Trump's Utility Function

Determining The Purpose of the Trump Campaign

A utility function is a way to analyze a device or process when you have no direct evidence how it works and seems to have no obvious purpose. In other words, the Trump campaign.^[1]

Here’s how the idea works. Say far in the future an archaeologist finds the remains of a treadmill. There are are no instructions, so instead he examines the device and ask what does it do best. He determines that it is running in place. Now why someone would run in place is a complete mystery to him, so he looks some more. He then puts its in the upright position and hangs clothes on it, which of course is what a treadmill is most often used for.

Now the point is that a utility function does not determine what the intended use is. It determines the most likely use. In other words, treadmills are used more to hang clothes than for exercise.

The Trump campaign is a very cryptic machine. Right now, you would not say its useful for making Trump president, so let see what it’s utility function tells us. Given that most campaign should be good at making their candidate president, our utility function should be based on how the Trump campaign is different. (And it is so different.)

No Previous Political Experience

Trump did not have to run for president. He could have run for Mayor of New York or governor. A candidate needs this, not only for experience in government, but to develop a loyal and competent campaign staff.^[2]

So what would be the utility of Trump running with no experience. It does save time, at least two years^[3], so it lets you be president on the “cheap”. This is also useful, if you believe that after two years, your “moment is lost”.

Late to Using Teleprompter

As much as it maligns them, politicians use teleprompter whenever possible. Yes, that makes them look less authentic and more like a "politician", but they campaign in a world where all stupid statements are used by their enemies and the media. Unless you believe you will never say something stupid (which is overconfident and stupid), you use a teleprompter whenever you can.^[4]

So what would be the utility of Trump not using a teleprompter. Well, for one thing, it does make him look more authentic. Secondly, it's more fun. Third, it is less effort and cheaper. To use a teleprompter you have to write a speech or hire a speech writer.

Late to Fund Raising

We tend to think politicians need money to buy adds, but that's not all of it. Sure, campaign ads need money, but a candidate also needs to hire staff, pay for data mining, build campaigning headquarters in different states, pay legal fees, etc.

Now Trump will tell you he did not want to be beholden to donors, which is consistent with his brand, but not a necessity. Obama and Sanders proved you can raise a lot of money from individual donors, which not only gets you money but gets you votes.

The utility of this is obvious. You save money (since Trump would be expected to donate some of his own)^[5], time, and effort. Plus, fund raising is not fun.

So Where Are We?

Most of the utility points to one conclusion. Trump is having fun. Until now, his campaign has minimized cost and effort, while maximizing fun.

Now events have moved fast with Trump, and he has recently started to “pivot” into a more traditional campaign.^[6] That’s why I keep using the phrase “Late to”. And he is late. Really late. So, late it could do more damage than good. Kind of like showing up at the wedding at the last dance. You still have to bring a gift. All the alcohol is gone. The food is cold, and everyone is still insulted.

One way to resolve this is to suggest he is doing a "faux pivot". In other words, he could be making the outward motions of changing his tone and policy hoping that his original supporters see this as "just what he has to do to be president". Not really an unsound theory, but should become evident soon.

However, there is another way of resolving the contradiction. For the first part of the Trump campaign, the point is to have fun. Then, he decides he wants to be president for many reasons: not wanting to be embarrassed, damage to his business, wants to get Obama back at the next Correspondents Dinner, and so on.

Now, the simplest answer is that he is just overconfident and incompetent. Nor are the reasons mutually exclusive. A utility function can have multiple answers. And none of this contradict Trump latching on to new opportunities, such as starting a TV network.

But the greatest utility of the Trump campaign so far has been to have fun, until he didn't.

If so, then the worst to happen to Trump might be winning the election. Being president is not fun.

Trumpian Laws of Motion

Finally, The Reason We Are Always Talking About Trump

Trump Is Not Hitler, Yet.

Time To Fess Up. Is Trump Hitler Or Not?

Let’s be clear. Trump is not Hitler. Hitler had better hair and larger hands. I also suspect the furor had a better sense of interior deign.

Of course, those small details has not stopped us from making other comparison, and feeling concern about them, including myself. I’ve been laying he groundwork for a while, so let’s finally ask the question: Is the Trump Candidacy dangerous to our democracy? (Well, it took long enough.)

In The Repeal of Godwin's Law I discussed whether we should even asked that question. Part of the problem is that accusing a politician of acting like the H-word has become standard rhetoric. So, while it is appropriate to ask that question (and sometimes desperately necessary), we do need to show why this case is different.

