Mr. muthos Goes to Washington
As I wrote in The Conversation before the election, a key to the Trump campaign's muthos was an assumption in the episodes that the political establishment was corrupt. But now that he’s won, what happens if he faces accusations of political corruption as president? How does he remain an outsider when he himself is an insider who can be attacked as corrupt?
That's exactly what happened when he first became president in 2017. Within months, revelations about his campaign's ties with Russia grabbed headlines and distracted from his agenda. Behind the scenes, Trump worked to terminate the investigation. When the head of the FBI James Comey eventually refused to end the probe, he fired him. Suddenly, Trump was being compared to the most corrupt politician in recent history, Richard Nixon, who fired special prosecutor Archibald Cox during the Watergate scandal.
The muthos he built around those first accusations of insider corruption are crucial to understanding his recent return to power. From the Russia investigation through his two impeachments and many court cases after leaving office, he employed the same high-risk strategy of narrative brinkmanship to come out on top. It required provoking his enemies to take the most extreme actions against him — up to and including impeachment — so that he could turn them around to show his attackers as corrupt. Like some of his recent cabinet picks, this is “God-tier level trolling” that is sure to continue in his second administration.
The Comey Firing in the Media
After Trump fired Comey, you might have expected him to do everything in his power to show it had nothing to do with his campaign's ties to Russia. Instead, the next day he invited top Russian diplomats into the Oval Office to let them know the pressure from the Russia investigation had now been "taken off." Later, he gave an interview with Lester Holt on NBC in which he explicitly admitted he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation. In a tweet, he even intentionally evoked Nixon’s Watergate scandal himself by suggesting that there might be "tapes" of conversations in the White House like the ones that sealed Nixon's fate.
Trump’s actions after the firing seemed to telegraph he was trying to cover something up about his campaign. But instead his supporters were eventually persuaded he had done nothing wrong and was being unfairly targeted. The conservative media rallied around him, and he brought the Republicans in congress to heel. How could appearing to frankly admit he had obstructed justice effectively strengthen his political position?
For the mainstream media, the story suggested that Trump is a master manipulator who can make his followers believe practically anything he says. That explains why he lost no support after firing the head of an investigation into his possible malfeasance in the election, and instead benefited from a backlash against those who called for the investigation. That explanation also fed into the often unspoken belief among his opponents that Trump's supporters are basically misinformed and misled.
But that story doesn't ring true for me. I hesitate to dismiss such an enormous number of Americans as dupes, especially since I know that attitude on the left is key to Trump's support even today. There's another story here that explains Trump's success without resorting to condescension, a story that almost turns the conventional one on its head. And to understand how that story might have played out in the media for Trump's followers, Aristotle's muthos theory can help.
The Unconventional President
As even the Democrats admitted, Trump was aware that the Russia investigation would continue after he fired Comey. In an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox shortly after the firing, Trump also said that he anticipated the firing would make the Russia investigation a "bigger deal," and would only be "negative" for him in the short term. Trump may have gone through the motions of having his staff construct a cover story about firing Comey for incompetence or other reasons, but he knew that both the public and congress would immediately conclude it was all about Russia. So why did Trump risk a major scandal when there was little or no chance firing Comey would do anything to end or blunt the investigation into his actions during the election?
Of course, this wasn't the first time Trump had seemed to run headlong into scandal as president. Only a few months in office, Trump had repeatedly outraged traditionalists on both sides of the aisle before the Comey firing. For example, he refused to provide any proof he had given up ownership in the many companies in which he had a stake. Then when he finally did step away from the companies, he still did not put his assets in a blind trust. That meant he could be accused of shaping policy to line his pocketbook. Just to emphasize the point that he had no problem profiting from the presidency, he doubled the membership fee at his resort Mar-a-Lago. He even used the presidential bullhorn to promote his daughter Ivanka’s retail brand, and complained on Twitter when Nordstrom dropped her products.
Trump also continued to visit Mar-a-Lago as if nothing had changed, sometimes taking his meals in the main dining room among the other guests. On one such occasion, he happened to be at dinner with the Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe when some news came in about North Korea. He proceeded to carry on a sensitive security discussion with the prime minister about the situation in earshot of all the other diners in the room.
