There have been some moments from Donald Trump’s campaign that have made me laugh in a shaking-my-head kind of way, but I’ve mostly been disgusted by his act. The one moment I actually genuinely enjoyed from him came in the most recent debate when he defended New York and New Yorkers from the condescension of Ted Cruz. It was also a weird moment, because for once Donald Trump seemed authentic. He was, just for a minute or two, no longer a New York billionaire playboy pandering to the religious right and opponents of ethnic pluralism, but a real New York City citizen defending his culture and lifestyle.
I don’t really know what makes Trump effective as a politician, but on the surface anyway the whole phenomenon doesn’t make any sense. If people are angry with New York money, why would they rally around a guy who embodies New York money? Why would a New Yorker who lives in and loves the most ethnically diverse city in the United States want to go around the country railing against the increasing diversity of the country? And why would folks who value traditional family values and conservative religious principles have any admiration for a guy who is well-known for adulterous affairs and multiple divorces, and who doesn’t seem religious at all?
You can try to answer these questions if you like, but you should agree with the basic conundrum here. And it only gets more confusing when you look at Trump’s record on the issues and some of his policies that aren’t exactly representative of orthodox conservatism.
It seems to be working, however. There’s no doubt about that.
So, the next question is, is this something we should be celebrating?
If I have the time this weekend, maybe I will tackle that question.
Whatever risk we run of a Trump/Cruz presidency harrying the country down the road to fascism is mitigated by the relief such a populist administration would inevitably provide from the virtual stranglehold that corporations have already placed on our institutions and political processes?
The ghosts of Fritz Thyssen and Hjalmar Schacht rattle their chains.
Trump might be populist; Cruz, not so much.
Yeah, Cruz is a theocrat through and through.
He may in fact be a complete weasel but he has presented as a populist:
This is one of his campaign’s themes.
Nice to see that Cruz went out of his way to dog-whistle racism in his attack. I expect that kind of shit from Ted; he’s a very low man.
Let’s remember that Trump was defending himself in that exchange. New York City just happened to be on his side of the argument, this time. We didn’t see any deeper into Trump’s soul than we ever do. He gave exactly the same response that Rudy Giuliani gave every day of his 2008 campaign and he is no more “genuine” for it. If Cruz had been attacking San Francisco or New Jersey Trump would have been just fine with it.
Yeah, but…
We make judgements every minute of every day on the “authenticity” of people. Some of us are better at that than others, but we all do it. Is this salesman telling the truth as he sees it or is he lying through his teeth? Is the guy lounging nonchalantly against the wall 15 feet in front of you just resting or is he going to attack you once your back is to him? Do the words “I love you” ring true or false? And so on. The people of the U.S. have been doing this regarding Trump, and the overall verdict seems to be coming in.
“Yes, he is ‘authentic’.” That is, he really believes most of what he is saying.
This is not to say that he is right or wrong. One can be authentically wrong. Hitler was “authentic.” He really believed that what he was doing would be beneficial to humankind in the long run. Events proved him wrong but his “authenticity” is what really brought him to power. People tend to blindly follow powerfully authentic leaders.
Yes, Giuliani said the same sorts of things as did Trump, but Giuliani was transparently about as authentic as a wooden nickel. Trump is the real deal, which makes him even more dangerous. He is the most powerfully “authentic” national pol out there now. Sanders comes in second in that particular sweepstakes, mainly because he doesn’t possess…or perhaps better said, is not possessed…by the kind of powerful charisma that Trump evinces. Obama? HRC? Wooden nickels II and III. Scripted to within an inch of their lives. That’s why Trump is winning. Big time. He’s not being scripted; he’s being Donald Trump and if you don’t like it you can go fuck yourself.
That’s his real message, and it is the secret to his public success.
What to do if you don’t think that what he is saying will work well?
Ay, there’s the rub.
Isn’t it?
I have no answers except to continue to try to wake people the fuck up about what is happening.
I do keep trying.
AG
P.S. The earliest initial statement…and still true today…on Barack Obama’s “authenticity” was written in The Village Voice on January 16, 1996 by Adolph Reed Jr. Here is his take on Obama back then:
“…the point where identity politics converges with old-fashioned middle-class reform in favoring form over substance.”
