Publisher's Note — February 8, 2017, 1:19 pm

Trump the Maleficent

The vocational training of American real estate tycoons is strict and pitiless.

A version of this column originally ran in Le Devoir on February 6, 2017. Translated from the French by John Cullen.

As a young tenant in Manhattan in the 1970s, I rented an apartment in a large Beaux-Arts building—once elegant, but by then dilapidated—whose wealthy owner, Joseph Heller, was an object of mockery because of what was considered a very peculiar habit. Every weekend, Mr. Heller would appear in the basement, unaccompanied, to empty the coin receptacles in the washing machines and dryers.

It may be that he didn’t trust the old black man, the amiable Abraham, who managed the building. But I’m more inclined to believe that such behavior is coded in the DNA of New York real-estate tycoons—penny-pinchers, first and foremost—and that’s what I think about when I consider the maleficent Donald Trump, now installed in the White House. I’m quite familiar with the milieu, since my billionaire grandfather (also a Manhattan real-estate tycoon) played the same role—the miser—throughout my childhood and afterward, when he disinherited my father. Unlike Trump, who began his business career with a considerable inheritance from his father and grandfather, my grandfather was a self-made man. When it comes to the formation of this category of businessman, however, beginnings matter little; the training, strict and pitiless, is the same for all. According to Trump’s biographer David Cay Johnston, Fred Trump, father of Donald, wasn’t easy on his children: “The boys were assigned to sweep out storage rooms, empty coins from basement washers and dryers, make minor repairs under the supervision of maintenance crews, and, as they got a little older, collect rents.” Another biographer, Michael D’Antonio, reports that there was a certain “art to rent collecting, which, when done in person, required a step to the side whenever a door was opened just in case someone was armed with, say, a bucket of hot water.” This harsh on-the-job training explains more than anything else Trump’s deep-seated maliciousness and his belligerent campaign against everybody, all the time: life as war. Fred Jr., Donald’s older brother, didn’t survive that war; he died an alcoholic at the age of forty-three. D’Antonio relates how Trump Sr., “an enormously wealthy man who nevertheless picked up nails at his building sites,” had severely criticized his heir for having had new windows installed, instead of reusing the old ones, in an aged building that was undergoing renovation.

Donald was better at learning his profession’s cruel catechism. When he demolished the Bonwit Teller department store on Fifth Avenue to make way for the construction of Trump Tower, he hired more than two hundred undocumented Polish immigrants to do work that would normally have been performed by American workers, who were unionized and much better paid. Trump then stiffed the Poles—who were without papers, vulnerable, and therefore could easily be underpaid—and finally agreed to a settlement only after a suit brought by the victims had been litigated for sixteen years. It’s true that he ended up having to pay a sum of money, but in real-estate psychology, he who drags things out wins. In spite of the bad publicity and the lawyers’ fees, in the long run Trump doubtless came out ahead. And even if he didn’t manage to pull in more cash in the final accounting, he could still enjoy the keen pleasure characteristic of his species: “I made ’em bleed, the bastards!”

Dragging things out, and thus frustrating one’s adversaries, was also among my grandfather’s preferred tactics. From his base in his hotel on Singer Island in Florida, he’d invite a potential buyer or seller to visit him there in order to settle the final details of an almost done deal. If the guest had to come from far away—California, for example—he’d arrive tired from the long trip. The following day, my grandfather would let it be known that he was unavailable (illness, scheduling error, emergency elsewhere), and therefore the visitor would have to face a choice: to leave without the contract he’d come for, or to stay and wait for his counterpart to return. In many cases, the irritated, not to say humiliated, visitor would give in and lower his price or raise his offer. Such a victory, achieved by grinding down his opponent, was a source of great joy for my grandfather.

I imagine that Trump experienced the same feeling of euphoria last month during his “negotiations” with the Mexican president, Enrique Peña Nieto. Having planned a trip to Washington for the supposed purpose of revising NAFTA, Peña Nieto was first forced to undergo humiliation. When Trump announced his intention to build a border wall to stop illegal immigrants (who, like the illegal Poles who earlier demolished Bonwit Teller for Trump, come to the United States in search of badly paid jobs) and that Mexico, which is itself a cheap labor colony for American businesses, will pay for it, Peña Nieto, a simple politician unfamiliar with the rules of the real-estate game, protested. Then Trump doubled down: if Mexico refuses to pay for the wall, he tweeted, the meeting had better be canceled. Peña Nieto hesitated, but the next day, to save face, he officially canceled the meeting. Trump’s response: in order to cover the costs of the wall, he says, he’s going to impose a 20 percent tariff on Mexican exports to the United States. Which leader will end up lowering his price? And who will be the happy beneficiary?

Help support our ongoing coverage of Donald Trump by subscribing to Harper’s Magazine today!

Share
Single Page

More from John R. MacArthur:

Publisher's Note April 12, 2018, 5:29 pm

Humanitarian Wars

“I’ve often found myself doing battle with ‘humanitarian’ propaganda, sometimes promoted by nice, respectable people who strongly support military interventions, justified (in their view) because they would save hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.”

Publisher's Note March 19, 2018, 10:45 am

Dynasty Politics

The Democrats prefer losing with a Clinton to winning with a Sanders.

Publisher's Note February 13, 2018, 6:44 pm

The Sleep of Men

“Why not mount a direct attack on economic discrimination and revive the campaign for the Equal Rights Amendment?”

