8 ms·

What seems like a paradox to me is how he can be so smart at playing crowds, working the political system, etc. He beat a Clinton in a race for president - that

by eloff 7y ago

What seems like a paradox to me is how he can be so smart at playing crowds, working the political system, etc. He beat a Clinton in a race for president - that's no mean feat. But then he does things like this that reveal he's actually a bit on the dumb side. I don't think there's any other way to square that.

Craighead 7y ago
He's highly effective at riding the tiger, but, not anything further.
tossAfterUsing 7y ago
that's the magic of his very stable genius
golemotron 7y ago
>What seems like a paradox to me is how he can be so smart at playing crowds, working the political system, etc. He beat a Clinton in a race for president - that's no mean feat. But then he does things like this that reveal he's actually a bit on the dumb side. I don't think there's any other way to square that. It is easy to square; it's social class. It's very important to a rather large segment of the country that it feel intellectually superior. He provokes them into talking about how superior they are, and that shores up his base. One further dynamic.. people in the media and professional classes can be destroyed by using the wrong word or by speculating off-handedly. That is why they flip out when Trump does it. It's partially envy of his freedom.
dhosek 7y ago
You underestimate the power of racism and sexism.
ubertaco 7y ago
There are several factors in US politics that led to Trump's election (including foreign involvement), and none of them are "Trump was someone who was qualified to be a capable leader." Whether it's the anti-intellectualist trend that lurks in some segments of the US population, or the way that the Republican party successfully intertwined themselves into American religious institutions several decades ago to make Republican party loyalty be perceived as an odd form of "cultural-Christian" piety by many who were swept up by the "religious Right" and "moral majority" movements, or the straight-up disinformation campaigns targeted at the most willful audiences....not one factor was tied to Trump being a good people leader or an intelligent strategist. It's more that he was the guy that happened to be there when a confluence of other efforts came to fruition, and he was crazy/manipulable/stupid enough to be useful for the role of "candidate".
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
larkost 7y ago
The problem in this case is not necessarily that President Trump is dumb (he may well be), but rather that he is dangerously overconfident in his abilities. He is one of those people who assumes that he knows more than the experts in those areas, and no amount of counter-examples dissuades him from that. This is a horrible attribute in a president, who constantly has to deal with an array of issues that no one person could ever be expert in.
- eloff 7y ago
  It's a horrible attribute for anyone. I can't stand the combination of arrogance and ignorance.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Alex3917 7y ago
  > He is one of those people who assumes that he knows more than the experts in those areas Would you say the same thing about NNT or Socrates?
  - tines 7y ago
    A laughable comparison. The man who said "The only thing I know is that I know nothing" is a far cry from the man who said "I don't take any responsibility at all".
    - Alex3917 7y ago
      If what the experts "know" is false, then knowing that you know nothing means that you know more than the experts.
    - tines 7y ago
      Actually a better contrast would have been > The man who said "The only thing I know is that I know nothing" is a far cry from the man who said "I know more than the generals do". But I didn't think of it at the time.
danans 7y ago
> He beat a Clinton in a race for president - that's no mean feat. > But then he does things like this that reveal he's actually a bit on the dumb side. The second thing is part of the reason he achieved the first thing. His smarts is knowing what sells to his base, and what consolidates them. Part of that is saying "dumb" or offensive stuff, with a lining of rhetoric that echoes with their anxieties.
- ardy42 7y ago
  >> He beat a Clinton in a race for president - that's no mean feat. >> But then he does things like this that reveal he's actually a bit on the dumb side. > The second thing is part of the reason he achieved the first thing. His smarts is knowing what sells to his base, and what consolidates them. > Part of that is saying "dumb" or offensive stuff, with a lining of rhetoric that echoes with their anxieties. I agree and disagree. I think you're right that his "dumbness" helped, but I don't think it was just about saying offensive stuff. It also meant that he was very willing to push polices that were against the status quo consensus (e.g. tariffs [1]), without hemming and hawing. That can appeal strongly to people who feel that the status quo hurts them. It's usually smart to play it safe, which means not straying too far from the status quo and only risk the minimum you think is required for victory. To stray, you either have to be really smart (come up with a brilliant bet no one else sees), or really dumb (not realizing there are safer bets to achieve your goal). Trump was the latter. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/07/donald-trump-says-he-favors-big-tariffs-on-chinese-exports/ https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/07/dona...
  - danans 7y ago
    > To stray, you either have to be really smart (come up with a brilliant bet no one else sees), or really dumb (not realizing there are better bets to achieve your goal). Trump was the latter. I guess I'm not convinced that it's easy to differentiate the two. I'm no supporter of the current POTUS, but I think his reality-TV derived smarts are indeed a kind of "smarts", in the same way that con-artists, or even popular show-runners are very smart. For one thing, they know their audience. Of course it's a disaster in our current situation, but I don't think he won the office through pure idiocy.
ping_pong 7y ago
One of the women from Shark Tank described him as the single best salesperson she has ever seen. She said he could hone in on a person's weakness and use that to make a sale and it worked. That's basically what he did during the election. He honed in on the single worst characteristic about the other candidates, "Low Energy Jeb", "Lyin' Ted", "Crooked Hillary", etc. And it worked. The problem is that he's a salesman, he's not an intellectual. So a lot of the stuff he says is off the cuff and colloquial which is dangerous and unpresidential. He succeeded in business by bullying his opponents and using his power against them by squeezing them. But it's not something that works in politics, because his opponents are generally much smarter than he is.
- heimatau 7y ago
  This is a stellar summary of Trump's skills.
- laichzeit0 7y ago
  > So a lot of the stuff he says is off the cuff and colloquial which is dangerous and unpresidential. Is there actually a codified set of instructions on what is "presidential" and what is not? Otherwise we descend into the domain of things being verboten and the retort of "well it's common sense" and so forth.
  - eloff 7y ago
    However you want to define presidential, I'm petty sure it excludes Trump. But that's what people wanted. He sold himself as the outside candidate. The drain the swamp anti establishment choice. I think he didn't have much power to really shake things up, but not for lack of trying.
    - jtdev 7y ago
      People didn’t want Clinton, that’s clear.
      - krapp 7y ago
hindsightbias 7y ago
This is his shtick. Every speech is intended to shore up his base and tweak his opposition. And they eagerly let him do it. Guy is a genius level troll in manipulating people and controlling the message. People didn’t get it in 2016, and they don’t get it now. We’re in for another 4 years if people focus on whatever he twittered today and not their own message. That’s not an election strategy.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  There is nothing I would love more than to respond to Trump's antics with an eyeroll and carry on in the pursuit of my own interests until he's turfed out of office. But his asinine tweets or remarks are frequently followed by policy changes with negative real-world consequences for real people, as well as malign behavior by his supporters. It's not just messaging, it's backed up with force. You just haven't experienced that first-hand yet.

