1. When Obama was president, things were more or less fine, minus frequent squabbling about polarization and gridlock in Washington. Since Donald Trump’s inauguration, the world has become a garish, nightmare-inducing cavalcade of terrible news, due primarily to the president’s general incompetence and tendency to make policy decisions based on volatile whims and reactionary impulses.
2. Trump’s ascendance was the natural result of the most staggering economic inequality since the Great Depression coupled with increasingly blatant racist and xenophobic rhetoric from the right.
I basically agree with the first statement, though I won’t go so far as “nightmare-inducing”.
In the second, I don’t agree those were the primary aspects of Trump’s ascendence. I say that was a default of the failure of both major parties to counter Trump as a change agent. The Dems were so fixated on electing the first woman President, they badly misjudged how widely she was despised, even in her own party. Then they ran the worst WH campaign since Dukakis.
The Repubs totally screwed the pooch, as one by one, they laid down to allow the boorish pu-ygrabber to steamroll over them, and hijack their platform and the entire party. The flaccid GOP establishment candidates were all lost in their pale mediocrity. ALL will still bear the stink once Trump is gone.
Another point you and I may agree to disagree, Stu: IMO, Trump is an incandescently stupid man, consumed by his own delusions, and propped up by a shifting roster of enablers and lackeys who are either mortally afraid of his wrath, or have a vested personal interest in his favor. Or both.
What‘s worse, and the most persistent failure of his “administration”, is that he appears utterly convinced that everyone else is dumber than he is.
I offer the following:
-Because many people always vote their party line, regardless.
-Because a lot of people hated the opponent even more.
-Because Trump represented a sea change from the status quo.
-Let’s add that for the same reasons millions hold other nonsensical beliefs: because people are gullible.
None of that validates Trump’s intellect, only that he may smart enough to manipulate some lesser minds.
I noticed W wasn’t in your list of presidential examples. I submit his simple a$$ as evidence of stupid AND winning the WH.
This post was edited by Don Barzini at November 2, 2019 3:54 PM MDT
As Tom said, I too, hold that stupid is relative. Relative to one’s understanding of intelligence, IQ, or what have you.
Having spent my adult life around academics, I cannot, on good conscience, agree to your point. Just not impressed.
Look at Trump’s meandering, ill-informed, unhinged speeches. Look at the disorder of his thinking, the closed mind; His unwillingness to read, accept briefing or counsel. Look at his limited vocabulary, his poor grasp of history and science, and his disrespect of other intellects.
No, Stu, Trump is, by my standard, plenty stupid.
That I dislike him is beside the point.
That the guy is effective at manipulating a certain demographic is more an indictment of their brainpower than validation of his.
“Smart enough“ is a mighty low bar.
Good points, Stu.
I think that what Trump does, the nature of his behavior, etc., are the products of what has more or less worked for him throughout his life. Admittedly, he has been successful (in a way) at many things, by embracing the most expedient methods that meet his intentions and conform to his flawed character, while jettisoning ”unnecessary” collateral baggage like empathy, civility, and honesty.
To be sure, it is a stripped-down results oriented approach, but it is zero-sum; I win, you lose. Add to that a congenital need for adulation (insecurity), fear of perceived weakness (paranoia) and a talent for oversimplifications (like hollow buzzwords), centered around a grandiose self-image, and the formula is clear.
But I don’t believe Trump is cognizant of any of this, as he just plods forward, absent detailed strategy, doing and saying whatever impulse strikes him in a given moment, impetuously; never having been held to account. The only real strategy is to litigate or loudly denigrate dissenters, and play martyr when nothing else works.
(This is not an ideal model of leadership)
This, at least to me, Stu, is not indicative of any great intelligence, only a robotic repetition of the same mofifs he has gotten away with in the past. As I said before, I also see it as an indictment of those who submit to those motifs.
This post was edited by Don Barzini at November 3, 2019 7:47 AM MST
Adaydreambeliever 