I didn’t cheat, I just broke the rules

The psychology of Trump

I grew up playing cards with my family probably not unlike other families. War, crazy eights, go fish, cribbage, you name it, but the one that sticks in my mind the most is euchre. I played it with my family as a kid, with my friends in high school when we had a spare, and even with my military buddies at college. It was a quick way to pass the time.

It’s possible, with the advances in computer games, that the game isn’t as popular as it used to be. I’ve also heard, on occasion, that it was very much an Ontario or Ottawa thing. If so, you may not be aware of the rules but it’s not important that you become an expert to understand why I think it provides an important insight into the psychology of Trump. Or at least a story I have involving the game does.

For the purposes of my story the important aspect of this game is “reneging.” If you know the rules of bridge then you already know what that is. For those of you under the age of 85 (sorry bridge players) reneging occurs when a player doesn't follow suit when they can. The penalty for a renege is that the opposing team is awarded two points, and the hand ends immediately. If the whole concept causes your eyes to glaze over, then you’ll appreciate this Family Guy opening.

When I was growing up it was always assumed that if a person reneged, it was a mistake. In college though I ran into someone who thought differently. Certainly reneging could happen by mistake, but it was also a strategy. You did it on purpose and if your opponents weren’t paying attention, too bad. Needless to say, this didn’t sit well with those of us who saw it as cheating. It wasn’t until years later that I understood his argument. If there’s a rule that covers it, it’s not cheating. Putting it into sports terms, nobody would argue tripping someone in hockey is cheating. If you do it and you’re caught you get a penalty so it’s not cheating, it’s just part of the game. Bribing players to throw a game would be an example of cheating.

A few years back I heard a story about Trump that reminded me of this. It was one of many stories concerning “the trail of unpaid bills he left behind from his days as an Atlantic City casino mogul.” Trump claims that when there are “cases in which it was clear he was being overcharged, or that a contractor had done bad work...he would refuse to pay the full amount of a final bill when it arrived.” If the contractor disagreed, they were welcome to sue him. To many people that sounds unethical, but viewed in the context of my euchre story it makes perfect sense. Stealing is wrong. Not paying your contractors what you agreed to is just business. He’s not cheating, he’s breaking a rule, and if you don’t like it, you can sue him.

I did not tell that story to defend Trump. I told it as I think it provides important insight into how Trump thinks and is vital to understanding many of his recent tariff threats. Trade agreements, like the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) which Trump negotiated and called a “tremendous victory for America,” contain sections which detail how disputes can be settled. The USMCA precludes the use of tariffs except in special circumstances and chapter 31 of the agreement contains procedures for resolving disputes, which Canada and Mexico could use for Trump’s recent blanket tariff threats. You likely see where I’m going at this point. The agreement has a clause covering trade disputes, so Trump isn’t cheating, he’s just breaking the rules and if Canada and Mexico don’t like it, they can sue him. Good luck with that.

Conclusion

Trump appears to be bringing his business practices to international relations, the same approach that left a string of small business failures in his wake. This worked for Trump when he was building the Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City because there was always another contractor dazzled by the big contract and willing to risk not getting paid. How this will translate to international relations remains to be seen. Like Trump, America is the big dog, and if Trump thinks America isn’t getting value out of an agreement, he’ll just ignore it and do what he wants.

In many ways Trump is consciously or unconsciously advocating for a return to a very old approach to international relations summed up most elegantly by Thucydides in his History of the Peloponnesian War: “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” When Trump looks at the world, he doesn’t see allies and adversaries but rather winners and losers. The game is about winning and ethics and loyalty are for losers. Henry Kissinger might have stated it more generously as “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.” Something erstwhile American allies would best learn quickly.