Evaluating a president—any president
Commenter “Ariel” addresses these remarks by another commenter in this way:
…”but [Trump’s] policies are overall working pretty well” How the hell can you know that? I say this from watching George Bush blamed for the housing crash when it came from what Congress and Clinton did years before. It takes time, sometimes decades, to see what those policies create. You are no different than the Democrats that blamed Bush for what was done before he was President, they saw that it was good back then, but when it wasn’t they blamed someone else. What will you be doing when Trump’s policies lead to a crash in a later President’s term? Waxing exultant about how great was his policies and then clucking about what this other guy did to us?
I am so sick and tired of all of you because you fail to learn. What you do is root for your tribal leader and nothing more.
In this post I will offer a list of what I see as the hierarchy of methods of evaluation of a president. I’ve left out the first one (a method which I don’t see as “evaluation” at all), the one Ariel is alluding to as “rooting for your tribal leader and nothing else.” That style certainly exists, but it’s not mine and it certainly doesn’t fit the sentence Ariel quotes—“[Trump’s] policies are overall working pretty well”—unless there is evidence that the writer is applying that judgment in some mindless, kneejerk, party-line manner.
Here’s the list:
(1) surface style, which is easy to observe in a president (the wonderful crease in Obama’s pants, a la David Brooks) but quite irrelevant, in my book, taking a back seat to performance and results in the real world as president. Presidents are not figureheads; we’re not talking The Queen here, wearing a hat and carrying her purse.
(2) internal character—harder to evaluate than surface style, but not impossible. On this score, I think we can safely stipulate that Trump is not a role model. Internal character is more relevant in a president than surface style, but only so far as it affects job performance. For example, there have been presidents of good personal character internally (or seemingly, anyway) who were bad presidents or mediocre ones. For an example of the first (bad president) you have Jimmy Carter, and for the second (mediocre president) I give you Gerald Ford. On the other hand, we’ve had presidents who broke their marriage vows or were otherwise deceitful in the personal sense (bad internal character) and yet were considered good presidents by many historians.
(3) results in the external world. There are two types of results in the external world (a) short-term and (b) long-term. Regarding method (a) (short-term), whereas commenter Ariel is certainly correct that people commonly err when they ascribe credit (or blame) to the person who is in office when a phenomenon occurs, ignoring predecessors who may have set up the bad or good situation that led belatedly to the bad or good result, nevertheless despite its flaws and traps this is actually the best and most obvious way to evaluate a president in real time. Waiting for a time lag of “sometimes decades” is a luxury the voter simply does not usually have when making voting decisions.
Ariel seems to think that method (b) (long-term) is the very best way to evaluate a president. With that I agree, at least in theory. But unfortunately, that method is not available to us when a person has been president for such a short time. We can look back at that president years later, but by then all our voting decisions regarding that person will have been made.
We can, however, attempt to weigh the longer-term effect of the policies of that person’s predecessor, and decide how much those earlier polities have created the situation the later president faces. But you know what? Although better, that method has tremendous flaws, too. Political evaluation is not a science. Objectivity is rare, but even the objective can have trouble with evaluating history (see * NOTE below). To illustrate my point, just look at the incredible divergence of opinion among historians and among economists on just one historical issue: did FDR’s economic policies help prolong the Great Depression or help end it? About 80 years have passed since the Depression ended, and erudite opinions on both sides abound.
Of course, you and I may think we have the right answer; I certainly try to get at the right answer, objectively speaking. We lean towards one opinion or another that seems most convincing. But it’s not as though we know. We may indeed know more, and be wiser, about the far-distant past than about the very recent one. But we must, as voters (and as bloggers, or blog commenters) make decisions in real time, despite acknowledgement of the flawed nature of our reasoning. And we must depend partly or even mostly on the results we see of a presidency in real time, taking into account as best we can our knowledge of the past in making our decisions.
And that’s a lot better than voting based on the crease in someone’s pants. As human beings, however, we are all susceptible to and influenced by everything about a person, consciously perceived or not—including that crease. We can try to be consistent, however, in applying our evaluations and not just “root for a tribal leader.” But human beings will probably never get there, and most people don’t even try. If we “fail to learn” (Ariel’s contention), it’s because it’s the human condition, either to ignore history or to have trouble figuring out its lessons even when we do try to study it closely. [again, see * NOTE below)
During the 2016 campaign, I evaluated Trump based on his past, which did not include any political acts. That made it difficult to see how he would be going politically as a president. I had to use the evidence of his character (not good) and his words (inconsistent over time). I didn’t trust him and had no particular reason to do so, and I thought he would probably be not only inconsistent and a loose cannon as a president, but also relatively liberal. But so far, my observation of Trump as president is that he’s been relatively consistent in policy and mostly (not entirely) congruent with what he had promised, as well as one of the most conservative presidents (policy-wise, not personally) I’ve seen in my lifetime.
But I can only observe those things in real time, and discuss them and act accordingly. I try to take the past into account when trying to decide the effect of Trump—such as, for example, Obama’s previous economic policies. But I see what I see, which is that generally Trump has been pretty good and certainly much better than I expected him to be. But rest assured, if things go south under his presidency, I will (reluctantly) hold him to account. “Reluctantly,” because I want things to go well for this country and the world, as I always do no matter who is president and what party he or she represents.
[ * NOTE: In terms of the difficulty of evaluating and therefore learning from history, I am reminded of this from one of my favorite authors, Milan Kundera:
There is only one history of the Czechs. One day it will come to an end, as surely as Tomas’s life, never to be repeated.
In 1618, the Czech estates took courage and vented their ire on the emperor reigning in Vienna by pitching two of his high officials out of a window in the Prague Castle. Their defiance led to the Thirty Years War, which in turn led to the almost complete destruction of the Czech nation. Should the Czechs have shown more caution than courage? The answer may seem simple; it is not.
Three hundred and twenty years later, after the Munich Conference of 1938, the entire world decided to sacrifice the Czech’s country to Hitler. Should the Czechs have tried to stand up to a power eight times their size? In countrast to 1618, they opted for caution. Their capitulation led to the Second World War, which in turn led to the forfeit of their nation’s freedom for many decades or even centuries. What should they have done?
If Czech history could be repeated, we should of course find it desirable to check the other possibility each time and compare the results. Without such an experiment, all considerations of this kind remain a game of hypotheses…
The history of the Czechs will not be repeated, nor will the history of all of Europe. The history of the Czechs and of Europe are a pair of sketches from the pen of mankind’s fateful inexperience.
I would add that that’s true of much history, not just Czech history.]
Regardless of his desired goals, a President is constrained by the degree of agreement and cooperation he receives from Congress.
Thus it is not just what a President achieves but what he acted in support of wherein standards of evaluation lie.
Did he support a balanced budget?
Did he support a strong military?
Did he support limited government?
Did he support the rule of law?
Did he support the cultural virtues upon which success in America rests?
Did he offer a coherent vision of America’s future?
I hold that only two Presidents in the past 100 years have met those standards; Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan.
GB:
Yes, naturally one would have to take into the equation what a president proposes or supports, particularly if the president is working with a reluctant and/or uncooperative Congress.
But unfortunately, intentions don’t matter as much as performance as president, and performance depends in part on Congress.
Rule of thumb:
If certain people are upset, then that’s generally a positive indication.
Certain people.
Nonethess, there are some very legitimate reasons (for “certain people”) to be very down on Trump:
1. Economy
2. The economy
3. The US economy
4. Current approval ratings—especially when one considers that for “certain people” a 5% approval rating would be far too high
5. Continued inroads in traditionally solid Blue voting demographics/groups
…and a few others…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-10-best-things-trump-has-done-in-his-first-year-in-office/2017/12/27/c79ce93c-ea7e-11e7-9f92-10a2203f6c8d_story.html?utm_term=.357d8bcae17a
To be sure, one’s mileage can vary. (And sure does!)
Bottom line. Is it time for the Democrats and A-Ts to panic? (That is, genuine panic, the real article—not the garden variety, adolescent hysteria that we’ve been seeing for the past 20 months.)
NewNeo,
You perfectly described all of my doubts about Trump. It is wonderful to be wrong.
Ariel is correct that policies (regulations, programs, etc) have long term consequences. However, the long term consequences are often very predictable.
IMHO…
Politics, done well should be mind-numbingly boring. Government, done well, should be like a waiter in a fine restaurant; invisible until the instant you need him.
Trump is none of this. I continue to deeply distrust the flying circus that Washington has become. I fear that politics is being converted into a form of entertainment.
Neo,
I agree that personal performance counts in how a President responds in areas where he has a free hand. Trump’s rejection of Obama’s deal with Iran VS Carter’s reaction to the seizure of our embassy in Iran come to mind as examples.
To objectively evaluate Presidential performance on results in the domestic sphere requires consideration as to the political environment that existed at the time.
Roy,
Yes to the first paragraph. No to the second. Trump bears far less responsibility for Washington’s “flying circus” than does the Left.
A leader, versus a manager, ALWAYS looks chaotic.
Both FDR and Trump are leaders not managers.
What’s most interesting to note is that FDR, Reagan and Trump are of the same economic school.
Reagan NEVER repudiated FDR. He always claimed that the Democrat Party left him.
Trump is another classic Liberal. He’s no conservative at all.
He ran against a freaking Progressive — Socialist — Communist.
He is right on track, based on what I expected. He is simply out-negotiating virtually every player in sight. This is the inverse of Barry Soetoro.
For a guy that supported the Clintons for decades and hates Bush, is it not astounding that the MSM loathes Trump the Liberal ?
GB,
The circus atmosphere can be ascribed to the extremists of both parties and has been going on since the Clinton presidency. However, Trump’s endless tweets and his cryptic and bombastic statements, combined with the left’s outrage have brought us to new levels. There is no room left for moderate and rational discourse.
> Trump’s endless tweets and his cryptic and bombastic statements
I kind of enjoy them. I recall the Bush years, it is frankly refreshing to see some push back. Is Trump historically unusual in that regard? Heck, during the 1948 election Truman was running around the country calling Dewey a Nazi among other intemperate things. I think we have just become used to watching Republicans get beat up by the left without fighting back.
From the book review here:
and also
Whoa, sounds familiar…
I’m still not sure Trump is conservative. If the Democrats had only worked with him out of the gate, he might have went an entirely different direction as the Republican establishment was and still is sniping at him.
There are rational criteria one can use in evaluating a president, which you’ve described. However, for some time now it seems like irrational, emotive responses to the president as “father-figure” take precedence.
You may view things rationally. Others may not even understand logic and evidence — or they may see them as tricks to be deployed only when entirely useful.
Roy,
Extremists of both parties?
Pray tell, what examples might you cite of “extremists” on the right involved in the Washington flying circus?
95% of the media coverage of Trump flirts with hysteria. Hollywood and democrat politicians regularly engage in demonizing Trump. His ascerbic tweets and bombast cannot compare to the tsunami of garbage he’s been subjected to not even Nixon endured this level of abuse.
“but [Trump’s] policies are overall working pretty well” How the hell can you know that?”
*I* can say that – and do – because the job market is much better – MUCH, MUCH, better than it was under Obamanation.
I now have a permanent job with great pay and great benefits. I have headhunters calling me instead of me calling them.
THAT’s how I know Trump’s policies are working.
Yes, it is true that sometimes the effect of policies aren’t seen for a long time. But, Obama’s nonsense about “at some point in time you’ve made enough money” or “you didn’t build that” etc. did hurt the average American. And maybe some of Trump’s policies will hurt the US.
But, for now, I’m happier than a pig in a puddle as I take my paychecks to the bank. And, that is how I know Trump’s policies are working.
And any who think that income doesn’t matter didn’t spend years out of the job market during the Obamanation years not seeing a decent future.
Thank God the American people elected Trump.
miklos:
I think what you’re referring to is a part of #1, the “style” factor. I consider all of that pretty irrational.
Mark:
I don’t think Trump is necessarily a conservative. However, as I wrote, I think he has governed conservatively so far, policywise. That includes the SCOTUS justices he’s nominated.
“…is it not astounding…?”
Um, no.
If Trump can be categorized as a “Truman Democrat”, as a “JFK liberal”, as an “LBJ liberal”, as an “HH” liberal, as a “Scoop Jackson Democrat”—IF (big “if” for some, to be sure)!—then NO, it is NOT AT ALL astounding.
The Democratic Party, having sold its birthright (and soul) to “post-Constitutionalist”, “post-patriotic”, identity-politicking, social-justice bigot—and basically America-hating—progressive fantasists, has “moved on”. It is no longer the Democratic Party of those mentioned above.
Just the slogan, “MAGA” makes all the usual suspects apoplectic with frenzied, hysterical hate.
(Now, why should that be? Well, several reasons, I suppose(!)….)
But all this is really besides the point. And traditional labels such as “Conservative” or “Liberal” or “Democrat” or “Republican” are no longer meaningful. The choices are between creeping (or galloping?) socialism on the one hand, and “traditional” (give or take) Amercian ethos on the other.
The stark choice, if you will.
Besides, the main reason for the hatred is that Trump should NOT have been elected at all. Ergo, he stole the election with the help of the loathsome, creepy, conniving enemy du jour. (Liberal logic 101, I guess.)
It’s the only possible explanation….
Thus, he’s an imposter. A usurper. A liar. A thug. A [fill in the blank]. Etc., etc…
Not one of the “right people”.
Not “on the right side of history”.
Not “one of us”.
He’s dialing back all the “advances”, all the “progress” made by the previous administration. Returning America to the “era of the troglodytes”.
