Everyone folds like a cheap camera. They are in business for themselves and not for you. Was true in Classical Rome and true now. They posture for votes, not ideology.
Everyone folds like a cheap camera. They are in business for themselves and not for you. Was true in Classical Rome and true now. They posture for votes, not ideology.
“… [L]et those who are to preside over the state obey two precepts of Plato, — one, that they so watch for the well-being of their fellow-citizens that they have reference to it in whatever they do, forgetting their own private interests; the other, that they care for the whole body politic, and not, while they watch over a portion of it, neglect other portions. For, as the guardianship of a minor, so the administration of the state is to be conducted for the benefit, not of those to whom it is intrusted, but of those who are intrusted to their care.”
Cicero was clearly making a point about people like Sulla and Marius with his second duty. Populares vs optimates, which is ironic considering Cicero firmly sided with the optimates. The first one applied to pretty much everyone in Rome.
It's interesting that the only time both precepts were being abided by was during eras of near-dictatorship or actual dictatorship - thinking the first Triumvirate or Caesar's dictatorship. Such naivete as being honorable with everyone got him stabbed a bunch of times. Augustus wasn't so kind.
No doubt the two precepts of Plato that Cicero is referring to would be wonderful in a democracy, but Plato himself was no fan of democracy and imagined these values could only be enforced by a Philosopher King in a dictatorship run by someone who did not want the job. In that sense it's less surprising that Rome only ever approached those two precepts under near dictatorships.
I know the quote is by Cicero, but I always found Plato's view on this both the most and least naive take on government I have ever read. I think he is absolutely correct about the type of person it would take to achieve these precepts. I think he was wildly naive to believe such a person would ever take that job and follow those precepts. I think Murray Rothbard comes closer to the truth on that one.
1. In a democracy, you will always have an incentive to win over the larger group by crushing the rights of the smaller group.
2. Once those tasked with enforcing the rules have all the guns, their first task will be to use those guns to rewrite the rules for themselves.
There is always an uncomfortable connection between dictatorships and the protection of the minority. The moment the last Shah of the Ottoman empire fell we had widespread killing of ethnic groups. The moment Assad fell in Syria all the religious minorities who had been protected were driven out of town. I'm not a booster for dictatorships, but I don't see any other forms of government where those precepts could be enforced. The Founders gave it there best shot with a mixed democratic approach and the outcome was predictable.
>> 1. In a democracy, you will always have an incentive to win over the larger group by crushing the rights of the smaller group.
But that's not what's happening today. Who is most exalted today? PoC, transgender, LGBT, religious minorities and immigrants. All minorities. Seems like the goal is to hopelessly fragment the majority by making them all identify with some sort of exalted oppressed minority.
"Majority" in this sense has more than one meaning (it can also be read as most influence) Pressure groups within a democracy will always use the violence of the State to punish the outgroup. The thing to look at is not who is currently using the government to bludgeon who. The question is what became of the Bill of Rights that were meant to protect you from the bludgeoning? Well, the majority tore them all down to go after their most unpopular enemies ( drug users, sex workers, drug drivers, those who want to smoke inside, those who own guns) and are now shocked to find out with all those protections torn down, the system is being turned on them.
"There is always an uncomfortable connection between dictatorships and the protection of the minority."
This seems to imply constitutional* minority protections cannot work (ordinarily and/or indefinitely) instead of dictatorship. Are you saying this, and if so, what reasons would you give?
-----------
*i.e. a la Bill of Rights, at the "root" level of the law, highly impervious to majority whim
Tyranny of the majority. Constitutional protections erode over time without fresh blood to keep them stable. Minorities by definition lack the ability to defend these protections, usually.
Considering what is going on in the US today, a bill of rights is not much protection when people can figure out an end run around it aka de facto fascism, using private entities to do the work prohibited to government.
HBI did a great job with a short description of the root problem below. Anarchist writers like Rothbard, Goldman and Spooner do a great job of not just describing the problem, but offering potential solutions. I'm only interested in the non-violent kind.
