Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Al_U_Card]

Trump is a reality series celebrity in a country of reduced attention-span, over-worked, instant gratification electorate. (Not all, mind you but just enough to get him elected.)

Harry Truman? Bush II? Trump is just the latest cautionary tale regarding getting what you vote for. Not surprising really.

[jjbrr]

He can't have a position on something if he doesn't stand for anything. You can blame the people if you want, and maybe you should, but that doesn't change the fact that he lacks any semblance of integrity.

[kenberg]

Can there be any denial that Trump's agenda is nothing but a spiteful dismantling of anything accomplished by President Obama because Obama had the temerity to ridicule Trump in public? It fits in with the psychological profile of Trump as attested to by the numerous psychiatrists willing to go on record that Trump's psychology is dangerous to the public. https://www.psycholo...se-donald-trump

 

I had not heard of this so I went to Amazon to see what they had to say about the book

 

Philip Zimbardo and Rosemary Sword, for instance, explain Trump’s impulsivity in terms of “unbridled and extreme present hedonism.” Craig Malkin writes on pathological narcissism and politics as a lethal mix. Gail Sheehy, on a lack of trust that exceeds paranoia. Lance Dodes, on sociopathy. Robert Jay Lifton, on the “malignant normality” that can set in everyday life if psychiatrists do not speak up.

 

Apparently there are 27 co-authors, each offering his/her own diagnosis. If I had 27 professionals offering 27 different diagnoses of what was wrong with me, I believe I would tell all 27 to get lost.

 

“unbridled and extreme present hedonism.”, " pathological narcissism", "a lack of trust that exceeds paranoia", “malignant normality” (whatever that is). This is just a sample. It seems that each took a trait that they don't like and explained it as a psychological disorder. Trump has 27 different psychological disorders, is that the claim? If they had 5 more authors there would be 5 more disorders? I don't see this as helpful.

[Al_U_Card]

I had not heard of this so I went to Amazon to see what they had to say about the book

 

 

 

Apparently there are 27 co-authors, each offering his/her own diagnosis. If I had 27 professionals offering 27 different diagnoses of what was wrong with me, I believe I would tell all 27 to get lost.

 

“unbridled and extreme present hedonism.”, " pathological narcissism", "a lack of trust that exceeds paranoia", “malignant normality” (whatever that is). This is just a sample. It seems that each took a trait that they don't like and explained it as a psychological disorder. Trump has 27 different psychological disorders, is that the claim? If they had 5 more authors there would be 5 more disorders? I don't see this as helpful.

Supply and demand. Since most of the electorate are uninterested in the issues, go for ad hom attacks to discredit Trump. Just too much demand is all...

[Winstonm]

I had not heard of this so I went to Amazon to see what they had to say about the book

 

 

 

Apparently there are 27 co-authors, each offering his/her own diagnosis. If I had 27 professionals offering 27 different diagnoses of what was wrong with me, I believe I would tell all 27 to get lost.

 

“unbridled and extreme present hedonism.”, " pathological narcissism", "a lack of trust that exceeds paranoia", “malignant normality” (whatever that is). This is just a sample. It seems that each took a trait that they don't like and explained it as a psychological disorder. Trump has 27 different psychological disorders, is that the claim? If they had 5 more authors there would be 5 more disorders? I don't see this as helpful.

 

The specific diagnosis is not the important takeaway - it is the fact that these professionals are willing to publicly announce their beliefs that the president has a significant mental condition that makes him dangerous in his position.

[Winstonm]

I find this interesting:

On the same YouGov study, I asked respondents how important being white was to their identity. Over 40% said it was very or extremely important, 54% said that whites have a lot or a great deal to be proud of, and 43% reported that whites in this country have a lot or a great deal in common with one another.

 

This is from a WaPo article by Ashley Jardina, an assistant professor of political science at Duke University. The responses tend to track with Trump's ratings.

