What are we to make of Donald Trump from the perspective of moral governance?
A couple of weeks ago, lots of Americans – some estimates put their number at 7 million – turned out in crowds to express their animosity towards Trump for his kingly analogy in his style of putting America to right, as he alone sees the right. Their demand was “No Kings”!
A decision to do away with kings was made by the English House of Commons in 1649 as follows:
And whereas it is and hath been found by experience, that the Office of a King in this Nation and Ireland and to have the power thereof in any single person, is unnecessary, burthensom and dangerous to the liberty, safety and publique interest of the people and that for the most part, use hath been made of the Regal power and prerogative, to oppress and impoverish and enslave the Subject; and that usually and naturally any one person in such power, makes it his interest to incroach upon the just freedom and liberty of the people and to promote the setting up of their own will and power above the Laws, that so they might enslave these Kingdoms to their own Lust; Be it therefore Enacted and Ordained by this present Parliament and by Authority of the same, That the Office of a King in this Nation, shall not henceforth reside in or be exercised by any one single person; and that no one person whatsoever, shall or may have, or hold the Office, Stile, Dignity, Power or Authority of King of the said Kingdoms and Dominions or any of them, or of the Prince of Wales, Any Law, Statute, Usage or Custom to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding.
Now, in somewhat regal fashion, Trump is “Trumpifying” the White House:
The White House is demolishing the entirety of the East Wing to make way for President Trump’s $200 million ballroom, a construction project that is far more extensive than he initially let on, a senior administration official said on Wednesday.
The tear-down should be finished by this weekend, according to the official, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the plans.
And then he has personal attorneys seeking damages from the federal government to compensate him for losses in defending cases brought against him by the Biden Administration. If successful, he, himself, might have to decide whether or not to pay himself several hundred million dollars of taxpayer’s money.
President Donald Trump acknowledged to reporters Monday that he’s seeking up to hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation from the federal government for its scuttled investigations and prosecutions of him.
“As far as all of the litigation, everything that’s going to go, yeah, they probably owe me a lot of money,” Trump said when asked about a New York Times report that he’s filed administrative claims seeking $230 million in damages from the Justice Department.
Asked about the $230-million figure, Trump said, “It could be.”
“I don’t know what the numbers” are, Trump said. “I don’t even talk to them [the lawyers] about it.”
He also said he’d ultimately be the person approving the payout and that, if he granted it, he’d “do something nice” with the money.
“And you know that decision would have to go across my desk and it’s awfully strange to make a decision where I’m paying myself. In other words, did you ever have one of those cases where you have to decide how much you’re paying yourself in damages? But I was damaged very greatly and any money that I would get I would give to charity,” he said.
He also said he could give money “to the White House while we restore the White House.”
“We’ll see what happens,” he said. “I guess they owe me a lot of money. I’m not looking for money. I’m looking for really, it’s got to be handled in the proper way. We don’t want it to happen again,” he said, before adding, “You have to ask the lawyers about that.”
To put Trump in a perspective not widely discussed, we might consider Confucius’ distinction between the Junzi (君子) – the “lordly one,” the honorable man of good temper and correct behavior and the Xiao jen (小人) – the “little, small, mean man” who “struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. … a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
Now, let’s translate Confucius into Trumpese: the lordly one we will call a “winner” and the little man a “loser.”
Confucius proposed that:
See what a man does. Mark his motives. Examine in what things he rests. How can a man conceal his character?
He who acts with a constant view to his own advantage will be much murmured against.
What the winner seeks is in himself; what the loser seeks is in others.
The mind of a winner is conversant with righteousness; the mind of a loser is conversant with gain.
The winner acts before he speaks and afterwards speaks according to his actions.
The winner is not a partisan; the loser is a partisan.
The winner thinks of virtue; the loser thinks of comfort.
The winner is satisfied and composed; the loser is always full of distress.