Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2016

The Current Transcript for July 18, 2016

Host: Laura Lynch

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Listen to the full episode

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

I started to hear a lot of air traffic. There were a couple of explosions that did happen relatively close to our place. Shook the house. You know, I was shaking and my wife was shaking. It was very terrifying.

LAURA LYNCH: The explosions and gunfire that rocked Turkey on Friday night and Saturday morning had Steve Kozak thinking it was time to flee his home in Ankara and return to Toronto. By Saturday morning though, it was clear the government and its increasingly autocratic president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, had prevailed and now the crackdown has begun. And Turkey, which plays a critical role in the fight against ISIS and in controlling the flow of Syrian refugees to Europe, is now turning its attention to the battle within. And then, in our second half hour.

SOUNDCLIP

DONALD TRUMP: I could be presidential. But if I was presidential, well, only about 20 per cent of you would be here because it would be boring as hell, I will say.

LL: Never a dull moment. This week, Donald Trump will move one step closer to the Oval Office when he officially becomes the Republican Party’s nominee for president. We wanted to know what goes on inside his head, so we asked a psychologist and philosopher to help us out. I’m Laura Lynch and you’re listening to the summer edition of The Current.

Why is Turkey blaming Gulen and followers for coup attempt?

Guests: Sanem Guner, Bessma Momani

SOUNDCLIP

[Through translator] Arrests are still being made. It’s not entirely complete. And also, as known, the capital punishment has been taking out of the Turkish Constitution and Turkish legal system. Today, our noble assembly will get together, discuss the measures that can be taken to prevent Turkey will not face this sort of madness again in the future.

LL: That is Turkey’s Prime Minister Binali Yildirim speaking through an interpreter yesterday about the possible return of the death penalty to that country. Three days after a failed military coup, the Turkish government continues to crack down on opponents. More than 6000 people have been arrested so far, including military officers, colonels and judges accused of ties to the revolt. And this morning, Turkish officials say nearly 8000 police officers have been suspended. At least 290 people were killed and more than 1400 were wounded in Friday’s chaos. And President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has called the coup attempt a “virus” and vowed to “cleanse” all state institutions. The crackdown has many people concerned about the state of democracy for the NATO ally and European Union hopeful. Sanem Guner is an international relations scholar and we have reached her in Istanbul. Hello.

SANEM GUNER: Hello.

LL: Well, with all that happened on Friday night and into Saturday morning, I wonder if you can give us a sense of what it is like on the streets today.

SANEM GUNER: It’s very strangely normal. Istanbul saw one of the most extraordinary nights that it’s lived in the past decade, but today, the streets are normal, people are going about their business as usual. There is no evidence of anything that has happened on these very streets just a few nights ago. Although the evening time is a little different, when demonstrators in favour of the government and against the military coup take to the streets every evening, and so there is definitely a sense of something did transpire in this city and this country, but everyday life is going on as usual.

LL: And in far, Erdogan has been calling on people to go out into the streets, all week long, every evening.

SANEM GUNER: That is correct. He said do not leave the streets. Take to the squares, take to the streets. He even called on local administrations, municipalities, to make public transportation free. And so in fact, if you wanted to go out today in Istanbul, you would ride everything for free. So that is his way of kind of showing that civilians are actually very much against the coup attempt.

LL: Now, Turkey has had a history of coups, but how surprised were you at this attempt?

SANEM GUNER: Very much surprised. As I think was everybody else. The military, ever since 2007, the military had, so to speak, been tamed and was very much under civilian control, under a civilian oversight, as it was supposed to be. And nobody, no observer, no expert, even on the military, foresaw that Gulen sympathizers had remained so strong in the military in the recent years.

LL: You mentioned Fethullah Gulen, and we want to talk about him later. He has denied having any direct role in any attempted coup. You’re suggesting that as has the president, that his supporters were somehow involved in this. Regardless of that, what has happened now is in the wake of the failed coup, there is this crackdown. What do you make of the mass arrests?

SANEM GUNER: The crackdown is expected, though not to this extent. When everything, you know, was finished, public opinion very much, was divided, as most of Turkey, in terms of political opinion, it’s very polarized. In terms of taking this coup seriously, as a serious coup attempt versus something that was staged almost, by the government or pro-government people so that they could strengthen their hand in dealing with opposition. Especially opposition—

[crosstalk]

LL: Do you give that theory any credence at all? I mean, Turkey has been a land where conspiracies are around every single corner. Do you think that could be true, that this was staged by the government?

SANEM GUNER: I don’t think it was staged by the government. I do think though, it does give them a political upper hand in basically blaming opposition in any way, shape or form that they like.