[kenberg]

The specific diagnosis is not the important takeaway - it is the fact that these professionals are willing to publicly announce their beliefs that the president has a significant mental condition that makes him dangerous in his position.

 

We differ here. If 27 psychiatrists (well, some are two person articles and maybe some are psychologists rather than psychiatrists) purport to be diagnosing Trump, or anyone, and come up with 27 separate diagnoses, I think they should hold off on publication until they can get their story straight.

 

It's true that in general I have an aversion to people who wave a degree in my face and claim that therefore their opinion is really serious stuff while my opinion is just an uneducated guess, but this collection sounds to me to be even worse than the usual such collections. I don't think a medical degree is necessary or even particularly useful in coming to the conclusion that the presidency is not in good hands right now. They don't like Trump.I don't like Trump. I have no plans to assemble a group of mathematicians to mathematically explain what is wrong with Trump. Chaotic dynamics comes to mind, or maybe catastrophe theory, but no, I think not. Probably someone somewhere is working on such a paper. They might want to stop.

[Winstonm]

We differ here. If 27 psychiatrists (well, some are two person articles and maybe some are psychologists rather than psychiatrists) purport to be diagnosing Trump, or anyone, and come up with 27 separate diagnoses, I think they should hold off on publication until they can get their story straight.

 

It's true that in general I have an aversion to people who wave a degree in my face and claim that therefore their opinion is really serious stuff while my opinion is just an uneducated guess, but this collection sounds to me to be even worse than the usual such collections. I don't think a medical degree is necessary or even particularly useful in coming to the conclusion that the presidency is not in good hands right now. They don't like Trump.I don't like Trump. I have no plans to assemble a group of mathematicians to mathematically explain what is wrong with Trump. Chaotic dynamics comes to mind, or maybe catastrophe theory, but no, I think not. Probably someone somewhere is working on such a paper. They might want to stop.

 

On this I plead ignorance. If this were internal medicine, 27 mds would most likely all agree; with mental disorders, I don't know if the opinions would be so consistent. Perhaps they should be.

[kenberg]

On this I plead ignorance. If this were internal medicine, 27 mds would most likely all agree; with mental disorders, I don't know if the opinions would be so consistent. Perhaps they should be.

 

It would not be unanimous. I claim to be more or less sane, but over a lifetime I have seen, sometimes fairly close up, how these things can go. This is not to build a case against psychiatry, not at all. The human mind is a very complex thing, as we all agree. So it is difficult and nobody should get too critical of those making their best effort. As I have gooten older, I have come to learn that even inn strictly physiological matters, it's not always easy. I recently had some symptoms, I forget the details, that suggested maybe I had Lyme disease. Or maybe I didn't. It's not always clear.

 

So uncertainty is to be expected. It should also be acknowledged. I find it hard to imagine just ow this book was planned. 27 people sitting around saying "Who wants to do paranoia? "Ok, now we need someone to write on narcissism". To me it sounds very unprofessional.

[Winstonm]

It would not be unanimous. I claim to be more or less sane, but over a lifetime I have seen, sometimes fairly close up, how these things can go. This is not to build a case against psychiatry, not at all. The human mind is a very complex thing, as we all agree. So it is difficult and nobody should get too critical of those making their best effort. As I have gooten older, I have come to learn that even inn strictly physiological matters, it's not always easy. I recently had some symptoms, I forget the details, that suggested maybe I had Lyme disease. Or maybe I didn't. It's not always clear.

 

So uncertainty is to be expected. It should also be acknowledged. I find it hard to imagine just ow this book was planned. 27 people sitting around saying "Who wants to do paranoia? "Ok, now we need someone to write on narcissism". To me it sounds very unprofessional.

