The Repeal of Godwin’s Law
[1] Obviously, I mean medals won in combat. Kennedy won the Purple Heart and Navy and Marine Corps Medal resulting in a back injury that caused him pain for the rest of his life. Johnson won the Silver Star. George H. W. Bush won the Distinguished Flying Cross. Nixon won 2 Service Stars, but those are not medals won in combat. Eisenhower, of course, was the commander of the Normandy Invasion. Ford saw combat but won no medals. Carter and Reagan served stateside. Carter did wartime sea duty, but that was during the Korean War. Regretfully, since then, we have not had the benefit of presidents who have known war so closely and served with such honor.
[2] I specifically refer to European autocrats because not all of the Axis powers, or those aligned with Axis powers, were formed in a political revolution. Nor were a fascist. Japan, for example, was more akin to a monarchy. Also, many of the autocrats did use violence as part of their tactics to be elected, but they did not rise to power only through violence.
[3] I am intentionally being cautious in my judgment here. Such judgments are always subjective. Many presidential candidates have campaigned in negative ways, and even more so, during their primaries. However, all have done so under some restraint, even if only to avoid accusation. More importantly, they did not govern as autocrats. I also limited the time span to after WW II because the details on how those who did not win are hard to find. For all I know, no one in the history of presidential elections is this close to being a demagogue.
Trump's My Man
[1] Here is the exact quote from CNN. “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters"
[2] If you support Trump, my apologies for referring to you as ‘they’. I really don’t mean it as disrespect. This is just an artifact of me trying to take a wide view. I too would find it insulting to be talked about as if I was part of some rare aboriginal tribe. And if I come off that way again, my apologies.
[2] If you support Trump, my apologies for referring to you as ‘they’. I really don’t mean it as disrespect. This is just an artifact of me trying to take a wide view. I too would find it insulting to be talked about as if I was part of some rare aboriginal tribe. And if I come off that way again, my apologies.
[3] Here is the exact quote from The Business Insider. "And I'm telling you, November 8, we'd better be careful, because that election is going to be rigged"
Trump Is Not Hitler, Yet
[1] At the time of writing this, the projections had moved his chances down to around 10%. However, I being very pessimistic here (or optimistic if you want him to win). The current high estimates hover around 20% and at times he as been at 40%. I’m considering that the Trump Candidacy can improve their odds before November, so 30% looks like a good average.
[2] At the time of writing this, the Trump campaign had just changed their staff, and Trump has even attempted and apology for past statements.Though, it was the most unapologetic apology I ever heard. I still doubt he’s changed his ways, but if he does, I’ll just have to address it in another post.
[3] Right now I’m referring to the electorate (us regular folks, like you and me). But if history is our guide, the real red flag is if the Trump Candidacy gains the support of those with real power, in particular, the military. But that’s for another post.
[4] You don’t know what a “bug-out bag” is? It’s a backpack or duffel bag you prepare in case a disaster happens. You know you really kill the joke if I have to explain it.
Trump's Utility Function
[1] A utility function is actually a mathematical function used by economist to rank the usefulness, or utility, of different decisions. However, I am using it in the spirit of Richard Dawkins’ God’s utility function where he uses the same concept to examine evolution.
[2] Only five presidents have done so: George Washington, Zachery Taylor, Herbert Hoover, Ulysses S. Grant, and Dwight D. Eisenhower. You can see why three of those would be an obvious exception. The other two had held cabinet positions. In the history of America, all presidents had experience in the government or military.
[3] You don't even have to hold your full term. You can start running for president right after your elected. Not recommended, but not unprecedented. President Woodrow Wilson, for example, had only one other elected positions, Governor of New Jersey, and began running for president after only two years.
[4] Politicians also do town halls and press conferences where they can’t use a teleprompter, but town halls often use stump speeches, and they prepare for any questions they may have until they can answer as political robots., So, the point is still relevant.
[5] Even when Trump has donated his own money, it has often been as the loan, so at least, in theory, he could be paid back (by your donation none the less). Even if not paid back he could take it as a tax deduction. And whenever possible he’s used his company resources and charge rent. Now, I’ve not been unable to get enough financial data so say he could actually make money or lose no money, but there is a clear effort to keep his personal risk at a minimum. Now, you can say that’s just good business, but remember that his donors are not protected from the same risk, so it is kinda slimy.
