2020 the Campaign Chronicles

By JD Foster

The 2020 campaign began with the 2016 election of Donald J. Trump and effectively rendered a verdict on his presidency. The Democartic Party sifted through a small army of worthies to defeat Trump and in former Vice-President Joe Biden they found their champion. Biden claimed the nomination following a phoenix-like rise propelled by a miraculous South Carolina primary victory. Backed by the party establishment and the mainstream media, Biden’s weak campaign proved sufficient by a handful of votes in a handful of states and leaving Biden with little mandate other than to avoid being like Trump.
The story of the 2020 election is in part a story of America and the Trump presidency, a stormy marriage of highs and lows shaped by contrived investigations into Russian government interference, a failed impeachment, a welcomed intolerance for sexual harassment, the exposure of deep racial divisions highlighted by widespread and often violent rioting accompanied by a re-examination of the role of the police, a strong economy until crushed by the coronavirus pandemic, and then the pandemic tragedy itself.
The Trump presidency’s four years astounded, for better or for worse, depending on point of view. This book chronicles the 2020 election and thus the events that shaped the election over the course of four years, written contemporaneously to capture the flavor of the moment, praising and criticizing Trump and his many antagonists in equal measure. Those enamored of the former president will find succor and outrage, as will those who delighted in his defeat. Those seeking to understand what happened will find the reading interesting, infuriating, and perhaps in places, illuminating.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Feb 17, 2021
• ISBN: 9781664158771

JD Foster

JD Foster analyzed and researched federal economic policy in Washington, D.C., for thirty-five years, having twice served in the White House, as well as with the U.S. Treasury, for three senators, a senior representative, and at three research organizations. He concluded his career as chief economist and senior vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He brings a lifelong curiosity and a passion to federal economic policy because policy directly affects people’s lives and greatly influences the nation’s prosperity and security. Foster received his undergraduate degrees in economics and mathematics from the University of Colorado and his PhD in economics from Georgetown University.

Book preview

Copyright © 2021 by Jd Foster.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Getty Images are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Getty Images.

Rev. date: 02/17/2021

Xlibris

844-714-8691

www.Xlibris.com

823769

CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP

The Early Days of Transition

Lost in Transition

Democrats Play 52-Card Pickup

The First Two—of About 4,000

Hamilton

Trump Goes Industrial

A Uniform Approach

Breaking Some China

Graduating from College

President Obama Goes Out Making Some Noise

Rolling Out More Names

What to Do about Donald

CHAPTER 2 THE TRUMP ERA BEGINS

President Superlative

Adults in Attendance

A Word or Two of Protest at the Start

The Travel Ban, Take 1

Trump Breaks a Promise

More Advice, Little Consent

Trump and Supreme Number 1

Trump’s Foreign Chats

Status Check

Warren Rises by Falling

TGIF

Still Building a Team

Winners and Losers All Trying to Find Themselves

CHAPTER 3 TRUMP IN MARCH

Democrats Look for a Footing

Russian Sessions

Who’s Watching You?

Repeal and Replace and Debacle

Xi and North Korea

Bannon Begins His Fall from Grace

Political Campaigns 365

CHAPTER 4 YEAR ONE, GOD HELP US

Mueller Time

Policy Nuggets

He’s In

A Few Days in March

Initial 2020 Rumblings

Stars Aligning

Supreme Court Wins for Trump

Independence Day Update

It’s All Russian for Donald

A Great Man Lays His Saber to Rest

Trump’s Really Bad Rotten Season

Pocahontas Loses Round Two

CHAPTER 5 THE MIDTERMS

Supreme Ugliness

The Electoral Landscape—of Waves and Races

And the Verdict …

Florida as Exemplar

A Very Grumpy President

A Very Lame Duck

CHAPTER 6 THE GAME’S AFOOT

Christmas Wish? A Little Peace? Not

Redefining Left Field

Another Year, Ready or Not

The Parade Begins

Shutdown Theater

Another Contestant

The Shutdown Putdown

The Campaign’s Jolt

Bernin’ Again

The Day of the Rat

The Parade Continues

CHAPTER 7 THE FIELD OF DREAMS

Oh No, Creepy Joe

It’s Mueller Time

Joe’s In, Thank God

Not So Fast, Mr. President

The New Big Dog

CHAPTER 8 IMPEACHMENT BUILDS

Socialist Wave? Maybe Not

Of Cover-Ups and Infrastructure

Cover Up or Uncover?

Mueller Time in Public

It’s Debatable

Biden Headwinds

Sanders Defines His Utopia

Mayor Pete’s Reality Mugging

First Debates

The Bigger Picture

CHAPTER 9 BIDEN MEETS THE NEW WORLD

What, Not Who, Is Kamala Harris?

Pelosi and the Squad

Sanders at a Minimum

The Second Democratic Debate

The Dog Days of August Claim the Looper

Universal Incitement

Three Tidbits into Labor Day

CHAPTER 10 THE FALL OF MANY

Rendell Tags Warren as a Hypocrite

The Third Debate

The Latest Best Example

The Political Cousins—Trump and Sanders

Impeachment Goes Live via Ukraine

Hunter Does Burisma

The Impeachment Machinery Readies

CHAPTER 11 HURTLING TOWARD A NATIONAL CRISIS

The Issue of Sanders’s Age

An Oval Tantrum

Cracks in the Case

More Warren Fiction

Another Debate

Impeachment Builds

What Are the Odds?

Who’s Got the Money?

CHAPTER 12 OUT IN THE OPEN

Campaign Checkup

Bloomberg’s News

Wall Street Is Heard

Media Culpability

Schiff Time

Trump Self-Indicts

Yet Another Trump Conundrum at Walter Reed

The Third Debate

Mayor Pete and the Case of the Self-Inflicted Wound

Giving Thanks

CHAPTER 13 THE HOUSE RUMBLES

Next Up for Impeachment: The Judiciary Committee

The Best of Times

Impeachment: Mission Accomplished?

The Angry Los Angeles Debate

CHAPTER 14 INCHING TOWARD THE TRIAL AND IOWA

It’s Not All about the White House

Minorities in the Minority

Pretrial Preparations

Sanders the Closet Sexist?

A Step Closer to Trial

CHAPTER 15 IOWA AWAITS

State of Play, Two Weeks Out

The Trial’s First Days

Hillary Can’t Keep Quiet

Mayor Pete, the Exit Is Calling

Trump’s Turn

Iowa Eclipsed

Senate Trial, Phase Two

Last Big Rush

Finally, the Big Day

CHAPTER 16 NEXT, NEW HAMPSHIRE

State of the Union

The Trial Ends

Post-Iowa

A Town Hall and a Debate

Stepping Back

Getting Primary

Betting Odds and the New Hampshire Primaries

CHAPTER 17 TIME TO GAMBLE

Bloomberg the Doer Does What, Exactly?