 

My brother graduated magna cum laude. I, on the other hand, graduated laude how cum? Who am I to argue with a Ph.D.? :)

[kenberg]

My brother graduated magna cum laude. I, on the other hand, graduated laude how cum? Who am I to argue with a Ph.D.? :)

 

Right. But that's sort of my point. I would probably win a mathematical argument. Or at least that's the way to bet it, as they say. But we recently had the cement floor of our garage repaired. I deferred to the judgment of the guy with the cement truck. We chatted about many things, his daughter was having a large outdoor wedding for example. We never got around to Trump but if we had done so neither my math skills nor his cement skills qualified either of us as a political expert. He seemed like a sensible guy who would see things my way. Or not.

 

Anyway, as you can probably gather, I won't be reading that book. I doubt I will be reading How the Right Lost Its Mind either, but I did like the review of it in the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2017/10/04/its-like-what-happened-but-for-conservatives/?utm_term=.94e4e4e6b216

[rmnka447]

Trump is a reality series celebrity in a country of reduced attention-span, over-worked, instant gratification electorate. (Not all, mind you but just enough to get him elected.)

Harry Truman? Bush II? Trump is just the latest cautionary tale regarding getting what you vote for. Not surprising really.

Even though I'm a Republican at this time, Harry Truman has always been one of my favorite Presidents. That's even with Harry having no use whatsoever for Republicans. He lived in a tough time and made a lot of decisions that greatly affected our country for the good. It appears history is getting more appreciative of Harry as time goes by.

 

But, of course, the elitists, never warmed to his very plain spoken manner and regularly denigrated him as nothing but a hack politician. He was failure in business, most notably in the haberdasher business. He eventually turned to politics and was part of a Missouri political machine. He never went to college and is I believe the last President not to do so. So you guessed it, he's been portrayed by the intelligentsia as a dumb hick politician.

 

The truth is a bit different. He was veteran of WWI, serving with distinction as a Captain in the Artillery and receiving some recognition for bravery in combat despite his poor sight. Although he never attended college, he was a voracious reader and, most particularly, a student of history. In the Senate, he spearheaded the committee that investigated and combatted corruption, waste, and profiteering in the War industries. He wasn't afraid to make a decision as the sign "The Buck Stops Here" on his desk in the Oval Office indicated.

 

What did he do? After being essentially shut out of any meaningful part in the Roosevelt administration, he took over as President when Roosevelt died and got in harness fairly quickly. His first and biggest decision was whether to use the atomic bomb on the Japanese. He recognized the dangers that the Soviet Union posed to a free and independent Europe after the Germans were defeated, something that FDR seemed oblivious to. He worked with his Secretary of State, Gen. George Marshall, to develop a plan to support the rebuilding of a devastated Europe to offset that threat. That was the Marshall Plan. He assisted in the creation of the UN and NATO. He integrated the Armed Services and reorganized them creating the US Air Force. He disbanded the WWII OSS, then reversed himself and created the CIA to provide the information necessary to counter the Soviet threat. He stood up to Communist aggression in Korea using the UN as a vehicle to foster an international response. And, he ensured civilian control of the military by sacking national hero and icon, Gen. Douglass McArthur, when his actions as Commander of the UN forces threatened to start WWIII. Not bad for a hick politician.

 

My favorite story about Harry Truman is from Merle Miller, who wrote a biography of Truman ("Plain Speaking") in the '70s based on a series of interviews that he had with Truman just before he died. Miller had at some point gotten into a conversation with Truman about leaders who got full of themselves as indestructible or indispensable. Truman related that this was true of Alexander the Great and that it had led to his death. He stated that Alexander had been so sure of himself that he literally drank so much alcohol one night that he poisoned himself from it. Well, Miller wanted to check out this claim so he went to the Library of Congress and sought their help in finding out how Alexander died. They referred him to a book they had in their collection. Sure enough, it confirmed what Truman had claimed. However, he noticed that only two other people had ever checked that book out. Sure enough, one of them was Harry Truman during his time in the Senate.

[cherdano]

What an amazing story. Truman read a book! From his local library!! What an amazing person!!! I am blown away!!!!