LL: President Erdogan is speaking in very strong terms about all of this. He is saying this is a virus, he is saying it needs to be cleansed. He is talking about reinstating the death penalty. What’s your reaction to that?

SANEM GUNER: That’s unfortunately the result that would be the worst case scenario for Turkey. The way that the political party stood against, you know, this played a stance against the military crew together that very night, was actually very hopeful. Nobody in Turkey likes the military to intervene in politics, especially in democratic politics. People believe that people have a right to choose their government, even if half the population does not necessarily agree with or like that government. And it was a very strong political stance by all of these political parties to do that. But unfortunately, this is presenting an opportunity for President Erdogan, who has been claiming for many many years that you know, outside forces, the parallel structure within the state, and so on and so forth, are after him. He was like the shepherd that shouted wolf but we now see that these did have some sort of a basis. This is going to give him a lot of excuses to do whatever he likes in terms of cracking down on opposition.

LL: Much has been made, by those who watch Turkey, of the fact that the opposition also came to the government’s defence in all of this, that even though they were opposition members, they defended an elected government and said that this is a victory for democracy. And I’m wondering if you think Turkey is a truly democratic state. We know that Erdogan has already taken a lot measures to limit the ability of the media, to report, to limit protest. What’s the state of democracy in Turkey today?

SANEM GUNER: In a country like Turkey where Kemalism and secularism have such strong—and people have been so much against the AKP, not necessarily because of its politics, but because of its less secular sense, let’s say, than other establishment parties, it is important that they’ve actually stood against a military coup. However, a civilian government is definitely much better than a military government and people do believe that. But Turkey in general unfortunately, does not have a democratic culture instilled in it, so they are a very much polarized society where people don’t necessarily understand participation, inclusion, diversity. Certainly, this government does not have a good record on strengthening all of those things.

LL: I just wonder though, given all of that, what you just said, that the democracy, in your words, is not a perfect or a true democracy, and given the crackdown that Erdogan is announcing, how do you think the West should respond?

SANEM GUNER: The West should definitely side with the elected government of Turkey and that's very important. Unfortunately, there have been reports in the media from Western TV stations and so on, where certain experts, certain former diplomats, former military people came on and spoke in favour of a military coup because they thought the AKP government was autocratic, that they thought that President Erdogan was increasingly autocratic and so on. Regardless of all of these things, a military coup is not a good thing for Turkey. And—

LL: But how should the West respond now? That's happened. How should the West respond now?

SANEM GUNER: The West should continue to support Turkish democracy, continue to talk to Turkish government officials about strengthening it, about how important it is, how important Turkey is as a democratic ally. As a crossroads between the Middle East and Europe to the West and definitely keep up good diplomatic relations with it.

LL: Turkey plays such a key role right now in the fight against ISIS. The United States uses one of its bases for its jets that fly the sorties into Syria. There's a question of Syrian refugees who are in Turkey going into Europe and the role that Turkey's playing in that. I wonder how you think this affects Turkey's role, these of the EU and the United States.

SANEM GUNER: Turkey is definitely a very crucial partner in regional security. And the US and Europe definitely need to continue cooperating with Turkish security and the Turkish government on enhancing that security. ISIS is a real threat. It has caused a lot of pain and deaths around Europe, inside Turkey and you know, in the US as well. And so, it's a partner and it should be seen as an equal partner.

LL: But do you think it will still be as effective when the government's attention is maybe so much more toward things that are internal and not things that are happening outside of its borders?

SANEM GUNER: I think that once the dust settles in a few weeks, I think Turkey will definitely refocus on its regional role. It's too important to be introverted at this time now that it has started normalizing relations with Israel, with Russia. And it does see that there is a lot at stake in Syria and it was signaling sort of turns in its Syria policy, before the whole coup attempt happened. And I think that once the dust settles, which is going to be in a few weeks’ time, I think we will see some movement in foreign policy.

LL: Alright, we will leave it there. Sanem Guner, thank you very much.

SANEM GUNER: You're very welcome, thank you Laura.

LL: Sanem Guner is an international relations scholar and she is in Istanbul this morning.

SOUNDCLIP

We haven't received any request with respect to Mr. Gulen. We fully anticipate that there will be questions raised about Mr. Gulen, and obviously we invite the government of Turkey as we always do to present us with any legitimate evidence that withstands scrutiny. And the United States will accept that and look at it and make judgments about it appropriately.