by eloff 7y ago

Craighead 7y ago

He's highly effective at riding the tiger, but, not anything further.

tossAfterUsing 7y ago

that's the magic of his very stable genius

golemotron 7y ago

>What seems like a paradox to me is how he can be so smart at playing crowds, working the political system, etc. He beat a Clinton in a race for president - that's no mean feat. But then he does things like this that reveal he's actually a bit on the dumb side. I don't think there's any other way to square that. It is easy to square; it's social class. It's very important to a rather large segment of the country that it feel intellectually superior. He provokes them into talking about how superior they are, and that shores up his base. One further dynamic.. people in the media and professional classes can be destroyed by using the wrong word or by speculating off-handedly. That is why they flip out when Trump does it. It's partially envy of his freedom.

dhosek 7y ago

You underestimate the power of racism and sexism.

ubertaco 7y ago

There are several factors in US politics that led to Trump's election (including foreign involvement), and none of them are "Trump was someone who was qualified to be a capable leader." Whether it's the anti-intellectualist trend that lurks in some segments of the US population, or the way that the Republican party successfully intertwined themselves into American religious institutions several decades ago to make Republican party loyalty be perceived as an odd form of "cultural-Christian" piety by many who were swept up by the "religious Right" and "moral majority" movements, or the straight-up disinformation campaigns targeted at the most willful audiences....not one factor was tied to Trump being a good people leader or an intelligent strategist. It's more that he was the guy that happened to be there when a confluence of other efforts came to fruition, and he was crazy/manipulable/stupid enough to be useful for the role of "candidate".