 

P.S.: The story about Alexander the Great's death is probably wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Alexander_the_Great#Causes

[kenberg]

Even though I'm a Republican at this time, Harry Truman has always been one of my favorite Presidents. That's even with Harry having no use whatsoever for Republicans. He lived in a tough time and made a lot of decisions that greatly affected our country for the good. It appears history is getting more appreciative of Harry as time goes by.

 

But, of course, the elitists, never warmed to his very plain spoken manner and regularly denigrated him as nothing but a hack politician. He was failure in business, most notably in the haberdasher business. He eventually turned to politics and was part of a Missouri political machine. He never went to college and is I believe the last President not to do so. So you guessed it, he's been portrayed by the intelligentsia as a dumb hick politician.

 

The truth is a bit different. He was veteran of WWI, serving with distinction as a Captain in the Artillery and receiving some recognition for bravery in combat despite his poor sight. Although he never attended college, he was a voracious reader and, most particularly, a student of history. In the Senate, he spearheaded the committee that investigated and combatted corruption, waste, and profiteering in the War industries. He wasn't afraid to make a decision as the sign "The Buck Stops Here" on his desk in the Oval Office indicated.

 

What did he do? After being essentially shut out of any meaningful part in the Roosevelt administration, he took over as President when Roosevelt died and got in harness fairly quickly. His first and biggest decision was whether to use the atomic bomb on the Japanese. He recognized the dangers that the Soviet Union posed to a free and independent Europe after the Germans were defeated, something that FDR seemed oblivious to. He worked with his Secretary of State, Gen. George Marshall, to develop a plan to support the rebuilding of a devastated Europe to offset that threat. That was the Marshall Plan. He assisted in the creation of the UN and NATO. He integrated the Armed Services and reorganized them creating the US Air Force. He disbanded the WWII OSS, then reversed himself and created the CIA to provide the information necessary to counter the Soviet threat. He stood up to Communist aggression in Korea using the UN as a vehicle to foster an international response. And, he ensured civilian control of the military by sacking national hero and icon, Gen. Douglass McArthur, when his actions as Commander of the UN forces threatened to start WWIII. Not bad for a hick politician.

 

My favorite story about Harry Truman is from Merle Miller, who wrote a biography of Truman ("Plain Speaking") in the '70s based on a series of interviews that he had with Truman just before he died. Miller had at some point gotten into a conversation with Truman about leaders who got full of themselves as indestructible or indispensable. Truman related that this was true of Alexander the Great and that it had led to his death. He stated that Alexander had been so sure of himself that he literally drank so much alcohol one night that he poisoned himself from it. Well, Miller wanted to check out this claim so he went to the Library of Congress and sought their help in finding out how Alexander died. They referred him to a book they had in their collection. Sure enough, it confirmed what Truman had claimed. However, he noticed that only two other people had ever checked that book out. Sure enough, one of them was Harry Truman during his time in the Senate.

 

"Give 'em hell, Harry" "I'm just telling the truth and they think it's hell". I remember this, we had just boght a television, Truman was giving a speech. The old days are gone, that's a fact. I remember a reporter went to interview him a few hears afte he left office. Truman went for a walk, the reporter had a tough time keeping up. "When you go for a walk, you are supposed to move along". Or something like that.

 

I liked growing up in the 1940s and 50s, but that now seems to be in the distant past. It was very different.

[Winstonm]

According to the YouTube page for “Williams and Kalvin,” the Clintons are “serial killers who are going to rape the whole nation.” Donald Trump can’t be racist because he’s a “businessman.” Hillary Clinton’s campaign was “fund[ed] by the Muslim.”

These are a sample of the videos put together by two black video bloggers calling themselves Williams and Kalvin Johnson, whose social media pages investigators say are part of the broad Russian campaign to influence American politics. Across Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube, they purported to offer “a word of truth” to African-American audiences.

 

One specific video published in October, prior to the presidential election, refers to Hillary Clinton as an “old racist bitch.”

