Donald Trump will probably announce his third run for the presidency today. And therein lies a mystery. Paul Krugman writes:
Let’s talk instead about how remarkable it is that someone like Trump managed to dominate one of America’s two major political parties and surely retains a substantial base.
I’m not talking about the fact that Trump holds what I consider reprehensible policy views or even the fact that he engaged in several acts, including an attempt to overturn a national election, that can reasonably be described as seditious. Clearly, most of the G.O.P. is OK with all of that.
I’m talking instead about the evident perception by many Republicans that Trump is a strong leader, when he is in reality extraordinarily weak.
It's obvious that Trump is not who he claims to be:
Start with personal character — not my favorite subject (I’m much more comfortable talking about policy), but something that clearly matters when you’re choosing a commander in chief.
I don’t think it’s romanticizing the past to say that once upon a time politicians who sought the presidency had to appear, well, presidential. That is, they had to display gravitas and dignity; whatever their behavior behind closed doors, in public they had to appear mature and self-controlled.
Trump, however, comes across as 76 going on a very bratty 14. He veers, sometimes in consecutive sentences, between cringeworthy boasting (what kind of person describes himself as a stable genius?) and whining, between bombast and self-pity.
Beyond personal affect, what stands out about Trump’s time in office is his weakness, his inability to get things done.
On domestic policy, Trump ran in 2016 as a different kind of Republican, one who would break with the party’s tax-cutting, anti-government orthodoxy. Once in the White House, however, he was putty in Mitch McConnell’s hands. His only major domestic policy initiatives were a failed attempt to repeal Obamacare and a standard-issue G.O.P. tax cut for corporations and the wealthy.
What about his promises to invest in infrastructure? Nothing came of them: “It’s Infrastructure Week!” became a running joke.
On foreign policy, North Korea’s Kim Jong-un played Trump for a fool with empty reassurances about denuclearization. China’s Xi Jinping did much the same over trade, getting Trump to pause his tariff hikes in return for a promise to buy U.S. goods that proved entirely empty.
In short, Trump’s performance in office was feeble — especially compared with that of his successor.
And he thinks that being a "stable genius" qualifies him for office?
Image:CafePress.com
15 comments:
Trump's a loser. He lost the 2020 election by 4.5 million votes to a man he claims is senile. Most of the 2022 candidates he backed lost too. The man has loser stink all over him, but the red hats don't smell it yet. The wealthy party backers do though and they're starting to panic. I look forward to Trump's announcement.
Cap
The Republicans are stuck, Cap. For them, every day is groundhog day.
I haven’t read the full article but this excerpt doesn’t mention the sell out to putin, particularly in regards to Ukraine.
Now the reps are stuck with him. It seems, reading between the lines, that many would like to get rid of him but know they can’t without offending his simple and stupid supporters. And now for any other one of them with leadership aspirations they have to appear to be at least as off the wall as trump. Some are even taking it a step or two further.
None of it makes any sense to me, at all, and my biggest worry is we have it sprouting up in Canada. Dimbulb Smith the latest to poke their empty noggin above the parapet.
I can’t figure out why we give these people the time of day. This sort of thinking should be absolutely not entertained at all, not given the oxygen it needs to even be a consideration. Conservative thinking fine, not for me but at least it makes some kind of sense. This contrarian, over the top Bee to the eeS, race to be the most offended, the most indignant, thinly veiled misogynistic, racist, against all decency and common sense type of politics should have been stomped on at conception. Now we have all sorts of bedroom wall scribblers who think all the ideas from a trump a DeSantis a Smith a MTG etc, are great ideas. All because power infatuated people want to win at any cost and will say anything to get it.
These days, being off the wall is perceived to be the path to power, Graham.
I don’t think it’s romanticizing the past to say that once upon a time politicians who sought the presidency had to appear, well, presidential.
Jackson?
Wilson who brought in racial segregation in the US civil service?
Johnson too cowardly to exit Vietnam
George Washington and what's his name, Thomas Jefferson, as dedicated slavers
Various presidents instigating coups d'état around the world that gave us the Islamic Republic of Iran or a Somalia ruined state. Oh, let us not forget wreaking Haiti.
Appearing "presidential" seems to me to be a synonym for "creating total fuck-ups" for the rest of the world.
I take your point, jrk. But you have to admit that Trump is in a category all by himself.
But you have to admit that Trump is in a category all by himself.
As a person I suppose yes but as a president he was not actually that bad. I don't care about internal US policies. He may have been horrible there but "Je m'en fou".
In international affairs he managed to get the USA out of Afghanistan, almost managed to get the USA out of Syria, did not start a war with Russia which Hilary seemed likely to do, and, while economically hostile to everyone who was not American, did not seem to be trying to start a war with China. He seemed to be the last of the "America First" types.
I still do not buy US vegetables in the grocery store thanks to him but his idiocies seem less than the Biden regime's
He was not a great president but as presidents go he was probably just mediocre or slightly below...
I am reminded of the Aesop's fable of King Log and King Stork.
I'm betting that American historians will rank Trump near the bottom -- perhaps the bottom of all presidents, jrk.
Well' it is a bad list to begin with. Lowest--highest ?
Besides who cares what "American historians" think?
I assure you I do not.
As flawed as they were, there is much to admire about Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, jrk.
What?
Lincoln,backed in a corner, fought a civil war over a principle he only slightly endorsed?
He disliked slavery but was not likely to fight a civil war over it. Guy Carlton was probably a more anti-slavery advocate than Lincoln.
Franklin Roosevelt, as Teddy before him, desperately, trying to fight off socialism in the USA?
I really do not find a lot to admire.
As flawed as they were, there is much to admire about Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt
Why? A couple of foreign heads of state who did not screw up too badly?
Put them up against McDonald or Pearson.
I agree that MacDonald and Pearson were great leaders, jrk. Lincoln was, first and foremost, committed to saving the union. Roosevelt was committed to saving democracy.
Lincoln was, first and foremost, committed to saving the union
A matter of the Union? What right did he have to declare this? Besides who cares? I don't'. I am not a US citizen.
We might be better off with a two or three sections of the US below us than what we have.
Roosevelt was committed to saving democracy.
Or dedicated to replacing the British Empire? I may have missed it but I see no hint of this "saving democracy" but remember as I said earlier, I have no interest in US internal politics.
Cuba and the Iranian coup do not reassure me that Roosevelt was committed to saving democracy. Roosevelt would even boast that he had personally written Haiti’s constitution
I understand your revulsion to American power, jrk. But Lincoln and Roosevelt need to be viewed in the context of the times in which they lived.
Post a Comment