The Art Of The Ghost: Donald Trump's Ghostwriter Tells All
"Donald Trump's Ghostwriter Tells All," the headline on the New Yorker piece by Jane Mayer reads. And the subhead:
"The Art of the Deal" made America see Trump as a charmer with an unfailing knack for business. Tony Schwartz helped create that myth--and regrets it.
The book made "The Donald," as they used to call him in the New York Post, big beyond New York City. People all thought the book was his words, his thinking, the secrets behind his success:
The book expanded Trump's renown far beyond New York City, making him an emblem of the successful tycoon. Edward Kosner, the former editor and publisher of New York, where Schwartz worked as a writer at the time, says, "Tony created Trump. He's Dr. Frankenstein."Starting in late 1985, Schwartz spent eighteen months with Trump--camping out in his office, joining him on his helicopter, tagging along at meetings, and spending weekends with him at his Manhattan apartment and his Florida estate. During that period, Schwartz felt, he had got to know him better than almost anyone else outside the Trump family. Until Schwartz posted the tweet, though, he had not spoken publicly about Trump for decades. It had never been his ambition to be a ghostwriter, and he had been glad to move on. But, as he watched a replay of the new candidate holding forth for forty-five minutes, he noticed something strange: over the decades, Trump appeared to have convinced himself that he had written the book. Schwartz recalls thinking, "If he could lie about that on Day One--when it was so easily refuted--he is likely to lie about anything."
The interview process:
Trump had been forthcoming with him during the New York interview, but it hadn't required much time or deep reflection. For the book, though, Trump needed to provide him with sustained, thoughtful recollections. He asked Trump to describe his childhood in detail. After sitting for only a few minutes in his suit and tie, Trump became impatient and irritable. He looked fidgety, Schwartz recalls, "like a kindergartner who can't sit still in a classroom." Even when Schwartz pressed him, Trump seemed to remember almost nothing of his youth, and made it clear that he was bored. Far more quickly than Schwartz had expected, Trump ended the meeting.Week after week, the pattern repeated itself. Schwartz tried to limit the sessions to smaller increments of time, but Trump's contributions remained oddly truncated and superficial.
"Trump has been written about a thousand ways from Sunday, but this fundamental aspect of who he is doesn't seem to be fully understood," Schwartz told me. "It's implicit in a lot of what people write, but it's never explicit--or, at least, I haven't seen it. And that is that it's impossible to keep him focussed on any topic, other than his own self-aggrandizement, for more than a few minutes, and even then . . . " Schwartz trailed off, shaking his head in amazement. He regards Trump's inability to concentrate as alarming in a Presidential candidate. "If he had to be briefed on a crisis in the Situation Room, it's impossible to imagine him paying attention over a long period of time," he said.
In a recent phone interview, Trump told me that, to the contrary, he has the skill that matters most in a crisis: the ability to forge compromises. The reason he touted "The Art of the Deal" in his announcement, he explained, was that he believes that recent Presidents have lacked his toughness and finesse: "Look at the trade deficit with China. Look at the Iran deal. I've made a fortune by making deals. I do that. I do that well. That's what I do."
But Schwartz believes that Trump's short attention span has left him with "a stunning level of superficial knowledge and plain ignorance." He said, "That's why he so prefers TV as his first news source--information comes in easily digestible sound bites." He added, "I seriously doubt that Trump has ever read a book straight through in his adult life." During the eighteen months that he observed Trump, Schwartz said, he never saw a book on Trump's desk, or elsewhere in his office, or in his apartment.
About Trump:
Schwartz says of Trump, "He lied strategically. He had a complete lack of conscience about it." Since most people are "constrained by the truth," Trump's indifference to it "gave him a strange advantage."When challenged about the facts, Schwartz says, Trump would often double down, repeat himself, and grow belligerent. This quality was recently on display after Trump posted on Twitter a derogatory image of Hillary Clinton that contained a six-pointed star lifted from a white-supremacist Web site. Campaign staffers took the image down, but two days later Trump angrily defended it, insisting that there was no anti-Semitic implication. Whenever "the thin veneer of Trump's vanity is challenged," Schwartz says, he overreacts--not an ideal quality in a head of state.
...When Schwartz began writing "The Art of the Deal," he realized that he needed to put an acceptable face on Trump's loose relationship with the truth. So he concocted an artful euphemism. Writing in Trump's voice, he explained to the reader, "I play to people's fantasies. . . . People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole. It's an innocent form of exaggeration--and it's a very effective form of promotion." Schwartz now disavows the passage. "Deceit," he told me, is never "innocent." He added, " 'Truthful hyperbole' is a contradiction in terms. It's a way of saying, 'It's a lie, but who cares?' " Trump, he said, loved the phrase.
