Donald Trump – America's Greatest Character - Flaw

“Predisent” Trump proclaimed this week, October 15th through October 21st, as National Character Counts Week. It’s a week to "reflect on the character of determination, resolve, and honor that makes us proud to be American. Few things are more important than cultivating strong character in all our citizens, especially our young people." Character might be hard to define "but we see it in every day acts — raising and providing for a family with loving devotion, working hard to make the most of an education, and giving back to devastated communities." – Or so someone wrote for Trump last Friday.

Yes, character does count and a strong character is desirable and beneficial as an example to our children, to our friends and allies, and in the way we serve others. But why is it that the people with little to no character are the ones who go on to abuse the term? Of all the people to ever hold the office of president, Donald Trump has the most questionable character of anyone who has held it or aspired to it.

Trump's Presidential Characteristics.

          Trump’s character fosters determination and resolve to boast about how he could get away with anything, even grab women “by the pussy.” And then dismiss it as just locker-room talk. In all my years, I have NEVER, EVER heard any man in any locker room talk about women that way. But then, I never shared one with Donald Trump. He also bragged that he hit on and groped other women who were married, while HE was married.

          This character has shown loving devotion by being married three times and openly admitting he was cheating on one by trying to woo the next one into bed.

This is the same character who cultivated, at last count, at least 15 women who have come forward and accused him of sexual assault. How did he defend his character in all this? By dismissing them saying he couldn’t have done it because “just look at them”, or “she wouldn’t be my first choice, that I can tell you” as though either answer exonerated his character. Do those answers satisfy you that he is innocent of the sexual assault charge? On the Howard Stern Radio Show, he gave our young people a heads up on what to expect from him when he boasted that he would deliberately walk through and ogle a roomful of Miss Teen USA contestants while they were dressing or undressing - because he was the owner of the pageant or the venue.

He said he’s never asked any god for forgiveness because he hadn’t done anything that needed to be forgiven. That’s what men of good moral character always do, isn’t it? Yet the religious right clings to him like leeches. They ignore his lack the character and refuse to see what a liar and con artist he is.

His business ethics have provoked over 360 lawsuits; for stiffing people on payments, reneging on contracts, turning off water and electricity in buildings he bought to force out the people who lived there, false advertising, and for fleecing thousands and thousands of people - like his fake Trump University. Even after losing that particular case and being ordered to pay back $25 million, it didn’t faze his 'character’ in the eyes of his supporters or the GOP. To them, he’s just a savvy businessman who was treated unfairly.

Trump’s character includes disrespect for military people who were captured…because they aren’t war heroes. He likes "people who weren’t captured, okay?” By extension, that also means he doesn't like soldiers who get killed either. So why do any veterans support this character? Especially when he avoids the situation room as American troops are sent in harm’s way, like in Yemen last January where CPO William Ryan Owens was killed.

These men died in Niger and Trump couldn't even bother to be in the situation room when it happened,  couldn't be bothered to read the release put out by the DoD and NSC, and couldn't be bothered to be at the Air Force base when the bodies were flown home.

         On October 16^th in the Rose Garden, his lack of character allowed him to deflect answering a question and falsely claim President Obama hadn’t called families of soldiers killed in combat after he was pointedly asked why he had yet to say anything about four Green Berets killed over two weeks ago in Niger. He didn't go to Dover Air Force Base when the body of the last of the four, Sergeant La David Johnson, was returned. Instead, he was busy with the more presidential duties of golfing and tweeting that NFL players should be fired for kneeling during the national anthem. Which shows less reverence for our nation and flag...kneeling in protest over police brutality, which is protected by the First Amendment, or when the president pointedly ignores a soldier's body returning home, a soldier who was killed on Trump’s watch and due to a Trump directive?

There's not much difference between these two...character-wise.

When most people use the word character, they mean ‘personality’. To say someone has character means they have a sense of humor and endearing idiosyncrasies. The British use the expression “he’s a bit of a character,” which means “he is eccentric, or maybe lives in a hollowed-out tree and steals nuts from squirrels.”

Trump is far and away a character, but not in the good sense of the word…not even in the British way of using the term. Trump is a living, breathing character flaw. He represents the worst characteristics of a portion of the U.S….with his casual racism, his crass materialism, his relentless self-aggrandizement, his vulgarity, his lack of honesty, his sexism, his defense of Nazi supporters as “fine people”, his sleaziness, and he is dismantling everything that makes America safe and prosperous. 
Just so the rest of the world understood Trump’s lack of character, he even shoves other world leaders out of the way so he can be in the front of any photo opportunity - as he did in Europe last summer.

"Get out of my way!"

But this massive character flaw worked on one group of people…his supporters. They believe Trump was sent by God to save the world. Everything he says is true and he has never lied. His snake oil really does work. He’s going to make all of them filthy rich just like he is. And he loves everyone…Amen!

