The Key Reason Trump Must Go: He’s Red
America’s Wannabe Dictator Poses an Unacceptable Threat to the Nation
To many Americans, the term “red” in political discourse means “communist.” But that is not what’s meant here — Donald Trump certainly isn’t a communist. Some might suppose that “red” simply implies “Republican.” But again, even if Trump is a Republican (which many Republicans dispute), that’s not the problem. He’s much worse than that.
He’s an unapologetic authoritarian with criminal tendencies. He’s anti-democratic. He’s heartless. He’s cruel. But all those things are just symptoms of his real problem.
Any number of justifications have been put forth by other commentators as to why it is crucial to defeat Trump in the upcoming election. In this essay, I do not intend to belabor what others have already argued — current public discourse overflows with examples of such reasoning. Instead, what I will discuss here is a particular way in which Trump differs from almost every other president in U.S. history, and why that particular difference should disqualify him from occupying the White House.
To begin, I must briefly introduce my readers to a theory put forth some decades ago by Professor Clare W. Graves, who taught psychology for many years at Union College in New York. Graves proposed that “emergent, cyclical levels of existence” characterize the gradual evolution of human behavior and consciousness over vast spans of time. In his model, at least six distinct “levels” have fully emerged by this point in human development, with at least one (and perhaps two or more) additional levels beginning to exert influence in some people. Importantly, the “levels” in Graves’ model do not connote any measure of human intelligence, as normally understood. That is, a person who embodies an “earlier” level of existence can be just as intelligent as a person who falls “later” in the model — what will differ is how such people employ that intelligence.
For readers who wish to explore this theory in depth, let me note that Graves’ work has been developed and popularized by several other theorists including Don Edward Beck, Chris Cowan and Natasha Todorovic, under the name Spiral Dynamics (SD), as well as by Ken Wilber under the name Spiral Dynamics Integral. In the SD elaboration of Graves’ theory, the various “levels of existence” have been labeled with colors, a convention that renders the model somewhat easier to comprehend.
Graves’ use of the term “cyclical” in his nomenclature connotes his observation that emergent levels of existence vacillate between “self-directed” and “other-directed” characteristics. The very first level, bearing the SD color of beige, is that of the most primitive hunter-gatherer version of humankind, the sort whose only concern is baseline individual (self-directed) survival. In today’s world, it would be hard to identify any extant group of humans who are still centered at the beige level, unless they have regressed from a more developed state due to extreme hardship or deprivation.
The second level in Graves’ model bears the SD color purple, and can be observed in certain aboriginal groups that have not been impacted by more advanced intruders. At the purple level, individual concern is focused almost exclusively on the good of the tribe, and banishment from the tribe is tantamount to a death sentence. The purple level, therefore, is the first “other-directed” stage in the model.
The third of Graves’ levels bears the SD color red, and is the second “self-directed” stage in the model. Red characterizes the mentality of the warlord, whose only concern is his own self-aggrandizement and power over others. In today’s world, red character is apparent, for example, in the behavior of a crime boss or a dictator.
Level four in Graves’ model bears the SD color blue and cycles back to “other-directed” focus. Blue is the first level that is widely prevalent in today’s world. Blue characterizes the sincere religious believer, the true patriot, and those who feel compelled to give themselves in service to others. Blue might be nicknamed “salt of the earth” — that is, good, decent, reliable, generous, unassuming. One can hardly do better in friendship than to find a “true blue” friend. The very notions of social order, loyalty, justice and generosity in today’s world rest largely on blue foundations.
For our purposes here, we will briefly note just one more of Graves’ levels, though several more have been described in his theory. After level four, or blue, comes level five, bearing the SD color orange. This is the second level, after blue, that is widely prevalent in today’s world. Following Graves’ cyclical concept, we can anticipate that orange is again self-directed. This is the level of the entrepreneur, the self-made man, the energetic explorer and inventor, the confident doer who strives to excel in whatever field takes his fancy. If blue represents the foundations of modern society, orange erects its superstructures, and gets rich along the way.
Whereas a healthy blue person is unfailingly trustworthy and giving, the person centered in orange can seem selfish, impatient and acquisitive. Orange wants it all and wants it now — not through brute force as red would do, but by applying cunning, inventiveness and energy. The orange personality is so intent on its own goals that it may sometimes resort to manipulation and trickery to succeed.
Not surprisingly, people who become politicians generally show a mix of blue and orange tendencies. Blue underpins the desire to serve one’s country, whereas orange drives the will to compete and win. Pick any politician you wish, and likely you can find some mix of blue and orange in their behavior. Some, for example Bill or Hillary Clinton, might seem predominantly orange, while others, such as George W. Bush, are more blue, though with evident orange tendencies. Parenthetically, these examples demonstrate an important feature of the Graves/SD model: most people are not characterized exclusively by one color or level, but are instead predominantly one level with tendencies toward another level, connoting the trajectory of their personal development. Thus, for example, George W. Bush might be predominantly blue with tendencies toward orange; whereas the Clintons, though largely centered in orange, also show some tendencies toward the next, or sixth, level (in SD terms, green).
Let us now focus attention on how the Graves/SD model applies to Donald Trump. First, a caveat: it is always risky to assign a Graves/SD level to any person without a thorough examination of their behavior and thinking. In discussing Trump in these terms, I am relying on the fact that his behavior has been a matter of public record for many years (as has the behavior of George Bush or the Clintons, referenced above). Trump has never concealed his attitudes and general way of thinking from public scrutiny. He is, therefore, a very visible, self-revealing subject for our discussion.
