By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In her memoir, *Freedom*, Angela Merkel reflects on her relationship with Donald Trump, initially misjudging him as “completely normal” before recognizing his emotional nature and affinity for authoritarian leaders. She describes Trump’s transactional approach to international relations, contrasting it with her own focus on factual cooperation. Merkel also discusses her interactions with Vladimir Putin, acknowledging some validity in his criticisms while highlighting his manipulative tactics and ultimately his role in the Ukraine invasion. The book covers her political career and includes a belated endorsement of Kamala Harris for president.
Read the original article here
Merkel’s admission that she initially perceived Trump as “someone completely normal” is a striking revelation, highlighting a potential misjudgment of character on a global scale. It underscores the unpredictable nature of Trump’s political persona and the challenges it presented to seasoned international leaders. The sheer audacity of his actions, a stark departure from established political norms and unspoken rules, likely contributed to this miscalculation.
The idea of “gentlemen’s agreements” in politics, often relied upon for maintaining a degree of order and predictability, seems to have been completely disregarded by Trump. This blatant disregard for traditional political etiquette and the established rules of engagement must have been jarring, perhaps even disorienting, for leaders accustomed to operating within a certain framework. The shock of this unprecedented behavior, where unspoken lines were continuously crossed, may have clouded initial perceptions.
This unexpected disruption in political behavior extended to international relations, potentially explaining Merkel’s initial misjudgment. The fact that Trump didn’t adhere to common courtesy or behavioral expectations in foreign policy could easily have left many, including Merkel, unprepared for his actions and unable to immediately grasp the true nature of his leadership style. The sheer surprise of this unconventional approach to diplomacy likely contributed to the initial misinterpretation.
The comments also suggest that a broader issue of assessing political figures might be at play here. The assumption that those holding positions of power are inherently “normal” seems flawed, especially considering the often unconventional behaviors and personality traits associated with high-profile political figures. Billionaires and politicians, by the very nature of their positions, tend to operate outside the realm of what’s considered typical or ordinary.
Furthermore, Trump’s decades-long public profile presented ample opportunities to observe his unconventional behavior. His business dealings, marked by controversies and disputes, provided clues to his character. Yet, despite this readily available information, the initial perception of him as “normal” persisted for some. This highlights a potential blind spot in how people assess and process information about public figures, potentially prioritizing reputation or superficial observations over a deeper understanding.
The discussion surrounding Merkel’s misjudgment also touches upon a broader debate on political acumen. The suggestion that she might have been overly trusting, or perhaps lacked the necessary insight into Trump’s true character, opens a conversation about the crucial role of effective political analysis and strategic decision-making in international relations. The consequences of misjudging a political adversary can be profound, highlighting the importance of accurate assessment in shaping effective foreign policy.
Interestingly, the comments bring into focus the contrasting perceptions of Trump’s behavior. While some focused on his perceived abnormalities, others highlighted Merkel’s own questionable decisions and political maneuvering. This highlights how political evaluation is often subjective, shaped by individual biases and interpretations of events. The discussion highlights the complexities of political analysis, often clouded by individual perspectives and varying political agendas.
The widespread astonishment expressed – “How? How the fuck did you do that, Merkel?” – underscores the gravity of this perceived misjudgment. It suggests a deep sense of bewilderment and disbelief regarding Merkel’s initial assessment of Trump’s character, reflecting the profound impact of her miscalculation on international relations and political perceptions. The repetition of the question itself underscores the continued fascination and disbelief surrounding this seemingly simple, yet far-reaching, error in judgment.
In conclusion, Merkel’s admission of misjudging Trump reveals more than just a personal oversight; it speaks to the challenges of navigating an increasingly complex and unpredictable political landscape. It highlights the dangers of relying on superficial impressions and emphasizes the need for a more nuanced and insightful approach to political analysis, especially when dealing with figures who routinely defy conventional expectations and established norms. The incident also serves as a potent reminder of the profound consequences that can stem from miscalculating the true nature of a political leader.