Scott Adams, George Washington, and Sulla

"Dilbert" creator Scott Adams has been my go-to for understanding the Donald Trump phenomena, as he was the first to accurately analyze Trump. While he sometimes comes off as a Trump cheerleader, and it is clear that Adams does admire Trump's skillful handling of both the media and his opponents, Adams has usually been spot-on with his analysis.

Until now.

His latest blog post, "The Slow-Motion Assassination of President Trump", reads like a 1973 defense of President Nixon:

Today’s headline news is that an alleged Comey memo indicates President Trump tried to obstruct justice in the Flynn investigation by saying to Comey in a private meeting, “I hope you can let this go.”

Key word = hope

How did the New York Times characterize Trump’s expression of hope?

Do you see Trump asking Comey to end the Flynn investigation in the quote “I hope you can let this go”?

All I see in that sentence is “duh.” Obviously Trump HOPED his friend and advisor Flynn would be okay. Did it need to be said? Was there some confusion on this point with Comey? Did Comey enter the meeting thinking maybe President Trump wanted to see his friend and advisor Flynn get eaten by the system?

Adams fails to see his own point in there: That "hope" shouldn't have had to be said. So why did Trump say it?

When a boss says to an employee, "I sure hope I can get a cup of coffee", what is he REALLY saying? He is saying he wants a cup of coffee.

When a male boss says to a female employee, "I sure hope I can have sex tonight", is there an implicit demand for sex being made there? Many courts would say "yes", contrary to Adams' next statement:

I’m no lawyer, but I can’t see any judge or jury in the United States prosecuting someone for expressing a hope that the future turns out well for his friend.

On the other hand, Adams does get his next political analysis correct:

I also think we are seeing with the recent leaks the first phase of Mutually Assured Destruction of our government. The leaks will destroy Trump if they continue. But if that happens, no Democrat and no anti-Trump Republican will ever be able to govern in the future. Payback is guaranteed. The next President to sit in the White House will be leaked to the point of ineffectiveness. And that’s how the Republic dies.

That isn’t necessarily bad news. The Republic form of government doesn’t make sense in the modern world anyway. We already evolved into a form of direct democracy via social media and polling. Our politicians can’t risk going against a big majority – even for noble reasons – because social media will organize to drive that person out of office over the issue. In effect, we are already a direct democracy. The Republic is already history, except in a technical sense.

This may already be happening. If you go back to the start of the Obama administration, when the Republicans vowed to obstruct all of Obama's actions, the Democrats took that to heart. What is happening with Trump may be the fruit of that Republican decision, even though that should be the purpose of an "opposition" party.

However, George Washington warned us about the dangers of political parties:

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

Adams' warning, combined with Washington's warning, should give you a brief pause at getting overjoyed about what is happening to Trump today, even if Trump deserves it. Trump will be a footnote to what could end up being a long and painful civil war, although I will speculate we have a few years, possibly decades, before we reach that point. But we already see the cracks forming, with plenty of secession talk on both sides.

(hat tip to Wikipedia for the Sulla pic)

I originally thought Trump might be the American Sulla, but I don't see that happening unless he can bounce back from these setbacks. However, if Trump isn't our Sulla, we may not be far from it. If Adams' prediction proves accurate, we could only be a president or two from an American Sulla. Thus would begin the decline into American civil war, followed by dictatorship.

Have a nice day.