Make room for daddy:
In "The Art of the Deal," Trump cites his father as "the most important influence on me," but in his telling his father's main legacy was teaching him the importance of "toughness." Beyond that, Schwartz says, Trump "barely talked about his father--he didn't want his success to be seen as having anything to do with him." But when [the Village Voice's Wayne] Barrett investigated he found that Trump's father was instrumental in his son's rise, financially and politically. In the book, Trump says that "my energy and my enthusiasm" explain how, as a twenty-nine-year-old with few accomplishments, he acquired the Grand Hyatt Hotel. Barrett reports, however, that Trump's father had to co-sign the many contracts that the deal required. He also lent Trump seven and a half million dollars to get started as a casino owner in Atlantic City; at one point, when Trump couldn't meet payments on other loans, his father tried to tide him over by sending a lawyer to buy some three million dollars' worth of gambling chips. Barrett told me, "Donald did make some smart moves himself, particularly in assembling the site for the Trump Tower. That was a stroke of genius." Nonetheless, he said, "The notion that he's a self-made man is a joke. But I guess they couldn't call the book 'The Art of My Father's Deals.' "
Tony Schwartz has an agenda -- he is an embarrassed liberal who sold out.
But you can look to Barrett and other sources to see -- rather easily -- to fact-check a good deal of this stuff.
This isn't to say Hillary is peachy-keen to vote for. As I keep putting it, she's just the corrupt adult in the picture -- the known quantity; corruption as usual.
There's a great piece at Reason, by Jesse Walker: "Clinton vs. Trump: Who's Worse? Libertarian-leaning luminaries weigh in." A few of these:
Radley Balko
Washington Post blogger and former reason staffer
"Ugh. I guess I'd say Trump is worse. Clinton is at least a known commodity, and clearly better on trade and immigration, though even those are grading on a steep curve. Trump seems marginally less enthusiastic about starting wars, but who knows? He's been all over the place. On criminal justice, Clinton has a proven record of awfulness, but has vaguely vowed to do better. Trump has a record of demagoguing crime, has brought horrendous people like Rudy Giuliani and Chris Christie into his campaign, and has vowed a heaping pile of more awfulness as president. So I guess that one goes to Clinton. I'd imagine Clinton would be a standard center-left Democrat on tax, spend, and regulatory issues. Trump's policies could well be economically calamitous. So again, a begrudging nod to Clinton."It's probably also worth noting that as a white guy, I'm of a demographic that has the least to fear from a Trump presidency (and there's still plenty to fear). For Latinos, blacks, and Muslims, the prospect must be terrifying. So I guess in short, I'm thinking Clinton would be terrible. But Trump would be worse, and could be catastrophic."
Penn Jillette
half of the comedy/magic team Penn & Teller
"For many years I have believed two things about presidential politics: 1. Every major-party candidate was smarter than me. 2. There is no one worse than Hillary Clinton."I have been proven wrong on both of these this year."
Virginia Postrel
Bloomberg View columnist and former reason editor
"That the president of the United States should not be a self-aggrandizing, xenophobic bully who scorns the rule of law, lacks a sixth-grade knowledge of how the government works, neither appreciates nor understands the decentralized workings of the economy, and believes conspiracy theories he reads in the National Enquirer shouldn't be something readers of reason need to be convinced of. But, alas, too many libertarians have convinced themselves that all politicians are equally terrible (correctly discerning that Hillary Clinton is awful in many ways) and that we'd be better off if someone would blow up the system. Clinton would still be subject to the checks that system provides, including the demand for a modicum of deference to the law. For the very reason that she is such a conventional politician, her opponents would know how to effectively oppose her. Trump would be much harder to counter and would simply ignore the checks on his powers, claiming--with some justification--a mandate for one-man rule."
Why are Tony Schwartz's revelations about Trump any more disqualifying than Kessler or Byrne's revelations about Hillary? Neither is fit to be president. Four years of potential disaster await the US after this election - no matter who wins.
We have Trump's knee-jerk isolationism versus Hillary's near-chronic interventionism. In the absolute, both are wrong-headed policies that will have unfortunate long-term consequences for the US.
Neither of them is prepared (or equipped) to face the truth and tackle the underlying causes of the US's current problems. Both are in this for their own self-aggrandizement.