Prescient.
On the evidence of the last 8 years or so.
Prescient.
P.S. I think that the only Dem slate that would be able to match Trump’s “authenticity”/charisma quota would be Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren.
Warren kicks ass.
Bernie doesn’t.
Not really.
Together?
She embodies “authenticity” to a “T.” Plus she would salve worries about Bernie’s age. And…no small thing politically…she’s a woman.
A great ticket.
Let us pray.
AG
Prescient would have been, “this Dude is gold and will one day be the most successful president since FDR.”
Define your terms, Booman.
How do you define a “successful president?” A successful term of office.
Really.
Here is how I define it.
Is the country…overall…better off than it was when that president was elected?
By my own reckoning? No, it is not. I do not believe the numbers spouted by any Federal office or DemRat pol; I only believe what I see, hear and experience. Just for his support of the ever-widening Surveillance State…NO!!! Let alone the racial divide that has only widened since he came to office. And forget about the problems we have with making a living and education. Plus…his handling of the Middle East has been catastrophic.
All worse.
AG
First of all, anyone who spouts the conservative line that President Obama is to blame for a claimed worsening of race relations is someone who has fallen for bullshit and wishes to spread the bullshit. Why listen to anyone who offers such offal in their writing?
As far as the rest of us judging President Obama’s level of success…
Well, we were losing 800,000 jobs a month when he took office and were heading to a second Great Depression. We’ve now had years and years of job growth.
About 20 million people have gained health insurance, and the lower the income an American has, the more likely they have been helped by the Affordable care Act. The ACA has also created many systemic changes to the health care system which improve access and, very importantly, lower the rising cost of care.
The Administration’s record on environmental, labor, civil rights and financial institution regulations are far superior than the previous Administration.
And the claim here that Obama’s foreign policy record is worse than the record of W. Bush is quite novel. I encourage AG to defend it here. That would be fun to read.
This is about as succinct an explanation of Trump’s appeal as anything I’ve read: “he’s being Donald Trump and if you don’t like it you can go fuck yourself.”
Thank you.
AG
His Moyer’s interview kinda encapuslated it: “Is the choice between a neoliberal party that is progressive on multicultural and diversity issues, and a neoliberal party that’s reactionary and horrible on those same issues.
But where the vast majority of Americans live our lives and feel our anxieties about present and future and insecurity is not about the multicultural issues over which there’s so there’s so much fight. In the very realm of the neoliberal economic issues to which both parties are, in fact, committed.
Have to disagree — But where the vast majority of Americans live our lives and feel our anxieties about present and future and insecurity is not about the multicultural issues over which there’s so there’s so much fight. — Rightwingers use “cultural issues” as a scapegoat for their anxieties. Thus, they’ll follow a corporate billionaire isn’t divorced from neoliberal economic policies but sure knows how to blow the racist, sexist, religious dog whistles.
Well, Dems rather live the reverse, in that sense. We applaud ourselves for advances on cultural issues.
Social issues, in the main, do not change the economic security of the much greater majority of lives.
Both national parties ignore Main Street with impunity.
Social issues are economic issues for tens of millions. From all the AAs left out of Social Security for a couple of decades and all the WWII VA benefits, particularly housing to denial of tax and Social Security spousal benefits for same-sex couples. Denial of equal pay for equal work for women (and minorities as well, but women aren’t a minority but a majority) impoverishes women and children.
Prohibition was both a social and economic issue; as is the war on drugs.
Democrats that smugly pat themselves on the back for cultural/social changes are the least likely to have been at the forefront of such changes. And they don’t fully appreciate the depth of the cost to those that are discriminated against. The Clintons have long held themselves out as “hip” wrt to equality and fairness, but they said, “Oh, no!” when the issue of same-sex marriage was raised and stuck with that for fifteen years (it would hurt those like them with their marital “sacred bond.”). Yet, a mensch like Sanders that abhors discrimination of any kind, but mostly focuses on economic issues, immediately understood the issue on all levels.
the R base isn’t about governing, it’s about expressing emotions; probably followers don’t even expect to/ want to win, that would entail governing. mob mentality of his rallys is not pleasant
That’s pretty much exactly what I was thinking. It’s not about political positions. People line up with the positions of their tribe but, in the case of the Republican base, what’s driving them is pure, unadulterated rage and Trump reflects that rage better than anyone else. That he’s completely full of shit, if they recognize it, matters less than the fact that he’s expressing the Republican id. Cruz does this second best and is more authentically idiotic, I mean Republican, which is why he has his share of followers.