What you describe about minority protections is good on paper, but laws are just that, only words on paper. The real law is set by the people with the power of violence and in a democracy that's the majority. We can go through all 10 amendments to the Bill of Rights. Concepts considered so central to being a human that they were actually considered order above laws. They are now held in lower regard than the democratic laws we have passed that violate them.
Just a partial list. No one would these prison situations meet the definition of cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th:
But because no punishment has been attached to such behavior, the 8th is largely unenforceable against the state. The State cannot be held criminally liable and they are largely protected from civil action through qualified and absolute immunity invented by judges. Our current plea bargain system is a clear violation of the 6th amendment. The ability to be criminally charged by both the State and Federal courts is a clear violation of the prohibition against double jeopardy. That those sitting in places like Riker's Island for years before trial are a clear violation of 6th right to a speedy trial. "The right to face your accuser" is ignored under the 6th with all lifestyle crimes where they make the state the accuser in clear violation of the intent of the 6th. Can you explain how the constant surveillance state of license plate readers, 3rd party doctrine and facial recognition which has turned all public and private space into a panopticon meet the definition of the 4th amendment? Can you explain how all the 3 letter agencies we know have at the federal level involved in State level enforcement not violate the 3rd? Can you explain how the numerous anti-gun laws and regulations don't violate the 2nd by making it impossible to own a gun in many places? Can you explain how hate crime legislation, charging people with talking about previous crimes and laws being passed in many states against protesting along with government agencies working directly with tech companies to remove "fake news" is not a violation of the 1st amendment? How can anyone look at asset forfeiture, parallel construction, civil internment, qualified and absolute immunity, confiscatory tax rates and a hundred other laws that are in clear violation of the Bill of Rights that are enforced with guns and incarceration by the state and not see that the word "Right" is worth less than a law under our democracy we pass in clear violation of the Right? which do you think has the backing of the State, the Rights, or the laws that violate the Rights?
If you are killed by a criminal with a gun, an angry mob carrying torches, or 12 angry jurors that falsely convict you and send you to death, the person on the receiving end feels just as murdered and does not feel better about who does the killing. When you are treated with unfairly with injustice and violence, it's cold comfort whether it was a jury, a criminal, or a mob that violently attacked you.
Those in power don't even pretend to care about the Bill of Rights and bizarrely there are many citizens who seem to be cheering them on. The Biden admin would not be openly admitting to making a Facebook list of users they want banned if there was not support for this by part of the public. You are welcome to tell the people with the guns they are violating your rights. The question is, when they have all the guns and all the prisons, all the surveillance tools and all you have is a piece of paper written about 250 years ago with some scribbles on it called the Bill of Rights, what are you going to do about it?
Thanks for these good points. I imagine you don't believe it is possible for a majority to be raised from birth (even if ideal conditions can be arranged) to understand sufficiently the needs of a democracy? ... so that they never "think like a mob"
I think democracy is a lot like the Constitution. It's something people believe in, hold dear and will fight to the death to protect as long as it applies to them, but will not lift a finger for the Constitutional rights of others. When it comes to groups they don't like, they will actively root for the tyrants against the Constitution.
The Founders had an external threat that forced them to do the impossible. For a short time respect the rights of other people who might disagree with them in order to form a group large enough to fight off the British. When the British were gone, they did what people always do. Immediately start forming groups powerful enough to strip rights from those they disagreed with who did not have the power to defend themselves.
I think Maslow was only 2/3 right. I think after food and shelter, the next strongest human instinct is not sex, but the authoritarian need to control other people you disagree with. Whether it's an American Vice Unit/Guidance Patrol (گشت ارش)/Federal Territories Islamic Religious Department/Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice they always must use violence to punish anyone who deviates from the norm. Humans seem incapable of organizing in a way that extend the same rights they expect to other people. Only an enlightened dictator has been capable of protecting minorities from violent majorities and history shows even that does not always turn out well (Mao).
As long as people insist upon using violence to organize society, things will always end badly.
If we could get violence out of the mix, we'd already have figured that out. It turns out that someone can always resort to it no matter what we do, and without being prepared for violence, you are at risk.
