(03-21-2017, 02:42 AM)Galen Wrote:(03-21-2017, 12:48 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:There aren't any of the Lost left and you despise the current crop of Nomads. Ironically Trump may actually be the best the Boomers can produce. God, knows that Clinton, Bush II and Obozo have pretty much been a complete loss. You could argue Obozo either way since he sits right on the cusp.(05-06-2016, 11:47 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both respect legal precedents more than they trust legislation and the transitory will of the people in states. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress. In the 2008 election, Barack Obama won only one state that Eisenhower lost in either 1952 or 1956 (North Carolina); in 2012 he did not win any state that Dwight Eisenhower ever lost. This is amazing in view of the partisan identities of the two Presidents.
OBAMA. There's nothing clownish about President Obama. I wanted to see an Idealist style but instead we got a mature Reactive, someone acting like a 60-something Lost. Maybe the best thing that his sort can do in a Crisis Era is to mitigate risk -- but that is a good thing. That is one form of good generalship.
He won't be the last such President. Around 2025 that is what America will have available -- competent caretaker, war hero from the Crisis of 2020, someone with a valid grievance (widow?) who chooses to make things safe? The Angry Nomad, of course, is one of the most dangerous figures in history (extreme: Hitler). The Mature Reactive respects tradition and precedent, like Obama, and creates few problems and has a modest agenda. We will appreciate that again.
Clinton is slightly above average, Dubya is awful, and Trump stands to be the worst President ever. Heck, James Buchanan had a more promising start.
One does not have approval ratings sliding into the 30s from the low 40s at this stage unless one is crooked or incompetent or has some incredibly-bad luck (like facing a 1929-style market crash). I wish that I could give President Trump some benefit of a doubt, but I cannot imagine him facing an economic meltdown, a diplomatic crisis, a military emergency, or even a natural disaster competently. His campaign has scandals that he can't run from. He does not have a steady hand; he relies upon yes-men who keep him in a bubble; he has too many ties to a vile dictatorship but offends democratic leaders elsewhere; he is too full of himself to self-correct. As a demagogue, he could never deliver what he promised -- and he has betrayed the people that he gulled. Sure he has then moneyed elites behind him -- but that will not be enough. They have the 'Kochaine' to lubricate some campaign funds, but they don;t have the numbers unless they can intimidate their employees into voting for right-wing pols.
It took much longer, and a well-coordinated effort by well-organized people, to gut the good will with which President Obama operated in early 2009. Trump is below the lowest level of approval that Obama ever had, and that was after some political defeats that Trump has yet to have.
I'm not saying that the Republicans will lose a majority in either House of Congress -- but I can;t imagine President Trump being any more graceful under such a circumstance as Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. He is just too abrasive to concede anything. I see no cause to see him as a competent First Diplomat or Commander-in-Chief.
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.