To begin, we can review some of the basic things we know about Donald Trump:
• he lies constantly, even in matters where lying does not necessarily give him any advantage
• he seems intent on serving only his own interests (sometimes including the interests of his immediate family), with his apparent prime concern being the acquisition of vast wealth by any means possible, including criminal activities
• he openly courts autocrats and despots in other countries, such as Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un, while showing disdain for traditional American allies and alliances, including NATO. Presidential historian Michael Beschloss recently compared Trump to Italian dictator Mussolini, while several former advisors have suggested that Trump may pose risks to national security
• he disregards the advice of science in such matters as climate change, rolling back EPA guidelines and withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accords
• he refuses to comply with requests from Congress for his tax records, daring the courts to force him
• he welcomes illegal foreign intervention to help him win election, while hinting that he might cheat by suppressing Democrat votes and refuse to leave the White House if not re-elected
• according to close associates such as former attorney Michael Cohen, Trump routinely inflates his supposed wealth when that serves his business dealings, while greatly understating his wealth and income for tax purposes. As one consequence, recent reporting finds that Trump paid no taxes in ten of the fifteen years between 2000 and 2015, even while claiming to be a billionaire
• he flaunts ersatz piety, such as waving a Bible (held upside down) while standing before a church, in order to reinforce his support among evangelical Christians, a key bloc in his election strategy. Yet critics contend that Trump “doesn’t have a religious bone in his body.”
• he is openly racist, characterized by some observers as an unapologetic white supremacist
The above list could be extended ad nauseam, but the point is made. Trump is generally characterized as a man who takes pleasure in smashing norms, whether of political tradition, national honor, electoral law, or common decency. His one guiding star is self-interest; his goal is self-aggrandizement. To him, truth is irrelevant; any lie will do if it serves his aims.
And here we see a textbook example, in Graves/SD terms, of the red political figure, the amoral warlord, indistinguishable in nature from such vilified characters as Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-un, or Alphonse Capone. This is our current American president.
Having identified Donald Trump to a high degree of likelihood as a red-level political figure, we can make some predictions about what to expect from him going forward. Interestingly, because he shows not the slightest hint of remorse or self-criticism in this regard, he does not try to hide his dark impulses and intentions. This too is characteristic of red: it seemingly does not occur to Trump that he is in the wrong. Not ever. His self-centeredness is absolute, meaning that his impulses, however strange or abhorrent to others, are by definition appropriate for him.
Corollary to this observation, we must dispense with the popular thought that Trump is crazy. He is not crazy. He is a highly functional red personality, operating successfully within a red worldview. If he seems crazy to us, it is largely because we “normal” U.S. citizens (and other sympathetic observers beyond our borders) are not used to seeing unabashed red-level thinking and behavior in our political leadership.
By this writer’s estimate, only two other presidents in U.S. history have displayed strong red tendencies. The first was Andrew Jackson, whom Trump openly admires. But Jackson, while undoubtedly ruthless at times, was a far more subtle and nuanced politician than Trump. In SD terms, Jackson’s red tendencies were significantly tempered by blue. The other president with strong red tendencies was Ulysses S. Grant. In Grant’s case, red served both him and the nation well, helping him become one of the most successful wartime generals in U.S. history, credited with leading the Union to victory in the Civil War. His later performance as president was less exemplary, though in recent times historians have upgraded their general views in his regard. Here again, Grant’s strong red was well-tempered by blue, becoming the fiery backbone to his blue patriotic service.
In contrast to the foregoing examples, Donald Trump does not display strong blue tendencies to offset his core of red. When he waved a Bible on the church steps, he was calculating its impression on his evangelical base. In other words, that seemingly pious gesture was cynical to the bone. Time and again, Trump’s attempts to sound genuinely patriotic, or generous, or high-minded, fall dismally flat. Trump knows no subtlety, no sympathy, no wisdom. If he were not so exceedingly dangerous, he would be tragic, a figure deserving of pity. But Trump is very dangerous, because he recognizes no limits on what he will do to achieve his aims. He holds no allegiance whatsoever to the nation he feigns to serve, nor to the laws that govern free and fair elections. He cares only for the power and recognition that his office confers upon him. And he will do anything, legal or not, to retain that power.
We must also bear in mind, as Trump surely does, that his past misdeeds in New York and elsewhere threaten to undo him the moment he is no longer shielded by the presidency. It is even possible that he could face significant prison time once out of office. That said, no one should doubt his fierce resolve to put off that day off reckoning, even if it means stealing the next election.
Thus we see the choice that lies before us. Will we permit this primitive relic of a bygone age to destroy the very meaning and substance of our duly-constituted government, or will we see him thrown into the street, where legal authorities stand ready to serve him the justice he deserves? The question could not be more urgent. It is imperative that Trump be defeated.
Therefore, all who are reading this, make one resolve: Vote. Vote as if the integrity of your nation, and the safety of your future, depends upon it. And do not waste your vote by casting it for anyone but the person now positioned to challenge Trump in a meaningful way. A vote for anyone but Joseph R. Biden is the equivalent of voting for Trump. It does not matter if Biden is an imperfect candidate. Trump is an unthinkable, unforgivable alternative. Whatever you do, please help to ensure that Trump does not win the upcoming election.
And if you want to do something extra, talk to anyone you know who might be leaning toward Trump. Understandably, this can be difficult. Many of those who claim to support Trump are suffering the cognitive dissonance of living in a society that is turning loudly against him. To defend their own sense of self, they might deny the truth even when it shouts in their face. So be sensitive to their pain and confusion, but try to reach them if you can. You will be doing them, and the nation, a great service.
