Tony Schwartz, who ghostwrote Donald Trump’s 1987 bestseller “The Art of the Deal,” says he feels deep remorse for helping create the public image of Trump as a uniquely successful tycoon. After watching Trump launch his presidential campaign and cite the book as a credential, Schwartz concluded Trump had even come to believe he wrote it, reinforcing Schwartz’s view that Trump would lie easily and often. Though urged by colleagues to stay out of politics, Schwartz decided to speak because he viewed Trump as impulsive, self-centered, and potentially dangerous if elected. The article recounts how the book originated with publisher Si Newhouse, how Trump’s hunger for attention shaped the project, and how Schwartz took the job despite seeing it as a “Faustian bargain” driven partly by financial pressure. Schwartz says that if he were writing the book today, it would portray Trump far more negatively and carry a title like “The Sociopath.”

Drawing on Plato’s Republic, the author argues that democracy’s expansion of freedom and equality can erode respect for authority and expertise, produce social fragmentation, and create conditions in which a demagogue can rise by attacking elites and promising to cut through democratic paralysis. Plato’s would-be tyrant exploits popular resentment, presents himself as relief from excess choice and conflict, and ultimately leads citizens to surrender democratic constraints for the promise of order. Watching Donald Trump’s ascent, the author sees unsettling parallels with this dynamic and worries that American democracy’s susceptibility to a charismatic outsider is being tested. While acknowledging Plato’s context and bias, the author contends that the United States historically buffered itself against mob passions through institutions designed to filter popular will, but many of those formal and informal gatekeeping mechanisms have weakened over time. The result, the author suggests, is a more direct and open system that increasingly favors outsiders and may be less protected against the kind of demagoguery that can turn late-stage democracy against itself.

The article traces how Paul Manafort, a veteran Republican “political technologist,” moved from being hired by Donald Trump for delegate strategy to trying to take broader control of the campaign, leveraging decades of convention management and behind-the-scenes influence. It argues that Manafort’s power has long depended on discretion and a “double-breasted” model that fused campaign work with lobbying, extending from major corporations to authoritarian foreign clients. The piece highlights Manafort’s role in Ukraine advising Viktor Yanukovych, portraying it as a consequential example of his ability to reshape perceptions and shift political outcomes, including drawing Ukraine toward Russia’s orbit. It then follows Manafort’s connections to Trump back to Roy Cohn and Manafort’s early partnership with Roger Stone, describing the firm’s rise through Reagan-era patronage networks. The article also notes Trump’s earlier use of the firm’s political tactics in the 1990s, including a racially charged campaign against Native American casino competition that led to a state fine and apology.