Davide’s review of Propaganda > Likes and Comments
33 likes · Like
Alan wrote: ""In everyday language, a psychopath is generally described as someone capable of appearing well adapted to society while manipulating others, whereas a sociopath is seen as more impulsive and less ..."
I have great faith in American democracy. You have long been an example to the world and, for generations, you have helped safeguard freedom on behalf of humanity. A few sociopaths or psychopaths are not going to change that. But perhaps we should also ask ourselves why, if Trump has so many flaws, Americans chose him. Could it be that the alternative seemed even worse?
Trump and his minions are authoritarian through and through. He publicly advertises that he wants to be king and pope. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Kamala Harris were/are clearly within the democratic-republican (constitutional democracy) tradition of the United States; Trump hates that tradition, as evidenced by his public adulation of dictators worldwide and his deprecation of democratic-republican leaders in Europe and the United States. One may disagree with specific policy proposals of Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris (I myself do not agree with everything they say), but they fit squarely within the US constitutional tradition; Trump, Vance, and the rest are ideologically opposed to that tradition. This fact differentiates them from George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and other Republicans of the pre-Trump era. During recent years, the Republican Party has come within the grip of fascist ideology, which is why many decent Republicans have left the party.
Why has the US electorate nevertheless voted in such a way that the Electoral College has chosen Trump twice? I give my answer to that question and the only real solution in my essay “Education in Ethics, Critical Thinking, History, and Government,” the links to which can be located at https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/... (Goodreads does not permit links outside of Goodreads in the comments to book reviews).
Alan wrote: "Trump and his minions are authoritarian through and through. He publicly advertises that he wants to be king and pope. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Kamala Harris were/are clearly within the democrati..."
Sometimes I get the impression that Americans are not fully aware of the strength of their own democracy. Two hundred and fifty years have passed since the United States showed the world that a society of free men, equal before the law, could actually exist. The United States withstood pressure from the great European monarchies and the British Empire, survived a brutal civil war, served as a bulwark against communism, and today is the world's oldest surviving democracy.
The Supreme Court has demonstrated its independence and its willingness to resist pressure from Trump, and it has had no difficulty blocking measures it considered unlawful. At the midterm elections, citizens have the opportunity to change the composition of Congress and create a check on executive power. The American system has shown that it works, and I think this gives Americans confidence in it.
At least, that is how it looks to me from the outside, and I realize that, since I do not experience American society from within, my perspective is necessarily incomplete. Whenever I study American society, I come across courageous intellectuals and people deeply committed to freedom who remind me of the first fathers of democracy who emerged in the Mediterranean world. You yourself introduced me to Roger Williams, whom I now regard as the father of religious toleration and who clearly influenced Locke.
You say that Clinton and Harris held positions that were open to criticism, but those positions did not threaten the survival of American democracy. But is that enough? Is it enough to persuade voters? If voters had more faith in the system than these politicians apparently did, they might simply be unconcerned about the institutional threat and choose according to the political agenda they preferred.
But, as I said, mine is necessarily a partial perspective, since I do not experience American society firsthand.
Yes, it looks very different to someone who lives, hourly and daily, in the United States and is politically aware. The Supreme Court has resisted Trump in some cases but encouraged him in others. Six of its nine members were nominated by Republican presidents. Most of these six members have constitutional theories that, to their minds, necessitate their permitting Trump to do what he will, regardless of what the Constitution might otherwise require. Only Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett occasionally buck the three more conservative justices and join the the three justices that have a more liberal (and, in my view, accurate) interpretation of the Constitution. And Justice Barrett does not always provide that fifth vote, as happened in a very recent case. So, the Supreme Court, as presently constituted, is not helping very much to stop the advance of MAGA authoritarianism. The midterms may help, but we have learned not to trust opinion polls, so it is a matter, at the present time, of holding one's breath. And even if the Democrats regain control of Congress (or one branch thereof) in the midterm elections, Trump will try to do everything he can do by executive order, and it remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will allow him to get away with it. Generally, the lower federal courts have been more protective of constitutional principles in recent years than the Supreme Court (which routinely reverses the lower federal courts on such issues).
I don't excuse anyone who voted for Trump, who has long been known for his amorality and authoritarian inclinations. People voted against Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris for many reasons, most of them based on ignorance of what was really going on. My essay (cited in my previous comment) explains the only (in my view) long-term solution to the problem of voter ignorance. A more short-term (and partial) solution might be the abolition of the Electoral College and its replacement by direct popular vote, though that is not likely to happen any time in the near future.
One thing Republicans historically did right, long ago, was to get passed a constitutional amendment prohibiting a president from being elected to more than two terms. However, it is a question whether Trump will attempt a real coup d'etat at the end of this term and serve a third, unconstitutional term. He continues to tease the possibility that he might actually do that.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
Alan wrote: ""In everyday language, a psychopath is generally described as someone capable of appearing well adapted to society while manipulating others, whereas a sociopath is seen as more impulsive and less ..."I have great faith in American democracy. You have long been an example to the world and, for generations, you have helped safeguard freedom on behalf of humanity. A few sociopaths or psychopaths are not going to change that. But perhaps we should also ask ourselves why, if Trump has so many flaws, Americans chose him. Could it be that the alternative seemed even worse?
