Perhaps it’s my elderly dotage, but recently rhymes and folk stories from my youth keep coming to mind. One emerged during the first presidential debate. It has stayed with me as I’ve read various reports and analyses of that debate.

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall. Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. All the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t put Humpty together again.

First published by Samuel Arnold in 1797, this poem originated as a riddle from the 14th century, asking: What or who is Humpty Dumpty? The most popular answer of course has been an egg, reveled in drawings since 1797. However, hidden beneath the obvious, there have been answers that were political commentary. For example, it may have been a riddle traveling among oppressed people as a sly allusion to King Richard III, their brutal king who reigned for 26 months before falling in battle, his military unable to protect him.

The riddle is still open for interpretation today. During the presidential debate we witnessed a president teetering on the top edge of the arrogant wall he has built during his reign. Chris Wallace, the debate moderator, said, “I never dreamt that it would go off the tracks the way it did.” Others have said it was a disaster. Thirty minutes into the debate it felt like everything came tumbling down into a broken heap, and nothing could put it together again. We have been confronted with a riddle. What caused it? How did it happen? What was the intention?

Commentators have been focusing mostly on intentions and strategy. The New York Times reported, “Trump often acts on instinct, and he may have done so in this case.” Maggie Haberman said, “People close to him are blunt that the president knows he’s losing and is scared of it.” Joshua Coleman, a psychologist in the Bay Area wrote in the Atlantic that Trump’s action was “more an act of domination than healthy dialogue.”

In addition to the flood of analysis, there have been discussions about the feelings that surfaced during the “train wreck.” Numerous people became greatly distressed. On webinars I have recently attended, participants have delayed following the agenda to talk first about their feelings of disorientation, despair, and embarrassment while watching the debate. Among these people there is a growing consensus that it felt as if something was severely wrong. Trump’s histrionics didn’t seem to fit the context of the debate.

People’s feelings are a clue to what was really happening. When I was training to work on a research project as an army neuropsychiatric specialist, the doctors taught us to trust our feelings when interviewing a person in distress. If words and emotions do not feel like they fit into the context of a situation, there is probably something more going on beneath the surface. It seems there was more going on in the debate than a rational plan of disruption to gain the upper hand.

About 30 minutes into the debate, the issue was the COVID-19 pandemic. Biden said, “Unless he (Trump) gets a lot smarter a lot quicker” there will be even more deaths. Trump lost his composure and blurted out, “Did you say the word ‘smart’? Don’t ever use the word ‘smart’ with me. Don’t ever use that word.” Up until then, Trump seemed to be having a good time. But, when he asked, “Did you say the word ‘smart’?” his facial expression became grim and challenging, expressing a flight or fight determination.

His emotional response to that simple word, “smart,” did not fit. Trump must have underlying feelings about the word. It is feasible, in his world, the word “smart” could be associated only with his assertion, “I’m a very smart person.” Any other context of the word would be felt as threatening his self-esteem and his perceived unbridled presidential power and authority. Therefore, he took emotional flight from the debate. His anxiety drove him to fight for his life with a defensive chaotic barrage of frantic incessant interruptions and personal attacks. The debate was fun no more. He was emotionally teetering on the edge of his wall of superiority. For any who were not living in his world, it was confusing and uncomfortable to watch.

I must confess, Trump’s presidency is the antithesis to most of the values important to me and to the survival of a democratic America. However, in the debate, we witnessed a man in serious trouble. He was falling from the wall of his internal world of self-centered greatness and superiority. Some will choose to continue supporting him by joining him on the wall of his world, hopelessly seeking to modify his obsessions. However, a more humane way to help him is to let him fall from the presidency. The fall would crack open and free him from his self-absorbed world.

All the king’s horses and all the king’s men could not put his world together again. But the people can help. They can pick up the pieces and welcome him as a regular citizen in our world. He can be introduced to the companionship of equality with all human beings. Our votes can make the difference.

(John Buttrick of Concord can be reached at johndbuttrick@gmail.com.)