PDF Summary:Confidence Man, by Maggie Haberman

In Confidence Man, New York Times journalist Maggie Haberman explores the remarkable public life and career of real estate developer, reality TV star, and former President of the United States Donald Trump.

Haberman's book explores the people, experiences, and environments that shaped the singular personality that would define his presidency, focusing on his prowess as a consummate showman and salesman and his deep-seated desires for fame, attention, dominance, power, and leverage over others.

In this guide, we’ll explore:

• Trump’s career as a real estate developer and public symbol of capitalist success
• His second act as a right-wing firebrand and promoter of conspiracy theories
• His victory in the 2016 presidential election
• His presidency and attempts to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election

Throughout this guide, we’ll supplement Haberman’s account with commentary from outside sources to both support her critical portrayal of Trump’s life and career, as well as to bring in perspectives that offer a more favorable view of the 45th president.

(continued)...

• The launch of his 2016 presidential campaign and his masterful harnessing of media attention to overwhelm his rivals for the Republican nomination
• His victory over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election

Spreading the “Birther” Conspiracy

In 2009, writes Haberman, Trump joined Twitter with the handle @realDonaldTrump. He quickly embraced the platform, demonstrating a talent for inciting outrage and grabbing attention with provocative stunts. In 2011, Trump became the nation's leading proponent of the "birther" conspiracy theory, alleging that President Barack Obama (the nation’s first Black president) was born outside the US and, therefore, ineligible to serve as president. Haberman writes that Trump’s hyping of the conspiracy theory, while demonstrably false and slanderous, nevertheless appealed deeply to the Republican Party’s cultural resentments, their fear of a changing world, and their desire to crush and defeat those they saw as their enemies.

(Shortform note: In A Promised Land, his post-presidential memoir, former president Obama addresses Trump’s birther claims. He writes of his dismay that the mainstream media continued to give Trump free airtime to spread misinformation, treating him as more of an amusing spectacle than a potentially dangerous demagogue. Obama, however, writes that he understood the need to take Trump seriously as a political threat. Obama grasped that spectacle and outlandishness could command media attention—and that made Trump powerful.)

Launching the Campaign

Haberman writes that in June 2015, Trump officially announced his presidential campaign with a divisive speech that included controversial remarks about Mexican immigrants, alleging that they were “rapists” and calling for a border wall to separate the US from Mexico. Haberman notes further that Trump's campaign benefited from adopting a carnival-like atmosphere, featuring stunts and confrontations—gaining significant media attention for himself while keeping it from his rivals.

(Shortform note: Although critics considered Trump’s “Build the Wall” rhetoric as evidence of his xenophobia, it’s worth noting that his Democratic successor, Joe Biden, continued construction on certain segments of the border wall. Despite his initial promise to halt the project, the Biden administration opted to complete unfinished sections, citing reasons such as addressing gaps in border security and potential national security concerns. The decision sparked criticism from both sides of the political spectrum and highlighted similarities between Trump’s immigration policies and Biden’s.)

To the shock (and dismay) of many in the mainstream press, the Trump campaign gained traction with Republican voters, who were drawn to his confrontations with journalists, protesters, and his fellow candidates.

(Shortform note: One study highlighted the unprecedented amount of free media exposure Trump garnered, which far surpassed that of his Republican and Democratic rivals. The study estimated that Trump's coverage was worth nearly $2 billion—nearly twice that of his Republican rivals’ combined total. This figure underscored his ability to dominate news cycles and shape public discourse without significant campaign spending or fundraising.)

The Roots of Trump’s Appeal

Haberman argues that Trump skillfully capitalized on the polarization that had been building in America for decades. The collapse of trust in elites following significant events like 9/11, the Iraq War, and the financial crisis, along with white racial and ethnic resentment after the election of the first Black president, created fertile ground for his confrontational and resentment-focused brand of politics.

His litany of false claims—such as the “birther” claim about Obama and his claims about Mexican immigrants—fed this wave of white cultural resentment, writes Haberman. When he was criticized in the mainstream press for this, he doubled down by portraying himself as a victim of a smear campaign by the “liberal” media—turning their attacks into a source of strength by deepening the bond between him and his base.

The Perceived Decline of America as a White Christian Nation

Some social science research delves further into this phenomenon of white cultural resentment. This research specifically highlights the decline of white Christians as a demographic majority in the US and the broader implications of this demographic shift.

