Is Donald Trump like Gail Wynand?

[RobinReborn]

I think he is...

[Jonathan]

I also think he is, and that if Rand were alive she'd have a crush on him.

J

[PDS]

No.

The premise of your question assumes we know who Donald Trump is.

I don't think we know who he is.

On the contrary, Gail Wynand has always been one of my favorite AR characters--mainly because I felt I always knew exactly who he was.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robin,

Wynand?

You see Trump's soul as producing mediocre stuff to appeal to the mediocre in the masses so he can rule over them while secretly admiring the good stuff?

Obviously, I don't agree.

If all you're saying is Trump is an alpha-male with a domineering swagger you don't like, I see that.

There's a character Ayn Rand never did get right in her fictional portrayals, the celebrity.

She tried several times, especially in one short story ("Her Second Career") where a movie star goes back to the bottom to see if her talent was special enough to get her back on top. But the star ended up being a setup character to respond with surprise, dismay, etc., because she learned Rand's idea was correct, not her own illusion. In other words, she was merely a fall guy for the idea in the story, not an actual celebrity who scraps like hell with competitors, is vain and insecure at the same time, who periodically obsesses over a triviality, who lives constantly stirring up emotions (good and bad) as a surrounding hurricane, and so on. And the celebrity starlet in Ideal, Kay Gonda, is a Randian heroine, but she does not resemble any celebrity I ever met or heard of except, maybe, in her loneliness.

I know the celebrity profile because I used to produce pop singers. I had to learn them the hard way because learning stuff from Rand did not prepare me for what I encountered when I entered that world.

Trump has that side to him. Wynand never did. In fact, he never came close.

Remove this celebrity side from Trump and you will see a far different man, one who builds skyscrapers because he loves to. And that reminds me of a different Randian hero.

Michael

[RobinReborn]

The biggest Skyscraper that Roark built was built for Wynand... (it may have been the only one, I don't remember if the Enright Building was a skyscaper or not or if I'm missing some other building, Roark wanted to build but he was willing to build personal houses and gas stations, Trump probably isn't).

I don't know much about celebrity so I can't really comment on that.

What Trump products do you like? I've barely watched his TV products but I don't know anybody that claims they are high brow or have any sort of longevity. I can't comment on his buildings, but I don't think he deserves that much credit for them given that it was his father who helped him get into the real estate industry.

I don't see Wynand's products are inferior, I see them as reflections of what people already want. Roark builds things that are original. Wynand tells (stupid) people what they want to hear. That's what I think Trump is doing with his egregious statements (only his are deliberately going against political correctness), the fact that he's flip flopped on a few issues (like abortion) make him look more like Wynand to me. It's not clear to me that Trump is creative, he's able to make deals but it's not clear to me that anything he's done couldn't be done by somebody else (in this respect he's like the minor character John Erik Snyte).

[Jonathan]

What Trump products do you like? I've barely watched his TV products but I don't know anybody that claims they are high brow or have any sort of longevity.

The Celebrity Apprentice is anything but "highbrow," but it's fun as hell. It's a typical "reality" TV show with the atypical feature that the celebrity contestants have to be creative, and they have to produce and sell. I think that it has consistently done well in the ratings -- it keeps getting renewed and hyped and watched.

J

[RobinReborn]

OK, so Trump is smart enough to figure out how to make money from other's creativity, sounds like what Wynand did with Toohey.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

OK, so Trump is smart enough to figure out how to make money from other's creativity, sounds like what Wynand did with Toohey.

RR,

Any large scale project needs a team, whether TV show, real estate development, worldwide beauty pageant, etc. The nature of the project doesn't allow one person to do it all.

And, yes, you better hire creative and competent people. And yes, you do it on the market to make money.

How is that a bad thing like you are insinuating?

EDIT: And here's an added thought. The theme of Toohey was enshrinement of mediocrity. The theme of The Apprentice was competition based on excellence and competence, even when it moved to test celebrities. So, no, it doesn't sound like what Wynand did with Toohey on any kind of moral level.

Michael

[RobinReborn]

I've never watched the apprentice, but somehow I don't trust Trump's judgement on what is excellent.

I'm not trying to say Trump's a bad person, I don't think Wynand was a bad person either. They're both intelligent people who have produced valuable things. But they fail to live up the their potential.

Ayn Rand said Wynand was the man who could be great but wasn't.

Here's a quote

"Wynand is a prime mover who has gone wrong by making one crucial mistake, the mistake made by so many great men- that of placing his goal within others, of seeking greatness in power over others [this is particularly relevant given the apprentice, his attempts to become president and his vast political contributions] (which is a form of spiritual collectivism). A man who should have been a Roark. Wynand destroyed himself by living his life as a secondhander. Wynand is the man who makes the Tooheys possible since the Tooheys are impotent by themselves."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I've barely watched his TV products but I don't know anybody that claims they are high brow or have any sort of longevity.

