Two Friends Debate the Merits and Dangers of Trump

Paul Kujawsky and Eleanor Mayer (the latter a pseudonym) are both Ivy-educated, both attorneys, and have been friends since high school. But Eleanor supports much of what President Donald Trump is doing, while Paul regards Trump as the most dangerous American politician in living memory. 

Paul started their dialogue with a series of challenging Facebook posts—“Trump voters, is this what you voted for?” with links to news stories about Trump’s confrontations with the judiciary, preparations for military action against Panama, misconduct by Elon Musk’s DOGE, Trump’s mass pardon of the January 6 rioters, and so on. Eleanor replied privately by email, leading to the following exchange, which has been lightly edited for publication:

Eleanor Mayer: I’ve wanted to respond to some of your “is this what you voted for” Facebook posts, but don’t want to get into an endless comment exchange, as has happened the few times I’ve brought my politics to Facebook. 

As a general introductory summary: I don’t have voter’s remorse. I am still glad that Trump/Vance won the election, rather than Harris/Walz. I voted against federally mandated “progressive” extremism. I voted for a reduction in federal bureaucracy and overregulation — and have been pleased at how committed Trump seems to be to that goal. I voted against hostility towards Israel. I voted for a stronger military, one focused on fighting enemies rather than on DEI and pronouns. I did not expect to like everything Trump et al. did in office. I hoped I would approve of a substantial chunk of what they did, as happened (to my considerable surprise) during Trump’s first term. I wince at Trump’s frequent bizarre blowhard utterances, and probably wouldn’t have voted for him if I didn’t somewhat prefer his actions to his words (to the extent they’re separable). I consider him a pathological narcissist, but also think running for and being president has acted as pretty effective occupational therapy — which wouldn’t lead me to support him if I didn’t also prefer him to the appalling alternative.

“I voted for a reduction in federal bureaucracy and overregulation — and have been pleased at how committed Trump seems to be to that goal. I voted against hostility towards Israel. I voted for a stronger military, one focused on fighting enemies rather than on DEI and pronouns.” – Eleanor Mayer

I’ve been pleased with most of Trump’s cabinet picks. I’m not happy about RFK Jr., though at least he’s not currently pushing a full-blown anti-vax screed. I’m open to hearing more about his claims that food additives, etc. are unhealthful. 

I’m aware that some of the personnel cuts have been badly aimed, and that the fired-rehired results have hurt people who don’t deserve it. I am inclined to accept the proposition that given the possibly limited time in which Trump can make significant changes to the federal leviathan, there is an argument to be made for the chainsaw approach.

I’m concerned about the pressure Trump is putting on Ukraine and the extent to which he’s seemed to make concessions on important negotiating points before negotiations have (as far as we know) taken place. I’m aware that I don’t know that much about Ukraine or about Zelenskyy. I have, like Vance, seen video (one, in my case) of men being seized on the streets, allegedly for purposes of forced conscription. I’m also aware of Russia’s historical claims to Crimea, and doubt the war can end without ceding Crimea to Russia (unless Ukraine pulls one hell of a military rabbit out of its metaphorical hat). I’m unhappy about the prospect that some of the Russian-speaking, but no longer pro-Russian territory may have to be ceded to Russia. I don’t approve of a settlement that will make Putin feel the war was worthwhile, and don’t know what settlement will actually make him feel that way (as opposed to claiming victory). I don’t think Trump is as pro-Putin as many people (possibly including Putin) currently assume.

I’m not a fan of tariffs other than reciprocal ones. I also think Trump has taken his provocations re Canada beyond acceptable trolling of [Canadian Prime Minister Justin] Trudeau, and that he contributed to the decline in [Canadian Conservative Party leader Pierre] Poilievre’s political fortunes, which I regard as a detriment to both our and Canada’s future.

I don’t want the U.S. to acquire Greenland (or any other territory accustomed to a welfare system more extensive than ours), but do see substantial benefit in a closer relationship with that country, whenever it becomes independent.

I was dismayed at Trump’s extending feelers toward Iran re some sort of “deal,” and hope Iran continues its arrogant rejection of same. (On a related topic, I hope Israel destroys Iran’s nuclear program — which, per my very well-informed husband, it could do even without active US assistance – before it’s too late and all Israel can do is send off a Samsonesque posthumous volley of missiles. I’m not sure such a volley would even be sent, given the ethical complexities.)