A New Cloud on the Horizon—Coronavirus

Who Should Choose?

Opposing Bloomberg

Nevada Debates

The Nevada Establishment Speaks

Getting Conventional

Nevada Caucuses

CHAPTER 18 SOUTH CAROLINA AND SUPER TUESDAY

The Sanders Phenomenon

The Big Debate

South Carolina Votes

Super Tuesday Brings … More Chaos

The Super Tally

CHAPTER 19 OH, CORONA

Coronavirus

Trump’s Big Corona Moment

Epicenter: New York

On Wisconsin

The Democratic Veepstakes Begin

Biden vs. Reade

Russian Meddling, Washington Deep Sleaze

The Corona Depression

CHAPTER 20 PANDEMIC, SOCIAL DISTANCING, THEN RIOTS

A Bargain Basement Campaign

First Pandemic, Then Conflagration

How to Respond to George Floyd

Biden Tries Again

Running with Joe

Change Is Coming, but What?

A Slap in the Face

Pocahontas Hypocrisy

Coronavirus Redux

Playing Politics with Police Reform

CHAPTER 21 A SUMMER LIKE NO OTHER

The Economic and Political Background

Divided Leadership

Biden Fails Econ 101

The Money Race

Back to School

Portland Burns

Glad That’s Over

CHAPTER 22 AUGUST AND THREE MONTHS TO GO

It’s in the Mail

Biden Slipping?

There You Go Again

Another Weekend, Another Weekend of Violence in the Cities

Kamala Makes a Little History

CHAPTER 23 UNCONVENTIONAL

The Democratic Convention

In Other News

Kenosha and Jacob Blake

Trump’s Turn

Returning to Russia and Portland

CHAPTER 24 BRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATERS

Kenosha, Etc.

Biden Responds, Sort Of

Mailing It In

A Great Big Beautiful Market in Anti-Trump

Typical Congressional Nonsense

A Thought Experiment

A Funny Thing Happened …

And in Other News

A Supreme Giant Bows Out

CHAPTER 25 THE FIRST DEBATE, THE SECOND NONDEBATE

Biden’s Burisma Headache Returns

Say Her Name

Trump a No Go?

The Times’ Oppo Research

The Clash in Cleveland

COVID Trump

The VEEP Debate and the Second Presidential Debate

Settling into a Groove

And in Other Stories …

CHAPTER 26 THE FINAL STRETCH

Pelosi’s Behavior, Curiouser and Curiouser

Dueling Town Halls

Roberts’s Rules?

The Final Debate

Mayor Hotspot and Governor Superspreader

Early Voting Tidal Wave

The Last Week Countdown Begins

E Minus Six—Three Conflagrations

E Minus Five—The V

E Minus Four—Tightening versus Inevitability

E Minus Three—Noting the Pollsters, Political and Economic

E Minus Two – Last Gasps

E Minus One—The Anticipation

CHAPTER 27 DECISION

The Results Trickle In

E Plus One—No Decision, Little Clarity

E Plus Two—No Decision, Plenty of Lawsuits

E Plus Three—Mucho Grousing

E Plus Four, and Counting

E Plus Five—Biden

E Plus 14—Still Not Conceding

The Final Tally

23,000 Votes and Trump Wins

From 30,000 Feet

EPILOGUE

ENDNOTES

To America’s Founding Fathers, whose project miraculously endures. And to the voters who take the time to consider the issues, listen to the politicians, sift through information for truth, and then exercise the right for which billions around the world struggle and sometimes die—to vote.

CHAPTER 1

PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP

D onald Trump’s victory, November 8, 2016, stunned the world so deeply the shock lasted for months. Prior to voting, even the conservative media resigned itself to the prospect former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would succeed Barack Obama as President of the United States. Opponents, neutrals, and allies alike woke up Wednesday morning to mutter a collective WTF, or sentiments to that effect.

What just happened, and why, and what now? A million questions poured out, few with answers. It would be hard to overstate the shock. Perhaps the closest one could come is the shock that would arise if a massive flying saucer pulled into Earth’s orbit over Paris advertising McDonald’s french fries.

While Clinton had her strong supporters, they represented a distinct minority even among those who cast their votes in her favor. Trump had driven many voters to support Clinton if only out of fear he might otherwise become president. Others did so out of a habit of voting for Democrats or in the hope of continuing the general thrust of President Obama’s policies.

Few voted for Clinton with particular enthusiasm. Appearances suggested she ran a sufficiently professional but lackluster campaign, yet never found a compelling reason for her candidacy other than just because, it’s my turn, or Trump is worse. Most of her voters awoke to Election Day with a sense of resignation but at least a nervous confidence Trump would be turned aside. Then Trump crushed their confident comfort.

Geographically, the 2016 election was supposed to present a minor variation on the modern political landscape. Republicans would win the South, the Midwest, and the Mountain West while the Democrats would win the Northeast, the West Coast, and the blue wall running across the north, stretching from Pennsylvania to Minnesota, excluding Indiana. If everything played out, then victory would go to whoever claimed a handful of swing states including Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and one or two others depending on circumstances.

It didn’t quite work out that way. From an electoral college perspective, Trump won because he held serve in terms of normal Republican states, took most of the swing states, and cracked the blue wall, taking Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Clinton held Illinois easily, but she held Minnesota by a mere 45,000 votes or about 1.5 percent. As he did so often, Trump had rewritten the playbook with the electoral college.

The initial shock gave way to more defined emotions: on the left, fury. College students stoked bonfires to illuminate their impotence. Leftist fascists in Portland, Oregon, rioted for three nights straight.¹ Less violent demonstrations erupted in Los Angeles, Denver, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, and many other cities. Radical leftists immediately began plotting political guerilla warfare, an art little used of late but at which they were once expert.

On the right, some celebrated the realization, if nothing else, Hillary Clinton would not be returning to the White House. Clinton’s supporters were mostly willing to forgive her personal flaws from serial dishonesty, a dismal lack of transparency, and her repeated skating on violations of the law, most recently the FBI’s whitewashing relating to her email scandal.

Most others were less willing to forgive, especially in light of her and her husband’s use of her position as Secretary of State and then-presidential candidate to launder hundreds of millions of dollars through the Clinton Foundation. Denying Hillary Clinton the use of the White House for similar purposes offered relief to many, even among those who agreed with her political views.

