How Firing Comey Makes the Trump Presidency More Threatening
So here I am. Behind on my posts. Figure I need to write one about the AHCA, and just as I hit publish… He did again. Something so unprecedented and disturbing that I must update the Trump Watch. I am of course talking about the FBI Director being fired while the FBI is investigating Russian influence into the Trump campaign.
The likelihood of a Threatening Presidency is still Medium but on its way to High
That I had increased the Attempt rank to High probably does not surprise you. You’re probably wondering why I did not go to Very High since he arguably is attempting right now. So, forgive me, but I’m about to parse words.
Before Trump being elected I asked if he was a “threat to democracy”, which if anything, he is less of a threat. As I pointed out in The First Step of Many, to reach the final steps of an existential threat, he needs the support of the military or a paramilitary. Firing Comey looks like this will alienate the FBI and does not help him to organize his own paramilitary. To change that, he would have to appoint a fanatical FBI Director and purge resistant FBI agents, which we have become more alert to (hopefully)
However, we aren’t asking if he is a “threat to democracy” anymore, we are asking if he is ““threat to democratic progress””. Does firing Comey, risk rolling back our democratic progress. Yes. Yes, it does. That should be obvious. What is not obvious is whether it does more than previous presidents. So, let’s look at some comparable actions in the past two presidencies.
What is in common with the firing of Comey is that they all have little proven[2] effect on us. They also share the concern that each erodes a check on presidential power. However, in that sense, President Trump has not only attempted but succeeded. He has already removed the norm of a presidential candidate showing his tax returns and not having business ties while serving as president. Regardless of what would be found, if the Russian Investigation is not completed, we may never be able to investigate a future presidents’ wrong doings.
Here is the troubling difference. All that I listed for W. Bush and Obama was for, what they viewed, the good of the country. There was no opportunity for gain. Trump fired Comey only for Trump. Only a Trump Delusional would not see this. More worrisome is that this fits an autocratic pattern that I can no longer ignore.
I've been hesitant to base my reasoning on Trump's personality, but he has consistently dealt with confrontation the same way that I feel more confident now. The pattern seems to at first threaten or bully, and if that does not work, charm. I won't go as far as to say that he has an authoritarian personality. A narcissist can also act authoritarian. However, I have enough experience in a hierarchical organization to say that he behaves in an authoritarian way.[3]
The problem is that the U.S. is not an authoritarian country. We have checks and balances, and so the President must expect to be checked. More importantly, he must be checked sometimes by those that work for him, like an FBI Director. An authoritarian politician will eventually adapt to this. As well can an authoritarian CEO. Even high-ranking military officers do. But a, born rich, 70-year old who’s only run a family business never needs to adapt. He only needs to threaten, bully, or charm.
At this point, I no longer ask if Donald Trump will try to threaten democratic progress. I only ask when. He will keep running into situations he cannot solve by threatening, bullying, or charming, and then will take extreme acts in conflict without democratic norm. Each time he succeeds, he gains the ability to do worse and worse. Eventually, that will reach beyond the processes of government to the rest of us being harmed.
If that make you unable to sleep, remember that I did warn you.
- Attempt: Medium -> High
- Competence: Medium
- No Check: Medium -> High
That I had increased the Attempt rank to High probably does not surprise you. You’re probably wondering why I did not go to Very High since he arguably is attempting right now. So, forgive me, but I’m about to parse words.
Before Trump being elected I asked if he was a “threat to democracy”, which if anything, he is less of a threat. As I pointed out in The First Step of Many, to reach the final steps of an existential threat, he needs the support of the military or a paramilitary. Firing Comey looks like this will alienate the FBI and does not help him to organize his own paramilitary. To change that, he would have to appoint a fanatical FBI Director and purge resistant FBI agents, which we have become more alert to (hopefully)
However, we aren’t asking if he is a “threat to democracy” anymore, we are asking if he is ““threat to democratic progress””. Does firing Comey, risk rolling back our democratic progress. Yes. Yes, it does. That should be obvious. What is not obvious is whether it does more than previous presidents. So, let’s look at some comparable actions in the past two presidencies.
- Rolled back Civil Rights (W. Bush through the Roberts Court)
- Mass dismissal of U.S. Attorneys (W. Bush)
- Increased surveillance (W. Bush, Obama)
- Questionable use of Signing Statements (W. Bush)
- Assassinated a U.S. Citizen (Obama)[1]
What is in common with the firing of Comey is that they all have little proven[2] effect on us. They also share the concern that each erodes a check on presidential power. However, in that sense, President Trump has not only attempted but succeeded. He has already removed the norm of a presidential candidate showing his tax returns and not having business ties while serving as president. Regardless of what would be found, if the Russian Investigation is not completed, we may never be able to investigate a future presidents’ wrong doings.
Here is the troubling difference. All that I listed for W. Bush and Obama was for, what they viewed, the good of the country. There was no opportunity for gain. Trump fired Comey only for Trump. Only a Trump Delusional would not see this. More worrisome is that this fits an autocratic pattern that I can no longer ignore.
I've been hesitant to base my reasoning on Trump's personality, but he has consistently dealt with confrontation the same way that I feel more confident now. The pattern seems to at first threaten or bully, and if that does not work, charm. I won't go as far as to say that he has an authoritarian personality. A narcissist can also act authoritarian. However, I have enough experience in a hierarchical organization to say that he behaves in an authoritarian way.[3]
The problem is that the U.S. is not an authoritarian country. We have checks and balances, and so the President must expect to be checked. More importantly, he must be checked sometimes by those that work for him, like an FBI Director. An authoritarian politician will eventually adapt to this. As well can an authoritarian CEO. Even high-ranking military officers do. But a, born rich, 70-year old who’s only run a family business never needs to adapt. He only needs to threaten, bully, or charm.
At this point, I no longer ask if Donald Trump will try to threaten democratic progress. I only ask when. He will keep running into situations he cannot solve by threatening, bullying, or charming, and then will take extreme acts in conflict without democratic norm. Each time he succeeds, he gains the ability to do worse and worse. Eventually, that will reach beyond the processes of government to the rest of us being harmed.
If that make you unable to sleep, remember that I did warn you.
