5 ms·

This couldn't be a better example of partisan "blindness". Unironically, I've found some of the most simplistic and emotional (unsolicited) takes on US politic

This couldn't be a better example of partisan "blindness". Unironically, I've found some of the most simplistic and emotional (unsolicited) takes on US politics when engaging with people abroad.

benj111 3y ago
It isn't partisan. I could write a long essay about the issues with trump, and none of it relies on specific policies or the party he belongs to. At root, he just doesn't have democratic instincts. I'd put him far too close to Hitler or Putin in that regard. But even if you don't want to go that far, he isn't one to build concensus. Which is the reason for my criticism. If you're going to vote for the other side's representative, surely you would value consensus.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  Hitler was pretty different from Putin, Stalin, Trump, Gaddafi or even the Xis, Husseins and FDRs of the world in terms of personality. For Hitler the vision was so compelling that he bit off more than he could chew. Hitler was an idealist. The others are/were temperamentally focused enough on personal power that the vision is constrained relative to that personal power, and ultimately in favor of that personal power. They can still screw up (witness Putin and to a lesser extent Trump), but they're constantly adapting to what their power indicates is possible.
  - benj111 3y ago
    Yes, ish. There's a few core traits you could apply to them all though. I'm not saying Trump is going to murder millions of Jews. What I am saying is that trump is about personal power at the expense of democracy. That he will do things his way, come what may. That's also an element of why people vote for him. They want a 'strong' leader. But strong leaders don't make good democratic leaders, because democracy gets in their way.
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      I agree. Though there's a limit to what he actually can do in the US power structure, even with buy-in by other figures. It's a truism in the US that if you care about the economy and defense you should vote Republican, and yet when you look at the actual actions of Republican presidential administrations you basically have to go back to Reagan economic and defense policies which were actually decent (and Reagan's most decent economic policy was reappointing Volcker who was originally appointed by Carter). This is not to say Democrats have been all that much better, but at least they weren't cutting taxes during an expensive war of offense. These same truisms exist about so-called strong leaders.
      - benj111 3y ago
        I'm not so confident. I'm from the UK, on paper we have an absolutely terrible constitution. Compare that to Afghanistan when the US pulled out. But then Afghanistan folded straight away, whereas Britain has managed to stay somewhat stable for a few centuries. My conclusion is that democracy isn't so much about the written rules as it is culture. That means you need people at the top that actually respect that culture.

This couldn't be a better example of partisan "blindness". Unironically, I've found some of the most simplistic and emotional (unsolicited) takes on US politics when engaging with people abroad.

benj111 3y ago

It isn't partisan. I could write a long essay about the issues with trump, and none of it relies on specific policies or the party he belongs to. At root, he just doesn't have democratic instincts. I'd put him far too close to Hitler or Putin in that regard. But even if you don't want to go that far, he isn't one to build concensus. Which is the reason for my criticism. If you're going to vote for the other side's representative, surely you would value consensus.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
Hitler was pretty different from Putin, Stalin, Trump, Gaddafi or even the Xis, Husseins and FDRs of the world in terms of personality. For Hitler the vision was so compelling that he bit off more than he could chew. Hitler was an idealist. The others are/were temperamentally focused enough on personal power that the vision is constrained relative to that personal power, and ultimately in favor of that personal power. They can still screw up (witness Putin and to a lesser extent Trump), but they're constantly adapting to what their power indicates is possible.
- benj111 3y ago
  Yes, ish. There's a few core traits you could apply to them all though. I'm not saying Trump is going to murder millions of Jews. What I am saying is that trump is about personal power at the expense of democracy. That he will do things his way, come what may. That's also an element of why people vote for him. They want a 'strong' leader. But strong leaders don't make good democratic leaders, because democracy gets in their way.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    I agree. Though there's a limit to what he actually can do in the US power structure, even with buy-in by other figures. It's a truism in the US that if you care about the economy and defense you should vote Republican, and yet when you look at the actual actions of Republican presidential administrations you basically have to go back to Reagan economic and defense policies which were actually decent (and Reagan's most decent economic policy was reappointing Volcker who was originally appointed by Carter). This is not to say Democrats have been all that much better, but at least they weren't cutting taxes during an expensive war of offense. These same truisms exist about so-called strong leaders.
    - benj111 3y ago
      I'm not so confident. I'm from the UK, on paper we have an absolutely terrible constitution. Compare that to Afghanistan when the US pulled out. But then Afghanistan folded straight away, whereas Britain has managed to stay somewhat stable for a few centuries. My conclusion is that democracy isn't so much about the written rules as it is culture. That means you need people at the top that actually respect that culture.