And yet, even for Republicans, beyond the Clinton factor, many weren’t quite sure Trump’s win was cause for celebration. By any measure, Trump remained at best a convenient Republican and an incidental conservative. Conservatives hoped this would turn out all right, and Trump’s win beat the heck out of the alternative, but they still seemed the stranger whistling past the graveyard.

The Republican Party leadership was only slightly less uncertain about their future. Trump was now the titular head of the Party, whether they liked it or not. He wasn’t Tea Party. He certainly wasn’t establishment. He wasn’t the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan. He was Donald Trump, a nationalist-populist, whatever that meant, and he would refashion the party in his own image, creating the Trump Wing out of bits and pieces, or at least he would try.

President Obama throughout the latter stages of the campaign worked vigorously for Clinton. He attacked Trump in every way he could. Obama had all but called Trump a racist supporter of the Ku Klux Klan. Obama insisted electing Clinton was vital to preserving all Obama had accomplished, to preserving his legacy. Obama was surely correct, and now much of his work and most of his legacy would be rent by somebody he despised.

And what of Trump? His initial reaction suggested despite his bravado, he was almost as stunned by the election’s outcome as was Obama and Clinton. He’d won the prize, but now what? Images of the dog that caught the car bumper came to mind.

Even if he’d believed he would win, it was one thing to believe it, another to see victory declared. Having gone from laughable afterthought to Republican nominee to president-elect was about the most improbable event in modern America’s political history, and Trump pulled it off, in the process breaking just about every rule in the political handbook short of admitting a felony.

Now the real work began, starting with a real and operational governing philosophy complete with scores of major policies. Trump also had to build a new leadership corps for the Federal government from scratch, with few natural allies, few among his closest advisers having a wisp of a clue, and almost no time. Trump began to learn what it meant to be President of the United States.

THE EARLY DAYS OF TRANSITION

Donald Trump, master real estate developer of enormous, magnificent properties, then proved himself master entertainer with The Apprentice, one of the most popular television programs ever. Then Trump proved adept at running for president, at least against a baker’s dozen of middling Republican competitors and then against the formidable Hillary Clinton. Knighting Trump master campaigner would require at least a reelection contest for confirmation, but Trump’s faculties in 2016 were undeniable.

Now Trump attempted to run an entirely different kind of business, the most complex enterprise on the face of the planet, one demanding great organizational strengths and self-discipline. Having succeeded at three different businesses (real estate, entertainment, political campaign) suggested Trump was unusually adaptable. However, many Fortune 500 CEOs fail at running one company. Few succeed at running two, and certainly not two companies in different industries. Trump was now trying for his fourth company in his fourth industry as chief executive of the Federal government.

He started on a sound footing with his acceptance speech. Circumstances were initially favorable with Clinton’s noble speech in defeat and President Obama’s extraordinarily apropos and well-crafted remarks, followed by Trump and Obama’s ninety-minute Thursday Oval Office meeting. Obama couldn’t entirely banish the disgusted look from his face, but proprieties observed both men went about their business.

An incoming administration’s team has a million critical and urgent tasks, all hitting in the first minutes after victory is declared, starting with who’s on the team and what are they doing. Offers to help (usually hidden bids for jobs in the new administration) come pouring in from all quarters to anyone who passes themselves off as being part of the transition. Almost as voluminous are the papers submitted on various policy matters, as though anyone was around in Trumpworld to read the submissions or as though anyone had five seconds to spare even to glance at the titles.

While some practical day-to-day matters intruded, the paramount pressing task of transition is personnel. In the private sector, businesses take months to identify individual candidates for senior positions. They then interview, sift, negotiate, and finally hire. In the Federal government, this process under normal circumstances takes much longer.

Later in the Trump Administration, when all the soul-crushing implements of the Federal hiring process are up and running, senior positions suddenly available would take months to fill if they required Senate confirmation. Trump needed to find a few hundred such people to fill the most essential day 1 jobs, and he had a few days, or at most weeks. Not having people in place was not an option.

First, Trump needed his innermost circle, some from the campaign, some family, some trusted hands not previously involved deeply in the campaign. Then came the next ring outward, finding people to find people to put in charge of various agencies and departments.

Some in the media early on played the mindless parlor game of imagining who in the known Trump orbit might end up at which agencies. Generally written by people who had not a scintilla of an idea what they were talking about, either with respect to the positions or the transition team’s processes, the kibitzers often ignored the most critical boxes to be filled. But it was harmless entertainment, and like playing solitaire on a cell phone, it kept little minds entertained and distracted.

LOST IN TRANSITION

As a heavy gloom enveloped the ranks of the Obama Administration, a pronounced giddiness of anticipation swept over those who hoped to take their places. A different breed of Washington swamp creature was stirring after an eight-year hibernation—and that was part of the problem. Too many of those claiming a place on Trump’s team, and of those wanting to join, focused more on being part of an agency’s landing team and their next résumé-enhancing titled government job than they were about what they would do once there, or how, or with whom.² In short, long-held suspicions that the Trump team’s preparations for transition were woefully inadequate quickly proved well-founded.

For example, why was Chris Christie, a New Jersey Governor with no Federal government experience whatsoever, leading Trump’s transition planning and execution team? Christie at one time impressed Trump, but picking Christie affirmed Trump had no idea what either was doing. Lacking the proper structure on day 1 after the election, it seemed everyone involved claimed a central role and ran around like the proverbial headless chicken.

Trump also now faced an inescapable conundrum—he had run as the utmost antiestablishment candidate in memory, but now he needed to rely on and trust people who knew what they were doing, people who’d been in government before. Many appeared suspiciously establishment. Trump, as usual, had other ideas and for the most part filled his senior ranks with brilliant, accomplished Federal government neophytes.

Another problem Trump faced involved his campaign staff. These were battle-tested loyalists, and most were good at what they did during the campaign, which told Trump little about whether they would be any good working in his administration. His communications people and the like would be fine. Others would not be, and Trump had to figure out quickly who to keep and who to leave behind.

Many of Trump’s family, who had played major roles as advisers during the campaign, continued to play major roles in the transition. However, like Chris Christie and many of the others, Trump’s family was also learning on the job, which was a bit like strapping into a US Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet prepped on a deck catapult of the USS Enterprise—and then pulling out the flight manual: roar, whish, crash.

These were all smart people and Trump loyalists, but the issues raised by Trump’s family went beyond their inexperience in government. Whenever they were involved, everybody else knew who had the best pipeline to the president elect. This would inevitably create tensions and caution which would, at the least, slow down critical decision making.

The Trump transition operation was in real trouble as lines of authority remained undrawn or blurred and changed inexplicably. It took days just to decide who would be the chief of staff, an announcement normally made within hours of declaring victory.

