Somehow, I grew up in a family and attended schools where, by my Grade 12 graduation in 1969, the possible occupation of ‘developer’ had never been discussed.
No one I knew had a mother or father who was one, and if pressed for a definition, I probably would have concluded it was some kind of career with Kodak, who for the Millennials out there, made and developed ‘film’ into what were called ‘snapshots’ or pictures. They were ‘taken’ at various family events, and when a ‘roll of film was shot,’ they were ‘developed’ at a Kodak laboratory somewhere.
Presumably the person who did this work was a developer.
In my four years of undergraduate study at the University of British Columbia in Arts, the concept of ‘developer’ remained unspoken and undefined. It may have been in the mid-1970s that I first heard the word used to describe Vancouver Mayor Tom Campbell, who was linked to apartment house (condos hadn’t arrived yet) construction in the downtown west end. I read somewhere that before his political career he was ‘in development.’
Around this time, I had a summer job as a carpenter’s helper, and my boss Lidio Cazzaro (an Italian master craftsman), referred to certain types of hardware and finishes as ‘developer grade.’ I remember pressing him about this term. He replied, “You know, catch your eye, flashy stuff that looks good at first, but later breaks or buggers-up somehow because it’s not well made.”
In the house renovation we worked on together, Lidio advised the owners to buy top grade Italian floor tiles, to invest in wool wall-to-wall quality carpeting, and to select brand name bathroom fixtures associated with at least a generation of refined and solid service. He also stressed that it made our job easier when we worked with great materials and installed proper fixtures. We never used ‘developer grade’ anything.
And so I formed an impression of developers that coincided with what my grandfather, Captain B. O. Robinson (a very English headmaster at a private school for boys) termed, “The flip and the flashy.” This phrase he reserved for the end-of-term report cards of boys who paid too much attention to bragging, showing off, and being flippant about work. One quickly learned in his classroom (or as his grandson) that such behaviour was not to be associated with anything approximating success in one’s career. In fact, it was distinctly the opposite.
Drawing on this early experience of developer grade materials and the flip and the flashy boasts of school bullies and braggarts, I find it amazing how well my early training has prepared me to understand Donald Trump’s candidacy for president of the United States.
Everything about the man would drive Lidio nuts. I can just imagine his craftsman’s analysis of Trump Towers anywhere, dripping in faux finishes, gaudy colours and fake antiques. Trump’s mockery of the weak, braggart’s demeanour, and orange hair would send my grandfather into apoplexy.
My own take on the man is an absolute synthesis of Lidio Cazzaro and Captain Robinson: He is completely and utterly unprepared for the position he seeks, and nothing in his earlier life suggests the rigour, public service ethic, or compassion necessary for the office.
So why do so many respond favourably (at least to pollsters) to his candidacy? What do they see in his buffoonery, grotesque mimicry of the disabled, overt racism, blatant sexism, pandering to international thugs and bullies, pretensions about understanding working-class Americans, and dismissal of those who have struggled to master professional qualifications in disciplines necessary for statecraft in a complex, climate changing world?
Can it really be true that about 40 percent of the U.S. voting public considers these behaviours acceptable for leading the free world? Why do so many see a developer (increasingly really just a ‘licensed namer’) of casinos and hotels and golf courses as a nuanced political leader? Why have hyperbole and bombast challenged forethought, struggle and moral leadership in U.S. politics?
I choose to believe that the 40 percent are amused, even titillated by Trump. But fundamentally not yet convinced.
I think that Trump’s star is about to crash. Every day, new voices are weighing in on his developer grade thought process, his preference for ideological veneers, and his absence of depth. Fundamentally he is a failed political apprentice, and his early base is gradually learning that his candidacy is a bad joke.
Mike Robinson has been CEO of three Canadian NGOs: the Arctic Institute of North America, the Glenbow Museum and the Bill Reid Gallery. Mike has chaired the national boards of Friends of the Earth, the David Suzuki Foundation, and the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. In 2004, he became a Member of the Order of Canada.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
