In light of the events of last evening regarding the reported attack of Venezuela, I wanted to address a few points. I’m also including a previous post from two weeks ago about regime change, along with two other posts that reflect a kind of internal debate I’ve been having—one suggesting that Trump may need psychological support, and another considering the possibility that he simply is who he is and that some of his behavior may not be entirely his fault. I’m trying to be fair and reasonable, given the seriousness of these events, and I wanted to attempt to understand his perspective as well.

Regime Change

Before getting into that, I want to set the stage by addressing several things I saw on social media—yes, I dislike the term too—and the amount of misinformation circulating about what happened and what it represents.

1.         Claims that this was a coup: This was not a coup. A coup is an internally driven attempt to overthrow a government. What occurred was an external military action, which many people describe as an invasion.

2.         Comparisons to Obama’s operation against Osama bin Laden: These situations are not equivalent. Osama bin Laden was a terrorist responsible for attacks against the United States. He was not a president or the leader of a recognized nation‑state.

3.         Claims that the action was illegal because Trump was required to inform Congress: Under U.S. law, a president has broad authority to initiate certain military actions without prior congressional approval if they are justified as protecting national interests or responding to an emergency. Formal congressional notification is required if the president declares war or engages in sustained military conflict under the War Powers Resolution.

4.         This is what I voted for, A business leader who gets things done. This is a bit of the strangest comment in some ways, and I will add greater context to that below since I will pull in actual business leaders along with their views of why they did not run for president.

Trump does not run a business in the way most people think of corporate America. He operates a chain of privately held, family‑owned companies, which means he can conduct himself however he chooses. He does not answer to a board of directors, shareholders, or public market performance. He is the final authority, and you can see this reflected in his governing style.

To put this into perspective, as a “business leader,” Trump has filed for bankruptcy six times, and his media company—one of the only public entities he has been involved with—has consistently lost money and has never turned a profit. It’s worth thinking about this in the context of the statement many people make: “This is what I voted for—a business leader who gets things done.”

What originally pushed me to think about the difference between actual corporate leadership and the public perception of it was something I heard from Jack Welch more than 30 years ago. When asked whether he would ever run for president, he said he would not, and gave the following explanation:

“Could I have done the job? Would I have the skills to do that job? Absolutely. Could I be elected? Would I want to run? Would I want to be in that milieu? Absolutely not.”

He didn’t want the intense scrutiny and the environment that comes with presidential campaigns. He didn’t blame “the media” with a simple catchphrase—he explained his reluctance in terms of the broader political atmosphere.

I bring this up because, year after year, our choices for candidates seem to get worse, and we continue to accept it. Consider several major corporate leaders—some of the most successful in the world—who have chosen not to run for office: Jamie Dimon (JPMorgan Chase), Warren Buffett (Berkshire Hathaway), Bill Gates (Microsoft), Lloyd Blankfein (Goldman Sachs), and Jeff Immelt (General Electric, Welch’s successor).

Across industries, their reasons tend to align with Welch’s:

• Continuous media scrutiny and personal attacks
• Loss of control over message and agenda
• Partisan gridlock that limits decisive leadership
• Preference for influence without the spectacle of campaigns
• Concern that politics rewards optics over results

Finally, it’s worth noting that all of these men came from modest or middle‑class backgrounds. None inherited great wealth. Only one of the individuals mentioned—Donald Trump—was born into significant privilege and financial advantage.

So I ask again: is this really what you voted for?

My debate style posts

1. Trump part 1 time for a psychologist
2. Trump part 2 mentally and physically impaired