As a closing generality, I find it hard to assess some of Trump’s decisions when media and blogger reports are likely to be irredeemably slanted in one or the other direction.

Feel free to ask me about issues I’ve failed to mention.

EM: P.S. As for immigration and deportations: I’m no expert on the legalities. I’m glad to see the massive influx of illegal immigration at the southern border drying up. I’m inclined to agree with my husband’s assertion that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t include immigration restrictions among the limited federal powers, but I do think it makes sense for this to be a federal power (once a constitutional amendment adds it to the list). I’m also intrigued by his recommended policy approach: that immigration be open to all, but that no financial assistance be provided, since it acts as an incentive to those who have no special interest in American values. I might exclude those who’ve been convicted of certain crimes, if those convictions followed a trial with a reasonable amount of due process.

EM: P.P.S. Given what I’ve learned about climate issues from reading over my husband’s shoulder, I’m glad to see Trump’s deemphasis on measures intended to address what I view as a nonexistent climate emergency.

Paul Kujawsky: Eleanor, thanks for sharing your thoughts about Trump. I think a big part of our disagreement is that we’re actually arguing about different concerns, concerns that to a large degree don’t overlap.

“I think a big part of our disagreement is that we’re actually arguing about different concerns, concerns that to a large degree don’t overlap.” – Paul Kujawsky

You’re arguing about policies. There are some defensible policies coming out of the Trump administration, in part because Democrats have shifted too far to the left–or to be more precise, Democrats have allowed their far-left minority to exercise disproportionate influence and power. A backlash was probably inevitable, though I would argue that the pendulum has swung back too far in reaction, as usually happens.

So, for example, in the Middle East, Trump is clear that Israel is our ally, Iran and its proxies are the enemy. People should not come en masse into our country unvetted and in violation of our laws. There are prudential reasons to favor a lean government that focuses on effectively and efficiently handling its core functions. These are perhaps good Trump policies. There are also some abhorrent Trump policies: For example, switching sides in the Ukraine-Russia war. 

But here’s my point: whether the policies are good or bad, or whether the good policies outweigh the bad policies, is not the main issue. It’s the terrible, undemocratic way they are implemented. My Trump fears are not about policies, but about liberal democracy. When the Republican Party was a conservative party, it was sometimes right, sometimes wrong, but not fundamentally dangerous. But now that the GOP has become a nationalist-populist, authoritarian personality cult centered on Trump, it is profoundly dangerous to the preservation of liberal democracy.  

“The main issue is the terrible, undemocratic way [his policies] are implemented. My Trump fears are about liberal democracy. Everything Trump does is done with an indifference if not hostility to democratic norms and rules.” – Paul Kujawsky

Everything Trump does is done with an indifference if not hostility to democratic norms and rules. Everything is an assertion of presidential (meaning personal) power. He could try to work through Congress to pass actual laws to implement his preferred policies; but at every turn he implicitly relies on the claim he made in his first term: “I have an Article 2 where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.” He wants to be a dictator, like Putin and Xi.

I trust you will agree that from Inauguration Day till today, Trump has brought chaos to virtually every aspect of the federal government, largely by illegally trying to shrink it–or crush it. The assertion of raw power is an end in itself for the authoritarian personality, but there is more: it is well known that there is a plan to replace large swaths of the bureaucracy with Trump loyalists, i.e., loyal to Trump, not to the Constitution. All this creates a weaker yet more Trump-centered government–a government easier for Trump to dominate and control. 

Thus we have an authoritarian executive, faced with a neutered legislature, and getting ready to ignore any inconvenient judicial rulings. This is potentially the end of the rule of law, and with it, liberal democracy itself.

There are only two possible responses to what Trump is doing: pretend it isn’t happening, or embrace some variant of “you can’t make omelets without breaking eggs”–the good policies are worth the threat to our institutions. I think that’s a profound error. Policies come and go in a democracy; but liberal democracy, once wounded, may not revive or survive. 

