In 1997, Carl Sagan, contemplating different standards of behavior, coined the Tin Rule: “Suck up to those above you, and abuse those below you.” It was an alternative to the well-known Golden Rule (“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”). There were other principles, such as the Silver Rule (“Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you”), the Brass Rule (“Do unto others as they do unto you”) and the Iron Rule (“Do unto others as you like, before they do it unto you”). The Tin Rule offered a flexible combo: the Golden Rule for superiors, the Iron Rule for inferiors. There was also the Nepotism Rule: “Give precedence in all things to close relatives, and do as you like to others.”
The Golden Rule, as preached by Jesus, is familiar from Matthew 7:12 but had earlier renditions. Confucius didn’t buy it, asking: If you repay evil with kindness, with what will you repay kindness? Sagan agreed, writing: “With a heartless adversary, isn’t this just a guarantee of more suffering?” The Silver Rule, he noted, was in keeping with the civil disobedience of Gandhi or MLK, but that still meant hoping for a change of heart from those doing evil, without knowing if or when that will occur.
Drawing on game theory and computer tournaments, Sagan praised a Tit-for-Tat strategy: “You start out cooperating, and in each subsequent round simply do what your opponent did last time.” This was the Brass Rule as modified with an initial benevolent disposition, and it seemed a promising middle way between “too much kindness or cruelty.” Sagan suggested that the whole issue should be approached empirically, through science and history. In subsequent years, theorists have refined such advice, arguing Tit-for-Tat works best with some forgiveness, to avoid cycles of retribution. That debate is ongoing.
The Tin Rule offers insight into the Trump administration. There is pervasive sucking-up to the president by administration officials and allies in Congress and media, as well as vindictiveness toward not only adversarial groups and individuals, but also Trump supporters who might be adversely affected by changes in government policies and payments, but whose support is taken-for-granted or unneeded. They’ve been screwed! Notably, though, Donald Trump too shows a capacity for sucking-up, for example in his dealings with Vladimir Putin or Elon Musk. Regarding Trump’s solicitousness toward Musk, as a Missouri wrestling mom recently noted, “It makes him look like he’s kissing ass to get money.”
However, the Tin Rule needs to be amended with additional principles to adequately grasp this administration’s modus operandi. I propose the following three, which can operate in tandem with the Tin Rule and each other:
The Illegality Rule: “Do things that are illegal, even when stated objectives could be achieved through legal means.” Examples abound of this principle in action. The Trump administration could have deported undocumented immigrant gang members (if that’s who they are) under existing laws without invoking the Alien Enemies Act and proclaiming that a particular gang is invading the U.S. at the behest of a foreign government (in contradiction of U.S. intelligence assessments). Similarly, the administration could have sought from Republican majorities in Congress legislative authorization to restructure agencies along the lines of DOGE’s activities. Taking such actions without proper legal basis serves a higher administration objective of shedding legal and constitutional constraints.
The Forgetting Rule: “Forget any prior statement or position you’ve held, as desired, and disregard all long-term personal, political or institutional commitments.” Arrangements such as alliances, trade pacts, and marriages can all be dispensed with when no longer convenient or desired. Doing so at whim, and even in seeming contradiction of rationality, serves to give a maximally free hand in future dealings; plus, the disadvantages of losing the trust of allies and other partners are outweighed by the benefits of having new scapegoats and adversaries to whip up supporters against as distraction from policy failures.
The Schmuck Rule: “Hire weak, incompetent people who will be beholden to you for elevating them to a position for which they’re grossly, pathetically unqualified.” This is also known as the Hegseth Rule.
—Kenneth Silber is author of In DeWitt’s Footsteps: Seeing History on the Erie Canal. Follow him on Bluesky
