Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Daniel Fidel Ferrer's avatar
  2. Ryan Mitchell Wittingslow's avatar
  3. Panu Raatikainen's avatar
  4. Jason Stanley's avatar
  5. Daniel Greco's avatar
  6. Nobody's avatar
  7. Roger of Invisible America's avatar

Trump poll

Brian Leiter

MOVING TO FRONT FROM YESTERDAY–UPDATED

Watching the infantile gangster's current twitter meltdown about former FBI Director James Comey made me think this would be a good topic for a poll:

 


 

UPDATE:  So with over 500 votes since yesterday evening, 59% think Trump has no redeeming human qualities, while a generous 24% think he does and an also generous 17% are unsure.  I am genuinely curious to hear from the "yes" voters–and please, he doesn't have redeeming human qualities just because you like some of his policy positions, so none of that.  What character trait or other feature of the person redeems him qua human being?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

29 responses to “Trump poll”

  1. Alex

    Hey, maybe some voters also appreciate Shark Week. He can't be all bad if he enjoys watching shark attacks while inhaling cheeseburgers.

    Reply
  2. Howard

    With just a little reflection, he treats fellow humans as not people but just as victims in his way and as subjects of his vast greatness. Didn't Kant say something about people being ends and not just means? Further, he lives entirely in the present, Zimbardo labeled this extreme present hedonism. At best he's an idiot child. These two points basically add up to the infantile gangster of your commentary

    Reply
  3. Daniel Kaufman

    I voted "undecided." Without having *any* personal knowledge of someone, I'm simply unwilling to commit to the idea that they have "no redeeming human qualities." I recall a former colleague — long retired — who was terrible to me, during my probationary period as a junior faculty member and did everything to try and ruin my career. I might have said he had no redeeming human qualities, but as I found out from others, he was a very loving grandparent to his grandchildren.

    Reply
  4. Howard

    I would counter that if he has any good points they are minor or warped by personality disorder. Yes, he might possess a certain charm, but that is a facet of his pathological narcissism. More to the point, he might love his country or his family, but that is just for the greater glory of Trump. In other historical epochs he may have been more human. Hitler was a vegetarian and doted on his pet dog. Does that make him any more human? In the middle ages when personal loyalty and treachery had greater currency, he would have fit in nicely. Sorry about the Hitler ref, Trump doesn't practice evil on that level, more like manslaughter to truly murderous evil, but just as bad in practice. All the human qualities I can think of are really bad qualities or insignificant.

    Reply
  5. Larry

    Firstly, I agree 100% with Daniel Kaufman. It's the height of hubris to think otherwise (*or* to believe that you *do* know much about Trump, as a person, because of what you read in the New York Times or the Washington Post, let alone the other liberal outlets that front as news media). Second, from what we are in a position to tell, he is confident, shrewd, and charismatic. Now, on an academic blog read and contributed to by professional philosophers, these qualities may not seem important, but they are to others, and I have enough epistemic and value-based humility to give some minimal credence to the position. I don't count the view that Trump has more than 0 redeeming qualities as being "generous" — I count it as being human myself.

    Reply
  6. Brian Leiter

    Anyone referring to the "liberal outlets that front as news media" is living in a different world than the rest of us. But putting that to one side, I've watched Donald Trump for nearly thirty years. I've talked to the real estate lawyers who won't do business with him and to the real estate firms that won't do business with him because he's a crook and a narcissistic incompetent who can't be trusted; their accounts are confirmed by the accounts of his ghost writer, of those who have worked with him, and many others. It is *possible* that there is a private Trump who is not nearly as horrendous as the one we observe, but I've never seen the evidence of that over many decades now. Anyway, I'm still waiting for someone to identify a redeeming human quality he has.

    Reply
  7. s wallerstein

    Trump's children seem to love him. Sometimes children love an abusive, authoritarian father, to be sure, but Trump's children appear especially loyal to him. Maybe it's because he buys their love with his money, but there is always a chance that he is a father who cares about his children. I doubt that he cares about their flourishing as Erich Fromm defines "flourishing", but in the conventional sense of seeing that they go to good schools, good dentists, good doctors, etc., he may be a good father.