For some reason, it is perceived that he is speaking his mind and varies from the usual political doublespeak. Also too, he gives voice to at least some of their own thoughts. His history is apparently secondary.
No.
I get exasperated with liberals and Democrats who cheer on the most insane elements of the Republican party.
Trump winning the nomination would define every campaign in the country. Republican candidates will “be more like Trump” and the party will work to support any idiotic thing he says. Explicit bigotry and violent rhetoric have already become widely accepted. Whatever happens to Trump, many of these Republicans will be in power next year.
Celebrating his success in the hopes that Democrats will earn a few extra points in the general election, or in the misguided belief that it guarantees victory in 2020 is as delusional as it is cynical.
I agree with this. Trumpism is ugly, and the fact that polls currently show Trump giving Hillary or Bernie a run for their money coupled with the fact that less than a year ago absolutely no one thought Donald Trump could get this close to the Republican nomination should give anyone pause. It’s no cause for celebration.
BUT the real problem isn’t Trump, it’s the people who are supporting him. I think it’s fair to say that they are pretty much the nastiest people America has to offer. It’s fine to say people are angry and have a right to be, but Trump is winning based on his racist rhetoric regarding undocumented immigrants from Latin America and Muslims and his fascist bravado. These people are with us regardless of what Trump does. The hope for our country lies in repudiating these people, and this is where Trump provides an opportunity. By being such a clear, out and proud bigot, the American people will have a choice, and they can choose to tell these nasty people to STFU. They can choose to tell his party to go to its room and think about what it has done.
We joke about “peak wingnut”, but the fever has to boil over before it breaks. One can hope that Trump, in all his disgusting glory, can be the catalyst for it, but celebrating like it’s a done deal, I fear, is just as out of touch as the Bush donors who still think their guy has a chance.
You write:
That’s about as good an optimistic view of Trump’s candidacy as I have heard from the left. I hope you’re right. My main worry is that in the act of boiling over it will break the country as well as itself.
AG
With the news of the 4 hostages in Iran released today and the IAEA acknowledging that Iran has met the threshold of the agreement, it is certainly a good day for diplomacy.
All the more reason to hold Trump up as a fine entertainer but not a leader who could have accomplished this. The very talents he showcases are the ones that would destroy his presidency.
A day to give Obama and Kerry credit for a job well done.
Thanks for the News! All I heard on NBC “News” was garbage about cat fights at the Golden Globes Awards. Then some Sports crap. No real news.
I am not sure that I share Atkin’s glee at the Trump-Cruz ascendancy, and I think his view that this is “a good thing” fails to take into account a lot of other dynamics.
But we should celebrate and encourage it nonetheless. The country is likely to be better for it in the end.
Robert Costa lays out the looming game plan of the elites, and I don’t see any reason to smile.
Spencer Zwick, finance chairman for Romney’s 2012 campaign says, “A lot of donors are trying to figure their way into Trump’s orbit. There is a growing feeling among many that he may be the guy, so people are certainly seeing if they can find a home over there,”
Does anyone think for a minute that at the end of this process any of these millionaires and billionaires will be on the outside looking in at the Trump machine? To think that they will not be deeply embedded, as they have always been, in whoever the GOP nominee is seems to me to be a quite naive assumption. Might they have to fight and jockey for how the pecking order is established, simply because Trump seems to function in a non-standard way? Sure they will. But they will most certainly not be adrift in some sort of political no man’s land with no one actively pushing their agenda or interests. My god, Trump is ONE OF THEM! Does anyone think for a minute that he is going to forsake them? They will grovel and bow however they need to in order to establish grace with nominee Trump. That is all that he will require. Reverential deference and feeding of his ego will be the only prerequisite for any of them to sit at the Trump table.
