Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Fitting Trump into the flow of history
#1
This piece by Thomas Edsall in today's NY Times fits in well with our discussions, but not with any posted thread I could find.  It also references an alternative 4 phase system -- different from TFT, but not incompatible.

The Fight Over How Trump Fits in With the Other 44 Presidents

It didn’t take long after President Trump took office for conflicting views about the strength and duration of his legacy to surface.
A “regime” theory of the presidency — developed in “The Politics Presidents Make” by Stephen Skowronek, a political scientist at Yale — provides the theoretical basis for the view that despite his victory in 2016, Trump represents the final collapse of Reagan-era conservatism. Skowronek described his overall project as a “study of presidents as agents of political change” that produced a framework of “four types of political leadership,” each of which I will explore in more detail below, with and without reference to the seeming anomaly of Trump.

Jack Balkin, a law professor at Yale, adapting Skowronek’s model, argues that Trump epitomizes the fourth type of political leadership Skowronek identifies because Trump is “in the same structural position as Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter,” caught in an uphill, presumptively doomed, struggle “to hold together the fraying coalition of an exhausted regime.”


… more at the link above.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#2
(05-15-2019, 04:42 PM)David Horn Wrote: This piece by Thomas Edsall in today's NY Times fits in well with our discussions, but not with any posted thread I could find.  It also references an alternative 4 phase system -- different from TFT, but not incompatible.

The Fight Over How Trump Fits in With the Other 44 Presidents

It didn’t take long after President Trump took office for conflicting views about the strength and duration of his legacy to surface.
A “regime” theory of the presidency — developed in “The Politics Presidents Make” by Stephen Skowronek, a political scientist at Yale — provides the theoretical basis for the view that despite his victory in 2016, Trump represents the final collapse of Reagan-era conservatism. Skowronek described his overall project as a “study of presidents as agents of political change” that produced a framework of “four types of political leadership,” each of which I will explore in more detail below, with and without reference to the seeming anomaly of Trump.

Jack Balkin, a law professor at Yale, adapting Skowronek’s model, argues that Trump epitomizes the fourth type of political leadership Skowronek identifies because Trump is “in the same structural position as Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter,” caught in an uphill, presumptively doomed, struggle “to hold together the fraying coalition of an exhausted regime.”


… more at the link above.

As applied to Hoover and Carter, disjunctive seems to describe someone who fails to meet some critical issue. Neither failed due to some character flaw, and neither was at all despotic or dictatorial. Hoover simply held tight to orthodoxies that no longer worked as the economy worsened; Carter promised to end stagflation but could not succeed at getting people to lower their expectations in life.

Trump is disjunctive, all right -- but he is far more ruthless than either Hoover or Carter. 

Exhausted regime? It has the moneyed elites behind it, and moneyed elites have been successful at times in preserving their political dominance after their support has dwindled, typically through a dictatorship. Such is the danger!

We may be approaching the end of the Reagan 'patch' that ended stagflation by immiserating young adults so that people had to work cheaper, concentrating more wealth and economic power (of course income is included) in fewer hands so that profits increase while real wages fall. The Reagan 'patch' depended upon the expansion of low-paying retail and food-service jobs while manufacturers became importers. So the shopping malls and fast-food places started getting people with college degrees or retaining them after graduation instead of losing them to better-paying employers. We had the best salesclerks and counter-workers ever, which was good for efficiency in such places. The problem is that the people who can't give that wonderful "Happy to serve you!" smile lost their jobs in manufacturing.

The retail apocalypse has made that paradigm unsustainable. But what happened to the manufacturing jobs?
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#3
Quote:Trump is “in the same structural position as Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter,”

Well just that fragment of a sentence means I can ignore this article even if I didn't know that already by hearing it was published in the New York Times (which is a shadow of its former self in reputation--seriously is there nothing that Boomers touch that doesn't turn into shit?).

Trump's aggregate polls have him sitting at around 45% approval when running against an amorphous blob that is the DNC.  Get him against an other human and he'll blow them out of the water.  Get him against Joe Biden,arguably the only person the Democrats have who could remotely take him on and he'll hit Landslide territory.