By Friday, Trump had his fill of the New Jersey bumbler, demoting Christie as head of transition in favor of Vice President–Elect Mike Pence. The move made sense, but it affirmed a lot had already gone wrong. In effect, Christie’s know-nothing little band had done little that was relevant. Finally, Trump hit flush on the whole business and started over. Christie just crawled back to Jersey to serve out what remained of his deflating governorship.

Little shared by two people stays secret in Washington for long, but that was never truer than during the Trump transition. By Thursday evening after the election, the basic organization charts describing the transition leadership by agency and policy area circulated on the street. Some names caused consternation, but the absence of others claiming to be involved in transition and also known to be second-string players was comforting. Most important, many names listed were known and respected quantities in Washington, like James Carafano overseeing transition at the State Department, Rob Gordon in regulatory policy, and Jim Carter on tax policy.

The deep involvement of former Attorney General Ed Meese and former Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner also gave some comfort. Both were well outside the establishment, and thus Trump acceptable, but they also brought long experience in Washington and understood what needed to be done to stand up a new government. Not everyone living in the swamp was of the swamp. Much the same can be said of others deeply involved, such as Rick Dearborn, former Chief of Staff to Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, and Eric Ueland, formerly on Mississippi senator Trent Lott’s Majority Leader’s staff.

DEMOCRATS PLAY 52-CARD PICKUP

The adults in the Democratic Party immediately recognized a painful period of reevaluation and self-criticism was inevitable if they were to regain power. While Democrats had their substantial political beachheads in the big cities, in the Northeast and on the West Coast, Washington, DC remained indisputably the epicenter of life for the party. Democrats are drawn to power like moths to a flame and are most drawn to where power is greatest. They are Federal to the core but were now dispossessed from their home with Trump in the White House and both Houses of Congress under Republican control. This was the beginning of what seemed likely to be an awkward diaspora.

Above all, who were Democrats now? Were they Sandernistas? America’s version of the radical environmental socialists common in Europe, led by a cranky old white guy from America’s second-smallest state? Or were they muddling centrists as Bill Clinton had mostly governed as president and as Hillary Clinton had on occasion presented herself during the campaign? Aside from climate change and redistributionism, little appeared to suggest a governing philosophy let alone a coherent worldview.

The initial self-examination played out on two fronts. Donna Brazile served as interim Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) following the ouster of the bumbling Florida Congresswoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.³ Brazile was a Clintonista. She was out, but who was in?

Bernie Sanders tried to grab the party’s reins by advancing Keith Ellison, an otherwise unremarked and unknown congressman. Howard Dean, a member of the Far Left’s older guard, also put his hat in the ring. As a successful former DNC head, Dean could work with the establishment elements of the party and enjoyed some credibility with the radical wing. But Dean was a retread, plain and simple. The party was looking for new and improved, once they figured out what that meant.

The second issue driving Democrats following the election was unbridled fury. Leading up to the election the political Left was all about civility. Can’t we get along? and can’t we all be nice? all to embarrass Trump’s supporters into accepting Clinton’s assured victory. It was all so much balderdash. After the election, the Far Left was all about violent street protests. As long as they win, they’re all sweetness and light. The radical Left was in no mood for reconciliation and healing, and Trump egged them on Thursday with a late-night tweet: Just had a very open and successful presidential election. Now professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting. Very unfair!⁴

A little perspective would have given Democrats firm grounds for hope. After the 2008 election, the Republican Party nationally appeared in total disarray. Democrats were in control of the Congress and the White House, the global financial crisis was barely contained, and the Global Great Recession rolled on. Democrats and the media blamed George W. Bush, and as usual, neither Bush nor Republicans attempted to rebut the charges, though how Bush’s policies were responsible for a global event was never rationally explained.

But President Obama misplayed his hand badly. First, he accepted an enormously expensive yet ineffective economic stimulus bill. Then he attempted to ram through Congress a politically noxious and economically debilitating climate change bill. Finally, Obama successfully rammed Obamacare through Congress on a wholly partisan basis. In consequence, Democrats were beaten in three of the next four elections, the exception being in 2012 when Obama successfully ran for reelection against the ever-clunky Mitt Romney.

Republicans picked themselves up after 2008, but Obama gave them the opening. Republicans had some substantial institutional advantages helping their recovery, most especially their enduring strength in state governments—governorships, state legislatures, etc. And this is where the weaknesses in the Democratic Party would slow their recovery—Democrats lacked strength and leadership inside Washington, and they had no bench whatsoever outside Washington. Republicans controlled two-thirds of all governorships and the preponderance of state legislatures. Democrats sported a couple of credible names outside Washington, such as New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, but it was a short bench.

THE FIRST TWO—OF ABOUT 4,000

Testifying to the enormity of the Federal government, presidents need about two thousand people for senior positions. About half would require Senate confirmation, but many would never be heard from outside of their little Washington policy circles. An incoming president has to start somewhere, and the logical starting point is the White House Chief of Staff.

Many occupants of the Office of Chief of Staff to the President serve anonymously, such as Andy Card under George W. Bush and all but one of Barack Obama’s. Others, such as Rahm Emanuel in the Obama Administration and former New Hampshire Governor John Sununu in the George H. W. Bush Administration, brought full-sized public persona. Either way, the Chief of Staff’s importance cannot be overstated, nor the enormity of the challenge.

It was hard to imagine who might serve as White House Chief of Staff in a Trump Administration, and so Trump made his first surprising decision as president elect. By Saturday, rumors flew Trump would turn to Reince Priebus, Chairman of the Republican National Committee. A superb manager with strong political skills and contacts, Priebus faced three little problems—no Federal government experience, a tenuous and sometimes testy relationship with Trump, and he was political establishment to his core. It was hard to see how this would end well, and of course, it didn’t.

Trump then named a counterpoint to Priebus, tabbing his campaign’s strategy guru, Stephen Bannon, to be head of White House strategy. Bannon’s role seemed to be to voice the inner Trump clearly when the din of meetings and decisions clouded Trump’s vision. Bannon would be sure Trump remained true to Trump according to Bannon.

HAMILTON

No limit appeared to the inability of the Far Left to protest the election’s outcome, and much of the time they came off looking like petty schmucks having preadolescent temper tantrums. Vice President–Elect Mike Pence went to see the award-winning play Hamilton in New York City. The crowd quickly learned Pence was in the audience and booed loudly.

At the end of the performance, the cast arrayed themselves onstage to inform the vice president elect what they expected of him. The cast, of course, had every right to differing opinions and express them fully, but simple civility and decorum should have told them there is a time and a place and this was neither. Making their display all the more ludicrous, they gave their little speeches after Pence had already left.