The only thing that is scaring the elites is the uncertainty they are having to deal with. But to think that Trump will somehow dismantle the billionaire’s gold plated feeding trough that has been the structure of Washington D.C. politics for generations is simply crazy talk.
They have decided they prefer Tump to cruz, no doubt.
Republican voters and elites haven’t acted like Democrats since 1964. They always get in line, regardless of how corrupt, stupid, senile, and/or nutso their POTUS nominee is.
Barring maybe one or two elections, you can say the same for Democrats. And MANY people here will tell you that you are a traitor and closet racists if you DON’T vote for the candidate, “regardless of how corrupt, stupid, senile, and/or nutso their POTUS nominee is. ”
Disagree. There was an obvious weak split among DEM elites and DEM voters in 1968, 1976, and 2000. A significant DEM elite and DEM voters split in 1972 and 1980. A significant DEM voter split in 1984 (Mondale was the choice of the elites) and a more modest DEM voters split in 1988. The 2008 DEM elites and DEM voters split disappeared before GE day with the fear of McCain/Palin.
1968 and 1972 were on my mind and I’m not sure one can count 1968 but I’m willing to concede it. 1976? Democrats won 1976, no voters deserted. And I don’t believe that 1980 was a voter split either. 1980 was a independent voter election, not a base turn out. I don’t think Dem’s crossed over in 1984 either. In 2008, the only threat of defection was the PUMA’s and I don’t think it was serious. You are confusing the actual Democratic base and those who should be in the base but are not. A better example might of been 2000, but did Nader really make a difference except in Oregon?
Will respond later. It’s one of those things that if you don’t get it intuitively, it takes a while to explain.
I think we are talking about two different things.
Perot
The GOP base turned out for GHWB. Perot was noise and picked up nearly equal numbers of DEM and GOP leaners that weren’t hearing any related to themselves from either candidate.
Are you sure? I’ve heard that’s a myth. (Not asking disrespectfully; I’m just curious.)
Surveys say that it is true. How the GOP responded in the aftermath of that election (not blaming their base and moving forward) indicates that they knew it was true. It was further supported in ’96 when more of the DEM leaners voted for Clinton and more of the GOP leaners again voted for Perot or stayed home.
This is absolutely right. The elites might have a lower comfort-level with Trump because he’s their equal, but there was never any chance that he was going to upend the cart. I think he rattled them with some of his early talk about hedge fund managers, but his tax plan demonstrated that he didn’t mean any of that at all, so it’s all good.
Yes.
Right in this thread you’ll see the argument made, if only rhetorically.
I am certainly open to consider any evidence that a Trump administration would mitigate, through policy positions and actions, the control by corporations of our institutions and our political processes.
The fact is, as long as he gives the base their wall, their demonization of the poors and a militarized force dedicated to kicking down the doors of brown skinned people and shipping them back across the border, he can do any damn thing he pleases. The base won’t give a shit if he pulls the economic rug out from under them in the service of the elites.
As long as delivers to them the feeling that he is fighting for their white culture, he will be their hero and they will support him to the death.
The bargain the GOP has offered for decades is “Well, we could use the power of the state to make your lives better, but we won’t. How about we make someone else’s life worse and let you watch? Would that be o.k with you?”
And America says ‘Yeah, sure’.
This has been what has defined conservatism for all of my adult life.
I’m not sure that Atkins finished this portion of his argument well enough, but what I received well in his case is that this election would be a blind alley for the conservative movement if Trump is the nominee.
It is literally impossible for the GOP POTUS candidate to win in 2016 by ginning up turnout from the white electorate alone. Yet, this appears to be the direction the GOP primary voter will approve.
The GOP candidate cannot win unless they gain, at minimum, the percentage of the Hispanic electorate won by W. Bush. Can you imagine Trump or Cruz improving on Romney’s performance with Hispanics? How? They’ve dispensed with the dog whistles, and their success in the GOP primary campaign appears to depend on their “courage” to be “politically incorrect” by making explicitly racists claims and policy plans.
