The Caine Mutiny: The Movie GOP Leaders Need to Watch
Republican leaders who are worrying about Donald Trump’s
erratic behavior may find ideas about dealing with him by watching an old
Hollywood movie. The Caine Mutiny
(1954) features Humphrey Bogart as the skipper of an American ship during World
War II. Lieutenant Commander Queeg appears rigidly authoritarian and
emotionally unbalanced. Queeg wants to change the ship’s operations radically. He
is headstrong, doesn’t seek advice, and quickly loses the men’s trust. Queeg
feuds with crew members over petty matters, as in the case of missing strawberries.
During a storm at sea, officers come to the conclusion that Queeg’s faulty
leadership puts the ship and crew at risk. They relieve Queeg of command. During
a court martial, Queeg’s nervous testimony leaves an impression that the
officers’ rebellious action was appropriate. The officers are acquitted. Later,
in a riveting scene, a lawyer that successfully defended the officers confesses
to a guilty conscience. He blames the officers for turning on Queeg rather than
helping him. They took advantage of Queeg, he charges, and had a role in his
downfall.
Much like the officers who wrestled with the idea of removing
Queeg from command, many Republican kingpins now would like to remove Trump
from their party’s ballot. In view of Trump’s recent actions, their case for
rebellion looks stronger than the Navy officers’ justification for mutinous
behavior. Humphrey Bogart’s movie character has some redeeming qualities,
including long-term experience in naval operations. Donald Trump lacks experience
in governance, as his stumbling on the campaign trail has repeatedly
demonstrated. Many Republicans now agree with conservative columnist David
Brooks, who claims Trump lacks the temperament and emotional stability to serve
as President and commander in chief of the armed forces. Rumors are circulating
in Washington, D.C. about private meetings aimed at replacing Trump with a more
acceptable candidate.
The reaction against Trump within the GOP is still in
development. Most Party officials presently hope for a solution that is less
extreme that replacement. They want to convince or force Trump to stay
on-message and become more disciplined. But there is growing concern within the
GOP’s ranks about the negative impact of Trump’s provocations on Republican
candidates in national, state, and local elections. If party officials sense
that Trump’s presence on the ticket is likely to deliver control of the White
House, Senate, and House to the Democrats, interest in mutiny will grow.
The act of removing a candidate from the race for high
national office seems unprecedented in modern U.S. history. Only a few cases
bear some resemblance, but in those situations the candidates quit of their own
initiative. Trump may not agree to step aside.
One notable example of concern about emotional stability
occurred in 1972 after Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern
nominated Thomas Eagleton for Vice President. After Eagleton’s history of
depression and hospitalization came to light, the candidate resigned. Another
example occurred in 1992, when third-party presidential candidate Ross Perot
suddenly quit the race. Perot returned to campaigning later in the year, but his
puzzling behavior undermined the cause. Perot justified his surprising decision
to step away by suggesting President George H. W. Bush’s campaign had schemed
to smear his daughter.
The reasons for growing disaffection
with Trump’s candidacy are abundantly evident. Donald Trump’s comments have
alienated women Hispanics, blacks, and Muslims. He has been vindictive in
dealing with prominent individuals who criticized or displeased him. Especially
troubling, Trump engaged in a days-long public feud over remarks made by the
father of a fallen Muslim American soldier. Trump’s organization has refused to
admit journalists to campaign rallies because they had written critical
articles. Recently Trump alarmed GOP officials by appearing to punish two
prominent Republicans, Senator John McCain and Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan.
Donald Trump’s controversial statements about domestic
matters are troubling enough, but his recent comments on foreign policy
intensified the sense of alarm. Trump raised questions about US support for
NATO, seemed unaware of Russian aggression in Ukraine, and appeared to justify Russia’s
takeover of Crimea.
Worries about Trump’s capacity to serve as commander in chief
relate especially to his comments about nuclear weapons and nuclear warfare. TV
host and former GOP congressman Joe Scarborough reports that Trump asked a
military adviser, “If we have [nuclear weapons}, why can’t we use them?” Trump
said he will not rule out nuclear strikes in Europe or the Middle East, and he
wants Japan and other nations to possess nukes. Tony Schwartz, ghostwriter for
Trump’s book, The Art of the Deal,
offered a shocking assessment based on a lengthy business relationship with
Donald Trump. “I genuinely believe,” said Schwartz, “that if Trump is to get
the nuclear codes, there is an excellent possibility it will lead to the end of
civilization.”
At the foundation of these
criticisms is speculation that Trump is emotionally unstable. In recent weeks
pundits have conjectured about a “narcissistic” or “paranoid” personality. Some
prominent figures, including President Barack Obama, took the unusual step of
calling Trump “unfit” for the job. Liberal columnist Eugene Robinson said he
used to think Trump was “being crazy like a fox,” but now Robinson is
“increasingly convinced that he’s just plain crazy.”
Commentators associated with right-oriented politics have
sounded warning bells as well. Like the Navy officers in The Caine Mutiny, they are claiming that the Queeg-like candidate
should not have his hands on the Ship of State’s steering wheel. Conservative
pundit Charles Krauthammer says Trump exhibits “an infantile hunger for
approval and praise, a craving that never can be satisfied.” Krauthammer notes
that prominent figures are now questioning the candidate’s “psychological
stability, indeed sanity . . .” Robert Kagan, a foreign policy analyst who advised
Republicans, characterizes Trump as “dangerously unstable.” If Trump becomes
president, warns Kagan, his “self-destructive tendencies would play out on the
biggest stage in the world, with consequences at home and abroad that one can
hardly begin to imagine.” Fifty senior Republican national security officials
recently signed a letter that warned Trump “would be the most reckless
president in American history.”
Like officers in The Caine Mutiny, discontented
Republicans face huge challenges. If they back a rebellion, there will be
severe repercussions. Donald Trump received enthusiastic support from millions
of voters in the primaries. If he is removed, angry partisans will say party
elites stole their votes. Trump might support their claims about a conspiracy.
The resulting dispute could tear the Republican Party to pieces.
In
The Caine Mutiny’s fictional crisis Navy officers took controversial
action in an emergency. Republicans now face a related crisis that is far more
complex than the one depicted in the movie. If the critics are right, Donald
Trump is a much greater threat to the Ship of State than the well-meaning but emotionally
troubled Navy commander was to his ship.
Does the movie’s final message about broader responsibility
for a leader’s behavior have any relevance to the GOP’s current situation? In The Caine Mutiny Commander Queeg is not
the sole threat to the ships security; top officers on the Caine also are to blame
for the crisis in leadership. Regarding the Republican Party’s present turmoil,
several pundits charge the GOP’s movers and shakers with creating a political
environment in which a candidate like Trump could flourish. Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne,
Jr. makes that case in an op-ed. Trump “is first and foremost the product of a
Republican Party that has exploited extremism since President Obama took
office,” argues Dionne. Many among the GOP’s elite failed to denounce Trump’s nativism,
racism and sexism, notes Dionne. Furthermore, for too many years the Party’s
elite promoted an economic message favorable to big business leaders. They gave
inadequate attention to the economic struggles of ordinary Americans. Dionne
suggests the GOP’s problem is larger than Trump, and it will remain significant
long after the 2016 election.
A reconsideration of messaging, policy-making, and candidate
selection will be central in Republican Party deliberations after the election.
The most immediate challenge for GOP leaders and partisans is to decide how to
deal with their deeply flawed presidential candidate. The denouement of that
real-life drama is not clear. Anything seems possible in this year’s
unprecedented political situation.