    Reply
  8. Jon

    Goodness, don't all humans, ex hypothesi, have redeeming human qualities? Setting that aside, remember that scene from the presidential debates where Clinton and Trump were asked to each say something nice about each other? Trump complimented Clinton's tenacity, which I thought was genuine. And she complimented his children, or at least his commitment to them. Even if you don't think you throw out a bowl of Skittles because one might be poisonous, we can still recognize that he genuinely loves his children, as fathers should. Maybe more controversially, he's also a winner, and I respect people who win. It's not like it's easy to get elected President of the United States, so there's at least some value in that accomplishment.

    Reply
  9. AnonPhD

    To some extent it depends on what you mean by 'redeeming'. The dictionary definition is "compensating for someone's or something's faults." Plainly Trump has no qualities that wholly or even substantially counterbalance his mendacity, ignorance, etc etc etc ad nauseam. (How could he, or anyone for that matter?)

    But I assumed you meant by 'redeeming' a single positive human characteristic. Hence I voted 'undecided,' for reasons similar to Daniel Kaufman. In fact, I recall reading an article (I believe in the NYT) in which the reporter noted the surreality of watching Trump engage in what appeared to be genuinely affectionate behavior with his grandchild.

    Perhaps this was an act. But, in general, while it's tempting to think that someone like Trump has *no* redeeming (in the second sense) human qualities, I suspect its truer to life to suppose that human beings, even when monstrous, often comprise strange and intricate jumbles of motivations, affects, etc.

    Of course, all of the above being said, I remain open to the hypothesis that Trump is rotten to the core.

    Reply
  10. Brian Leiter

    They're *definitely* loyal to him to a striking degree. Evidence of "love" is a bit harder to come by, but maybe you're right.

    Reply
  11. Nate

    You might have gotten some ‘undecided’s from people *ahem verificationists ahem* who were unsure what counts as a redeeming quality.

    Reply
  12. Robert Gressis

    I voted that he has redeeming human qualities. I'm very worried about being willing to say that someone has no redeeming human qualities; it makes certain courses of horrendous action (e.g., torture) seem either permissible or obligatory. Read some of the accounts here, for example: https://www.crossroad.to/heaven/Excerpts/books/faith_under_fire/wurmbrand-tortured.htm

    Maybe, though, you mean this poll more as a joke or a venting of worry?

    BL COMMENT: I do think he has moral standing so that torture would be impermissible. And, yes, this was more a joke than an attempt to license strong conclusions about how he should be treated.

    Reply
  13. Matt s

    At least he’s decisive.

    Reply
  14. Karl Young

    I couldn't help commenting that this poll seems a little like those Apple dialog boxes of old, that would say something like "You're computer is about to blow up and take you with it" with the only option being a button saying "OK". One can look with utter revulsion at Trump and what he's doing to the country without having the slightest idea regarding whether he has any redeeming human qualities and what if any those might be.

    Reply
  15. s wallerstein

    "Love" means a lot of different things to different people.

    I doubt that Trump's children love him in Erich Fromm's (to go back to Fromm) sense of the word in The Art of Loving because that kind of love has to be learned and they certainly would not have learned that from Trump and probably not from their respective mothers, who, from what I can see, prioritized money over companionship or union of true minds to even good looks when they chose a mate.

    They say that there are families where food becomes a substitute for love, others where money is and maybe Trump's is one where loyalty becomes the currency which takes the place of love. That would fit in with Trump's mafia ethos, which you have pointed out on various occasions, loyalty being a highly valued characteristic in a mafia family.

    Loyalty, unlike anything that a more psychologically and ethically sophisticated person would call "love", can be based on fear. You can be loyal out of fear and that seems to fit in with the common perception that Trump is someone to be feared. Of course that fear of the father in children is often unconscious or semi-conscious.

    Reply
  16. Eddie

    For starters, he seems to make some tens of millions of Americans feel safer, heard, civically engaged, and ideologically vindicated. That's not nothing. (And whether those feelings are accurate or good is beside the point here.)

