The toxic consequences of lying
A Times review of (or essay on) Comey’s book. The headlines in the margin indicate there are several, so I don’t say the Times review. It’s interesting.
Decades before he led the F.B.I.’s investigation into whether members of Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election, Comey was a career prosecutor who helped dismantle the Gambino crime family; and he doesn’t hesitate in these pages to draw a direct analogy between the Mafia bosses he helped pack off to prison years ago and the current occupant of the Oval Office.
A February 2017 meeting in the White House with Trump and then chief of staff Reince Priebus left Comey recalling his days as a federal prosecutor facing off against the Mob: “The silent circle of assent. The boss in complete control. The loyalty oaths. The us-versus-them worldview. The lying about all things, large and small, in service to some code of loyalty that put the organization above morality and above the truth.” An earlier visit to Trump Tower in January made Comey think about the New York Mafia social clubs he knew as a Manhattan prosecutor in the 1980s and 1990s — “The Ravenite. The Palma Boys. Café Giardino.”
Creepy, and enlightening, and creepy.
It’s interesting how in recent history Democrats in the White House have been lawyers, while Republicans have been nothing in particular. Trump is a huckster, Bush 2 was a…?, Reagan was a former movie star; Obama and Clinton were lawyers. There are a lot of implications to that. The people who are making life difficult for Trump are lawyers – mostly Republicans, but lawyers. Everything about Trump is antipathetic to lawyers, and vice versa. (Dershowitz is an exception here.) One relevant polarity is order versus chaos. Another is law versus crime. Another is precision versus slop. Another is the loyalty versus morality opposition that Comey cites. Impersonal v personal; the whole v the ego.
The central themes that Comey returns to throughout this impassioned book are the toxic consequences of lying; and the corrosive effects of choosing loyalty to an individual over truth and the rule of law. Dishonesty, he writes, was central “to the entire enterprise of organized crime on both sides of the Atlantic,” and so, too, were bullying, peer pressure and groupthink — repellent traits shared by Trump and company, he suggests, and now infecting our culture.
Just so. The open shameless bullying is one of the worst aspects. It’s obliging of Trump, in a way, to have underlined the point this morning by publicly calling Comey a “slime ball.”
Comey, who was abruptly fired by President Trump on May 9, 2017, has worked in three administrations, and his book underscores just how outside presidential norms Trump’s behavior has been — how ignorant he is about his basic duties as president, and how willfully he has flouted the checks and balances that safeguard our democracy, including the essential independence of the judiciary and law enforcement.
Because he thinks of all that kind of thing as “the swamp” and himself as the magical Unswamp.
Comey is what Saul Bellow called a “first-class noticer.” He notices, for instance, “the soft white pouches under” Trump’s “expressionless blue eyes”; coyly observes that the president’s hands are smaller than his own “but did not seem unusually so”; and points out that he never saw Trump laugh — a sign, Comey suspects, of his “deep insecurity, his inability to be vulnerable or to risk himself by appreciating the humor of others, which, on reflection, is really very sad in a leader, and a little scary in a president.”
Or, to flip it, of his giant ego that can find only his own “jokes” funny. Maybe it’s insecurity, maybe it’s such hypertrophied security that it blots out everything except The Self.
During his Senate testimony last June, Comey was boy-scout polite (“Lordy, I hope there are tapes”) and somewhat elliptical in explaining why he decided to write detailed memos after each of his encounters with Trump (something he did not do with Presidents Obama or Bush), talking gingerly about “the nature of the person I was interacting with.” Here, however, Comey is blunt about what he thinks of the president, comparing Trump’s demand for loyalty over dinner to “Sammy the Bull’s Cosa Nostra induction ceremony — with Trump, in the role of the family boss, asking me if I have what it takes to be a ‘made man.’”
Sheds a whole new light, don’t it. I hadn’t known Comey was a mob prosecutor.
Put the two men’s records, their reputations, even their respective books, side by side, and it’s hard to imagine two more polar opposites than Trump and Comey: They are as antipodean as the untethered, sybaritic Al Capone and the square, diligent G-man Eliot Ness in Brian De Palma’s 1987 movie “The Untouchables”; or the vengeful outlaw Frank Miller and Gary Cooper’s stoic, duty-driven marshal Will Kane in Fred Zinnemann’s 1952 classic “High Noon.”