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

larkost 7y ago

The problem in this case is not necessarily that President Trump is dumb (he may well be), but rather that he is dangerously overconfident in his abilities. He is one of those people who assumes that he knows more than the experts in those areas, and no amount of counter-examples dissuades him from that. This is a horrible attribute in a president, who constantly has to deal with an array of issues that no one person could ever be expert in.

eloff 7y ago
It's a horrible attribute for anyone. I can't stand the combination of arrogance and ignorance.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Alex3917 7y ago
> He is one of those people who assumes that he knows more than the experts in those areas Would you say the same thing about NNT or Socrates?
- tines 7y ago
  A laughable comparison. The man who said "The only thing I know is that I know nothing" is a far cry from the man who said "I don't take any responsibility at all".
  - Alex3917 7y ago
    If what the experts "know" is false, then knowing that you know nothing means that you know more than the experts.
  - tines 7y ago
    Actually a better contrast would have been > The man who said "The only thing I know is that I know nothing" is a far cry from the man who said "I know more than the generals do". But I didn't think of it at the time.

danans 7y ago

> He beat a Clinton in a race for president - that's no mean feat. > But then he does things like this that reveal he's actually a bit on the dumb side. The second thing is part of the reason he achieved the first thing. His smarts is knowing what sells to his base, and what consolidates them. Part of that is saying "dumb" or offensive stuff, with a lining of rhetoric that echoes with their anxieties.

ardy42 7y ago
>> He beat a Clinton in a race for president - that's no mean feat. >> But then he does things like this that reveal he's actually a bit on the dumb side. > The second thing is part of the reason he achieved the first thing. His smarts is knowing what sells to his base, and what consolidates them. > Part of that is saying "dumb" or offensive stuff, with a lining of rhetoric that echoes with their anxieties. I agree and disagree. I think you're right that his "dumbness" helped, but I don't think it was just about saying offensive stuff. It also meant that he was very willing to push polices that were against the status quo consensus (e.g. tariffs [1]), without hemming and hawing. That can appeal strongly to people who feel that the status quo hurts them. It's usually smart to play it safe, which means not straying too far from the status quo and only risk the minimum you think is required for victory. To stray, you either have to be really smart (come up with a brilliant bet no one else sees), or really dumb (not realizing there are safer bets to achieve your goal). Trump was the latter. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/07/donald-trump-says-he-favors-big-tariffs-on-chinese-exports/ https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/07/dona...
- danans 7y ago
  > To stray, you either have to be really smart (come up with a brilliant bet no one else sees), or really dumb (not realizing there are better bets to achieve your goal). Trump was the latter. I guess I'm not convinced that it's easy to differentiate the two. I'm no supporter of the current POTUS, but I think his reality-TV derived smarts are indeed a kind of "smarts", in the same way that con-artists, or even popular show-runners are very smart. For one thing, they know their audience. Of course it's a disaster in our current situation, but I don't think he won the office through pure idiocy.

ping_pong 7y ago

One of the women from Shark Tank described him as the single best salesperson she has ever seen. She said he could hone in on a person's weakness and use that to make a sale and it worked. That's basically what he did during the election. He honed in on the single worst characteristic about the other candidates, "Low Energy Jeb", "Lyin' Ted", "Crooked Hillary", etc. And it worked. The problem is that he's a salesman, he's not an intellectual. So a lot of the stuff he says is off the cuff and colloquial which is dangerous and unpresidential. He succeeded in business by bullying his opponents and using his power against them by squeezing them. But it's not something that works in politics, because his opponents are generally much smarter than he is.

heimatau 7y ago
This is a stellar summary of Trump's skills.
laichzeit0 7y ago
> So a lot of the stuff he says is off the cuff and colloquial which is dangerous and unpresidential. Is there actually a codified set of instructions on what is "presidential" and what is not? Otherwise we descend into the domain of things being verboten and the retort of "well it's common sense" and so forth.
- eloff 7y ago
  However you want to define presidential, I'm petty sure it excludes Trump. But that's what people wanted. He sold himself as the outside candidate. The drain the swamp anti establishment choice. I think he didn't have much power to really shake things up, but not for lack of trying.
  - jtdev 7y ago
    People didn’t want Clinton, that’s clear.
    - krapp 7y ago

hindsightbias 7y ago

This is his shtick. Every speech is intended to shore up his base and tweak his opposition. And they eagerly let him do it. Guy is a genius level troll in manipulating people and controlling the message. People didn’t get it in 2016, and they don’t get it now. We’re in for another 4 years if people focus on whatever he twittered today and not their own message. That’s not an election strategy.

anigbrowl 7y ago
There is nothing I would love more than to respond to Trump's antics with an eyeroll and carry on in the pursuit of my own interests until he's turfed out of office. But his asinine tweets or remarks are frequently followed by policy changes with negative real-world consequences for real people, as well as malign behavior by his supporters. It's not just messaging, it's backed up with force. You just haven't experienced that first-hand yet.