“She’s a ***** racist,” the host says over a subdued rap beat. “And this woman is a witch,” he says as a picture portrays Clinton in Wizard of Oz attire. He goes on to praise Julian Assange for releasing hacked emails. “This woman, she’s sick on her head.”

Other videos are more explicit about urging people to vote for Trump.

“This is time for change. This is why I say that let our vote go for Trump. Because this man is a businessman. He’s not a politician. We can have deal with him,” Williams says in a video published in August of 2016. “Because I don’t see him as a racist. Because any businessman cannot be a racist because when you are a racist, then your business is going down.” He then makes a black-power fist as he endorses Trump.

 

And Russian interference is still "fake news" according to the #^&*#grabber-in-chief.

[jjbrr]

lol rmnka. riveting stuff! what else do you have for us?

[Zelandakh]

And Russian interference is still "fake news" according to the #^&*#grabber-in-chief.

Aside from the speculation in The Daily Beast story, has there been any official confirmation of this specific Russia connection yet?

[jjbrr]

yes, zel.

[Zelandakh]

yes, zel.

Great! Can you provide links then please as google appears to be blocking me on any additional information for Williams and Kalvin Johnson. I would have expected it to be all over the major news sources for something to have been confirmed beyond the generic stuff we have had up to this point.

[Winstonm]

Great! Can you provide links then please as google appears to be blocking me on any additional information for Williams and Kalvin Johnson. I would have expected it to be all over the major news sources for something to have been confirmed beyond the generic stuff we have had up to this point.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/10/09/google-uncovers-russian-bought-ads-on-youtube-gmail-and-other-platforms/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_google-705am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.95e2ef4cd7a1

[jjbrr]

link

link

link

[kenberg]

Aside from the speculation in The Daily Beast story, has there been any official confirmation of this specific Russia connection yet?

 

A good question, I gather the answer is yes. Anyway, I want to look at a larger problem.

 

From The Daily Beast story:

These are a sample of the videos put together by two black video bloggers calling themselves Williams and Kalvin Johnson, whose social media pages investigators say are part of the broad Russian campaign to influence American politics. Across Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube, they purported to offer "a word of truth" to African-American audiences."We, the black people, we stand in one unity. We stand in one to say that Hillary Clinton is not our candidate," one of the men says in a November video that warned Clinton "is going to stand for the Muslim. We don't stand for her."

 

We appear to be entering a dangerous period. As bad as this is, we have to see that it is not just the last election and it is not just the Russians. Such a video could have been financed by people born and raised in the U.S. and could be in pursuit of various purposes. I have not watched the video and do not intend to. The description is enough, moreover I think caution is useful when using a computer to watch trash.

 

At 78 I am of course not young, but it is only in the last couple of years that I have been feeling a bit out of touch with the world. Some things are minor. We are going on a trip soon, and I have been told that I will no longer be able to pre-print my boarding pass, rather I will have to download it onto my smartphone. Ok, I guess I can learn how to do that, that's minor. But watching the growing influence of Facebook, Twitter, and so on is becoming worrisome. There are and always have been trashy tabloids with breathtaking stories about actors, actresses and such, often people that I have never heard of. People buy them, I don't, that's that. And it's stupid stuff about unimportant people. What we have here, with the video and with many other postings, is stupid stuff about important people and important events. People read/watch/experience this trash and, worse, they take it seriously.

 

I have a Facebook account. I never use it. I don't post things on FB and, unless Becky shows me something of interest, I don't read what others post. I have never Tweeted. I don't text on my smartphone, I prefer speaking. I post here and often learn something by reading what is posted here, but still I really do prefer talking directly to people.