    From the perspective of his supporters, they would likely say his best feature is his candor. However distasteful his personality and beliefs, such honesty is, for most people, difficult and rare. That his personality and beliefs are so distasteful to so many makes it all the more impressive. (Think of the novelist or comedian who speaks bravely despite horrifying most of their audience.) For anyone with even a casual knowledge of the psychotherapeutic (and to a lesser extent, social psychological) literature, it is quite obvious that there is a lot of ugliness that lurks underneath all of us.

    Indeed, this very discussion is a nice example of that. To debate whether a conscious, sentient human has "redeeming qualities" is not only, in my opinion, arrogant and vicious, but it starts to come dangerously close to the level many think he occupies.

    BL COMMENT: You lost me on that last paragraph. Trump is narcissistic, cruel, authoritarian in character and temperament, lacking in empathy. Observing this and wondering whether he has any redeeming human qualities is not equivalent to any of the characteristics he has.

    Reply
  17. Michel

    He probably does, but they're not obviously on display in the ways he acts and talks. Or, at least, he definitely has human qualities; whether they're "redeeming" is another matter! I would tend to think that the extent of their redemption depends on the depth and size of the hole his other human qualities have dug. And on that account, they look like a drop in the bucket.

    More generally and FWIW, though, I'm not at all convinced that the acquaintance principle holds here. I don't think any of us really needs to know him personally to judge him, especially when his words and actions have such an enormous and often direct impact on so many people. His public face looks like a pretty good proxy to me, and his public actions and comments clearly outweigh whatever merits his private behaviour may sometimes evince.

    Reply
  18. John Rapko

    I had thought that he had at least one redeeming quality: he seemed to think that his male spawn's big game 'hunting' marked them as pathetic twerps. But then, I gather, he moved to rescind the ban on importing such 'trophies'. So no, he doesn't have any redeeming qualities.

    Reply
  19. Pete

    Definitely agree Dan. That's why I went with the same option. I just get increasingly uncomfortable with dehumanizing anyone (even those like Trump). I know that's almost impossible to avoid completely (calling someone 'scumbag' or 'asshole' or 'piece of shit' all accomplish the same sort of dehumanization, and it's also part and parcel of how we seem to communicate with and about each other), but I've been trying more and more to couch those types of responses at the level of the beliefs or actions of an individual rather than said individual).

    Reply
  20. Michael

    A friend and I were nostalgically revisiting our youthful pro wrestling fandom, and he informed me that Trump actually wrestled Vince McMahon in a "hair versus hair" match a few WrestleMania's ago, with Stone Cold Steve Austin as the guest referee. Trump won the match, so he didn't have to have his head shaved. But he did take a "stunner" from Austin, to the delight of the crowd:

    https://youtu.be/UTtfVOyVsf0

    This is trivial, and I apologize if it's out of place here, but I found it very surprising nonetheless. It's as if Trump climbed into a dunk tank: He voluntarily decided (perhaps with a smile), at this singular point in time, to be on the receiving end of some good-natured degradation, for the sake of others' enjoyment, and/or – what's more of a stretch – out of respect for an end distinct from his own vanity, namely the sports entertainment tradition. I'm not entirely sure what this demonstrates – again, it's surely trivial – but a decent guess may be some tiny shred of ability to take oneself not so seriously, for the sake of creating a moment of enjoyment for other people.

