The Presidential Toddler Theory Of Government
from the learn-to-take-responsibility dept
There comes a moment in every collapsing democracy when absurdity and menace fuse into something uniquely destabilizing—a phenomenon I’m tempted to call “malignant farce.” We’ve reached that moment. The President of the United States, after invoking a 1798 wartime law to mass-deport migrants to a third country, now claims he didn’t do it. “Other people handled it,” he told reporters, despite his signature appearing on the document.
This is not merely a lie—though it is certainly that—but something more fundamentally corrosive: the introduction of the Toddler Theory of Presidential Power. Like a child caught with his hand in the cookie jar insisting “I didn’t do it,” Trump has advanced the novel constitutional principle that presidential actions somehow occur without presidential agency. Documents bearing his signature, orders issued under his authority, and policies implemented by his administration apparently materialize through some mysterious process for which he bears no responsibility.
The obvious absurdity of this claim would be comedic if it weren’t deployed to evade accountability for using the Alien Enemies Act—a law intended for declared wars against nations, not immigration enforcement—to justify mass deportations that a federal judge has already ruled likely unconstitutional. We have now entered territory where the head of the executive branch simultaneously claims the power to ignore judicial rulings while denying responsibility for the very actions judges are ruling against.
This isn’t just a president lying—a common enough occurrence in any administration. This is a president who wishes to exercise power without accountability, who signs documents then disclaims knowledge of their contents, who demands obedience to his authority while disavowing his own actions. It is the logic of the autocrat who wishes to be unbound by any constraint while maintaining plausible deniability for the consequences.
The pathetic spectacle of a president who claims vast powers while shirking basic responsibility reveals the infantile core of authoritarianism. For all its pretensions to strength and decisiveness, the authoritarian personality cannot bear the weight of consequence, cannot accept that power entails responsibility, cannot face the fundamental reality that actions have effects for which one might be accountable.
Two plus two equals four. There are twenty-four hours in a day. And a president’s signature on an executive order means he ordered it. These are not complicated truths, yet their denial suggests something profoundly broken in our political system. When the most powerful person in the country can point to his own signature and say “I didn’t do that,” we’ve moved beyond normal political dishonesty into the realm of reality dissolution.
The Founders designed a system based on the assumption that those in power would at least acknowledge their own actions, even if they abused their authority. They never envisioned a president who would simultaneously claim unlimited power while disavowing the exercise of that very power—a constitutional Schrödinger’s cat, both authoritarian and abdicated, depending on which serves his interests in the moment.
This is the essence of despotism—not the iron fist, but the infantile will that demands absolute authority without corresponding responsibility. It is, as Hannah Arendt recognized, the banality of evil clothed in the childish refusal to acknowledge reality itself.
If there is any comfort to be taken from this spectacle, it is the realization that such profound dishonesty reveals not strength but weakness. A president secure in his authority and confident in his actions would not need to deny his own signature. He would not hide behind the claim that “other people handled it.” He would own his decisions, defend them on their merits, and accept the constitutional constraints that make a president a democratic leader rather than a petulant monarch.
But comfort is cold indeed when the lie is in service of violating human rights, defying court orders, and systematically dismantling constitutional governance. The Presidential Toddler Theory may be absurd, but its consequences are deadly serious. And recognizing the absurdity, while necessary, is no substitute for confronting the danger.
Mike Brock is a former tech exec who was on the leadership team at Block. Originally published at his Notes From the Circus.
Filed Under: accountability, alien enemies act, donald trump, due process, responsibility


Comments on “The Presidential Toddler Theory Of Government”
If we’re throwing around names, I would give one for this era: “The Great Regression.”
All those progressions we had in decades are being torn from our very hands. Our lifelong rights, now just temporary privileges to this government.
Re:
To quote King Crimson:
“The fate of all mankind I fear,
is in, the hands of fools.”
Re:
I decided the moment I thought I knew where the USA was headed — early in Dubbya’s first term — I was gonna call it the Regressive Reich whenever it came, regardless of who helmed the ship into the depths.
tl;dr The Regressive Reich is my submission for history writers.
Re:
You’re really painting the most bleak picture imaginable here. I don’t see why i go on this site anymore when it’s so depressive all the time.
Re: Re:
Door’s to your left! 👋
Re: Re:
Weenie Hut Junior’s down the road.
Re: Re:
You and the doom guy and the how-likely-is-it-to-pass guy should have a corporate merger and even things out.
P.S. Accurate descriptions may not be for everyone. Please consult the hole in the sand.
Re: Another Name
The American Devolution
Kinderpolitics
I called it “kinderpolitics”, it is like a “president” acting like a four year old kid…
https://medium.com/enrique-dans/kinderpolitics-how-trumps-childish-leadership-is-enabling-a-tech-oligarchy-15ce192791e9?sk=56a954c43967b4edb348fcfcade9eed9
Re: A more German sounding term
Best to make it sound more German:
“Kinderpolitik”, or “Children’s Politics”.