 

There has always been craziness. There was, I guess there still is, the John Birch Society. There were supposedly Communists everywhere. There was training for what to do in a nuclear attack: Get down on the floor, put your head between your knees, and kiss your ass goodbye. So craziness is not new in this country and I doubt we here are unique. But Facebook, Twitter and all seem to be making idiocy mainstream. This is not good. As a society, we need to find a solution. I do not think government can solve this, we correctly value the free expression of ideas. Government has a role in the worst cases. Russian financing of propaganda such as above should be dealt with. But I seriously doubt that government action will be the solution to the larger problem. Only society as a whole can really deal with this. We decide that we value truth, that we respect others whether or not we agree with them, and that we hope to solve problems in a cooperative manner, or we decide otherwise.

[Winstonm]

A good question, I gather the answer is yes. Anyway, I want to look at a larger problem.

 

From The Daily Beast story:

 

 

We appear to be entering a dangerous period. As bad as this is, we have to see that it is not just the last election and it is not just the Russians. Such a video could have been financed by people born and raised in the U.S. and could be in pursuit of various purposes. I have not watched the video and do not intend to. The description is enough, moreover I think caution is useful when using a computer to watch trash.

 

At 78 I am of course not young, but it is only in the last couple of years that I have been feeling a bit out of touch with the world. Some things are minor. We are going on a trip soon, and I have been told that I will no longer be able to pre-print my boarding pass, rather I will have to download it onto my smartphone. Ok, I guess I can learn how to do that, that's minor. But watching the growing influence of Facebook, Twitter, and so on is becoming worrisome. There are and always have been trashy tabloids with breathtaking stories about actors, actresses and such, often people that I have never heard of. People buy them, I don't, that's that. And it's stupid stuff about unimportant people. What we have here, with the video and with many other postings, is stupid stuff about important people and important events. People read/watch/experience this trash and, worse, they take it seriously.

 

I have a Facebook account. I never use it. I don't post things on FB and, unless Becky shows me something of interest, I don't read what others post. I have never Tweeted. I don't text on my smartphone, I prefer speaking. I post here and often learn something by reading what is posted here, but still I really do prefer talking directly to people.

 

There has always been craziness. There was, I guess there still is, the John Birch Society. There were supposedly Communists everywhere. There was training for what to do in a nuclear attack: Get down on the floor, put your head between your knees, and kiss your ass goodbye. So craziness is not new in this country and I doubt we here are unique. But Facebook, Twitter and all seem to be making idiocy mainstream. This is not good. As a society, we need to find a solution. I do not think government can solve this, we correctly value the free expression of ideas. Government has a role in the worst cases. Russian financing of propaganda such as above should be dealt with. But I seriously doubt that government action will be the solution to the larger problem. Only society as a whole can really deal with this. We decide that we value truth, that we respect others whether or not we agree with them, and that we hope to solve problems in a cooperative manner, or we decide otherwise.

 

Ken, sometimes I think you must be related to Samuel Clemens for your ability to express elegant thinking in simple terms.

 

It appears to me that we have reached a genuine crossroads period in our country where those we used to label as "looney tunes" have gained enough traction to be a force - and now they have helped elect a president who is actively gaslighting in order to "prove" to them that their loyalty was not misplaced.

 

I fear that this is a trend rather than an aberration, and that makes 2018 and 2020 critical to stopping the trend before it is too late for all of us.

[barmar]

Businessmen can't be racists? So all the "whites only" restaurants in Jim Crow era were not racist? Or they weren't businesses?

 

Many businessmen are willing to give up the profits from sales that go against their prejudices. Back then it was racism, now we have bakers who don't want to make cakes for same-sex marriages.

[Winstonm]

Businessmen can't be racists? So all the "whites only" restaurants in Jim Crow era were not racist? Or they weren't businesses?

 

Many businessmen are willing to give up the profits from sales that go against their prejudices. Back then it was racism, now we have bakers who don't want to make cakes for same-sex marriages.

 

You have to take into account the purpose of these claims. They are not intended to withstand scrutiny or reasoned debate but to elicit an unthinking nod from whomever is listening and watching. The claims don't have to be accurate to be successful; they only need to sound genuine-enough to obfuscate reality.