It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
#4
(05-16-2019, 02:44 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:
Quote:Trump is “in the same structural position as Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter,”

Well just that fragment of a sentence means I can ignore this article even if I didn't know that already by hearing it was published in the New York Times (which is a shadow of its former self in reputation--seriously is there nothing that Boomers touch that doesn't turn into shit?).

Trump's aggregate polls have him sitting at around 45% approval when running against an amorphous blob that is the DNC.  Get him against an other human and he'll blow them out of the water.  Get him against Joe Biden, arguably the only person the Democrats have who could remotely take him on and he'll hit Landslide territory.
The distribution of polling results has something like 42% approval as an average, with 39% as likely as 45%. He is doing worse than any other President since Truman at this stage. Only three Presidents ended up with a higher share of the vote than their approval  at a similar state, and those were Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. With all three the gain was 3% or less. Nixon and Reagan of course won blow-out landslides with 49 states, but their positions were with approval in the mid-fifties -- and they both faced seriously-flawed challenges.

The data for approval numbers:


Quote:Average presidential approval ratings through this point in term via ABC/Post and Gallup polling:

Kennedy 73%
W Bush 71%
HW Bush 70%
Johnson 69%
Eisenhower 67%
Nixon 58%
Truman 56%
Obama 55%
Reagan 55%
Carter 52%
Clinton 51%
Ford 47%
Trump 38%


Reagan gained 3% and Nixon gained 2%. I know, I know -- nobody is going to win much more than about 60% of the popular vote in any Presidential election. I do not know what to make of HW and Clinton, as they had three-way races. Ford was behind, but he made it close -- not close enough. 

Unless the GOP vote for President splinters with a conservative rival to Trump taking 5% or more of the popular vote, Trump will do better than to get 38% of the popular vote. Hoover got 40% and Carter got 41%, which suggests the floor for an incumbent who has control of his Party.

Most lose significantly from their approval number if they choose to run for re-election. Obama lost 4%, Ike lost 9%, and Carter lost 11%.

Note well that Trump is way behind Ford. Ford did not have much time in which to play catch-up, but Trump does. Still, Trump has a far-bigger hole, and he seems not to be gaining unless one puts undue stock in movements inside the margin of error of about 4%.

Trump is 9% behind Ford, who is 8% behind Reagan and Obama. (I think Obama had just whacked Osama bin Laden, and he might have done better in the 2012 election were it not for 'excessive melanin').

Are polls the definitive expression of political reality? No -- elections are. This said, I have seen lots of electoral losers way behind in the polls saying even on the eve of an election that the only poll that counts is the vote. They still lose big.

Trump is not winning America over to his agenda. He may have a solid hold over some constituencies and regions, but I look at the polling numbers and see someone who must get his act together. I see someone devoid of the political moxie for doing so.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#5
(05-16-2019, 02:44 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:
Quote:Trump is “in the same structural position as Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter,”

Well just that fragment of a sentence means I can ignore this article even if I didn't know that already by hearing it was published in the New York Times (which is a shadow of its former self in reputation--seriously is there nothing that Boomers touch that doesn't turn into shit?).

Thanks for playing. You can go home now.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#6
Oh, by the way -- this how two of the worst defeats for incumbent Presidents went

1932:

[Image: pe1932.png]

Hoover won only six states, and it is clear why he lost so badly.

1980:

[Image: pe1980.png]

Six states and Dee Cee for Carter. Stagflation and some diplomatic disasters?

The next Presidential election following those losses were two of the three biggest blow-out landslides ever.

Trump is not going to lose a 45-state landslide, but he projects to lose at least as badly as the elder Bush in 1992.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#7
If Trump fits the "disjunctive" pattern of 1932 and 1980, it could happen. But it's not likely because the country is so polarized today, with people voting on the basis of entrenched ideology and prejudices. kinser exemplifies the ignorance and stubbornness with which Trump's base sticks with him no matter what. How the leader actually rules, and what effect it has on the country, are irrelevant to today's "reds" (opposite color used to your maps). You keep forgetting that Trump cannot be underestimated. Not only are actual policies and effects of his rule irrelevant to his sheepish, hypnotized red-state followers, but in general the most charismatic and talented speaker wins the election.

