Two seeminlgy unrelated questions. But I'll try to show why they might be related (or at least why I considered them together this morning while walking the dog). Poke holes as you see fit. Try not to be too partisan (although I focused on GOP presidents here, so I might be a bit hypocrtical there):
One of the defining features of America is its citizens distrust of government. That has existed since the founding. Since Adams, large swaths of people have hated and distrusted the President. Yet we seem to gloss over that when considering presidents of the past.
Over the last 50 years, it's tough to blame them. Let's just do Republicans:
Nixon--Watergate is the most obvious but his hidden knowledge of the torture and murder of dissidents in nations we were propping up is probably worse (and utlimately more devastating, as seen below)
Reagan--Iran/Contra (actually worse than Watergate)
GWBush--Iraq War run up (worse still, given the loss of life and money)
Trump--there are many but the Iran War now, after running on no Middle East wars is pretty glaring.
(We can add in Clinton's Lewinksi affair and general womanizing and Biden's coverup of his cognitive decline, too, but those don't relate to my second question.)
On the Republican side, notice that three of the four involve the Middle East. Maybe that's because there are no good solutions there? Maybe it's because the solutions that might work are all dirty? Maybe it's because our democratic form of government isn't cut out to deal with complicated situations or ones involving Arab/Islamic states because they play by different rules? Maybe it's something related to the Republican party or it's just coincidence?
It's just striking to me that the American public never voted for terrorizing dissenters in the Middle East in the 50s-70s, never voted for selling arms to Iran (kinda the opposite, actually), had a ginned up war pushed on them in Iraq, and never voted for a war with Iran. That is, for 50 years, our leaders have made big decisions on Middle East policy that the American people probably wouldn't support if they knew the truth.
@bradstevens Hijacking your thread so I'll keep it short. @arthur-dent years ago argued with me about "politicians" vs business men. He argued that there's a real benefit to a lifetime spent understanding administration, international affairs, public matters. And that it's different than a corp ceo.
"Maybe it's because our democratic form of government isn't cut out to deal with complicated situations or ones involving Arab/Islamic states because they play by different rules?"
I think htere's something to your different rules, and that is a disconnect re culture, but I believe it is exacerbated by someone like Trump who simply doesn't have a background in this stuff. What's more he attacks it with a hubris that seems misguided. That we could just show force and they'd immediately give in. This is what they do. They're built for this. And that in my relatively uniformed opinion reflects a lack of understanding on the part of Trump. So whether it was handling the emergence of a pandemic, or a sticky situation in the ME, I think @arthur-dent is correct and that someone with a better depth and breadth of knowledge and experience woudl be helpful. And I suspect Rubio is okay but Trump is wrongheaded. Who does he really listen to
Two seeminlgy unrelated questions. But I'll try to show why they might be related (or at least why I considered them together this morning while walking the dog). Poke holes as you see fit. Try not to be too partisan (although I focused on GOP presidents here, so I might be a bit hypocrtical there):
One of the defining features of America is its citizens distrust of government. That has existed since the founding. Since Adams, large swaths of people have hated and distrusted the President. Yet we seem to gloss over that when considering presidents of the past.
Over the last 50 years, it's tough to blame them. Let's just do Republicans:
Nixon--Watergate is the most obvious but his hidden knowledge of the torture and murder of dissidents in nations we were propping up is probably worse (and utlimately more devastating, as seen below)
Reagan--Iran/Contra (actually worse than Watergate)
GWBush--Iraq War run up (worse still, given the loss of life and money)
Trump--there are many but the Iran War now, after running on no Middle East wars is pretty glaring.
(We can add in Clinton's Lewinksi affair and general womanizing and Biden's coverup of his cognitive decline, too, but those don't relate to my second question.)
On the Republican side, notice that three of the four involve the Middle East. Maybe that's because there are no good solutions there? Maybe it's because the solutions that might work are all dirty? Maybe it's because our democratic form of government isn't cut out to deal with complicated situations or ones involving Arab/Islamic states because they play by different rules? Maybe it's something related to the Republican party or it's just coincidence?
It's just striking to me that the American public never voted for terrorizing dissenters in the Middle East in the 50s-70s, never voted for selling arms to Iran (kinda the opposite, actually), had a ginned up war pushed on them in Iraq, and never voted for a war with Iran. That is, for 50 years, our leaders have made big decisions on Middle East policy that the American people probably wouldn't support if they knew the truth.
One nit. I disagree with the premise that people have strong distrust for government. They have strong distrust with the other team's government. I'm the only Bitcoiner on here. And I also might be the only person on here who wants to cut the Federal government cut back to early 1900 levels.
