader perspective of the world than many of us did. Many of them provided an upbringing seeded by the idealism of the 60s. Our grandchildren have strong views on what is plaguing the nation and are taking to the streets and to social media. The really committed are on committees for change. They want to see a recognition by society that for a nation founded on genocide and slavery that Black Lives Matter. They want to ensure that our planetary home will be able to sustain itself, if we humans begin to consider the environmental degradation that unhindered exploitation of resources has caused. They want to see a society that values differences, but does not wantonly discriminate in prejudicial fashion. They want quality healthcare, education, elder care and housing available to all as a right - not something that requires a certain level of income. They want to tear down the prison industrial complex which has targeted specific populations, removed breadwinners from their families and enriched private corporations taking advantage of the "poverty to prison" pipeline. 

The young folk are ready for change, but can the same be said for us "old farts"?

Sadly, the concerns that had been expressed by Preston Cook (in Peter Wehner's article) and by Pat Furlong and Karen Kennedy Lawrence have become reality, as evidenced by the events of the past week.  It appears that I was naive in thinking that principled Republicans could somehow manage the abhorent behavior and dispicable personality of our President.  

I pray that Joe Biden and those who succeed him will help us return to civility, to wise legislation, to positive relations with our allies, and to equality for all Americans.

I just quickly reread Peter Wehner's column from four years ago, posted by Preston above, and as a bit of an aside to this string, I recommend that eveyone read our Pulitzer-Prize-winning clasmate Jack Rakove's thoughts regarding the complexity, and I would add, folly, of what currently is described as an "originalist" approach to interpreting the Constitution ("Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution"), unless you are an historian with deep knowledge of our early history.

Thanks, Jack!