LL: US Secretary of State John Kerry describing how Washington would respond to an extradition request for exiled Turkish cleric Fethullah Gulen, who Turkish President Erdogan blames for the failed coup. The reclusive cleric spoke out briefly on Sunday, denying any involvement in the coup attempt but he said he couldn't rule out the possibility that any of his followers may have been involved. The focus on Gulen has many asking why President Erdogan would be pointing fingers at him for initiating the coup. Bessma Momani is a senior fellow at the Centre for International Governance and Innovation and a professor at the University of Waterloo’s Balsillie School of International Affairs. She is in Waterloo. Hello.

BESSMA MOMANI: Hello.

LL: Who exactly is Fethullah Gulen?

BESSMA MOMANI: Well, it really depends on who you ask. I think that the majority of Turks, they see him as potentially a troublemaker, a man who has a huge following inside the country. He's a trained scholar, both in Islam and then I think almost self-betterment. He's very charismatic and has been as you said, in self-exile since 1999 in Pennsylvania, and has a huge following. And one doesn't know exactly how many because they're not really card carrying members of an organization and so it's really unclear who is a Gulenist and who is not. But of course, I think what we're seeing is the wide net being thrown by Erdogan in terms of blaming many of those that he finds as his enemies, to be a part of the Gulenist movement.

LL: Why is he in, as you say, self-imposed exile in the United States?

BESSMA MOMANI: Well, simply, in 1999, there was an attempted coup then and Gulen was a part of the Islamist movement that was being under attack by the military then. So he left the country to the United States as a way to avoid potential imprisonment.

LL: Which would suggest that as he said yesterday, he has no sympathy for any kind of a military coup because he's been the target of one himself. Why do you think President Erdogan would blame the coup attempt on him?

BESSMA MOMANI: Well, on the one hand, look. There are a number of high-ranking people that are Gulenists, that they are supporters of Gulen’s philosophy. They have primarily been in fields of law and medicine, civil service. They basically have been through the Gulenist, kind of educational system. You know, Gulen invested a lot of money and offering tutorials in schools to train people to better themselves, help them pass certain exams. There is this network of sort of self-help, bettering yourself through education and focusing on professional streams that are deemed to be influential, particularly law. And so there are a lot of Gulenists who have been through, I think that system, that are in high-ranking parts of perhaps, even the military, but I think less likely so, more in the case of the judiciary and other organs of government. I think in terms of why Gulen is feared is because of this sort of shadow system that again, has no membership, people don't necessarily know who is Gulenist, who is not. And as you will find in Turkey, people often use it as a way to basically make people fear one another and it's really quite ominous in that sense.

LL: But do you think then, that President Erdogan’s accusation has validity?

BESSMA MOMANI: I don't think that actually they're going to start in the military. I think that's really a stretch. But see, here's where I think it makes perfect sense for Erdogan to use the Gulenist movement because you know, the vast majority of Turks, I would say in the order of 95 per cent or so, feel that the Gulenist movement is a parallel government. They dislike their so-called power, they feel as though that they are up to no good and so, it makes sense for Erdogan to really blame this on an easy scapegoat where people, there is a consensus in the country that there's something going on. And of course, it also I think, diverts attention away from people looking at the military as some sort of, you know, not loyal, which obviously hurts the nationalism of the country. So it really allows them to create this enemy from within that is still different and distinct from the enemy and that people can kind of see or kind of feel as though it's some sort of somehow tangible by being linked to the Gulenist movement.

LL: And then we see that the government moved very quickly yesterday to arrest thousands of judges that it was almost as if they had the list ready to go.

BESSMA MOMANI: Well, that's what's quite scary is that that list is probably very very long and may not include so-called Gulenist followers. It may include those judges who didn't like Erdogan’s proposed constitutional changes that he has on the dock right now. I mean, there's a lot of fear I think—and legitimately so—that he will call people Gulenist out when they have nothing to do with the organization, just for the sake of jailing them. We saw already numerous journalists already jailed today. I think what we're finding is that this is really just the witch hunt.

LL: With all of this, what you were saying with those so-called Gulenists who are in influential areas like law for example, how widespread is Gulen’s following?

BESSMA MOMANI: Estimates are that it's about five per cent of the country but that's—

[crosstalk]

LL: That’s small. That’s really small.

BESSMA MOMANI: It’s really small. And remember they were in bed with the ruling AKP and Gulen and Erdogan had a very close relationship. So they really had a following in terms of seeing them as powerful organs of the government and you know, the Gulen philosophy is quite spiritual, very progressive, modern and focusing on again, education, which allows people to really kind of come into the fold of the organization and see that, you know, through hard work, people can achieve higher echelons of government in the civil servants, in law and police. So there are a number of organs of government where I do see that there is possible Gulen influence, but are they card-holding members of the Gulen movement or are they taking orders from Gulen? Now that’s really a far stretch.

