You’re reading Jennifer Rubin’s subscriber-only newsletter. Sign up to get it in your inbox.
Trump’s broken psyche: GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley and President Biden have both started talking in earnest about Trump’s apparent mental decline. They point to episodes of slurred speech, his incoherent riffs and his habit of mixing up politicians. Though, in fact, those are the least of Trump’s problems.
Serious analysis of Trump’s underlying mental state remains largely out of bounds, despite the Republican front-runner’s compulsive lying and grandiosity, his classic use of DARVO (deny, attack and reverse victim and offender) and his impulsivity. No other public figure engages in such aggressive, antisocial and shocking conduct (e.g., threatening Truth Social barrages; adjudicated sexual assault against E. Jean Carroll; crude insults directed at women; vows to seek revenge against enemies). Some close aides have candidly described his aberrant conduct and inability to process information. Nevertheless, the reaction to Trump’s abnormal conduct amounts to a collective shoulder shrug.
Trump’s threats of violence make an unmistakable pattern: He egged on the Jan. 6 violent attack on the Capitol, baited the crowd seeking to hang his vice president and was found liable for what is colloquially considered rape. Surely that is a subject that deserves more attention.
Voters must be able to evaluate a presidential candidate’s mental and emotional fitness. After all, Trump keeps bringing up the topic, distorting his performance on a cognitive test — as though that proves his mental soundness. (Prevaricating about a mental fitness test is quite meta.) The media has no excuse to avoid covering this topic.
With so much evidence of Trump’s mental and emotional unfitness, more exacting coverage is long overdue.
He can’t put America first — and he goads other Republicans to violate their oaths. The ramifications of Trump’s influence were in full view this week. Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and James Lankford (R-Okla.) pulled off what seemed to be impossible: They crafted the toughest border security bill in decades, one so strong that the conservative Wall Street editorial board, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Borden Patrol Union all backed it.
Several GOP senators initially praised the bill. After all, Republicans had insisted on this as a condition for aide to Ukraine. Republicans got a border provision trigger. The bill would have empowered Biden to do what Trump could not: namely, stem the flow of unauthorized border crossings and, when needed, shut down the border.
And yet, after all that and after years of castigating Biden for an “open border,” Republicans reversed themselves and felt compelled to sink it simply because Trump wanted to deny Biden a “win.” Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) correctly said this was nothing short of “appalling.” Likewise, Murphy wondered how Republicans could “vote against a landmark bipartisan bill that we negotiated with one of the most conservative Republican Senators on the border issue,” referring to Lankford. The answer: They could do so because so many in the GOP follow Trump’s self-centered orders. (Even more jaw-dropping: Republicans now want to move ahead only on aid for Ukraine without any border measure, something they had demanded for months be considered along with aid.)
We will not have a robust border security bill because, as Biden said, “Donald Trump thinks it’s bad for him politically.” That sort of twisted thinking is par for the course for Trump, who cannot fathom doing anything for America if it does not suit his needs. He wants the border to remain a mess. He wants the stock market to crash. Trump cannot grasp the meaning of his oath or any other constraint.
His elevation of self above all else constitutes the essence of his unfitness. Worse, he cows other Republicans into violating their oaths. They, too, feel compelled to betray America at Trump’s bidding. (We know the answer to Biden’s query: “Republicans have to decide: Who do they serve — Donald Trump or the American people? Are they here to solve problems or just weaponize those problems for political purposes?”) Again, we see that when you empower someone as depraved as Trump, the country will always come last.
Distinguished person of the week
The United Nations and international women’s organizations have rightly been excoriated for their delinquency in condemning Hamas’s mass rapes of Israelis on Oct. 7, and the hostages’ reported sexual abuse while in captivity. Only under pressure from Israel, the Biden administration and American Jewish groups did they acknowledge widespread sexual violence. More than 120 days after the war began, Pramila Patten, the U.N. envoy for sexual violence, paid a fact-finding visit to Israel. Expectations among many in the Jewish community were not high, given the United Nations’ track record.
However, evidence does matter, and, tragically, there is no shortage of evidence Hamas systematically used rape as an instrument of war. To her credit, Patten visited with hostages, hostage families, witnesses, doctors, first responders, members of the Israeli government, civil society groups and legal experts. She reviewed video of the attacks and visited burned kibbutzim.
At the end of her visit, she declared, “I saw things here that I have not seen anywhere in the world. The world outside cannot understand the magnitude of the event. I myself also internalized the magnitude of the event just by being here myself.” She continued: “Only when I am here do I understand the magnitude of the pain, the insult and the anger of Israel regarding how the world did not sufficiently understand and treat the atrocities that happened to you.” Finally.
Her written report to the United Nations should evince the same attention to detail and moral clarity she exhibited this week. That would be a crucial step in compelling international bodies to reveal the truth about Hamas’s savagery and to seek justice for its victims.
Something different
Given my love of art, you won’t be surprised that art fiction ranks as one of my favorite literary genres. Tracy Chevalier’s classic “Girl with a Pearl Earring” fictionalizes a famous painting’s creation. Susan Vreeland’s “Clara and Mr. Tiffany” tells the story of the largely unknown woman who designed Tiffany lamps. Robin Oliveira’s “I Always Loved You” provides an intriguing peek into the relationship between artists Edgar Degas and Mary Cassatt, as well as their cohort of 19th-century French impressionists.
Books such as Dominic Smith’s “The Last Painting of Sara de Vos” explore lesser-known artists. Jennifer S. Alderson’s “The Lover’s Portrait” stands out in the sub-genre of Nazi stolen-art fiction. B.A. Shapiro’s “The Muralist” sets the action among mid-20th century New York expressionists; her novel “The Art Forger” uses an infamous theft at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum as its jumping off point. (If you are intrigued by Gardner herself, “The Lioness of Boston” by Emily Franklin delves into the life of a woman ahead of her time.) Finally, few can resist Daniel Silva’s thrillers featuring Israeli spy and art restorer Gabriel Allon.
Art novices and aficionados alike can enjoy these books. Just keep your phone or laptop nearby to look up the mentioned artworks — if they exist beyond the novelist’s imagination.
My weekly Q&A
Every other Wednesday at noon, I host a live Q&A with readers. Submit a question for the next one on Feb. 14.