[6] This is assuming he does not pivot back. Also, at the time of writing this, instead of holding rallies where he can get the most votes, he’s been holding them where he has to fundraise, In addition, rumor is that his debate prep has turned into a vacation at one of his golf courses. So, the “fun” theory is still holding.
[2] Only five presidents have done so: George Washington, Zachery Taylor, Herbert Hoover, Ulysses S. Grant, and Dwight D. Eisenhower. You can see why three of those would be an obvious exception. The other two had held cabinet positions. In the history of America, all presidents had experience in the government or military.
[3] You don't even have to hold your full term. You can start running for president right after your elected. Not recommended, but not unprecedented. President Woodrow Wilson, for example, had only one other elected positions, Governor of New Jersey, and began running for president after only two years.
[4] Politicians also do town halls and press conferences where they can’t use a teleprompter, but town halls often use stump speeches, and they prepare for any questions they may have until they can answer as political robots., So, the point is still relevant.
[5] Even when Trump has donated his own money, it has often been as the loan, so at least, in theory, he could be paid back (by your donation none the less). Even if not paid back he could take it as a tax deduction. And whenever possible he’s used his company resources and charge rent. Now, I’ve not been unable to get enough financial data so say he could actually make money or lose no money, but there is a clear effort to keep his personal risk at a minimum. Now, you can say that’s just good business, but remember that his donors are not protected from the same risk, so it is kinda slimy.
[6] This is assuming he does not pivot back. Also, at the time of writing this, instead of holding rallies where he can get the most votes, he’s been holding them where he has to fundraise, In addition, rumor is that his debate prep has turned into a vacation at one of his golf courses. So, the “fun” theory is still holding.
And Now About Racism....
[1] At some point in the discussion some of you may correctly point out that I am using racism for other than race. So friggin what. Hating someone because of their religion or what nation they or their parents are from does not make your hate more justified. In truth, I am knowingly using racism in all the context we would use bigotry. I realize there is more complexity to this, but as long as hate (or fear) is a factor, they are interchangeable
5 Reasons No One Should Vote for Trump and Counting....
[1] I made the same endnote in "Trump's Utility Function", but it is worth repeating. Only three presidents had no previous government experience" George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant, and Dwight D. Eisenhower. They all had wartime military experience and rank as some of the best leaders in American history. Note that while George Washington competes as our best president, ever, Grant was one of the worst. So, even this is a mixed bag.
[2] Yeah, yeah. I know. Gore did contest the election when George W. Bush won. However, he did accept the decision of the Supreme Court and never claimed the election illegitimate. Nor was this claim made before the election results. The closest would be when Andrew Jackson lost in 1824 because of the Electoral System and that only landed gentry could vote. This started movements to expand democracy and not require property.
[3] Note that I described the Presidential Election. The smaller the election, the more likelihood of cheating succeeding. The point is that once we lose faith that elections are fair, we no longer have a democracy. To do this at the highest office is taking the greatest risk of this.
[4] Eisenhower ordered desegregation and promoted civil rights bills that strengthen the 15th Amendment. Then Vice President, Richard Nixon gave the tie-breaking vote to pass those bills against Southern Senators. Lyndon B. Johnson, of course, became a "hero" of civil rights. These all have mixed histories on the subject, at times advocating or executing racist policies. However, at the time of racial strife, they chose differently. Now you can say they were just behaving to their political benefit (both ways). However, the point was that there was a line.
Nixon and Reagan might be the most problematic here. There's ample evidence that Reagan in his personal life was not racist, but in his political life, he tried to roll back civil rights and programs helping minorities (probably for libertarian reasons). However, by that time the threat of racial division was far less.
Nixon was by far the closest to being a racist and racist in action. There are tapes of him making racist comments and actions to roll back civil rights. However, I already point to an instance where he was not. And even if I'm wrong here, are you really trying to defend Trump by saying he will be a Nixon?
Nixon and Reagan might be the most problematic here. There's ample evidence that Reagan in his personal life was not racist, but in his political life, he tried to roll back civil rights and programs helping minorities (probably for libertarian reasons). However, by that time the threat of racial division was far less.
Nixon was by far the closest to being a racist and racist in action. There are tapes of him making racist comments and actions to roll back civil rights. However, I already point to an instance where he was not. And even if I'm wrong here, are you really trying to defend Trump by saying he will be a Nixon?
