PDF Summary:The Divider, by Peter Baker and Susan Glasser

How did a president known for his brash style and disdain for democratic institutions irreparably fracture American democracy? In The Divider, Peter Baker and Susan Glasser provide an incisive account of Donald Trump's tumultuous presidency and his steadfast refusal to accept his electoral defeat in 2020.

Drawing on extensive reporting and eyewitness interviews, the authors detail Trump's unconventional management approach, strained relationships with military and intelligence officials, and the momentous events of January 6th, when his misguided efforts to overturn the election culminated in a violent assault on the U.S. Capitol. The book offers crucial insights into this pivotal period in American history.

(continued)...

Trump cultivated a climate of strife among the team members.

Trump had a reputation for fostering discord within his circle of advisors. They argue that this exemplified another of Trump's attempts to consolidate his power, utilizing the weaknesses within his closest advisors, in the same way he took advantage of the significant divisions present throughout the nation.

The pursuit of validation reflected similar behaviors to what was observed in the television program "The Apprentice."

The authors argue that Trump created a climate where competition was prioritized above loyalty, mirroring the atmosphere of his famous TV show, rather than a structured entity where a chief executive officer guarantees that advisors, along with members of the cabinet, are held accountable to them. In every installment of "The Apprentice," participants battled for success, which ultimately led to Trump dismissing one competitor. The book by Baker and Glasser depicts how the chaos in the White House aligned with Trump's goals, leading to a shrinking circle of advisors willing to confront him amidst an environment filled with strife and fragmentation.

The president frequently instigated disputes among his advisors, relatives, and government ministers.

Trump's deliberate style of governance, reflecting his belief that life is fundamentally tough, resulted in ensuing turmoil. His time in office was seen as the beginning of a politically tumultuous period within the presidential administration. He found satisfaction in the internal discord, which, according to the authors, originated from his instruction for his top aide and principal advisor to collaboratively transform the operations of the federal government. The result was a constant battle for influence, a battle that was unwinnable, and the value of being favored by a president whose loyalties could change without warning decreased quickly, much like the fleeting excitement of a youth's crush fades when the person they admire agrees to go out with them.

The administration became known for an abundance of disclosures and schemes.

In their examination, the authors suggest that Trump thrived in an environment so harmful that, by the end of their time in the White House, many senior advisors felt their duty was to safeguard the country from the president's instincts. After four tumultuous years characterized by an administration plagued with leaks, secret recordings, whispered exchanges through encrypted messaging due to fears of being spied on, collective resignations, and complex rationalizations for ignoring orders, such measures had not only become commonplace but also essential for endurance, a situation that was once thought to be nearly impossible to imagine, particularly when considering historical scandals such as Watergate.

Lack of Qualified Personnel

The authors highlight how Trump's reluctance or incapacity to consult with seasoned advisors resulted in an administration that was markedly unprepared to carry out the essential tasks of governance. Many were motivated to join the government by their patriotic spirit and a mix of personal goals, convictions, and fears, along with the perhaps erroneous assumption that they could sway the president's choices.

Only a few individuals in the administration possessed expertise in governance.

Presidents typically prioritize political strategists above policy specialists, yet no other president has demonstrated this preference to such an extraordinary degree. Despite considering himself the country's commander-in-chief, there were numerous occasions where his assistants questioned if he or his team truly understood how different his new responsibilities were from overseeing his business empire.

Hiring based on money, looks, and TV appearances

The result was a commander whose uncertainties perpetually stirred discord within his team. Trump was drawn to individuals decorated with military accolades, preferring to employ those who seemed as if they had walked straight out of a movie, and he placed a high value on the advice given by his wealthy companions. His fixation on the wealthy, famous, and those with military backgrounds reached such a level that he proposed erasing a retired general's debts to entice him into the cabinet; yet, when the general turned down this inappropriate proposal, he struggled to understand the lack of appreciation for his gesture.

A pervasive sense of doubt and instability infiltrated the administration.

In their examination, the authors propose that while Trump's closest advisors professed their allegiance, the president demonstrated a singular type of loyalty that flowed primarily one way, relying heavily on his own judgment and, to some degree, his children. From the beginning of his term, Trump formed a tight circle of advisors, intentionally eschewing the naming of a single chief of staff to prevent the concentration of authority, which resulted in a fragmented and strained power structure where Kushner rose to significant prominence. The depiction of his administration as frequently chaotic and devoid of steadiness was indeed not accidental. The administration was characterized by a consistent series of alterations among the personnel in the White House and its cabinet. Baker and Glasser assert that deceit played a crucial role in the functioning of the White House. Continuously. The book covers a wide range of topics.