I'm not defending Trump here, just recognizing that this has been a problem for 50+ years, across multiple administrations, where poor policy decisions are made that are also inconsistent with democratic theory.@bradstevens Hijacking your thread so I'll keep it short. @arthur-dent years ago argued with me about "politicians" vs business men. He argued that there's a real benefit to a lifetime spent understanding administration, international affairs, public matters. And that it's different than a corp ceo.
"Maybe it's because our democratic form of government isn't cut out to deal with complicated situations or ones involving Arab/Islamic states because they play by different rules?"
I think htere's something to your different rules, and that is a disconnect re culture, but I believe it is exacerbated by someone like Trump who simply doesn't have a background in this stuff. What's more he attacks it with a hubris that seems misguided. That we could just show force and they'd immediately give in. This is what they do. They're built for this. And that in my relatively uniformed opinion reflects a lack of understanding on the part of Trump. So whether it was handling the emergence of a pandemic, or a sticky situation in the ME, I think @arthur-dent is correct and that someone with a better depth and breadth of knowledge and experience woudl be helpful. And I suspect Rubio is okay but Trump is wrongheaded. Who does he really listen to
That is, not only do our presidents keep fucking up w/r/t the Middle East, many of them are lying about it or covering up or exploiting extra-constitutional authority in order to do so, robbing the American people of any, or at least an informed, choice. At this point, it's worth considering whether or not it's a structural problem.
We have been at war since the Revolution. It's more or less our default setting.
A good friend will bail you out of jail, but your best friend will be sitting next to you in the cell saying "that was f***ing awesome"
@bradstevens I'm going to dip out after this as I don't follow this stuff too closely but yes I suspect it is a structural problem, at least in part. structural, cultural, etc.. We want term limits, of course, but with the presidency it doesn't always inure to our benefit. You have conflicts that last decades and a president who has a year to settle in, year to do something, then a year to campaign then lame duck. Kicking the can, above or below board, is likely the easiest solution given the constraints that attend short terms. There isn't time for more meaningful interventions and it's not politically expedient
Humanity's or the U.S. specifically? Or just white peopleWe have been at war since the Revolution. It's more or less our default setting.
?
Two seeminlgy unrelated questions. But I'll try to show why they might be related (or at least why I considered them together this morning while walking the dog). Poke holes as you see fit. Try not to be too partisan (although I focused on GOP presidents here, so I might be a bit hypocrtical there):
One of the defining features of America is its citizens distrust of government. That has existed since the founding. Since Adams, large swaths of people have hated and distrusted the President. Yet we seem to gloss over that when considering presidents of the past.
Over the last 50 years, it's tough to blame them. Let's just do Republicans:
Nixon--Watergate is the most obvious but his hidden knowledge of the torture and murder of dissidents in nations we were propping up is probably worse (and utlimately more devastating, as seen below)
Reagan--Iran/Contra (actually worse than Watergate)
GWBush--Iraq War run up (worse still, given the loss of life and money)
Trump--there are many but the Iran War now, after running on no Middle East wars is pretty glaring.
(We can add in Clinton's Lewinksi affair and general womanizing and Biden's coverup of his cognitive decline, too, but those don't relate to my second question.)
On the Republican side, notice that three of the four involve the Middle East. Maybe that's because there are no good solutions there? Maybe it's because the solutions that might work are all dirty? Maybe it's because our democratic form of government isn't cut out to deal with complicated situations or ones involving Arab/Islamic states because they play by different rules? Maybe it's something related to the Republican party or it's just coincidence?
It's just striking to me that the American public never voted for terrorizing dissenters in the Middle East in the 50s-70s, never voted for selling arms to Iran (kinda the opposite, actually), had a ginned up war pushed on them in Iraq, and never voted for a war with Iran. That is, for 50 years, our leaders have made big decisions on Middle East policy that the American people probably wouldn't support if they knew the truth.
And I also might be the only person on here who wants to cut the Federal government cut back to early 1900 levels.
Pretty much disagree with most of this post. A lifetime spent understanding government, or having a “background in this stuff” is way down the list in terms of factors that make good presidents. Good presidential skills involve things like decisiveness, being a quick learner, ability to build trust and relationships, independent thinking, clear vision of contested issues, etc. Presidents spend billions on staff, advisors, consultants and more. Those are the people who bring the “ background in this stuff” to the table. I’d go so far as to say that spending a lifetime in politics is counterproductive to a good and effective give president because it builds group think and conformity, but yeah, there are exceptions.