So, the donor class in the Republican Party, some of whom have pointed out this electoral problem with Trump’s candidacy and/or do not want to associate their institutions and brand names with a racist candidate, will be making a decision: do they spend obscene amounts of money to support a candidate who cannot win and will damage the conservative/Republican brand in ways that will make it more difficult to win future elections, or do they sit out the 2016 election? That’s the sort of win-win Atkins is claiming here.
I think that even if this election turns out in this way, a Trump general election candidacy would be bad for our country. The conservative movement against “political correctness” is a movement which wants to bring back the “good old days” when people could say racist/sexist/violent things without accountability to fact or offense. We have defined limits to the First Amendment, and American culture has helped define extremely racist/sexist/violent rhetoric as out of bounds for acceptable mainstream debate. With Trump popularizing eliminationist rhetoric, those who would want to pass and execute violent/repressive public and private policies would have more room to operate.
Dunno seems to me people are pissed off at being toys of the elite. Republicans are expressing it in the way their essence demands. Democrats express it via Sanders.
“I don’t really know what makes Trump effective as a politician, . . .”
Trump reminds me of a spiritual guru I once had. Like Trump, this Guru exuded a supreme confidence in the perfection of his own attainment. Such confidence attracted people like myself, who were filled with self doubt.
This article in Esquire I thought gave a good picture of Trump.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/12/donald-trump-mark-bowden-playboy-profile
“He has no coherent political philosophy, so comparisons with Fascist leaders miss the mark. He just reacts. Trump lives in a fantasy of perfection, with himself as its animating force.”
Except for the bit about political philosophy, that could have been written about my guru.
Rick…choose your gurus carefully.
However…that Esquire piece should be required reading for all who are contemplating the possibility that Trump’s act is exactly that…an act. It ain’t an act. It’s him. Had that article been written as a big-tme hit piece post-Trumpism one would almost think that it’s just another political hit piece. But it wasn’t written as that, it was just one reporter’s visceral, honest reaction disgust at this guy’s being.
For an example of Trump’s vaunted problem solving skills, take a look at how he tried to solve the problem of this reporter seeing Trump go haywire over a misplaced sprinkler system on his tennis courts.
He “solves problems” with bribery. How is he going to “solve” the wole corporate lobbyist bribery system?
More bribery.
And threats, and bullying and…
And what?
What happens when a bully has his hand on the nuclear trigger?
He must be stopped!!!
AG
Trump reminds me so much of Reagan in certain ways, his weak grasp of issues and policy, his ability to go outside the orthodoxy without his fans or even himself really noticing, above all the way he really isn’t angry: all the pundits talk about how angry he is, because he uses words that are aimed to rouse the fury of nativists and racists, but he says them in that friendly, amused way. “I love the blacks,” he’ll smile before throwing out some vile accusation. He’s really so sunny and relaxed! A cheery psychopath rather than a dark sociopath.
Reagan’s handlers were happy with him because he understood his function, as primarily marketing, and mostly let the management people handle the affairs of state; and perhaps the same kind of people have come to feel that way about Trump. Correctly, marketing’s been his whole life. Unlike Cruz, who comes from the Nixon/GWBush school of fake bonhomie and resentment and deep personal insecurity and longs to rule the world and make all his enemies regret that they mocked him. I mean of course Trump hates being mocked too, never forgets a slight of any kind, but pays it back in the same trash-talking coin, more marketing, in this ultimately kind of egalitarian way (nobody’s too small for the Donald to insult if he feels they insulted him first). Whereas Cruz would prefer to have you killed.
Right on the money.
The big difference between Reagan and Trump?
Intelligence.
Trump is his own handler, whereas I believe that Reagan never even knew he was being handled…certainly not later in life when his cognitive functions regressed past the bad B movie actor level of intelligence he originally possessed.
AG
Nancy always did his thinking, even when he was younger.
Maybe. I dunno. She appeared to be pretty lame, too.
AG
That’s where the conservatism came from. When he was married to Jane Wyman he was a liberal like her. IMHO, he actually had NO political preference. He like fame, sex, money, and the adulation of the public. Like all actors! And like all actors he followed the cues of his directors. Doesn’t that make him the ideal Permagov POTUS?