In Call Him Hitler But Let's Be Fair About It, I tried to setup some basic ground rules. If I am successful, we can talk about this without just going into rants or hyperbole. (But I so want to rant) It does matter how we phrase the question, and as I pointed out this is really an examination of his campaign and not him. Hence, I refer to the ‘Trump Candidacy’ instead of ‘Donald J. Trump’.

So, I did my research. Read up on leaders that did become the H-word. (Okay I did some internet searches.) Thought about it. Couldn’t sleep. Drank a lot. And finally came to a conclusion.

Trump Candidacy is NOT a danger to our democracy, YET.

Didn’t see that one coming. Did you?

I bet you’re saying right now, “Wait, you’ve been writing posts about this for almost a month and now you say he’s not Hitler? Why have you been wasting our time with this.”

Hey, I’m as surprised as you. Believe it not, I thought it’d come out differently. I tried, I really tried, but I said I would do this objectively and that’s where it led.

Was I right to be concerned? Darn tootin. Should you have been concerned? Darn rootin tootin. Should we remained concerned? Double Darn rootin tootin.

So, here was my process.

When I started to write this post, I thought I would examine specific traits of the how the Trump Campaign mirrored the infamous figures (Ceasar, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Simmon Cowell, that guy who hosts Iron Chef. You know, people like that.). In “The Repeal of Godwin’s Law”, I referenced three.

1. Scapegoating
   
2. Appealing to resentments
   
3. Creating fanatical followers by manipulating group identity
   

I also found this article, Donald Trump wasn’t a textbook demagogue. Until now., which gives four.

1. Posturing as a common man
   
2. Triggering powerful emotions
   
3. Manipulating those powerful emotions for political benefit
   
4. Threatening to break established principles of governance
   

I bet you can find a bunch of others, and what I realized after reading a couple, I’m not that smart. Books have been written on what makes someone an H-word (or demagogue, or autocrat, or dictator, just go on and insert your favorite term). So just go on and read one of those. I’m too lazy to do all that work. (Besides do you really want to read 100 blogs on Trump = Hitler).

So, l took a different tact. As I’ve written before, the problem with these checklists is that a lot of politicians have used these tactics to some extent. Granted that the Trump Candidacy uses them as if Mein Kampf was a campaign textbook. But, comparing the Trump Candidacy to one of these checklist puts us in the position of proving “how much is too much”.

Instead, I assumed that the checklist from other articles and books has been met. (If you don’t like that, well read one and come back to me.) We are assuming that the Trump Candidacy is demagogic, but, what more is needed. I came up three.

1. Could be elected

Now I don’t think he has a good chance to win, about 30% (which tracks well with such projections as FiveThirtyEight)^[1] However, if you went into surgery with on a 70% survival rate, you would be seriously worried the night before. You certainly would not elect to have that surgery unless it was life and death.

2. Accountable to Political Norms

I covered this in That Orange Guy Defies Conventions and pointed out how being a conventional politician acts as a safety measure.

For awhile now, the Republican party has been hoping he will “come around”. In other words, hold himself accountable to political norms. How has that worked out for you Rience? Nor has bad press stopped him. The Trump Candidacy’s latest response has been the Popeye Strategy (I am what I am). So, if you thought he was defying political norms before, than he’s basically promising to continue.^[2]

3. Fanatical Followers

And here is where we fall short.

In the end, it does not depend on Trump. It depends on Trump supporters. A dictator cannot rule alone, and unless he has followers that are willing to go to extreme measures, he’s really just a ranting orange person.

In my last post, Trump’s My Man, I asked if Trump supporters were fanatical. I took a stance and concluded a solid “I don’t know”. (Yeah, I’m a wuss).

Certainly, many aspects of Trump’s support are concerning. The fact that his supporters seemed more motivated by their faith in him, rather than a set of ideas. That they respond to demagogic rhetoric. And so on.

In truth, however, his supporters have behaved well within the bounds of the democratic process. Their arguments my not have the sophistication of a Sunday morning talk show, but that’s the points. A lot of people have been left out in our politics, and maybe some of our overly sophisticated idea are to blame.

So, it’s up to all you Trump supporters^[3] out there, because everyday your leader is pushing closer and closer to the line. One day he’s going to cross it. Maybe he’ll suggest we need a new form of government. He’s already suggesting our election is rigged. Maybe he’ll suggest violence. He’s already come close to that.

The question to you Trump supporters is, when he does, what will you do? Trump is not a danger to our democracy, YET. You Trump supporters are the YET.

