A Deeply Flawed Vessel

When Richard Nixon ran for president in 1968, many Americans were suspicious of him.  Watergate was still in the future, but the idea that one would not want to buy a used car from him has an article of liberal faith.  With his five o’clock shadow and communist hunting past, he could surely not be trusted.

Nonetheless, despite an ignominious loss in running for California’s governor, we would soon have Tricky Dick to kick around again.  Years of war and racial tension made him the candidate of law and order—which a great many voters found appealing.

Similarly, when Ronald Reagan ran for president in 1980, many Americans were suspicious of him.  He was a cowboy actor who would shoot up the world because he was too dim to understand the consequences.  All that conservative rhetoric was unambiguous evidence of mental incapacity.

And yet Reagan would win his election.  This time voters were tired of a raging inflation and humiliation at the hands of Iranian fanatics.  They too wanted a return to law and order.  Reagan might be an unknown quantity, but he espoused traditional values.

Now we have Donald Trump running for president.  The electorate likewise suspects him of serious flaws.  Indeed I am one of them.  Trump is a fulminating narcissist with a limited grasp of international politics or domestic policy.  Moreover, compared with his predecessors, he is vulgar and shallow.

But can he make a decent president?  This is a question we must soon answer.

Richard Nixon was an expert on foreign policy.  He put this capability to the test by ending the Viet Nam War and opening diplomatic relations with China.  While he might not be likable, on this level, he knew what he was doing.

Meanwhile Ronald Reagan was conversant with conservative economic and political thinking.  His critics believed him an empty suit, but he actually wrote many of his most important speeches.  Hence when the time came, he knew the policies he wanted and had the courage to implement them.

Although Nixon was driven from office, both he and Reagan accomplished much of their agendas.  Now Trump presents himself as the candidate of law and order.  With the world aflame and our streets awash with distrust and division, this is, in fact, an attractive platform.

But can he deliver?  His enthusiasts believe he is a practical man.  They insist that he is a doer who will learn on the job.  In their eyes, he is not a loose cannon, but a fearless opponent of political correctness.  He will thus identify our enemies for what they are.

Yet is this enough?  Will a man who insisted on running his own political campaign listen to advisors more experienced than himself?  Trump asserts that he can.  His choice of Mike Pence as a running mate suggests this is possible.

After all, Chester Arthur, when he succeeded to the office of president after the assassination of James Garfield, was regarded as a political hack.  Until this point, he had been little more than a bagman for the New York State political bosses.  Even so, he grew in office.

Might the same be true of Donald Trump?  Would the responsibilities incumbent upon him have a sobering effect?  We cannot be sure.  Trump is undoubtedly a flawed vessel.  He does not possess the virtues of a Nixon or Reagan.  But does he possess compensatory qualities?

At this point, I do not know.  He was never my choice for chief executive.  However the alternative is Hillary Clinton.  She is not only a fatally flawed candidate, but a much more thoroughly vetted one.  Her limitations are not only known, they are deeply entrenched.

So the issue is this: Shall it be the devil we know or the devil we don’t know?  Is the possibility of Trumpean law and order sufficient to cancel out the possibility of Trumpean chaos?  Neither Nixon nor Reagan blew the world up.  Would Trump?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University