QED
FWIW I don’t think of the housing crash referenced in Ariel’s comment in partisan terms. I think it is correct that Clinton and Congress set up the conditions but then Bush continued or extended those conditions with his ‘Ownership Society’ rhetoric and neither he nor his administration – all the king’s horses and all the King’s men – saw it coming. Its on all of them. Then Bush seamlessly followed by Obama and their bureaucrats avoided a general economic crash by plugging the bottomless pit that can open up in a general economic crash with infinite play money without causing inflation. High fives for that. But they couldn’t get much recovery and then Trump cam along and so far it looks to me like he has cut back regulation and taxes and finally got America moving forward with confidence. In simple terms the establishment knew enough to hit the accelerator in 2008, but they kept their foot on the brake and got 2%. Trump took the foot off the brake and got 4%. Personally I’m glad the FED is pushing interest rates up even as Trump pursues policies that stimulate by deregulating and lowering taxes and maybe get better trade deals to help the economy. There is a long way to go but I think we now have a shot at decent growth without inflation and real interest rates – and if we succeed than we have learned something about over regulation. In terms of economics My father was an Keynesian economist and FRD liberal. He was saying in the fifties that the Keynesian stimulus in the 30s didn’t succeed and it wasn’t until the deficit spending of WW2 that the economy really got going. I think that the bureaucrats who reacted to 2008 understood that the WW2 driven recovery taught us how much it took to stop a general depression – guys like Bernankie – so they knew what to do. But then they ran into the limits of received economic wisdom, and didn’t see that the size of the public sector was too big for the economy to carry. I think Trump saw that, got himself elected and acted. We don’t know how it will work out, but most of the criticism and triumphalism is premature. So I try to take a multigenerational view of political change without putting too much emphasis on party and partisanship. Or put another way I try to take a longer term view when I can – to keep myself from getting too excited by all the yapping.
Unless ariel is a hypocrite he should stop criticizing Trump because we can’t possibly know whether Trump is good or bad until after he is out of office.
“…saw it coming…”
From 2003:
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html
So what happened to this proposal?…
(Take a look at the third paragraph from the end.)
US Unemployment Rate 5yrs.
Charles, This is what you consider Trump’s big accomplishment?
Different strokes for different folks….
(Hold on, is one even allowed to say that???)
Oh, the heck with it.
First, Kanye West (gulp). Now this (double gulp?):
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/400021-pro-trump-pastor-trump-is-the-most-pro-black-president-ive-ever-seen
1. Gorsuch
2. Kavanaugh (hopefully)
3. GDP
4. Unemployment Rate
4.1 Black Unemployment Rate
4.2 Hispanic Unemployment Rate
4.3 Female Unemployment Rate
5. Resignations and firings from top echelon of FBI, and it turns out it’s for gross corruption.
6. Tolerating Sessions even though he supposedly hates everything the man does…comes under respect for our constitution
7. Forcing his bad staff picks to be pushed out for cause…VA(Shulkin), Communications Director (Scaramouche was a record at about one day on the job), Bannon, Priebus, Spicer, Flynn, Gorka, etc. The point is, the guy is decisive and won’t accept poor performance from anyone. He knows how to manage a large organization. You don’t get to stay on by being a kiss-a**.
8. Trying to keep campaign promises.
9. Good negotiator
10. Good politics with Mueller. Could have gotten rid of him at any time. The longer the charade goes on, the more dumb Mueller and his entirely Dem staff look. He keeps them in the spot-lite constantly so that they will self destruct on TV. He can get rid of the special counsel anytime, but the fool is more useful twisting in the wind where he let’s us watch the DOJ prove its bias over and over again. When he’s done with DOJ, there won’t be an American citizen who will serve on a jury and give the prosecutor any benefit of the doubt whatsoever.
The “when Trump’s policies lead to a crash”, not “if” gives the game away for Ariel. She’s already decided.
Back when Bill Clinton was President, the UN said they required a billion dollars from the US to renovate the UN buildings. Donald Trump, who at that time was not even on the political horizon, announced that, if they’d give him the contract, he’d get the job done on time for half that figure. The UN got its billion dollars, of course.
The REASON I voted for Trump, despite the negatives of which the media and NeverTrumpers constantly reminded us, is that from that one event I knew how he felt about waste and corruption, and he felt, knew he was capable of doing it better than the apparatchiks. His agenda was getting things done RIGHT.
Today, unlike all his recent predecessors he keeps moving from one target to the next, setting in motion fixes and new starts, correcting bad builds in the political structure. The status quo, although often bad for the US, was good for optics. The Donald likes optics, too. He’s just not willing to accept a bad deal for the sake of them. Every outraged scream you hear is from someone who was satisfied with the optics and results of the status quo.
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/disgrace-1-9b-united-nations-face-lift-trump-lashes-massive-rebuild-article-1.631811
The comment “from watching George Bush blamed for the housing crash when it came from what Congress and Clinton did years before.” , trouble is that everyone knew it wad from Carter and Clinton’s policies, they attempted to blame Bush. Funny thing though is that the Bush administration was predicting the problem from the very beginning, and the dems like Barney Frank said that there was no problem with Freddie and Fannie, the lied as long as it was for the immediate (and short term) seemed to be helping their constituents slowly slit their combined wrists and destroying the economy world wide, typical socialists that they were.
1. The Presidency combines the functions of chief of state and chief executive so evaluating the President does incorporate an evaluation of their bearing. Trump’s vulgarity can be dismaying. Keep in mind, however, that much of that ‘vulgarity’ is a willingness to talk turkey contra the manners and sensibility and social fictions maintained by people in certain bourgeois occupations – teaching, law, social work and ‘mental health’, &c. (Though, in the current generation, this rubbish seems to have spread to the whole of the professional-managerial class). There are other ways to fail at being chief of state, among them hurling epithets at the opposition (Truman), appearing drunk in public (LBJ), appearing bedraggled and badly dressed (Jimmy Carter), speaking in horrible word salads (Bush the Elder), oleaginousness (Bilge Clinton); frenetic activity, pointless travel and overexposure (all of them post-Truman, most noticeable (and severe?) with Bush the Elder and Obama). Of course, you can perform adequately and the media will string together clips to make you look absurd if they have it in for you (see the press treatment of Gerald Ford). Kennedy and Reagan are the only recent presidents who were verbally fluent without incorporating repellent elements in their public speaking. Clinton and Obama were fluent, but somehow repulsive (Clinton in particular). Gerald Ford could shine on the odd occasion, but only if he prepared extensively. As for the rest, fuhgeddaboudit. Bush the Elder could be painful to listen to.
If Trump solves Korea, it will be pretty easy to name him as the most successful president in foreign policy in my lifetime.
I worked in the Czech Republic for about a year (Jak see mas?).
They have a long history of employing defenestration as a political tactic.
An amazing country and people, but I doubt any foreign power can govern them for long. The only thing they distrust more than personal liberty are the dictates of those intent on ruling them.
Trum is too soft on his friend, Hillary Clinton.
Trum is too soft on a lot of traitors and Leftists in the USA. Even his pedo ring arrests are due to Jeff Sessions and Ivanka team.
This is why he is too soft and moderate for me. His Leo ascendant is inferior to Aries ascendant in some aspects of extreme violence and war.
A lot of people seem to think Trum is extreme and nasty. To me, Trum is just a lighter and softer version of dominant Aries/Leo male energy. He is a businessman, not a warrior or killer. Evil needs to be killed, not incorporated as a profit share.
What people like me really hate is the pro Trum followers that talked as if one needed to submit, kneel, and kiss the ring of the US President because only in this way would anyone survive the Leftist alliance. That is the path of weaklings.
Barry Meislin on August 5, 2018 at 5:18 am at 5:18 am said:
“…saw it coming…”
That is a good point and it highlights the even more important point that much of what Americans know about Presidential and DC politics is filtered through a con stream of con artists, media liars, and stupid human nature.
People apparently need to go to school to get a diploma and license that says they can now begin to work on a tricky field. This doesn’t work for some things such as thinking.
Chairman Mao purportedly stated that it is too early to understand the impact of the French Revolution. Of course the ripple effect of time is hard to read. However, we can know things in real time. Epistemological agnosticism is a form of relativism.
Generally, freedom works, especially as it relates to economics and the creation of wealth. Government just getting out of the way (deregulation, tax cuts, etc) is a recipe for economic growth. President Trump’s policies have been successful to date.
“In 1618, the Czech estates took courage and vented their ire on the emperor reigning in Vienna by pitching two of his high officials out of a window in the Prague Castle.” – Milan Kundera.
Since Neo holds Kundera in high esteem, it is necessary to point out that this event was due to religious intolerance. The Protestant Czechs defenestrated two Catholics who were entirely willing to be held for trial, but were thrown out of a window instead, the equivalent of a lynching. The two fell 12 meters and survived.
“Some courage”? On the part of the two Catholics, who were in service to their ruler, yes.
“Vented their ire”? That sounds like a modern Democratic justification.
It’s getting easier and easier to vote for a Presidential, congressional, or even local candidate:
Pick the one that clearly loves America, not the one who wants to destroy — or fundamentally transform — America.
However, Trump’s endless tweets and his cryptic and bombastic statements, combined with the left’s outrage have brought us to new levels. There is no room left for moderate and rational discourse.
Others have already commented that Trump is not the one plumbing new levels. He is fighting back with the tools at hand. Reagan was also a master of communications in a less crude and vicious age.
Also, on my own blog I used to have video of a Bush official testifying t]before the Democrat dominated financial services committee and Barney Frank and Maxine telling him “We will try one more roll of the dice.” You Tube deleted it years ago.
During the 2016 campaign, I evaluated Trump based on his past, which did not include any political acts. That made it difficult to see how he would be going politically as a president.
At one point, I’d *almost* convinced myself that it was preferable to vote for Hillary (and I said so on the old forum). As self-serving as this sounds, given the verifiable information in my possession at the time I can’t blame myself. Thankfully, I realized that Hillary was a verifiable criminal, so Trump’s implied promise of imprisoning her (which he lied about!) got my vote.
People who now act like everything was certain at the time are lying to us and to themselves. Trump was a shot in the dark that happened to work out.
I promise these people, if they try using the same “methodology” in the future they’re going to regret it.
The angry TDS is why I quit Ricochet. It is still around, I see, but I would suggest reading this column by Richard Fernandez.
Perhaps the reason why Trump has not brought on the predicted apocalypse, and not been the disaster pundits have forecast, is that his chaos proved strangely in tune with the disruptive forces of the era. Despite the conventional wisdom that the West erred in choosing Brexit and failing to elect Hillary the West may by blind luck have changed course at the very moment when it needed to.
Well one thing Trump has done is stop most of what Obama set in place. So that limits Obama’s long term effect. Like when Truman and Eisenhower axed the WWII price caps and other fascist economic ideas that FDR had put in place. This had a short term effected in addition to the limiting FDR’s long term damage. Just imagine if they had extended that to Social Security. We would hardly even remember his economic and only remember his “winning” the war.
For the last 12 years, I lived in Venezuela. It was a great place when I got here in 2006. Chavez had been president for eight years, but he hadn’t done too much damage yet. Oil prices were high and climbing, so there was enough money for everyone, even after all the corruption.
But, underneath, the foundations of the economy and the society were rotting away. The signs were only visible if you knew what to look for. Petroleum went from being 60% of exports to 98%. All of the other industries were destroyed by the governments policies.
Fast forward to 2013… Chavez dies and leaves his hapless minion, Nicolas Maduro, in charge. Oil prices start to fall. All of a sudden, all of the cracks in the system that had been papered over started showing. Four years later, Venezuela is a destitute hellhole with hyperinflation, starvation, and a collapsed health care system.
For me, the people saying that the economy is great, and so don’t care about what else Trump does, remind me of the Venezuelans who defended Chavez while swilling subsidized 18 year old scotch.
Roy Nathanson:
The rest of us, you apparently excluded by your own words, care a great deal about all that Trump has done, with much approval, and look forward to his further accomplishments. Likening Trump to Chavez is perhaps the most bizarre comment ever posted here. Is that what you intended?
Roy,
“Petroleum went from being 60% of exports to 98%.”
Here is a chart I found of US exports and imports:
https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-imports-and-exports-components-and-statistics-3306270
Our petroleum exports seem to be less than 5%.
Also, our current economic philosophy is managed capitalism and not socialism.
The economy is in pretty good shape. Will there be another recession? Of course there will. Business cycles haven’t been eradicated. How it’s handled will be key.
I am so sick and tired of all of you because you fail to learn. What you do is root for your tribal leader and nothing more.
Ariel: Were you reading this blog in 2016? If so, you must have noticed the range of opinions on Trump. At least half the current commenters, who today largely support Trump, opposed him with varying degrees of ferocity during the campaign.
Furthermore, because neo started this blog as a “changer” who moved from left to right, she attracts others formerly of the left, such as myself.
It’s part of human nature to be tribal, but with conscious effort one can rise above it. The commenters here do so more than most people I’ve known. Which hardly makes their judgments perfect either.
And just because we reach different conclusions than you do, doesn’t mean that we are merely rooting for our leaders. We’re calling balls and strikes as best we can.
Nor are you off the hook. To what extent are you thinking for yourself, rather than rooting for your leaders? What have you learned lately?
The key thing to understand about President Trump is that he is a businessman. He is NOT a career politician, or perhaps even more importantly, a lawyer.
A career politician is all about rewarding friends/donors and a lawyer is all about ‘what’s in it for me’? (See the Clintons.) Their political rhetoric is overwhelmingly just a beard for access to power and payoffs.