In terms of governing, Trump "temporarily" hired 25 staff members without any formal announcement, five of whom turned out to have close ties to outside lobbying, and then kept them on for the long term. At the same time, he exploited a loophole in the Federal anti-nepotism law to hire his daughter Ivanka and her husband Jared Kushner, though they both had zero experience in government. Then after a judge blocked his travel ban that disproportionately affected Muslim countries, just like he did previously as a candidate he attacked the judge personally on Twitter as incompetent and biased. Finally, the Comey affair was not the first time Trump had summarily dismissed an official for refusing to do his bidding. Before the judge’s decision, he fired then acting Attorney General Sally Yates for refusing to instruct the Justice Department to defend the ban. That firing too inspired comparisons to Nixon, but the scandal was short-lived since Trump’s own fate was not at stake.
It was in this raucous context that the Comey firing intersected with Trump's presidency. But how all that colorful background material might be related to Comey's termination is unclear.
As I already pointed out, he was well aware that firing Comey would not end the investigation. So whatever Trump's motivation for firing Comey, it could not have been to escape justice. Instead, the only explanation that makes any kind of sense is that he is impulsive or "unhinged," as his critics like to call him. The firing was an unwisely rebellious move that again demonstrated Trump was bound by nothing but his own primal urges.
Seen that way, all those other highly contingent events that previously sparked smaller scandals in his presidency suddenly become part of the story too. These events ranging from promoting his daughter's fashion label to discussing the North Korean nuclear threat at a crowded restaurant are not linked by cause and effect to Comey's firing. But they effectively set the stage for that event. They show Trump's propensity for creating scandals by blithely ignoring the norms of government, and demonstrating he is no conventional politician. They explain why it is plausible for Trump to recklessly stumble into a major scandal in his handling of the Russia inquiry. That makes those scandals classic episodes according to Aristotle's muthos theory.
Trump's Campaign muthos and the Comey Firing
But that also means the Comey firing itself is part of those episodes. Because if Trump had no illusions that he could end the FBI investigation, then the firing is in the same category as his previous random outrages that sparked smaller scandals. The story now is that he viewed the FBI investigation chiefly as a political nuisance that risked making him look passive in the face of an attack, or even worse compliant with his opponents. Since he had won the election by challenging the establishment at every turn, even as president Trump needed to find new ways to demonstrate he was untamed. Sure, there were laws and norms that limited what a president could do when under official investigation. But as president, a much higher priority for Trump was upholding his campaign muthos of the outsider fighting a mob of corrupt insiders. To do that he had to act against this debilitating investigation in one way or another, no matter what the price to him politically.
Even more significantly, in this version of the story the attacks on Trump are contingent events instead of a necessary consequence of the firing. As everyone on both sides agreed, the issue was not the firing itself, it was the timing. If Trump had fired Comey the moment he came into office for example, it would have been largely uncontroversial. The president has the right to shake up the government, especially right after he takes over. Trump could also have fired Comey once the investigation was concluded, or far enough along to establish that Trump himself would not become a target. That way there could be no question of a corrupt motive to obstruct justice.
But instead, Trump chose a moment that would maximize suspicions he was trying to block the investigation, while at the same time minimize the risk it could be proven his motive was corrupt. That's because the investigation had developed just enough to cast doubts on Trump's intentions, but not enough to confirm he was in any jeopardy himself. So the attacks of his opponents were not a cause and effect reaction to the firing, as Trump himself was fond of pointing out. They were somewhat contingent on the Democrats' extreme disappointment in the recent election, and their deep suspicion that Trump cannot be a legitimate president. This is nothing like the Nixon case where plenty of information had come out about what might be on the tapes, and there was sufficient reason to objectively suspect that Nixon was trying to cover up his participation in a crime. That ensured that the first event in Trump's muthos was his opponents' attacks, not his own possibly unethical action of firing Comey.
The Accusations Against Trump and His Counter-Narrative
Once Trump's opponents claimed the Comey firing could be as corrupt as Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre," the events that followed are tightly linked by cause and effect. If a president is accused by his opponents in congress of having abused his powers to evade justice, in our constitutional system that can only end with the president either facing impeachment or not. In a kind of preliminary trial by media, the accusations are debated until the country makes up its mind if it wants to really pass articles of impeachment. And that is exactly what happened with Trump between the firing and Comey's public testimony in congress about the firing a month later.
