Tariq Saeedi
I remain a supporter of President Trump, not out of blind loyalty, but because I recognize his unique potential and proven ability to deliver on promises that conventional politicians merely talk about. His track record speaks for itself. However, as someone invested in seeing his legacy secured and his second term succeed, I believe we must examine certain patterns that could undermine his considerable strengths.
The Apprentice Mindset
Research by psychologists like Shira Gabriel at the University at Buffalo reveals something fascinating about “The Apprentice.” For fourteen seasons, the show presented Trump as a calm, infallible decision-maker who never wavered.
Viewers formed what psychologists call “parasocial relationships” with this version of Trump—bonds that research suggests translated into political support. The show was masterful television, and it worked.
But governance requires something different from episodic television. While “The Apprentice” thrived on dramatic moments and decisive pronouncements, presidential leadership demands sustained narrative coherence.
Psychologist Dan McAdams describes Trump as “the episodic man”—someone who lives in emotionally vivid moments rather than constructing an integrated story. This quality made for compelling TV. In governing, however, it can create what I’ll call fragmentation.
The McKinley Vision
Trump’s choice of William McKinley as a historical model is both ambitious and revealing. — McKinley presided over America’s acquisition of Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii—a period of bold territorial expansion combined with protective tariffs.
Trump’s inaugural address echoed this vision: “The United States will once again consider itself a growing nation, one that increases our wealth, expands our territory, builds our cities, raises our expectations, and carries our flag into new and beautiful horizons.”
This is grand vision. McKinley-scale ambition. And Trump has the audacity to pursue it, which is precisely why I supported him. But McKinley operated in the Gilded Age with a very different institutional framework and international order.
The question isn’t whether the vision is bold—it clearly is—but whether the execution can be coherent enough to make it sustainable.
The Fragmentation Problem
Here’s where I part ways with some fellow supporters who see any critique as disloyalty. — Trump’s greatest strength—his willingness to disrupt, to act decisively, to reject conventional wisdom—can become a liability without what I call defragmentation.
Personality research consistently shows Trump scoring extremely high on extroversion and assertiveness, and very low on agreeableness and conscientiousness. Studies also point to high scores on what psychologists term the “dark triad”: narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism.
I’m not interested in moralizing about these traits. Many successful leaders throughout history have displayed similar profiles.
The question is purely practical: how do we channel these traits toward lasting achievement rather than episodic victories?
Fragmentation occurs when:
- Bold initiatives lack follow-through mechanisms
- Loyal personnel are cycled through too rapidly to implement vision
- Diplomatic relationships are treated as transactional episodes rather than strategic narratives
- Domestic policies shift with the news cycle rather than building toward coherent reform
- The difference between negotiating tactics and actual objectives becomes unclear
Why Defragmentation Matters for Legacy
I want Trump to succeed because I believe in what he’s attempting. The administrative state needs disruption. American interests need assertive defense. Economic nationalism has merit. But without defragmentation—without taking the episodic brilliance and weaving it into sustained strategic coherence—these achievements will prove temporary.
Think of it this way: “The Apprentice” could fire someone each week and start fresh the next episode. Presidencies don’t work that way. Tariff policy, territorial ambitions, institutional reform, international realignment—these require patient execution over years, often outlasting the president who initiates them.
Defragmentation doesn’t mean abandoning Trump’s disruptive approach. It means:
- Building institutions that can execute his vision after specific decisions are made
- Developing strategic patience alongside tactical aggression
- Ensuring that personnel changes serve long-term goals rather than short-term emotional satisfaction
- Creating policy frameworks that can withstand the inevitable political counter-assaults
- Distinguishing between negotiating positions and actual objectives
The Path Forward
Trump has the potential to reshape American governance in ways that outlast his presidency. His ability to identify establishment failures, mobilize public support, and force action on neglected issues is extraordinary. But potential requires realization, and realization requires integration.
The McKinley vision demands McKinley-level institutional construction. The territorial, economic, and political ambitions Trump has articulated won’t survive on audacity alone. They need defragmentation—the hard, often unglamorous work of turning episodic victories into enduring structures.
This isn’t criticism. It’s recognition that Trump’s strengths need complementary capacities to achieve permanent legacy rather than temporary disruption.
As a supporter, I want to see his second term succeed not just in making bold moves, but in building lasting change.
That’s why defragmentation isn’t a constraint on Trump’s potential—it’s the key to fully realizing it.
Moreover, as someone writing from Central Asia, I don’t claim to understand either Trump or the American politics to any great extent. My concern, as always is safeguard the interests of this region. /// nCa, 28 January 2026