LL: You mentioned that President Erdogan and Mr. Gulen used to be allies. What happened?

BESSMA MOMANI: Well, basically, there was a set of leaked tapes that showed that Erdogan was taking money from some corruption charges including his son and a whole set of his inner circle and he suspected it was as Gulen himself because who else had the power from within, who else within the clique, so to speak, would want him out other than Gulen? And Gulen also disagreed with some of his policies quite openly and that really I think, raised the eye of Erdogan, who really doesn't want any opposition from within.

LL: Such political intrigue in Turkey, but it's some of Mr. Gulen’s operations in the US, in North America, that raises suspicions of government here in the United States, especially his network of charter schools. Tell us about those.

BESSMA MOMANI: Well again, it's similar to what he started in Turkey, now brought to North America and actually across the globe. I mean, there are schools in Indonesia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, parts of Africa, and really the goal is to create top notch schools, which they are, they're very effective schools, private schools with no religious teaching. I mean, there's no, you know, attempt to teach religion in those schools. You know, bar of course, some of them in Muslim countries, they do. But in most of the North American and non-Muslim countries, there isn't really an attempt to teach religion. It's just about really solid education and the teachers are often brought from Turkey themselves. They are often very professional, highly educated and respectful of sort of self-betterment. I mean, really that's the goal of the Gulenist movement, is self-betterment through education. And they teach this philosophy. Of course, there's a lot of fear about where does the money come from to support these schools and this is where there are allegations that those who are Gulenist do support the Gulen movement with millions of money, from five to 20 per cent of their income. So, there is this feeling that somehow they're very shadowy, somehow they're non-transparent and there is indeed a lot of money going into the Gulen movement.

LL: We have to leave it there, Bessma.

BESSMA MOMANI: Thank you.

LL: Bessma Momani is a senior fellow at the Centre for International Governance and Innovation and is a professor at the University of Waterloo’s Balsillie School of International Affairs. Coming up next, the news and then Donald Trump. I’m Laura Lynch. You’re listening to the summer edition of The Current.

[Music: Sting]

Under the hair and inside the mind of Donald Trump

Guests: Dan McAdams, Aaron James

LL: Hello, I’m Laura Lynch and you’re listening to the summer edition of The Current.

[Music: Theme]

LL: Still to come, we go under the hair and inside the mind of The Donald.

SOUNDCLIP

DONALD TRUMP: Trump Steaks, where are the steaks, do we have the steaks? We have Trump Steaks.

[scattered applause]

He said the steak company, and we have Trump Steaks. And by the way, if you want to take one, we'll charge you about what, 50 bucks a steak, normally.

[crowd laughter]

LL: Okay, that wasn't Cleveland and there's no word yet on whether there will be Trump Steaks on the barbie in Cleveland this week, but what will almost certainly be served up is the newly anointed presidential nominee. Donald Trump will be officially named as candidate at the Republican Party's convention in Cleveland. That clip we just heard comes from Donald Trump's news conference after his big victories in the Michigan and Mississippi primaries. He celebrated with props on the stage and there weren't just Trump Steaks, there was also Trump champagne and copies of Trump Magazine and plenty of Trump-branded merchandise. It wasn't your typical victory speech of course, but then he is not your typical candidate, not by a long shot. For a little more insight into what makes Trump tick, we're revisiting a conversation with two astute professors today. Dan McAdams is a professor and chair of the department of psychology at Northwestern University. His cover story in The Atlantic magazine was titled The Mind of Donald Trump and he was in Evanston, Illinois. And before I introduce our second speaker, I have to give you a warning about language. There is a word in the title of his books that some people might find offensive or inappropriate for children. It is sure to come up in the conversation too. Aaron James is a professor and chair of philosophy at the University of California, Irvine. His bestselling book is Assholes: A Theory. And his new book is called Assholes: A Theory of Donald Trump. Aaron James is in Irvine, California. They spoke with Anna Maria Tremonti in June.

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: Hello to you both.

AARON JAMES: Nice to be here.

DAN MCADAMS: Nice to be with you.

AMT: Dan McAdams, I want to start with you. Why would a man like Donald Trump, who is so rich and powerful, on the night of two of his biggest wins in the race for the nomination, have a press conference with a pile of steaks on the table?

