23 Mar King Donald = Donald King?
In preparing this comparative post, I was searching for someone with the imperial leadership style and pomp of Donald Trump, our American emperor in chief. I always seek first in the Bible, so I initially considered and rejected the idea of King Solomon (too wise) and his father, King David (too statuesque, although the Bathsheba scandal fits well). King Nebuchadnezzar was a better comp as to notoriety, but still not exact.
Then I thought about secular men like Henry VIII and Louis XIV, or Alexander the Great, but none of those measured up to our current leader – at least not in fame. Nor would Napoleon, Charlemagne, or even Genghis Kahn, as they were more warriors than nobles. King Tut? Fun song, but no.
Then it hit me. President Trump’s twin separated at birth actually is a man named Donald King, even though he is a king in name only. “Who is that?” you might ask. You can start to refresh your memory by looking again at the photos above. The guy on the left is Don King. I will tell you more about him in a moment, and you will see the comparison.
For now, let me talk about the man on the right with monarchical inclinations.
What a King Does
“Long live the king,” President Trump wrote February 19, 2025, on his Truth Social platform. Displaying his characteristic humility, he was referring to himself. This was not the first or last time Mr. Trump, his followers, or even the media have equated his position to that of a monarch.
And why not? When you think about history, a king often is regarded, foremost, as divine. Donald Trump was protected and anointed by God to save his country (per his telling). A king also is immune to the law, which, in the case of Donald Trump, was confirmed in part by the Supreme Court last year. Moreover, “He who saves his Country does not violate any law,” the president himself posted on Truth Social just four days before the above self-proclamation. This time, Mr. Trump was quoting Napoleon Bonaparte, the French dictator who, analogously, was refuting allegations that he had usurped the crown.
Kings rule by fiat – something President Trump does with executive orders, which he signs with his royal Sharpie marker, surrounded by his subjects. Through these commands, he controls everything from independent agencies to the Kennedy Center. Other orders fire people such as watchdogs and inspectors general, put people in jail (immigrants), or free them (January 6 convicts). The king’s commands are carried out by a royal court, which may include magicians (crypto wizard David Sacks), publicists (Fox News and maybe even Jeff Bezos), and often an executioner (Elon Musk). Adoring – or simply fearful – servants comprise the remainder of the kingdom. I don’t need to tell you that these minions today range from MAGA zealots to Republicans in Congress.
President Trump also asserts “sole and exclusive authority” over the executive branch, including all personnel and spending decisions. He even acts as though the nation’s entire power resides in him personally, yet he is trying to acquire more. The president appears to covet control of both the judicial and legislative branches.
Perhaps more than anything, many a historical king has been imperial, focused on conquering other lands. King Donald’s eyes are on territories from Post Offices to Panama, from Mars to Major League Baseball, and from Greenland to Gaza. Oh, Canada, as well.
All of the above is mindful of England’s King George III, from whose tyranny the American colonists broke free via the Declaration of Independence and Revolutionary War.
Don King and King Don
As I wrote at the beginning of this post, however, the best kingly comparison to Donald Trump may be none other than Don King. This is particularly true when weighing royal principles like dignity.
Mr. King, like Mr. Trump, became famous as a promoter. In the former’s case it was the promotion of boxing matches featuring the likes of Muhammad Ali, George Foreman, Evander Holyfield, and Roy Jones Jr. The career-long promotional style of both Dons is and has been flamboyant and bombastic, as their hairstyles reflect.
For his part, Don King was indicted for various criminal offenses, and was convicted on multiple charges. People with whom he worked – such as boxing champion Mike Tyson – later despised him, and he was sued by many. Any of this sound familiar?
For fun and to drive home my notion of their similarity, I close with a few trivia questions in the category of “Donald Trump or Don King?” for 100, please:
A. Who owned the Miss Universe pageant?
B. Which operated gambling establishments?
C. Who promoted The Thrilla in Manila?
D. Which politically active businessman supported both Democrats and Republicans?
E. Who was involved with pro wrestling?
F. Who was featured in the movie The Great White Hype?
G. Who said, “Anything worthwhile is worth fighting for”?
H. Who declared, “Fight! Fight! Fight!”?
Answers can be found in the comments field below, which section, by the way, I encourage you to read and use after this and future posts.
Written by Quentin R. Wittrock, founder of Principle Based Politics.
Look for his periodic, principled political posts, as this blog will explore and promote the idea of principle in politics, both as to individual elected leaders and our federal government as an institution.
Principle Based Politics does not endorse or support any particular political candidate or party.
Quentin
Posted at 19:05h, 23 MarchC, F, and G were Don King. A, E, and H were Don Trump. B and D were both.
Anonymous
Posted at 13:40h, 25 MarchYou have Trump Derangement Syndrome and you need therapy.
Good Luck.
Quentin
Posted at 19:32h, 25 MarchPerhaps I do, Anonymous. After that TDS legislation is enacted in Minnesota, I may ask my doctor about your diagnosis of me.
Russ Weaver
Posted at 15:02h, 25 MarchGreat comparison. Of course, the final chapter of King Donald hasn’t been written. We can only hope strong men of good will be involved the the demise of Trump’s ignominious reign.
Jonah Heuer
Posted at 15:22h, 25 MarchGiven the choice, I’d prefer a constitutional republic like the Founders constructed. But in a world where that constitution has been mangled and warped against itself, I’d rather have a king who preserves my country for my grandchildren than a democratic government that hands my nation over to globalism, unfettered immigration, and self-destruction.
Quentin
Posted at 15:24h, 25 MarchWell written comment, Jonah. I’m not sure those are the only two choices. What do other readers think?