One is an avatar of chaos with autocratic instincts and a resentment of the so-called “deep state” who has waged an assault on the institutions that uphold the Constitution.
Aha, just what I thought. (Yes, I usually start a post before I finish reading whatever it is. I like to annotate as I go.) Trump is chaos.
The other is a straight-arrow bureaucrat, an apostle of order and the rule of law, whose reputation as a defender of the Constitution was indelibly shaped by his decision, one night in 2004, to rush to the hospital room of his boss, Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, to prevent Bush White House officials from persuading the ailing Ashcroft to reauthorize an N.S.A. surveillance program that members of the Justice Department believed violated the law.
One uses language incoherently on Twitter and in person, emitting a relentless stream of lies, insults, boasts, dog-whistles, divisive appeals to anger and fear, and attacks on institutions, individuals, companies, religions, countries, continents.
And even that doesn’t pin it all down, because as we’ve discussed many times he’s also the bore beside you on the plane, the guy who won’t shut up, the guy who does all the talking, the guy who talks your fucking arm off and won’t let you get a word in.
One is an impulsive, utterly transactional narcissist who, so far in office, The Washington Post calculated, has made an average of six false or misleading claims a day; a winner-take-all bully with a nihilistic view of the world. “Be paranoid,” he advises in one of his own books. In another: “When somebody screws you, screw them back in spades.”
The other wrote his college thesis on religion and politics, embracing Reinhold Niebuhr’s argument that “the Christian must enter the political realm in some way” in order to pursue justice, which keeps “the strong from consuming the weak.”
…
Long passages in Comey’s thesis are also devoted to explicating the various sorts of pride that Niebuhr argued could afflict human beings — most notably, moral pride and spiritual pride, which can lead to the sin of self-righteousness. And in “A Higher Loyalty,” Comey provides an inventory of his own flaws, writing that he can be “stubborn, prideful, overconfident and driven by ego.”
Someone should invite Trump to provide an inventory of his flaws.
https://www.facebook.com/144310995587370/photos/a.271728576178944.71555.144310995587370/1879538605397925/?type=3&theater
He has the best flaws.
“Someone should invite Trump to provide an inventory of his flaws.”
On paper, that is a recipe for complete, planetary deforestation.
Comey’s final pre-election email was not the sole reason for the swing (Berniebros and Steinettes also played a role; so did the perennial US voter apathy, and misogyny was a decisive component). But Comey was concerned above all with his own reputation, and we now all have to live with the consequences of his vanity.
Yep. I would add that I don’t think we really know that Comey’s bit was not decisive, because the number of votes that did it is so small. All those things did their bit but it can still be true that each was enough by itself.
I don’t know and don’t claim to know how much role Comey played in the defeat, but I do know that every young person I know decided against voting for Hillary, mostly citing “she deleted e-mails” or “she’s crooked” with nothing more specific to go on. Few of them could give details.
I don’t think it was just Comey. I think it was the constant drumbeat for the entire election cycle, the way the papers covered the two candidates, and the nastiness (and misogyny) of a rather significant part of the electorate. And, of course, the electoral college, which is an outmoded, anachronistic piece of flummery designed to do just exactly what it has done in two elections out of the past five.
As I already said, it wasn’t just Comey. But between the misogyny, propaganda (from both Rethuglicans and Berniebros), gerrymandering and voter apathy, every bit counted. Including Comey’s bit. But of all these, the decisive bit was the one absent from between Hillary’s legs. All the strikes against her, real and imaginary, would have counted for nothing if she had that oh-so-magic bit.
I still suspect that Comey was banking on his last-minute revelation producing a weakened President Clinton, rather than a President Trump, (maybe even a Clinton facing a large enough Republican majority to force through an impeachment conviction ‘this time’–ie, I suspect many Republicans still seethe that Bill ‘got away with it’), and that he overplayed his hand on that front.
But yes, I also suspect that without the inherent misogyny of the American electorate, the attacks wouldn’t have done anywhere near as much damage.