In his Idaho State Journal column from November 18 Paul Entrikin asserts that Donald Trump will reclaim the presidency in 2024 and that that outcome will be good for America. On both counts I could not more sharply disagree. We’ve seen far too much of Mr. Trump already to have any illusions about what he would bring. His current behavior seems even more erratic and dangerous.

Entrikin concedes that Trump is “narcissistic,” “harsh,” “vengeful” and rough spoken (the list of flaws should actually be much longer). But he says that those flaws will ultimately be of no consequence for Trump’s reelection and its subsequent outcomes because people accept Trump’s damning view of American institutions, and they like his policy priorities. There is ever so much in Trump’s policies to be criticized (the massive, debt-increasing tax cut benefitting primarily corporations and the very rich, for example), but to say that his flaws are not crucially important is a superficial assessment I find astonishingly delusionary.

It’s like a married couple saying, “Our daughter’s suitor is admittedly selfish, unprincipled, cynical, vengeful, demonstrably racist, evidently misogynistic, a pathological liar, pathetically uninformed—but no matter, he’s very rich (ostensibly, notwithstanding his multiple bankruptcies), he’s famous, crudely and cruelly entertaining, haha (In ancient Rome he would gleefully have thrown Christians to the lions), and above all his monetary interests align with ours. Sounds like a great match for our girl. Will he abuse her? Will his example be detrimental for our grandchildren? . . .hmmm . . . nah!”

In this analogy, America is the potential bride, true democracy the grandchildren, and the Trump enablers are the cavalier, shortsighted parents.

Character does matter. Actions do matter. A democracy, government by the people and for the people, cannot flourish without substantial trust, fairness, decency, and caring for others—and that has to start at the top. The American President has the biggest megaphone in the world. The cameras are always on him/her. What he/she does and says is far-reaching in its influence. If the President is a wrecker, if his/her modus operandi is divisive, creating ill will, even to the point of tacitly encouraging violence—as Trump’s was from the start (and remains so), we cannot as a nation avoid the adverse effects on individual citizenship, government function, and world opinion. To the point, the current shambles in the House of Representatives owes much to the past and present influence of Trump on the Republican party.

But when Entrikin begins to cite Machiavelli in defense of Trump’s modus operandi, saying that it is both realistic and necessary to make America “a winner,” I am startled at how far he, Entrikin, is willing to compromise ethical government.

Just to refresh the reader’s memory about Machiavelli. His political philosophy was set forth in The Prince, written in 1513 for Lorenzo de’ Medici to instruct him on how to achieve and hold political power at any cost. Machiavelli’s premise was that politics is amoral, and that any means, however unscrupulous, can justifiably be used by a ruler to achieve that end. Thus, Machiavellianism has become synonymous with cunning, duplicity, bad faith, even cruelty if necessary. It is not a philosophy focused on the welfare of common people, except insofar as that might happen to coincide with the ruler’s personal advantage.

Democracy is fundamentally incompatible with Machiavellianism. Democracy rests on the rule of law, not on its pragmatic manipulation as needed. It assures rights to the individual rather than trampling on them. To be viable, democracy needs a high degree of transparency in government, not covert maneuvering.

It is accurate that Entrikin should associate Trump with Machiavellianism. I seriously doubt that Trump has ever read a page of that treatise, but his natural instincts align him with it, and in his presidency he consistently veered in that direction to the degree he could get away with it. It was seen notably in his machinations with the government of Ukraine that led to his first impeachment; it was seen in the way he attempted to corruptly refashion the Department of Justice to his advantage; it was seen in his relentless efforts to undermine public confidence in responsible journalism; and above all it has been seen in his desperate self-focused attempts to overturn the 2020 election—and failing that to undermine confidence generally in our electoral processes.

What I find distressing is that Entrikin (and many other “America first” Trump supporters) would justify this Machiavellian approach to governance, saying that consistent moral behavior by a ruler or president can lead to losing outcomes. Like Trump, Entrikin seems to see politics as a zero-sum game. Winners have to create losers. “On the world stage, nice guys usually do finish last,” he contends. I assure you, that is not the philosophy that created world-wide respect for America as the “indispensable nation.”

It is not realistic, of course, to think that idealists run the world. Not only Machiavelli but our founding fathers as well understood this. But the latter

wanted to prevent Trump-like demagogues from securing and abusing power. Thus, in fashioning a Constitution they went to considerable lengths to dilute power, to distribute it equally (they hoped) between three branches of government. Today that separation is under threat.

In the coming months Donald Trump is facing criminal lawsuits in four different jurisdictions. Collectively, they will be a test of whether everyone, including a former president, is accountable under our laws. A successful Machiavell would not have to be, so the answer to the question will be of enormous importance for our democracy.

Entrikin, together with so many of Trump’s supporters, dismisses these lawsuits as “obvious politically motivated prosecutions.” The Trump defenders believe in the legitimacy of the legal system—until they don’t. Here’s their consistent fall-back strategy: pivot, ignore the irrefutable facts in the cases, and attack the process and the motives of those bringing the suits.

Trump is absolutely not the answer to what America needs now. If Republicans care about democracy, they’ll come to their senses and find a better nominee, one who actually represents the best traditions of their party and the values this country was founded on.