Gary Russell
Posted at 17:54h, 25 MarchMany of these blog posts deal with the choices we have on election day. By that time, we are locked in and many people vote for the “lesser” of two bad options. Our partisan bickering goes on from there with very few ever changing their minds.
The Republicans had other choices (Haley, Christie, DeSantis) with very little traction. MAGA supporters put them in the same “establishment” camp as other Democrats. This was clearly a “we want a *significant* change” vote.
Politicians reflecting on all this would do well to study what worked for Trump and sand off the edges of what folks seemingly don’t like. Democrats could re-aim their ‘progressive’ approach to technology and looking out for the middle class without preaching redistribution of wealth or limited speech. Inspire people with all that is possible and how everyone (or most) will benefit. Strong defense with strong leadership and minimal market barriers or protectionism.
Instead of a “they’re terrible” message, they can go with “there’s a better way” approach. Trump took the mean/nasty approach and did well with it. It worked – but that is yesterday’s playbook. The country will be changed and folks will sour on the negative mood of the country. There is an open lane for optimism. Just don’t blow it with extreme views. Like Quentin has been talking about, and what I see in most of the posts here, is that folks will resonate with reasonable common sense positive leadership. Will this help “everyone”? No it won’t – that’s socialism. The USA has demonstrated what is possible when markets work and people are mostly free to innovate and work. Just sand off the edges and maybe we pull away from “two bad options”.
Quentin
Posted at 18:28h, 25 MarchWell said, and good advice to politicians.
Dave Glesne
Posted at 17:55h, 25 MarchQuentin, your post gets at a very important and fundamental matter regarding the American presidency. Its something, I believe, with which we need to wrestle. It has to do with two views of the presidency. The first view was that of the Founders who viewed the president as a LEGAL EXECUTIVE. In Article II of the Constitution, they vested all the executive power in one person so that the government can act with speed, energy, decisiveness, and sometimes secrecy. Hamilton said that to have energy in the executive is the very definition of good government. But it was the energy of a legal executive, responsible for seeing that the laws of the land were faithfully executed.
The second view is the Progressive view of the presidency which sees the president as a POLITICAL AGENT of the public’s will – which is very different. Given birth by Woodrow Wilson, this view now characterizes the modern presidency – some have called it the Imperial Presidency – irrespective of political party. I dislike executive orders by Trump as much as I disliked them under Biden. We may not like it (and I don’t) but that is what the American presidency has become. The modern presidency has become democratized with a president’s ability to govern dependent on his popularity.
In this less than ideal situation there may nevertheless be an important difference beyond mere rhetoric in actual governance. In the Founder’s view, the president has unlimited authority to fire those who work in the executive branch. Through representative government, the president is responsible to the people, to faithfully execute the laws of the land, and therefore he has control over those who work for him so that those laws be executed faithfully. Trump is exercising that executive power invested in him by the Constitution in firing many under his control in the executive branch.
That legal authority was the very thing that the Progressives sought to reject. In birthing the Administrative State, Progressives sought to make the bureaucratic system as independent of the people as possible. They want those who make the laws, execute the laws, and adjudicate the laws independent of the people. Is not that what King George III of England was doing at the time of the Founding? Taking to himself all three functions of government? It would seems closer to reality that the Administrative State is the new King George III in our midst. If that be the case, it would mean that our current executive in chief is using his Constitutional right to remove employees under his authority who are not necessary for the running of the country, to cut spending in a giant bureaucracy which is wasting billions of dollars, to run the government efficiently. Thanks for the invitation to share thoughts!
Quentin
Posted at 18:17h, 25 MarchYour thoughts are so well articulated, Dave. One of the things Trump is doing that I like is trying to reduce the size and scope of the executive branch. If only he (and his helpers) would respect the laws in doing so, be honest and kind in his actions, and not focus on punishing his enemies.
Trudy Johnson
Posted at 17:58h, 25 MarchGreat article! YES – In his mind he is the KING and laws are for him to break. He’s done very well with that. This conservative, (that usually votes Republican) is not amused by the authoritative stance he has so eloquently deemed upon himself. 🙄
Gary Russell
Posted at 19:04h, 25 MarchDave Glesne – very interesting and helpful. Thx for sharing perspective.
DKnight
Posted at 02:50h, 26 MarchIt appears that we are supposed to defend Orange Man–who calls himself King and publishes a cartoon wearing a crown. How about we focus on measuring this administration–and all politicians by what they do?–their policies and actions? Also, no matter who the prez is–there will be court battles about policies. We have a history of the Presidency v. Supreme Court–going back to Andrew Jackson. Litigation and appellate review is the process–engaging in that process is not breaking laws–or acting like a tyrant. There are constant comments about Trump not being “nice” or “honest”. (Politicians in general have no claim to virtue or “honesty”). The narrative that limited government/republican policies are mean and lacking in empathy–and the dems/leftists are “nice” and more caring–is total nonsense. This false narrative has been promoted by the dems and the traditional media for my entire life–and I’m getting old. Leftism is cold, overbearing, freedom strangling government. Don’t worry–Trump won’t be King–we won’t let that happen.
Quentin
Posted at 03:05h, 26 MarchWe are agreed about judging politicians by what they do. In addition to referring to himself as king, he has taken many actions indicative of a monarch (as spelled out in the middle section of my post). Also, I have written already about his actions on tariffs, immigration, and other policies. Today’s blog was focused on his authoritarian actions.
Dknight
Posted at 04:55h, 26 MarchYep..but with congress full of inept caterwalling vipers, and rule by executive order (expanded by Obama and Biden as well), becoming our form of government, is it accurate to calll Trump’s orders authoritarian? Watch the news today…our elected officials are like the media..they are always trying to ruin others..rather than work with them. We are in a tenuous period. In order to get better..we need to reign in government control…which reducing government will do..