Other Perspectives

• The perception of chaos and conflict could be seen as a byproduct of a non-traditional approach to governance that aimed to disrupt the status quo.
• The affirmation-seeking behavior might reflect a president's need to maintain public support and ensure his policies resonate with his voter base.
• Conflict within staff could be interpreted as a method to encourage diverse viewpoints and prevent groupthink, ensuring that only the strongest ideas prevail.
• Preferring advice from zealous advocates could be seen as valuing loyalty and passion over conventional wisdom, which might not always lead to the best outcomes.
• Internal conflict and leaks could be indicative of a transparent administration where information is not tightly controlled, allowing the public to see the inner workings of government.
• Intense competition within the team might foster a meritocratic environment where positions and influence are earned through results rather than seniority or connections.
• The antagonism between Priebus and Bannon could reflect a healthy debate between different ideological perspectives within the party.
• Kushner's wide array of responsibilities might demonstrate a willingness to bring fresh perspectives to longstanding problems, leveraging private sector efficiency.
• Conway's ability to alienate could be seen as a consequence of strong leadership and commitment to a clear vision that may not align with everyone's interests.
• Cultivating a climate of strife could be a strategic approach to keep advisors on their toes and constantly striving for better performance.
• Prioritizing competition over loyalty might be a way to ensure that team members are always putting their best foot forward and not becoming complacent.
• Instigating disputes among advisors and relatives could be a tactic to challenge ideas and ensure that all angles are considered before making decisions.
• The administration's reputation for disclosures and schemes might be exaggerated by media bias or a misunderstanding of the unconventional tactics used.
• The lack of qualified personnel could be seen as an opportunity to bring in outsiders who are not entrenched in the bureaucratic system and can offer new solutions.
• Hiring based on unconventional criteria like money, looks, and TV appearances could be a way to capitalize on public relations and present a strong image to the nation and the world.
• Doubt and instability might be overstated, and what is seen as instability could be a dynamic and responsive administration adapting to changing circumstances.
• The role of deceit, if it existed, could be argued as a misinterpretation of strategic ambiguity necessary for negotiating and dealing with adversaries.

Throughout Trump's term in office, international relations were marred by strife, with notably strained interactions between military and national security officials.

Trump's strategy, as characterized by Baker and Glasser, entailed eroding the foundation of the United States' enduring alliances while also embracing tactics typically condemned by the country. The President's unpredictable actions perplexed top defense and security officials, who, despite having supported his "America First" policy, were often confounded by his capricious orders.

Questioning and Undermining Alliances

Following his triumph in the 2016 election, world leaders and national security veterans pondered the genuine consequences of Trump's doctrine centered on prioritizing American interests. Trump displayed a willingness to forsake traditional allies and showed a distinct inclination toward authoritarian rulers and despots, with whom he felt he could forge personal bonds.

He described the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as outdated.

Donald Trump viewed the Atlantic alliance, formed a decade after the Second World War to protect Europe against Soviet aggression, as a substantial drain on resources, believing that the United States was shouldering an unfair share of the burden to defend its allies, to the detriment of American interests. The writers argue that his foreign policy stance in this domain was based on a specific set of beliefs, even though it often demonstrated a considerable misunderstanding of the alliance's historical context and the complexities of its operations. Trump failed to grasp that the financial pledges from nations such as Germany and France were intended to bolster their own military capabilities, a step taken to protect Europe from a menace he appeared to disregard: the belligerent posture of Russia under Vladimir Putin's leadership.

The president warned of the risk that the alliance might fracture.

Trump's skepticism about the importance of the alliance was more than just rhetoric, as noted by various commentators. The authors argue that he persistently put forward ideas that could undermine the alliance or result in the United States pulling out, moves that would delight adversaries of America and astonish its assumed allies, who, although familiar with similar complaints from previous American leaders, were startled by Trump's sincere contemplation of such notions. His method of dealing with public obstacles was unorthodox, and when faced with setbacks, it was consistent with his aspirations.

Merkel's decision had repercussions for Germany.

President Trump's hesitance to back the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was not solely based on fiscal worries or tactical thoughts regarding Europe. Baker and Glasser's account underscores the intensely individual character of the occurrence. Angela Merkel, often identified as the person responsible for the challenges encountered across Europe, served as Germany's steadfast leader. The authors propose that the distaste Trump harbored for Merkel seemed to originate from an illogical source, shaped by his evident unease with strong-willed women and a more profound, innate tendency to recognize opponents. The animosity was so great, they note, that Trump would later punish Germany by ordering 12,000 troops withdrawn, a destabilizing decision, as both the allies and Trump's own advisers saw it, that emboldened Putin and his aggressive ambitions in Europe. The approach President Trump took to international diplomacy, marked by impulsive choices and minor complaints, was highlighted in his condemnation of Germany, where he disguised a personal vendetta as a major strategic maneuver.