As for me, I haven’t bought a ticket to Canada so far, but I am packing a “bug-out bag”.^[4]

Trump's My Man

Is It Fair To Call Trump Supporters Fanatical?

Trump once said, “I could shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters”.^[1] Now before any Trump supporters get mad at me for calling them fanatical, I didn’t. Your candidate did. Any other candidate would have lost their primary (or at least had to apologize). For Trump, many just laughed.

Now, I realize anyone would object to being painted as fanatical, and we have a lot of people with real frustrations and problems that only the Trump Candidacy seems willing to address. I get it. I really do. In fact, I feel some of it.

Now if you support Trump and have read this far, you are not a fanatic. As it is, also, unfair to me to label any one block of people in such a way. So, let me try to be more thoughtful here.

If you don’t see him as the threat, you can reasonably vote for Trump. Perhaps you just don’t like Hillary. If you are sufficiently concerned about the direction of the country, in particular foreign policy and trade, and you don’t see an issue with his approach to terrorism and immigration, then there is no fanaticism either.

Sure Trump has rallies. Obama had rallies. Sure Trump has supporters that argue past what seem obvious criticism. But, they can easily show this happening with past and current candidates. Again what is different?

Trump supporters have not been violent or even exceptionally vocal. They’ve just had fun at rallies.

Consider that when Goldwater and Perot ran they had a lot of specific. (For Perot, a lot of charts. A whole lot of charts). You could ask someone why they were voting Goldwater or Perot and get specifics. (Often too much specifics). Ted Cruz’s supporters are definitely passionate. But, they follow him because of his proven adherence to Conservative Principles.

So does the Trump Candidacy have supporters that see him as we would any candidate, offering a plan of government, or are they^[2] blindly inspired by him. The numbers matter too, because every candidate has some fanatics in their ranks, just not enough to raise concern.

I’m not sure we can know until after the election. We have to see how support is affected when Trump disappoints (as in changes policies to other than promised or loses the election). Voters will turn away. Fanatics will stay.

However, recently there is a new twist.

When the Trump Candidacy starts saying “if I [Trump] lose, it’s because the election was rigged.”^[3], this attacks the legitimacy of our democracy. In other words, this is the rationale of revolution. Now, me saying that is inflammatory. More likely this is just a way for Trump to preserve his ego and start a television network. But, the legitimacy argument stays out there, and intentionally or not, the movement can grow where they only see Trump (or his successor) as legitimate. Even if this takes a while, remember there is Eric Trump.

If you are a Trump supporter and have gotten this far, let me take the opportunity to make a plea to you. Don’t fall for this.

For the last 16 years (at least) the Republican party has been successful at getting what they want in trade and tax cuts, but have failed in any of the social goals promised. While the Democratic party has made offers to help, they have also largely failed you. I would be angry too. But take a moment and think back. Think back to when you were excited about Bush, Romney or even Obama. Does it feel any different than it does with Trump?

Now he’s suggesting that any loss is not his fault. You know what’s next right? Watch his TV network. Buy his book. Give him money. Give him power. Now what is more likely? A grand conspiracy is afoot by the same institutions you know are incompetent, or that Trump is playing you and covering for his failure?

Only a fanatic would fall for that?

That Orange Guy Defies Convention

Trump's Unconventional Style Means

We Have to Be More Careful

P. J. O’Rourke said it best. “She's [Hillary Clinton] wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters."

If you've read The Repeal of Godwin's Law and Call Him Hitler But Let's Be Fair About It, you know that I've been building to see if the Trump Candidacy is a threat to our democracy. His words are easily argued as demagogic (and I certainly will in another post), but reasoning on that line has proved tricky. Other politicians have been demagogic only not with the same intensity. There has to be more than that.

What is it that makes the Trump Candidacy feel so different? And by different I mean scary. Maybe it is what makes him so appealing, his unconventionality.

Trump supporters keep on asking why he has to answer questions like, “Do you disavow the KKK”, “Do you rule out interment camps”, etc. Other candidates don't. Well, he's proposed ideas like “banning Muslims” or blatantly describes a group as “criminals and rapists”, If another candidate did, than yeah. They get asked questions like that.

But perhaps another reason is that before the Trump Candidacy, presidential candidates were more conventional, and that made them accountable.

What many find disturbing (including myself) is that there seems no restraint on  the Trump Candidacy's speech or proposals. If another candidate had said any of the statements in question, their own party would discourage such behavior. And that candidate WOULD LISTEN. He (and she) needed his party. He needed the good will of donors, and he needed the support of activist. Or at least there was a history of services, government or military, where we saw such restraints.

