these comments appeared in response to a Paul Krugman column titled, “Trump’s Deadly Narcissism”
Richard Luettgen
is a trusted commenter New Jersey September 29, 2017
Jefferson and Hamilton could have been characterized as “narcissists”, although their intellects likely shielded them from the worst consequences. Then again, one theory about the motivation for the duel with Burr that resulted in Hamilton’s death could have been a carelessness on Hamilton’s part occasioned by narcissistic over-confidence.
Garfield was by all accounts a narcissist, although any threat to us was cut rather short by his assassination. LBJ was more transparently a narcissist than any other person who served as president before Trump. Even more than Bill Clinton, which is going some.
By one way or another, we survived all of them. It’s likely we’ll survive Trump, as well.
It’s entertaining that for so many years a majority of Americans disapproved of Barack Obama as president and Paul dismissed those polls with contempt. Now, of course, similar polls on Trump have taken on a miraculous legitimacy. Quelle surprise.
Paul first admits that it’s hard to quantify the federal response to the very real humanitarian crises in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, then criticizes it anyway, blaming Trump’s “narcissism”. He might at least await Monday’s column, when we’re likely to know a lot more about what’s being done; but that wouldn’t support a charge of narcissistic neglect today. Quelle ne fut pas ma surprise.
bb
Washington DC September 29, 2017
Richard,
I am professionally qualified to tell you that narcissism is of different types, and that Trump’s narcissism is of such severity and of such a nature that it relies on active aggression and active denial of reality. In fact, it is psychotic in that it is driven by a grandiosity that will not be defeated, and that grandiosity denies reality, creates its own fantasy assertion of reality, and asserts and projects that, as he must always feel superordinate. This response is meant to be brief and in plain English. It is plainly observable that Trump does these things, and that his problems of thought and subsequent behavior are incomparable to any known predecessor.
Campaign Financing
The current methods of financing have been described as a money race and a longing for public financing has been shown. Unfortunately, public financing may be simply impossible in the current atmosphere. Attention to our methods of financing has been rewarding in the past but spending more than your opponent doesn’t get you a win. Campaigns target the candidate’s most charismatic side, if the candidate can excite a crowd. If not, there is little that can be done. Propaganda supporting the campaign platform is given mass distribution, and variations of the message should be numerous; seeing the same message over and over again is likely to make the observer tune out.
Given that the legal rules that apply to campaign financing are the same for both parties, there is no ethical bar to Democrats creating PACs and other financing “tricks” (cheats.) There are probably a significant number of extremely wealthy people who are interested in contributing to Democratic causes, possibly just as many as those who contribute to the other side. Using their money is not illegal, nor under the current circumstances is it unethical.
Selection of Candidates
A nationwide search for a politician with charisma needs to be undertaken. Without that, there is little help for the campaign. In the 2016 presidential election, the Republican had all the charisma, even though he was a disgusting person; that charisma made the difference among rural white, uneducated voters whose votes have a disproportionate effect on the Electoral College. There is a sad need for a John F. Kennedy-like figure who can make people feel loved and cared for.
A Note on the Democratic Platform, “Reparations”, and Compassion
While the word “reparations” is fraught with unpleasant meanings to those who feel that they would suffer from reparations, a better word would be “affirmative action.” Since so many minority children have been deprived of adequate nutrition and adequate guidance as well as early education, applying affirmative action early in life would have the most effect. Training of children to make them more competitive with their peers by compensatory schooling is the best way to create an affirmative solution to the problems of poverty and race. Programs that give children money for doing well in school would go a long way towards improving the economy around the school as well as training children to believe that they can get ahead by applying themselves. It will take time to raise up a class of better-prepared students to go to medical and graduate school, but that is the best way to solve the problem of under-representation of minority blacks and Hispanics in the professions.
Nonetheless, the Democratic Party needs to become the party of compassion for everyone and help to all those who need it. Only then will it deserve to win the elections. Propaganda has painted the Democrats as elitist and uncaring about poor white people, as well as being hypocritical towards minorities; they are derided as playing “issue politics.” This negative propaganda needs to be contradicted by showing compassion for all the people displaced by the destruction of manufacturing industries and coal mines, with intensive programs to rehabilitate and support people unemployed by factory closures. These are the people who have been hurt by the changes in society over the last forty or fifty years. They need reparations too.
Note to the reader: I have been working on this idea for a long time and have posted it twice, this last June and August, As The Politics of Compassion, Parts I and II. It is to save the Democratic Party and win the elections for a change, then get a supermajority in Congress. I wanted to re-establish the Democrats, because they are the most likely to show compassion in the allocation of the resources at hand. By compassion, I mean the Buddhist concept.