On a related note to this, Trump also seems to have lied about the security “gaffe” the other day. He claims that it wasn’t Mike Waltz, but rather a subordinate of his that accidentally added Jeffrey Goldberg to the Signal group chat.
None of these people take accountability for anything.
Re:
Dear Leader can never fail, he can only be failed.
Re:
Of course not. That’s how it works in business, after all: credit goes to the highest-ranked person involved, blame goes to the lowest-ranked.
Re:
After the last time where his cabinet was a revolving door, he’s now trying to feed the illusion he hires the “very best people.”
They can never do any wrong, it has to be someone else he didn’t pick who’s to blame now.
Re:
“Lie” is a bit of a strong word. Just try listening through all of his reaction to the press in this link. He is senile and hasn’t a clue what he is talking about, and the folks who messed up tell him how great he is and he defends them and trash-talks the messenger.
He just does not have the mental capacity for anything even approaching a cover-up. He is just sitting there smiling in his shit-soaked diapers and enjoying everybody tell him how sweet he smells.
But there will be a rash.
Re: Re:
I would say you’re being too gracious. Trump lies consistently and repeatedly. You can’t just explain this away with senility.
Re: Re: Re:
Have you listened through that link? This really is too incoherent to be classified as lie anymore. Sure, the vibe is one of incessant lying: that’s what Trump has been doing all his life.
But there is no longer any tangible content he appears to comprehend. To lie, it is not enough to be a habitual and seasoned liar (and Trump has always been a grandmaster here). You also need to understand what you are lying about. He is no longer there. He is just reflexively deflecting but has no idea what this is about.
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah i know people with various forms of age-related dementia. Even the ones living in denial every minute of the day are nothing like Trump. He’s just a lying asshole.
Re:
How long will it be before the Orange Emperor starts firing people because he can’t stand anyone making him look bad. Remember that, supposedly, Everybody Loves Donald.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Delegation
They’re talking about two different documents. One is the executive proclamation, which directed those in the executive such as the AG and DHS, to use the Act to deport criminal gangsters. Trump signed that one.
The other is a deportation order. Trump didn’t personally arrest anyone, investigate if they are a member of TdA, and place them onboard a plane for deportation. Other people handled that. Trump wouldn’t know the exact time when it was signed. This is the document that the rogue judge is trying to investigate.
Re:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!
-Koby, probably
Re:
And you’re basing this analysis on what facts, exactly?
Also, Boasberg isn’t a “rogue judge.”
Care to be wrong about anything else today, or have you hit your quota?
Re:
Plenty of people were deported who weren’t “gangsters”. If anything, their only “crime” was being in the country illegally. Do you defend the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport those people?
Also, those who were deported—“gangsters” or not—were denied due process under the law. They were given no chance to face their accusers, defend themselves, and look over evidence that prosecutors would have to provide for charges to stick. Do you defend the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport people without due process?
And one more thing: The difference between a citizen and a non-citizen, at least in the eyes of the government, is whether the government says someone is a citizen. Do you support the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport—without any due process whatsoever—legal U.S. citizens, including people born in the U.S., that the government claims are actually non-citizens?
Re: Re:
Which “crime” they didn’t commit at all, Trump-lite.
Re:
In other news, a mobster boss directed his henchmen to kill a man. He later claimed to be totally innocent because he wasn’t involved in the actual murder and could in no way be responsible for the heinous act.
At this point, even a octopus must be jealous of your ability to contort yourself into unimaginable shapes that has no bearing on reality at all.
Re:
If you were a sort of cute, but not really, badly dyed, blonde.
Kayleigh would be afraid for her job.
Re:
I hope you got a good price for your spine, Koward, because you obviously can’t get by on the head on your shoulders.
People have long expressed the idea that we should forget about what a law is “intended for”, and only look at how it can actually be used—and, in particular, mis-used by our worst enemies.
And this is a great example of why. It may have been “intended” for that, but it delegates powers for use in that circumstance and also in the case of an “invasion”, which as far as I can tell it doesn’t define. It does have to be an invasion by a country—presumably as opposed to a bunch of independently-operating people from that country—but it also neglects to say how we determine that.
So, what now? There’s been a lot of people complaining about how this law has been used. I hope they’re all pushing their representatives (of whatever party) to repeal it, or to heavily limit its powers, but so far I haven’t seen such an organized effort. And, yeah, Trump might then do it anyway—hence the talk of Constitutional Crisis—but we’ve gotta start somewhere.
Re:
We’re really going to gloss over the fact that even when that law was drafted, it was exclusively used as a blank check to attack immigrants on the most flimsy of accusations, and instead vaguely suggest there is a way it should be used.