The accusation against Trump had three primary elements. The first was that he conspired with the Russians, the second is that he is a master schemer like Nixon, and the third is that he fired Comey because the Russia investigation put him in jeopardy. In the weeks that followed the firing, stories in the media about Trump systematically countered these three claims in a rational and predictable way. They also effectively put Comey's later testimony in a very specific context that allowed it to be used by Trump to claim vindication.
Trump dealt with all of these accusations by applying the same strategy. In each case, he consistently, visibly and deliberately did exactly the opposite of what a conventional politician would do to defuse the scandal. On the charge that he conspired with the Russians, instead of avoiding any association with that country, the day after the firing he met top Russian diplomats in the Oval Office. The photos of Trump yucking it up in the heart of the White House with some of the same characters who featured in the investigation made for bizarre "optics," as the pundits said. But the photos were also high-profile proof in the media of Trump's absolute refusal to change his behavior just because his enemies suspected he was in cahoots with the Russians. Otherwise, he would never have let the meeting go forward or allow photos to circulate. He was either completely innocent of the charge, or more shameless than ever. His supporters would probably believe the former.
Against the charge that he is a master of political intrigue like Nixon, Trump manufactured his own media frenzy to mount a defense. Three days after the firing he suggested that there may be “tapes” of his interactions with Comey. By placing the word in quotes, the tweet evoked the famous Nixon tapes while at the same time leaving open the possibility that he was not referring to any real tapes at all, only citing the Watergate scandal. Nevertheless, the media was full of speculation about the recordings. Members of congress soberly declared if there were tapes, they would force Trump to surrender them just like Nixon.
Trump casually kept the media guessing and the story alive until finally ten days later he was forced to admit there were no tapes. It was all a charade, and the joke was on the media. Few other politicians would have taken the risk of encouraging comparisons between himself and Nixon at this crucial moment in the scandal. But by manipulating his opponents into explicitly accusing him of being just like Nixon, Trump was also rewarded with an equally unambiguous opportunity to convincingly make the claim in the media nothing was farther from the truth. Trump again showed he wasn't a conventional politician, and at the same time made the comparisons to Nixon look absurd.
Finally, Trump had to answer the most important accusation of all: that the firing was a corrupt attempt to evade justice. A career politician would have probably first claimed that the firing was not related to the Russia investigation and come up with other reasons why Comey needed to go. Then when opponents insisted his purpose was to stop the Russia investigation, the answer would be the president was not a target of the investigation anyway, so the firing could not be corrupt. One problem with that approach is that the first part – that Comey was fired for other reasons – although impossible to disprove, is still obviously dishonest. And in fact, that is exactly what Trump's own staff found out. The White House's official reasons for the firing included Comey's incompetence, lack of support at the FBI and bungling of previous investigations. But these constantly changing explanations only strengthened the impression they were hiding something.
Trump on the other hand went his own way. In the interview with Lester Holt on NBC two days later, he simply acknowledged that he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation, while asserting he himself was never a target. By flatly admitting he was thinking about the Russia investigation when he fired Comey, he basically ensured the investigation would intensify, and talk about him obstructing justice would dominate the headlines. But by undermining his own White House staff's account, he also effectively shored up his credentials as an outsider bucking a corrupt system. Trump's explanation was that he was annoyed by the investigation, and he had a right to be. Trump went on to describe the investigation as a hoax hatched by the Democrats and a taxpayer-funded charade, just as he usually did in the following months after special counsel Robert Mueller took it over. Either his supporters would believe him about that when the evidence came out or not. But everyone on both sides could agree Trump was not being "political" in how he explained his decision. His explanation was not corrupt, and that increased the likelihood his followers would believe his decision to get rid of Comey wasn't either.