Ultimately all power emanates from a gun (weapon, whatever). With that power of life and death, you can compel obedience. Almost no one wants to die.
I don't think Maslow actually called out sex; his third precept is about intimate relationships, which is not the same as sex. I'm failing in an attempt to think of some dictator who didn't have a concubine or a wife or something of the sort to keep him sated so that he could think about lording it over others in level 4, "esteem needs". Even Hitler had his Eva Braun (or Geli Raubal earlier). Stalin had a succession of women.
You will never remove violence from the human equation, which is why we once had a 2nd amendnment.
You do not need to turn all the violence over to one group and let them organize society based on that. It's the old difference between democracy and liberty cliche (2 wolves and a sheep voting what's for dinner......)
Society can be organized on the least amount of centralized violence possible (violence used to punish violence and maintain contracts) or the most amount of violence possible (violence used to control and dictate human behavior).
My neighbor having a gun doesn't worry me at all. The government being able to break into his house and murder him without any consequences worries me a great deal.
I believe within love and belonging sex is the strongest driver, which is why I separated it out, but we can drop that reference all to together. I think the urge to censor is stronger than our urge for sex.
I would make the point that Rome was more democratic than we are today. There was no such thing as legislation without the approval of the tribes. While the tribes were not represented equally, all freeborn Roman citizens could vote in these elections.
In our representative republic, we never get a choice except in rare cases where there is an I&R vote. Or maybe a school budget. That's about it.
I'm not entirely glossing over rule by decree senatus consultum ultimum, but we've seen that in our own time, haven't we?
Because Rome lasted 1,000 years some periods were certainly more democratic than others. How many votes you had was often dictated by your financial success and they never quite kicked that slave thing, although a slave could earn his freedom in Rome in a way some 16 year old facing multiple life sentences here in the US never will.
I suppose it all comes down to what we compare, but I see your point. I always enjoy your posts and suspect we agree on the larger point that we have not made nearly as much progress as our conceit leads us to believe we have.
More than 30 years ago, one of my wife's former college friends became an aide for a California congressman and she quit after a few years, not because of the open corruption, which she expected, but because almost without exception, the pols she dealt with were unremarkable in all aspects save their narcissism.
Trump's greatest failing in the eyes of the establishment was less his policies than his boorish behavior, which revealed the rot behind the facades they maintain, save for the Obama exception in Flint, where he was so cocksure of himself, he took it a bridge too far, everyone but him seeing it.
Eventually, stuck too long in the system, they lose whatever small connection they once had with us plebes, and do stupid shit, Obama's most glaring example being his decision to campaign for the TPP right up until election day in 2016, so sure Hillary would win, as all his circle knew, he could risk giving ammo to Trump's correct assertion that Hillary was actually for the TPP, no matter what she said. If I had to choose just one reason why Trump won, it would be that choice, as it had to be decisive in his winning the rust belt states that provided the winning margin.
The vast majority of voting Americans, let alone ALL Americans, couldn't tell you what TPP stood for, and if asked to define or explain it, they might be able to mumble a few sentences that included the word "jobs." That's about it. Though Trump carried the election by the thinnest of margins, those thin margins had more to do with the extreme unpopularity of Clinton, and then, by extension when he inserted himself into the discussion, Obama.
By the time Obama got around to touting the TPP on the hustings, Trump had long highlighted and underlined his stance on perhaps the chief campaign issue for voters in 2016---jobs, decent jobs, or lack thereof, for large swaths of Americans, and the economic insecurity it has produced over the last 40 years.
That TPP as an issue was about jobs was mere background by then. And most importantly, let us not forget, THE defining characteristic of 2016: the contrast that voters drew between the two candidates' personalities and their messaging. There was a hot political market for what Trump was selling, not for what Clinton was selling. And Trump's "packaging" had a unique allure all its own.
The problem with your analysis? You're educated, familiar and conversant with the issues and policies that are the work of campaign aides and analysts---most voters, as always, are not. The average voter is motivated by simple campaign slogans, cultural grievances, and the general political anxieties of the moment.