Trump and his minions are authoritarian through and through. He publicly advertises that he wants to be king and pope. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Kamala Harris were/are clearly within the democratic-republican (constitutional democracy) tradition of the United States; Trump hates that tradition, as evidenced by his public adulation of dictators worldwide and his deprecation of democratic-republican leaders in Europe and the United States. One may disagree with specific policy proposals of Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris (I myself do not agree with everything they say), but they fit squarely within the US constitutional tradition; Trump, Vance, and the rest are ideologically opposed to that tradition. This fact differentiates them from George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and other Republicans of the pre-Trump era. During recent years, the Republican Party has come within the grip of fascist ideology, which is why many decent Republicans have left the party.Why has the US electorate nevertheless voted in such a way that the Electoral College has chosen Trump twice? I give my answer to that question and the only real solution in my essay “Education in Ethics, Critical Thinking, History, and Government,” the links to which can be located at https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/... (Goodreads does not permit links outside of Goodreads in the comments to book reviews).
Alan wrote: "Trump and his minions are authoritarian through and through. He publicly advertises that he wants to be king and pope. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Kamala Harris were/are clearly within the democrati..."Sometimes I get the impression that Americans are not fully aware of the strength of their own democracy. Two hundred and fifty years have passed since the United States showed the world that a society of free men, equal before the law, could actually exist. The United States withstood pressure from the great European monarchies and the British Empire, survived a brutal civil war, served as a bulwark against communism, and today is the world's oldest surviving democracy.
The Supreme Court has demonstrated its independence and its willingness to resist pressure from Trump, and it has had no difficulty blocking measures it considered unlawful. At the midterm elections, citizens have the opportunity to change the composition of Congress and create a check on executive power. The American system has shown that it works, and I think this gives Americans confidence in it.
At least, that is how it looks to me from the outside, and I realize that, since I do not experience American society from within, my perspective is necessarily incomplete. Whenever I study American society, I come across courageous intellectuals and people deeply committed to freedom who remind me of the first fathers of democracy who emerged in the Mediterranean world. You yourself introduced me to Roger Williams, whom I now regard as the father of religious toleration and who clearly influenced Locke.
You say that Clinton and Harris held positions that were open to criticism, but those positions did not threaten the survival of American democracy. But is that enough? Is it enough to persuade voters? If voters had more faith in the system than these politicians apparently did, they might simply be unconcerned about the institutional threat and choose according to the political agenda they preferred.
But, as I said, mine is necessarily a partial perspective, since I do not experience American society firsthand.
Yes, it looks very different to someone who lives, hourly and daily, in the United States and is politically aware. The Supreme Court has resisted Trump in some cases but encouraged him in others. Six of its nine members were nominated by Republican presidents. Most of these six members have constitutional theories that, to their minds, necessitate their permitting Trump to do what he will, regardless of what the Constitution might otherwise require. Only Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett occasionally buck the three more conservative justices and join the the three justices that have a more liberal (and, in my view, accurate) interpretation of the Constitution. And Justice Barrett does not always provide that fifth vote, as happened in a very recent case. So, the Supreme Court, as presently constituted, is not helping very much to stop the advance of MAGA authoritarianism. The midterms may help, but we have learned not to trust opinion polls, so it is a matter, at the present time, of holding one's breath. And even if the Democrats regain control of Congress (or one branch thereof) in the midterm elections, Trump will try to do everything he can do by executive order, and it remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will allow him to get away with it. Generally, the lower federal courts have been more protective of constitutional principles in recent years than the Supreme Court (which routinely reverses the lower federal courts on such issues).I don't excuse anyone who voted for Trump, who has long been known for his amorality and authoritarian inclinations. People voted against Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris for many reasons, most of them based on ignorance of what was really going on. My essay (cited in my previous comment) explains the only (in my view) long-term solution to the problem of voter ignorance. A more short-term (and partial) solution might be the abolition of the Electoral College and its replacement by direct popular vote, though that is not likely to happen any time in the near future.
One thing Republicans historically did right, long ago, was to get passed a constitutional amendment prohibiting a president from being elected to more than two terms. However, it is a question whether Trump will attempt a real coup d'etat at the end of this term and serve a third, unconstitutional term. He continues to tease the possibility that he might actually do that.
By this definition, Trump is a sociopath and not a psychopath. He makes no attempt to conceal his amorality and irrationality. It's obvious or, at least, should be obvious. On the other hand, about 50% of the American people apparently don't detect this trait.
I note that this book was first published in 1928--before Hitler, before the worst of Stalin, and before Trump. I wonder whether the author would be pleased at how these and similar people applied his recommendations.