By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Pulitzer Prize-winning reporters Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig’s new book, *A Very Stable Genius*, details President Trump’s tumultuous three years in office, revealing instances of his ignorance regarding historical events like Pearl Harbor and basic geography. The book cites numerous examples of Trump’s disregard for established legal and ethical norms, including his attempts to influence foreign policy based on limited personal interactions and his dismissal of expert advice. His reported comments on the US Constitution and his speculation about a domestic abuse victim’s injuries further illustrate his questionable decision-making and lack of understanding. The authors’ findings are based on extensive interviews and corroborating documentation.
Read the original article here
A new book reveals a startling lack of historical and political understanding on the part of a former US president, underscoring concerns about his fitness for office. The revelations paint a picture of someone profoundly unfamiliar with key historical events, like Pearl Harbor, prompting the question, “What’s this all about?”
The book’s portrayal goes beyond simple historical ignorance. It depicts a president struggling with fundamental comprehension, suggesting a limited understanding of even basic governmental structures. The constitution, a cornerstone of American democracy, presented a significant challenge to his reading and understanding. This lack of comprehension isn’t just anecdotal; it’s described as a consistent pattern, requiring repeated mentions of crucial national security matters during briefings just to maintain his focus.
This lack of understanding extends beyond the constitution to encompass broader historical context. The events of the Civil War, a pivotal moment in American history, were apparently not clearly grasped. This suggests a much larger gap in historical understanding, perhaps explaining the reported confusion surrounding events like Pearl Harbor. The implication is that understanding complex historical narratives and their significance was beyond his capacity.
The situation is further complicated by the suggestion of a low emotional intelligence. Instead of seeking guidance from more knowledgeable individuals, a common strategy even among those with less intellectual capacity, this president reportedly relied on self-assurance and a belief in his inherent knowledge. This creates a dangerous mix of limited understanding, a refusal to learn, and an abundance of unchecked power.
This pattern of behavior wasn’t confined to complex political or historical matters. An anecdote involving a tweet expressing personal dislike for a pop star highlights the childlike impulsiveness and lack of mature judgment that seemed to define his public persona. This behavior pattern, if accurately described, further indicates a lack of judgment and a disconnect from expected adult standards of behavior.
Multiple accounts paint a consistent picture of a man with significantly below-average intellectual capabilities. These accounts, despite likely bias from differing perspectives, converge on a general theme of low cognitive abilities that raise concerns about his fitness for high office. Furthermore, anecdotes suggesting illiteracy or extreme difficulty reading are plentiful and add to the already troubling narrative. This was not a passing deficiency but a repeated struggle affecting his ability to engage with even crucial governmental materials.
The accounts of his presidential years suggest he had little to no interest in the deeper meaning or historical weight of his actions. He appeared to view Article II of the Constitution merely as an instrument of personal power, with little regard for its actual meaning or limitations. This casual disregard for checks and balances points towards a dangerous concentration of power in the hands of someone incapable of fully understanding or respecting them.
Even more disturbing than the intellectual shortcomings is the apparent lack of concern by supporters. Some interpretations suggest that his deficiencies are considered a positive trait by some, perhaps fostering a feeling of superiority or shared outsider status among those who voted for him. This perception might inadvertently explain the enduring support he received despite these evident shortcomings.
Regardless of the reasons for his enduring popularity, the described behaviors strongly suggest a dangerous combination of ineptitude and power. This combination underscores the urgency of finding mechanisms to safeguard democracy against potential future leaders who may share similar characteristics. The situation warrants deep reflection on the selection process of future leaders and the risks inherent in placing unchecked power in the hands of the unprepared. This situation highlights a crucial need for voters to critically evaluate candidates’ qualifications, beyond rhetoric, to safeguard a well-functioning democracy.