The government frequently alienated countries that were considered its partners, while at the same time displaying a preference for autocratic rulers.

From the beginning, it was clear that he was more inclined to favor dictatorial rulers over America's traditional partners, demonstrated by his praise for China's harsh crackdown on peaceful protesters in 1989. Right from the start of his presidency, he directed his scrutiny towards Jeff Bezos of Amazon, who additionally holds ownership of The Washington Post. A senior member of his team was determined to take whatever steps necessary to damage Bezos.

For his first official trip abroad as president, he selected the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

President Trump broke with tradition by selecting Saudi Arabia for his first official trip abroad. The authors suggest that the behavior exhibited was more reflective of the former president's indifference to historical partners, with whom the United States had committed to working together to uphold global stability, than an emphasis on local authoritarian leaders.

The withdrawal of the United States from the international climate accord conceived in Paris.

The authors emphasize that Trump's choice to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, a notable move made in the first six months of his term, came after his tumultuous first series of trips abroad. His decision to withdraw from another carefully negotiated agreement further alienated the United States from its partner nations. Right from the beginning, there were no intentions to seek harmony, nor were there any attempts at moderation or efforts to bring supporters together. Trump emphasized a foreign policy centered on "America First," resulting in his withdrawal from treaties he considered unfavorable, which had been negotiated by his predecessors, with little concern for potential consequences or ensuing criticism.

Fostering a connection with Kim Jong-un, the leader of North Korea.

The former president's tendency to spurn traditional alliances led to a fondness for authoritarian rulers, a stance that his advisors found just as concerning as his criticism of NATO and his choice to withdraw from the Paris agreement. They argue that his perspective was remarkably simplistic, viewing dictators not so much as opponents but rather as counterparts. Xi, for example, had launched a widespread crackdown on opposition in response to growing ethnic conflicts in Xinjiang, a remote province located in China's far west, and orchestrated what could be considered the broadest system of authoritarian detention of critics in modern times. Under Putin's authoritarian regime, adversaries have been targeted in British public areas through the use of nerve agents by the military. Kim, of course, maintained an extensive network of labor camps and, moreover, had a substantial arsenal of nuclear arms targeting the United States.

Trump frequently ignored the counsel provided by his defense advisors.

The authors argue that Trump, despite being attracted to individuals with military distinctions, often disregarded the counsel of seasoned military experts. Trump frequently took pride in his choices for military leadership, but his understanding of the military seemed to align more closely with the tough personas from war movies than with the real-life specialists in charge of directing combat activities. The commanders sought to use their authoritative influence to guide an unpredictable president, whose spontaneous and seemingly uninformed urges frequently targeted foreign adversaries, in a way that mirrored their own strategic perspective.

McMaster frequently found himself in opposition to his views.

Baker and Glasser argue that the most intense conflicts within Trump's administration were not with adversaries outside the government but with top military officials, including the Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joe Dunford, who were initially among those he placed his greatest confidence in. The story they convey depicts a growing confrontation involving Trump's actions that led to a mix of astonishment, annoyance, resentment, and disbelief among those who observed it. The former Marine general's appointment as Secretary of Defense was heavily influenced by his nickname "Mad Dog." Mattis, a military strategist with a profound understanding of warfare history, had a career marked by the accumulation of an extensive library that influenced his nuanced approach to military engagements, which was in stark contrast to President Trump's more basic understanding. Trump also misunderstood the nature of his interactions with the contemplative Dunford and McMaster, who, despite his academic inclination towards national security matters and a tendency to excessively commend, found themselves progressively more alienated from Trump's approach. The three did not always see eye to eye, especially regarding strategies for interaction with Trump and their positions on the policy towards Afghanistan.

He disregarded counsel and offered his felicitations to Putin.

In 2018, Trump's personal outreach to Putin, commending him on his "landslide victory" in an election that the Western world largely viewed with skepticism, was a stark deviation from democratic norms and unprecedented in recent history of the presidency. This action greatly unsettled the members of his national security team, prompting them to question his fitness for the role of president and his perplexing readiness to placate a foreign opponent intent on weakening the United States, as documented by Baker and Glasser. The documents provided for the briefing underscored, with emphatic capital letters, the importance of not extending congratulations, much like warning a youngster of the dangers associated with making contact with a heated cooking appliance. Although he had previously expressed a firm stance against Russia's global conduct, Trump paradoxically offered Putin a summit in Washington, marking a significant shift from his prior assertions. The real issue was not his indifference to the advice given, but rather his intense backlash against those he deemed unfaithful following the media revelations, highlighting his habit of attacking the messenger rather than dealing with the actual content of the news.