The argument is that the decline of white Christian dominance is accompanied by a sense of anxiety and nostalgia for a bygone era when white Christians held a more central role in shaping American culture and identity. As white Christians see their numerical majority wane, they develop feelings of cultural and racial displacement. Political scientists have pointed to these anxieties about displacement as a source of Trump’s exceptional performance with white evangelical voters in particular—with 85% of the evangelical vote in the 2020 election, they’re his strongest constituency.

The General Election

Haberman writes that, after finishing in second place in the Iowa caucuses (one of the first major contests of the US presidential election), Trump went on a winning streak in New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, securing a delegate lead that cemented his position as frontrunner for the GOP (Republican) nomination, which he ultimately clinched in May. After he selected Mike Pence, the evangelical governor of Indiana, as his vice presidential running mate, the stage was set for Trump’s general election showdown with the Democratic nominee, former Secretary of State and First Lady Hillary Clinton. Haberman writes that despite a tumultuous and controversial campaign, Trump defied expectations and shocked the world by winning the presidency on November 8, 2016.

GOP Elites and the Failure to Protect Democracy

In How Democracies Die, political scientists Daniel Ziblatt and Steven Levitsky argue that the Trump campaign represented a unique threat to democracy because the candidate showed a level of hostility and contempt for traditional democratic norms unseen before in a major-party nominee. They further argue that the Republican Party failed to stop Trump’s nomination and then failed to oppose him once he was the nominee.

They write that despite Trump's initial failure to secure major endorsements, his preexisting celebrity status and support from influential right-wing media figures like Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter enabled him to communicate directly with voters, generating extensive media coverage and surpassing the influence of traditional endorsements. This enabled him to rack up impressive primary wins like those detailed by Haberman.

Moreover, they argue, the GOP as an institution was unable to deny Trump the nomination at the convention, despite attempts by some party activists to change convention rules and “unbind” delegates pledged to Trump. As a result, GOP leaders faced a dilemma in the general election when confronted with Trump's authoritarian tendencies: Either campaign against Trump and have the party suffer a defeat, or support him and risk democracy’s survival. In the end, write Ziblatt and Levitsky, GOP leaders chose party over country, standing with Trump over the well-being of the democratic process. They prioritized partisan interests by refusing to cross party lines and support Hillary Clinton.

Part 4: In the White House, 2017-2021

Haberman next explores the policy fights, interpersonal dramas, and major news events that defined the Trump administration. In this final section, we’ll examine:

• Trump’s chaotic leadership style in office
• His defiance of traditional political norms and ethics as president
• His administration’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic
• His defeat in the 2020 presidential election—and his refusal to accept the election’s results

A Chaotic Leadership Style

Haberman notes that Donald Trump's presidency was characterized by factional rivalries within his administration, pitting figures like the populist right-wing ideologue Steve Bannon against dealmakers and personal associates like Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner. Haberman writes that, in office, Trump seemed to thrive on the chaos and rivalry among his subordinates.

(Shortform note: Although Haberman cites the factionalism and rivalries within the Trump White House as a source of chaos and inefficiency, other scholars have noted that having dissenting voices has been a source of strength for other administrations. In Team of Rivals, historian Doris Kearns Goodwin writes that Abraham Lincoln famously invited many of his former political opponents to join his cabinet—a group known as the “team of rivals.” She suggests that Lincoln built his team of rivals to represent a broad spectrum of political views during an intensely polarized period of American history. By doing so, he hoped to not only appoint skilled politicians but also to unite an uneasy country behind his leadership.)

Haberman notes that Trump appeared to be most interested in the ceremonial aspects of the presidency, such as riding Air Force One, being feted at state dinners, and meeting with celebrities. He enjoyed these trappings of his office far more than he enjoyed the official or formal responsibilities of the role—meeting with congressional leaders, helping to craft legislation, attending cabinet briefings, and articulating policy goals. This lack of policy and legislative focus and direction from Trump, argues Haberman, resulted in the administration achieving few concrete legislative wins, with key conservative priorities like repealing the Affordable Care Act (Obama’s signature health care reform) remaining unfulfilled.

