Angus King

Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, has represented Maine in the U.S. Senate since 2013.

When any of us are faced with a major decision — like whether to buy a house, change jobs or move to a new city — almost invariably we go through a process involving gathering facts and data, considering alternatives, weighing costs and benefits, and finally, talking it over with family, friends and often experts, especially those we can count on to give us their honest advice.

Would you take a new job without knowing the salary or how many days you would be expected to be in the office? Or move to a new city without knowing anything about housing costs or the quality of the schools? Would you make an important business deal without talking to your lawyer or accountant?

Sure, we usually start with some idea of where we want the decision to come out — a gut instinct, which itself is part of the process. But that instinct may be based upon incomplete data or a less than full understanding of the risks and benefits, and having that instinct be the only guide can sometimes (more like usually) lead to disastrous results.

Like a war with Iran with no end in sight, a trade war with Canada or ordering the hideously expensive redesign of an aircraft carrier because the new ones don’t look like the pictures you remember as a kid.

In a normal administration, major decisions are made by the president to be sure, but only after a process involving gathering facts and data (we have a multibillion-dollar-a-year intelligence apparatus designed to do just that), considering costs, risks and benefits and listening to experts with deep subject matter knowledge and experience, like the senior military, economists or diplomats.

It’s a variation on the old Reagan line — trust (your instinct) but verify (the facts).

But unfortunately, this administration doesn’t work that way.

By all reports, major decisions pop out of Donald Trump’s head with little or no serious data gathering, consideration of risks or consultation with those with knowledge of the issue at hand. And the problem is compounded by the culture of fear and intimidation he has created within his circle, which stifles (to put it mildly) any pushback on his often bad ideas.

There’s not an economist in the world who thinks a trade war with Canada is a good idea. And even when Tulsi Gabbard (!) reportedly told the president that bombing Iran would achieve neither regime change nor the elimination of their nuclear capacity or ambitions, and would likely result in the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, Trump clearly didn’t listen. Similarly, Pete Hegseth’s purge of senior military officers has compromised the provision of straight advice from those who knew the consequences of a nine-month aircraft carrier deployment.

Sure, sometimes we can get bogged down by process, and paralysis by analysis can be a real thing. Ultimately, there has to be a decision, and we never have perfect data. But that does not mean that the opposite — no data, no analysis, no honest consultation — is true, or in the best interests of the country.

Really smart leaders know what they don’t know and have the good sense to listen and learn. History’s worst leaders think they know everything and neither listen nor learn, and their people inevitably suffer for it.

Filled up your gas tank lately?