Trump was expected to lose in 2016, and won despite making more gaffes and lies than any candidate in history by far, and despite having zero qualifications and a well-known record as a crook and scam artist. He's a talented celebrity incumbent demagogue with a personality that connects well with a crowd and a TV audience. That's going to be hard for either one of the two old geezers to beat, especially in our system rigged to benefit Republicans, and no other candidates so far announced have any chance against Trump at all. We have no FDR or Reagan in the wings this time. Keep those "objective facts" in mind, Mr. Brower, as you make your astute reports and reflections on history and the polls.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#8
(05-17-2019, 02:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If Trump fits the "disjunctive" pattern of 1932 and 1980, it could happen. But it's not likely because the country is so polarized today, with people voting on the basis of entrenched ideology and prejudices. kinser exemplifies the ignorance and stubbornness with which Trump's base sticks with him no matter what. How the leader actually rules, and what effect it has on the country, are irrelevant to today's "reds" (opposite color used to your maps). You keep forgetting that Trump cannot be underestimated. Not only are actual policies and effects of his rule irrelevant to his sheepish, hypnotized red-state followers, but in general the most charismatic and talented speaker wins the election.

I can see no way now in which President Trump gets fewer than 100 electoral votes. There are states in which people would excuse a catastrophic war and a depression so long as they get an abortion ban and the abolition of Obamacare.

I have the colors inverted because the site from which I take those maps  uses the historical red - Democrats (because they are more pro-labor and closer to being socialist) and Republicans are blue (for being more elitist, serving 'blue-blood' interests).  Republicans deserve red for being closer to totalitarian ideology.

Quote:Trump was expected to lose in 2016, and won despite making more gaffes and lies than any candidate in history by far, and despite having zero qualifications and a well-known record as a crook and scam artist. He's a talented celebrity incumbent demagogue with a personality that connects well with a crowd and a TV audience. That's going to be hard for either one of the two old geezers to beat, especially in our system rigged to benefit Republicans, and no other candidates so far announced have any chance against Trump at all. We have no FDR or Reagan in the wings this time. Keep those "objective facts" in mind, Mr. Brower, as you make your astute reports and reflections on history and the polls.

And that must remain in our minds -- he won despite being the scummiest and least-qualified person to ever be President. Lightning can strike multiple times in the same place. Trump has the most important people in America -- his class -- behind him. We obviously do not have an FDR on the Democratic side, and the last Democrat to show anything like Reagan's political skills (Barack Obama) is no longer available to be President. Never mind that he has no political acumen, and that he is a horrible rogue. He won in 2016, and he will try to win much the same way, by debasing the political process so that people feel soiled if they participate.. unless they are his supporters.

The United States of America remains a plutocracy, and to describe our plutocrats as the sorts who believe that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are rightly out of reach of people other than themselves is little exaggeration. The landlord, the loan-shark, and the lobbyist are the heroes of our political order, at least for now -- and those people do not yield anything without plotting to make things go their way again in the event that they should lose an election.

Yes, Trump approval remains hideous, and in normal times it is now far from adequate for winning re-election. This time, a Crisis Era, is anything but normal.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#9
(05-17-2019, 02:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Trump was expected to lose in 2016, and won despite making more gaffes and lies than any candidate in history by far, and despite having zero qualifications and a well-known record as a crook and scam artist. He's a talented celebrity incumbent demagogue with a personality that connects well with a crowd and a TV audience. That's going to be hard for either one of the two old geezers to beat, especially in our system rigged to benefit Republicans, and no other candidates so far announced have any chance against Trump at all. We have no FDR or Reagan in the wings this time. Keep those "objective facts" in mind, Mr. Brower, as you make your astute reports and reflections on history and the polls.

Over the weekend, Pete Buttigieg was in a town hall on Fox News, interviewed by Chris Wallace . He stayed true to his message, and got a standing ovation at the end of the interview.

