Our political thinking is not only polarized — it’s growing. We mostly only listen to those who share our opinions. We talk primarily with those who reinforce our prejudices. Honest political dialogue becomes nearly impossible.
All of this is magnified by Donald Trump — who’s made political attacks an art form. In a campaign rally he mocked one with a handicapping condition; he urged violence on a crowd’s detractor; he speaks in scurrilous ways about anyone whom he sees an enemy.
All this adds to the reality that no one trusts any statements from the “other side.” But what if there are persons, with an actual record of being on Trump’s side, who can and do tell the truth about his limitations and dangers?
Such a constituency exists. It’s a long list of those who worked closely with Trump – but left because of serious disenchantment. Up close, the dangers of his leadership became much too evident.
His record of losing the respect and loyalty of those who worked closely with him is without precedent among presidents. His much lauded charm induced people to join his team – but working with him unmasked his personal characteristics, moral realities, and selfish value system. As a result, they could not, in good conscience, tolerate him.
Such observations, though too seldom made public, are valuable for two significant reasons. 1) These negative evaluations come from an up close, personal view of Trump. 2) These negative evaluations came not from Trump’s enemies, but from those who started out as loyalists.
That criticism of Trump is not blind political attacks, but honest laments arising from up-close observations. They had hoped he would be a better leader/servant than he was. Their honest views of the man speak with a profound clarity that traditional political comments cannot.
William A. McCartney
Delaware
