ars et saliva
david p. eiser
zeitraffer
How did
it come about that a man like Donald Trump
could become president of one of the most powerful states in the world?
This question also contains - unspoken - a horror at the incompetence
and
peculiarities of this man that make him seem unsuitable for such an
office.
David Brooks, The New York Times, wrote on May 15, 2017:
When the World Is Led by a Child
At certain times Donald Trump has seemed like a budding authoritarian,
a corrupt
Nixon, a rabble-rousing populist or a big business corporatist.
But as Trump has settled into his White House role, he has given a series
of long
interviews, and when you study the transcripts it becomes clear that
fundament-
ally he is none of these things.
At base, Trump is an infantalist. There are three tasks that most mature
adults
have sort of figured out by the time they hit 25. Trump has mastered
none of
them. Immaturity is becoming the dominant note of his presidency, lack of
self-
control his leitmotif.
*
Actually, only the combination of two factors was enough to give him
his current
position. One factor is to be found in himself, the other is due to a systemic
error.
The first factor is his personality structure
If you take a look at this and consider his presence in the media his
behavior and
the reactions to it, then, after all these years you come to the
conclusion that he
has a psychopathic personality, under which a considerable part of his environ-
ment has to suffer. His own share of the suffering may be characterized
by the
degree of dissatisfaction and chronic hunger for gratifying his needs.
What makes his environment suffer is, among other things, his callousness,
which he can only conceal with difficulty with clumsy methods of
approach, ac-
companied by pathos on sms-level. His clumsy way of dividing the world into
black and white leads to the fact that he doesn't value anyone who doesn't
think
like him (or doesn't appear to). And this appreciation also collapses immediately,
if the applause fails to materialize, if there is contradiction and/or
criticism.
This personality is largely incapable of self-criticism. Any resistance
is perceived
as a threat and immediately fended off. This behavior does not allow for
genuine
friendship and is no guarantee of reliability.
Driving up with aerious discussions with him are only possible, if he
sees an
opportunity to win them for himself.
A willingness to compromise would severely damage his self-image. Driving
up
with a bulldozer: threatening gestures like in the animal kingdom. Socially
ac-
ceptable rules of conduct and diplomatic behavior are perceived
as restrictive
limitations.
Goals
must without exception include unlimited opportunities for recognition,
applause, and quantity baths, for personal enrichment, not to adorn,
perfect
or seize the office. Those who oppose this egocentric tower of needs are
put
down, slandered, insulted.
Behind the outer façade, behind the presidential office occupied
by Trump, a
deeply dissatisfied, hungry figure is to be seen, in a permanent search
for ap-
plause, full of fear of not having received enough recognition at the end
of the
day.
The search for feelings of pleasure and the permanent defensive attitude
to
avoid feelings of unpleasure characterize the coping strategies
for his daily
routines.
His theatrical efforts to attract attention are accompanied by patterns
of move-
ment and facial expressions that seem rehearsed. They do not appear to be
an
expression accompanying emotionality but as a calculated accessory to his
often childishly simple-minded babbling along.
With the help
of the lies he spreads, he tries to portray himself as a hero and
rescuer from emergency situations and thus increases his ego. It cannot
necessarily be assumed that he himself is convinced of the truthfulness
of his
statements, but through his flamboyant speeches he enters into a self-manu-
factured frenzy of glory and in the process can - secretly - exalt himself
over
the stupidity of the people who naively and trustingly cheer him
on.
But: As a
vain self-promoter with many years of tv experience, he knows what
means he has to use to captivate viewers and turn them into active supporters.
- His self-confident, "I-love-you-all"-signaling appearance and
the pathos of his
rhetoric impress ordinary people just as much as those who long for a political
turnaround and do not recognize in the democrats an alternative
that would be
better than the previous one.
He also makes use of the tricks of demagogically thinking and acting
comrades-
in-arms to use his demands for a new government to win support across the
country, and he succeeds in winning over a Washington-weary electorate in
the
lack of an attractive Democratic figure.
