Recently, I received an email from a friend, entitled “Charles Krauthammer (on Donald Trump)”. While most of his affiliations are with conservative news sources, he is also a regular contributor to the op-ed pages of the Washington Post. There is no question that he is a well-recognized and well-respected journalist. His contributions are, typically, very thoughtful and intellectually sound. Yet, in the article that has been referenced above, I question the position he has taken. His position is that President Trump is neither Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal. It is his argument that Trump is a pragmatist. Krauthammer defines a Pragmatist as “someone who is practical and focused on reaching a goal” and “usually has a straightforward, matter-of-fact approach, and doesn’t let emotion distract him or her.”
Krauthammer continues by stating that as a successful businessman, Trump sees a given issue as a problem that needs to be fixed and does not see it as a liberal or conservative problem. He refers to immigration as a problem that “threatens the very fabric and infrastructure of American” and “it demands a pragmatic approach, not an approach that is intended to appease one group or another.” Using immigration as a problem that requires fixing, Trump’s approach is to punish the children of those who enter the country illegally by separating them from their parents. While this might be viewed as pragmatic by Krauthammer, it ignores the question of how decent and caring people treat other human beings. As a psychiatrist, Krauthammer should know the potential ramifications of children being raised in situations absent the bonding relationship with biological parents. As has been seen with children who have been bounced around in the country’s foster care system, there is an enhanced probability that they will have a myriad of problems as they move toward becoming adults. Proportionally, there are greater numbers of individuals raised in the revolving door of foster care housed in prisons and mental institutions; they are the homeless, unemployed or underemployed. As has been reported there are almost 1500 children unaccounted for in this latest movement of separation. What will be the future for these children? As a facet of the Krauthammer definition of a pragmatist, any emotion is absent as they “solve problems”. It is apparent that Trump has given very little evidence of giving a damn about others, whether they be disabled, foreign-born, racially or ethnically different, and Krauthammer would say this detachment should be applauded, not condemned.
The position proposed by Krauthammer poses serious issues, and history is replete with example after example of individuals who took a pragmatic approach to dealing with a situation. Could it not be said that Adolph Hitler behaved as a pragmatist, as did Ted Bundy and other notable serial killers? Jim Jones took a pragmatic stance as he ordered his followers to drink the “the cocktail”. Al Capone and Mickey Cohen followed a pragmatic philosophy in dealing with handling errant individuals associated with organized crime. Other examples could be given but suffice it to say that pragmatism can easily lead to a very slippery slope and be used as justification for any action. All of those noted above had goals that they wanted to achieve, and they did so in a practical way and did not let emotion distract them. Is this the kind of person that should be applauded? Is this the person that should be the leader of a nation characterized by an orientation of caring and empathy for others? Is this the person that we want as the president of this great country?
P.S. Is was only after I began this post that I became aware of impending demise of Dr. Charles Krauthammer and he will be sorely missed, regardless of one’s political orientation.