Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[The new erato]

     Bad leadership + Bad followership = extinction.

Perhaps. What's troubling is what happens on the road to perdition.

[Rinaldo]

We are supposed to believe that Trump's legion of "angry" people are angry about wage stagnation. No, they are angry about all the things Republicans have told them to be angry about these past 7½ years, and it has been Trump's good fortune to be the guy to sweep them up and become their standard-bearer.

Robert Kagan

[drogulus]

Robert Kagan

     Let me quote from the Kagan piece:

When the plague descended on Thebes, Oedipus sent his brother-in-law to the Delphic oracle to discover the cause. Little did he realize that the crime for which Thebes was being punished was his own. Today's Republican Party is our Oedipus. A plague has descended on the party in the form of the most successful demagogue-charlatan in the history of U.S. politics. The party searches desperately for the cause and the remedy without realizing that, like Oedipus, it is the party itself that brought on this plague. The party's own political crimes are being punished in a bit of cosmic justice fit for a Greek tragedy.

     His pappy Donald wrote a great book on the Peloponnesian War, not Thucydides great, maybe, but a good page flipper.

What's troubling is what happens on the road to perdition.

     I think Kagan's point, and certainly mine, is that Trump is the consequence of the Repub road to perdition. I knew the road would have dire consequences, I didn't know it would take the form of Trump, only that something bad was/is happening.

[Todd]

I think Kagan's point, and certainly mine, is that Trump is the consequence of the Repub road to perdition.

So a common theme here is that people predisposed to military adventurism really don't like Trump. 

[drogulus]

So a common theme here is that people predisposed to military adventurism really don't like Trump. 

      If you think the Trump problem is confined to warmongers, then it's not much of a problem what happens to Repubs or the country if Trump is elected. I didn't quote Kagan because of his warmongering, but because he's right. Trump isn't producing Repub disintegration, Repub disintegration is producing Trump.

      Another view from outside the Kagan neocon camp is here:

     The Uncomfortable Truths of Marco Rubio's Attacks

What Rubio and Cruz demonstrated last night (and what Rubio continued demonstrating, somewhat haltingly, today) is that the secret to getting under Trump's skin isn't to call him a liberal but to mock him, or call him a crook, and to not stop (as Jeb Bush did so frequently) after a single pop to the nose.

The downside of this revelation, though, is that it leaves open the question of how a crooked, risible demagogue managed to commandeer the Republican Party, almost without trying.


     Yup yup yup, the point being that launching an effective anti-Trump blitz leads inexorably to the poisonous nihilism that is extinguishing the Repubs and has done so for years. We all saw it coming long before the identity of the "it" could be known.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

So a common theme here is that people predisposed to military adventurism really don't like Trump.

Indeed. Personally, I find Trump unstable, narcissistic and demagogic. But if a personage like Robert Kagan - who has devoted his whole career to promoting futile, wasteful and destructive wars - deems Trump unacceptable, then I figure Trump must be doing something right.

[drogulus]

Indeed. Personally, I find Trump unstable, narcissistic and demagogic. But if a personage like Robert Kagan - who has devoted his whole career to promoting futile, wasteful and destructive wars - deems Trump unacceptable, then I figure Trump must be doing something right.

     If Trump thought Kagan was despicable would that make Kagan right about war? You're joking, I hope. But anyway I don't see how views on warfare, important as they are, bear significantly on the general case against Trump. My own view is like most campaigners against war Trump will bungle the practice of it. Even Churchill, patriarch of our clan, was episodically shitty at it. Being for or against war strikes me as besides the point when it bears down on you, one way if you decide to fight here, another if you decide not to and thus fight there.

[Florestan]

No, he'll have Congress to help him.

Okay then , here is another question and not rhetoric at all (pace Todd)

If the President of the USA, with the full help and cooperation of the Congress of the USA, can severely and irremediably fuck up the economy and the social fabric of the USA (Trump) or bring about WWIII (Hillary Clinton) --- then what good is the USA Constitution, and what is there left of the "peace and commerce with all nations, entangling alliances with none" ideal of the FF?

[drogulus]

     Congressman demands more NOAA e-mails about climate study

A new letter (initially acquired by the Union of Concerned Scientists) complains that "t seems unlikely that documents and communications would be so scarce," and Smith directs NOAA to cast a wider net. He requests e-mails and documents not just from officials in the offices that had been targeted by the previous requests but also from "agency employees" across a broad swath of NOAA. The list includes the National Centers for Environmental Information that houses the scientists behind NOAA's global temperature dataset—a group Rep. Smith has accused of manipulating data.