To recapitulate for emphasis: the Democratic Party needs a platform, propaganda, and voter turnout. These three legs of an election program are all critical to democratic success.
Fight for our legal rights
We will start by assuming an equal playing field but if the leadership of the Democratic Party learns that, for any reason, a level playing field is not available, special tactics must be introduced. Should gerrymandering be present, or active attempts at voter suppression, these must be dealt with by lawyers expert in these fields. When there are thugs beating up people in the street, physical force by protesters trained in street brawling should be enlisted. If the paper ballot is being corrupted by computer malware then expert hackers should be employed.
The Democratic Party Platform
The first leg of the Party should be its platform. This is most important because it is, after all, what we are fighting for. The platform should be egalitarian, democratic, and oriented towards the human rights of the individual member of the Party (and indeed the rights of all people) , particularly when the member is discriminated against because of color or gender (or gender preference, for that matter.) The platform should support strong central and state governments (local governments too) that collect taxes according to ability to pay up to, say, 50% of a high-earning individual’s income, but no more than half his income could be taxed away (a sop to those who fear the Roosevelt-Eisenhower days of 70% taxes.) When pressed, the Party can point out that the vast majority of the democratically voting population stands to benefit by higher taxes on the 1%, and economic studies have shown the economy to be stimulated significantly by higher taxes when fairly collected. In addition, we should say that the burden of taxes should fall on those with the greatest ability to pay. Then sometimes the IRS has to be militarized. No, just kidding.
One of the problems that low income taxes on the wealthy related to the poor cause is exaggeration of wealth inequality. Low taxes enhance inequality. High levels of inequality are associated with social unrest and civil rebellion and that is bad. The point is that the very poorest members of society desperately need some sort of social safety net to protect them from becoming homeless, with nothing to lose, and liable to throw their lives away in some desperate, violent act of protest. So taxes must, at least protect these members of society from their circumstances with a roof over their heads, a bed, a hot meal, and a job to go to.
Central and peripheral governments
These strong central governments will be oriented towards problems that affect the nation as a whole, particularly foreign affairs. At the same time, the federal government must have departments that embody the concepts listed in the Preamble to the Constitution in order to implement attempts to manage those problems. In addition, such things that already exist in some form such as a Department of Highways and Bridges should be included and should be oriented towards coordination of state efforts, supervision of the awarding of federal grant money, and so on. Peripheral governments will be oriented towards infrastructure maintenance and development; local policing; housing the homeless; local emergency planning; fire and medical services; and other strictly local problems. Sometimes it will be necessary to change our current government in fairly small ways, to add services for the homeless for example.
One of the canards of the Republican Party has always been that we have too much government, it should be shrunk and simplified, it is taking aways our Rights, and so on. Not to say that they are wrong, but we do have significantly less government than the European, or other civilized countries, with the exception that we seem to have many more men in prison than any other country. As Democrats we should be disturbed by this and in favor of the rehabilitation of the criminal and the protection of his rights (but not at the expense of his fellow citizens.) Drug treatment, humane confinement, parole, and the provision of jobs with living wages to ex-prisoners should be priorities of a Democratically-led penal system.
A necessary component of government will be an active Inspector General in each and every major department of government. Only regular and careful internal inspection can ensure that the departments are not wasteful of funds, do not show unfair preferences, and do not create an atmosphere of bribery or corruption.
Current deficiencies in the system
The Democratic Party has a platform but it is probably not well-known to voters. Elections have been about the politician, not about his plans for his office. Revision of the platform to make it simpler and clearer is important to the development of a plan for winning the election. Most people don’t realize that they are voting for principles of human equality, fair play, and support for everyone. They think that, in voting for Democrats, they are voting for “tax and spend” or rights for minorities with whom they are not connected– since the majority of voters are still white and privileged in some way. White women seem to show distinct attitudes of privilege even though they are still restricted by lower wages than white men. In the last election, 53% of white women voted for Don the Con.
The platform must make it clear that the principles of fair taxation and the need for redistribution of a portion of the nation’s income– a portion that everyone can afford to contribute. Currently, taxation takes away a larger proportion of the poor person’s income than of the wealthy person’s. This is not fair. Wealthy people should contribute their fair share towards the maintenance of the state: infrastructure, administration, and support of health, education, and food and housing. The wealthy are disproportionately greater users of the resources needed by all people, for example, the air, which they use for their private jets to take them wherever they want to go. In addition, the wealthy take up a larger proportion of the policeman’s time in guarding them and their houses. So for them to say they don’t need the government is hypocritical.