A businessman in contrast needs to “get it right” if he is going to survive. So a businessman’s approach is ask ‘What do I want achieve?’ and ‘How to I get there?’ and ‘What’s the problem?’ and ‘What’s the right answer?’.
And once they’ve figured it out, they say ‘Let’s go for it.’
Ideology does not enter into it at all.
And that is the key to understanding President Trump. He is not ideological; he is practical and once he has figured out what he thinks is the right answer he goes for it.
His goal (stated repeatedly) – MAGA. The problem (again stated repeatedly) – the swamp. So to achieve his goal he wants to drain the swamp. (There are of course many who disagree with both his goal and his desired ‘fix’.)
So I don’t think we should try to put President Trump anywhere on the conventional political spectrum. We should just hope that his diagnosis is correct, and that if it is, that he succeeds.
T.Y. Thomas Hazelwood for leading me to this interesting 2005 Senate session on the UN building. Starting at 1hr. 35 min see the then 60 year old DJT talk business. Be sure to stick around for the QA session at the end of 45 min testimony to see the now familiar facial gestures and “looks” https://www.c-span.org/video/?187762-1/united-nations-headquarters-renovation
For me, the people saying that the economy is great, and so don’t care about what else Trump does, remind me of the Venezuelans who defended Chavez
What an interesting comment. So, rolling back regulation, restarting manufacturing and controlling illegal immigration don’t count ?
How interesting. ZIRP sent the stock market climbing but the economy was rotting out beneath the new crony capitalist wealth.
Look what Immelt did to Jack Welch’s GE.
.
How interesting to see into another’s mind. What is important to them.
Manju: “Charles, This is what you consider Trump’s big accomplishment?”
And you don’t consider people getting real jobs again a “big accomplishment”?
Or are you referring to that bogus chart you linked to? You know under Obama people stopped being counted as unemployed if they weren’t collecting unemployment benefits – and still the rate was higher under Obama than it is under Trump. Under Trump, people have REAL jobs. I’m guessing that you don’t rub shoulder with us hoi polloi.
I continue to say…I like almost everything Trump has actually done. I don’t particularly like his style. And I agree with with maxx785…thank God we have a businessman in the WH..and not a lawyer.
Is Trump a conservative? Of course, NO. Conservatism is an ideology, and Trump is everything but an ideologist. The good news is that all ideologies are doomed now, their time is over. This includes conservatism, too. The future belongs to Trump-like leaders, that is, to very pragmatical businessmen who fully understand the futility of understanding reality through any unified rationalistic constructs like ideologies.
“The future belongs to Trump-like leaders, that is, to very pragmatical businessmen who fully understand the futility of understanding reality through any unified rationalistic constructs like ideologies.”
??? This exactly (I hope)
???s were supposed to be up-vote arrows – don’t know what happened.
Neo, your description of how you looked at Trump during the campaign tallies with mine. I thought he was a New York Democrat, moderate at best. Some of the things he said as the campaign progressed convinced me that he was learning about policy as he went — for instance, his realization that regulations strangle more businesses than even taxes do.
I have been beyond pleased with what he’s actually done as president. To some extent, I think he’s using the Twitter feed to distract the leftists from what he’s actually doing administratively. (To some extent; the rest is Trump being Trump.)
Conrad Black’s biography of Trump is interesting. Black has written very good bios of Roosevelt and Nixon.
He knows Trump personally and has some good insights.
Off topic – LOVE the new website. So much easier to read & navigate on my iPhone etc. Thanks!
> Chairman Mao purportedly stated that it is too early to understand the impact of the French Revolution.
IIRC, that was Zhou Enlai and it has been said that he was referring to the 1968 social revolution. I admit that that doesn’t give the same impression of mystic profundity.
chuck: Re: Zhou Enlai — that’s what I’ve read too.
Assessing historical events is tricky because the wheel is always in spin. If I could have known Obama would ride the unpopular Iraq War right into White House, I wouldn’t have supported it.
Likewise I would have voted for Trump if I could have turned the pages ahead to see how he’s doing today.
But there’s no way for humans to see the future like that. We muddle through our lives in the fog of war, doing the best we can.
That’s why I said “purportedly.” I heard the same thing too, but was trying to make a point. (My apologies- I did mean to say Zhao instead of mao) I guess a thread has run out of energy when people start nit-picking.
Thomas Hazlewood on August 5, 2018 at 7:44 am at 7:44 am said:
Back when Bill Clinton was President, the UN said they required a billion dollars from the US to renovate the UN buildings. Donald Trump, who at that time was not even on the political horizon, announced that, if they’d give him the contract, he’d get the job done on time for half that figure. The UN got its billion dollars, of course.
The REASON I voted for Trump, despite the negatives of which the media and NeverTrumpers constantly reminded us, is that from that one event I knew how he felt about waste and corruption, and he felt, knew he was capable of doing it better than the apparatchiks. His agenda was getting things done RIGHT.
…
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/disgrace-1-9b-united-nations-face-lift-trump-lashes-massive-rebuild-article-1.631811
* * *
Bingo.
This was one of the things that helped me over the speed bumps of his campaign.
The major impetus was still anyone-but-Hillary, but seeing Trump “in action” was reassuring.
* * *
Davemay on August 5, 2018 at 7:50 pm at 7:50 pm said:
I guess a thread has run out of energy when people start nit-picking.
* * *
Think of it more as darning the socks.
I hate Chou En-Lai and I hope he dies
but the thing you’ve got to see
if someone’s got to go over there
that someone isn’t me.
–Phil Ochs, “The Draft Dodger Rag” (1965)
https://genius.com/Phil-ochs-draft-dodger-rag-lyrics
Charles…sounds made up.
Kind of surprising that your epistemology is this weak. You evaluate a current President in the present according to his methods — not what decisions he makes, but how he makes them. If you are principally concerned about outcomes, then over a lifetime you make an observation of what methods of decision-making tend to lead to the best outcomes, and you do that in your personal life, your professional life, and in your study of history and past Presidents. You then apply this methodological critique to your current President. A very solid empirical basis for judging Presidential performance in the present, without needing to predict the future. We make decisions in this way in our personal lives all the time, judging by quality of methods when we can’t know or predict the outcomes. That we can’t know the outcomes of Presidential decisions in time to affect voting is a silly straw man.
And this even leaves out the point that many reasonable people would find it astonishing to base one’s evaluation of Presidential quality entirely on utilitarian outcomes. After all, the most effective means to a given positive outcome might be some horrible and brutal action. Surely the means is often at least as important as the ends — I mean, unless you think the President is some kind of elected Jesus, responsible for our salvation or damnation. If you think he’s just a schmo we elect to ensure the government plods along doing its governmental things, which are fairly obvious and straightforward to do, then the ends are actually fairly unimportant per se. What matters is that the government be so clearly non-corrupt, efficient, fair and modest that the social contract is strengthened — that we all believe in our national social myths, feel we’re part of a well-run and sensible country. Surely that national mood is far more important than whether the President can think up a way to get Kim Jong Bin Foo Bar Baz to sign a meaningless treaty promising to not develop more than a 1.5 kt nuclear device sooner than 2050 et cetera blah blah.
Carl Pham:
Presidential decisions and their effects are so unlike personal decisions that the latter are really not all that much of a guide to the former.
And obviously, if a presidential action is “horrible and brutal” enough, that factors into the effect of the action. It’s not usually separate from it, so the evaluation suggested here is not completely and utterly utilitarian.
An excellent example of some of the dilemmas a president faces, and the “horrible and brutal” acts that sometimes can be “good” decisions (or rather, can be the least bad of a very bad group of alternatives), is presidential decisions made in wartime. For example, one obvious event that has been debated for many decades is Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. It was undoubtedly “horrible and brutal”—extremely so, horrifically so. And yet the justification has been that it prevented ever more deaths, specifically American deaths but also Japanese deaths, that would have occurred in an invasion and conquest of Japan by conventional forces using conventional weapons. You may think it was a good decision or think it was a bad decision, but the point is that it needs to be evaluated in the context in which it occurred, where all decisions would have been horrific.
Fortunately, most presidential decisions in peacetime do not involve horrible brutality. They may cause suffering, of course, but not directly and obviously as with the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (I discuss the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima and the moral dilemmas that act entailed in some of these posts).
In our system the President is not king, he is not empowered to act independently of the other two, co-equal, branches of government – despite recent president’s improper use of executive orders. Thus it is incorrect to assign credit and blame for all that happens while he is in office.
But the question of whether Trump, or any of his predecessors, is a good or poor President remains. Speaking for myself, I evaluate based on his commitment to and delivery of the things promised during the campaign for office. There will also be things done and accomplished based on the President’s leadership. These are able to be judged objectively. Other than these short term assessments I prefer to leave the long-term evaluation to the historians.
Vote in November like your life depended on it.
Dems are not just coming after Trump Admin officials. That’s just the start.
Important considerations:
1. Don’t give a president credit for doing something he’d have preferred to avoid if he could have avoided it. Bill Clinton, hilariously, gets credit for a balanced budget which came about precisely because the GOP Congress wouldn’t let him spend money on things that would have made it unbalanced. He took credit for something he’d have tried NOT to do, had it been entirely up to him.
Likewise, don’t blame a president for outcomes of policies he resisted. Reagan won the Cold War partly through a military buildup the Soviets broke their economy trying to match. But to obtain that military buildup, he had to deal with Tip O’Neill and company, and they exacted a price in increased domestic (e.g. welfare) spending, none of which Reagan wanted. Later, leftists tried to blame his military spending for the resulting increased budget deficit. But the increased military spending was a small percentage of the resulting increase in the deficit, whereas the lion’s share of the increase came from (surprise!) the increased welfare spending that Reagan didn’t even want!
2. When someone tries to blame/praise a president for society-wide improved/worsened outcomes, look for two things:
(a.) that there’s a plausible mechanism-of-causation whereby THAT specific policy-change could lead to THAT specific outcome; and,
(b.) that the lag-time between cause and effect is plausible;
I remember wanting to hit leftists over the head with this rule, when Obama came into office and, within his first year in office, they were saying things like, “see how the economy is improving because of Obama!” and “Obama’s going to reduce the number of abortions in America by means of his policy of something-something!” and even, “Obama’s new programs will actually lead to a reduced budget-deficit!”
R.C.,
Very good points!
“Presidential decisions and their effects are so unlike personal decisions that the latter are really not all that much of a guide to the former.”
Funny thing, Neo, is that I do not recall you saying anything like that in 2016.
Cicero:
Well then, you have really bad recall, because I said many times that one of the problems with Trump was that he had no political track record as a person holding office. Absent that—which is the way we usually judge people running for office—we were forced to fall back on evaluating other things about him.
Just as an example, you have this from May of 2016 (a post I chose almost randomly):
In fact, Trump’s unpredictability was a major theme of mine. That unpredictability was because of his lack of political history. In addition, his personal history of political statements and positions (we HAD to fall back on that, having nothing better to go by in his rather special case of someone running for the land’s highest office, and yet with no political track record) was of shifting positions and statements on politics as well as some very alarming pronouncements on politics. In the latter category were things like “George W. Bush was evil” and Trump’s support for the broadest of eminent domain-taking (in particular, see this post for some of the things connected with the latter that alarmed me greatly). Of course, there was also his personal record of cheating on wives, etc., although that was never my focus.
But I would have much rather had a track record of expressly political deeds for Trump. But there was none, basically. Now we have it, and beginning with his inauguration and first few months, that’s how I’ve evaluated Trump. And I’ve been quite explicit about that.
Your thoughtful analysis is interesting because you evaluate Trump as one of the most conservative presidents, policy-wise, you’ve seen in your lifetime. Really?
He is NOT in any way a fiscal conservative. In fact he is running the largest federal deficits in memory. He is NOT a free trader, but a protectionist very much in line with old time Democrat union influenced ideas. While he has yet to act on it because there are still enough real conservatives in congress to thwart him, he wants HUGE infrastructure projects which would mean massive government spending. He proposes government subsidies in the billions to agriculture. Even the tax bill, which was indeed conservative, was not really his, but a product of congress for which he took full credit.
I guess conservatism has been redefined, as Boehner said. In that sense he certainly is “the most conservative president” in our lifetime.
The Other Chuck:
I certainly have NOT redefined conservatism.
There has been only one conservative president in my lifetime, and that is Reagan. And if you look at his record, he had many areas in which he was not especially conservative (although of course much of the time he had to deal with a Democratic or partly-Democratic Congress, and that affected his policies as well). You can find an interesting discussion of the extent of Reagan’s conservatism here.
I cannot think of another conservative president except Reagan in my lifetime, and that’s by a traditional definition of conservative. I may be old, but I wasn’t around for Coolidge.
So Trump by default is one of the most conservative presidents in my lifetime.
It can be quite challenging, even with the perspective brought by distance in time, to discern the president’s contribution to policy and policy’s contribution to outcomes. The president’s contribution is one vector among a dozen others.
There has been only one conservative president in my lifetime, and that is Reagan.
I’d amend that to say that there has been one president since 1960 whose political action was primarily motivated by an interest in pursuing policy objectives, whose orientation was generally starboard, and who had a menu of well-considered criteria by which he evaluated policy (making his judgments quite predictable). Richard Nixon was highly intelligent and well-read, but he was a bundle of ambition; to the extent he had any true objectives, they were more in line with Rockefeller than Reagan. Gerald Ford was in politics for the same reason his father sold paint: it was a way of making a living that he could tolerate. Ron Nessen’s take was that he ran for re-election because the day-to-day rhythm of ploughing through the paperwork at his desk suited him. Students of the Bush family maintain that they are intensely competitive: “if his father owned the biggest junkyard in town, he’d own the biggest junkyard in two towns”. So, Prescott Bush gets elected to Congress, George Bush the Elder gets elected President, and George Bush the Younger gets elected Governor of Texas and President. (Karl Rove has said that George W Bush is the most competitive man he has ever met).