E Pluribus Unum - Let's return to the original motto

How far we've deviated from our origins in the United States. The innovative idea of our founders was built upon a leader being truly elected of the people, by the people and for the people, NOT being governed by a ruler or regime that was put in place by any supernatural being, or so claimed to be. We would come together as a country and rule ourselves with a representative we chose at the helm of government. Hence, the stirring maxim of our great nation, E Pluribus Unum, From Many, One, makes absolute sense. It was the phrase on the front of the Great Seal of the United States adopted in 1782 by an Act of Congress. The words also appear on the Seals of the President, Vice President, Congress, House of Representatives, the Senate and the Supreme Court. 

E Pluribus Unum has never been considered controversial. The motto was intended to represent the federal nature of the new country,  i.e. out of many states came one nation. The framers may have stridently disputed many issues in the formation of the United States, but E Pluribus Unum was not one of them. In fact, as the population grew, the motto took on a secondary meaning as well, reflecting the country's melting pot nature - the interpretation being of many people from different countries and cultures blending together to form a new national identity, that of U.S. citizens. Certainly, if there's one issue we can all agree on, it's that E Pluribus Unum is an excellent statement of America and its values, right? Not if you have a religious goal in mind and want to circumvent the Establishment Clause which separates the church from the state.

In 1956, E Pluribus Unum was unceremoniously replaced by In God We Trust during the Great Red Scare thanks to McCarthyism. It was intended to show those godless communists who bowed down to an oppressive government that crushed any nonconformity and professed atheism that we bow down to a supernatural deity that no one has seen, but still trusted. But whatever god our Congress was hoping to appease apparently wasn't impressed. Or the substitute motto was appealing to the wrong god. The surrogate motto has done nothing to bring cohesion to the nation, or lift it up, and an excellent case can be made that things have gone to hell in a hand-basket since its adoption. (Looking back to 1956, maybe ‘To Hell in a Hand-basket’ would have made a better motto!)

Nowadays, the Religious Right, led by people like Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann and the CPC or Congressional Prayer Caucus (yes, our supposedly secular government actually has a Congressional Prayer Caucus. Guess which god they appeal to the most.), insinuate that E Pluribus Unum is, um, well frankly, un-American. The CPC, which is the leading voice of religious conservatism (read Christian) in the capitol, recently wrote a letter to President Obama, chastising him for referring to the motto E Pluribus Unum, suggesting that using it was unpatriotic and amounted to an anti-God statement. The letter stated that he should instead be promoting the motto "In God We Trust". Apparently, E Pluribus Unum is tantamount to sacrilege to the Christian right. They also claim the President isn't mentioning ‘God’ enough in his speeches and that he shouldn't refer to "inalienable rights" without mentioning that they come from God. Try as I might, I can’t find that reference in the Declaration of Independence. A "Creator” does not in any way suggest the Christian god, since it could just as well mean ‘The Universe’ or the ‘Flying Spaghetti Monster’.

Regardless of how it's presented, In God we Trust does promote theistic religion at the expense of non theism and secularism. The phrase originates from religious texts such as the Bible and has always been supported the strongest by Christian leaders and in a Christian context. Critics argue that it promotes the belief in a single, transcendent deity, that of the main Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. But in a nation of ‘out of many – one’, it is foreign to many other religions. Buddhists do not believe in a personal deity, Wiccans believe in two deities, Hindus believe in many, and it is absolutely meaningless to agnostics and atheists. As such, it violates the principle of separation of church and state.  

Maybe few people in this country care about the motto. To those who pay any attention to it, appealing to some ill-defined, nebulous, supernatural entity that doesn’t have the good grace to show itself, or indicate it is pleased to be appealed to, is the axiomatic equivalent of saying ‘How do you do’. Almost no one actually wants to hear how someone is doing when met; it’s just a phrase that rolls off the tongue from overuse. And so it may be. But to the Religious Right it is a pronouncement on a national level, endorsed by the government, that there is a belief in a god figure. To me, it is nonsense to claim the slogan has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court may have ruled that it has ‘lost through rote repetition any significant religious meaning’ but that's hogwash! It is vehemently defended repeatedly by Fundamentalist Christians because they have recognized all along that it was a petition to their particular interpretation of god, the one named Jehovah. Any way you slice that, it demolishes the wall separating church from state.

Imagine how those who approve of the replacement motto would feel if it instead said “In Vishnu We Trust’ or ‘In Allah We Trust’. Would it still have that warm and fuzzy appeal? In God we Trust is a motto that divides us, deeper and deeper, and says nothing about who we are as a nation. E Pluribus Unum has never divided us and describes us as our founding fathers intended. Time to return to the original.