3 ms·
This post got flagged and killed. Daniel kindly unkilled it at my request. I'm not a Trump fan (and neither is the article) but I agree with its counter-intuiti
by eevilspock 11y ago
This post got flagged and killed. Daniel kindly unkilled it at my request. I'm not a Trump fan (and neither is the article) but I agree with its counter-intuitive observation.
> In the short time since Trump declared his candidacy, he has performed a public service by exposing, however crudely and at times inadvertently, the posturings of both the Republicans and the Democrats and the foolishness and obsolescence of much of the political culture they share. He is, as many say, making a mockery of the entire political process with his bull-in-a-china-shop antics. But the mockery in this case may be overdue, highly warranted, and ultimately a spur to reform rather than the crime against civic order that has scandalized those who see him, in the words of the former George W. Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, as “dangerous to democracy.”
It's no surprise that Michael Gerson labels Trump "dangerous to democracy." Trump is actually dangerous to the GOP establishment and Gerson stands for that establishment.
What does it say about American democracy that it takes a self-aggrandizimg billionaire to speak openly about buying politicians and offers to be bought in a presidential election debate? It's the job of the moderators to force such an issue into the open, but they don't dare anger the party for fear of never hosting again. If you watched the first debate, you can see that Fox News was tough on Trump (as they should be), but nowhere near as tough on the rest (as they should have been). Even CNN seemed to be a proxy for the Republican establishment in the second debate.
EDIT: Ross Perot was was the last candidate to truly upset the political establishment, and he also was a billionaire. Hmmmm....
- jonathanjaeger 11y agoWell there is Larry Lessig, who raised more than his $1MM goal from smaller donors to run as a referendum candidate with the sole purpose of getting money out of politics. That being said, he has zero name recognition when compared to Trump and is certainly not going to be as "entertaining".
- anigbrowl 11y agoIt's a good call. I thought about posting it yesterday but was uncertain about the political content. I think it's interesting to hackers insofar as it identifies some meta-trends in politics that are characteristic of systems disruption. Other organs such as the Economist have also observed that Something is Amiss when the three leading candidates are all non-politicians and easily outpoll candidates with experience in governance (even if you dislike their policies). http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21665014-party-faithful-are-keen-decapitate-politicians-experience-politics-regicidal?zid=311&ah=308cac674cccf554ce65cf926868bbc2 http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21665014-party-f... I've said for some time that the world is drifting back towards a place of deep political instability, and this election has the unpleasant air of looming disaster about it. Whoever is elected president is almost certainly going to be regarded as illegitimate or intolerable by a large segment of the population, due to a mix of the internet and demographic sorting a la http://www.thebigsort.com/home.php http://www.thebigsort.com/home.php I feel we underestimate the influence of the internet on social dynamics. It's much easier to get near-immediate social validation for any given identity group, and something about the combination of anonymity and depersonalization in discussion forums provides psychosocial rewards for antagonistic/oppositional behavior when viewpoints collide.
- AnimalMuppet 11y agoWell, the last two presidents have been regarded as illegitimate and intolerable by large segments of the population. I'm not saying that's good, but we've survived it so far. However, I share your unease, your feeling that Something Is Amiss.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]