As for the other end of the business, you could call Barack Obama an ideologue, but he’s always seemed just to be a carrier of the prejudices of the people around whom he’s spent his time since 1979, nothing more. As for Clinton, one could argue that for him the mundane features of political life were agreeable because they fed his ego and provided a conduit to more blowjobs.
I don’t care if Trump is a vulgarian, is not a low key, limp-wristed, meek, cucumber sandwiches, tea and crumpets and polite conversation kind of guy—is not the typical “nice” Republican President that has been outwitted, taken advantage of, and pushed around by our enemies and our supposed “Allies” for decades, but is, instead, a shrewd, loud, unafraid, impatient with the niceties, boastful man; a force of nature who gets in the face of foreign leaders and institutions.
I care if he gets results that are good for the U.S., ruffled feathers or not. As has been said, “nations don’t have friends, they have interests,” and if Trump promotes and protects the interests of the U.S,. more power to him.
I come at this issue from a different angle, for it seems to me that any President has far less power to affect events than one would think.
We can see how using Executive Orders—that can very easily be erased by the next President—is not satisfactory if a President wants to have his policies to have any lasting effect. Regulatory changes can only go so far, a President needs to get permanent legislation passed, and that requires the cooperation of Congress. Other than the tax cut and confirming his judicial nominees, we can all see how a largely hostile Congress has basically ignored Trump’s agenda, the Wall being the chief example.
In addition, there is another obstacle, the generally Leftist Judiciary, many of whose members are obviously intent on thwarting Trump and his policies at every turn.
Moreover, any President needs to get his message out, and the Leftist, almost universally hostile MSM and Entertainment media make getting that message out extremely difficult. A friendly MSM is a great asset, a hostile one is a great obstacle. The preponderance of Academia is also firmly anti-Conservative, and anti-Trump.
But, above all, a President needs all of the ”public servants” in the Executive Departments and Agencies he supposedly commands to faithfully and fully implement his policies.
I have written here before about the reality that any President only gets to appoint 7,000 or so people he chooses to the jobs listed in the Plumb Book (official title—“U.S Policy and Supporting Positions”)—usually the head and another one or two top level Presidential appointee counselors plus, perhaps a few key managers–to see to it that each Department and Executive Agency and their over two million civil servants employees carry out that President’s policies.
If there is “resistance” by the permanent staff of those Executive Departments and Agencies, a President’s policies can be sabotaged, watered down, slow-walked, or simply ignored.
Welcome to the Deep State, the Permanent Bureaucracy, the millions of federal employees—“public servants”—who are attracted to work for the government not only because it is a steady job with pretty good pay and benefits, but also—I’d imagine–because they see the government as the solution to all sorts of problems, and these public servants–to judge from their pattern of political donations–are overwhelmingly leftist in orientation.
These overwhelmingly leftist public servants are perhaps the chief obstacle to Trump getting his policies actually implemented and able to make significant and permanent changes.
Given this almost universal animosity towards and/or hatred of Trump, this “Resistance” to him personally and to his agenda, by practically every major Institution and interest group in the country (other, of course, than the 60 plus million voters who voted for him), I’d say that Trump has done remarkably well, and has certainly racked up some undeniable accomplishments in the Economic/Business sector, and may well rack up major accomplishments in the areas of National Defense and Foreign Policy as well.
Stay tuned.
Neo,
While I wrote to the long-term analysis as the only way of knowing, my thrust was still the tribal. I used George Bush because he was and is still blamed for the economy of the first decade when the two major events, 9/11 and the housing crash, were set before his administration, the former in the planning that was missed during Clinton and the latter in the policies set by Congress and Clinton. Yet Bush is still blamed cuz tribe. It still galls me when that long-term analysis is in.
Someone listed Coolidge and Reagan as the best presidents by his criteria. The Coolidge administration, with Congress, is responsible for the Stock Market Crash and the Great Depression. Their policies made it the deepest depression in US history but Hoover, a better man and president than Coolidge, gets the blame.
Trump has removed a number of regulations that conservatives applaud cuz regulations but I think Chesterton’s fence is so damn applicable. Me, I think regulations are necessary but can be done more efficiently, a different concept of smaller government.
Yes, I do think it was applied in a mindless and kneejerk manner. However, following the party-line had nothing to do with it; the tribes aren’t constrained by the Democrat/Republican dichotomy. I used Democrat because I know the audience thinks in pretty much just two tribes: Republican (Conservative, conservative, heaven forbid crazy right-winger) and Democrat (Liberal, liberal, and crazy left-wingers).
I’ll address more of your very well thought-out post after commenting to the commenters. I really wish you had nested replies rather than this linear format…
Ariel:
About nested replies vs. linear–
I asked for feedback when I was designing the new blog and the response was overwhelmingly in favor of non-nested. Also, personally, I much prefer regular linear replies and dislike nested ones. My problem with the latter is that if a person is coming back to read the new comments that have been made after that person’s last visit, with nested replies you can’t make head or tail of it unless you just want to check on the responses to a certain comment (which I don’t usually want to do).
It’s easy to respond to specific people—just address them by name at the outset of a comment.
Parker,
The long term consequences aren’t often predictable. They’re usually not predictable at all. No one in Congress in the 90s, nor Clinton, thought heh,heh, this is just going to blow up into a nasty recession for the next Congress and president when they pushed a deregulation on who could get housing.
What Trump has deregulated, his fight with all our NATO allies, his mercantilist concept of trade (notwithstanding Glenn Reynolds’s “the Chinese I talked to think him a master strategist because those were the Chinese I talked to”) that’s a zero sum game.
A ways back we talked about borders and hordes (you used ‘invasion’). You do understand that when the economies of those horde countries are doing well they come here less? That’s established, so what would you propose as a long-term solution? Building a wall and hiring more Border Patrol? Or putting more time, influence, and money in making more trading partners?
Neo,
That’s all well and good, and your experience from polling your commenters, but mine is vastly different from spending over fifteen years on blogs and the last four years on a number of nested reply blogs, like ‘Simple Justice’ (Greenfield can be a real ass about using ‘Reply’), ‘The Watch’, what was CopBlock, and others.
Control-F solves all problems in a nested. It allows you to find the nest, I do it all the time, while Control-F in a linear forces you to go back and forth for that comment made in the first comments in a hundred comment blog. Yeah, it’s easy to respond to people, just use their name after they’ve made 2 or more comments. You may dislike it for your reasons, I like it for mine: Control-F.
Roy Nathanson
For me, the people saying that the economy is great, and so don’t care about what else Trump does, remind me of the Venezuelans who defended Chavez while swilling subsidized 18 year old scotch.
As others have pointed out, in his year and a half, Trump has already done some positive things. Judicial appointments and throwing out a lot of Obama-era regulations come to mind for me. In foreign policy: recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, doing away with the Iran deal, and pointing out to our trade partners that some things need to change come to mind for me. Trump should do more to deal with the deficit.
If you look at Venezuela ten years ago, after El Finado (The Deceased) -a.k.a. Hugo Chávez- had been in power for 9 years, WHAT had been accomplished? As far as I can tell the only accomplishments of El Finado were to acquire more power- such as his closing down opposition RCTV by virtue of not renewing its license, and his taking control of PDVSA.
In terms of improving conditions for the country, by 2008 it was pretty much smoke and mirrors for El Finado and his acolytes. Venezuela’s economic growth from 1998-2008 lagged behind most of Latin America and the world, even with the export price of Venezuelan oil going from $10.57 in 1998 to over $100 in 2008. Education accomplishments ? Consider the Chavista claim that it had eradicated illiteracy, and the Chavista claim UNESCO had said so? Total nonsense. All those Health missions and those Cuban physicians? Judging by the gold standards for public health- Life Expectancy and Infant Mortality- Chavista accomplishments in public health were about the same as the hated Fourth Republic, as Venezuela’s ranks in Latin America for those two indicators hadn’t budged in 10 years.(By 2013, Venezuela’s ranks for IM and LE had definitely fallen from where it was in 1998.)
El Finado, when it came to actually implementing policy- as opposed to maintaining or acquiring more power- was a total bullshitter. How many times did he tell us something was going to be done- but it was never done.Yes, Trump is a talker and a blusterer. But he actually gets some things done. And you can’t tell the difference between The Donald and El Finado ? Que bolas.
Foaf,
Facile and specious at the same time. What I did say is that you can’t know that his policies are good until the fruition of those polices. Neo waxed eloquently on this, even if I think the wax is putrid.
What I can know is that: Trump is not a conservative, he’s a populist, he was a Democrat when that worked for him and now being a Republican works for him, IOW, an opportunist that is what populism is; he is an habitual liar (read before, hell, read Neo); he views everyone through a dichotomy of winner/loser (no, guy, just because you voted for him doesn’t make you a winner, if fact it just makes him a winner).
Read the “Art of the Deal”, it’s like ignoring Mein Kampf, it’s all in there. He describes who he is and who you are. Yet you ignore it.
“Yes, naturally one would have to take into the equation what a president proposes or supports, particularly if the president is working with a reluctant and/or uncooperative Congress.
But unfortunately, intentions don’t matter as much as performance as president, and performance depends in part on Congress.”
Except this “Republican” President has both houses but even both houses balk over his issues.
I forget the site, it tracked economic performance from at least 1929, if not from 1900, by party mix, but it made the point that a Republican Congress and a Republican President was the worst case for economic growth. The best case was a Democrat as president and a Republican Congress. The next best was a Republican president and a Democratic Congress. The worst was when either party controlled both. You can go find it, then ignore it. I wish I could give you the url, all I can do is say that the point was clear.
Huxley,
I was commenting on this blog around the latter part of 2005. Neo can correct my memory if it was later. One of the first things I did was shut down a Australian ass that made fun of her name and her blog. I used Rugby because I knew that an Australian would view Rugby as a tougher sport than American Football, which it is. There’s no contest. Common ground, then he moderated. Neo can give how it fell to shit when the subject of Aegis Missile Cruiser and Iranian civil aircraft became the subject. The truth is that the Aussie was more correct than I was.
Huxley,
Whatever you comment on this blog, or for that matter anyone else, has to be taken from what you comment at the time, the words you use at this time. Whatever was said in 2016 is no more applicable to this day than that I voted for Nixon in 1972 but canvassed for Eugene McCarthy in ’68.
But I do take it in one way, you guys argued how Trump wasn’t fit to be president, but once he was nominated you rallied around. Me, I was Republican from 1972 to 2016. I had to vote my ideals, I voted them by leaving the Republican Party. This Party led by Trump is not the party of Lincoln, or the party of Goldwater, or Reagan or either Bush. You sold out to the promises of a con man. You left the Republican Party while claiming that you’re the Party. This is not the Republican party, it’s the party of Trump where you are losers except when you vote for Trump, after you go back to losers…
Ariel:
I checked to see when your first comment was, and the first on record appears to have been this one, from June 3, 2006. So you’re certainly close when you say “late 2005.” Plus, I’m not certain that really was your first comment because not all the comments transferred properly from my very first site (at Blogger, if you recall), which is where that discussion originated. But it certainly was one of your first comments, if not your very first. Not only that, but when those comments transferred onto the new site neoneocon (and then just recently to this one) from the old Blogger site, they came in backwards order in time and that never could be fixed (site transfers usually contain built-in glitches, somehow). So to read the comments in chronological order on that thread I just linked, a person has to do the opposite of a normal thread. To properly read in chronological order the comments in all those older threads (all posts up to March 3, 2007) you have to scroll down to the bottom of the thread and start, and then go upward.
Anyway, in that thread you indeed seem to be tussling with some Aussie. I confess I don’t remember, though.
lgude.
I don’t know where you get your facts to make your truth but there was a real economic crash starting around 2006 and hit the depths in 2008. There was nothing seemless about it. It ended before Trump even considered being a candidate. It was over in the Obama administration, but you just have to make it a Trump triumph. It’s why I don’t you like you tribalists, you just lie like a rug. No matter how much you claim objectivity.
So Bush did “‘Ownership Society’”, but it wasn’t solely about what led to the real estate crash, in fact it was also about SS and Health Care. In regard to health care, Bush was stiil holding to the Social Darwinism that still holds sway in this country: if you can’t pay for health care you don’t deserve health care. We’ll give you health care in the ER but that’s just our largesse.
A rant on the aside:
We ignore the productivity of a country that gives Universal Health Care for the excuse of it would break us.
The English speaking countries not only have Universal National Healthcare, but they have longer life expectancies. Australia and New Zealand haven’t gone broke for a hundred years of national health care. They have longer life expectancies and spend less. We, this United States of truth, justice, and the American Way, spends about 25% more for less. Me, I think that’s ripe to look at our system of healthcare. Oh, wait, if we didn’t pay that the entire world would suffer cuz all medical technology comes from the USA.
Hi Neo, this is BS (I tried to write bassackwards. obvious fail)
“the problems with Trump was that he had no political track record as a person holding office. Absent that—which is the way we usually judge people running for office—we were forced to fall back on evaluating other things about him.” No, god no, fuck no, we actually usually have a political track record for people running for: a state legislator position; a governorship; the House; the Senate; and the President. You are just wrong.
I’m sorry, Neo but you pulled that out of your ass and you should be ashamed of doing so. What president hasn’t had a political track record since Eisenhower? Would that be Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, even Obama, which of them didn’t have a political record ? Eisenhower and Trunp, but Eisenhower served as supreme commander of the Allied Forces, while Trump had bone spurs during the Vietnam War which disappeared when the war ended.