DAN MCADAMS: [chuckles] Only Donald Trump would do that, right? What a lot of psychologists would probably say, and I guess I'd probably go there, is that this is yet another example of self-reference. Donald Trump has a pretty deep-seated motivation to display himself and to see himself as adored and see his name everywhere. And whether it's on steaks or it's stenciled across a beautiful building in downtown Chicago, the Trump Tower, T-R-U-M-P. That's the name, it's out there for everybody to see.

AMT: Aaron James, what do you think when you saw that press conference by Donald Trump?

AARON JAMES: I found it sort of amazing that not just that he's drawing attention to himself, but the way that he drew attention to himself. I mean, because he realizes that part of his appeal is that he claims to be a successful business person, and here he's putting himself forward under that guise by offering Trump Steaks as an example of, you know, of a successful and promising business proposition without having any sense at all. That's incredible. You see it, and it's hard to believe that, he can't be serious, right? You think he must be joking and putting this forward as examples of a successful business, and all the other things, Trump water bottles, you know, Trump wine, which is- that was the one thing that was selling reasonably well, some of the others apparently don't sell very well. And yet, he's still putting it forward as examples of his business prowess. I mean, that's extremely funny in itself, but funny not in the sense that a comedian is telling a joke, it's funny in the sense that he's telling the joke, but somehow not in on it, right? So he's oblivious to what's humorous about it, to what everyone else sees. And then it's sort of fascinating, and in its own way flummoxing but still human, that someone could be seemingly so serious and yet so oblivious to what everyone else would appreciate.

AMT: Which brings us to the question of what is going on in his mind. Dan McAdams, tell us how you came up with your psychological profile of Donald Trump.

DAN MCADAMS: Well, let me go back to the point the Professor James made. I think it's really interesting, and this is something other people have observed, too, about Donald Trump: he goes through life as a man who knows he's always being observed. He's a consummate social actor. And at the same time, the kinds of things he does, they're so outlandish, it is as if he doesn't realize what the implications are going to be. So there's a little bit of a, like, oh my God, this is Donald Trump playing Donald Trump. Is this for real, is there something behind it? And this is the big question, I mean, what's going on behind the role, behind the social actor? And this was a big challenge for me when I wrote the piece for The Atlantic. I was pretty sure I could find something beyond the surface, that I could find some interesting, deep-seated motivations, some goals, a life narrative. It was very hard to do. To the extent I was able to come up with something, it was mostly about narcissism, it was mostly about this idea of putting yourself out there for everybody to adore. And sure, it does suggest his business prowess, but it also is him. You know T-R-U-M-P: the picture, the word, it's got to be out there. And like Narcissus in the ancient Greek legend, Trump is in love with this image and in love with the name, and why wouldn't everybody else? And so he's putting it out there all the time. So that's part of what's behind the role, and it sort of dovetails with this story that he has created about his life. Somewhat ironically, really, a man who grew up in the lap of luxury. His parents were extraordinarily rich, he had a secure childhood and so forth, no big trouble. But from the get go, his father told him, listen Donald, you've got to be a killer, because it is a tough world out there. It is a dangerous world that only a few will survive. And his father Fred Trump, well, he's talking about the real estate world, which is the world Donald went into. And so this has become his narrative: the narrative of the warrior who needs to fight all the time. So he wants to win this election to win because he's a fighter. If he does win, what happens after that?

AMT: And so is there a phrase to describe that whole personality? Narcissism doesn't cover the whole thing, does it?

DAN MCADAMS: Yeah, there's no single phrase. I mean, there's a lot of different levels going on here. In the article, I sort of deal with three of them. I mean, there's the trait level, you could talk about his social- I think this is where the asshole idea comes in. I mean, he's extraordinarily socially dominant. He's out there all the time. And at the same time, very low on a trait that's called agreeableness, which, you know, translated is he's a mean guy. He's an extraordinarily in-your-face, aggressive guy. We can't believe what he does. So you put those two traits together, the high extroversion and the rock-bottom agreeableness, and you've got his volatile character who is extraordinarily mean-spirited. It's all fueled by anger, but that's appealing to some people, it sort of channels their anger. So there's lots of different levels there, and no single phrase.

AMT: Aaron James, what is the philosophical definition of an asshole?

AARON JAMES: As I defined it in an earlier book without thinking of Trump in particular, the a-hole is the guy who takes special advantages in cooperative life out of an entrenched sense of entitlement that immunizes him against the complaints of other people. So cut in line, or swerve through lanes of traffic, or inject a cutting remark when it's inappropriate, things like that. Things that are in principle, it might be okay to do under the right circumstances, but the a-hole does this sort of systematically. The a-hole is motivated, I think, to do these things by a sense of entitlement to do it, which is a moral sense of entitlement, which generates moral feelings of being treated unfairly. For example, when criticism comes back or when someone pipes up to complain, and because the person is entrenched in this sensibility, they're unwilling to entertain the complaints of other people. See other people who complain is beneath them or as, you know, by complaining, not giving them the respect that they think they deserve.

