Donald Trump was not born in rags but rather in considerable wealth. His father was also a very successful business entrepreneur with a fortune estimated in the hundreds of millions. If you consider the purchasing power of the dollar at that time Trump Sr. was the equivalent of a contemporary billionaire.

 

Nevertheless “the Donald” had the “Midas touch”, and made a much greater fortune by himself under our free market rules. Obviously those enterprises alone helped the life of many others. I am, and have always been in favor of unhindered free market. Thus his wealth is in my view also probably his greatest virtue. Or is it perhaps his only one?

Trump used all legal means to achieve his ultimate success in many transactions. He is being accused of taking advantage of eminent domain laws, victimizing some others in the process. All legal transactions are not necessarily ethical. Some critics claim that his   financial record includes four bankruptcies. If that proves true it should be considered as a solid stain on his resume for president.

 

After most everything is said and done one thing stands very clear to me: Trump knows how to make lots of money. “The Donald” is worth billions of dollars. Those who favor arbitrary wealth redistribution and despise free commerce would never admit that the market process benefits us all. But it does, and at least in that regard Trump success is most telling.

 

According to some that virtue may not be redeeming enough in Trump’s case. Their claim is that many people have become impoverished by gambling. That is a phony claim. What about free choice? Is abortion the only activity related to “free choice”? For most liberals it appears so.

 

However Trump did not invent gambling: just invested on it. At any rate gambling is not his winning game. Real state is. Eccentricities aside, Trump has been a very productive member of the American society, and his leadership qualities in business are not in question.

 

The question remains however whether “the Donald” is fit for a most different kind of leadership: that of President of the United States. Let’s consider some basic facts.

 

Donald Trump is also an arrogant, egocentric snob who favored abortion not so long ago, and still -in his own words- favors the inhuman practice to be paid by our tax dollars. That was his view on “Plan Parenthood” until very recently. Trump is also an over grown brat who badmouths everyone with whom he disagrees. It does not matter who that one might be. He claims knowing everything, and nobody should dare challenge his messianic wisdom. His skin is really thin, and he reacts with blind rage faced with the tiniest disagreement. As the campaign unfolds thou he seems to have mellowed his discourse a bit.

 

He called the top pediatric neurosurgeon in the world, Dr. Ben Carson, and I quote: “just an ok doctor”. That was beyond insulting. With that statement Trump sounded more like a blabbering baby in urgent need of a fresh diaper. Is that what we want in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? We had that with Obama for the last seven years and it is both embarrassing and dangerous.

 

By his own admission Trump loves back anyone who claims to love him and hates anybody who “attacks” him (meaning anyone objecting some of his wild statements and/or views). Is that what we desire in a president? Imagine Putin, Kamenei or Assad suddenly praising “the Donald”. Trump said he won’t mind to meet and talk business with Putin in Moscow while Russia is overtly helping Syria’s Assad with war materiel, and Russian troops. Who knows, may be he is loved by the ex KGB thug.

 

As a politician, candidate Trump appears really successful. He is still running ahead of the crowded Republican field of presidential candidates. All polls give him no less than 30% of registered Republican voter’s preference. Is that just the consequence of a temporary reaction or is it the beginning of an insurmountable trend? Whatever the case I believe the presidency requires a very different kind of leadership. That of course is just my opinion.

 

Recently I discussed Trump’s candidacy with a very smart relative. That person who happens to be fairly successful in her business has not yet decided how to vote in the Florida Republican primary. Her view is that Trump could be successful in leading the nation provided he surrounds himself with adequate people. That may be possible but it is highly improbable.  Good staff advice could only work when it is listened to. Up to now the “Donald” is too abrasive lo listen. Demagogy could be an asset while campaigning but it becomes a dangerous drag in office.  

 

His past statements and many frivolous public imbroglios do not suggest a person who usually listens to advice regardless of the quality of the source. On the other hand sometimes forceful unilateral decisions can win the day when on a tight spot. But generally speaking that scenario does not appear often.

The warriors who won the Civil War in the battlefield were a couple of soldiers with many similarities in character and outlook: Grant and Sherman. The subordinate was General William T. Sherman. But often enough it was “Uncle Billy” himself who called the strategic shots in spite of his maniacal depression. His boss, General Ulysses Grant, always agreed with Sherman’s successful strategic initiatives while frequently engaged in severe bouts with the bottle.

What? Should a soldier in command follow the strategic advice of a maniac subaltern? Should an alcoholic general take advice from a crazy subordinate?  Both were superb, brilliant commanders, in spite of their very human shortcomings.  The result of their combined efforts was a complete federal victory and nobody challenges afterwards the methods of the victors.   

           But alas, they also enjoyed a most talented help from above their ranks. Their supreme Commander in Chief was a leader always most eager to listen to sound advice. And in so doing Abraham Lincoln preserved the American Union.