Ariel:
Read my sentence one more time, the one you quoted in your comment right above this one.
If you’re still having trouble understanding it, I’ll translate for you: Trump had no political track record, and absent that (“that” being a political track record—a political track record being the way we usually judge people for office), we were forced to fall back on evaluating other things about him..
In other words: Trump=no political track record. Therefore we had to fall back on other ways to judge him.
Other people running for high office=political track record, which is the way we usually judge them.
You’re rather reading-comprehension challenged, as well as kind of abusive and nasty here. Relax, chill out, take your time, read more carefully.
Neo,
I do appreciate your search, and June 3rd, 2006 is close enough. What the Aussie (I’ve since learned that the pronunciation is ‘Ozzie’) did was attack you not only by what you wrote but by attacking your choice of name. He had some outstanding permutations of your name. At the time I took exception, I would take the same exception today because it has nothing to do with what you write.
I remember the exchange better than you because I did it and I didn’t have to do a search. After calming him using Rugby, I didn’t do the abasement over our Aegis Missle Crusier shooting down an Iranian public transport aircraft, I should have because we were absolutely wrong in doing so and as a country we should have apologized without equivocation. We were wrong. In hindsight that the Aussie already had, we should not only have given an abject apology, we should have paid restitution because our military blew it.
Regarding nested comments, I find them a tremendous disadvantage because of the lack of chronological continuity. That is, with nested comments I cannot see immediately what the most recent comments are.
Regarding the remark: “It’s easy to respond to specific people—just address them by name at the outset of a comment.”….while this is true, it can be cumbersome; and I wonder whether a comment numbering feature can be added, so that a specific comment number can be referred to instead of just a commentator (who may have sent several—or more—comments). I seem to recall blogs that had this numbering feature (and perhaps still do) and would suggest adding this, if possible.
Regarding “track record”, it’s quite obvious that the meaning of “track record” is “political track record” and not “personality/business/idiosyncratic/sexual preferences/sexual preferences/libido/food preferences/style-sophistication/behavioral etc. track record”.
For that matter, what was Obama’s political “political track record”. Pretty thin on the ground, it would seem obvious, but equally obvious is that it didn’t matter one whit to the faithful.
To be sure, one could say the same about Eisenhower, but he was a proven leader in another area.
So that perhaps a better indicator (of presidential performance) than “political experience” is administrative/leadership experience—the ability to lead and to delegate and to get things done—together with personality and the nature, direction and intensity of the president’s ideology, with the caveat that such “ideology” must include a love and respect for the country that the President leads.
Pingback:Evaluating and Debating Presidencies – PC Bushi
Gringo,
My comparison between Chavez and Trump was meant in a very narrow context. There are things that governments can do that create short-term prosperity at the cost of the long-term. On the economy, the jury on Trump is still years away from a verdict.
I love what Secretary of the Treasury. Steven Mnuchin has been doing. In fact, I like that he has been working quietly and effectively and has avoided political controversy. Trump gets high marks from me for selecting him.
I do wish there were more progress on tax reform. The tax reduction bill was only a patch. The tax code needs a major overhaul and simplification. It isn’t sexy, but this must be done to maintain the economic momentum.
On the negative side, I worry about Trump’s ultimate impact on international trade. Much of America’s prosperity and wealth is based upon it’s status as a stable and reliable super power. If the world’s perception of America changes for the negative, it could produce devastating consequences to our economy in the long-term.
So, time will tell…
On the negative side, I worry about Trump’s ultimate impact on international trade. Much of America’s prosperity and wealth is based upon it’s status as a stable and reliable super power. If the world’s perception of America changes for the negative, it could produce devastating consequences to our economy in the long-term.
It won’t. Three or four things can produce ‘devastating’ consequences for an economy. (1) Some grisly natural disaster. See Montserrat. We are too large and too populous to be truly vulnerable to that and even if we were, vulnerability is a function of adaptive capacity, not of discrete policy measures in the here and now. (2) Warfare inducing destruction of physical capital and disrupting sources of key supplies. There’s one possible source of that, and that’s China, though it’s conceivable some awful place like Iran could do great damage with a suitcase bomb. I’m not seeing anything inherent in Trump’s way of doing business which makes that appreciably more likely. (3) Crippling changes in the terms of trade. That’s of interest to countries that are both export-oriented and have not diversified their export mix. That’s not us. It’s not any advanced economy, really. Norway and Russia, perhaps. (4) Gyrations in the financial sector (see 1929-33). Trump’s not tackling defects in the architecture of financial regulation; neither did his predecessors.
Trump had bone spurs during the Vietnam War which disappeared when the war ended.
Trump was granted a I-Y deferment in mid-1968 and sent to the back of the queue. You could be re-examined for service in as little as ninety days. Over the succeeding 18 months, he was not recalled for another physical. At the end of 1969, the draft lottery was instituted. People born during the period running from the beginning of 1944 to the end of 1950 were to be examined during 1970 according to the day of the year they were born. The order in which each subcohort was to be examined was determined by a random drawing. Both Trump and his brother had high lottery numbers so were not called in for examinations. At the end of 1970, men born prior to 1951 were then excused from conscription for the duration.
I-Y deferments (i.e. contingent disqualifications) were quite common. About 12% of those examined by Selective Service during those years received them. Another 12% received IV-F deferments, which categorically disqualified them for any kind of service. About 45% of the men born between the beginning of 1939 and the end of 1952 had some type of military service and 55% did not. There was nothing unusual about not being in the military at that time. There wasn’t anything outlandish about being issued a I-Y deferment for bone spurs. People received them for being underweight, for being overweight, for pilonidal cysts, and for eczema on their feet.
Trump had bone spurs during the Vietnam War which disappeared when the war ended.
Some of us who were of draft-eligible age during the Vietnam war did not game the system. Some of us who did not serve in the military gamed the system. Some of us who were in the military during the Vietnam war gamed the system. John Kerry comes to mind, though I can also think of a hometown friend. John Kerry got out of his last 8 months of Vietnam service by suffering wounds that were much less grievous than some I have gotten from playing pick-up games of football or soccer, and by getting- better said petitioning for- all those medals.
Is Ariel informing us that HE neither gamed the draft system nor the military?
It was funny.
During the Vietnam War Era I volunteered,and served my four years active duty in the military. Soon after, newly discharged, I was attending a new community college in Philadelphia.
What was the topic of virtually every lunch time discussion among the male students that I overheard?
Not how much they wanted to learn, or what a good or bad school this newly formed community college was, but what their draft numbers were, and how they could get grades that were good enough to maintain their academic deferments.
Gringo, I was born in 1954. That would make me 18 in 1972. I joined the USCG in 1973 and served four years. I was offered something greater than $15,000 to reenlist. I didn’t. BTW, the word “Lifer” as a pejorative is right up there with ‘PIG’ and ‘chickenhawk’ for me. I respected the guys I served with, especially when they gave so much for so little back.
On this blog a long time ago I said that I did not like the term chickenhawk especially when applied to people that legally avoided the draft (that would be college deferment, family deferment, or simply not picked by the draft). It’s just not fair, nor is it this Republic, to do a Heinlein and exclude them from a voice or a public office. Whether you’ve made the argument of chickenhawk, I don’t remember, but you did try a Tu Quoque.
I brought up the bone spurs to watch the replies given that this group likely has a lot of people that have used chickenhawk too often. And, no, I don’t like John Kerry because I think he lied. A lot.
Bone spurs are removed by surgery. You either have them or you don’t. They don’t just go away after a peace accord. And I would point out that his medical fitness report for office seems to be a fiction also.
Neo on August 7, 2018 at 2:15 am
You’re a 100% right. That was the lousiest comment I’ve likely ever written. Though some elsewhere may disagree.
Yeah, there’s bit of hostility. I joined the Republican party in 1972. I left it on November 9th, 2016, because the party had left me. In all that time the Party had never nominated, nor rallied around, a man they knew from the get-go to be unethical, an habitual liar, an opportunist that chose a party by what was in it for him, and other things you mentioned about him. I could explain how Nixon made me look more closely at the character of the man.
Back to your original essay, on Twitter Trump has been nothing but a loose cannon. And all of seems to go to that fragile ego that requires a Nuke for even the mildest of criticism.
Trump is living rent-free in Ariel’s head. It’s her choice.
Neo on August 6, 2018
“There has been only one conservative president in my lifetime, and that is Reagan.” But maybe you have redefined conservatism while being certain you haven’t. The two most WWII classically liberal presidents in my lifetime were Kennedy and Reagan, one was called a liberal in 1960 cuz Democrat and the other an arch-conservative in 1980 cuz Republican (as well when he was governor of CA in the 60s). Reagan spoke to Kennedy and it was never that ‘liberal”. If anything, Reagan was a Kennedy classical liberal. No, not a libertarian.
The Other Chuck was pretty much right about what is happening under Trump, it’s not conservatism except a toss to deregulation and again I see Chesterton’s fence because I don’t think they know what they are tearing down. His support of Coal as a fuel is, well, Chesterton’s fence.The billions to agriculture is to band-aid the effect of his mercantilist trade war, which isn’t conservatism. His attack on NATO, in fact his attacks on our allies and his good words for our enemies (you just have to trust Putin if only for vehemence and Kim loves his people) is not conservatism, or classically liberal conservatism, or WWII classical liberalism which is now conservatism. It’s something else. I’ll wait for the comments of Reagan and Gorbachev being the same as Trump and Putin from the commenters here.
Conservatism is a moving base line. It’s about morality, but the morality of lying, stealing, cheating, and violence, not that Blacks should only drink from the one faucet, even if conservatism embraced that for far too long by ignoring its principals for the social status quo. Its about change, measured change, not about an unethical guy that’s an habitual liar that seems to be giving you what you want.
Finally, and what a relief for both of us, your truth from the facts is not my truth. I knew this guy back in the 80s, he’s a bad actor. He’s claimed all sorts of things about himself that just aren’t true. For example, he has never been a major developer in NYC. He’s not in the top 20 and has never been. He’s a minor player, but a damn good huckster that you all see as a master of sales and negotiating. The ‘Apprentice Effect’ in the same order of the CSI effect.
This is P.T. Barnum writ large. OTH, we’ve never learned anything from P. T. Barnum or from Mackay’s “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”, so why should I expect anything different.
om on August 8, 2018
One, the price of Trump was that I left the Republican party after 44 years. It was because he was known to be an habitual liar, a guy that made shit up to suit his fragile ego, a guy that used his wealth to shut up anyone that criticized him (though it often failed).
I’m a guy. Ariel was a British motor cycle marque that made the only four-cylinder motorcycle past a couple of years. Ariel made a long-stroke four for about 26 years. I love motorcycles for the engineering and the ride, I’ve also worked trades, in the military I was trained to point and shoot artillery, have an Engineering degree, was a Republican for 44 years, but I just bet that when you thought ‘she” I was none of those things.
Chester Draws on August 5, 2018
“The “when Trump’s policies lead to a crash”, not “if” gives the game away for Ariel. She’s already decided.” No, it was an rhetorical device used against those of you that think his policies won’t lead to a crash but would instead lead to heaven on earth for all time.
Let’s burn coal as Trump wants because it’s a really good fuel if you’re living anytime before 1950. We’ve moved to natural gas because it’s actually cheaper, from the ground, and unless you don’t believe in scrubbing the effluent of burning coal. What coal should be used for is a carbon source for plastics, but it sucks for that too. Too much sulfur, too many heavy metals, coal is for the 19th Century and people dying in London.Yet this paragon of business savvy thinks coal is the answer for energy independence. I realize conservatives can be stuck in the past but this is just ridiculousness if they endorse coal.
ariel
I brought up the bone spurs to watch the replies given that this group likely has a lot of people that have used chickenhawk too often.
Those who used the “chickenhawk” charge tend to be on the left. Readers of this blog tend to be on the right. Which would imply your conclusion is not very likely. There is an easy way to check that out. It’s called Advanced Google Search. 🙂 Advanced Google Search: “chickenhawk” site:https://www.thenewneo.com gets a grand total of four hits. Three hits for “chicken hawk.”
Likely? Not at all.
And, no, I don’t like John Kerry because I think he lied. A lot.
We are in agreement.
Whether you’ve made the argument of chickenhawk, I don’t remember, but you did try a Tu Quoque.
No, it was an attempt to probe logical consistency. Did you apply the same standards to The Donald that you did to yourself? It is interesting that you bring up the “chickenhawk” charge, as it appears to me that many who call others “chickenhawks” did all they could to avoid military service during the Vietnam War. If one avoided military service during the Vietnam War, it is rather inconsistent to call Dick Cheney a chickenhawk. (Also note that Bill Clinton could have also been called a “chickenhawk” using the same criteria applied to Dick Cheney,but as far as I remember, very few called Bill Clinton one.)
I was 1-O during the Vietnam War, a stance most likely the result of a childhood friend’s death in a gun accident with his older brother. Without ever discussing it with the older brother, I could tell that he suffered greatly for having killed his younger brother. I concluded that any killing by anyone would have the same result. The genocide in Cambodia put paid to my C.O. beliefs. As long as thugs roam the earth, no one has clean hands.
Hi, Gringo, just love to read you,
1. Short-term thinking, oh wait, you think what Bush did wasn’t thrown out by Obama? Throwing out Obama-era regulations is kind of like Obama throwing out Bush-era regulations. What does that actually settle? Maybe Congress should write better laws so when Democrat X or Rebublican Y is in power we actually have a set of regulations to lead us forward.
2. Recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is like opening a can of worms while not realizing those worms are actually Australian elapids. Trump could of course recognize Islam’s claim to Al-Andalus (it’s actually more current), and what snakes from that? That you like a decision, or that a decision is for people you like, doesn’t make it a good decision. Israel has enough trouble. Personally, I think Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel, but fiat won’t make it so. And the US doesn’t have the power to make it so, so you think hollow has substance.
6. “Is Ariel informing us that HE neither gamed the draft system nor the military?” Answered it, joined voluntarily, served 4 years, shot a nice sized gun, refused a reenlistment bonus equal to about two years pay, but left out how cheap you are by asking the question the way you did.. Really, really cheap cuz almost all of us that volunteered didn’t game the draft or the military. I’d like to say all of us but you probably have brothers and uncles. Bada bing bada boom. Don’t try that shit on me, I joined by my own free will. I decided to serve my country. If you were drafted, did you?
3. Doing away with the Iran deal with nothing in its place is what? I can throw my shoes away but then I walk barefoot. In Arizona in the summer that’s just stupid. So was what Trump did. Oh wait, the master negotiator from a book and a TV reality show will gain the day.
4. Judicial appointments are just great cuz they always work out by party ideology. Eisenhower and Warren, what a pair. What an appointee does once on the bench is not party unless he’s a party hack. You don’t want party hacks as judges do you? The funny thing, both parties have appointed great judges to all tiers of the Judiciary, well, only the judges that didn’t turn out to be party hacks. You don’t want party hacks as judges do you?
5. Deficits. I hope you mean trade because this admin is racking up points in not ending government borrowing. So our partners in the EU, the EU being the largest economy in the world by being 28% (sorry, Gringo, but their GDP is larger) is going to fold or will they just wait? What’s four years to their economy? The Chinese? He’s a blip, they’ve had intestinal upsets that lasted longer. If they shut down trade with us tomorrow, they would just go on while our economy would tank until it could find clothes, tools, and deal with WalMart closing. Meanwhile, they’ll continue to build artificial islands in the South China Seas, a growing navy with rail guns, and sell their goods around the world.
6. While this was to another, Venezuela has nothing to do with anything about the first world. All those social democracies with Universal Health Care, and all those other things the world’s second largest economy just can’t afford, just keep plugging along with no upset, a smaller part of their economy spent on health, and a much longer life expectancy. But, hell, America leads the world in doing everything better.
Gringo, oh please, this is just excuse “No, it was an attempt to probe logical consistency. Did you apply the same standards to The Donald that you did to yourself?” Why would you even think that if you weren’t seeking an excuse for the Donald? If people questioned John Kerry’s service would you then ask them if they are applying the same standard to themselves that they are to John Kerry? Did you? Did you ask yourself? (Okay, that’s about a petard and letting go of the rope before you feel silly about where the rope took you. But did you?)
And, Gringo, no, the people that use Chickenhawk are the people that served, usually Vietnam, but can’t accept that others didn’t have to or that the service didn’t need them. You’re doing some bad hat, harry, revisionist thinking. This ” as it appears to me that many who call others “chickenhawks” did all they could to avoid military service during the Vietnam War.” is crap. I did spend a few years on this blog and Book’s blog, and on both blogs the people using chickenhawk were the people that served taht thought they were special.
Why would someone that didn’t serve use chickenhawk? I have seen it, but they just ask for a shitstorm. One, they implied that only those that served can speak to going to war, two, they didn’t serve so go back to one. Chickenhawk is a despicable term.
I don’t care if you were 1-O, 4-F, or B-sharp during the Vietnam War, or any war before or any after. The military can only take so many people no matter the war. It, the President, and Congress make standards. Then people get drafted, or they join voluntarily, or they’re exempt. I hold nothing for people that served nor nothing against those that didn’t if the criterium is just serve in the military.
I do have a whole lot of respect for what I saw Coast Guardsmen do to save lives. I can’t express my awe at what they were willing to do. I watched a friend put a small boat up against a ship in heavy seas and keep it there just to save lives. Heavy seas, do you have any idea what that means? Think of a guy that can throw you in the air, let you hit the ground, then throw you in the air, wash, rinse, repeat. That’s heavy seas in a small boat, but that’s onl y pitch, not roll and yaw.
When someone thanks me for my service I want to slap them. I did a job, a job I chose like a fisherman, a logger, and last in danger a cop. When someone uses chickenhawk I want to break bones. One caveat, someone that got a doctor to lie about a medical condition for a deferment deserves to go to hell. And burn.
Gringo,
“Those who used the “chickenhawk” charge tend to be on the left.” No, gringo, they don’t. They tend to be people that have served in war, usually the Vietnam War, duh, who can’t stand someone advocating war when that person avoided service. That’s the meaning of chickenhawk.
Vietnam Vets aren’t real big on college deferments, or fictitious medical deferments, wealth as a deferment, and I’m not sure they accept COs given how that was gamed. I have seen chickenhawk used by the right so often I was wondering if the right didn’t coin it, but then I spend way too much time on right wing blogs. I tried to spend time on Daily Kos but I kept vomiting.
So, Gringo, you can shove it all to the left, the left can shove it all to the right, while we in the middle are left asking “WTF is wrong with both of you? Are there any adults in the room?”. Really, dropping a party affiliation, dropping the labels, and going independent was like finally becoming an adult. When I read a rightie saying a leftie is X, then a leftie saying a rightie is Y, I realize that at least both are learning the alphabet.
Guys, there’s a whole world out there, about 7 billion people, that don’t think in our silly dichotomy. If you think you can ignore that unwashed 7 billion, unfortunately there’s about 540 million, maybe even 640 million (I’m not on track for the SK, Taiwanese, and Japanese populations) that are washed and every bit as educated (maybe more because the USA is usually more at the bottom in the first world for education, I know the mistake you’re going to make).
We aren’t the standard of anything. We weren’t a bastion of liberty in WWII, but we were better than Mussolini’s Italy. We could have compared ourselves to South Africa and Australia, but then we’d have to admit we did it longer, deeper, and better. The Europeans knew who we were and what we did but they needed us like they needed the Soviet Union.
Ariel:
So you identify as a guy (it’s a joke dude on today’s progressive values so calm down). I know of an Ariel in our neighborhood who is a gal, but as far as I know she doesn’t identify as a motorcycle.
Your life history? Well everyone has one, You seem very angry.
Trump is still living rent free in your head.
Hillary is still not the president, and the other choices of 2016 were not chosen. For me the question is what are Trump’s actions as POTUS, good or bad and will they be good or bad for the country in the future?
Still Hillary is not the President and the court is going in the right direction IMO.
No, gringo, they don’t. They tend to be people that have served in war, usually the Vietnam War, duh, who can’t stand someone advocating war when that person avoided service.
Donald Trump:Chickenhawk in Chief. The author is James Fallows, who did NOT serve in the military.
Donald Trump:Chickenhawk in Chief. The author is James Fallows, who did NOT serve in the military.
It’s worse than that.
The term ‘draft dodger’ is tossed around willy nilly (almost always by partisan Democrats) sliming people who complied with the law and did not engage in any contrivances. Dan Quayle enlisted in the National Guard. Pace Richard Cohen, there’s no direct evidence that a berth was manufactured for him. Pace The San Francisco Chronicle there’s no indication that his father or his grandfather would ever have pulled strings for him. There were people in his unit who were just Joe Blow off the sidewalks of Fort Wayne. The Washington Post eventually admitted this three years after a newspaper campaign trashing Quayle’s reputation.
In Trump’s case, he obtained a I-Y deferment by showing up at his induction physical with documentation of a minor medical problem. People were given I-Y deferments for minor medical problems as a matter of routine. Hendrick Hertzberg, who trots out this BS every four years, was mustered out of the Navy in 1968 because he bled a lot during some dental work.
The number of actual draft dodgers in presidential politics have been few. One was Bill Clinton, who executed a deft series of maneuvers in 1969 which allowed him to shirk his ROTC service obligations. Another was Bernie Sanders, who hired a draft lawyer in 1965 when he lost his graduate school deferment. The man won so many continuances in proceedings in front of Sanders’ draft board that he was able to run out the clock on Sanders’ eligibility. (Sanders reached his 26th birthday in September 1967). Another was (I’ll ruefully admit) Rudolph Giuliani, who was clerking for a federal judge who interceded for him with his draft board. It’s a reasonable inference that the sketchy medical discharge AM McConnell received around the same time was consequent to the intercession of a federal judge he had worked for (something McConnell has never admitted). Those of you wishing to slam the patriciate (e.g. the Trumps and the Bushes and the Romneys) might take note that none of these four individuals came from a wealthy family (or even a particularly affluent one).
I’d be more impressed with Trump and Fallows if they’d served in the military. So would a lot of people. The question at hand is whether are they to be run out of public life because they were one of the 55% of their cohort who did not. Did I mention how Fallows was excused from service? He put himself on a starvation died and contrived to flunk his induction physical.
Vietnam Vets aren’t real big on college deferments, or fictitious medical deferments, wealth as a deferment, and I’m not sure they accept COs given how that was gamed. I have seen chickenhawk used by the right so often I was wondering if the right didn’t coin it, but then I spend way too much time on right wing blogs. I tried to spend time on Daily Kos but I kept vomiting.
Student deferments merely delayed entry. Few people were able to avoid military service with student deferments, and those who did were commonly from older age cohorts who were able to avail themselves of graduate school deferments. Such deferments were discontinued at the end of 1967 and people of Trump’s cohort were never eligible for them. Someone awarded a student deferment in 1965 at the beginning of the war would have lost it in May of 1969, right around the time the census of American troops in VietNam was at its peak.
Trump was exempted from military service for four years due to a student deferment, for a year and change due to a contingent medical deferment, and for two years and change due to a high number in the draft lottery. Mitt Romney was exempt for two years due to student deferments, for 2 years and change due to a ‘ministerial exemption’, and for three years due to a belt-and-braces combination of a high lottery number and having dependent children. Newt Gingrich was exempt due to a belt-and-braces combination of student deferments and dependent children Student deferments were available for north of 20% of the male cohorts of the era and the other sorts were available to people from any walk of life similarly situated.
NB, student deferments were discontinued with the advent of the draft lottery at the end of 1969.
Ariel:
You write (at 1:14 AM above):
You fail to describe how to differentiate a party hack from the judge who simply has a judicial philosophy and follows it. Liberal judges have a philosophy of law that has certain characteristics (too numerous to get into here, but one for example is the amount of elasticity they apply to interpreting the Constitution or statutes), whereas conservative judges tend to have a very different philosophy of law (again with characteristics too numerous for this discussion, but one of which is that the Constitution is a text that should be more strictly adhered to and doesn’t change with the times except through the amendment process). These philosophies make them either liberal or conservative as judges, not necessarily “party hacks” (on either side).
On the other hand, “party hacks” would most likely be judges who apply their principles of law differently rather than consistently, depending on the desired political outcome that the principle would effect in a particular case.
Judges are often very predictable not because they are “party hacks” but because applying their judicial philosophy leads to certain fairly predictable results. However, there certainly are judicial “party hacks” who twist and bend and torture the law in one instance to please the party, and then in an opposite direction to also please the party.
Ariel:
I’ll now address another comment you made (at 2:27 AM), about the use of the term “chickenhawk,”
I’ve been blogging for almost 15 years, and reading blogs for longer that that—many many hours a day ordinarily. My experience is that the vast majority of people using the term “chickenhawk” (as a pejorative, of course) were (and are) liberal Democrats (or leftists) calling people on the right chickenhawks. The targets of the epithet were (and are) either blog commenters who were in favor of the war in Iraq (or sometimes the war in Afghanistan, but mostly the epithet in regard to Iraq) who had not themselves served in the military. And in the vast majority of cases, the person calling the other person a chickenhawk usually did not address the question of whether he himself (or she herself, I suppose) had ever served (and then there is of course the question of whether people tell the truth about themselves online).
The idea of calling someone a “chickenhawk” was (and is) that, for the person using the epithet, it didn’t matter whether he or she had served in the military, because he or she wasn’t a hawk, The important part of the epithet wasn’t just “chicken” (coward), it was hawk (coward who is also a warhawk despite not having served).
As for your assertion about how people have used the word “chickenhawk” here, as the keeper of the blog I have access to a search of all the comments, and “chickenhawk” has been used here 162 times (including in this discussion on this thread 3 times). Out of curiosity, I skimmed all the comments (took less time than you might think, because you can use the tool “find in this page”), and the vast majority are simply people on the right saying something like “some liberal will come along any moment now and call us chickenhawks” or “so-and-so was called a chickenhawk by so-and-so” or someone saying something like “the chickenhawk argument is nonsensical” or “the absurd chickenhawk meme,” or criticizing a leftist who came onto the blog and used the word against commenters or politicians on the right. Or, the word “chickenhawk” is used in the context of offering a quote by someone taken from the newspaper, and it’s the quote that contains the word.
In other words, the use of the word here is mostly allusions to the left doing it, or simple descriptions of how someone on the left did or is about to do it it (and once apparently McCain called Romney a chickenhawk during the 2008 GOP primaries), or criticisms of the use of the word in general as a stupid and wrong and ad hominem way to argue.
Then every now and then there’s a leftist (often a troll, sometimes some memorable trolls–what a stroll down troll memory lane!) coming on with something like this, calling Obama’s critics chickenhawks for criticizing Obama’s foreign policy (in July of 2009 that commenter wrote, for example, “We have an opposition party of no plans, no ideas, no solutions and yet, it’s Obama’s fault this clown car collective of war-mongering chickenhawks can’t offer even a simple alternative to the plans the administration puts forth”). And once that Aussie troll you tussled with says it in a comment addressed to you.