AMT: And so Donald Trump fits your definition.

AARON JAMES: I think it fits Trump. [chuckles] It fits, but what's interesting about him is that when you think about his sense of entitlement, it's not a thick sense of entitlement as I put, it it's thin. And in his own mind, that can be as thin as, I'm a winner. I mean, he thinks he can take special advantage because he's a winner and winners win, so winners can do what's required to win. And why he feels, you know, unfairly treated when people object or push back, or when the media even questions factual claims that he's made. [chuckles] Why he thinks that's a source of unfairness, and he's being treated very badly. But the sense of entitlement doesn't have to be sort of plausible to be sort of moral. In a broad way, you know, in the sense that it gives rise in his mind to moral privileges.

AMT: You write that Donald Trump is not solely an a-hole; he is an a-slash-clown. What do you mean?

AARON JAMES: He's in a-hole, you know, a very clear-cut kind. Successful a-holes walk a fine line between alienating people and keeping them cooperating so that they're there to take advantage of. And that takes a certain kind of social skill to balance that. And the main thing, I think, that successful a-holes have to do is have to have something going for them, some redeeming qualities. In Trump's case, I think he really does have to be appealing in certain ways, and he is. Part of that is the sense that he'll be a sort of destructive force for good, a disruptor of the political system. So that's part of it, but there's lots of people who would be comparably disruptive who are just totally unappealing, that people wouldn't get behind and vote for. But so why is it that people sort of have this connection with him? And, in fact, he just has a lot of charisma. He can be likable, he can be very funny. I mean, he's constantly telling jokes. His insults are often funny, and I think it's really important that he's what I call an ass-clown, which is exactly what exemplified in the Trump Steak example at the primary Michigan and Mississippi acceptance speech. This is part of his appeal, I think. Part of why we can relate to him as sort of seemingly authentic or human, because he's the guy who's telling the joke, but not in it. And that way of being oblivious is something that we can all relate to, it's a deeply kind of human moment. Sort of like slapstick comedy: you know, it's relatable, it's simple, it makes him likable enough, anyway, to sort of cut the gag reflex you have by the other things that he's doing that are really revolting.

AMT: But do you think it's deliberate?

AARON JAMES: I mean, he's deliberately a showman, and he's deliberately seeking attention, and he's deliberately looking for ways to excite other people and get attention and have people share his view of himself that he's great. And that's a way of, he's trying to create a loving relationship, in a sense, so that's-- for people who love him, he loves them back. As for whether he's aware of all of the other social expectations or norms that he's violating routinely, I mean, he's aware of it in the sense that he sees that he can get attention by violating expectations. He sees that as a kind of stroke of genius. But he's oblivious to the force of their point or their significance. So the obliviousness works in his favour because it makes him relatable, or just interesting, and potentially likable; but on the other hand, it's part of his being a major a-hole and tearing through sort of social understandings or informal norms of cooperation that, you know, other people understand. And so that makes them dangerous.

AMT: Well I have a bit of tape from the 2011 Correspondents' Dinner. This is President Obama, listen to him.

SOUNDCLIP

Donald Trump is here tonight.

[crowd laughs and claps]

And I know that he's taken some flak lately, but no one is happier, no one is prouder to put this birth certificate matter to rest than the Donald. And that's because he can finally get back to focusing on the issues that matter, like did we fake the moon landing?

[Crowd laughs and claps]

What really happened in Roswell?

[Crowd laughter]

And where are Biggie and Tupac?

[Crowd laughs and claps]

AMT: Aaron James, what do you think of that kind of public ridiculing?

AARON JAMES: Well, I guess-- one theory about this, which draws from Rousseau's idea of amour-propre, or a threat to self-regard or a threat to your sense of standing, and then a self-desire to assert yourself as superior. Is that, you know, this event, his public humiliations enraged him and sort of set him on a course to prove to the political class, who was there just laughing at him, that he could dominate them, right, that he'd be a winner, that he was going to be taken seriously, he was going to be respected-- if not respected, than feared. And in fact, then he did it, so at least that seems to be some kind of, possibly one kind of turning point that triggered his sense of self-regard and put him on a course to being especially dominant.

AMT: Dan McAdams, what do you think?