But the Trump Candidacy brags about not being restrained or even willing to self-impose their own. That is part of the campaign rationale. No allegiance to a corrupt party. Not beholden to donors. Not belonging to special interests. And not, being corrupted by years of being a politician.

However, that means if the Trump Candidacy should win, what would stop such behavior in the White House? Yeah, there’s the Congress and the Supreme Court, but do we really want it to go that far. Saying 'We elected a dictator, but that’s OK. We can spend the next four years curbing him.' is not a comfort.

Now, this would be an issue with any outsider candidates. You could ask why there were no concerns about Ross Perot or even Ted Cruz. (Well, we had many concerns about them, but not the racist H-word thing. Well, maybe about Cruz). But these candidates showed restraints in other ways. They were loyal to ideologies and measures of decorum. 

Given that we are a democracy, expecting parties, donors, and activists to restrain a politician is well, undemocratic. The voters should be to who the Trump Candidacy is accountable. And given that the only time his behavior has changed is in response to low poll ratings, that seems his only limit.

But hey, that’s why I’m writing this. I'm talking to you, the voter. The Trump Candidacy is suppose to be earning our vote, and doing so humbly. He should act as if we are the boss, because we are the boss.

Sure a candidate can defy the conventions of his party, his donors, and ideologies. However, he can't defy our conventions. Being unconventional is cool, but that shifts all the responsibility to us. This is the time to be more skeptical and demand more restraint, not settle for less.

The point is that an unconventional and independent candidate is fine, but those conventions and allegiances are safeguards against bad behavior. Without those safeguards, that candidate needs to be examined more closely and held to a higher standard.

Should the press ask him more questions than the other candidate? Yes.
Should we have more specifics on his policy? Yes.
Do we get to criticize him more when he missteps? Yes.

Not only should we do this, we must do this. His unconventionality gives us no other choice.

And if the Trump Candidacy refuses, WE DON'T ELECT HIM. No restraints means no vote. Otherwise, as president, he has no reason to act differently, nor do politicians afterward.

Now it is up to us, because we are all that is left.

Call Him Hitler But Let's Be Fair About It

An Objective Way To Ask If Trump Could Be Hitler

Life often gives us warnings when we are headed on the wrong course. They're subtle. They're quiet. There easy to miss, but when you look back you realize that if you had paid attention to that moment, your life would have not taken that awful turn.

I'm talking about Trump, of course.

Oh come on, you knew I was going there, It's not like I'm the only one. Go search on "Trump Hitler". Even those trying to say he's not Hitler are arguing that he is more like Mussolini or Silvio Berlusconi. (And that's just the Washington Post).

The problem is that if you searched on "Obama Hitler" or "Bush Hitler", you would find a lot of links too. Comparing to Hitler is sooo yesterday.

So how do I talk about him without sounding like a raving, well, blogger?

In my last blog, The Repeal of Godwin's Law, I argued that, while most of the time comparing a politician to Hitler was wrong, there are rare times when the comparison is necessary.

So, given we are at such a time, are we in danger of Trump being the new Hitler? (Yeah, that sounded like a raving blogger).

So, let's do something a little different. Let's have some ground rules.

First of all, 'Trump is Hitler' is incorrect. No one is suggesting that Trump is trying to resurrect the Third Reich. What I really mean is:

Could the Trump Candidacy endanger the US Democracy?

And there's my second ground rule. This is not about Trump. This is about his candidacy. As far as I know Donald J. Trump is a descent and generous man. There is even evidence to this. This is about the way he has chosen to run for the presidency. So, from now, that exactly how I'll refer to it: the Trump Candidacy. (I'm still making jokes about him, however).

And by extension of these two rules, we are not talking about character, temperament, or policy. That's all part of the standard election debates. The question is whether this election is different. (I mean other than it looks like the start of a WWE match).

My third ground rule is that the Trump Candidacy is an indication of the Trump Government. (OK this is more a point, but it is relevant). Yes, the Trump Government could be totally different, but if that's the case, then this is all just one big con job. (Wait a minute!)

OK, my final ground rule. (We'll more of a clarification.) I mean endanger our democracy, not take over. It's enough that a soft coup is tried, whether bloody or not. Even a constitutional crisis, impeachment, or needing to be saved by Jack Bauer is enough reason to raise alarms.

Got all that? Yeah, it was a lot. But we're trying to be fair and thorough here. What do you think this is? Twitter?

But, this did go on a bit, so I'll just have to continue in my next post. There, I'll talk about how the H-word applies (if at all) to the Trump Candidacy.