That Aussie troll accounted for a very high percentage of the uses of the word “chickenhawk” to accuse someone of being one, in that thread and also on this blog in general. Over and over and over. The troll was certainly not on the right (he seems to have been a leftist; same thing with another troll here who used it similarly).
Here’s a post from 2006 in which I discuss the term and its meaning. You commented on the thread, too, by the way. In fact, quite a few comments using the word “chickenhawk” on other posts are yours, as well, almost always in the context of saying how much you hate the term. You are very consistent about that. Usually you are addressing one of the several trolls that had taken up lodgings here and were dominating many threads at that time. That was back in the days when I had the blogspot blog, which didn’t give me many tools to ban trolls (that’s why I later made the switch to WordPress, because I had a lot more banning power there).
By the way, almost all of the comments with the word “Chickenhawk” here were made in 2007-8, and the vast majority were leftist trolls. All of the ones using the name to accuse someone of being a chickenhawk were made by leftist trolls. Every single one. Some uses of the word were people like you criticizing those trolls. The pejorative use of the word as an ad hominem attack here was 100% leftist trolls. None of the trolls make any reference to having served in the military themselves (at least that I could see), and all are on the left.
So you are completely incorrect, at least about the use of the word on this blog. Also, the way it’s used on this blog and by whom it is used is absolutely typical of what I have seen all over the internet, for years and years.
It would appear that while the term “chicken hawk” has been around for decades, WHO is most likely to use the term has changed over the decades. In the 1980s, Vietnam vets used it just as ariel posited. DAN QUAYLE AND THE VIETNAM QUESTION. (1988)
In the 21st century, the primary users of the terms appear to be not Vietnam war vets, but leftists seeking to bash Republicans. Democratic underground: Updated republican draft dodger/chickenhawk list.(2007)
It would appear that while the term “chicken hawk” has been around for decades, WHO is most likely to use the term has changed over the decades. In the 1980s, Vietnam vets used it just as ariel posited.
The fellow they’re profiling in your bloc quotation wasn’t an ordinary veteran. At the time, only a modest minority of people had intensely-held opinions about American policy in Central America (or even understood clearly which side the U.S. Government was subsidizing in which country). Such policy, as you recall, made little use of boots-on-the-ground. This fellow Muller was and is a political sectary and organizational functionary. (Best I can discern, he’s a professional Vietnam veteran).
This defamatory list was compiled Democratic Underground. These are supposed to be ‘draft dodger / chickenhawks’.
Take some haphazard examples:
1. Roger Ailes would have been of military age between 1958 and 1966. The VietNam war didn’t begin in earnest until March of 1965. Ailes had been out of school for three years at that point; it’s a reasonable inference that he was disqualified because he was a hemophiliac.
2. Lee Atwater had a low lottery number. It’s a reasonable inference he was disqualified on examination. He’d have had his physical in 1971 perhaps a year and change before the last American troops were withdrawn from VietNam and at a time when American manpower therein was being rapidly reduced, so it’s unlikely he’d have been re-examined even if he’d received just a temporary disqualification.
3. John Boehner was discharged from the Navy for a medical problem that hadn’t been discovered during his screening physical.
4. Pat Boone’s 1st child was born in 1954, when he was 20. For whatever reason, he didn’t enter the military during the period running from mid-1952 to mid-1954, one might guess because Selective Service at that time gave priority to older men who hadn’t yet served.
5. Max Boot was born in 1969 and married in 1992. His first child appears to have been born in 1996.
6. Clyde Tolson was an FBI agent and J. Edgar Hoover’s right hand. He was 40 years old when military conscription was instituted in 1940.
7. John Wayne was exempt from military service from the fall of 1940 to the fall of 1943 because he had dependent children. He was notionally eligible from the fall of 1943 to the middle of 1945, because Selective Service had raised the maximum age of eligibility from 36 to 38. A 37 year old man with several children wouldn’t have been a priority for a draft board. About 30% of the male population born in 1907 and alive in 1940 served in the military during the 2d World War.
This is a BS list, compiled by vicious people who did no serious research and have no clue what a ‘draft dodger’ is (or are simply lying to their correspondents).
Spencer Abraham
Elliott Abrams
Ken Adelman
Roger Ailes
Lamar Alexander
Richard Keith “Dick” Armey
John Ashcroft
Harvey Leroy “Lee” Atwater
Haley Reeves Barbour
Bob Barr
Roscoe Bartlett
Robert Leroy Bartley Charles Foster “Charlie” Bass
Gary Lee Bauer
Glenn Lee Beck
William Bennett
Richard B. Berman
Wolf Isaac Blitzer
Richard Blumenthal
Roy Blunt
John Andrew Boehner
Clint Bolick
John Bolton
Pat Boone
Neal Boortz
Max Boot
James Paul David “Jim” Bunning
George Walker Bush
John Ellis “Jeb” Bush
Carl Cameron
Andrew “Andy” Card
Gerald Posner Carmen
Clarence Saxby Chambliss
John P.H. “Pecker Head” Chandler
Richard Bruce “Still Dick” Cheney
Thomas Leo Clancy
Thomas Allen “Tom” Coburn
Roy Cohn
Ann Hart Coulter
Larry “Wide Stance” Craig
Dinesh D’Souza
Thomas Dale “Tom,” “The Hammer” DeLay
Steven James Doocy
Charles Gwynne “Chuck” Douglas III
John Mathias Engler
Donald Louis Evans
Jerry Lamon Falwell
Don Feder
Douglas J. Feith
Jim Finnegan
Malcolm Stevenson “Steve” Forbes
Yoshihiro Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich
Rudolph Wiliam Louis “Rudy” Giuliani
Alan Gottlieb
William Franklin “Billy” Graham
William Phillip “Phil” Gramm
Lee Greenwood
Judd Gregg
Sean Hannity
Paul Harvey
Dennis Hastert
John Edgar Hoover
Brit Hume
Asa Hutchinson
Young Timothy Hutchinson
David R. Ignatius
Frederick Walter Kagan
Robert Kagan
Joyce Kaufman
Francis Anthony Keating
Ronald Kessler
Alan Lee Keyes
Brian Kilmeade
Charles De Ganahl Koch
David Koch
William “Bill” Kristol
Jon Llewellyn Kyle
Wayne LaPierre
Michael Arthur Ledeen
Irve Lewis “Scooter” Libby
Joseph Isidore “Joe” Lieberman
David Limbaugh
Rush Hudson Limbaugh III
William “Bill” Loeb III
Chester Trent Lott, Sr.
Frank I. Luntz
David Martin McIntosh
Joseph “Joe” McQuaid
Gerald McRaney
Michael Medved
Don Nickles
Grover Glenn Norquist
Theodore Anthony “Ted” Nugent
William “Bill” O’Reilly
Patrick Jake “PJ” O’Rourke
Marvin Olasky
John M. Olin
Ted Olson
Richard Norman Perle
James Danforth “Dan” Quayle
Michael Reagan
Ralph Eugene Reed, Jr.
Robert James “Kid Rock” Ritchie
Marion Gordon “Pat” Robertson
Willard Mitt Romney
Karl Christian Rove
Antonin Gregory Scalia
Charles Joseph “Joe” Scarborough
Melvin Floyd “Mel” Sembler
Richard Craig Shelby
Alan Kooi Simpson
Francis Albert “Frank” Sinatra
Willard Cleon Skousen
Robert Anthony “Tony” Snow
Sylvester Gardenzio “Sly” Stallone
Kenneth Winston Starr
Michael Stephen Steele
Benjamin Jeremy “Ben” Stein
Mark Steyn
David Alan Stockman
Roger Stone
Thomas Gerard “Tom” Tancredo
James Taranto
Clarence Thomas
Fred Thompson
Meldrim “Mel” Thomson
Donn Tibbetts
Clyde Anderson Tolson
Robert Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
Jon Vincent Voight
Christopher “Chris” Wallace
John P. Walters
John “Duke” Wayne
John Vincent “Vin” Weber
Michael Alan “Michael Savage” Weiner
William Floyd “Bill” Weld
George Frederick Will
Walter Winchell
Paul Dundes Wolfowitz
Neo,
The term chickenhawk is used by either right or left depending on who is in power, running for power, and whether those that use it agree with a particular policy either case espouses. A right winger would almost never call a rightist President, or other elected rightist, a chickenhawk for not serving if the right winger sees that President’s policies as representing him. The left OTH are more likely to use it across both parties because they are less for war, unless they have more invested in other issues. An example of that would be Clinton as the feminist president, all else was not important.
Your experience is over two Democrats and one Republican. Those two Democrats were called chickenhawks by the right when it suited the right. I’ve been reading blogs since 1997 (ahh, those Navigator days) and have found that both groups use it. Your stats on your blog is nothing other than that.
However, I’ll give you something: I likely have a confirmation bias because no right winger should use chickenhawk. Every right winger should know that not everyone can serve, not everyone was called to serve, and we have laws for deferment. The right is supposed to be about the Rule of Law. I may have paid more attention to the Vietnam Vets, I’m just barely outside that group, who have used it on Clinton, Bush, and Obama.
And, Neo, the reason I hate the word is: “The important part of the epithet wasn’t just “chicken” (coward), it was hawk (coward who is also a warhawk despite not having served).” IOW, because both words are important. Mira, you can’t absolve the right by saying or “proving” the left do it more.
Going back to that confirmation bias, the right uses it just like the left.
The term chickenhawk is used by either right or left depending on who is in power, running for power, and whether those that use it agree with a particular policy either case espouses.
Rubbish. Stop lying.
Those two Democrats were called chickenhawks by the right when it suited the right.
Rubbish. You might find some paulbot who used the term for Bilge Clinton. It makes no sense to call Barack Obama any such thing given his age cohort. (Well, it might make sense to the repellent little goblin who drew up the Democratic Underground list, who put Ann Coulter on it for some reason). Bill Clinton was an honest-to-God draft dodger, btw.
Gringo,
Yeah, I’m just probably out of date. Once the X tribe uses it more then we can ignore not only the past when the Y tribe used it more, but we can ignore when Y tribe uses it cuz X tribe uses it more. Chickenhawk should never have been used.
What set all this off? I pointed out that Trump had at least one deferment for ‘bone spur’, something that makes walking very painful, but there’s no evidence that he was ever operated on to remove said bone spur. I also pointed out that the doctor that did his medical fitness for President said he dictated the report. All I’m pointing out that this is the guy I knew in the 80s.
Totally off topic:
Oh, a little cherry a got from watching John Oliver (yes, guys, I looked much further), Trump actually said during his campaign that the US GDP was zero for at least one quarter during Obama. Now all of us should know that’s just stupid, that would mean that all economic activity ceased, so let’s go with he’s as inarticulate as Bush (who was likely much more well read) and he meant the rate of growth. Again, a fail, it didn’t happen either way. Worse, he claimed it was unheard of (again going with rate) when the US economy since Truman has seen positive growth, zero growth, and negative growth. Asking rhetorically, why do any of you hang your hats on this guy? This is basic information that I knew without researching on the Internet because I’ve been reading newspapers since I was eight.
Art Deco,
the only thing your list proves is that the left does it. From my standpoint that’s just tu quoque.
Ariel:
You are incorrect.
The term has been used almost solely for many decades by the left to implicate the right. You have not posted links to examples of it happening the other way around (or by the right at all except to quote someone on the left or to talk about the term in general and how it is used). You just keep asserting what you assert and offer no proof.
Not at all convincing.
Plus, I gave you a ton of statistics about the term’s use on this blog. You basically pooh-poohed that, despite the fact that in an earlier comment you had claimed this: ” I did spend a few years on this blog and Book’s blog, and on both blogs the people using chickenhawk were the people that served taht thought they were special. ”
Not all all, as I told you. And I did the research. On this blog, people either (a) used the term in passing to say something like “it’s stupid and/or offensive to call someone a chickenhawk” (b) to quote someone on the left using it; or (3) were leftist trolls calling people here, or Bush or his advisors, chickenhawks. That was basically it, on this blog. The people on this blog using “chickenhawk” in the way we’ve been talking about, as an accusatory epithet, were all leftists and/or leftists trolls, and (as I wrote earlier) they never made an assertion about their own military service; they never alluded to whether they had served at all.
But you ignore that.
By the way, I just did a search to find any evidence of people calling Obama a chickenhawk. Couldn’t find a thing, but did find this written in 2012 that alluded to the fact that people on the right had NOT been calling Obama a chickenhawk.
In the comment above mine here, “Art Deco” says to you: “Rubbish. Quit lying.” A great deal of what you wrote is indeed rubbish, but I doubt that you’re consciously lying. I think it IS conformation bias on your part, plus some very very strong feelings you have against the term itself, the combination of which is causing you to make misjudgments and incorrect statements.
And I was present during the Vietnam War (in this country of course, and certainly not in the military). I was also intensely interested in the war and the military then and later, because (as I’ve written about extensively on this blog) I had a boyfriend serving in heavy combat in South Vietnam for a year. I never saw and never heard anyone use the term during the 60s or 70s. The article linked by Gringo above, the one about a Vietnam vet using it for Republican Dan Quayle in 1988, is the only use I’ve ever seen, and that was in 1988 rather than earlier, when the war and the war protests were happening. I imagine it was indeed used by a tiny percentage of Vietnam vets or other vets, perhaps mostly in the 80s and beyond. But the ratio of that use to its use by leftists for Bush et. al. is probably about one to a million.