OK then.
I hate to say “that comparison is totally unfair, to toddlers!” because that joke is such a fucking cliche, but dammit, it’s true. Dealing with toddlers is pretty great, overall, and when it’s not you can say “it’s okay, they’ll outgrow this.”
Re:
Well, Putin thinks Trump is pretty great, too, and exactly because he’ll never outgrow himself.
Re: Re:
Pretty sure Putin thinks Trump is a fucking joke, and not only because his default position is that he thinks that of everyone. Might find Trump useful and amusing, tho’.
Re:
toddlers also tend to have fewer bloody thirsty minion at their beck and call.
If one doth nobler be it, then it says Trump be was it.
Re:
Please write Modern English if your grasp of Early Modern English is not sufficient for concocting something with discernible meaning.
Re: Re:
Shakespeare has no need to worry about this vapid imitator.
I think what the twit was trying to say was, “If anyone nobbles America, then look no further than Trump.”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Why can’t I make comments from TOR anymore? I want privacy!
The over-privileged tantrum throwing 4 year old Orange Emperor in a rapidly decaying mental and physical 78 year old body.
Re:
Don’t knock his age. My father is beyond 90 and still publishing papers in top-tier theoretical physics journals. But he could probably use Trump’s body. Well, half of it anyway. He’d probably want to retain some oxygen for thinking rather than spending it all for keeping such a meat bag operative.
Re: Re:
But your dad isn’t a narcissistic nutjob with delusions of grandeur and the emotional stability of a whiny 4 year old is he?
Re: Re: Re:
“Delusions of grandeur” could be up to debate: he says he cannot afford dying for at least a year or so because he is working on a new approach to get his work in mathematical foundations of physics (harmonic oscillator) taken up: if his stipulated oscillation modes of hydrogen molecules can be experimentally verified, it would provide missing pieces for dark matter (ancient hydrogen gas fallen into rare low-energy oscillation modes), dark energy and several other ongoing puzzles. And would ultimately affect the flow of billions of research money that, due to the reward metrics, get allocated to groups who have perfected citing their mutual failures to make progress.
And he has found out that time is no longer on his side, so he needs to be less subtle and more forward than he prefers (it has been 25 years since he had tenure, and that just reduces audience and people who will bet their career on him). But no whiny 4-year old. Really more like a focused 90-year old. And in the end, it is not his loss if he does not get to the finishing line, or rather to the handoff line. It is a team loss.
Re: Re: Re:
But, again, don’t be an ageist asshole.
That autopen has been busy.
The Presidential Toddler Theory may be absurd
Not in this case. This frightened five-year old is desperately trying to impress Daddy. His performance authenticity is real because he utterly believes everything he says.
Moreover, attack is always his form of defense: listen to anything antagonist he says and it (almost) always applies to himself…
Re:
A five-year-old is not a toddler, but even if they were, all you’ve shown is that the Presidential Toddler Theory is true. That doesn’t mean it’s not absurd.
Here’s a quite apposite quote from someone on quite another site (which sadly seems to have ceased operation):
https://www.michaelmoorcock.net/forum/the-miscellany/reasoned-debate-activism/429724-chaos-usa/page3
“It doesn’t seem to be their strength, does it? It’s always a Great Leader of some sort or other. There was an experiment I read about – I found it both distasteful and enlightening – when I was learning about neuroscience. Someone had put two kittens in a couple of baskets connected by a bar hung from its centre. One kitten had holes in its basket and could move its legs. The other didn’t have those holes and thus couldn’t move its legs. The kitten that could move its legs and investigate stuff, grew up normally. The other was passive for the rest of its life.
I look at the right and that is what I see.“
Re:
No, it’s right there at the link.
Although i think it has gone down occasionally due to too much law or chaos on some level.
Re:
Eh, direct permalink:
https://www.michaelmoorcock.net/forum/the-miscellany/reasoned-debate-activism/429724-chaos-usa?p=430779#post430779
Re:
There are posts dated today.
Not very many, but that doesn’t sound like it ceased operation so much as that it’s gotten quiet, like most messageboards.
So what is he going to do about these deep state actors, who are wielding executive power without his authorisation?
I take strong exception to the labeling of this type of governance as “toddler” behavior. Such a characterization suggests it’s immature or infantile, driven primarily by an emotional fear of consequences without strategy or deliberate intent. That’s not what this is. The Trump camp knows very well that they’re operating according to Mafia rules: the man at the top gestures vaguely at a desirable outcome, and trusts his underlings to recognize the directive and take steps to carry it out. When questioned later, the Don (get it?) shrugs and says he doesn’t know anything about the details. This is not toddler behavior at all; this is a well-established leadership model which is consciously organized to protect the kingpin. To call it immature is to misunderstand and minimize what’s really happening.