The problem with our government is not so much its design and operational characteristics. Instead it’s the people in it who are increasingly strident in their positions and increasingly beholden to large donors and influencers. The government is more and more into power politics and less into reasonable compromises and negotiations. My biggest criticism of the second Trump administration is not his hubris, his impulsiveness or his Iran war. It’s the BBB; cram down politics at its worst. The never- Trumpers only manage criticisms that are personal and will be gone when Trump bites the dust. Before BBB, we had Obamacare and Biden’s misnamed inflation reduction act. We are in the age of cram down policy and legislation, and it’s damaging, both operationally and politically. I’m old enough to remember governmental critics and cynics bitching about “ not a nickel’s worth of difference” between the two parties. We need to return to that era.
Two seeminlgy unrelated questions. But I'll try to show why they might be related (or at least why I considered them together this morning while walking the dog). Poke holes as you see fit. Try not to be too partisan (although I focused on GOP presidents here, so I might be a bit hypocrtical there):
One of the defining features of America is its citizens distrust of government. That has existed since the founding. Since Adams, large swaths of people have hated and distrusted the President. Yet we seem to gloss over that when considering presidents of the past.
Over the last 50 years, it's tough to blame them. Let's just do Republicans:
Nixon--Watergate is the most obvious but his hidden knowledge of the torture and murder of dissidents in nations we were propping up is probably worse (and utlimately more devastating, as seen below)
Reagan--Iran/Contra (actually worse than Watergate)
GWBush--Iraq War run up (worse still, given the loss of life and money)
Trump--there are many but the Iran War now, after running on no Middle East wars is pretty glaring.
(We can add in Clinton's Lewinksi affair and general womanizing and Biden's coverup of his cognitive decline, too, but those don't relate to my second question.)
On the Republican side, notice that three of the four involve the Middle East. Maybe that's because there are no good solutions there? Maybe it's because the solutions that might work are all dirty? Maybe it's because our democratic form of government isn't cut out to deal with complicated situations or ones involving Arab/Islamic states because they play by different rules? Maybe it's something related to the Republican party or it's just coincidence?
It's just striking to me that the American public never voted for terrorizing dissenters in the Middle East in the 50s-70s, never voted for selling arms to Iran (kinda the opposite, actually), had a ginned up war pushed on them in Iraq, and never voted for a war with Iran. That is, for 50 years, our leaders have made big decisions on Middle East policy that the American people probably wouldn't support if they knew the truth.
And I also might be the only person on here who wants to cut the Federal government cut back to early 1900 levels.
I thought you and Hooky might be on board, but wasn't sure.
@co-hoosier I do agree with you in part. It is a benefit to have an outsider's perspective as well as decisiveness re decision-making etc in the face of bureaucratic inertia. But i think it's also useful to be a student of this stuff. of international affairs. of history. of law. and that's not to mention the bloat of government that has ensued since wilson and fdr. knowledge of those operations are also beneficial. delegation is great but a history of structuring development deals in commercial real estate isn't really it. so again i think there are areas where trump excels. and others where we see his warts, as i've noted. from poor management of the pandemic, to not understanding the legality of so much shit like tariffs, to now what may end up a quagmire with iran
This episode just came out today and Roberts addresses part of the problem I'm describing here, something deeper than just Presidents making mistakes, and directly related to the evolution of our system and the West, too (and lots of good thoughts about AI, war, private property, government action, etc.):
https://www.econtalk.org/claude-war-and-the-state-of-the-republic-with-dean-ball/#audio-highlights
Most relevant I think (about 58 minutes in):
Russ Roberts: Well, the reason I think it's so profound--I'm older than you, I've been watching for more than you have. And, it's been clear to me for a while--and listeners know this because this show is 20 years old as of next week. And, over that 20 years, listeners can hear my optimism about the American experiment and then sometimes my pessimism. There's times I said, 'We're near a civil war: America is near a civil war.'
And, five years ago, I moved to Israel and I found myself watching America from afar. And it changed my perspective. It allowed me to be a little more of an observer and less of a participant in some dimension. Still an American citizen.
And, I've thought for a long time now, 'Something is wrong.' In fact, something's wrong in the West. It's not an American problem: it's a Western problem. And, what your piece made me realize is that it's possible that this problem is not going to get better. That's what's hard to face. That's the melancholy for me. And, I think there's a tremendous blindness among some Americans that this is a Trump problem--
Trump is just the manifestation, the latest manifestation of a very, very long trend. It's probably--you could argue it's 80 years old, it goes back 90 years to Roosevelt. You could argue it goes back 60 years to Lyndon Johnson. But, what is that trend? The trend is the end of the Constitution as an effective constraint on government power. The rise of discretionary action. The destruction of norms that put some things off limits are no longer off limits: those norms are gone.