Ariel:
I just saw your comment to Art Deco where you say: “the only thing your list proves is that the left does it. ”
Does what? Did you actually read what Art Deco wrote at the top of that list? Or do you just go full steam ahead without paying attention? Because Art Deco’s list was headed this way:
“This defamatory list was compiled Democratic Underground. These are supposed to be ‘draft dodger / chickenhawks’.”
So, let me clarify for you: it’s a list supposedly (there is no link, however) supplied by the left containing names of chickenhawks. So of course there are a lot of people on the right who are on it.
You need to start paying attention. You’re really not doing yourself or your arguments any favors.
Hi, Neo,
“So you are completely incorrect, at least about the use of the word on this blog. Also, the way it’s used on this blog and by whom it is used is absolutely typical of what I have seen all over the internet, for years and years.”
After watching Jordan Peterson dealing with that British interviewer I am so reticent to use but will, so you are saying that in 13 years no rightist has ever used the word chickenhawk as a pejorative on your blog, and further that “Also, the way it’s used on this blog and by whom it is used is absolutely typical of what I have seen all over the internet, for years and years.” So you’re saying that rightists don’t use this term because you haven’t seen it by being all over the internet for all these years but leftists do. Yet Vietnam Vets have used this term for Clinton, Bush, and Obama. Were all of them leftists?
In 2007-2008, who was President? What was the defining moment of that presidency? Would you expect right wingers to bring up ‘chickenhawk’ at that time? Support the war.
Ariel:
You are becoming a troll in the sense that you keep asserting unsupported facts. I have been very patient with you and taking a lot of time to document for you what I’m saying. You—as I already pointed out in this thread—have not documented yours with any links.
Again you make the same unsupported assertion. This time you say it this way: “Yet Vietnam Vets have used this term for Clinton, Bush, and Obama. Were all of them leftists?”
Show me one that wasn’t a leftist (and by “leftist” in this case I include liberal Democrats). I looked, and I couldn’t find any. Now, obviously, there may have been one such person. But one is really not enough, and you realize that as well. Nevertheless, you have yet to show one.
I could not find one either, not so far anyway, and I tried to find one. In fact, I could not find a single person left or right who used the term for Obama (or for Bill Clinton for that matter, who is the “Clinton” I’m assuming you’re referring to).
You made assertions about people on this blog who cited military service of their own in calling someone a chickenhawk. I did an exhaustive search on this blog and there wasn’t one. I even gave you some links to a thread about chickenhawks. And not only could you not show me one comment on the blog that matched that description, or one where a non-leftist called anyone a chickenhawk, but you have not acknowledged that you have been consistently wrong.
That is troll-like behavior. I hesitate to call you a troll because you’ve been commenting here a long time. So I’ll just chalk it up to this topic pressing your buttons in some very deep way (which you have acknowledged). But you need to start documenting what you write or you will officially become a troll.
Art Deco,
Please stop being tribal. The word likely goes back to 1812 (damn, I hate to use Wikipedia) but the word at least goes back to 1970 on Laugh-In. It’s damn likely they didn’t coin it, they drew from the times.
And yes both Clinton and Obama have been called chickenhawks. Just do the search Your argument over Obama when we have soldiers that served in Desert Storm and in the Bush Wars is what? Vietnam Vets have all died, Desert Storm vets are all of the same opinion, and our latest protracted war vets can’t see Obama as a chickenhawk? Vets are people, they have differing opinions.
Ariel:
Read my comment above yours. We were commenting at the same time.
You did it again–said that Clinton and Obama have been called chickenhawks, but provided not a single link.
We have an internet here. Do a search. Show your work.
Do a search yourself instead of ordering other people to do one.
Yes, Neo, I read everything Art Deco wrote before he gave his list. John Wayne has been a problem with WWII vets and Korean vets because of how he was presented in movies, and that he didn’t serve. Art Deco left out Frank Sinatra, who had a really, really bad time with WWII vets. Gary Cooper was too old to serve in WWII. Humphrey Bogart was too old. As was Spencer Tracy.
But what Art Deco did do is support me in my take on chickenhawk. What he tried to do is show the left does chinkenhawk not the right except in those distant days.
Ariel:
What on earth are you talking about? The rest of us have been claiming that it is almost entirely the left that has made chickenhawk accusations, not the right, and it’s been the left for many many decades.
The disagreement is with YOU, who have written that (a) it happens a lot from veterans on both left and right (b) it happens on this blog from people claiming to be veterans; and (c) it used to happen with the right accusing the left, including lots of instances where the right called Clinton and Obama chickenhawks.
None of these things are correct—and you have offered zero evidence that they are correct. And now you’re saying Art Deco supports you because of his list of people on the right being accused of being chickenhawks?
You’re making zero sense.
Neo, here’s the problem: where everything has to be proven by doing a google search and a link. Type in “Clinton was called a chickenhawk” and what do you get? On the second page you get Google Books with “In 1992, Clinton’s avoidance…” Now if you do “Obama was called a chickenhawk” it starts on the first page. If you do “Nixon was called a chickenhawk” bumpkis on the first page, yet I know he was called that because I voted for him. And canvassed against him in 1968.
You are doing that if it’s not on the Internet therefore it’s not true because no link…Would you like to do an essay on how if it isn’t on the Internet therefore it isn’t true? Would you do that as your next essay? it would be an awesome essay. You can write it so the rightists agree or so the leftists agree.
We are actually supposed to have a collective memory that isn’t based on what Google tells us.
Ariel:
Your arguments continue to make zero sense.
Your memory is wrong. You cannot prove any of your assertions. I ask you to provide a link. You do not. Instead you lecture me on the problems with Google searches.
Internet searches are what I do every single day I write here, and most days that I don’t. Do you think I don’t know how to do them and what the problems might be? I assure you that I know a lot about searching online, and that I’m fairly good at it, and at dealing with the problems.
Just because I ask you to show your work does not mean that finding something online is the ONLY way to prove something. Obviously not. You could find it in a book, a video, etc. But if you merely rely on your own memory—a memory that I have already proven to be 100% faulty in your remarks about the commenters on this very blog and who uses the term “chickenhawk” here and how they use it, why should anyone trust you at all? You have not built any trust and have shown no proof except your own unsupported word, a word that just about every other person here who has addressed you on the subject—people who were living adults during the same time and have their own memories of the era—have disagreed with. So any “collective memory” here is against you, not with you.
Something is needed other than your own assertions in order for anyone to believe you. Since we are online, an online search with a link would be a good start.
You have proven yourself to be both a troll and illogical. That’s not a winning combination. When you write the following you are ascribing thoughts to me that I’ve never voiced and would not voice, and combining it with your own special brand of snark and insult:
“You are doing that if it’s not on the Internet therefore it’s not true because no link…Would you like to do an essay on how if it isn’t on the Internet therefore it isn’t true? Would you do that as your next essay? it would be an awesome essay.”
Illogical troll.
Ariel:
One more thing—
You write that you know Nixon was called a chickenhawk because you voted for him, and canvassed against him in 1968.
Once again, what on earth are you talking about? Nixon was called many things, but “chickenhawk” was not one of them.
First of all, I haven’t seen a reference to that term prior to 1988, as I mentioned. But let’s not worry about internet searches at the moment. Let’s look at Nixon’s personal military history:
Neo, there are very exacting criteria as to whether someone is a troll or not. It’s not as simple as not providing links, shaking up the complacency, or disagreeing with you. Unfortunately for me, I’m drawing from rules around 2000.
Neo, I may be mistaken and all your conservative commenters have never used chickenhawk, not once. I spent time on Book, Dr. Sanity, and the gal that thinks wearing a superman suit makes her superwoman so I may be confusing your crowd with others.
“What on earth are you talking about? The rest of us have been claiming that it is almost entirely the left that has made chickenhawk accusations, not the right, and it’s been the left for many many decades.” It’s really my point, it isn’t what you claim. And the ‘rest of us’ proves what? Ad populum?
Neo, I have no problem with you banning me. I have no problem with you calling me trollish or a troll. I read your blog years ago, this is not that blog. If the Ozzie was here today all I would say to him is respect the house and Rugby is a tougher sport than American Football. This blog has become complancy with doing every and everything to justify it. Don’t fret, your blog is reaching what all blogs do unless they suffer a real shake up. Right isn’t always right, in fact it’s just one error. In 2005 this worked…
You could do an essay on how the right idealize and idolize the police to the extent that they ignore when police do crime on everyday citizens. Cuz the right is all about the Constitution, state or Federal, and American police violate that right wing concept of that everday.
Neo, if you can’t deal with discord, and harsh words, then ban me. All it would prove to me is that you, and your commenters, need a safe place where their beliefs are protected. Like on University campuses.
the only thing your list proves is that the left does it. From my standpoint that’s just tu quoque.
It isn’t my list, it’s Democratic Underground’s list. You might be able to find a list propagated by a Republican voter which consists of public figures in the Democratic Party. They again you might not. The propagator would almost certainly be an obscure personage. These accusations are simply not part of Republican discourse. Bill Clinton was raked over the coals for his service record. Unlike Dan Quayle, Clinton actually was a draft dodger. Richard Blumenthal has been raked over the coals, not for dodging the draft but for lying about his actual postings and duties in a self-aggrandizing way. John Kerry was also raked over the coals, for yarn-pulling and having engaged in gamesmanship while he was in the service. The people doing the raking were Navy veterans who served in the Mekong Delta, many of whom knew him personally.
First of all, I haven’t seen a reference to that term prior to 1988, as I mentioned
I think the term may have been coined by Hendrick Hertzberg, who has a quadrennial column wherein he defames Republican politicians in regard to their military service record. And, yes, he used it to describe Dan Quayle in 1988. I’m fairly sure I never saw it in print ‘ere I read a Hertzberg column referring to Quayle as “One of the most irritating birds in the aviary, the chickenhawk”. Quayle wasn’t a public figure in 1969, so his precise views on the VietNam War at that time were not known. The historical question wasn’t a live issue at any time during Quayle’s 17 years in electoral politics, so I doubt you could find many discourses of his on the question outside of his attempts in 1988 to defend the choices he made in 1969. Hendrick Hertzberg’s self-understanding may be crucially dependent on his political stances ca. 1968, but that’s pretty atypical even in his cohort (Hertzberg was born in 1943).
Yes, Neo, I read everything Art Deco wrote before he gave his list. John Wayne has been a problem with WWII vets and Korean vets because of how he was presented in movies, and that he didn’t serve. Art Deco left out Frank Sinatra, who had a really, really bad time with WWII vets. Gary Cooper was too old to serve in WWII. Humphrey Bogart was too old. As was Spencer Tracy.
But what Art Deco did do is support me in my take on chickenhawk. What he tried to do is show the left does chinkenhawk not the right except in those distant days.
Neo says she doesn’t think you’re self-consciously lying. That’s overly charitable of her.
I think you’d have to scrounge to find examples of WWii vets taking potshots at Frank Sinatra. (And you don’t provide any). I’ve certainly never seen any in print. Sinatra was categorically disqualified for military service (classification IV-F) due to a peri-natal injury. That applied to the period running from the fall of 1943 to the middle of 1945. Prior to the fall of 1943, he was exempt because he had dependent children.
As for Wayne, the one example I can think of of him being raked over the coals by a veteran was a repulsive Op-Ed piece written by William Manchester (in 1992, IIRC), who isn’t exactly a politically neutral figure. I got into an online argument with someone several years ago about the Manchester piece and did a bit of research on Manchester’s biography and Wayne’s body of work before and during the war. Manchester relates a personal memoir of Wayne making an appearance at a Naval hospital in Honolulu. There is a strong reason to believe his account is fiction.
Art Deco:
In addition, the discussion in this thread is not about criticizing someone who didn’t serve for not serving. It is about a particular word, “chickenhawk,” and its use as an epithet for someone who (a) did not serve; AND (b) is pro-war in general or pro a certain war (ordinarily a war that the name-caller is against).
As you point out, Ariel offers no example of Sinatra being dissed by WWII vets; he merely alleges it happened. But even if it did happen, that would not be an example of what we’re talking about unless they mocked him as a person who didn’t serve AND was pro-war at the same time, and they claimed he therefore had no right to be pro-war because he didn’t serve. Being pro-war during WWII was not something WWII vets were dissing people about.
And the word “chickenhawk” almost certainly was never used back then.
Ariel:
You write, “If you can’t deal with discord…”—when in fact there is discord here very often, and I deal with it constantly without criticizing people or banning them.
I have never criticized you for discord or for disagreeing. I have criticized you for (a) insulting me and others here (b) repeatedly mischaracterizing what I write and what others here write (c) not citing any sources for your mostly majority-of-one assertions, and yet (d) repeatedly being arrogant and condescending towards those who disagree with you. That’s the combination of factors that make you a troll, and there are other characteristics of yours as well that go into the mix. It’s not “simply” anything, in your case. It’s a whole whole lot of things put together, but disagreeing doesn’t happen to be one of them.
I have treated you politely and patiently, and given you plenty of opportunity to listen and to change in response to specific criticisms. Instead you have doubled down. And your response to what happened starting here—where you were both wrong and abusive—was highly inadequate considering what you had written.
Part of your condescending trollishness is statements like “…there are very exacting criteria as to whether someone is a troll or not. It’s not as simple as not providing links, shaking up the complacency, or disagreeing with you.”
Spoken like a true troll. The only part of that I’ve criticized you for is not providing links, and I’ve criticized you for much more than that. So of course “it’s not as simple” as that list of yours—no one here said that it was. So again, you are mischaracterizing the situation in order to try to be in the right. It doesn’t work.
And by the way—there are no exacting criteria for who is a troll. There are some general characteristics but no set of detailed characteristics everyone agrees on.