I don’t know if you if you know about this but it’s extremely likely that Bill Clinton rigged the US v FedEx drug trafficking trial in the Spring of 2016 through presiding judge Charles Breyer, his appointee.
FedEx was guilty as sin and has an OCEAN of blood on their hands wrt the opioid crisis.
TPP was a GIGANTIC issue for FedEx and FedEx CEO Fred Smith owns EVERY POTUS back to WJC.
Didn't know any of that, or I had forgotten, an easy thing to do when trying to remember the sins of Bubba. Too bad Bubba gave up on Mickey D's, or we could have been celebrating his death these last several years.
"Was true in Classical Rome..." a slight digression, but on that though it has always amazed me how reading a modern English translation of Cicero's written advice "On running for the [Roman] Consulship" sounds basically indistinguishable from what a modern American politician of some wit and maximum realist-cynicism would write today:
"An optimist is someone who can sit in the same posture, hour after hour, contemplating the eternal verities alongside the eternal imponderables, yet whose mind remains as calm and clear as the surface of Lake Como, which is located in the foothills of the Italian Alps not far from Bergamo, and whose shores are loosely populated by the tree-shrouded estates of Milan's top designers."
It has the merit of being true. A succession of figures I have known have not dimmed this in me. The only person I knew involved in this process who had idealism that I would call bulletproof was a newspaper editor, sadly dead. Maybe some military officers, but it depended on the topic.
Everyone folds like a cheap camera. They are in business for themselves and not for you. Was true in Classical Rome and true now. They posture for votes, not ideology.
Cicero on the “moral duties” of politicians:
“… [L]et those who are to preside over the state obey two precepts of Plato, — one, that they so watch for the well-being of their fellow-citizens that they have reference to it in whatever they do, forgetting their own private interests; the other, that they care for the whole body politic, and not, while they watch over a portion of it, neglect other portions. For, as the guardianship of a minor, so the administration of the state is to be conducted for the benefit, not of those to whom it is intrusted, but of those who are intrusted to their care.”
The U.S. used to produce better elites.
Great advice and literally the opposite of how democracy works, but then Rome was never a democracy.
Cicero was clearly making a point about people like Sulla and Marius with his second duty. Populares vs optimates, which is ironic considering Cicero firmly sided with the optimates. The first one applied to pretty much everyone in Rome.
It's interesting that the only time both precepts were being abided by was during eras of near-dictatorship or actual dictatorship - thinking the first Triumvirate or Caesar's dictatorship. Such naivete as being honorable with everyone got him stabbed a bunch of times. Augustus wasn't so kind.
No doubt the two precepts of Plato that Cicero is referring to would be wonderful in a democracy, but Plato himself was no fan of democracy and imagined these values could only be enforced by a Philosopher King in a dictatorship run by someone who did not want the job. In that sense it's less surprising that Rome only ever approached those two precepts under near dictatorships.
I know the quote is by Cicero, but I always found Plato's view on this both the most and least naive take on government I have ever read. I think he is absolutely correct about the type of person it would take to achieve these precepts. I think he was wildly naive to believe such a person would ever take that job and follow those precepts. I think Murray Rothbard comes closer to the truth on that one.
1. In a democracy, you will always have an incentive to win over the larger group by crushing the rights of the smaller group.
2. Once those tasked with enforcing the rules have all the guns, their first task will be to use those guns to rewrite the rules for themselves.
There is always an uncomfortable connection between dictatorships and the protection of the minority. The moment the last Shah of the Ottoman empire fell we had widespread killing of ethnic groups. The moment Assad fell in Syria all the religious minorities who had been protected were driven out of town. I'm not a booster for dictatorships, but I don't see any other forms of government where those precepts could be enforced. The Founders gave it there best shot with a mixed democratic approach and the outcome was predictable.
Drink coffee, discuss Roman history with informed people on a substack. Life is good.
Thanks HBI and Areslent for your perspectives.