And finally–remember, populism is at heart a conspiratorial way of thinking: “You the People don’t have what you deserve because they (elites, corrupt politicians, immigrants, etc.) are keeping it from you!” It’s almost never true, but it creates a useful enemy. Useful enemies are an essential part of the authoritarian toolkit. And the more a populist movement fails, the more it seeks scapegoats. And who is the most common scapegoat throughout history?–people like you and me, Eleanor.

EM: Dear Paul –We agree somewhat, but not entirely, about the way Trump is approaching his goals and the concerns his approach raises. I see your description as painting with too broad a brush. He combines a (possibly vague) notion of the ways our system has been pulled out of its intended shape over the decades and centuries with a disturbing enthusiasm for pushing presidential authority to and beyond its limits.

Some of his haste and carelessness may be a reaction to how he underestimated the forces dedicated to hemming him in and interfering with his initiatives in his first term. Some of it is his taking advantage of the “hell, go ahead and break things!” sentiment of some of his supporters and followers. As for ignoring judicial rulings, so far he’s been playing cutesy games and pushing some boundaries as regards federal district judges who are pushing boundaries of their own. I may well be wrong, but I don’t think he’s very likely to outright ignore or defy orders from the circuit courts of appeal or from the Supreme Court.

As for whether his populists will end up coming for the Jews, it may, ironically, be some protection that the leftists those populists despise have already been doing so.

PK: Eleanor, you write that Trump has “a disturbing enthusiasm for pushing presidential authority to and beyond its limits,” implying that he is simply building on “the ways our system has been pulled out of its intended shape over the decades and centuries.” It’s true that the party system has distorted the constitutional plan. Instead of Congress defending its rights and prerogatives against the executive branch, as intended, Democrats in Congress defer to Democratic presidents as their party leader; Congressional Republicans similarly defer to Republican presidents. Thus, Congress willingly gives up its power to the President. This has indeed been going on for generations, with both parties at fault.

But Trump’s appetite for power is so ravenous, his disregard for limits so unbounded, that it is a difference in quantity so great as to become a difference in quality. No previous president, however grandiose his pretentions, has been as openly dictatorial and monarchical as Trump. Other presidents have pushed the limits of their power; Trump recognizes no limits. And no previous Congress has been as supine and complicit in its own emasculation.

You call this analysis “painting with too broad a brush.” I call it “reading the newspapers.” Please take seriously what Trump says and does. He isn’t hiding it.

Sugar-coating Trump’s attempt to subordinate the country’s political systems to his will as “haste and carelessness” is to ignore his “above the law” mindset. “Lawless” isn’t even strong enough– “gangsterish” is closer to the mark. You are closing your eyes to the truth, including the truth that Trump will defy the courts unless there is strong Republican pushback. But from here to the horizon all I see from Republican politicians are “Profiles in Spinelessness.” There will be no help from that quarter.

You write: “As for whether his populists will end up coming for the Jews, it may, ironically, be some protection that the leftists those populists despise have already been doing so.” I’m afraid I don’t understand your point. Do you mean that, since the illiberal left is attacking Jews, the radical right won’t? That is the merest wishful thinking. Throughout modern history, the far left and the far right have always been able to agree on one thing: Jew-hatred. Trump may not be an antisemite himself. But he is very comfortable in the company of antisemites, and can’t be counted on to restrain them. Populists require scapegoats. We are not safe.

We are not safe not just because we are Jews, but because under Trump nobody is safe. This is the inevitable consequence of the administration’s siege and corruption of the rule of law. Genuine liberals, both left and right, need to band together to fight the extremists of both left and right. This is a struggle that transcends party identification.

“You make some conclusory statements that (a) I don’t currently agree with and (b) I hope prove to be overstatements. We shall see.” – Eleanor Mayer

EM: Dear Paul, You make some conclusory statements that (a) I don’t currently agree with and (b) I hope prove to be overstatements. We shall see. 

We stopped here, although there’s much more to discuss–tariffs, for example. Neither of us persuaded the other, but we had the kind of respectful dialogue that’s hard to find these days, and we’re still friends.

Paul Kujawsky is an appellate attorney in Los Angeles. Eleanor Mayer is a quasi-retired appellate attorney and novelist in Bloomington, Indiana.