RR,

Here, educate yourself: The Apprentice.

Fourteen years straight of top success.

How many other top TV shows can claim that? There are others, but it's a pretty exclusive club.

And there will be reruns, DVD's, etc., for decades. So how does that not "have any sort of longevity"?

Let me make a suggestion. Instead of judging, then trying to find facts that fit your prejudice while ignoring those that don't fit, and just spouting opinions you heard others say, start over.

Look at the facts as if seeing them for the first time. By facts, I mean look at Trump's real estate projects, skim through a few books, watch a few of the TV shows, not to see if you are wrong. Merely to see what they are. This stuff is all over the Internet, so it's easy to find.

Then judge.

I call this cognitive before normative. You are doing the contrary in your posts, normative before cognitive. You are claiming, as if proud of it, that you are not familiar with Trump's work, but you are sure it is bad.

How can you judge something when you don't even know what it is? Only by parroting what others say. That's the only way.

And that's second-hand thinking. You have a good mind. I recommend you use it first-hand.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Nope--that is, nope to the thread-starting question. Roark and Wynand: Nietzschean man vetted by Rand as right and as wrong then vetted by acts and consequences. Trump doesn't fit into this intellectual and moral esthetic cosmology.

--Brant

[Jules Troy]

I heard Al-Jazeera was going to have thier own version where the winner gets to go on stage and Baghdadi says "your martyred!"

Boom? ?

[Jonathan]

I've barely watched his TV products but I don't know anybody that claims they are high brow or have any sort of longevity.

RR,

Here, educate yourself: The Apprentice.

Fourteen years straight of top success.

How many other top TV shows can claim that? There are others, but it's a pretty exclusive club.

And there will be reruns, DVD's, etc., for decades. So how does that not "have any sort of longevity"?

Let me make a suggestion. Instead of judging, then trying to find facts that fit your prejudice while ignoring those that don't fit, and just spouting opinions you heard others say, start over.

Look at the facts as if seeing them for the first time. By facts, I mean look at Trump's real estate projects, skim through a few books, watch a few of the TV shows, not to see if you are wrong. Merely to see what they are. This stuff is all over the Internet, so it's easy to find.

Then judge.

I call this cognitive before normative. You are doing the contrary in your posts, normative before cognitive. You are claiming, as if proud of it, that you are not familiar with Trump's work, but you are sure it is bad.

How can you judge something when you don't even know what it is? Only by parroting what others say. That's the only way.

And that's second-hand thinking. You have a good mind. I recommend you use it first-hand.

Michael

Don't just read about it, but watch the damn show! Watch Trump, and his very bright adult children, in the boardroom judging the competitors' performances. Pay attention to the logic and fairness that they bring to dealing with clashing personalities and egos (the celebrity version of the show is better, in my opinion, because of the larger egos and wallets involved).

A lot of Trump's dedicated supporters have watched him on his program for years, and it's their source of their feeling that they know him in a sense and can trust him more than other candidates. They have this long history of seeing him in action -- what appears to be his fairness and generosity -- and if you haven't seen it, then they're just going to laugh at you when you claim that Trump is the opposite of what they've consistently seen season after season.

J

[RobinReborn]

Do they actually rerun the apprentice? Do the DVDs sell in significant amounts? Part of the 14 years of success that the show has had have been without Trump. The show was created by Mark Burnett and has many international versions which are also successful. This is another example of Trump being able to do something well that's already been done by other people. This is nothing to scoff at, but puts him more in the Wynand category than the Roark category.

I have read about Trump, skimmed his book and watched some videos, mostly of him in the Republican debates. If I were to have studied him more thoroughly, then I would have no reason to start this discussion because I'd be very confident in my assessment of him.

You are the only intellectual person I've heard speak positively of Trump's products.

I don't have enough time to read every work out there, I make my judgement of them and go on with my life. My judgment isn't perfect but it's good enough for me to have confidence in it. And asserting my judgment to intelligent people is the easiest way to figure out if I'm wrong, much easier than watching hours of television.

[Jonathan]

That's fine if you don't have time to invest in watching hours and hours of entertainment programming. My point was simply that those who have watched it have been exposed to more of who and what Trump is than you have, which I'm just suggesting should be a factor in evaluating where they are coming from in their positive attitude toward him, and their excitement about his candidacy.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Part of the 14 years of success that the show has had have been without Trump.

RR,

Which part? That is before he decided to run for president and had to stop doing the show?

I haven't watched that many episodes, but they've all been with Trump. Everything I've heard about the show has been with Trump. In fact, he's one of the producers if I'm not mistaken. He partly owned the show. So how can an owner be excluded? Do you have a link to share or quote?

You claimed that I (or Jonathan, I don't know which) is the "only intellectual person I've heard speak positively of Trump's products."

