The earliest use in English of the word "trump" is in reference to one who blows the trumpet, and "calls forth" (circa 1297). The use of "trump" in card games, in the sense of the most powerful card, is recorded from 1529. It is a coined word , developed from the word triumph, by leaving out the i, and the h. It is the trump card that triumphs. There are many expressions using the word "trump," with most of these now obsolete and unheard.  For example, to refer to an obstruction in one's way, there is the old expression, "to cast a trump in one's way." As the word developed it became a common form of commendation as in synonymic phrases such as "a first-rate person,"  "a person of surpassing excellence," "a person of undoubted authority." But as early as 1552, as the words started to take on it's quality of opposite inherent in the original meanings (often the fate of words), it was used as a term for "breaking wind," as in the rhyme "She who doth Trump/Through defect in her rump." As reference to deceiving and cheating, this antonymic quality was common from the sixteenth century and in the sense of "to trump up" (by deception, fraud, untruth) from the seventeenth century. In the modern period, the word's more positive meanings prevail.  [Note. The word "trumpery," which has become a social media meme in relation to Mr. Trump, has a different word origin. The negative meanings of the word are being applied to the candidate.]

But in the current political climate, the word's full history seems to characterize the atmosphere surrounding presidential candidate Donald Trump. [Mr. Romney just called Trump a “phony” and a “fraud,” with both meanings adhering to the word “trump.” In addition, Mr. Romney says that things Mr. Trump says are “…a twisted example of evil trumping good.” This is fascinating.]

I have been aware of presidential elections since 1948. I have never experienced any of these elections coming anywhere close to the present political scene. Power brokers are beside themselves, usually insightful political commentators can't figure it out, the candidates themselves are wringing out the last vestiges of utility from the "politics as usual" power plays--except for one: Donald Trump. What most seem to agree on is that "The Donald" is not "playing by the book." The more he is attacked, the more he advances. The more he expresses political incorrectness, the more he advances. The GOP elite are said to be scared to death and their fright is now calling upon extremity. The Democratic party is publicly gloating, but privately is frightened as well.

What is it we are witnessing?

In my book in progress entitled, The Commodification of Desire, I argue that the structure and dynamics of "money" have become the primary engine driving the culture in all areas: economics, politics, social relations, region, art, and everyday life, that is, in all departments of the human enterprise. Further, I argue that in all areas, there are serious and fatal deficiencies of awareness of what is at risk when "one-sidedness" becomes ubiquitous. For example, consider something "simple." Current economic theory has achieved near-complete hegemony. The three pillars of this economic world view are that economics in all its aspects (production, consumption, finance, and markets) are a function of rational expectation, efficient markets, and rational behavior. In spite of mountains of contrary data, this view holds sway at all levels of economic "understanding." Those holding to this view, constantly fail to predict with any reliability any functions of the economy; constantly fail to develop adequate policy, constantly fail to anticipate dysfunctions, inequities, and wealth destructive crashes.

Something is "missing."  Although there are precursors, it was John Maynard Keynes, in 1936, who coined the phrase "animal spirits," to refer to the "instincts, proclivities, and emotions that influence and guide human behavior." In their provocative book, Animals Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy, and Why It Matters for Global Capitalism, George Akerlof and Robert Shiller use a quadrate method to illustrate the problem. By quadrate, I mean the opposing of two polarities. In this example the polarities are rational/irrational and economic/non-economic. This sets up a "box" with four cells. It is clear from this that current economic theory is constrained to only one of the four boxes and therefore cannot account for much of human behavior that effects economic realities. Similarly, the current state of politics cannot be understood without factoring in the many aspects of "animal spirits." Thus, psychology must be factored into an understanding of economics and politics (and much more) and their interconnections.

Tomorrow, after the GOP debate tonight, I'll approach the question of "What is it we are witnessing," from a depth psychological perspective.