==============================
Normally I like Postrel's insights, but on this one she's using a hatred of Trump to manufacture out of whole cloth an argument for Hillary.
Hillary has never, in her public life, shown a "deference for the law." Why would she start to do so after attaining the most powerful office in the country?
Obama has already shown us how a president can use executive orders and agency regulators to bypass Congress and its oversight function. So long, check. Goodbye, balance.
Obama has presented something like one budget in four years. How many do you think the next president (Hillary or Trump) will present?
No matter who gets elected, Obama has already shown how a president can avoid most of the checks and balances built into the system. What makes Postrel think that Hillary will be bound by them any more than Trump would?
Conan the Grammarian at July 18, 2016 6:15 AM
If the purpose here is to convince me not to vote for Trump, it ain't gonna work. By the end of Clinton's second term (and if she wins this year, there's no doubt she will win a second term), American will be reduced to a banana republic, with all that that implies: talent and effort will mean nothing; connections will mean everything. Political correctness will whipsaw society, as things that were correct five minutes ago become incorrect, and vice versa. Some groups will become scapegoat groups, as the government needs to find something external that it can blame for its failures. (And who is the scapegoat group can change on a moment's notice.)
If Clinton wins, she will have the levers of a vast political apparatus and will have the opportunity rule unconstrained by either law or social mores. If Trump wins, he won't have access to that; he will have to form coalitions and follow established processes in order to govern. That's reason #1 to vote for Trump.
Cousin Dave at July 18, 2016 6:16 AM
The difference is that Clinton can be blackmailed with her rogue email server. I'm very confident that multiple foreign intelligence services have copies.
Some are friendly. Some are not. All will use that for leverage.
If Hillary does something that seems to be from left field, that's probably why.
Not to mention her penchant for exercising the politics of personal enrichment.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 18, 2016 8:00 AM
@Cousin Dave - and there's your problem, right there.
It's not the President's job to "govern".
Clinton (if elected) won't have the opportunity to "rule", as you suggest - even a minority-Republican congress simply won't allow it. She may be able to do some sketchy things by executive order and the selective use of executive powers - as the current incumbent does - but anything substantive will require Congress' power of the purse and she won't get it.
Trump (if elected) can form all the coalitions he wants, although I've seen nothing in his affect or demeanor to indicate that he has any skill in that area at all. He's a classic narcissist with an overwhelming belief in his own abilities, he doesn't coalesce with anybody. But regardless of that, he won't get to 'govern' in the way he wants because the Congress (and the courts) simply won't let him - the very 'established processes' to which you refer (including the Constitution and 250-odd years of law and precedent) will simply not allow him to do virtually-all of the things he is running his campaign on.
Trade deals (President does not have unilateral treaty power)
Ending birthright citizenship (not within the power of the President).
Building a wall on the border (Requires Congressional appropriations)
And make Mexico pay for it (he hasn't said how this will be done, but there are no means for doing it that are within Presidential powers)
A 'total shutdown of Muslims entering this country' (not a Presidential power.)
Waterboarding terrorists 'and a whole lot worse" - won't last 5 minutes under Congressional scrutiny and court judgements. Torturing people is against the law.
and killing their families - see above. The very Constitution speaks to 'corruption of blood', you can only conclude that he's never read and understood it.
Gold standard - not a Presidential power.
Libel law reform - not a Presidential power. Not even a Federal power.
Maintain SS and increase benefits - Not possible. The system is already broke and going more broke every day. It's a Ponzi scheme as it is - anyone promising to maintain and even expand it is self-evidently either delusional or arithmetically-incompetent, and hopes that you are too.
And so on.
He's running a campaign based entirely on gut feelings and populist rhetoric, promising things he will have no power to deliver. If elected, he will be an empty suit - forgive me, a suit full of hot air. He will bloviate and bluster, but he cannot form the alliances you suggest he will to implement his promises for the simple reason that almost-all his promises are either unlawful, un-Constititional or simply physically/arithmetically impossible. Almost-all of Trump's promises and 'policies' are nothing more than wishful-thinking for low-information voters - like saying he will forge an alliance with Ming the Merciless to colonize Mars - it has no existence in reality, beyond his imagination and wish that it were so.
That (those) are reasons #1 thru #14 to vote for anyone but Trump.
llater,
llamas
llamas at July 18, 2016 8:04 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91dW9pUA1BI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZNzz4SaTYk
jerry at July 18, 2016 8:39 AM
So just keep voting for the pro-Islam party, while (rightly) railing against islam. Because that makes sense.
momof4fst at July 18, 2016 9:25 AM
"....Clinton would still be subject to the checks that system provides, including the demand for a modicum of deference to the law....."