If anyone missed the NBC interview, a news story that broke just over a week later hammered the same message home nicely for Trump. In a leaked transcript of Trump's meeting with the Russians in the Oval Office, Trump was quoted as saying about the firing that he "faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off." He also called Comey a "real nut job," before inexplicably reassuring the Russians, "I'm not under investigation." As damning as all this may sound, the reality is it perfectly parallels what he said in the NBC interview. The "great pressure" was understood by the media to mean Trump was anxious the investigation would eventually turn something up about him. But after his comments in the NBC interview, it could just as easily refer to the great political pressure Comey was putting on him by, in his view, dragging out the investigation unnecessarily. The transcript also conveniently included a personal insult against Comey, and again the claim that Trump himself was not under investigation. Trump came off as completely transparent, exactly the same man in an interview with Lester Holt as with the Russians in private at the White House, not a wily politician. Further, the leak confirmed Trump from the start wasn't going to give in to his own political advisors, and pretend he fired Comey for another reason besides the Russia investigation. The story worked so well to Trump's advantage that I would not be at all surprised if Trump himself orchestrated the leak.
There was one more component to Trump's defense. A much longer part of the NBC interview featured Trump doling out details about when, where and how he found out he was not personally a target of the investigation. Among these details was the claim that Comey himself had told him on three different occasions that he was not under investigation. This was an extraordinary assertion, because it meant Comey in his testimony would have to either contradict Trump or agree with him. Trump's specific description of these three communications between him and Comey could also be substantiated by other records. This was a rare situation where Trump was actually asserting a set of facts that could be clearly proven or disproven while the public looked on. A conventional politician presenting a rational defense would probably not have gone into such gory detail, simply because it would be too risky he might be proven a liar on some of the smaller points. But even if Trump himself was not under investigation, the firing could still be corrupt. Everyone understood that whether or not he was a target at the time of the firing, he could become one afterwards. So why did he make so much of that point now?
The reason became clear when Comey finally testified about a month later. Comey under oath confirmed practically each and every detail of Trump's account of the circumstances under which he told Trump he was not personally under investigation. This included the number of times he was told, the precise occasions and whether it was in person or on the phone. By the time Comey testified, Trump's strategy of proving he was not an insider politician and therefore not corrupt had effectively neutralized the accusations raised by the Comey firing against him among his supporters and congressional Republicans. This last point of how and when he was told he was not under investigation was just icing on the cake. It guaranteed one of the headlines coming out of the testimony was that Trump was unexpectedly credible. By creating a kind of optical media illusion that Trump's factual chronology was the same as Comey's, it added a rational argument to believe all the other far more dubious things Trump said about the firing were also true.
Trump's muthos as president
So despite the digressive and contingent events in the episodes, Trump's version of the firing reinforces his muthos of an outsider defending himself against insider attacks. The first event in Trump's muthos comes after he fired Comey and faces the attacks of his opponents. It ends when his defense wins over enough of the public after Comey's testimony. In Trump's muthos the Oval Office meeting with the Russians, the possible existence of taped conversations in the White House and the NBC interview are plausible but unexpected developments. They could be replaced by other events that trigger attacks against him. In the instance of the "tapes" controversy, for example, Trump simply created the opportunity out of thin air for himself with a single tweet. That shows just how optional it is.
Trump's new presidential muthos could be summarized as the following: with an outsider running a government of corrupt insiders, and the insiders trying to make him like them, the outsider refuses to conform and so proves he cannot be corrupted. Just as in the campaign, the first two parts of the narrative are the episode parts, and the last two the muthos parts. The two new muthos parts establish that since in each instance Trump refuses to conform to presidential norms, it is necessary or probable that even as president he is not a corrupt insider. The narrative from the campaign has been adapted so it works in the context of his presidency, but those last two muthos parts still tell the same basic story of an incorruptible outsider fighting the attacks of the insiders. The first two episode parts on the other hand have taken a different turn because of his election. For obvious reasons there was nothing about running a government in his episodes when he was still a candidate.
This new narrative ensured that as long as every one of Trump's violations was plausible as outsider boldness or appropriate to his impulsive temper, his sometimes truly heinous actions stayed safely in those first two episode parts where his supporters can ignore them. Whether by instinct or skill, Trump had found a story that guaranteed practically no matter what he did in office, his followers would have a way to explain it to themselves as a good thing for them and the country. And it was all by designing a narrative that put the episode events just where he wanted them, and delivered the same emotional punch of defying the establishment in the muthos events.