>> 1. In a democracy, you will always have an incentive to win over the larger group by crushing the rights of the smaller group.
But that's not what's happening today. Who is most exalted today? PoC, transgender, LGBT, religious minorities and immigrants. All minorities. Seems like the goal is to hopelessly fragment the majority by making them all identify with some sort of exalted oppressed minority.
"Majority" in this sense has more than one meaning (it can also be read as most influence) Pressure groups within a democracy will always use the violence of the State to punish the outgroup. The thing to look at is not who is currently using the government to bludgeon who. The question is what became of the Bill of Rights that were meant to protect you from the bludgeoning? Well, the majority tore them all down to go after their most unpopular enemies ( drug users, sex workers, drug drivers, those who want to smoke inside, those who own guns) and are now shocked to find out with all those protections torn down, the system is being turned on them.
Sounds like "the iron law of oligarchy," which has a 1.000 batting average as far as I know.
"There is always an uncomfortable connection between dictatorships and the protection of the minority."
This seems to imply constitutional* minority protections cannot work (ordinarily and/or indefinitely) instead of dictatorship. Are you saying this, and if so, what reasons would you give?
-----------
*i.e. a la Bill of Rights, at the "root" level of the law, highly impervious to majority whim
Tyranny of the majority. Constitutional protections erode over time without fresh blood to keep them stable. Minorities by definition lack the ability to defend these protections, usually.
Considering what is going on in the US today, a bill of rights is not much protection when people can figure out an end run around it aka de facto fascism, using private entities to do the work prohibited to government.
HBI did a great job with a short description of the root problem below. Anarchist writers like Rothbard, Goldman and Spooner do a great job of not just describing the problem, but offering potential solutions. I'm only interested in the non-violent kind.
What you describe about minority protections is good on paper, but laws are just that, only words on paper. The real law is set by the people with the power of violence and in a democracy that's the majority. We can go through all 10 amendments to the Bill of Rights. Concepts considered so central to being a human that they were actually considered order above laws. They are now held in lower regard than the democratic laws we have passed that violate them.
Just a partial list. No one would these prison situations meet the definition of cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/thirty-two-stories-jeffrey-epstein-prison-death/596029/
But because no punishment has been attached to such behavior, the 8th is largely unenforceable against the state. The State cannot be held criminally liable and they are largely protected from civil action through qualified and absolute immunity invented by judges. Our current plea bargain system is a clear violation of the 6th amendment. The ability to be criminally charged by both the State and Federal courts is a clear violation of the prohibition against double jeopardy. That those sitting in places like Riker's Island for years before trial are a clear violation of 6th right to a speedy trial. "The right to face your accuser" is ignored under the 6th with all lifestyle crimes where they make the state the accuser in clear violation of the intent of the 6th. Can you explain how the constant surveillance state of license plate readers, 3rd party doctrine and facial recognition which has turned all public and private space into a panopticon meet the definition of the 4th amendment? Can you explain how all the 3 letter agencies we know have at the federal level involved in State level enforcement not violate the 3rd? Can you explain how the numerous anti-gun laws and regulations don't violate the 2nd by making it impossible to own a gun in many places? Can you explain how hate crime legislation, charging people with talking about previous crimes and laws being passed in many states against protesting along with government agencies working directly with tech companies to remove "fake news" is not a violation of the 1st amendment? How can anyone look at asset forfeiture, parallel construction, civil internment, qualified and absolute immunity, confiscatory tax rates and a hundred other laws that are in clear violation of the Bill of Rights that are enforced with guns and incarceration by the state and not see that the word "Right" is worth less than a law under our democracy we pass in clear violation of the Right? which do you think has the backing of the State, the Rights, or the laws that violate the Rights?
If you are killed by a criminal with a gun, an angry mob carrying torches, or 12 angry jurors that falsely convict you and send you to death, the person on the receiving end feels just as murdered and does not feel better about who does the killing. When you are treated with unfairly with injustice and violence, it's cold comfort whether it was a jury, a criminal, or a mob that violently attacked you.