Trump is not bulletproof.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#10
(05-20-2019, 12:35 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(05-17-2019, 02:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Trump was expected to lose in 2016, and won despite making more gaffes and lies than any candidate in history by far, and despite having zero qualifications and a well-known record as a crook and scam artist. He's a talented celebrity incumbent demagogue with a personality that connects well with a crowd and a TV audience. That's going to be hard for either one of the two old geezers to beat, especially in our system rigged to benefit Republicans, and no other candidates so far announced have any chance against Trump at all. We have no FDR or Reagan in the wings this time. Keep those "objective facts" in mind, Mr. Brower, as you make your astute reports and reflections on history and the polls.

Over the weekend, Pete Buttigieg was in a town hall on Fox News, interviewed by Chris Wallace .  He stayed true to his message, and got a standing ovation at the end of the interview.

Trump is not bulletproof.

The JFK of our time?
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#11
(05-20-2019, 01:59 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(05-20-2019, 12:35 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(05-17-2019, 02:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Trump was expected to lose in 2016, and won despite making more gaffes and lies than any candidate in history by far, and despite having zero qualifications and a well-known record as a crook and scam artist. He's a talented celebrity incumbent demagogue with a personality that connects well with a crowd and a TV audience. That's going to be hard for either one of the two old geezers to beat, especially in our system rigged to benefit Republicans, and no other candidates so far announced have any chance against Trump at all. We have no FDR or Reagan in the wings this time. Keep those "objective facts" in mind, Mr. Brower, as you make your astute reports and reflections on history and the polls.

Over the weekend, Pete Buttigieg was in a town hall on Fox News, interviewed by Chris Wallace .  He stayed true to his message, and got a standing ovation at the end of the interview.

Trump is not bulletproof.

The JFK of our time?

Perhaps, though not necessarily ascendant in 2020.  He's only 37, so he has a lot of future to live through. Being President this soon may actually be a burden.  What's his second act?
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#12
If he does not make the Presidency in 2020, then a Cabinet post seems like a near-certainty.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#13
(05-21-2019, 09:46 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: If he does not make the Presidency in 2020, then a Cabinet post seems like a near-certainty.

Agreed, assuming he wants one.  He seems to be a natural executive with both a brain and a heart.  That may not fit in any cabinet post.  I think he could run for the Senate and win, but that may not be his cup of tea either. Another option might be VP under a Biden or Warren, who may choose to skip 2024, leaving him as the leading candidate to replace him/her.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#14
(05-21-2019, 09:52 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(05-21-2019, 09:46 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: If he does not make the Presidency in 2020, then a Cabinet post seems like a near-certainty.

Agreed, assuming he wants one.  He seems to be a natural executive with both a brain and a heart.  That may not fit in any cabinet post.  I think he could run for the Senate and win, but that may not be his cup of tea either.  Another option might be VP under a Biden or Warren, who may choose to skip 2024, leaving him as the leading candidate to replace him/her.

Seems logical, but it won't work. The VP will need to be someone who can win. If the Democrats win in 2020, and the current candidates are the crop from which Democrats choose their next nominee, the Democrats will lose in 2024. That's the way it looks to me from the cosmic crystal ball, and it fits the facts. Buttigieg just doesn't have the umph to generate confidence in him as a leader. Americans don't choose calm, rational people as their president. Only us liberals want them. It's like what you said about Biden being too boring too; that applies to Buttigieg too. Trump may be slightly favored to win in 2020. 

It might be for the best. Trump will enter a maelstrom if he's re-elected; a maelstrom largely of his own doing. In any case, the new moon before the 2024 election says the challenging party will win the popular vote. Right after this election, a rebellion will break out. The rebels will lose, because rebellions do not succeed in the USA. Whoever owns the White House in 2025 will suppress the rebellion and set the tone for the next saeculum. 

If the Democrats don't win in 2024, then the left will rebel and lose. If the Democrats win in 2024, then they can suppress a rebellion by right wing wackos, tax haters and gun nuts, and set the tone for the next saeculum. 2024 will be even more crucial than 2020. If Democrats don't learn that the current candidate crop are a bunch of abject losers, and if they manage to get one of them nominated for 2024, they will lose when it comes time to replace a president Biden or Sanders in 2024, and the country will lose too.