    Reply
  21. Nate

    “He’s a winner, and I respect people who win”
    But do we respect the man who wins unjustly as well as the man who wins justly?
    ‘I don’t know what you mean.’
    Surely, some men who win tournaments, or prizes, or hearts or any number of other things, have achieved their victories only through deceit and sabotage, or some other way of mistreating their opponents. Should we say these men have secured their victories justly or unjustly? Or should we say neither?
    ‘Certainly they have secured their victories unjustly. But I would go farther and say that they were not truly the victors, but pretenders, whose injustice persists even after the contest, and for as long as the true victor goes unrewarded.’
    Surely, you have been given a good education, and no doubt you hail from an excellent city, for the men that speak as convincingly and confidently as you do were nearly always raised in excellent cities. I hope you will be kind enough to share even more of your fine education with me, as I have one or two questions about the respecting of winners that still give me trouble.
    ‘I will be happy to help you. For, as you’ve said, I was raised in an excellent city, and have been given an excellent education. And as you, it appears, have not had the same advantages, or they have failed you at least in this area, it would be wicked of me to keep them from you.’
    You are too kind. Now tell me, since all true winners win justly, do all of them win justice?
    ‘I’m afraid that once again I can’t tell what you mean.’
    I only mean that there are different prizes for different contests. (Let’s just think now of the winning of prizes in contests, as I am old and cannot handle as many things simultaneously as you can.) And the prize for one contest may itself be an injustice, while the prize for another may be a justice.
    ‘Please go on.’
    I’m sure you remember the old custom in some cities of holding contests periodically whose winners were granted marriages with the daughters of important politicians and businessmen, even though the daughters were unwilling. And I’m sure you already know the way that old custom is condemned today by civilized people all over the country.
    ‘I do remember it. It is shameful that societies anywhere have ever disregarded so callously the happiness of their young women.’
    And would you say that the way these young women were treated was a justice or an injustice, or neither?
    ‘An injustice, undoubtedly.’
    And the men (some of them quite old) who won these contests, and took the unwilling young women as wives, would you say they were to be respected? That is, even when they followed every rule of the contest faithfully, and were not deceitful or underhanded in any way with the other contestants, and so were the real winners and not pretenders?
    ‘They should perhaps be respected for other reasons.’
    Perhaps indeed, but should they also be respected for winning the contests whose prizes were marriages with unwilling young women?
    ‘I should think not.’
    So it is not every winner who is to be respected. For his prize may itself be an injustice, and then he is no more respectable than a man who did the injustice but without any detour, as it were, through a contest.
    ‘Of course. But you only seem to be playing with words. Such an unjust contest had better not be called a contest at all. Or even if it is, the contestant who defeats the rest had better not be called a winner.’
    If all winners are to be respected, then you’re certainly right.
    ‘I have never thought that those men, or any man who seeks injustice, is to be counted a winner when he finds it. Just as I have never thought that a cheater is a winner.’
    In that case, I think I can forget about a few other questions I had in mind for us. For it seems that every time I would burden an imagined winner with injustice, either in his conduct during the contest, or in the prize he seeks, or perhaps even in the contest itself, you would only conclude that he was no winner at all.
    ‘That is exactly right.’
    And so you maintain, while there may be unjust contests, unjust contestants, and unjust prizes, these are irrelevant to true winning. And the true winners, whoever they are, are to be respected.
    ‘That is right.’
    I’m inclined to agree with you about injustice’s incompatibility with true winning, but I still am not sure I would agree that all winners are to be respected.
    ‘You would disrespect the just winner of a just contest?’
    I would disrespect nobody, if that means I would deny them the respect they’re due. But I do believe that some winners aren’t due even as much respect as some losers, even from the same contest.
    ‘How could you, if you knew the winner was indeed the true winner, in the sense we have agreed on?’
    It seems to me that countless winners of countless contests have had such clear advantages, and have had to do so little to secure their victories, that compared with a person who has competed ten times as valiantly and yet lost, the winner would be less commanding of respect than the loser.
    ‘But I have already said that an unjust winner is no winner at all. And a contest that would set people against each other who were so unequally matched that one could do very little and win, while another could do so much and yet lose, this would not be a just contest, and it could have no winner.’
    Even if, against all odds, the disadvantaged contestant emerges victorious?
    ‘I should say that such a contest only sometimes produced a winner, namely whenever a disadvantaged defeats an advantaged player.’
    And then, of course, the winner is to be respected?
    ‘Of course.’
    But do we not sometimes hold contests without knowing that one contestant possesses a decisive advantage? And only playing out the contest tells us this?
    ‘Certainly.’
    And then we can only find out by having the contest whether it was a contest at all?
    ‘I am prepared to accept it.’
    I’m glad to hear it. I have always thought it was better to be prepared when the time comes to accept or not accept what we must. But can you also tell me, do we not sometimes hold contests in order to prove to someone that he is at a great disadvantage in some respect? For instance if he thinks he can out-jump a kangaroo?
    ‘I have myself witnessed a dozen or more so-called kangaroo jumps.’
    And will you say that these were contests?
    ‘I would say that these appear to some to be contests, but are known all along by the owners of the kangaroos not to be contests, but demonstrations.’
    You are indeed prepared, and I believe you have prepared me too with an answer to anyone who would insist that courage, compassion, diligence and justice demand our respect, whereas the unqualified winning of a contest makes no such demand.
    ‘I’m glad to hear it. And what, by the way, would you answer?’
    The same as you have, now that you have shared your advantages in learning with me.
    ‘It was my honor to share them. But just so that I can be assured you have quite absorbed my views on winning, and will not misrepresent me, please lay out the answer you are now prepared with.’
    I will simply say that courage, compassion, diligence and justice are necessary conditions for the winning of any contest. Indeed there is no contest that is not ultimately a measure of these commendable qualities. And there is no winner of a contest who has secured his victory otherwise than by putting these qualities to work for himself more than any other contestant.
    ‘I will be most happy to be represented by you, if indeed you answer them as you have just rehearsed. However, I expect that many folks without our advantages in education and natural wit may need to ask what is meant by necessary conditions.’
    They may. Shall I tell you what I am prepared to answer in that case?
    ‘I truly wish I could stay to hear it, my friend, but I have a speaking engagement this evening for which I must be well rested. And so I should be heading back home now.’
    It is for the best. I don’t doubt that my answer about necessary conditions would only lead to more questions, and we should be here all night convincing you that I could represent you well to the feckless communist who go around proclaiming that it’s not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game.
    ‘I shall look forward to seeing you again.’
    Take care.