Various high school students continued to protest the election’s outcome, though to what purpose remained unclear other than not having to attend class. Maybe if they’d put as much energy into the election before the voting, then they would have better favored the outcome. But schools were not going to let students out of class to participate in the election process, and making hundreds of phone calls and knocking on scores of doors isn’t nearly as much fun as shouting vainly in a rowdy street procession.

On the other hand, the cast of Hamilton and the students behaved no worse than the mainstream media. After a respectable pause following the election, the patterns set during the campaign became ingrained habits. The press dedicated to Clinton’s victory became equally dedicated to raising every concern, fault, and foible from Trump’s budding administration. Organs like The New York Times and The Washington Post gave themselves wholly over to whittling away at Trump’s ability to govern. Their allies in the electronic media did likewise. In fairness, it was a target-rich environment.

No matter was too small not to be exploited to raise doubts about Trump and his nominees. No dig at Trump too far-fetched or too petty the media couldn’t run a story on it, and usually did. The converse was also true, however, as much of the conservative press rarely failed to explain away every folly and misstep. The conservatives’ behavior was odd. Trump coopted some conservative themes, but he certainly did not run as a conservative. One partial explanation for the conservatives’ behavior may have been the Cabinet and other appointments Trump rolled out slowly, collectively presenting a remarkably conservative array.

TRUMP GOES INDUSTRIAL

The United States is on most accounts about the best place to do business in the world. It is politically stable. The judicial system is more or less fair and credible. The rule of law is more or less obeyed. The workforce is generally outstanding as is the entrepreneurial culture. And the United States enjoys sheer size, allowing domestic producers to operate from a large domestic market. For all these strengths, governments at all levels make doing business in the United States unduly difficult.

For all its advantages, the United States sometimes could not compete with some foreign countries for hosting corporate headquarters. In almost every case, the explanation was Federal tax policy, beginning with ridiculously high business tax rates and an obsolete system for taxing American companies’ foreign income. In February of 2016, the heating and cooling system manufacturer Carrier announced it was relocating its Indianapolis, Indiana, manufacturing facilities to Mexico.⁵ Carrier was being driven out by the accumulation of disadvantages imposed on American manufacturers, but the final straw was the high US corporate tax rate with little prospect at the time Congress or the next administration would be able to reform the tax system.

Vice President–Elect Mike Pence was from Indianapolis. Trump intervened shortly after the election, promising Federal relief combined with state tax relief. Carrier decided to keep about half the jobs at risk of leaving for Mexico in Indianapolis.

Trump’s industrial activism stood in stark contrast to the whatever attitude prevalent during President Obama’s administration. In earlier episodes when US companies gave up and moved facilities or even corporate headquarters overseas, the best they could hope for from Obama was to be attacked for being unpatriotic. On one occasion, the Obama Treasury issued a new tax regulation specifically to put the kibosh on one merger/inversion of a US company with a foreign company. Trump was still a couple of months from taking office, and already he engaged in detailed industrial policy issues—and publicly saving American jobs.

An early emerging trait of Trump’s presidency was his penchant for the unexpected, his delight in keeping everyone guessing. He struck again a few days later, this time with Boeing in his sights. Boeing has traditionally built the planes used by the president called Air Force One. These were not your garden-variety jumbo jets. Air Force One was designed to operate as a global communications center, presidential office, and military command post in the event of nuclear war. The plane looked like a typical Boeing 747, but it was far from it, which also meant it had to be thoroughly redesigned and reengineered.

It was time to buy another Air Force One, plus a backup. Trump learned Boeing was charging $4 billion for these two aircraft. As Trump had bought a few planes in his day costing less, he made an issue of the new Air Force One’s price tag. What did the incoming president know of the design requirements for the new plane? Nothing, and so he had no basis for knowing whether the US Government was overpaying. It didn’t matter. The issue for Trump wasn’t the airplanes or their cost. The issue was the spotlight. The issue was demonstrating to friend and foe that he would be unpredictable.

A few days later, he was at it again. The Air Force, Navy, and Marines had gone in together in the design, development, testing, and purchase of the most advanced fighter jet in the world—the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. The F-35, a sixth-generation fighter, brings new meaning to the expression high-speed computing. It is a supercomputer that happens to embody the latest stealth technology in a lethal wrapper, flying much faster than the speed of sound. The F-35 has two little problems, however. Its ability to dogfight was in doubt (a doubt which soon faded), and it’s damned expensive.

Trump considered himself to be the world’s foremost authority on just about everything, including the future needs of the US military for maintaining air supremacy in any battlefield and what it should cost to obtain that capability. He decided the F-35 was too expensive, and so he asked Boeing to price out a substantially upgraded F/A-18 Super Hornet, at the time the Navy’s primary air superiority/air-strike platform.

Trump raised a legitimate policy question, though he did so in a typically Trump-blunt way. The F-35 will fight alongside older platforms like the F/A-18. Should the United States Navy buy so many hyperexpensive F-35s? Or maybe substitute some less expensive, slightly less cutting-edge but still enormously capable F/A-18s?

The president elect likely had another thought in mind when he questioned the F-35’s cost. He suggested maybe the Navy should buy more F/A-18s instead, built by Boeing, the same company whose cage Trump had recently rattled in questioning the costs of the new Air Force One. Trump the disrupter giveth, and he taketh away.

A UNIFORM APPROACH

As the days wore on, President-Elect Trump filled out his senior ranks. On the national security side, he favored military uniforms. He picked a hard-charging three-star Army general, Michael Flynn, as his White House National Security Advisor. He picked four-star Marine Corps general John Kelly as Secretary of Homeland Security. And he chose four-star Marine Corps general James Mattis as Secretary of Defense. While Kelly raised few eyebrows, the same could not be said of Flynn and Mattis.

General Mattis enjoyed a sterling reputation as an officer and a scholar. He ran afoul of the Obama Administration because he was a hard-liner on Iran and Obama didn’t favor hard-liners on anyone. But Mattis was a former general nominated for what had for good reason been a civilian posting. The military up through the service chiefs and the Joint Chiefs of Staff reports to civilian authority. Now a civilian, even in a Hawaiian shirt, the outline of Mattis’s general’s uniform would be unmistakable.

Flynn posed even bigger issues, especially because he appeared to be badly miscast. The National Security Advisor historically coordinates and communicates with and to the various agencies involved in the national security function. These agencies did not always play well together. They jealously guard their secrets and sources and tend to distrust their White House masters. To succeed, the National Security Advisor must convince these agencies to trust that he or she would represent their issues fairly and without bias. Flynn came fully stocked with strong opinions and biases. Who among these contesting agencies would trust him to represent their views impartially before the president?