DAN MCADAMS: Yeah, I don't buy that. I mean, this turning point business. Donald Trump wanted to be president back in the late 80s. I mean, this is something he's been talking about for 30 years. And this idea of humiliation and shame and so on, I mean, a number of people have said this, you know, that he's walking around with a lot of shame. I don't think I see that so much. He grew up in a very luxurious household, but the money comes from real estate in Queens and Brooklyn, and that's just not the major leagues. That's more like the minor leagues, here, that's not as top. And so some have said, well, he felt shame about that, and that's why he moved to Manhattan and so forth. And I don't see the shame. I see it's more like building on what his father developed for him and trying to win on a bigger stage. But the shame business, you know, Donald Trump comes out of a culture of business and self-promotion and so forth. The rules of the game are different, there. And so insults are part of the game. He's insulted his business partners, then the next day, they sign an agreement, and on day three, they're like buddies. I mean, he does this all the time, where the rules are reality TV, okay? Now, he's kind of developed all these norms in those arenas, and now he's putting it out there in the political arena in a way that nobody has ever done before and it turns out, so far at least, to be working. Which is-- I'm surprised, too. It's fairly extraordinary. But I don't think he sees himself as violating norms, and I think many of his supporters are pretty happy with the kind of conventions that he's following.

AMT: Aaron James, when you look at history, doesn't democracy need an occasional a-hole in a position of power? Didn't being a-hole help General George Patton destroy the Nazi Army in World War II?

AARON JAMES: I mean, I think that in some cases, an a-hole can be a force for good, but it's just an accident that when that happens. The a-hole isn't concerned, isn't guided by the good that might come. They're doing what they're doing for other reasons. And so in many cases, they end up being destructive; in some cases, sort of by accident, by luck, by moral luck, they wind up being a force for good. So the success of a democracy, especially the American style democratic republic, which depends on the sort of fragile cooperation between distinct branches of government, where there's a constant risk of constitutional crisis and things like that, require there not being too many a-holes, or there being some effective mechanism for a-hole control. You know, everything depends on cooperative people rising up from the better angels of our nature to sort of keep the a-holes at bay. So I think the long-term success of the union and its stability depends on a-hole management. So I think the basic strategy of Trump supporters, at least many of his supporters who think this, that he's going to sort of bring order to a corrupt political system by out a-holing all the a-holes, that's an incredibly dangerous strategy. I don't think that the potential risks could be limited to the political system. I think they'd go to the heart of the republic and potentially unravel, in fact, what's made America great in the post-war era, both in domestic life and in international relations, as well.

AMT: I have another clip I'd like to play. This is Donald Trump responding to questions about money he says he raised for US veterans' groups. Listen to him.

SOUNDCLIP

I'm not looking for credit, but what I don't want is when I raise millions of dollars, have people say, like this sleazy guy right over here from ABC, he's a sleaze in my book. You're a sleaze, because you know the facts, and you know the facts well. Go ahead.

AMT: Okay, Aaron James. He says he’s not looking for credit then he publicly takes credit for raising money for veterans. Then he personally attacks journalists who are trying to hold him to account. What did you think?

AARON JAMES: Well, I mean, I think they’re playing a-hole tactics, bullying tactics. I mean, he doesn’t care whether what he’s saying is true or not, per se, that’s not the point of this speaking. The point of this speaking is social dominance. But it helps if you, for the moment you know, speak with conviction for the sake of dramatic performance.

AMT: Dan McAdams, there have been concerns that someone with Donald Trump’s temperament could be somewhere near the nuclear launch button. Is that justified?

DAN MCADAMS: It is a justified concern, yeah, in two ways. First, he is right next to it, though. He has the ability to make decisions that could have a huge effect, harmful effect on humankind. Moreover, and maybe just as important, is the way in which he whips up militaristic sentiments and antagonisms and resentments in those who follow him. And so you got this idea of almost like an angry mob always around Donald Trump, at least in his mind and also literally as well. And this has been a fear throughout American history, that general fear that you have a person in power, a man in power with such an extraordinarily volatile temperament, is so aggressive, and how that would both lead directly to conflict and also whip up anger and resentment among the populous. That’s a fear that’s at least almost 200 years old in our republic.

AMT: Well, I’m glad you brought this up because of course, that’s one of the things that people are observing, right? There’s very… the people who are supporting him tend to be very angry. They’re angry at the political system, they’re angry at their economic loss, they want someone to blame. This is a man who’s talking about taking actions against Muslims, against Mexicans. We’re talking about identifiable religious, ethnic, cultural groups.

