7 ms·
Like many here, I'm also disappointed about his decision to quit. I've read some articles comparing Trump's style to some Latin American leaders, and I can see
by molmalo 10y ago
Like many here, I'm also disappointed about his decision to quit.
I've read some articles comparing Trump's style to some Latin American leaders, and I can see several things that look alike (populist style, protectionism, appealing to nationalism, etc). But what I've learned living under those kinds of governments, is that when they first get to power, they usually have advisors that avoid them from going too far to either side of the political spectrum.
But eventually, as some of the advisors with different points of view start to leave (usually because of internal struggles), the leader tends to take far more radical positions reflecting the view of the surviving group of advisors.
And this starts a spiral that ends up with the leader having an inner circle so radicalized, with a few powerful advisers and several obsequious servers, that won't accept any opposing view on almost any subject.
In Argentina, the last example of this was Cristina Kirchner, whose economic policies were similar to what Trump is suggesting (mainly protectionism, and that's why several of her former economic team praised Trump). When she first got to the presidency after her husband, she 'inherited' most of the advisors his husband had. But the leftist side won her ear, and as the most centered advisors started to resign, her policies started to be more and more reactionary and radicalized.
What I mean with this is that even when you don't agree with the one who is in charge now, just the fact that you are in a position to make him hear you, even if you frequently argue, probably sometimes not in the best of terms, at least it shows that there is going to be lots of resistance and that tends to moderate in some ways some policies that would otherwise be much much worse.
If you leave the inner circle, the only ones who are left are either the ones trying to radicalize the leader, of the ones who won't move a finger as long as they keep their share of power. And that inner circle becomes an eco-chamber, where eventually the leader really believes that what he is doing is great and can not comprehend why some people can't agree with what he proposes, basically living in a fantasy fed by the remaining advisors.
Again, this is what I've seen happening several times, not some wild speculation... and I hope this won't happen here. But every day I'm a little more pessimistic.
- hackuser 10y agoTrump isn't clay waiting to be molded; he has clear ideas on what he wants to do, he's been talking about them since mid-2015 and has been acting on them, extremely aggressively, since November. It's past time to believe that he means what he says. In the last week: * He acted to ban immigration by many Muslims * He issued a statement on the Holocaust, and then defended it, using the language of Holocaust deniers. * He said immigration would favor Christians. How far does he have to go before you say, 'enough'?
- molmalo 10y agoHe is not clay, of course, but his policies and ideas can be softened. But that won't happen if the people who can talk to him behind closed doors, where they can be truly honest about what they think, just leave! If the ones who can tell him to his face that he is wrong with something quit, you can't expect this to get any better, and believe me when I tell you that it can get much much worse.
- hackuser 10y ago> He is not clay, of course, but his policies and ideas can be softened. What makes you say this? I don't agree and I've seen no sign of it, from mid-2015 until now. Has anyone softened them? There are two options: A) Advise him: There's a tiny chance you'll affect his policies, but there's a certainty that you will empower him by giving him your credibility. On a selfish level, he will devour that credibility, because he can only discredit you in return. B) Oppose him: Your advice and resources will help the opposition slow or stop Trump, and you will give them credibility (which will enhance your own credibility). I strongly believe B will accomplish far more good than A.
- molmalo 10y agoI know it's counterfactual history... but what if his only advisers would have been fanatics? Seeing his rhetoric in the campaign, with a full radicalized Trump, I guess the ban would have been much larger, including many other countries (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Lebanon, etc). And the same could be applied to other issues: e.g. exit NAFTA altogether overnight instead of renegotiating.
- hackuser 10y agoIs the argument really that 'it could be worse'? I guess that argument theoretically can be used anywhere, but then what does it mean? Arguably, it's never been worse. My strong belief is that lack of opposition makes things much worse than lack of advice. As a side note, one radical advisor people are forgetting about in this discussion is National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.