Got it. Color me totally convinced.
roadgeek at July 18, 2016 10:05 AM
> Donald Trump's Ghostwriter
> Tells All
Here's a piece with similar aftertaste. A lot of journos who thought they were merrily mocking him for all of these decades now realize they were just pissing him off, fueling his fire.
You would not believe how much I loved Spy magazine in the late '80s.
Crid at July 18, 2016 10:11 AM
> roadgeek at July 18, 2016 10:05 AM
☑
I admire the bitterness of this sentiment more than its present expression. Emotions are important.
Crid at July 18, 2016 10:15 AM
What can I say Crid. That claim for Hillary is as believable as the Donald's that he'll make Mexico build him a wall.
Ben at July 18, 2016 12:33 PM
"but anything substantive will require Congress' power of the purse and she won't get it."
Obama has succeeded in spending in several areas without a Congressional appropriation. After all, it's the Executive branch that runs the Treasury. And while it's technically independent, the Federal Reserve is more answerable to the Executive than to the Legislature. Once Hillary succeeds in ramming her choice for a SCOTUS justice through, she'll have a supine, rubber-stamp Court that will defer to the executive branch on nearly all matters.
I will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances whatsoever. If things break down to the point where it becomes clear that voting just won't matter, then I'll write in a vote for Dan Gurney.
Cousin Dave at July 18, 2016 1:42 PM
> I'll write in a vote for Dan Gurney.
☑
Crid at July 18, 2016 3:17 PM
""So just keep voting for the pro-Islam party, while (rightly) railing against islam. Because that makes sense.""
You're absolutely right Momof4 but wrong for leaving out:
Railing against political correctness
Railing against first amendment infringement
Railing against cultural relativism
Railing against unearned power of feminism/??
Wouldn't take long to go back and find the many blogs/posts about what has been paid a whole lot of what appears to be lip service for these serious issues.
Trump isn't a billionaire - check
Trump isn't successful at business - check
Trump doesn't know dealmaking - check
Trump is isolationist - check
Trump hates women - check
Trump is racist - check
Trump is 'unqualified'(my favorite) - check
Trump will be the end of the world - (coming)
Has it turned into democratictalkingpoints.com? One may think so but it hasn't directly. Look to the writers of last blog postings/references then look up what they ahve been saying. This here is antitrump'right'mediatalkingpoints.com.
But hey y'all, your next candidate (maybe Mitt2!) he'll put the brakes on cheap labor and cultural denial importation, PC, he'll not stand for the race baiting, he'll stand up to what so many said were the cesspool media.
Seeing so many who railed against this for years now looking to support the very entity who will celebrate! doing these above listed things is fucking appalling.
TPW at July 18, 2016 4:32 PM
There should be no support for the existing system. In case you haven't noticed, it fines you for not being able to afford the health care plan it forces on you. It lies, boldly and often, about that and nearly everything else in public policy.
And it takes advantage of the American tendency not to look anything up before swallowing a story whole. That's how Obama was elected after white guilt was harvested.
Radwaste at July 18, 2016 4:41 PM
One theme from Amy's post —Schwartz thoughtful speculation that Trump hasn't read a book in his adult life— has been haunting me all day, and I fear it applies also to TPW.
People are so eager for this to be IT, y'know? 'Right NOW, man! This and nothing else ever!' They want the conflict to happen this very moment!
This impatience betokens precisely the short attention span Schwartz describes... Trump Zombies want to have their fistfight immediately, before they forget how pissed off they are. (They will, you should note, never remember to send a check in to campaign headquarters. Are we certain they'll remember to show up at the polls one hundred and twelve days from now?)
Further, they insist that the election in undeniably binary: 'It's Trump or it's Hillary! You can't deny that! You have to choose and you have to choose to be my friend right now all the way or you're a complete asshole!'
Well, Beyotch, no. I won't be spoken to in that tone of voice by a man with his dick in his hand.
Koch worded it well for this scorching summer, but Debs had phrased it gracefully many years ago.
Crid at July 18, 2016 5:27 PM
Actually, I just read "The Art of the Deal." It was published way back in 1987 and I had a very difficult time tracking it down at several local libraries; they either didn't have it at all or it was loaned out with a long wait list!
I rather enjoyed the book and would recommend reading it.