    Reply
  22. Matt S

    He probably got nice paycheck, and of course more publicity to feed his always-hungry ego in the process. Not sure I'd interpret this appearance as some kind of altruistic act… 😉

    Reply
  23. JPL

    I have long said that, adapting Musil, he is "a man without redeeming qualities". I agree, I have not seen evidence of any redeeming or humane quality whatsoever, although this judgment would no doubt require a definition of these terms. I don't think he is psychotic or senile, and if my three year old child showed any such tendencies, I would be as alarmed as if I had a Rosemary's baby, so I don't want to give children (or even animals) a bad name; I think his pathology is rather on the level of logical structures, and I think it might be interesting to describe the deviances explicitly. (The total absence of any ethical understanding would presumably follow from this.) He no doubt shares qualities with other mob or criminal minds. In addition, I have seen no evidence that he knows anything whatsoever about reality. But I have two questions: 1. How did he get this way? and 2. Why is the nature of this man not evident to everyone, and especially, why does anyone want to work with him, whatever the depth of their own personal racism? The workings of his mind as expressed in his speech is not normal; it must be impossible to have a normal conversation with him; everyone he comes in contact with ends up tarnished: so what's going on?

    I'm open to being persuaded otherwise. It's good that he expresses outrage at the killing and maiming of children in chemical attacks in Syria; can he express the general principle that determines why such acts are wrong, beyond epithets? Because it's also just as wrong when children are killed by American drone attacks, where he has objected to waiting until the target is away from other civilians.

    Reply
  24. Howard

    There is a book called The Dangerous Case Of Donald Trump, featuring leading psychiatrists and psychologists analyzing him. He fits a few clinical pictures in the extreme, among them narcissism and extreme present hedonism, and maybe dementia. I think psychopathy was in there too. Take a look

    Reply
  25. James

    Trump seems to me to be a good, decent man. It's clear he's a genuine alpha male.

    It's also clear why beta, left-wing males are so hysterical about him: his undeniable alphaness triggers feelings of inferiority in beta males. All beta lefties can do is autistic screech about "character failings" and "collusion", which is really a form of projection. Sad.

    BL COMMENT: Just to be clear, someone really submitted this comment, this was not made up!