NOAA had apparently searched for e-mails including "hiatus", "global temperature", and "climate study", but Rep. Smith wants that list expanded dramatically. Now, he wants NOAA to hand over anything that contains "Karl" (the name of the lead NOAA scientist on the Science paper), "buoy", "ship", "Night Marine Air Temperature", "temperature", "climate", "change", "Paris", "U.N.", "United Nations", "clean power plan", "regulations", "Environmental Protection Agency", "President", "Obama", "White House", and "Council on Environmental Quality".

Those (very broad) terms reflect the fact that Rep. Smith hopes to find that climate data was manipulated due to a directive from the Obama Administration. (It should be noted that NOAA's dataset looks the same as everyone else's, and Smith already has access to the data and details on how it was analyzed.)

     Isn't it just like a certain kind of pol to think you can fight a scientific consensus by digging for dirt? Mr. Smith goes to MIT.....he'll straighten those eggheads out!

     

[Florestan]

     Congressman demands more NOAA e-mails about climate study

     They're past the point of no return, long past. How is this not a severe form of mental disease? A political hack of the worst sort sees himself as competent to overrule the science community on a matter directly pertaining to their area of expertise, not a matter of policy where he arguably has responsibility. And yet no one, no one in his own party will publicly challenge this insanity. If this isn't evidence of the collapse of any kind of legitimate responsibility, then nothing would count as evidence. Will no Repub stand up to this. The party is dying from the disease, a disease they are afraid to try to cure. I don't know, maybe they're right, they are fatally boxed in by the path they chose.

When I was a child of seven winter in Bucharest meant on average minus twenty Celsius degrees and heavy snowfalls from late November to late March. Today, that is thirty-five years later, winter in Bucharest means on average two weeks of minus ten Celsius degrees and moderate snowfalls with no certain date, and plus twenty-something Celsius degrees from early January to just yesterday. AFAIC, global warming is a fact and anyone denying it is either an idiot or has vested interests in denying it.

[drogulus]

"AFAIC, global warming is a fact and anyone denying it is either an idiot or has vested interests in denying it."

     The vested interests are worth examining. If an oil company plans for climate change while promoting denial, do you pay attention to the words or the actions that speak louder? Do insurance companies think you don't need to plan for the Liberal Hoax? If I'm a Bangladeshi pol do I shut my ears to that rising seas propaganda?

     There are plans to spend who knows how many billions to build a sea wall around Manhattan to protect $1.9 Trillion in real estate. Is this going to happen because scientific concepts are politically decided or because they are not?

[Todd]

Yup yup yup, the point being that launching an effective anti-Trump blitz leads inexorably to the poisonous nihilism that is extinguishing the Repubs and has done so for years. We all saw it coming long before the identity of the "it" could be known.

Whew, doggie!  Poisonous nihilism does sound positively scary. 

The Republican Party survived Goldwater.  I'm guessing it will survive Trump.  I'd be more concerned if the warnings of its imminent demise and irreversible decline didn't come from rabid partisans, pundits paid to fill column inches or seven minute TV time slots, or right wingers with an axe to grind (eg, George Will), or interested folks like Kagan.  Perhaps November 9th will arrive and the party infrastructure will start unravelling, the professionals who work for the organization will disperse, the big donors will close their checkbooks, and the volunteers will shake their heads in disbelief and choose to take up gardening or some other wholesome activities instead.  Or not.

then what good is the USA Constitution, and what is there left of the "peace and commerce with all nations, entangling alliances with none" ideal of the FF?

Uh oh, you're trying to mount that hobby horse again.


In something relevant to this thread, Clinton appears to have crushed Sanders in South Carolina.  Maybe he'll do better in other Southern states.

[Brian]

Okay then , here is another question and not rhetoric at all (pace Todd)

If the President of the USA, with the full help and cooperation of the Congress of the USA, can severely and irremediably fuck up the economy and the social fabric of the USA (Trump) or bring about WWIII (Hillary Clinton) --- then what good is the USA Constitution, and what is there left of the "peace and commerce with all nations, entangling alliances with none" ideal of the FF?

This is a strange question.