At the same time, the platform must support human equality and freedom. The country has come a long way in a very short time. Gay marriage has just been recognized as legal recently and not everyone agrees with the Supreme Court on this. So human equality and human rights are things that still need to be fought for.
Democratic propaganda
Democratic propaganda is traditional but now needs to place an emphasis on new internet-based methods of targeting and the production of new, short items such as six-second videos that will fit on social media, photos with pithy sayings, publication of news that is unbiased and points out Republican-caused weaknesses in the economy and incidents of discrimination, and on and on.
By “internet-based methods” I refer to the Republican use of Cambridge Analytica with Russian help to develop targeted lists of people who were sent specific types of advertising based on their profiles. Perhaps I should use “alleged” in the previous sentence, but I don’t think so.
Propaganda must be factual because there is no advantage in repeating obvious lies. If only factual information is spread, the listeners will gradually come to trust the source better than the enemy’s source.
Voter Turnout
Turning out the voter is a critical part of the process– it cannot be ignored if winning is contemplated. Using targeted voter lists to determine, and verify that every person has an opportunity to vote, local party organization should determine if they can provide necessary transportation. It may be economical to hire a bus to take groups of people who are contacted beforehand and express a need for transportation (or else the local party member has determined that they probably have a need, see also the targeted voter lists.) In fact, in some urban areas, it may be possible to hire a bus that will take almost anybody to the polls and provide propaganda on the bus.
Comment of the Day: A Failure to Govern
This comment came in response to an op-ed by David Brooks stating that Don the Con is a buffoon (like Abbie Hoffman) who is breaking up/destroying the “meritocratic establishment” which will have to be rebuilt…
M
Seattle 26 minutes ago
I don’t know. Mr. Brooks keeps missing the opportunity to address real crises in his party (Republican, I presume) and his nation. This week, the Republican party has been pushing an utterly and unequivocally disastrous piece of healthcare legislation that would not address any of the problems with the ACA, but which might well collapse our entire healthcare system. That is so irresponsible, it is hard to find the right words to express the sheer madness of it. Trump and the Republicans in congress are ignoring Americans in peril in Puerto Rico. Oh yeah, and Mr. Trump is toying with nuclear war with North Korea and stoking racial discord here at home.
It seems to me that the Republican party is suffering a grave moral failure, and that failure is placing our nation and even our planet in true, tangible danger. There is a failure of responsibility at every level in the Republican party, from the WH to the Congress to state/local legislatures to conservative punditry to individual Republican voters (including those motivated by racial grievances and those willing to stand by overt racism).
Instead of addressing the profound failures of the conservative movement at this historic moment, Mr. Brooks suggests that the responsibility falls on…well, everyone else. I think you need to take another look, Mr. Brooks. The athletes this weekend elevated the debate with grace, civic spirit, and unity. How can those on the right rise up to meet them?
Not to mention the lack of response by the highest authorities to real crises in Houston (flooding from a record rainfall and a hurricane) Charlottesville (rioting and a right-wing terror attack by vehicle) Puerto Rico (destruction of the electrical system by hurricanes) Mexico (two earthquakes) and so on… instead of responding to real crises, Don the Con manufactures fake crises over trivial issues that divide his base from the “meritocratic establishment” (whatever that is.)
From a Washington post article today detailing the subjects of ads placed on Facebook by Russian agents: divisive social subjects, not the election as such…
“Is it a goal of the Kremlin to encourage discord in American society? The answer to that is yes,” said former U.S. ambassador to Russia Michael A. McFaul, director of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. “More generally, Putin has an idea that our society is imperfect, that our democracy is not better than his, so to see us in conflict on big social issues is in the Kremlin’s interests.”
Incidentally, the $100 K in ads that were discovered by Facebook investigators probably represents the tip of the iceberg of such advertisements– since all of them were from accounts disguised to look like they originated in the US, and they were difficult to trace.
Kara Ben Nemsi
On the Orient Express 17 minutes ago
Let’s be clear: There is no first strike scenario that disables North Korea’s nuclear arsenal and prevents a nuclear retaliation except for a massive first nuclear strike from SLBMs with little or no warning for North Korea resulting in its total annihilation, including vaporizing all its inhabitants. The objective cannot be achieved with a conventional force. That would give Kim all the time he needs to lop a nuke towards the US mainland.