Yet you are not familiar with those products or with people who talk about them except negatively (and I bet most of those have second-hand opinions, too). Hell, if you want intellectual comment on Trump's real estate aesthetics, both good and bad, it's been all over the mainstream news outlets for decades. Google is your friend.

I would have to dig, but I have very little doubt many popular culture intellectuals say great things about Trump's TV show when they they talk about reality TV. I might even look into this just to be able to point people in the direction.

And you don't think intellectuals have favorably discussed his books like The Art of the Deal? Good God!

Do you know what you sound like?

Early critics of Ayn Rand.

EDIT: It occurred to me it might seem like I'm getting on your case because you don't like Trump. I don't care about that--look at how many don't like Trump on OL. I am a bit of a stickler for correct identification, though. There is no shame in saying, "The people I trust don't like Trump and I am not familiar with his stuff, so I will go with them for now." I do have a problem with stating such people's opinions as fact and not having any first-hand knowledge of what they are talking about. As the saying goes when folks disagree, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Michael

[Jonathan]

You claimed that I (or Jonathan, I don't know which)...

Ooh, I missed that. I assumed that he was talking to me, due to his post appearing right after mine and the lack of his quoting anyone, but now I see that he could have been talking to you.

Whatever.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Whatever.

Jonathan,

Ditto.

Besides, you're smarter than me in a lot of things.

Michael

[Jules Troy]

Whatever sums up a lot of RR posts...

[RobinReborn]

On 2/5/2016 at 0:58 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

RR,

Which part? That is before he decided to run for president and had to stop doing the show?

I haven't watched that many episodes, but they've all been with Trump. Everything I've heard about the show has been with Trump. In fact, he's one of the producers if I'm not mistaken. He partly owned the show. So how can an owner be excluded? Do you have a link to share or quote?

I'm wrong here.

On 2/5/2016 at 0:58 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

You claimed that I (or Jonathan, I don't know which) is the "only intellectual person I've heard speak positively of Trump's products."

Yet you are not familiar with those products or with people who talk about them except negatively (and I bet most of those have second-hand opinions, too). Hell, if you want intellectual comment on Trump's real estate aesthetics, both good and bad, it's been all over the mainstream news outlets for decades. Google is your friend.

You don't think Trump can influence journalists by paying them?  Either way it's second hand unless you have a thorough understand of architecture.  Somehow I got on a mailing list for a Trump real estate selling program and it was clearly a pyramid scheme.

 

BTW I started my reply before I read Jonathan's...

On 2/5/2016 at 0:58 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I would have to dig, but I have very little doubt many popular culture intellectuals say great things about Trump's TV show when they they talk about reality TV. I might even look into this just to be able to point people in the direction.

And you don't think intellectuals have favorably discussed his books like The Art of the Deal? Good God!

They probably have, but that's beside the point.  Wynand was also very good at making deals (Roark, not so much).

On 2/5/2016 at 0:58 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Do you know what you sound like?

Early critics of Ayn Rand.

How so?  

On 2/5/2016 at 0:58 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

EDIT: It occurred to me it might seem like I'm getting on your case because you don't like Trump. I don't care about that--look at how many don't like Trump on OL. I am a bit of a stickler for correct identification, though. There is no shame in saying, "The people I trust don't like Trump and I am not familiar with his stuff, so I will go with them for now." I do have a problem with stating such people's opinions as fact and not having any first-hand knowledge of what they are talking about. As the saying goes when folks disagree, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Michael

It's not that I don't like Trump, it's that I think he's like Gail Wynand.  I would hope that it's pretty clear that most of what I've said here has been opinions and questions.  I have limited knowledge of Trump but what I do know matches my interpretation of Gail Wynand pretty well.  A very accomplished man without integrity (he's contradicted his previous positions several times).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

19 minutes ago, RobinReborn said:

Somehow I got on a mailing list for a Trump real estate selling program and it was clearly a pyramid scheme.

RR,

Pyramid scheme?

Downlines and so forth? Is that what they were offering? That you not only get a commission for bringing someone in, but you also get a commission on who those people bring in?

At any rate, Kat and I went to a Trump real estate speech several years ago during a Learning Annex pitch fest, er... event.  This was when Trump was going after Rosie O'Donnell pretty hard.

During the Q&A, Trump mentioned the organizer had put together a pretty good organization from the looks of it and the guy preened. I believe Trump University started soon after that. And that makes me believe the Learning Annex folks convinced Trump to allow them to set something up in partnership with him. Then they did their over-the-top marketing while serving up standard real estate lessons in video, with an occasional video or something by Trump.

After the AG of NY state tried to make his bones by taking Trump down on saying this was a University when it was not accredited, I get the feeling he got fed up with the whole thing, bought out or pushed out the sleazy partners, renamed the organization and set it aside. 

Trump's standard form of business is not pyramid schemes. He's made far too much money with corporate real estate, real estate developments, even licensing, etc., for that. Now that he's running for president, his kids run things.

Michael