Caveat: Stacey Abrams, who may join the current candidate crop soon, may have enough charisma to win the presidency in 2024, if Republicans make a bad choice for their nominee. But that is very, very uncertain, and she would probably have a very difficult term if re-elected-- which would be unlikely anyway.

A cabinet post for Buttigieg seems a natural fit for him. That's an executive post. As a nominee, he would be a charming loser.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#15
(05-21-2019, 01:30 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: A cabinet post for Buttigieg seems a natural fit for him. That's an executive post. As a nominee, he would be a charming loser.

Any Democrat who can get a Fox News audience on its feet clapping has plenty of crossover appeal. His biggest handicap, and greatest strength, is his youth.

Other than POTUS, governor of Indiana seems a reasonable goal for him. It would also give him time to age a bit before he tries another run for the top job -- a near certainty, in my opinion.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#16
Indiana is a tough state in which to win any statewide elected post as a Democrat.

But what says that Indiana will remain an easy state for Republicans to win? Indiana suburbs are blooming, and all that it would take to make the state easier to win for a Democrat is to make voting easier. Polls close at 6 PM local time, which is fine for farmers and business owners, but not for employees. Mail-in voting would be even better for Democrats.

Pete Buttigieg will be a very tempting Cabinet candidate.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#17
(05-21-2019, 01:49 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(05-21-2019, 01:30 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: A cabinet post for Buttigieg seems a natural fit for him. That's an executive post. As a nominee, he would be a charming loser.

Any Democrat who can get a Fox News audience on its feet clapping has plenty of crossover appeal.  His biggest handicap, and greatest strength, is his youth.  

Other than POTUS, governor of Indiana seems a reasonable goal for him.  It would also give him time to age a bit before he tries another run for the top job -- a near certainty, in my opinion.

It's a near-certainty that he would lose if he tries. But Gov. of Indiana is a great idea for him. I wonder if he could change those voting laws brower mentions. He'd make a great difference for our country if he does, and if brower is right about the state's potential Democratic shift.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#18
(05-16-2019, 05:21 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(05-16-2019, 02:44 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:
Quote:Trump is “in the same structural position as Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter,”

Well just that fragment of a sentence means I can ignore this article even if I didn't know that already by hearing it was published in the New York Times (which is a shadow of its former self in reputation--seriously is there nothing that Boomers touch that doesn't turn into shit?).

Thanks for playing.  You can go home now.

The New York Times is known to be a heavily biased source of what passes for news.  As biased as CNN or Breitbart.  No one under the age of 50 reads it, and honestly I wouldn't buy it to line my cat boxes with.  The liberalism might make my cat retarded.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
#19
(05-17-2019, 01:52 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Trump is not going to lose a 45-state landslide, but he projects to lose at least as badly as the elder Bush in 1992.

You think so?  His numbers are in line with W's and Obama's as well as Clinton's.  All three 2 term presidents.  I actually think we'll see him not only re-elected but Trumpist Republicans taking over the house and the GOP holding the Senate.

The only option that the Dims have is to throw their communist wing under the bus and embrace populism/nationalism but they aren't going to do that.  Why vote for Trump with a D after his name when you can vote for Trump himself?

PBR, you, Horn and Eric are so utterly clueless I don't think between the three of you a clue can be found.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
#20
(05-22-2019, 06:08 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(05-16-2019, 05:21 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(05-16-2019, 02:44 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:
Quote:Trump is “in the same structural position as Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter,”

Well just that fragment of a sentence means I can ignore this article even if I didn't know that already by hearing it was published in the New York Times (which is a shadow of its former self in reputation--seriously is there nothing that Boomers touch that doesn't turn into shit?).

Thanks for playing.  You can go home now.

The New York Times is known to be a heavily biased source of what passes for news.  As biased as CNN or Breitbart.  No one under the age of 50 reads it, and honestly I wouldn't buy it to line my cat boxes with.  The liberalism might make my cat retarded.

All you've proven is how little time you spent reading the article, which was essentially a compendium of quotes by various academics.  Don't care for academic thought?  OK, but waving it away as inherently biased just shows you have no counter argument.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Some Prophetic Matrix and the Thermodynamic Cycle of History Mark40 2 174 08-14-2019, 08:25 AM
Last Post: Hintergrund

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)