I love reading. Always have. Fiction or non-fiction—doesn’t matter. Every few years, my bookshelves are overflowing, so I need to do a purge.
I’ll look through every book, asking, “Keep or not?” The ones that don’t keep, I donate to our library.
Except one. I tossed it in the trash.
The Art of the Deal is the only book I’ve ever thrown away. Back in the 80s, it was getting lots of press. Being in sales, I wanted to stay up to date with the latest strategies.
But as I read it, something felt very wrong. I couldn’t put my finger on it exactly, but it felt amoral.
Recently, I shared that story with a friend. He asked for specifics, but I couldn’t answer, since it had been years since I’d read it. So, I went to Google and asked:
“I read The Art of the Deal decades ago. It felt amoral. Can you give me some examples of why?”
Here’s the response I got:
Drawing from reporting and analysis available since its 1987 publication, here are several examples of why The Art of the Deal was perceived as amoral by many critics and readers in the 1980s.
“Truthful hyperbole”
In the book, Trump describes “truthful hyperbole” as “an innocent form of exaggeration” and “a very effective form of promotion”. Critics viewed this maxim as a justification for manipulating perceptions and treating facts as malleable for business advantage, rather than upholding honesty.
Glorifying ruthlessness
The book frames Trump’s aggressive and often ruthless tactics as keys to success. A key example is his handling of the demolition of two historic sculptures during the construction of Trump Tower.
- The incident: In 1980, to clear the site for Trump Tower, Trump had two limestone Art Deco reliefs from the Bonwit Teller building demolished, despite promising them to the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
- The lesson: Instead of showing remorse, Trump portrayed the resulting public outrage as a form of “bad publicity” that ultimately drove sales for the new apartments.
He concluded that “controversy, in short, sells”. Critics pointed to this as a clear example of prioritizing profit over cultural or ethical considerations.
Prioritizing loyalty over ethics in staffing
Trump’s book discusses hiring decisions through a purely transactional lens, where an employee’s loyalty and benefit to Trump are valued above all else, even if they have problematic behavior.
- The Irving story: When managing the Swifton Village apartment complex, Trump praised his manager, Irving, for helping turn a profit. He even tolerated Irving’s verbally abusive behavior and stealing from employees.
- The dealmaker’s justification: Trump saw Irving’s problematic behavior as inconsequential as long as he was a good “dealmaker”. The only thing that mattered was turning a profit, which Trump framed as a brilliant business instinct rather than an ethical compromise.
Using leverage as a weapon
The book promotes the use of leverage and aggressive confrontation to intimidate and weaken opponents.
- The football league story: In 1985, after signing a prominent quarterback to his USFL team for a high salary, Trump asked other team owners to share the cost. He expected them to refuse, but felt he had nothing to lose by asking.
- The firing threat: When he felt his coach was not running enough plays for a particular player, Trump wrote that he “literally threatened to fire him that he got the point”. This demonstrated his willingness to use threats and intimidation to get his way.
A transactional view of relationships
The book portrays relationships as primarily transactional, where people are valued for what they can provide to Trump rather than for their character.
According to a former Trump casino executive, Trump was uninterested in traits like “empathy, generosity, reflectiveness,” and saw life as “all transactional, all the time”. This worldview implies that winning the deal supersedes any moral or ethical obligation to other people.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem like anything has changed. It may even be worse. It makes me sad and scared at the same time.
Believe me, this is not about being a Republican or Democrat. It’s about the character!