The economic team was equally curious, starting with the choice of former Goldman Sachs exec and Trump campaign finance chairman, Steve Mnuchin, as Treasury Secretary. Mnuchin was certainly an expert in financial markets; however, as a Washington neophyte, little else about Mnuchin’s pick made sense aside from loyalty to Trump.

One of Mnuchin’s first acts as a nominee was to give interviews at which he talked about the need for tax reform, often a major concern of treasury secretaries and a major Trump campaign promise. Mnuchin quickly demonstrated the minimal familiarity with tax policy issues one might expect of the average freshman Member of Congress. This did not bode well.

The real coordinator for economic policy in recent administrations was the Chairman of the National Economic Council (NEC). Since the Clinton Administration, all White House policy was coordinated down from the Chief of Staff to the Deputy Chief of Staff for policy and then to one of three policy councils—the NEC, the National Security Council (NSC), and the Domestic Policy Council (DPC).

Trump picked Gary Cohn, President of Goldman Sachs, to run NEC. Cohn’s selection fit the steadily revealed Trump model for his presidency. Trump, it became apparent, liked to surround himself with really bright people who also packed star power. He liked generals with lots of stars on their shoulders, CEOs of major companies, and anyone from Goldman Sachs. All of these people were extremely accomplished and somehow built a rapport with the incoming president, but most of the civilians had no idea about the jobs they were taking.

Another aspect of Trump’s personnel picks—they seemed to reflect neither rhyme nor reason and certainly no sense of prioritization. His first pick on his foreign policy staff wasn’t the Secretary of State, the leader of the foreign policy team. His first pick was South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley for UN Ambassador. This is a moderately important position, to be sure; but normally, if one prioritized personnel selection, then this would likely have come in around number 300. Also, though Haley picked up the material fast, South Carolina governors are not generally thought of as foreign policy thought leaders.

Trump’s second foreign policy pick was Iowa Governor Terry Branstad for US Ambassador to China. Again, a critical position and Branstad’s selection made some sense. But picking the US Ambassador to China was about position 200 in priority. And both picks were chosen before the captain of Trump’s foreign policy team was selected, that modest little position known as Secretary of State.

BREAKING SOME CHINA

Trump suggested early on he would deal with China differently than had presidents past. The first clue involved Trump’s repeated insistence China was stealing America blind in international trade. His claim was bolstered by the inconvenient truth there was a lot of truth to Trump’s claim. The Chinese simply followed their own rules much of the time.

On December 15, a Chinese warship swooped in to capture a relatively low-tech US Navy underwater drone operating in the South China Sea. In a word, the Chinese stole it. They knew what it was. A US Navy warship was nearby. The Chinese simply took it.

Why did the Chinese engage in such a provocative act? Partly to remind the world, but especially the United States, that the Chinese regarded the South China Sea as their territory. While they couldn’t force the US Navy to leave, the Chinese could make the neighborhood an unfriendly place to visit. This was not a new grand strategy as the Chinese had been steadily militarizing the South China Sea for years and were now incrementally increasing tensions in the region.

The Obama Administration essentially said little more than harummph, which was their usual response to such events. Initially, Trump tweeted this was an unprecedented act by the Chinese, which was true in the details—they’d never stolen an underwater drone before—but was not true in general. The Chinese delighted in such provocations to remind the world they were coming.

Most of all, the Chinese wanted to see how Trump would react. This was a test, plain and simple. Trump had accepted a congratulatory call from the President of Taiwan. He’d questioned the One China policy which by implication acknowledges that Taiwan is a rogue Chinese province, but part of China nonetheless. Trump had created a new National Trade Council in the White House and then named a highly China antagonistic superhawk in Peter Navarro to run it. The Chinese wanted to test Trump. Was he all bluster and bluff, or could he stand the heat?

The reaction many surely expected from Trump was to threaten to go to war. Trump was seen by many as an unstable hothead. Others anticipated a more typical Obama State Department response, registering a strong objection and otherwise doing nothing. Trump quickly saw through the Chinese play, responding, We should tell China we don’t want the drone they stole back—let them keep it.⁶

An ancient Chinese game called Go is played on a simple board crosshatched with squares in a nineteen-by-nineteen pattern. Two players each have a bag of stones, one white, one black. The game is one of master strategy and possesses more possibilities than the number of atoms in the universe. The Chinese learned what they wanted to know. Mr. Trump would be a more interesting Go player than was his predecessor.

GRADUATING FROM COLLEGE

In the weeks following the election, various voices rose demanding the duly appointed electors to the electoral college violate their oaths, break with tradition, and deny Donald Trump the final victory. Some were the dying whispers of the Republican Party NeverTrump rump movement. Some were those still too stunned and afraid at the prospect of a Trump presidency. Some voices were those indignant the electoral college system established in the United States Constitution would again block from the White House a Democratic nominee who’d claimed the most popular votes.⁷

Of course, before the election, when conventional wisdom held Clinton would win in a romp, any suggestion of violating constitutionally established due process to deny Clinton the presidency would have been met with universal outrage. During the campaign, Trump had been asked in light of his claims of possible voter fraud whether he would accept the results of the election. Trump equivocated and in so doing received a mountain of abuse. Those voices of outrage directed at Trump months before were strangely silent about respecting the electoral college process now that Trump had won.

At the appointed time, December 19, the representatives from each state appeared in their respective state capitals and cast their votes. Some considered abstaining while a handful allocated to Trump contemplated voting for someone else; but in the end, only a few, mostly Democrats from Washington State, broke with their responsibility and tradition, three voting for former Republican Secretary of State Colin Powell and one voting for Native American activist Faith Spotted Eagle.⁸ The last mortal challenge to Donald Trump moving into the White House had been overcome.

PRESIDENT OBAMA GOES OUT MAKING SOME NOISE

Outgoing President Barack Obama had a few days left with which to make mischief. He took full advantage of them. Part of the Obama Doctrine for the Middle East centered on the proposition that peace between Israel and the Palestinians was impossible if Israel continued building settlements on the West Bank. Israel had no intention of halting new approved settlements, though Israeli citizens often planted settlements in locations without the government’s approval.

Consequently, little happened to advance Middle East peace. The Palestinians dug some tunnels into Israel. Sometimes the Israelis found the tunnels first, and sometimes the Palestinians would use the tunnels to launch small suicide terrorist raids. Sometimes the Palestinians would launch some small rockets into Israel, and the Israelis would retaliate with air strikes. For the most part, the world had moved on from the longstanding conflict. Other wars were fought all around—in Iraq, in Syria, in Yemen, all of which posed a more serious threat to local stability than the seemingly intractable issue of the Palestinians.