Man, Trump really has you snowed. If you think the subjects of Donald’s supposedly off-the-cuff attacks and insults aren’t supported by polls that the campaign has absorbed and strategized around, you are a gulli-bull. For example, you think these hilariously passive-aggressive attacks by Trump which point out over and over and over that Cruz is a foreigner are accidental? And that Ted’s unlikeable and can’t cut deals?
He can’t attack Cruz on policy, so he’s attacking him in the specific areas which are most likely to undermine his Republican base voter support. What a coincidence!
A difference is that Reagan was enough of an actor that he valued a script. Trump does improv. (Cuts down on the speech writing cost.) However, his improv only plays well with a subset of Republicans (the Palin type folks) which is why he hasn’t been able to bust through that 40% threshold with Republicans.
’64-’66 Reagan was great at delivering speeches. By the time he was on the national stage, he was mediocre in comparison to his earlier self.
Well, Trump has a brain. Reagan wouldn’t last five seconds without a script. (Do you remember his press conferences?)
Just less plaque in it at age 69 than there was in Reagan’s at the same age. But Trump isn’t really that cognitively swift. It’s just that his competition have yet to develop national stage skills; so, he looks better in comparison.
my opinion is the republicans, esp far right wing evangelical republicans, have been emasculated. and far worse, emasculated by a black man. and now everything is about the bloody stumps where their penises used to be. anything that makes them feel like they have a big giant dick they love and they will overlook just about anything as long as their bullying hero makes their penises grow.
Penis enlargement therapy; as likely to work as any.
Trump frustrates me profoundly, because, on the one hand what we absolutely need is some unvarnished, unpolished populist with Bruce-Wayne-money, from a big city like New York (my town) who can cut through all the awful stagnation and rhetorical nonsense that’s silted up politics in the past three decades — someone who can do to politics what the French New Wave did to movies, what Elvis did to music and what Lorne Michaels did to TV comedy. (And I think many, if not most, Americans understand this viscerally.)
On the other hand, does it have to be this guy? I’ve been cringing and recoiling from his awfulness my entire life. He’s not unintelligent, either…he’s just, you know, deeply, profoundly awful.
It’s one hell of a squandered opportunity.
Be careful what you wish for.
You may get it.
AG
There’s more similarity between Trump and Sanders (who meets several of the important criteria I outlined above) than many want to acknowledge. Obviously they’re polar opposites, but the basic concept of the New York mensch who will “cut through the bullshit” is identical. (“Nobody cares about [Hillary’s] damn emails,” etc.)
I agree with you that Sanders/Warren would be ideal, but Warren’s apparently endorsing Hillary.
We shall see. Two or three primary losses? Everything changes.
AG
True enough.
I have this sneaking suspicion that Trump actually won’t win Iowa. Maybe I’m just being a head-in-the-sand elitist, but maybe not.
So much of the Trump’s “phenomenon” is people going to his rallies (which has a kind of NASCAR appeal, plus you get to meet a real TV star, which, for a lot of underclass Americans, has a hypnotic appeal the rest of us can’t really fathom) and answering robo-polls. There’s no ground game to speak of; there’s no visiting diners or constituencies. There’s just the rallies. Who knows what will actually happen at the polls.
We will find out soon enough.
AG
Politico
Once a political hitman, always a political hitman:
Is HRC prepared to release her medical records and prove that she didn’t have a stroke? (I suspect she did.)
But should we really expect anything different from the woman that brought Dick Morris in twice to rescue Bill’s flailing political fortunes? If he hadn’t apparently lost his mojo, would the Clintons stoop hiring Karl Rove?
Did Hillary secretly carry Elvis’s baby to term or did she abort him????
DerFarm, What do you think?
Umm… they both should release their medical records. As a fundamental matter the people should have the ability to know the general probability of the candidate dying or being incapacitated in office.
We elect the President and Vice President on the same ticket, but baring unusual circumstances the general assumption is that the Vice President is never really going wield the power of the Presidency.
If Sanders or Clinton are more likely than their base actuary tables to croak in office the people deserve to know, so that a rational decision can be at least attempted by the electorate on if they want to take a risk on the VP/Presidential ticket.
As if predicting the death of any one individual, with no known fatal conditions or diseases, from his/her medical records nine years out has any validity. Had there been full disclosure would FDR or JFK been elected?