The men and women of the electorate finally vote for him.
The second factor is a system error
Here, as in probably all countries on earth, there is obviously no control
instru-
ment that would make it possible to filter out from the available
applicants those
ones who have the best prerequisites to fill the vacant office.
Of course, the first step is to determine:
a:
what these requirements should be and
b: what
the office should achieve.
But at this
point, opinions are already divided; after all, is there a job description
anywhere in the world? A job description for a monarch, a president, a prime
minister, a chancellor?
Where there is no job description, there are no written binding requirements.
So
people are selected at their own lobbyism. Financial clout, fiddling
and backroom
deals play a role. Current economic or political conditions, which may no
longer
play a role in six months' time, influence these decisions.
Or it is about meeting the needs of a certain clientele, without considering
the
needs of the people as a whole.
This unsatisfactory situation at the highest levels of government is
widespread
worldwide and repeatedly leads to decisions with which the people are not
satis-
fied in the long term because certain conditions are not in place
to prevent
abusive behavior.
The reason for these conditions lies in the lack of appropriate control
instruments,
such as those that have been the norm for many years, right down
to small
handicraft businesses; it is incomprehensible why at the top of
a state, where
more serious decisions have to be made than in an industrial or
craft business,
there is no quality management system in place to ensure that all
procedures
are carried out professionally according to established rules.
Just as in any certified company there must be in the highest administrative
and
management level of a state a personnel department, which draws up job and
workplace descriptions as well as job specifications and initiate
quality controls.
It must also draw up candidate profiles and apply assessment procedures
that
unsuitable applicants can be excluded from the selection process in
good time.
Its task is therefore to identify those candidates who are suitable for
the pre-
formulated decision aids laid down in procedural instructions to filter
out those
candidates who appear to best meet the requirements of the position to be
filled,
regardless of party affiliation.
Such a personnel department must be solely committed to the state and
its con-
stitution and not act according to party wishes or due to the influence
of lobbyist
groups. This would ensure that both unsuitable personalities as well as
a lack of
professional and leadership qualities prevent the achievement
of a candidate
status.
Unfortunately, this cardinal error has contributed to the current situation
in the
USA and is likely to continue to do so and to cause such derailments in
the future.
PS: some democrats will probably now ask themselves why
we need elections,
if the government's personnel department decides who should be eligible
and
who should not.
The people are said to be the sovereign and should decide who should
be king,
president, chancellor, prime minister and take over the business.
In every citizen
there is the desire to be governed, i.e. the general willingness to
subordinate themselves to a state. It is the longing for the all-power-ful
father
figure that remains, and it is also this silent dream that leads the citizen
to the
ballot box in the hope of good guidance from above.
For a plain citizen, voting in favor of someone you want to be governed
by is
therefore first and foremost an emotional decision, because the
"normal" voter
has no knowledge of the personalities and abilities of the candidates.
Furthermore, most voters are unlikely to have any substantial knowledge
of
government work to make a judgement how the candidate is likely to perform
in
office.
So if, according to the current procedure,
one person wins the majority of the
electoral votes of the people, then this only means that a majority
has decided
in favor of this person on the basis of feelings but not on the
basis of knowledge
of performance data.
The fact that almost all countries in the world are satisfied with such
an unquali-
fied selection of personnel suggests that the reputation that "The people
is-the-
sovereign" is merely an advertising slogan that has been repeated
so often for
decades, that society has come to accept this outrageous process.
However, as with many other electoral opportunities, it is essential
to largely ex-
clude emotional criteria and, particularly in the case of such
far-reaching de-
cisions such as appointments to government positions, to look out for high
pro-
fessionalism which is required to fill such an office.
It should be left to the relevant specialist personnel department to
assess this
because as a layperson from outside the profession the plain citizen is
unquali-
fied and unsuspecting. And he should know before the election if
his favorite
shows the necessary skills to meet his obligations.
more
© dpe
20-10-2020