Donald Trump Is Michael Scott – Sort Of (Guest Writer)

Two recent takes on Donald Trump have me thinking about him in new ways. One is John Oliver’s brilliant dissection of Donald Trump (Make Donald Drumpf Again!). As Oliver points out, Donald Trump is blunt but dishonest; he is aggressive but insecure; and he is successful but this success is more in his own mind than in reality. In many ways, Donald Trump is Michael Scott – if Michael Scott had been born into money.

Trump is a big-idea guy who has no idea how to follow through on those ideas. Trump says he wants to build a wall to keep Mexicans out of the U.S. How? Trump says, “you force them because we give them a fortune. Mexico makes a fortune because of us. A wall is a tiny little peanut compared to that. I would do something very severe unless they contributed or gave us the money to build the wall.” This is Michael Scott’s attempt to start his own paper company and undercut Dunder Mifflin writ large. He has big ideas and is sure he’ll succeed, but the logistics escape him. ​

---

The other take on Donald Trump I’d like to respond to is John Dreyer’s argument that Donald Trump is playing the role of “the ultimate heel working the audience and acquiring a following the same way Ric Flair was able to.”

Where Dreyer sees Trump as perpetrating some kind of long con on the nation, I am not convinced he is this deliberate or in control. Instead of scheming, Trump strikes me as defensive and reactionary. He claims power and success for himself and spends most of his energies on defending those statements (often simply by saying “Believe me!”) rather than on saying anything substantive. 

​Consider Donald Trump’s fingers. In 1988, Spy Magazine called Trump a “short-fingered vulgarian,” and Trump has been reacting to this ever since. The editor of the magazine says, “To this day, I receive the occasional envelope from Trump. There is always a photo of him…On all of them he has circled his hand…to highlight the length of his fingers.” These photos often come with a note: “See, not so short!” He has been insulted and he is so insecure that he cannot let it go. Consider, too, each of their relationships with the truth. One key characteristic of Michael Scott is his tendency to speak before he thinks. Sometimes he doubles down on such statements and sometimes he immediately recalls them or tries to weasel out of them, but the starting point remains the same. Donald Trump follows the same model. John Oliver points out that Politifact has rated 76% of Trump’s statements as false and says, “I’m not even sure he knows he’s lying. I think he just doesn’t care about what the truth is.” They both say whatever is expedient or appealing in the moment and simply change it later – sometimes immediately, sometimes years later. The truth is irrelevant; what matters to them is how people feel about them and whether they are winning in that moment.

---

This petty insecurity is not the showmanship of the WWF heel, as John Dreyer argues. It seems not to be a performance but who Trump is. Why else does he need his name on giant buildings around the world if not to overcompensate for fundamental insecurities? And Trump’s defense of his penis size during last night’s debate only reinforces this. Ultimately, both Donald Trump and Michael Scott act the way they do out of a combination of fear, ego, and a desire to be admired by others. Michael Scott is desperately afraid of being alone and expects everyone else to love him.

And when Trump speaks to his supporters, he gets them worked up and cheering for him because he’s rich, because he’s powerful, because he speaks his mind. He doesn’t denigrate himself, nor does he denigrate his supporters. Why would he do that? His self is all he has – it’s his brand and it’s worth millions of dollars (according to him). And his supporters prove to him – and to anyone watching – that he is worth something.

Of course, as much as I enjoy this comparison – and as true as I think it is in the above cases – there are also significant differences between the two. The biggest difference, of course, is that Donald Trump’s campaign is predicated on violence and hatred. Michael Scott insults others and is obliviously sexist and racist from time to time, but he clearly never intends any harm. Trump, on the other hand, advocates racism and not only allows harm to go on under his watch but encourages it in some cases. Just look at the instances of racist violence at his rallies – and his responses to them. Look at his resistance to disavowing David Duke and the KKK. Look at his plans to build a wall and keep immigrants out of the U.S. Look at his plan to prevent Muslims from coming to the U.S. and his endorsement of Japanese internment camps during World War II.
​
John Dreyer argued in his post that “Trump’s pulling the ultimate joke and by gods, it’s a funny one.” I disagree. Whatever humor there might have been in Trump’s candidacy has long since faded as he has gained traction and delegates. It’s not funny any more; it’s dangerous.  He is violent and racist and fascist, and his campaign plays on the violent, racist, authoritarian feelings of a frightening number of United States citizens. Furthermore, we do not need a president who illustrates, at best, the Peter Principle, the idea that “managers rise to the level of their incompetence.” An incompetent fascist is what we’re headed for if this joke doesn’t find its punchline – and its ending – soon.

Dr. Christy Tidwell is a humanities professor at the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, where she teaches literature and writing. You can check out more of thoughts at  christymtidwell.wordpress.com