DAN MCADAMS: It's extraordinary.

AMT: So what do you see there, what worries you, what do you think about that?

DAN MCADAMS: I'm worried about what many people are worried about. I mean, you know, we have sort of a certain kind of anger rooted in xenophobia and this notion that once upon a time, we were a fabulous place, and we've lost all that. This sort of lost paradise idea, this nostalgia for a past that maybe never even was. I mean, this is something that Trump pulls into. There just really hasn't been a political figure in my lifetime—I guess maybe George Wallace, going back to late 60s comes closest—who has risen so high through such inflammatory kind of rhetoric. It will be interesting to see how this all plays on the national stage once it's sort of sorted out and you've got Hillary versus Trump one-on-one.

AMT: Aaron, what do you think of that?

AARON JAMES: I think at a personal level, some of that will cause people to act out. I don't know that there's as much anger in the general population. You know, that might not carry through in the general election in the same way. But I think everyone is angry in this sense, or a lot of people are angry, maybe most, that you know, look, the political system has become corrupt. I agree with that. It's been corrupted by money in politics, by obstruction, by short-term political thinking. And then the political discourse is just, you know, full of platitudes and ideology and it's hard to penetrate. People on all sides, right and left, now have contempt for a system that has contempt for them, a political system. So why wouldn't-- that's something that makes people just want to break things, right? [chuckles]

AMT: Yeah.

AARON JAMES: And so, Trump is a way of breaking things, and I completely understand that. The point that I think is really important is that Trump is bad medicine to try to break and disrupt that system because he's so unpredictable and unruly that he's just going to break-- the risk of him breaking so much else that's so important or so grave that it's akin to Russian roulette, right? There is catastrophic loss if you lose the gamble, and if you win, there's very little upside. [chuckles] When you win, you just survive and things just go the status quo, right? So I don't think he's likely to reform the system, the political order that much, but the chances of things being a lot worse are really significant.

AMT: It's fascinating and it's really important to hear your thoughts on all of this. Gentlemen, thank you.

BOTH: Thank you very much.

LL: From June of this year, that was Anna Maria Tremonti’s interview with philosophy professor Aaron James in Irvine, California and psychology professor Dan McAdams in Evanston, Illinois. That is today’s edition of The Current. Finally, we have just been hearing about the psychology of Donald Trump. Let’s finish things off today with the mind of a Trump supporter. Broadway composer Michael Friedman has been conducting an interesting project throughout the presidential campaign. He’s been interviewing people on the campaign trail and setting their words verbatim to music, including the words of one Trump fan who lives in Charleston, South Carolina. Have a listen. I’m Laura Lynch, and thank you for listening to the summer edition of The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

[Over piano music] I grew up downtown four or five blocks from here. But I really grew up in the woods, as you can tell by the way I talk. I think we have too many rednecks here standing on their guns like me. I’m Kappa Alpha Robert E. Lee, waving the stars and bars. I mean, growing up as a kid, I was hunting all the time. Summerville, James Island, where my daddy was born. I used to be hunt with my cousin, well, my father’s first cousin. So we’re second cousins, three times removed and one time dislocated, or something like that. He and I lived on the river, shot deer, quail, woodcock, rabbits, doves, just about anything that was in season. I just thank God I came along when I did. It was a beautiful time, these days you can hardly find any woods there. You can’t hunt there anymore. And Michael, I’m just nuts about the fact that character has gone to nothing in this country. And I don’t know when you young folks are going to wake to that. Well, something’s got to happen, I mean, our country is the Titanic going towards the iceberg. I’m thrilled by Trump, I mean, I’ve got mixed emotions, but I’m glad that he’s upset the applecart. Because so many politicians have made billions of dollars on being a politician and it runs the gamut. Strom Thurmond wasn’t there for life, Harry Reid, who was a pauper when he came in is now worth millions of dollars. And people in this country are more interested in yelling and screaming. We all have these phones, and the next person who says to me time is money, I’m just going to puke. Time is not money, to me it all comes down to character. Like how about the way we handled the tragedies last year? I mean, with as many black folks as we have around here. Even that terrible shooting in north Charleston, where the policeman shot Walter Scott. There was terrible outrage in the community about that. The policeman is in jail and that family, when they made that statement: we don’t want all your political activists coming here, you’re not invited. That just spoke volumes about the community. Thank you Lord that you opened the eyes of our hearts to be able to see the fact that bringing down a flag in the statehouse of all things. No, it needed to come down. And we can still have it in our house, share the remembrance of it, but you know it was time. We’ve come a long way…

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

July 18, 2016 full episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode