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
rabblerousing 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 fundamentally 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 based on a systemic error.
The first factor is his personality structure.
If you take a look at them and consider his presence in the media, his behavior and the reac-
tions to it, then after all these years one comes to the conclusion that this is a psychopathic
personality from which a considerable part of his environment has to suffer.
His own share of the suffering may be characterized by the degree of dissatisfaction and
chronic needless hunger.
What makes his environment suffer is, among other things, his callousness, which he can
only conceal with difficulty with clumsy methods of approach, accompanied by pathos-laden
speech at sms level.
His clumsy way of dividing the world into black and white leads to the fact that he does not
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. Serious discussions with him are only possible, if he sees an oppor-
tunity to win them over.
Willingness to compromise would severely damage the self-image. That is why the bull-
dozer is driven up: Threatening gestures like in the animal kingdom. - Socially acceptable
rules of conduct and diplomatic behavior are perceived as restrictive limitations. Goals must,
without exception, offer unlimited opportunities for recognition, applause, and quantity
baths, for personal enrichment, not for the sake of the office, not for its enrichment, not to
adorn, perfect or invigorate it. Those who oppose this egocentric tower of needs is put down,
slandered, insulted.
We discover behind the outer façade, behind the presidential office occupied by Trump,
a deeply unsatisfied, hungry figure, in a permanent search for applause, 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 npleasure characterize the coping strategies for his daily routines.
His theatrical efforts to attract attention are accompanied by movement and facial and mimic
patterns that seem rehearsed. They do not appear as an expression of accompanying ex-
pression of accompanying emotionality but as a calculated accompaniment 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 to increase his ego. It is not necessarily to be assumed that
he himself is convinced of the truthfulness of his statements, but through his flamboyant
speeches he enters into a self-made glorification and in doing so, he can - secretly - exalt
himself over the stupidity of the people who naively and trustingly cheer him on.
As a vain self-promoter with many years of tv experience, he knows what means he has to
use to attract viewers and turn them into active supporters. His selfconfident, “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 alter-
native that would be better than the previous one.
He also makes use of the tricks of demagogically thinking and acting comradesin-arms to
win support across the country with his calls for a new government and he succeeds in
winning over a Washington-weary electorate in the absence of an attractive democratic
figure on the candidate's platform.
The men and women of the electorate finally vote for him.
The second factor is a systemic flaw
Here, as in probably every country on earth, there is obviously no instrument of control that
would make it possible to filter out those applicants who have the best qualifications 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 neither binding requirements nor an employ-
ment description. So people are selected at their own lobbyism; financial clout, artifices
and backroom deals play a role.
Or 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 particular clientele, without regard for the needs of
the people as a whole.
This unsatisfactory situation at the highest levels of government is widespread throughout
the world and repeatedly leads to decisions with which the people cannot be satisfied 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 in accordance with estab-
lished rules.
Just as in any certified company the highest administrative and management level of a
state must have a qualified personnel department which draws up job and workplace
descriptions and job descriptions and job specifications and initiates quality controls.
It must also draw up applicant profiles and apply assessment procedures to identify un-
suitable applicants who can be excluded from the selection process in good time. Its
task is therefore to identify suitable candidates on the basis of 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 must 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 in the USA has contributed to the current situation
and will probably continue 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, presi-
dent, chancellor, prime minister and so on.
Every citizen has the desire to be governed, i.e. the general willingness to subordinate
himself to a state. It is the longing that remains after growing up, longing for the all-
powerful father figure, and it is also this silent dream that leads the citizen to the ballot
box in the hope of good guidance from above.
As a “normal” citizen, deciding 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 govern-
mental work and to judge how the candidate is likely to perform in office.
So if, under the current system, one person wins a majority of the popular vote, This
merely means that a majority of the electorate 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 unqualified
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 exclude
emotional criteria and, particularly in the case of such far-reaching decisions as with
appointments to government posts, the question is one of professionalism, required
to fill such an office.
It should be confidently left to the relevant specialist personnel department to assess
this, because as a layperson from outside the profession, you are unqualified and un-
suspecting.
back
© dpe
20-10-2020