In a world that needs stability, it’s not ideal that the US president is nuts.
|
Listen To This Story
 |
It defies belief that, after nearly a decade since he first became a constant presence in the lives of Americans, we still have to point out that the president-elect of the United States of America is crazy.
And we’re not talking about “crazy” as in, “You guys should hang out with Bob. That dude is crazy!” We are talking about someone who is clearly of unsound mind, which is another way of saying that Donald Trump is mentally ill.
That is deeply troubling (as is the fact that Americans thought it would be a good idea to put this lunatic in power… twice).
It would be one thing if he were a narcissistic college professor, a telemarketer who is a compulsive liar, or a mildly sociopathic dog walker.
In those cases, the problems he could cause and the chaos he could create would be limited.
In fact, even if Trump had just continued on as a handsy real estate mogul engaged in shady business practices, the harm he could do would largely be limited to women whose genitals he grabbed and contractors he cheated.
That’s not great, of course, but it is much better than his being president and plunging the world into turmoil.
Yet here we are again.
One might think that covering and opining about a president suffering from an intriguing hodgepodge of psychological disorders would be “fun.”
And perhaps that would be true if his looniness always manifested itself in fairly benign ways, like wanting to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, or using a Sharpie to clumsily re-draw the path of a looming hurricane.
That’s all pretty harmless.
However, US presidents have nearly unrivaled power (especially one with a cult at his back and carte blanche from the Supreme Court), so when they are nuts, somebody is usually going to get hurt.
Which gets us to the not-so-fun part of Trump’s press conference on Tuesday.
At the start of last month, we would not have predicted that we would have to write multiple stories about US plans to annex, attack, or absorb Canada/Greenland/Panama. However, and this is the most important part, we also would not have ruled it out. In fact, with Trump back at the helm of the country, nothing can be ruled out.
And that’s the problem.
The world functions best when there is a sense of stability. When somebody does A, it is good to have a reasonable expectation of what B will look like.
Therefore, it is simply not in anybody’s interest when the US president is a volatile madman.
Here is an example from an alternative universe. Let’s say that President-elect Kamala Harris is taking questions two weeks before her inauguration and this is how it goes down:
Reporter: President-elect Harris, what are some of your plans for the country?
Harris: Well, Americans like elephants. And I like elephants. Therefore, we will put an elephant in every American town with 10,000 or more people. And those elephants will give free rides to children.
Reporter: Wait, what?
Harris: Elephants! And I want Banksy to paint all of them.
Reporter: What? You mean you want there to be more elephants in zoos?
Harris: No, all towns with at least 10,000 people get one. There are more than 2,000 of those, and they’ll all get an elephant.
Reporter: Where are you going to get 2,000 elephants?
Harris: We’ll take them from Africa.
Reporter: You want to buy 2,000 elephants from Africa so Banksy can paint them and they’ll give rides to children across the country?
Harris: Oh no. That would be crazy. We’re not going to buy them. They’ll just give them to us and, if not, we’ll take them by force.
Reporter: So, you’re thinking about invading sovereign African countries if they don’t gift us elephants?
Harris: You got it. Hey, you guys want to see a tattoo of an elephant that I just got?
There was a time in American history when it seemed inconceivable that a president would act in this way. That era ended on January 20, 2017.
Now, crazy is the norm.
In fact, Trump’s latest obsession is much more disconcerting than if he unveiled a “Banksy-painted-elephant-in-every-town” platform.
Which brings us to his expansionist fantasies — and refusing to rule out using military and/or economic force to acquire Canada and Greenland (as well as regain control over the Panama Canal).
It’s difficult to put into words how bat$#!? crazy that is.
What Trump is suggesting is that the US might attack Greenland, a NATO member, because he desires its land and resources.
That’s not the kind of thing Western democracies do, especially not to each other.
One of the reasons is Article 5 of NATO’s charter, which requires all member nations to come to each other’s aid if one of them is attacked.
That means that any military action directed at Greenland would result in all NATO countries (presumably not the US) coming to Greenland’s defense, including the nuclear powers of the United Kingdom and France.
Obviously, it seems impossible that this would actually happen because it would be insane.
And herein lies the problem.
Because, if you can’t definitely rule out that a US president would order a military strike on Greenland, then that stability everybody likes so much goes out of the window.
Which is why government officials in various European countries are probably scrambling right now to figure out what to do if that were to happen.
Imagine those phone calls.
Prime Minister: What if one NATO member attacked another? What would we do?
Defense Secretary (chuckling): I know! What would we do?
Prime Minister: I’m not kidding. What would happen if the US invaded Greenland? Draw up some scenarios please.
Defense Secretary: What?
Conversations that are a lot less fun are being had as you read this, in Europe, Canada, and Panama.
What do you do when an unhinged bully comes for you?
Granted, there are some guardrails in place, but those are a lot less robust than people may think.
In theory, Congress would have to declare war. However, with Republicans in control of both chambers, and GOP lawmakers treating Trump’s expansionist whims as though they are a good idea, who knows what would happen (again, the fact that we are even discussing this is completely insane).
In addition, military leaders can refuse to carry out unlawful and unconstitutional orders.
But does it really seem likely that somebody like Pete Hegseth would do so?
Speaking of Trump’s nominee to run the Pentagon, the president-elect isn’t doing him (or any other foreign policy or national security nominee) any favors with these ridiculous plans.
Chances are great that, during their upcoming confirmation hearings, they will all be asked about whether the US should attack Greenland or coerce Canada into being annexed. And then they will have a choice to make.
Will they point out that these are just the delusions of a lunatic that should not be taken seriously?
That probably wouldn’t sit well with Trump, which is why we are not betting on that happening.
And that is crazy, too.