Those in power don't even pretend to care about the Bill of Rights and bizarrely there are many citizens who seem to be cheering them on. The Biden admin would not be openly admitting to making a Facebook list of users they want banned if there was not support for this by part of the public. You are welcome to tell the people with the guns they are violating your rights. The question is, when they have all the guns and all the prisons, all the surveillance tools and all you have is a piece of paper written about 250 years ago with some scribbles on it called the Bill of Rights, what are you going to do about it?
That is the failure of democracy.
Thanks for these good points. I imagine you don't believe it is possible for a majority to be raised from birth (even if ideal conditions can be arranged) to understand sufficiently the needs of a democracy? ... so that they never "think like a mob"
I think democracy is a lot like the Constitution. It's something people believe in, hold dear and will fight to the death to protect as long as it applies to them, but will not lift a finger for the Constitutional rights of others. When it comes to groups they don't like, they will actively root for the tyrants against the Constitution.
The Founders had an external threat that forced them to do the impossible. For a short time respect the rights of other people who might disagree with them in order to form a group large enough to fight off the British. When the British were gone, they did what people always do. Immediately start forming groups powerful enough to strip rights from those they disagreed with who did not have the power to defend themselves.
I think Maslow was only 2/3 right. I think after food and shelter, the next strongest human instinct is not sex, but the authoritarian need to control other people you disagree with. Whether it's an American Vice Unit/Guidance Patrol (گشت ارش)/Federal Territories Islamic Religious Department/Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice they always must use violence to punish anyone who deviates from the norm. Humans seem incapable of organizing in a way that extend the same rights they expect to other people. Only an enlightened dictator has been capable of protecting minorities from violent majorities and history shows even that does not always turn out well (Mao).
As long as people insist upon using violence to organize society, things will always end badly.
"after food and shelter [the Physiological (first) level], the next strongest human instinct is ... the ... need to control other people"
"Control" is part of the Safety (second) level.
So, you're basically correct. But Maslow didn't miss it.
If we could get violence out of the mix, we'd already have figured that out. It turns out that someone can always resort to it no matter what we do, and without being prepared for violence, you are at risk.
Ultimately all power emanates from a gun (weapon, whatever). With that power of life and death, you can compel obedience. Almost no one wants to die.
I don't think Maslow actually called out sex; his third precept is about intimate relationships, which is not the same as sex. I'm failing in an attempt to think of some dictator who didn't have a concubine or a wife or something of the sort to keep him sated so that he could think about lording it over others in level 4, "esteem needs". Even Hitler had his Eva Braun (or Geli Raubal earlier). Stalin had a succession of women.
I think Maslow might have had something there.
You will never remove violence from the human equation, which is why we once had a 2nd amendnment.
You do not need to turn all the violence over to one group and let them organize society based on that. It's the old difference between democracy and liberty cliche (2 wolves and a sheep voting what's for dinner......)
Society can be organized on the least amount of centralized violence possible (violence used to punish violence and maintain contracts) or the most amount of violence possible (violence used to control and dictate human behavior).
My neighbor having a gun doesn't worry me at all. The government being able to break into his house and murder him without any consequences worries me a great deal.
I believe within love and belonging sex is the strongest driver, which is why I separated it out, but we can drop that reference all to together. I think the urge to censor is stronger than our urge for sex.
I would make the point that Rome was more democratic than we are today. There was no such thing as legislation without the approval of the tribes. While the tribes were not represented equally, all freeborn Roman citizens could vote in these elections.
In our representative republic, we never get a choice except in rare cases where there is an I&R vote. Or maybe a school budget. That's about it.
I'm not entirely glossing over rule by decree senatus consultum ultimum, but we've seen that in our own time, haven't we?
It's an interesting comparison, isn't it?
Because Rome lasted 1,000 years some periods were certainly more democratic than others. How many votes you had was often dictated by your financial success and they never quite kicked that slave thing, although a slave could earn his freedom in Rome in a way some 16 year old facing multiple life sentences here in the US never will.
