He’s back, and better than ever, in his way

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of commentary online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

When Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016, I wrote on the day after that the country had strong institutions and that they would hold.

They did hold, though much the worse for wear. With Trump now winning a new term, I’ll argue — with more hope than confidence — that they’ll hold again. I’ll argue that the hope is necessary for the confidence.

I also wrote on Nov. 9, 2016, that Americans had to be willing to raise their voices. Today, the Minnesota Star Tribune Editorial Board is making a case for unity, and I don’t disagree. We can’t ignore the fact that those who like Trump’s style were more motivated to turn out this year than those who don’t. They’ve not given his political project a mandate, exactly, but they’ve given it both momentum and persistence. That earns consideration and a search for workable compromise. It doesn’t, however, preclude vigilance and robust debate. Nothing ever does.

I also once argued in these pages — using the Voldemort analogy of a villain who’s meant to be scary but isn’t quite so — that whatever threat Trump poses to stability is mitigated because he’s incompetent. By that, I meant his ability to understand and work the levers of government well enough to follow through — and to pay attention long enough to do it. I believe he’s learned about the government, though the focus problem remains.

I’ve spent about 10 years pondering whether Trump is cognitively incapable of holding a nuanced view of policy questions or just disinterested. I conclude that he’s disinterested. I hold out hope that since he’s won the presidency for the final time — if he accepts that — he’ll take the work seriously and will be willing to apply his so-called stable genius. The world really needs that, and less of his so-called weave. Regarding global affairs, it’s too gentle to warn that there are whitewater rapids ahead.

I also have an overarching theory. As such theories tend to be, it’s simplistic, but I think there’s some truth in it.

It’s this: Americans prefer to elect personalities. It’s usually the case that the candidate with the more dynamic personality wins. Sometimes capability coincides with that. Sometimes various circumstances or campaign strategies enhance it. But neither must absolutely be present. Personality is almost always an underlying current, but sometimes it’s the river itself.

It’s been true in most every presidential election since I was old enough to pay attention. Jimmy Carter — personality. Ronald Reagan — personality. Bill Clinton … George W. Bush … Barack Obama … Donald Trump …

The collective psyche needs ever more of a thing, until it becomes destructive.

Even with the counterexamples — like George H.W. Bush vs. Michael Dukakis in 1988 — it could be argued that the more dynamic presence won. Joe Biden? He had an easy bonhomie in his better days, but for 2020 I’ll call him a corrective.

But we know now that if in four years we are in need of a new corrective, it probably won’t be enough without personality.

For now, just remember that today is a good day for at least 72 million of your fellow Americans.