At the same time, the rise of fracking, especially in the United States, and the consequent vast increase in oil production resulting in the worldwide collapse in the price of oil had largely rendered OPEC economically irrelevant and the Arab world’s leverage in geopolitical matters a memory. There remained, however, that grand institution of international irrelevancy, the United Nations.

With Arab backing, the United Nations Security Council considered a resolution the gist of which was that any Israeli settlements inconsistent with the territorial borders as of 1967 were illegal under international law and should be halted immediately.⁹ Prior to Obama, such settlements were considered by US governments as unhelpful, but not illegal.¹⁰ Prior to Obama, such a resolution would face sure death by US veto. The resolution passed, though the United States did not vote in its favor. As per Obama’s instructions, the United States took the ultimate gutless position of abstaining.

The Israeli government, incensed at this betrayal by their putative ally, grew more so as evidence accumulated Obama not only acquiesced in the resolution, but members of his administration had quietly helped draft it. Obama’s action made it easy for Trump to improve US-Israeli relations. When scraping rock bottom, there’s only one way to go—up.

Obama brought additional attention to himself when he threw Clinton under the bus. Obama campaigned vigorously for Clinton, seeing her victory as the best way to ensure his legacy. Elections are ultimately binary moments. Either you win or you lose. Whenever the White House changes parties, the strong implication is the repudiation of the policies and person of the outgoing president. Obama tried to establish a counternarrative: the nation hadn’t turned from his policies. Rather, Obama suggested Clinton ran a poor campaign, which was debatable, but it was also true Clinton was running with the Obama albatross around her neck.

Future historians will have a field day assessing credit and blame for Trump’s win. Certainly, much of the country was tired of Obama. He believed, had he been allowed to run again, he would have won. Maybe he would have, at least against Trump. Or maybe the antipathy to the status quo would have again given the victory to Trump. The immediate issue was that, whatever Americans felt, Barack Obama hadn’t tired of Barack Obama.

ROLLING OUT MORE NAMES

The Trump team finally started to figure it out, rolling out names in batches to make the trains run in Trumpland. However, with about two weeks to go before the inauguration, the Trump ranks remained woefully thin, and the Trump personnel operation remained about a month behind schedule—a month they didn’t have.

A dearth of nominees joined with a second problem—the vetting of presidential appointments. For the most senior positions, like attorney general and treasury secretary, a thorough vetting is essential. Under the Constitution, senators are tasked with giving their advice and consent to nominees. They could not do so properly without a complete dossier on each individual. On the other hand, these processes can go too far. Asking the name of your neighbor’s dog when you were ten years old, for example, is probably overkill.

Trump himself would want to know if a nominee had undisclosed skeletons in his or her closet. These might be in the form of a long-ago bankruptcy, or an illicit affair, or a legal judgment or politically incorrect investments, or dubious contacts with foreign governments. The information would likely come out at some point, better before an individual assumes office than after.

For those who’d been in public life before, such as Senator Sessions and Transportation Secretary nominee Elaine Chao, the risks of past skeletons were fairly low. Sessions had plenty of enemies in the press. Anything they could find or conjure up, they had already tried. The risks were likely also low for those who’d served in the military, such as Defense Secretary nominee Mattis. However, for others, like Steve Mnuchin and Rex Tillerson, nominees to run the Treasury and State Departments, and hailing from Goldman Sachs and ExxonMobil, respectively, who knew?

Most of these names had been announced so late in the transition game, and the amount of information required so extensive, it became impossible to perform the normal ethics and background checks before the Senate began its confirmation processes. In the end, it might mean nothing other than moving forward without crossing every t. Or it could plant the seeds of future problems. Time would tell.

WHAT TO DO ABOUT DONALD

The media faced a challenge with Donald Trump the likes of which they’d never seen. During the campaign and after, he’d shown he had little regard or use for the typical rituals associated with the mainstream media. Press releases? Why bother when you can tweet? Access? If and only if Trump felt magnanimous.

Above all, what do reporters and editors do with a president who regularly asserts opinions and facts obviously conflicting with reality, often substantially so? As much of the media disliked and feared Trump intensely, the inclination was almost irresistible to conclude Trump was just stupid, but of course that was absurd. One could believe Trump was just sloppy with the facts and didn’t care, but an ultimately more satisfying conclusion was that Trump simply lied, repeatedly.

The trouble with the Trump as liar thesis was it remained inherently an allegation, a surmise, an opinion. It assumed Trump knew the truth and chose to convey something else. It assumed the reporter or editor could divine Trump’s intent, which of course they could not. The media could feign objectivity and avoid claiming the ability to judge whether a speaker was lying, or the media could give in wholly to its preferences and just let it rip. Ruth Marcus wrestled with these questions in a Washington Post editorial titled, The huge challenge of covering Trump fairly?¹¹

The craft of fact-checking demonstrates the conundrums. Fact-checkers were once incidental commentators on politicians’ utterances, acting almost as a conscience of substance limiting, one assumed, a politician’s willingness to make up facts out of thin air knowing somebody might double-check and embarrass the offender. Fact-checking had become less about facts and more just another tool of the media’s political apparatus, but even so, they often served a productive purpose.

During the campaign, fact-checking had gone center stage as dubious assertions by all parties went from tangential stream to roaring river running down the center of the national debate. But then, with so much said by so many that was so obviously false, the reality of another falsehood became commonplace and then boring.

Past presidents tended to be parsimonious in their statements. Even a casual observation can be misinterpreted or misunderstood, leaving most presidents ultracautious. This practice trained the media, the country, and often the world to weigh every presidential utterance as though freighted with import. What then does one do with a president whose utterances are regular, often critical, and typically delivered in 140-character anger-infused tweets appearing in the wee hours of the morning? Should they be given the weight accorded in the past to a president’s remarks as he leaves Marine One for the back of the White House? Their frequency would seem to devalue their import, but on the other hand, how does one diminish the reaction to a personal presidential statement however delivered? Just another challenge a Trump presidency posed the world.

CHAPTER 2

THE TRUMP ERA BEGINS

P resident Donald J. Trump gave his inaugural address on a miserable, cold, rainy day, Chief Justice Roberts administering the oath of office about 12:20 EST. Symptomatic of what would follow, Trump and the mainstream media immediately got into a tiff over whether the rain stopped and the sun shone just in time for Trump’s speech (Trump’s version), or the rain mostly held off until he spoke at which point the drizzle came down a bit harder (the media’s version).

Either way, the weather gods seemed to side with the millions who continued to view the election with shock and anger. The day before, other gods ruled as Trump enjoyed a beautiful, sunny day for events highlighted by a somber procession and wreath-laying at Arlington Cemetery just across the Potomac River in Virginia.

