3 ms·

I don't mean to imply that the actions of the Trump administration are healthy or appropriate. But having just read "Dereliction of Duty" [1] about the Kennedy

I don't mean to imply that the actions of the Trump administration are healthy or appropriate. But having just read "Dereliction of Duty" [1] about the Kennedy and Johnson administration and how the Vietnam War was managed in its early days, I think it's clear that the kind of behavior here, especially around valuing personal loyalty over competence or being given accurate information is not a new phenomenon. The fallout of Watergate, especially the fact that the executive no longer routinely records conversations, mean that we'll never have a good idea of normal/not-normal in this context ever again the way that we have it for the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. So I can't say whether subsequent presidents have made similar decisions, but the "personal loyalty" thing is very definitely not a new thing. Note that this isolation from reality had large-scale disastrous consequences at that time, so this is not to say that we should become complacent about it. But in itself, I'm finding the "not normal" critique to be a bit shallow; a sort of tu quoque that substitutes for actually criticizing the concrete actions of the administration. [1] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004HW7834 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004HW7834 -- written by H. R. McMaster, our current National Security Adviser, who I sincerely hope will hold to the standards that he advocates in that volume.

WorldMaker 9y ago
The "norm" then was to crack down on the wrong when it came to light. Watergate's actions were done in secret and the heroes of the story were journalists investigating the wrongs and trying to correct them. Just because the past wasn't perfect doesn't mean we shouldn't stop striving for perfection. Watergate having happened doesn't give the administration a blank check to carry out Watergate-level actions in public and treat them as if they were normal and as if they were right.
- andrewla 9y ago
  Watergate was under Nixon, not Johnson or Kennedy -- I was merely pointing out that the side effect of Watergate was that presidents no longer recorded their conversations. This prevents us, for the sake of determining what is "normal", from having a record of what was actually being said by the president and his advisors while these terrible decisions were being made. Watergate was a criminal act. The acts of Kennedy and Johnson were not criminal, just irresponsible. In particular, cronyism and requiring personal loyalty are not "not normal" as alleged, and the "not normal" argument in general wears a bit thin and lacks any historical perspective.
  - WorldMaker 9y ago
    The article here points out that yes, the "normal" in US politics has since about the founding of the country been that the only fealty oath used by the federal government was one to the Constitution and the People. Cronyism and personal loyalty were not criminal, but were considered unethical and when such things come to light, it was the job of a free press and other parts of the government to fix them and make things better. It was never openly "normal" in any school of American government history to accept cronyism or personal loyalty. Sure it happened, but the goal was to reduce and/or eliminate it; that was the presumed "norm".

WorldMaker 9y ago

The "norm" then was to crack down on the wrong when it came to light. Watergate's actions were done in secret and the heroes of the story were journalists investigating the wrongs and trying to correct them. Just because the past wasn't perfect doesn't mean we shouldn't stop striving for perfection. Watergate having happened doesn't give the administration a blank check to carry out Watergate-level actions in public and treat them as if they were normal and as if they were right.

andrewla 9y ago
Watergate was under Nixon, not Johnson or Kennedy -- I was merely pointing out that the side effect of Watergate was that presidents no longer recorded their conversations. This prevents us, for the sake of determining what is "normal", from having a record of what was actually being said by the president and his advisors while these terrible decisions were being made. Watergate was a criminal act. The acts of Kennedy and Johnson were not criminal, just irresponsible. In particular, cronyism and requiring personal loyalty are not "not normal" as alleged, and the "not normal" argument in general wears a bit thin and lacks any historical perspective.
- WorldMaker 9y ago
  The article here points out that yes, the "normal" in US politics has since about the founding of the country been that the only fealty oath used by the federal government was one to the Constitution and the People. Cronyism and personal loyalty were not criminal, but were considered unethical and when such things come to light, it was the job of a free press and other parts of the government to fix them and make things better. It was never openly "normal" in any school of American government history to accept cronyism or personal loyalty. Sure it happened, but the goal was to reduce and/or eliminate it; that was the presumed "norm".