I suppose it all comes down to what we compare, but I see your point. I always enjoy your posts and suspect we agree on the larger point that we have not made nearly as much progress as our conceit leads us to believe we have.
@HBI
They are a veritable nest of vipers, all !
Once they get a taste for the system, yes. Some go in with some kind of idealistic notions, they either don't last long or learn their lesson shortly.
More than 30 years ago, one of my wife's former college friends became an aide for a California congressman and she quit after a few years, not because of the open corruption, which she expected, but because almost without exception, the pols she dealt with were unremarkable in all aspects save their narcissism.
Trump's greatest failing in the eyes of the establishment was less his policies than his boorish behavior, which revealed the rot behind the facades they maintain, save for the Obama exception in Flint, where he was so cocksure of himself, he took it a bridge too far, everyone but him seeing it.
Eventually, stuck too long in the system, they lose whatever small connection they once had with us plebes, and do stupid shit, Obama's most glaring example being his decision to campaign for the TPP right up until election day in 2016, so sure Hillary would win, as all his circle knew, he could risk giving ammo to Trump's correct assertion that Hillary was actually for the TPP, no matter what she said. If I had to choose just one reason why Trump won, it would be that choice, as it had to be decisive in his winning the rust belt states that provided the winning margin.
The vast majority of voting Americans, let alone ALL Americans, couldn't tell you what TPP stood for, and if asked to define or explain it, they might be able to mumble a few sentences that included the word "jobs." That's about it. Though Trump carried the election by the thinnest of margins, those thin margins had more to do with the extreme unpopularity of Clinton, and then, by extension when he inserted himself into the discussion, Obama.
By the time Obama got around to touting the TPP on the hustings, Trump had long highlighted and underlined his stance on perhaps the chief campaign issue for voters in 2016---jobs, decent jobs, or lack thereof, for large swaths of Americans, and the economic insecurity it has produced over the last 40 years.
That TPP as an issue was about jobs was mere background by then. And most importantly, let us not forget, THE defining characteristic of 2016: the contrast that voters drew between the two candidates' personalities and their messaging. There was a hot political market for what Trump was selling, not for what Clinton was selling. And Trump's "packaging" had a unique allure all its own.
The problem with your analysis? You're educated, familiar and conversant with the issues and policies that are the work of campaign aides and analysts---most voters, as always, are not. The average voter is motivated by simple campaign slogans, cultural grievances, and the general political anxieties of the moment.
I don’t know if you if you know about this but it’s extremely likely that Bill Clinton rigged the US v FedEx drug trafficking trial in the Spring of 2016 through presiding judge Charles Breyer, his appointee.
FedEx was guilty as sin and has an OCEAN of blood on their hands wrt the opioid crisis.
TPP was a GIGANTIC issue for FedEx and FedEx CEO Fred Smith owns EVERY POTUS back to WJC.
Didn't know any of that, or I had forgotten, an easy thing to do when trying to remember the sins of Bubba. Too bad Bubba gave up on Mickey D's, or we could have been celebrating his death these last several years.
"Was true in Classical Rome..." a slight digression, but on that though it has always amazed me how reading a modern English translation of Cicero's written advice "On running for the [Roman] Consulship" sounds basically indistinguishable from what a modern American politician of some wit and maximum realist-cynicism would write today:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_running_for_the_Consulship
I was reading YA work on Cicero this week so it came to mind. Nice.
This is cynicism. Cynicism is self-defeating. Go home & sit.
"A pessimist is an optimist in full possession of the facts."
Arthur Schopenhauer
"An optimist is someone who can sit in the same posture, hour after hour, contemplating the eternal verities alongside the eternal imponderables, yet whose mind remains as calm and clear as the surface of Lake Como, which is located in the foothills of the Italian Alps not far from Bergamo, and whose shores are loosely populated by the tree-shrouded estates of Milan's top designers."
~ Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Thank you!
It has the merit of being true. A succession of figures I have known have not dimmed this in me. The only person I knew involved in this process who had idealism that I would call bulletproof was a newspaper editor, sadly dead. Maybe some military officers, but it depended on the topic.