In the past, Kim could have relied upon the fact that no American President would choose that option, as it would make the US the pariah of the world. With Trump that calculus is out of the window. But as the analysts write here, if Trump is not following through now, he will look like a paper tiger, making Obama’s red line to Assad look like a small matter.
I am starting to get a little nervous.
Bruce Rozenblit
is a trusted commenter Kansas City, MO 19 hours ago
How can he negotiate if to Trump, words can mean anything which means words mean nothing? His followers still recite the “don’t listen to his words just pay attention to what’s in his heart” mantra. How can we determine what’s in his heart if he doesn’t tell us with words? How can we believe those words if they can mean anything?
Oh, but Trump has a vaccine for this madness. He says keep em guessing. He won’t reveal his true strategy because that would give away his hand.
He has no strategy, he has no plan. He doesn’t know what to do. All he can do is threaten and bluster and say crazy stuff that give his followers fits of joy. How many of of them can find the USA on a map of the world? Hint. One in five Americans cannot.
This strategy (insanity?) may have made him money in TV and real estate, but being president has nothing to do with either. What the president says has the greatest weight of any words in the world. Except now those words are just threats, bombast, and childish name calling. His followers love him for it.
The rest of the world expects our president to act like a president, not a schoolyard bully. They will respond accordingly.
If Trump reneges on the Iran deal, Iran will never negotiate again and will go full speed to maximize their armaments. They have no choice. Bullies cause you to do that.
N. Korea will follow likewise. Not only do they think Trump is nuts, but cannot be trusted at all. Words do matter for a president.
Well, here’s an interesting thing. Only 20% of Chinese own cars; they are buying them at the fastest rate of any country in the world. China is also investing more money in battery technology than any other country in the world.
Facts summarized from an “Oppenheimer Funds” blog post of March 29, 2017:
It seems that, around the beginning of the 20th century, cities were drowning in horse manure produced by the animals that they needed to carry them around. New York, for example, produced 2.5 million pounds of horse manure a day in 1893. Not to mention the urine also produced in prodigious quantities. Because of the expense and noxious odor of the manure that had to be removed every day, people flocked to horseless carriages as soon as practical (or even impractical) models became available. By 1912, cars outnumbered horses in New York.
China is currently suffering extreme pollution problems (like manure, only in the air) in some of its cities and cannot tolerate any increases in emissions as the rate of car ownership increases. So battery-powered cars are essential for China’s development and their government is fully aware of this issue. Steps are being taken, money is being invested, and electric cars will be outnumbering internal combustion-motivated cars very soon. What about the US? Let Don the Con worry about that.
This article in New Scientist exposes the century-old fraud that prevented electric buses from getting a foothold in London when gas (petrol) powered buses were in their infancy. The electric bus presented obvious advantages over the gasoline-powered bus because of the noise and pollution that first-generation internal combustion engines produced. However, in 1907 when a battery-powered bus was introduced in London for the first time, the people in charge of the new bus company were swindlers. They promised 300 buses for the streets of London, silent and dependable, but only fielded 20. The rest of the money, 95,000 British pounds, or roughly $15 million in today’s dollars altogether, was siphoned off for the private use of the two principals. The service collapsed in 1910 despite being incredibly popular. Because of the rapid evolution of the internal combustion engine, the collapse of the leading battery powered fleet led to the adoption of gas-powered buses despite their noise and smell. A battery-powered bus fleet lingered in service in Brighton for another seven years.
Today, plans are being laid for a wholesale return to battery power because diesel fumes are becoming more and more culturally objectionable as we learn more about their effects. Europe and Great Britain are both moving strongly towards replacement of internal combustion engines with battery-powered vehicles over the next twenty to thirty years. The United States would do well to imitate them, and we suspect that independent adoption of battery vehicles will be extremely popular in this country regardless of what the government does.
As quoted in the New York Times today:
“Trump shot himself in the foot with his unabashedly undiplomatic United Nations General Assembly speech,” said Lee Sung-yoon, a Korea expert at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. “By threatening to totally destroy North Korea, he created the impression around the world that it is actually the United States — instead of North Korea — that’s motivated by aggression. In effect, Trump gave Kim Jong-un a freebie for another major provocation. Kim will oblige, and claim that it was in ‘self-defense’ against Trump’s unnerving threats.”
Since the revelations about the meeting between Natalia Veselnitskaya and Donald Trump Jr., evidence of the Trump campaign’s violations of the laws against accepting help from foreign governments has only mounted. Let’s hope Don the Con has a leg to stand on when he’s in the White House.