Get access to 167 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

May 2018

Seven Years of Identity Theft

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Drinking Problems

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Slingshot

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Walk Away

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

A Perfectly Respectable Lady

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Driven to Distraction

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Exiled·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

It has become something of a commonplace to say that Mike Pence belongs to another era. He is a politician whom the New York Times has called a “throwback,” a “conservative proudly out of sync with his times,” and a “dangerous anachronism,” a man whose social policies and outspoken Christian faith are so redolent of the previous century’s culture wars that he appeared to have no future until, in the words of one journalist, he was plucked “off the political garbage heap” by Donald Trump and given new life. Pence’s rise to the vice presidency was not merely a personal advancement; it marked the return of religion and ideology to American politics at a time when the titles of political analyses were proclaiming the Twilight of Social Conservatism (2015) and the End of White Christian America (2016). It revealed the furious persistence of the religious right, an entity whose final demise was for so long considered imminent that even as white evangelicals came out in droves to support the Trump-Pence ticket, their enthusiasm was dismissed, in the Washington Post, as the movement’s “last spastic breath.”

Illustration by Andrew Zbihlyj
Article
Church and State·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Just after dawn in Lhamo, a small town on the northeastern corner of the Tibetan Plateau, horns summon the monks of Serti Monastery to prayer. Juniper incense smolders in the temple’s courtyard as monks begin arriving in huddled groups. Some walk the kora, a clockwise circumambulation around the building. Others hustle toward the main door, which sits just inside a porch decorated in bright thangka paintings. A pile of fur boots accumulates outside. When the last monks have arrived, the horn blowers leaning out of the second-floor windows retire indoors.

When I visited Lhamo in 2015, most monks at Serti attended the morning prayers, but not Ngawang Chötar, the vice president of the monastery’s management committee, or siguanhui. Instead, he could usually be found doing business somewhere on Lhamo’s main street. Like all Tibetan monks, he sports a buzz cut, and his gait, weighed down by dark crimson robes, resembles a penguin’s shuffle. When he forgets the password to his account on WeChat, China’s popular messaging service—a frequent occurrence—he waits for the town’s cell phone repairman at his favorite restaurant, piling the shells of sunflower seeds into a tidy mound.

Illustration by Simon Pemberton
Article
The Pictures·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

As he approached his death in 1987, the photographer Peter Hujar was all but unknown, with a murky reputation and a tiny, if elite, cult following. Slowly circling down what was then the hopeless spiral of ­AIDS, Peter had ceaselessly debated one decision, which he reached only with difficulty, and only when the end drew near. He was in a hospital bed when he made his will that summer, naming me the executor of his entire artistic estate—and also its sole owner.

The move transformed my life and induced a seething fury in lots of decent people. I can see why. Peter did not make me his heir for any of the usual reasons. I was a good and trusted friend, but he had scads of those. I was not the first person he considered for the job, nor was I the most qualified. In fact, I was a rank amateur, and my understanding of his art was limited. I knew his photographs were stunning, often upsetting, unpredictably beautiful, distinctively his. I also knew they were under­rated and neglected. But I did not then really grasp his achievement.

Photograph by Peter Hujar
Article
Drinking Problems·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The friendly waitress at the Pretty Prairie Steak House delivers tumblers of tap water as soon as diners take their seats. Across Main Street, the Wagon Wheel Café offers the same courtesy. Customers may also order coffee or iced tea, but it all starts at the same tap, and everyone is fine with that. This blasé attitude about drinking water surprised me: everyone in this little farm town in Reno County, Kansas, knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that the liquid flowing from the municipal water tower was highly contaminated with nitrate, a chemical compound derived from fertilizer and connected to thyroid problems and various cancers. At the time I visited Pretty Prairie, last fall, nitrate levels there were more than double the federal standard for safe drinking water.

Illustration by Jen Renninger.
Article
Nothing But·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The truth—that thing I thought I was telling.—John Ashbery To start with the facts: the chapter in my book White Sands called “Pilgrimage” is about a visit to the house where the philosopher Theodor Adorno lived in Los Angeles during the Second World War. It takes its title from the story of that name by Susan Sontag (recently republished in Debriefing: Collected Stories) about a visit she and her friend Merrill made to the house of Adorno’s fellow German exile Thomas Mann in the Pacific Palisades, in 1947, when she was fourteen. It seemed strange that the story was originally …
Photograph by Augusta Wood

Percentage of US college students who have a better opinion of conservatives after their first year:

50

Plastic surgeons warned that people misled by wide-angle distortion in selfies were seeking nose jobs.

Trump fires missiles at Syria, a former FBI director likens Trump to a Mafia boss, and New Yorkers mistake a racoon for a tiger.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Report — From the June 2013 issue

How to Make Your Own AR-15

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"Gun owners have long been the hypochondriacs of American politics. Over the past twenty years, the gun-rights movement has won just about every battle it has fought; states have passed at least a hundred laws loosening gun restrictions since President Obama took office. Yet the National Rifle Association has continued to insist that government confiscation of privately owned firearms is nigh. The NRA’s alarmism helped maintain an active membership, but the strategy was risky: sooner or later, gun guys might have realized that they’d been had. Then came the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, followed swiftly by the nightmare the NRA had been promising for decades: a dedicated push at every level of government for new gun laws. The gun-rights movement was now that most insufferable of species: a hypochondriac taken suddenly, seriously ill."

Subscribe Today