He subtly characterized his military leaders as those who fell short of success.

Baker and Glasser recount an episode that vividly showcases Trump's indifference to the expertise and capabilities of his appointed team, who were profoundly committed to protecting the country from the president's own choices, as observed by several top officials in his administration. In this event, they depict a meeting in which Trump chastised his advisors, calling them inept and unsuccessful, and angrily proclaimed that they had lost the capacity to secure triumphs. This infamous "Tank meeting," as the White House termed the session with Jim Mattis and Joe Dunford at the Pentagon, occurred just as the country's military leaders were desperately trying to talk Trump out of abruptly withdrawing all forces from Afghanistan, a decision that would cause, as the generals knew well, "a tragedy of epic proportions." A seasoned adviser to Trump, who brought a wealth of experience from past administrations and was focused on instilling discipline within the White House, would eventually compare their attempts at coordination to arranging a party on a rocket, an analogy that underscored the chief executive's habit of making spontaneous decisions, welcoming input from various sources regardless of their knowledge, and prioritizing the demonstration of his dominance as the principal decision-maker over a comprehensive evaluation of the varying viewpoints, frequently settling on options without having all the necessary information.

Other Perspectives

• NATO's financial structure may have been perceived as imbalanced, with some member countries not meeting their defense spending commitments, which could justify calls for increased burden-sharing.
• Questioning the effectiveness of longstanding alliances like NATO could be seen as a legitimate exercise in reassessing and updating international relationships to reflect current geopolitical realities.
• The decision to withdraw troops from Germany could be argued as a strategic realignment of military resources in response to changing defense needs.
• Engaging with authoritarian leaders may be part of a realpolitik approach to diplomacy, where pragmatic interests take precedence over ideological considerations.
• Choosing Saudi Arabia for the first official trip could be defended as a strategic move to strengthen ties with a key regional player in the Middle East.
• The withdrawal from the Paris climate accord might be supported by the argument that it imposed unfair economic burdens on the United States and could harm its economic interests.
• Direct engagement with North Korea's Kim Jong-un could be seen as an unconventional but bold attempt to break the stalemate in denuclearization talks and reduce the risk of conflict.
• Ignoring defense advisors' counsel could be justified if the president believed that the military perspective was too narrow or not aligned with broader strategic goals.
• Congratulating Putin on his election victory might be interpreted as a diplomatic gesture aimed at maintaining open channels of communication with Russia.
• Criticizing military leaders could be part of a broader push for accountability and effectiveness within the armed forces.

Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election results culminated in the violent breach of the Capitol building on January 6th.

The section of the narrative delves into how Trump tapped into his followers' discontent, employing a relentless stream of misinformation in a bid to overturn the results of an election he had clearly been defeated in. Baker and Glasser argue that the campaign, launched before the final vote count was complete, represented not just a substantial attack on the integrity of the electoral process but also a more sinister risk to the essential American value of recognizing democratic authority through the peaceful handover of leadership.

Advocating the unfounded claim that widespread electoral deception occurred.

Throughout his prolonged presence in the spotlight, which spanned various sectors including property development, broadcast media, and governmental affairs, Trump demonstrated a remarkable talent for devising justifications for his behavior in any situation, regardless of ethical or factual considerations, which served him well. The outcome of the 2020 election demonstrated this to a degree that no prior effort had matched.

Claims surfaced suggesting the election results were predetermined.

Trump's strategy following the election was set in motion by Baker and Glasser well before the counting or casting of votes. They point out how he had begun complaining about a "rigged" election from the minute it became clear that Covid would trigger a massive wave of absentee voting, which he believed – incorrectly — was prone to fraud. During the period of the health emergency, Trump and the Republican leaders, who usually advocate for the dependability of in-person voting, engaged in absentee voting. They argue that the core issue was evident – the inclination of Democrats toward postal ballots during a health emergency, which, according to Trump, suggested that the emphasis of democracy had shifted from foundational ideals to the pursuit of desired results. The focus was not on the integrity of the voting process, but instead on achieving a win.

He continued to deny his evident defeat.