The inaugural elements were in place, including all the living past presidents save George H. W. Bush and his wife Barbara who were each recuperating from illness in a Houston hospital. Missouri Senator Roy Blunt as Chairman of the Inauguration Committee flawlessly conducted as master of ceremonies.

For all the dignitaries on center stage, the viewer’s gaze inevitably ranged back to former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Though a difficult day for Hillary, she maintained a happy demeanor throughout, demonstrating again the remarkable constitution of this remarkable person. Former President Bill Clinton mostly managed nearly as happy a visage, but occasionally, especially toward the end, Bill let his mask drop to reveal a distinctly unhappy camper.

Little of what was said aside from Trump’s address merited recollecting excepting the remarks of the Senate Democrat’s new leader, New York Senator Chuck Schumer, and indeed perhaps none was more important as the de facto leader of the loyal opposition. Schumer spoke eloquently of the enormity of the moment that for all Americans’ divisions as a nation, they remained Americans with more in common at the deepest levels than the divisions depicted above. One hoped Schumer spoke truth.

Schumer’s most memorable remarks were his reading from a letter penned by Rhode Island native, Major Sullivan Ballou, to his wife Sarah on the eve of the first major engagement of the civil war.¹²

July 14th, 1861

Washington D.C.

My very dear Sarah:

The indications are very strong that we shall move in a few days—perhaps tomorrow. Lest I should not be able to write you again, I feel impelled to write lines that may fall under your eye when I shall be no more.

Our movement may be one of a few days duration and full of pleasure—and it may be one of severe conflict and death to me. Not my will, but thine O God, be done. If it is necessary that I should fall on the battlefield for my country, I am ready. I have no misgivings about, or lack of confidence in, the cause in which I am engaged, and my courage does not halt or falter.

I know how strongly American Civilization now leans upon the triumph of the Government, and how great a debt we owe to those who went before us through the blood and suffering of the Revolution. And I am willing—perfectly willing—to lay down all my joys in this life, to help maintain this Government, and to pay that debt.

But, my dear wife, when I know that with my own joys I lay down nearly all of yours, and replace them in this life with cares and sorrows—when, after having eaten for long years the bitter fruit of orphanage myself, I must offer it as their only sustenance to my dear little children—is it weak or dishonorable, while the banner of my purpose floats calmly and proudly in the breeze, that my unbounded love for you, my darling wife and children, should struggle in fierce, though useless, contest with my love of country?

I cannot describe to you my feelings on this calm summer night, when two thousand men are sleeping around me, many of them enjoying the last, perhaps, before that of death—and I, suspicious that Death is creeping behind me with his fatal dart, am communing with God, my country, and thee.

I have sought most closely and diligently, and often in my breast, for a wrong motive in thus hazarding the happiness of those I loved and I could not find one. A pure love of my country and of the principles have often advocated before the people and in the name of honor that I love more than I fear death have called upon me, and I have obeyed.

Sarah, my love for you is deathless, it seems to bind me to you with mighty cables that nothing but Omnipotence could break; and yet my love of Country comes over me like a strong wind and bears me irresistibly on with all these chains to the battlefield.

…

Sullivan

Major Ballou died a week later at the First Battle of Bull Run, aged thirty-two.

Only hours before Schumer read this letter, on the other side of the world, newly elected President Adama Barrow of Gambia was sworn into office at his country’s embassy in Dakar in neighboring Senegal as the longtime despotic ruler, Yahya Jammeh, refused to leave office.¹³ Senegalese troops then crossed the border to force Jammeh’s quick departure. America’s tradition over two centuries of power’s peaceful transfer is both commonplace and miraculous.¹⁴

PRESIDENT SUPERLATIVE

After a run of expectable preambles, Donald Trump’s inauguration speech lasting all of sixteen minutes was thoroughly Trumpian—powerful, direct, utterly unpoetic, and in keeping with his campaign’s themes, such as America First and how the establishment had failed America’s middle class, much as the establishment in other countries had so badly failed their citizens.

Trump repeatedly emphasized the focus of the American government would henceforth be on the needs of the American people and that this change would last forever. He would rebuild America’s military and crumbling infrastructure. He would fix America’s education system. He would end the crime wave gripping the nation starting right now. One might agree with Trump or not, doubt his ability to meet his many promises or not. One could not doubt at this point where Trump stood in his own mind or that he was well aware of many of America’s real and festering problems.

The new president’s remarks were in no respect uplifting or inspiring. This was not a call to noble purposes but rather for getting to the down and dirty of fixing America according to Trump. It was not the laying out of a comprehensive agenda for the future reflective of a coherent vision, but a to-do list of major and largely discrete items he expected to achieve almost immediately. It was not a call for healing and bipartisanship. It was a call to the angry hordes to join Donald John Trump in storming the barricades of the arrayed forces of the elites he believed had for so long pursued agendas tangential to and often dismissive of America’s long-forgotten middle class.

The speech’s most notable feature was his repeated use of superlatives. This hated thing would never happen again. This new approach would always henceforth apply. Trump’s passion for superlatives was without restraint and often led to overstatement inviting ridicule and doubt, such as when he referred to an education system depriving students of all knowledge, as though the purpose of even America’s bumbling education system was to ensure students graduated without a single fact, concept, belief, or skill.

This resort to incessant superlatives could not be attributed to the excesses common to roused public speakers orating extemporaneously. Trump read a speech he had largely written, and he read the speech right off the teleprompter. Trump said the education system deprived students of all knowledge. He said it because that’s what he had written to be said.

ADULTS IN ATTENDANCE

Over the preceding days, various Members of Congress achieved instant fleeting stardom announcing they would skip the inauguration. The great civil rights leader, Georgia Congressman John Lewis, led the parade, though his justification for so doing seemed insubstantial. He claimed Trump’s election was illegitimate because of the alleged Russian influence, among other issues. Others joined the no-show parade, mostly to protest against Trump and to avoid the hassles of arriving early, passing through security, and above all, the prospect of possibly sitting for hours in the rain. For all their noble words, they came across as sore losers.

In contrast, Chuck Schumer carried out his ceremonial responsibilities impeccably. The House Democratic Leader, Nancy Pelosi of California, also attended center stage. The Democrats’ number two in the Senate, Dick Durbin of Illinois, noted he would be attending his ninth inauguration. Durbin observed,

On Friday I will stand in respect of our Constitution and the office of the President. As President Trump lifts his hand from the Bible, I will then accept my Constitutional responsibility to support him when he is right and to oppose him with every fiber of my being when he