The basic answer is that the Constitution is predicated on the principle that 51% of Americans (at the time it was written, 51% of land-owning American white males) will be sufficiently informed to make sure the country stays in its best interest.

Now the truth is, the US President and Congress have made plenty of very, very bad decisions. In fact you could say that they have "severely and irremidably fucked up the economy and the social fabric" or brought about unnecessary wars, several times. Andrew Jackson and the government of his time were responsible for a forced migration / genocide of racial minorities. The 1940s saw us put anybody descended from the Japanese into desert concentration camps. We have a considerable history of racism against the Chinese and various other ethnicities. In terms of unnecessary wars, well, the last one was 13 years ago next month.

Also for our first 80+ years of existence, we kept millions of people as slaves.

Also we fought a war with ourselves and around 700,000 people died.

It's called "the American Experiment" for a reason. Largely, it has been a success. Largely, the idea that when you group enough millions of people together, they will do the right thing, has been borne out. But the US is as fallible as every other country, and its people are as fallible as any other people.

Probably unlike most GMGers, I think the US Constitution has a lot of flaws which need to be addressed. But as Winston Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government except for every other form of government we've tried.

[Todd]

Probably unlike most GMGers, I think the US Constitution has a lot of flaws which need to be addressed.

That's what the amendment process is for.

[drogulus]

O

Whew, doggie!  Poisonous nihilism does sound positively scary. 

The Republican Party survived Goldwater.  I'm guessing it will survive Trump.  I'd be more concerned if the warnings of its imminent demise and irreversible decline didn't come from rabid partisans, pundits paid to fill column inches or seven minute TV time slots, or right wingers with an axe to grind (eg, George Will), or interested folks like Kagan. 

     It doesn't matter what it sounds like, it matters that the party has fallen so low that the excuse makers are comparing Trump, Trump, to Goldwater! How nihilistic is that?

     So the warnings are coming from leftists and rightists and pundits and even "interested folks" like Kagan. Only someone with an axe to grind would see that Trump is not Goldwater. But guess what, Trump is far worse than Goldwater. Goldwater was an ideological outrider, a fair comparison is with McGovern, or Sanders. These candidates threaten epic defeats, they are not signs of disintegration. They weren't a combination of circus freak and con man. They weren't even a little bit orange.

Perhaps November 9th will arrive and the party infrastructure will start unravelling, the professionals who work for the organization will disperse, the big donors will close their checkbooks, and the volunteers will shake their heads in disbelief and choose to take up gardening or some other wholesome activities instead.  Or not.

     No, it will be more like the western Roman Empire in 476 CE. On Tuesday Romulus Augustulus runs things and Wednesday some guy called Odoacer is manning the phones saying Caesar stepped out, he'll be back in a few minutes.

[(poco) Sforzando]

That's what the amendment process is for.

Yes, but the founders made the amendment process quite difficult, so that the Constitution has seen only 27 amendments in history including the original ten Bill of Rights. Two-thirds of the House and Senate must approve the amendment; then 3/4 of the states must ratify. That was undoubtedly done to prevent arbitrary and capricious changes (such as, er, Prohibition), but has had the effect of making substantive amendments virtually impossible in a sharply divided Congress.

It would be interesting to know what Brian and others would amend. I have my candidates, which I never expect to see in my lifetime or even my next 6-7 reincarnations.

[Todd]

No, it will be more like the western Roman Empire in 476 CE.

At least you know to compare the US to another empire.  Empires come, empires go.

Yes, but the founders made the amendment process quite difficult, so that the Constitution has seen only 27 amendments in history including the original ten Bill of Rights.

And bless them for that.  If the amendment process were easy, then the country would risk the Constitution becoming nothing more than a reflection of majoritarian whim.  That would be bad.  It would end up being almost as worthless as the Oregon Constitution, which is changed by voters pretty much every election cycle. 

[Todd]

Godwin's Law hits the big time!

[(poco) Sforzando]

Godwin's Law hits the big time!

"'I'm not going to pay for that f***ing wall,' Fox said in an interview with Fusion's Jorge Ramos."

How astonishing.

[Todd]

"'I'm not going to pay for that f***ing wall,' Fox said in an interview with Fusion's Jorge Ramos."

How astonishing.

You were astonished that a former president of Mexico found that unacceptable?  A beef about that seems obvious.  I was more amused by the reference to Hitler.  I guess someone had to do it.