A Lot Done

Getting a lot done doesn’t represent a viable measure of purpose, effectiveness or consequence

Traditionally, the first 100 days is a period for allowing a new president a chance to demonstrate to all voters, to world leaders and to citizens around the globe the manner and style of an emerging administration. Getting it right has many advantages…getting it wrong is quite the opposite. The new president managed to achieve record-setting disapproval even before taking the oath of office, but has retained approval by most supporters and, depending on the issue, many Republicans.

So the score after about a month is — from inside the administration — getting a lot done. This mostly consists of embracing turmoil to demonstrate commitment to change and chaos as a tactical weapon meant to keep the opposition and media off balance. Supporters in the countryside will and do mistake this for keeping campaign promises. The outside view is quite different. The initial assessment is simple: a predictable pretense of being disruptive by a president who knows nothing about governance. It might impress some, but if change begins to look like confusion and disruption morphs into disorder, voters who are not loyal supporters are unlikely to be impressed for long, and most others will take offense at what appears to be sheer incompetence accompanied by substantial dishonesty.

Getting a lot done is actually meaningless per se. It doesn’t represent a viable measure of purpose, effectiveness or consequence. Change can have function or it can simply be chaos. And process, rule of law and intention are as important as change and getting things done. This is particularly true when the things getting done are meant to impress supporters who do not represent a majority of the electorate and are far from discerning as to the value and efficacy of what only seem like good ideas. The rise of resistance among more mainstream voters can have consequences for those in office, particularly those who do nothing to apply checks and balances on the executive branch when it becomes a source of disarray and instability.

Those in the opposing party who stand up to egregious misuse of authority will escape the wrath of intelligent voters. But those who attempt to accommodate such behavior will become the additional focus of said displeased, angry voters. The situation for the president’s own party is more complicated, but the issue is really the same. The constitution assigns the responsibility for keeping the executive branch within the rule of law to congress, which includes the party of the president.

Republican elite and congressional Republicans are not saying much in public, but they know three things. First, the president barely won, and lost the popular vote. Second, he is a liability to the party in many ways and could have devastating consequences for its reelections in 2018. Third, he is at odds with conservative viewpoints on a variety of issues both economic and cultural. The question being posed by some is, does the party take the risk that the president will undermine it in the coming two years or does it push back, even willing to impeach if it is warranted?

Of course, congressional Republicans are quite capable of proving how unworthy of office they are simply by reversing laws that the general public approves of and benefits from in various ways — from consumer protection to wildlife protection. In fact, they’ve already started doing so, and in the process are proving what intelligent voters always knew: The two major political parties are really very little alike, with many very obvious differences in priorities. Republicans always favor what business and the wealthy want, with little to no interest in anyone else, including working class voters. Democrats focus on the greater good, serving all voters and ensuring that all voters get to vote. Anyone who insists the two parties are more alike than different is either quite ignorant and/or quite obtuse.

As I noted a couple of posts ago, I’m curating my news time. I’ve also made a mental note to keep in mind that my expectations should determine my reactions. So, when 58,000 mental health professionals say the president is too unstable to hold office, I use that as my baseline. They diagnose him with malignant narcissism, which is the combination of criteria from three disorders: anti-social personality disorder, paranoid personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder — plus sadism (the enjoyment of inflicting pain). In other words, a psychologically abnormal human being who will never fulfill expectations we have for those elected to that office. This, by the way, qualifies for impeachment (25th amendment to constitution).

I have stopped being surprised, disturbed and irritated at what the incompetent-in-chief says and does. My expectations are that this is all there is, and thus there’s nothing new or different to react to. The zero attention span, the incoherent rambling, the insecure and angry narcissistic myopia…all there. The details become irrelevant. The consistency of being unqualified and incompetent is dependable, predictable, inevitable. A lot isn’t getting done that should, and what is getting done never should have. The lack of any illusions in this regard is personal sanity.