It was quite a while ago that I read it, but I was struck by how adamantly he refused to budge on economic and military issues (e.g., free trade agreements and

It was quite a while ago that I read it, but I was struck by how adamantly he refused to budge on economic and military issues (e.g., free trade agreements and Afghanistan). Despite having 99% of his advisors screaming that the consequences of his decisions would be disastrous, he believed (like many others) that some things are generally bad for the country, no matter what statistics were presented to him. His efforts were often stifled by existing bureaucracy and his own advisors. I guess I'm more sympathetic because it seemed that his actions were a result of general distrust of experts and the status quo, not of malice. That should be something that a thread filled with contrarians should be able to appreciate at some level.