Overview of America’s “Bad Emperor” Problem
This episode of The New Yorker’s The Political Scene (host Jane Mayer, with Susan Glasser and Evan Osnos) examines growing concerns about President Donald Trump’s age, stamina, and behavior in office — whether he is “asleep at the wheel,” how that maps onto his political identity as a strongman, and the possible consequences for governance and national security. The discussion uses recent incidents and reporting (notably a New York Times piece and visible dozing during meetings) to explore domestic political fallout, lessons from Joe Biden’s age debate, historical analogies (Reagan, Mao), and the “bad emperor” problem as seen in authoritarian regimes.
Key takeaways
- Visible signs — nodding off in meetings, a shorter work schedule, fewer public events, changes in language and behavior — have amplified questions about Trump’s stamina and mental sharpness.
- For Trump, loss of perceived physical vigor cuts at the core of his political brand (the “strongman” persona), making aging a uniquely damaging issue politically.
- Aging can provide plausible deniability for a president disconnected from wrongdoing, but it’s a double-edged sword: it can both shield and weaken accountability (Reagan/Iran-Contra example).
- Surrounding sycophancy and a compressed executive power structure increase risks: aides gain authority, and an isolated leader can enable erratic or destructive choices.
- The “bad emperor” pattern (Fukuyama’s term) in concentrated-power systems shows that aging strongmen can precipitate particularly risky, legacy-driven actions (Mao, Putin, Xi’s removal of term limits).
Topics discussed
- Recent evidence and reporting:
- Oval Office/cabinet incidents where Trump appeared to nod off (notably Nov. 6 and a subsequent cabinet meeting).
- Reports of reduced hours (approx. noon–5 p.m.), fewer events, and staff compensations.
- Behavioral changes: increased profanity, violent rhetoric, longer and less disciplined speeches.
- Physical signs noted in reporting (e.g., unexplained bruise covered with makeup).
- Political identity and messaging:
- How aging undermines Trump’s image as the embodiment of strength and vigor.
- The contrast with Biden’s media-era age scrutiny and the political consequences of how aides and press reacted previously.
- Specific governance risks:
- The Hegseth controversy and the “double tap” military action — whether a fatigued/absent president can plausibly claim ignorance and how that affects responsibility.
- Concentration of power in a “unitary executive” and what happens when the person at its center declines.
- Comparative authoritarian examples:
- Mao’s late-life campaigns (Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution) as analogs for destructive legacy-seeking by aging strongmen.
- Putin’s longevity and the invasion of Ukraine as partly legacy-driven; Xi’s removal of term limits as institutional response to the problem.
Historical analogies & context
- Ronald Reagan: aides successfully argued he was out of the loop during Iran–Contra, which likely spared impeachment but damaged his authority — a reminder that plausible incapacity can both shield a leader and weaken governance.
- Mao Zedong: an extreme case of a late-life “bad emperor” whose attempts to shore up power led to catastrophic policies.
- Putin/Xi: examples of long-tenured leaders whose longevity and consolidation of power produce distinct risks (legacy-driven aggression, removal of limits).
Political consequences & risks highlighted
- Erosion of perceived competence: public perception of a president as drowsy or incoherent is politically durable and hard to dislodge.
- Empowering aides: as presidents’ capacities decline, unelected advisers accrue influence — increasing risk of missteps or policy driven by flatter accountability.
- Escalation or erratic acts: frustration, defensiveness, or attempts to prove strength could produce riskier or more reckless decisions.
- Media and political accountability strains: partisan incentives, echo chambers, and internal loyalty cultures complicate candid intervention or transparent public discussion.
- No simple political pivot: unlike Biden’s possible “avuncular elder-statesman” frame, speakers argued Trump lacks a viable benign re-brand; escalation or erratic behavior is more likely.
What to watch (actionable indicators)
- Public schedule and event frequency: sustained reduction in official hours, fewer travel/press events, or increased reliance on pre-recorded appearances.
- Physical and behavioral markers: repeated dozing during public meetings, incoherent or rambling public remarks, length and tone of rallies.
- Language and rhetoric: increases in violent or demeaning language as measured by recent analyses; more profanity from the podium or surrogates.
- Personnel shifts: concentration of authority in aides, removal of legal/oversight checks (e.g., JAG/legal counsel departures), prominence of sycophantic figures.
- Security and military incidents: unexplained decisions or denials of knowledge in operations (e.g., Hegseth/double-tap case) — watch how responsibility is claimed or deflected.
- Institutional responses: whether Republican leaders, cabinet figures, or Congressional allies undertake candid internal assessments or instead double down on denial/performance signaling.
Notable quotes & insights
- “Dozy Don” — Gavin Newsom’s epithet capturing the political risk of perceived drowsiness.
- Anecdote: an early aide admonishing that “Donald Trump is never sick,” showing the political importance placed on invulnerability.
- Susan Glasser/Evan Osnos on language change: scholars note higher use of violent language and disinhibition in Trump’s recent rhetoric.
- “Bad emperor problem” (Francis Fukuyama): concentrated personal power makes societies vulnerable when a leader weakens or turns erratic.
Bottom line
The episode argues that Trump’s visible aging and behavioral changes present a uniquely corrosive risk because they strike at his central political identity as a strongman, create governance vulnerabilities as power becomes more concentrated among aides, and mirror historical patterns in which aging autocrats produce destabilizing outcomes. The combination of reduced capacity, heightened rhetoric, and institutional enablers makes this a consequential issue to monitor for both political and national-security implications.