(Shortform note: Despite Haberman’s assertion that Trump’s administration achieved few concrete policy wins due to his distraction, Trump did prioritize and notch record-breaking achievements in appointing federal judges, leaving a lasting impact on the federal courts. Notably, Trump appointed over 200 judges to the federal bench and nearly as many federal appeals judges in his four years as Obama did in his eight-year tenure. This represented a major rightward shift of the federal judiciary and one that could reshape American jurisprudence on major public policy questions from abortion rights to voting rights for decades.)

Breaching Norms

According to Haberman, Trump repeatedly flouted the norms of presidential conduct. One of his early norm-breaking acts was firing FBI Director James Comey. Trump did this after Comey refused to shut down the investigation into potential links between the Trump campaign and Russia, which surfaced during the 2016 presidential race. Haberman notes that this action was emblematic of a theme running throughout the administration: an emphasis on personal loyalty and a desire to treat the Justice Department as his personal law firm, one that would shield him from responsibility and punish his enemies.

Trump's Norm-Breaking Tactics in Office

In How Democracies Die, Ziblatt and Levitsky emphasize the importance of norms in a democratic system of government. They define norms as the unwritten rules of political conduct that form a shared understanding about what is and isn’t acceptable behavior. They write that even if some act of aggression against one’s opponents is technically permitted by the written rules, responsible politicians don’t engage in such conduct, lest they undermine the proper functioning of the democratic system.

They expand on this theme of norms and apply it specifically to Trump’s conduct in office, grouping his norm-breaking behavior into three main categories: capturing the referees, sidelining opponents, and changing the rules of the democratic game.

Capturing the referees: Ziblatt and Levitsky categorize the Comey firing (detailed above) as an attempt by Trump to capture the referees of the American political system, such as law enforcement officials. By demanding Comey's personal loyalty, requesting the termination of the FBI's investigation into Russian collusion, and terminating Comey for his refusal to comply, Trump was signaling a disregard for the traditional separation between politics and federal law enforcement.

Sidelining opponents: Trump attempted to sideline his opponents by attacking the mainstream media, labeling it as "fake news." His consistent claims of media bias aimed to discredit outlets like CNN, The Washington Post, and The New York Times, conditioning his supporters to view him as the sole source of truth. This strategy fostered an alternative-facts universe among GOP voters while garnering support for media repression.

Changing the rules: Through the Presidential Advisory Commission on Electoral Integrity, Trump aimed to rewrite the rules of the democratic game. The commission, led by GOP operative Kris Kobach, pushed for state voter ID laws and the purging of voter rolls. While the commission alleged a need to address in-person voter fraud, Ziblatt and Levitsky contend that the commission's actual purpose was to promote the Republican narrative, encourage voter ID laws disproportionately targeting Democratic-leaning demographics, and revive unfounded doubts about the integrity of the electoral system.

The 2019 Impeachment

Haberman writes that an arguably greater breach of norms occurred in 2019. On July 25 of that year, Trump placed a phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, urging him to launch a corruption investigation into Joe Biden—the former vice president and a potential challenger to Trump in 2020. On this call, notes Haberman, Trump implied that he might withhold military aid to Ukraine if Zelenskyy didn’t initiate the investigation. The call prompted House Democrats to impeach the President for blackmailing an allied country.

The Case Against the 2019 Trump Impeachment

Trump’s defenders mounted several arguments against impeachment in 2019, including:

Lack of direct evidence: Supporters argue that the impeachment case lacked direct evidence of wrongdoing by Trump. They suggested that the transcripts of Trump's phone call with Zelenskyy didn’t explicitly establish a quid pro quo.

Concerns about process: Trump's defenders also raised concerns about the impeachment process, asserting that it lacked transparency and fairness. They criticized the Democratic-controlled House Intelligence Committee’s closed-door hearings, arguing that it denied due process to the President.

No clear impeachable offense: Defenders further argued that, even if some actions by Trump were inappropriate, they didn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense. Trump's defenders stressed the importance of distinguishing between improper conduct and conduct warranting impeachment.

Political motivations: Some Trump defenders argued that the Democratic push for impeachment was politically motivated, particularly given its timing close to the 2020 election. They suggested that Democrats were pursuing impeachment for strategic reasons rather than out of a genuine concern for the rule of law.

National security concerns: Finally, defenders of Trump contended that the impeachment inquiry would have negative implications for national security. They argued that focusing on impeachment distracted from critical issues and undermined the President's ability to conduct foreign policy.