Two of the youngest Presidents would have died in office due to natural causes if they’d been given a second term: Chester Arthur, James Polk. Only three Presidents have died in office from natural causes: Harrison, Harding, and FDR. (Compared with four that were assassinated.) JFK may not have made it through eight years. LBJ would barely have made it through a second elected term. Who would have projected that the multi-heart attack and coronary surgery victim wouldn’t have been good to go for another seven years at least after GWB? Still alive at 74 while LBJ was dead at 65. Carter and GHW Bush are now 92 years old (not now physically or mentally fit for the Presidency, but both could easily have made it to 82 in office and not been noticeably worse than they were when they were actually in office). Reagan was obviously ga-ga by ’84 and it wasn’t difficult to see mental impairment in ’80, but his medical records wouldn’t have had any such notation from ’79 through ’84.
Bob Dole is near 93 years old, but he exibited frailty in ’96. Such impairment and intellectual shortcomings are more difficult to see with candidates that are managed like hot-house flowers. Reagan and GWB for example. Sanders doesn’t have, nor could he afford, such management, and he’s exhibiting more energy and cognitive wherewithal than a very young slacker like Rubio. Clinton is making a big show not to be seen as being managed like a hot house flower, but it’s a show; so we can’t read her authentic health and stamina.
It’s all somewhat of a crap shoot. Voters should always consider the “what if” and evaluate the VP selection accordingly. In ’08 near 45% of the electorate either didn’t do that or were too ignorant not to recognize that Palin was scarily unqualified. It’s also why I’m not favorable to candidates that don’t choose a VP that will be an authentic partner or that will supplant an impaired but living POTUS.
It sounds so practical that candidate medical records should be released, but it’s unlikely to do much good and can easily do harm.
You make a very strong argument here.
So… I was kind of under the impression that to determine if said Presidential candidate had a terminal condition, we’d need the medical records released to know about it.
As for your other points, actuaries pretty accurately predict lots of things. Even on an individual level. GHWB and GWB both are beating the odds. However by definition that doesn’t mean that everyone will. Sanders and Clinton stand very good chances of beating the odds. But they also stand, by definition, very good chances of falling within the mean.
However, none of the above matters without having at least some formal knowledge. If that formal knowledge hurts a candidate, tough shit. I don’t think you’d exactly shed a tear if Hilary Clinton’s medical records made her unelectable in the primary because it showed she actually had had a stroke.
I’d rather not go down that road. If physicians can’t predict which patients will be dead in eight years, actuaries sure as hall can’t either.
Why do you want to give voters (who aren’t all that smart and informed to begin with) a tool for them to discriminate against candidates that have some non-life threatening medical condition? There aren’t too many politicians like Paul Tsongas that would run for the office with the knowledge that their health is precarious and also hide that from the public. Guiliani and Kerry were treated for prostate and didn’t hide it. McCain was treated for melanoma and revealed it as well. (His VP pick and not cancer made him unsuitable for the office.) If Clinton had a stroke and is at risk for more strokes and chooses to hide that; it’s her choice. It’s not as if she hasn’t previously and somewhat often demonstrated that she lies and that’s what voters should pay attention to and not a medical record that they don’t have the knowledge or skill to read and understand.
People defy the odds all the time. Sergei Grinkov dropped dead at the age of 28, and Sheryl Sandberg’s husband did the same at 47. John Adams lived to the ripe old age of 91 without heart/artery surgeries, statins, new hips or knees.
Meet the 102-Year-Old Woman Still Teaching School. Oh, and Jimmy Carter still teaches Sunday School.
I’m going to add one more thing. In 1972 George McGovern knew his colleague Tom Eagleton well enough to be confident that Eagleton was physically and mentally capable of being VP and if need be POTUS in the coming four years. And McGovern was absolutely correct in his assessment. Then some jerks accessed Eagleton’s medical records from a time when he experienced a severe depression and the public freaked as they got it wrong.
btw — you will always get my take wrong if you continue to assume that ethics are situational or partisan for me. Or merely applied as convenient and beneficial to whatever I desire. Those willing to lie, cheat, or steal their way to a win are liars, cheaters, and thieves.