Why Do So Many People Think Trump Is Good? The work of the moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre helps illuminate … how Western culture evolved to where millions of us—and not just Republicans and Trump supporters—[are] unable to make basic moral judgments.
David Brooks, The Atlantic, 7/8/25
David Brooks, who alleges to be a conservative at the New York Times and PBS (which means he may be a “liberal” who hasn’t completely lost his marbles yet), published a “philosophical” critique of Donald Trump based on his reading of the Scottish-American philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre. Unfortunately, Brook’s critique of Trump is a shallow name-dropping “intellectualism” (a political agenda couched in pseudo-philosophical terms).
Trump isn’t a perfect person. I don’t like some of the things he says, e.g., his calling Gavin Newsom, “Gavin Newscum” and so on. Nor do I like Newsome’s equally juvenile reply that Trump is “the real scum”. We could do with a good bit less of both.
The first problem with Brooks’ article is his title. It’s not clear that many people think Trump “is good.” Most supporters think he’s doing necessary things after the “disastrous” Biden years. If Brooks had written “Trumpism” rather than “Trump” his title might make sense. But I am astonished that Brooks thinks he’s qualified to make moral judgments on Trump’s soul. One can have opinions about that, as I do, but I would not pretend to be able to divine the state of Trump’s soul. Judging souls, with a few exceptions (Ted Bundy, etc.) is generally above my pay grade and it is above Brooks’ too, but, having acquired an undergraduate philosophy degree, he doesn’t appear to know that.
Brooks begins his essay with this gem,
How is it that half of America looks at Trump and doesn’t find him morally repellent? He lies, cheats, steals, betrays, and behaves cruelly and corruptly, and more than 70 million Americans find him, at the very least, morally acceptable.
Actually, I thought Brooks was talking about Joe Biden here. Trump did not, after all, have to issue pre-emptive pardons for his whole family and many of his henchmen (Fauci, comrade Milley, the Jan. 6th committee).
Brooks easily reels off the usual Democrat Party talking points, e.g., Trump steals, etc. One of the early Democrat-media talking points was that Trump ran for president to increase his own wealth. In fact, one has to go to the leftist BBC to learn that Trump lost a billion dollars during his first term. Not the best thief, is he?
Brooks then provides a capsule recounting of the history of Western moral philosophy from the Ancient Greeks to MacIntyre in order manufacture a negative judgment on Trump. Appealing to “Athens in the age of Aristotle,” Brooks lectures us that
[P]eople in [Aristotle’s age] grew up in a dense network of family, tribe, city, and nation [determining] … a social role … [that] came with certain standards of excellence, a code [of conduct] … [A] person sought to live up to those standards not only for honor and money … but because they wanted to measure up. A teacher would not let a student bribe his way to higher grades because that would betray the intrinsic qualities of excellence inherent in being a teacher.
I confess that Brooks final sentence in this passage, about what a teacher would not do, passing strange. Yes, the ancient Athenians had a set of ideals, as do many of us, but it apparently had little to do with how Brooks’ idealized ancient Athenians actually behaved. Has Brooks ever read Plato’s critique of Alcibiades in the Symposium?
Brooks confuses between social ideals and actual practice. In Ancient Athens the punishment for adultery, especially for women, was extremely harsh by today’s standards: “Nonetheless it seems clear that Athenian women (and men) breached the [mandated] sexual code ….” What one finds it a philosophical work, or in a common societal code, is one thing. How people actually behave is something else entirely.
After summarizing the entire history of Western moral philosophy in a thousand words (a nice trick), Brooks manages to find a route from the declining Western moral tradition, manifested in the modern lack of belief in “a permanent moral order,” to Donald Trump,
[If there’s not a permanent moral order] then there are only two ways to settle our differences: coercion or manipulation. … [A]dvertisers, demagogues, and influencers try to manipulate our emotions … [to] help them get what they want. (Welcome to the world of that master manipulator, Donald Trump.)
Is Brooks here talking about Donald Trump or FDR?
Those who worked closely with [FDR] attested to the brilliance of his mind and breadth of knowledge. … The other side of that political intelligence was a lack of frankness, a passion for manipulation, a mental and emotional shallowness and [some] vindictiveness. – New York Times, 9/13/85
And is FDR a product of the decline in Western moral philosophy too? Is the explanation for FDR’s manipulative behavior and vindictiveness explained by the fall of the Western moral idea of a permanent moral order or is it a tad simpler, that FDR was in some respects a shit of a person? Or is Brooks talking about Joe Biden, who denied both Trump and his Democrat rival RFK Jr. sufficient Secret Service protection before the Butler assassination attempt and who casually presided over record numbers of dead people at the southern border? Oh wait! None of that counts in the New York Times’ or PBS’ Democrat Party talking points.
Brooks attempted coup de grace is comical,
Trump doesn’t even try to speak the language of morality. When he pardons unrepentant sleazeballs, it doesn’t seem to even occur to him that he is doing something that weakens our shared moral norms. Trump speaks the languages we moderns can understand. [That] of preference: I want. The language of power: I have the leverage.
Is Brooks again confusing Trump with his beloved Biden’s pardoning of unrepentant sleazeballs? And is Trump’s central sin that of the faculty lounge, that he doesn’t use the “right” words, e.g., when Trump recently criticized Putin, he used the language of “I want”: “I’m not happy with him.” However, Trump explained why he’s not happy with Putin,
Putin is not treating human beings right. … [He’s] killing too many people. So … I’ve approved … sending defensive weapons to Ukraine …
Shocker: That is the language of morality even if it’s not put the way a professor of philosophy might put it.
In fact, it is one of Aristotle’s main points that Plato’s “romanticized” idea of the “philosopher king” is unworkable. There is a distinction of kind between theoretical (philosophical) and practical wisdom. Philosophy is one of the most beautiful accomplishments of Western civilization and an essential part of the mix (even of political wisdom). But one must understand what limited role it plays there. Aristotle knew that “it was not merely unnecessary for a king to be a philosopher, but even distinct disadvantage.”
One is not going to solve the problems of Western civilization by picking a choir boy (or a philosophy professor) for president by raiding the faculty lounge … especially by someone who never made it there. Part of what one needs is a warrior (who is unbowed when shot in the face). But the positive account of Trump’s abilities is another long story.
Agree/Disagree with the author(s)? Let them know in the comments below and be heard by 10’s of thousands of CDN readers each day!