The Covid-19 Crisis and Trump’s Response

Haberman writes that the emergence of the Covid-19 pandemic in February 2020 marked a turning point in the Trump administration. Although the pandemic was a major national crisis that called for decisive leadership, Trump couldn’t help but see the unfolding and lethal situation only in terms of how it harmed him. He grew angry at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and other officials for warning about the spreading pandemic. Instead, he implored officials in his administration to tamp down public warnings and discussions of it—even as the infection rate and death toll began to climb.

The Transformative Impact of the CARES Act

Although Haberman appears to characterize Trump’s response to the pandemic as deluded, incompetent, and callous, his administration and Congress did enact a swift and impactful legislative response to the crisis.

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), signed into law by Trump in March 2020, was a $2 trillion aid package designed to deal with the economic fallout of the pandemic. Even some progressive journalists called it the most sweeping fiscal stimulus bill in American history, surpassing Obama’s 2009 stimulus bill and even FDR’s New Deal.

Among its many provisions, the CARES Act marked a significant departure from traditional unemployment benefits by providing an extra $600 per week on top of existing state benefits—providing substantial support to those who lost their jobs. The bill also established the Paycheck Protection Program, which provided forgivable loans to small businesses to help keep furloughed employees on the payroll.

The impact of the legislation was substantial. In April 2020 immediately after the bill’s passage, personal income in the US experienced a 10.5% growth, marking the highest monthly rate in the metric's 60-year history. This occurred amidst a significant rise in unemployment, which soared from 4.4 to 14.7% in the same month.

The 2020 Election

The Covid-19 pandemic was the backdrop against which the 2020 presidential campaign played out. Haberman notes that Trump was often bewildered and dismayed by the dwindling attendance at his 2020 rallies compared to those in 2016, largely owing to the pandemic and people being unwilling to risk infection by appearing at large public gatherings.

Haberman writes that Trump’s woes continued into the televised debate with Democratic nominee Joe Biden. There, she observes, the president delivered what was widely perceived as an aggressive, hostile, and mean-spirited debate performance. He heckled and mocked Biden about the former vice president’s deceased son Beau and ridiculed Biden’s other son Hunter’s well-publicized struggles with drug addiction. After his debate performance, Trump’s polling numbers only grew worse—and he began telling aides that he believed the polls were fraudulent and that the election would be stolen from him.

(Shortform note: Trump’s suspicions about the accuracy of polls may have had some merit. National polls in the 2020 election generally predicted a much larger margin of victory for Joe Biden than what ultimately occurred. Polling experts have examined sampling errors and non-response biases that led to an underrepresentation of some voters—particularly non-college-educated whites who leaned toward Trump. Additionally, the pandemic introduced further uncertainties with changes in voting behavior, increased mail-in voting, and varying levels of enthusiasm among voters that made polling difficult.)

Defeat and Refusal to Concede

Haberman writes that after a close race, the major networks declared Joe Biden the winner after he secured wins in the key battleground states of Arizona and Georgia. According to Haberman, however, Trump found defeat impossible to accept. Trump and his team refused to accept the results, claimed the election was stolen, and they initiated efforts to reverse the results. Their plan was to have Republican-dominated state legislatures in swing states send alternate slates of electors to Congress.

(Shortform note: It's worth briefly explaining how the Electoral College works. In the US, the President isn’t directly elected by the popular vote, but rather through the Electoral College. Each state is assigned a certain number of electoral votes based on its representation in Congress. When voters cast their ballots, they’re essentially voting for a slate of electors chosen by their state, who, in turn, pledge to support the popular vote winner in that state. After the November election, the electors meet in their respective states to cast their votes for president and vice president. The results are then sent to Congress to be counted and certified.)

If alternate electors were submitted to Congress, the Trump team hoped to create controversy about the “true” results and stall the certification of Biden’s victory. They hoped this would throw the election to the GOP-dominated Supreme Court. However, the legal and political strategy failed—the Trump team’s various legal challenges suffered near-universal defeat in state and federal courts.