    Reply
  26. Bennett Gilbert

    I did not take the text of this poll literally. Instead, I read it as a narrative; it is a spectacle, a political statement in a literary form specific to the internet. I did not read as asking: "Taking into account the complexity of human life and personality, and given the moral obligation of compassion and mercy for the failings of others in that our failings are largely due to having suffered because of the failings of others, do I think that Trump has any redeeming human qualities?" Rather, I read it as asking, "Do you want to tel Trump to go fuck himself sideways." My answer was a clear Yes, which take the for of No in answer to the poll question.
    Perhaps the more literal interpretation is based on the word "human." If the poll had asked only, "Does Donald Trump have any redeeming qualities," it might have been easier for respondents to read in "political," or "ideological, or even "social" as a qualifier.
    To read it as narrative is like making a Text from a Work, in Barthes' terms. Perhaps this is easier for historians, historically-minded philosophers, or philosophers of history. Of course this involves questions of what authorial intention or intentional meaning are and how we know them.

    Reply
  27. V. Alan White

    Asking this question about a particular individual on a forum like this does clearly confine the context–it is Donald Trump as not just some random individual or even as a public figure, but as current occupant of the Oval Office. Otherwise why even pose the question as of some polling importance? So the question is: does he possess any qualities that redeem him in that particular capacity? And I think the answer is clearly "no". He ultimately answers only to his ego as he self-assesses it moment-to-moment in his role as Chief Executive/Apprentice star. And that very fact disqualifies him from being redeemable as Chief Executive. I really begrudge Comey's defense of his "unintentional" role in defeating Clinton–who was not the best opposing candidate given some deep and understandable (and some not) resentments in the US economically and otherwise–but ultimately I agree with his assessment that Trump is morally unqualified to be in office. He possesses no redeeming qualities for it–not morally, not in temperament, not in intellectual capacity. I have said in print that the US now resembles a bizarre Vonnegut novel–and Trump is the protagonist of it all.

    Reply
  28. Colin

    I am undecided on this question. Trump has many, many negative, toxic qualities but he seems to have some positive qualities. First, he loves and cares about his children (or at least Ivanka). Second, he seems to care about the “forgotten people”: predominantly white, rural/suburban people in Rust Belt America or Middle America whose economic lives have been destroyed by globalization, outsourcing, etc. and many of whom are desperately killing themselves through alcoholism, opioid addiction, heroin addiction, etc. Now, one can reasonably argue that Trump does not know how to actually help these people and indeed his policies will actively hurt them, but I do think he genuinely cares about them to some degree.

    (Note that even Hitler and Stalin had some positive qualities: Hitler loved his German Shepherd, Blondi, and his mistress/wife, Eva Braun. Stalin read voraciously and was largely self-educated. He doted on his daughter, Svetlana, and he could be quite fun, charming, and lively at his drunken dinners and after-parties. However, both men were extremely evil overall.)

    Now, do Trump’s positive qualities compensate for, or redeem, his many negative qualities? No, the latter greatly outweigh the former.

    I think a better poll question would be, “Do you think Donald Trump has the worst character of any US president ever (or any US president since 1900)?” In that case, I would agree.

    Reply
  29. NC

    I voted "undecided". I have read of one report that has been verified by snopes as "True" that he once used his private plane to fly a boy with cancer to a hospital for emergency surgery. This was before he was running for office. There is also another story I read in the Atlantic that a child who had terminal illness asked for his "make a wish" request that Trump say "You're fired" to him. The story said that he couldn't bring himself to say it and instead, he wrote the kid a check for $10,000 with a note saying "Have the time of your life" (paraphrasing). If true this shows he has some empathy for others.

    Despite being reported in "reputable" sources I have my suspicions of the media and unless I can see the original source or there are multiple independent sources verifying it, I am sceptical. If I had to wager money I would say these are probably true but I am still not near 100% certain. The media (unless it's a conservative source) has a hate for Trump (often justified but sometimes not) so when there is a positive story, I tend to remember and take note of it.

    —–
    KEYWORDS:
    Primary Blog

    Reply

Designed with WordPress