Also, Amy, I'm with you:
"Tony Schwartz has an agenda -- he is an embarrassed liberal who sold out."
Or he is trying to do more cashing in! Let's see . . . let me "tell all" and see how much money they give me!
charles at July 18, 2016 5:31 PM
Yes, like that. No insight more intricate than what you heard in 7th grade. 'He's just doing that for attention!'
Crid at July 18, 2016 5:51 PM
"Rather" enjoyed!
Crid at July 18, 2016 5:52 PM
Crid at July 18, 2016 6:04 PM
He regards Trump's inability to concentrate as alarming in a Presidential candidate. "If he had to be briefed on a crisis in the Situation Room, it's impossible to imagine him paying attention over a long period of time," he said.
That may explain the first night of the RNC. Why in the everloving hell would the candidate schedule an interview on the Golf Channel on the same night as the kickoff -- while the convention was going on?
The Golf Channel... ?!
Kevin at July 18, 2016 8:18 PM
I see what you're getting at, but are the convention TV audiences as precious to a campaign as they used to be? There are hundreds of channels, and anyone with a smartphone or an internet connection is going to be getting a personally customized/fragmented view of the convention anyway. Even when I was in grade school, which was back before electricity, everyone knew that the conventions were completely staged-managed and devoid of political action... After Chicago '68, both parties made it a point to avoid surprises.
Monday afternoon would have been the biggest leakage of actual political passion in almost 50 years of convention, but even Trump's handlers squelched that noise in less than an hour.
Last week everyone made a point of saying that the selection and presentation of Pence were handled weakly, but that it probably didn't matter. Perhaps that's now true of the convention as well: No voters are going to be persuaded by anything said on the podium. Do you think Mel's apparent plagiarism of Michelle is going to do the campaign any damage? Me neither... And not just because it's the Trump campaign. The language was so typical that it could almost pass for an honest mistake.
Also, the weasel owns golf courses.
Crid at July 19, 2016 1:45 AM
"but are the convention TV audiences as precious to a campaign as they used to be? "
I'd say not. I recall that in the 1960s and '70s, the three major networks went wall-to-wall with coverage during convention season. It got to a ridiculous point, where they'd be doing interviews with people like county commissioners from the county where the convention was being held, to fill up time and satisfy the political junkies. Ted Turner was just getting the TBS network launched in 1976, and one of its taglines that summer was "The Un-Conventional Channel", because they weren't doing any convention coverage and were continuing with their regular programming. (Watching the hopeless mid-1970s Atlanta Braves every evening... those were the days.)
Nonetheless, the conventions mattered to people a lot more then. You'd sit as a family and watch the major convention events, and probably talk about it with people the next day. There was a lot of interest in the process; ordinary people wanted to keep tabs on what their prospective governing class was up to. I think we lost something important there.
Cousin Dave at July 19, 2016 6:53 AM
Because there are no surprises, it seems like the only people watching the Republican Convention these days are the Democrats. And I don't think the Republicans really even give a hoot at what goes on at the other convention.
Fayd at July 19, 2016 11:34 AM
Nonetheless, the conventions mattered to people a lot more then. You'd sit as a family and watch the major convention events, and probably talk about it with people the next day. There was a lot of interest in the process; ordinary people wanted to keep tabs on what their prospective governing class was up to. I think we lost something important there.
Totally agree. We were better for it.
Kevin at July 19, 2016 2:00 PM
Well, there were a lot of things that "mattered to people" when it was a three-network universe. People used to watch "Mayberry RFD" and "The Mary Tyler Moore Show." These weren't notably grand enterprises, and nor was "Meet The Press": They were just "What's on." That hyperconcentration of attention is what made the conventions so unwatchably dull.
Crid at July 19, 2016 3:16 PM
Andnor. Y'know.
Crid at July 19, 2016 3:16 PM
I think you are coming at things from the wrong direction Cousin Dave. People no longer care what happens at the conventions because nothing that happens at the convention matters. All the significant issues have been decided long before they get together.
What issues of note have arrived?
1. Apparently having Red, White, and Blue elevators is racist. (yeah, I know ...)
2. Most political speeches are still boring banalities repeated over and over again.
3. NeverTrump isn't going to get their way.
Number 3 is significant but other than that it is just a paid infomercial.
Ben at July 19, 2016 3:22 PM
This posting makes a good case for not voting for Trump. There is no good case for voting for Hillary. She will not let herself be subject to the checks of the constitution, just like Obama hasn't.
mpetrie98 at July 20, 2016 9:13 PM
Leave a comment