11/16
You can't have change without change. Everyone is up in arms, legitimately, regarding Trump's seeming disdain for political norms. refusing to divulge tax returns or provide fulsome health record, living in Trump Tower, security clearances for children, tweeting, picking highly controversial advisors and cabinet officers. Others will focus on his inability / unwillingness to establish effective blind trust.
I believe America needs to let this play out, albeit within bounds. People want change and it is important for these groups to recognize, first hand, that change is not necessarily what they expected. They don't believe the mainstream media, feel the government cooks the books, and that insiders control government to their detriment. In order bring back the credibility of these institutions they have to see Trump fail: alternatively, should he succeed the lessons will be learned by the establishment. Either way let him try.
My Slice of Life ..... a compendium of thoughts on the American political-economy.
Friday, December 30, 2016
Presidential Tweets: The New Normal?
11/20
At first I was dismayed by Trump's continuing to tweet after winning the election. I thought it was un-presidential by its nature and, to me anyway, the tweets were somewhat unsettling. ”That said, what's wrong with the President sharing his personal, as opposed to 'presidential' views on issues as long as the two can be sorted out? Can you imagine how much more interesting Obama would have been over the last eight years if he tweeted out his personal feelings and views while taking the more deliberate and presidential stance when it was called for? How funny was the WH correspondents' dinner skit with his 'anger manager'?
We all know that beneath the Presidential demeanor of relative detachment from the day-to-day happenings lies someone who is peaked at the news coverage, treatment by Congress or the like. As President he needs to take the reflective, big picture, high road: it's what is expected if not demanded. What if the President could also let his hair down and share his true feelings? Sure, it will get him points with some and lose points with others, but it will provide information on what he is thinking and feeling even if no 'presidential' action or statement is forthcoming. At a minimum it will provide good gist for pundits and social media. Historian Brinkley, for one believes “The words of this guy just don’t matter.” “I think we’re going to have to wait and see what his actions are and judge him by his record.”
Vent away, president-elect Trump, on your success in keeping jobs in America, the wrongs done to the vice-president elect, the crappy coverage of the NY Times, your rationale for settling your Trump University lawsuit, and the quality of the SNL skit. I can tell the difference between a personal rant and presidential decision. For better or worse, I want to know what you're feeling. It helps me understand the human side, for better or worse.
At first I was dismayed by Trump's continuing to tweet after winning the election. I thought it was un-presidential by its nature and, to me anyway, the tweets were somewhat unsettling. ”That said, what's wrong with the President sharing his personal, as opposed to 'presidential' views on issues as long as the two can be sorted out? Can you imagine how much more interesting Obama would have been over the last eight years if he tweeted out his personal feelings and views while taking the more deliberate and presidential stance when it was called for? How funny was the WH correspondents' dinner skit with his 'anger manager'?
We all know that beneath the Presidential demeanor of relative detachment from the day-to-day happenings lies someone who is peaked at the news coverage, treatment by Congress or the like. As President he needs to take the reflective, big picture, high road: it's what is expected if not demanded. What if the President could also let his hair down and share his true feelings? Sure, it will get him points with some and lose points with others, but it will provide information on what he is thinking and feeling even if no 'presidential' action or statement is forthcoming. At a minimum it will provide good gist for pundits and social media. Historian Brinkley, for one believes “The words of this guy just don’t matter.” “I think we’re going to have to wait and see what his actions are and judge him by his record.”
Vent away, president-elect Trump, on your success in keeping jobs in America, the wrongs done to the vice-president elect, the crappy coverage of the NY Times, your rationale for settling your Trump University lawsuit, and the quality of the SNL skit. I can tell the difference between a personal rant and presidential decision. For better or worse, I want to know what you're feeling. It helps me understand the human side, for better or worse.
Donald Trump vs the Fourth Estate
11/22
Donald Trump's attacks on "failing NY Times" seem incessant. If he can win this battle by causing the NYTimes to think twice about the the tone of their news and editorial coverage, he may well believe the rest of the print media will fall in line. Alternatively, if he can convince his base that NYTimes reporting is biased, the power of NY Times' investigative reporting is diminished. Today's tweets saying NYTimes changed the terms of the scheduled meeting -which included and on the record session-are strongly denied by the paper: a case of he said she said at this point.
The adversarial relationships between Trump and the media will continue unabated, I believe, as Trump seeks to discredit reporting on the backgrounds of his appointees, involvement of his children in his administration, conflicts of interest regarding his businesses and the like. Presidents have traditionally accepted the fact that their every thought and deed will be 'unfairly" treated in the media: imagine how Obama felt about Fox News coverage for example, never mind Trump's attack on his citizenship. I'm not sure Trump has the temperament to recognize that such coverage is not personal: it just comes with the job. His unwillingness to deal with the adversarial relationships with the press that come with the job explains his aversion to press conferences. Can you imagine his response to some of the questions that certainly would be forthcoming and having these responses displayed on television?
Donald Trump's attacks on "failing NY Times" seem incessant. If he can win this battle by causing the NYTimes to think twice about the the tone of their news and editorial coverage, he may well believe the rest of the print media will fall in line. Alternatively, if he can convince his base that NYTimes reporting is biased, the power of NY Times' investigative reporting is diminished. Today's tweets saying NYTimes changed the terms of the scheduled meeting -which included and on the record session-are strongly denied by the paper: a case of he said she said at this point.