And, as a result, it's much more: What's expedient? It's not: What's constitutional? It's not: What's principled? It's: What can I get away with? And, you could argue that the Department of War threatening a particular company is not that important, it's just a petty dispute between egotistical players about their own success and failure.
But, what I thought you struck at deeply--and maybe we're overreacting here but I think not--is that you don't know what you got until it's gone.
And, we thought we had a Republic. There's this very famous line from the Constitutional Convention in, I think, 1789 where someone asks--I'm going to get this wrong so forgive me. You guys will all fix it for me. But, I think somebody asked Benjamin Franklin: 'What kind of government do we have?' And he responds, 'A republic, if you can keep it.' And, America kept it for a very, very, very long time. It's had a tremendous run.
But, the increase in executive power unconstrained by the Constitution, unconstrained by norms is a long trend. Trump is just the one most comfortable ignoring the things that other people used to not ignore. They've all been ignoring it to some extent, the last eight presidents or whatever the number is.
And, I think this whole debate about whether we're heading toward fascism, I think that's the wrong way to think about it--
I think what we're talking about here is the slow, inevitable erosion of institutions as we get further and further away from our Founding and from the principles that sustained it. And, now it's like other places. If you get a good president, it turns out well. If you get a bad one, it doesn't. It used to be it wasn't so important. All of a sudden, it's really important.
And, the reason I think your piece is so insightful is that when you're in the middle of it, you don't notice it. It's like the frog getting boiled. Is it warmer in here? I don't know, it seems a little warmer. But, after a few decades, it's like, 'Boy, this water is boiling hot. It used to be cold.' And you kind of start to notice.
And what you've done, I think, in this piece, even though it's a small corner--but maybe not--is to point out that the water has been boiling for a while. It keeps getting warmer and warmer. And it's an illusion to think we can turn it down. It's just we're going to live in a new world. . . . . 'Well, we just need a president to come along who is going to do that.' Do you really think that the next President, Republican or Democrat, is going to be any different?
I think it's just going to be the same thing. So, that's my rant.
Dean Ball: Yeah. No, I think it's very well put. In some ways, more precisely than I communicated it. And, I think the way I think about this is you are definitely right that this is about change and not death; because, I also talk about the birth of my son briefly in that piece and how it is similar. And how my experience thus far, quite brief still--it's only several months of being a father--is that I sort of just am watching my son progressively awaken. He just becomes more and more aware of the world. And, nature is like this. Nature is filled with phase transitions.
There's a great graphic I saw on social media, on Twitter, the other day of a heart beginning to beat and what that looks like. And, it's all these cells, these decentralized cells that begin to activate; and then enough of them activate, and all of a sudden you have a heart beating. But, it's not like there's ever one moment where it is--and by the way, I think that change from AI will be like this, too. There will be phase transitions. There already have been phase transitions in the progression of AI, and there will be in the adoption as well.
So, very much, yes. And, part of the point I'm making is--like, yeah, I'm not trying to make a point about fascism. I think probably a lot of people on the Left read my piece; and I took pains to say that this wasn't just about Trump. But I'm sure a lot of people--and I knew this would happen--a lot of people on the Left I think read my piece and in self-satisfied fashion said, 'Ah, yes, but everything will be solved when we get Gavin Newsom in,' or whoever--
in a few years. And, that's very much not my view. My view is, like, the most charitable thing I could say about the Left would be that they would likelier do all the same stuff in a somewhat more gentlemanly technocratic fashion than the Trump Administration, which has a tendency to be really explicit and stumble into things like this. But, in some sense, I actually applaud the Trump Administration for that because at least it's out in the open--
At least we can talk about it with the Trump Administration.
Responding to your questions in reverse order.
1. The ME is an Israel problem, not an Islamic problem. Don’t shoot me the messenger but bin Laden said it best: “There’s a reason we don’t attack Sweden.” In my view, Israel has to stop being the aggressor and choose to be neighborly, and there’s probably only one way for that to happen. Stop supporting Israel militarily.
2. On our form of government, the simplest response is, what’s the alternative? There is none. We’ve got to power through and make it work.
Others have shared their 2 cents. I’ll add my observation that downward trend since our science education explosion in the sixties corresponds to overmedicating the populace and destroying the nutritional value of our food with pesticides and 3-chemical fertilizers.
In short, we’re dumbing down the citizenry and that directly affects your concern here. Can a democratic republic thrive with a majority of dumb robotic people?
As Roberts says, and my original post outlines at least for our presidents in the ME over the last 50 years, our form of government has evolved past what we used to think of as a democratic republic--we've lost a lot of the constitutional checks on the executive. Maybe that was necessary to deal with our problems. Doesn't seem to be working well right now, though.Can a democratic republic thrive with a majority of dumb robotic people?