(Shortform note: Despite Trump's legal defeats and his inability to prove any allegations of election fraud, a significant portion of Americans continue to believe that the outcome of the 2020 election was fraudulent. According to an NBC News poll, nearly one-third of Americans still harbor doubts about the legitimacy of the election results, indicating a sustained level of skepticism several years after the election. Notably, among those polled, a majority of Republicans expressed doubts about the fairness of the election, while Democrats overwhelmingly trusted the legitimacy of the results. These findings reveal that the narrative of election fraud, perpetuated by some political figures, has had a lasting impact on public perception.)

January 6, 2021: Insurrection at the US Capitol

Haberman writes that on January 6, 2021, a large rally of Trump supporters gathered outside the Capitol. In the days leading up to the rally, Trump had encouraged people to attend and demanded that they insist Congress overturn the results of the election. He also put forward a theory that Vice President Pence had the authority to discard the Electoral College votes and install Trump as President for a second term. Pence had no such authority and refused to do so. When word spread that Pence hadn’t done as Trump and his supporters wished, the crowd became angry and menacing.

(Shortform note: Trump’s theory stemmed in part from the ambiguity in the original Electoral Count Act of 1887. The law lacked explicit guidance for how to handle objections to electoral votes raised by members of Congress, how these debates should unfold, and the criteria to be used to determine the validity of objections—an ambiguity Trump was able to exploit. A reform to the law, passed in 2022, seeks to prevent the kind of uncertainty witnessed during the certification of the 2020 election.)

The Riot Unfolds

By the afternoon, Haberman writes, the crowd outside the Capitol turned violent and began overwhelming the Capitol Police and breaching the Capitol Building’s security. Some rioters were armed and organized and had affiliations with right-wing paramilitary organizations. Chants calling for the hanging of Pence echoed through the crowd—with the erection of a gallows on the Mall standing as a chilling symbol of this sentiment.

As the rioters stormed the Capitol, congressional leadership was forced to evacuate, fearing for their safety. Haberman writes that the rioters rampaged through the building, causing extensive property damage and defacing its halls. Five people lost their lives during the chaos, including a Capitol Police officer. In the aftermath, hundreds of individuals were charged in connection with the insurrection, as authorities sought to hold those responsible accountable for their actions.

Intelligence Failures in the Lead Up to the Attack

One analysis contends that law enforcement agencies experienced catastrophic intelligence failures that prevented them from stopping the attack. A 2023 report by Senator Gary Peters (D) identifies significant intelligence failures by the FBI and DHS leading up to the January 6th Capitol attack. The report highlights deficiencies in the agencies' handling and dissemination of intelligence related to the threat of violence on that day. Despite possessing credible information about potential violence, the intelligence community failed to issue a comprehensive threat assessment.

According to the report, there were lapses in communication and coordination among different intelligence entities, preventing a holistic understanding of the potential risks. It criticizes the delay in sharing crucial information and the failure to connect disparate pieces of intelligence, hindering the ability to foresee the severity of the impending threat.

The report also raises concerns about the lack of adequate preparation and response by law enforcement agencies, including the Capitol Police. It underscores the need for improved intelligence-sharing processes, better training for law enforcement personnel, and enhanced coordination to prevent similar intelligence failures in the future.

After the Presidency

Haberman writes that after leaving the presidency, Trump was impeached for a second time. However, she notes, his support among GOP members of Congress was near-unanimous, with nearly the entire Republican House and Senate voting against impeachment.

In the post-presidency period, Trump continued to deny the election results. In Haberman’s interviews with him, she was struck by how frankly and openly he seemed to view his presidency solely as a means of acquiring more fame, attention, recognition, and power. She closes by observing that Trump had succeeded in realigning and polarizing American politics—with his rages and resentments serving as a broader projection of the nation's seemingly intractable divisions.

Trump’s Political Future

As of 2023, there’s reason to believe that Trump’s political career is far from over and that his grip on the GOP has only tightened since he left office. A CBS News poll from November 2023 indicated that Trump still held a significant lead in the 2024 Republican presidential primary field, with 61% of Republican voters expressing a preference for him as the party's nominee—a whopping 43 percentage points ahead of his nearest competitor.

Trump’s dominance of the GOP has led some Republicans—such as former Representative Liz Cheney, a prominent critic of Trump within the Republican Party—to call the party a "cult of personality" built around Trump. Cheney has argued that the unwavering loyalty to Trump, even in the face of his controversial actions and statements, is detrimental to the principles and values traditionally associated with the GOP.