The adversarial relationships between Trump and the media will continue unabated, I believe, as Trump seeks to discredit reporting on the backgrounds of his appointees, involvement of his children in his administration, conflicts of interest regarding his businesses and the like. Presidents have traditionally accepted the fact that their every thought and deed will be 'unfairly" treated in the media: imagine how Obama felt about Fox News coverage for example, never mind Trump's attack on his citizenship. I'm not sure Trump has the temperament to recognize that such coverage is not personal: it just comes with the job. His unwillingness to deal with the adversarial relationships with the press that come with the job explains his aversion to press conferences. Can you imagine his response to some of the questions that certainly would be forthcoming and having these responses displayed on television?
Trump's Distain over US Intelligence
11/28
President-elect advisor Conway says not to worry about Trump's turning CIA briefers away since he is receiving information from a variety of sources. I guess Trump feels CIA cadre were all hired by Obama and are peddling what must be biased analysis (since said analysis does not square with his personal convictions/understandings). I would be amazed if he even understands how the intelligence collection, analysis, and dissemination cycle has been honed over decades to cull out false information and analyst bias.
If Trump disdains considered analysis from experienced intelligence professionals in favor of the views of those who are peddling their points of view and/or unverified "facts" we are in real trouble. The Iraqi intelligence 'failures' were due, in part, to the Pentagon's use of sources deemed unreliable by the CIA. Can you imagine establishing our policy towards Iran based on the views of Israelis and the Iranian diaspora? At least Pence is receiving the briefings, but we don't know what role Pence plays in decision making.
This sad state of affairs was predicted by Robert Gates in a September WSJ editorial. He criticizes the GOP standard-bearer as “willfully ignorant about the rest of the world, about our military and its capabilities, and about government itself.” “He has no clue about the difference between negotiating a business deal and negotiating with sovereign nations,” Gates writes. “A thin-skinned, temperamental, shoot-from-the-hip and lip, uninformed commander-in-chief is too great a risk for America.”
President-elect advisor Conway says not to worry about Trump's turning CIA briefers away since he is receiving information from a variety of sources. I guess Trump feels CIA cadre were all hired by Obama and are peddling what must be biased analysis (since said analysis does not square with his personal convictions/understandings). I would be amazed if he even understands how the intelligence collection, analysis, and dissemination cycle has been honed over decades to cull out false information and analyst bias.
If Trump disdains considered analysis from experienced intelligence professionals in favor of the views of those who are peddling their points of view and/or unverified "facts" we are in real trouble. The Iraqi intelligence 'failures' were due, in part, to the Pentagon's use of sources deemed unreliable by the CIA. Can you imagine establishing our policy towards Iran based on the views of Israelis and the Iranian diaspora? At least Pence is receiving the briefings, but we don't know what role Pence plays in decision making.
This sad state of affairs was predicted by Robert Gates in a September WSJ editorial. He criticizes the GOP standard-bearer as “willfully ignorant about the rest of the world, about our military and its capabilities, and about government itself.” “He has no clue about the difference between negotiating a business deal and negotiating with sovereign nations,” Gates writes. “A thin-skinned, temperamental, shoot-from-the-hip and lip, uninformed commander-in-chief is too great a risk for America.”
Catch 22
Catch 22: a problematic situation for which the only solution is denied by a circumstance inherent in the problem or by a rule.
The logic going into the Trump presidency is clear and documented by a number of recent actions.
The logic going into the Trump presidency is clear and documented by a number of recent actions.
- Donald Trump makes a statement that is factually false.
- The mainstream media researches and documents the falsehood.
- Trump supporters, who believe Trump's ongoing characterizations of the media as biased and dishonest, either don't follow mainstream coverage -print, TV, or cable- or take their refutation as an example of their dishonesty and biased coverage.
- Republican leaders, including those who are not in the Trump camp, do not acknowledge what they know to be falsehoods. To do so would be to acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes.
- Right wing media either perpetuate the falsehood or ignore it.
- Those on the right assume he is telling the truth or approximately so: those on the right see him as ill informed or deceptive: the two grow further apart.
On a number of issues this discordance doesn't matter. It does matter however when Trump's statements go to the heart of our democratic norms. A good example is his Tweet stating that three million undocumented immigrants voted for Hillary Clinton.
- The mainstream media conclusively documented that this claim was totally without merit.
- Mitch McConnell refused to directly address the issue of voter fraud: "So, it's an interesting discussion but it strikes me as totally irrelevant. Time to move on."
- Fox News coverage pointed out that there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud.
- On 60 Minutes Paul Ryan refused to repudiate Donald Trump's claims. When asked he said he didn't know and that he wasn't really focused on these things.
- Reince Priebus, currently the chairman of the Republican National Committee and Mr. Trump’s pick for chief of staff, told CBS’s John Dickerson that “no one really knows” if millions of people voted illegally. “It’s possible.”
The bottom line seems to be a nation where some 50% of the people talking past the other 50% percent with no means of even reaching agreement on what is true, never mind the role of government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)