Trump's denial of his electoral defeat, as noted by Baker and Glasser, marked a departure from long-established norms in the political culture of the United States. Rather than working cooperatively with the incoming president's team or planning a resurgence akin to the Democratic efforts in the transitional period, Trump and his inner circle chose to continuously dispute the legitimacy of the election outcomes.

Persisting in making baseless allegations about the illegitimate appropriation of an election.

The core supporters were swayed by the false notion, which also affected some Republicans who knew it wasn't true, a point underscored by Baker and Glasser. The implicit consensus among the party members, once again demonstrating a hesitancy to confront Trump, highlighted an even more blatant exhibition of ethical weakness than the impeachment scandals. What could be the downside of allowing him a short moment of contentment, as was noted by a Republican to the authors?

Attempts were undertaken to hinder the formal approval of electoral votes and to dominate the relevant officials.

This part of the text delves into Trump's intricate strategy, which encompassed atypical legal theories and a deliberate campaign to sway legislators and his supporters, leading to the assembly of a large crowd on January 6, where he implored them to "Fight like hell" in order to preserve his position as president. Rudy Giuliani and a cohort of Trump's advocates propagated theories that implicated faulty Dominion voting machines and nefarious worldwide conspiracies connected to China and Venezuela. The outlandish assertions were baseless and would crumble under the slightest scrutiny. In their efforts to pinpoint electoral malpractice, the sole illegitimate ballots they found were cast for Trump rather than against him – a reality that the frequently enraged and habitually ill-informed former New York City mayor never admitted in public.

He provoked his followers with falsehoods and called upon them to take action.

The entire situation was laid bare for all to see. Numerous other efforts to undermine democratic elections globally were typically conducted clandestinely. Trump's approach was distinctive in that he aimed to craft a grandiose display, using his presidential power to stage a daily drama filled with opposition and anger via Twitter and other platforms. The president's allies in the legislature set up public hearings that were broadcast on television, and he himself spearheaded gatherings that stirred the crowd into a fervent uproar, directing their ire at the appointees he had chosen.

Advocating for the notion that state authorities disregard the decisions of the electorate.

Trump persistently pressured state authorities to overturn the election outcomes and his attorneys initiated a multitude of legal disputes, the book details. In a long and remarkable phone call with Brad Raffensperger, Georgia's Republican secretary of state, Trump pressed the official to find the 11,780 votes he needed, one more than what he lost by. Trump held the opinion that adjusting one's stance should not be a cause for concern. He subsequently insinuated that Raffensperger could be subjected to a legal investigation. President Trump called Michigan's state legislators to the White House, attempting to sway them to appoint Republican electors, even though Biden had won in that state.

The President attempted to influence his second-in-command to reject the official electoral count.

Baker and Glasser argue that Trump's effort to subvert his defeat culminated in what was his most consequential, and most outrageous, post-election strategy: pushing his compliant vice president to unilaterally reject the presidential electoral votes when Congress met to certify them on January 6, 2021. Since the day after the election, Trump made no secret of his stance, as evidenced by his declaration on social media in December, "Simply by sending them back to the States, AND WE WIN." In the subsequent weeks, having endured two impeachments and a special counsel's inquiry, he boldly asserted his belief that his vice president possessed the power to overturn the election results in his favor. During his time in office, Vice President Pence received guidance from a varied assembly of advisors, which included legal authorities who held unorthodox views on the constitution and conservative media personalities like Sean Hannity, mirroring the chaotic decision-making process that Baker and Glasser depict. Pence, known for his exceptional self-control in never publicly challenging Trump, took a decisive stance when it was most crucial. He articulated his conviction that such authority fell outside the scope of his responsibilities.

The January 6th attack on America's legislative hub.

Baker and Glasser contend that the events of that critical day should be seen not as a deviation, but as the most transparent manifestation of Trump's behavior. He sought to interrupt the counting of votes through legal means,

Practical Tips

• You can enhance your critical thinking skills by practicing the identification of logical fallacies in daily news articles. Start by learning about common logical fallacies, then each day, read a news article and write down any instances of these fallacies you find. This will train you to spot unfounded claims and understand the importance of evidence-based assertions.
• Develop a habit of verifying information through multiple sources before sharing it on social media. Whenever you come across a provocative or surprising claim, take a moment to check its validity using fact-checking websites or by looking up reputable news outlets' coverage on the topic. This helps prevent the spread of misinformation and encourages a culture of informed discourse.
• Encourage transparent communication by starting a peer discussion group where you and your friends or family can talk about current events and political developments. Make a rule that for every opinion expressed, the speaker must provide a source or reasoning for their viewpoint. This practice fosters an environment where claims are scrutinized and debated constructively, rather than taken at face value.