[5] Obviously, I'm talking about modern presidents.
6th Reason No One Should Vote for Trump, and Counting....
[1] Full quote is:Where did Donald Trump go wrong? The big problem with Donald Trump was he never went right. He basically overpaid for properties, but he got people to lend him the money. He was terrific at borrowing money. If you look at his assets, and what he paid for them, and what he borrowed to get them, there was never any real equity there. He owes, perhaps, $3.5 billion now, and, if you had to pick a figure as to the value of the assets, it might be more like $2.5 billion. He’s a billion in the hole, which is a lot better than being $100 in the hole because if you’re $100 in the hole, they come and take the TV set. If you’re a billion in the hole, they say “hang in there Donald.” It’s interesting why smart people go astray. That’s one of the most interesting things in business. I’ve seen all sorts of people with terrific IQs that end up flopping in Wall Street or business because they beat themselves. They have 500 horsepower engines, and get 50 horsepower out of them. Or, worse than that, they have their foot on the brake and the accelerator at the same time. They really manage to screw themselves up. … I would suggest that the big successes I’ve met had a fair amount of Ben Franklin in them. And Donald Trump did not.
The Good, the Bad, and the Delusional
[1] I'm being fast and loose with the numbers here. By half, I mean what a president needs to govern, not be elected. To win, it's much less. In 2012, about 125,000,000 voted, so you would need to win over about 60,000,000, and obviously a lot less for a governor or senator. But, the point is still true. To get elected you have to find a way to convince a large diverse amount of people.
What 's insane are congressmen. A congressional district is about 700,000. Assume only half vote and given most districts are gerrymander for one party, you only need to win the primary. That cuts it to in half again, and half again because of the few who vote in primaries. So, a congressman can be elected with only about 90,000 votes. That explains Michelle Bachmann.
[2] I made 2 of these completely up. He never said it. But, I bet you didn't notice until now, and that should tell you something.
[2] The references to anti-Semitism are obvious, but I am not saying this about Trump. Ivanka converted to Judaism upon marrying her Jewish husband, and there is no direct evidence that Trump is anti-semitic. Instead, I would like to point out that racism and hatred are much more complicated than our examples in history and stereotypes. By nature, these attitudes have no logic and easily survive internal contradictions. That Trump has a Jewish daughter does not mean he cannot have other forms of racism or imitate Hitler.
[3] You can read the full transcript here.
[2] To be a fairer to Huckabee and Santorum, they do look like serious candidates that did have some hopes of winning in a year where conservative social issues were forefront. There later work in media can also be argued as was to keep their agendas relevant.
[3] I have to admit I'm given a Herman here a little undue flak. Cain did have some political experience, just a small amount. He was a Tea Party activist, part of Newt Gingrich's Kemp Commission, senior economic advisor to the Bob Dole campaign, and CEO of the National Restaurant Association. However, he had gotten the nomination, I would be pointing out his lack of political experience where only Trump had less.
[4] Again I'm taking some liberties here. Both Herman Cain and Ben Carson have made significant money doing speeches. In the case of Cain, he mostly spoke for corporate executives offering his business experience as CEO of Godfather's Pizza. For Carson, some were about his ideas in conservatism, but many were about his life story. So, both have eccentric personalities, left distinguished careers with significant achievements, only to leave and make money from books speaking tours. That sounds like a "motivational speaker" to me.
[5] In the style of business I describe in Trump Is Broke, there's a disturbing trend where Trump's businesses fail, but he still makes money by milking the business to bankruptcy. Trump Magazine could be an example of what may become of Trump TV. Trump received a 6 figure licensing fee for every issue.
[2] There were, of course, many forms of taxation by the states, including poll and property taxes. However, for the federal government, it was primarily tariffs.
[3] There is some controversy over this statement. Definitely, there was a conflict between the North and South on tariffs, at its strongest from 1824 to 1852. Tariffs are considered part of Sectionalism, the division between the North and the South, However, this is where the controversy is because historians and certain political advocates argue over its effect compared to slavery.
[2] The rise of Jacksonian Democracy began in 1824, and I'm largely deemphasizing its impact. Certainly, this means America was becoming less a republic run by the elite rich, as I described, to our modern democracy, in practice. However, the movement remained at least neutral on the subjects of slavery and other causes of the Civil War. In fact, ideas of white supremacy were largely supported. The Jacksonian Democracy is critical to our understanding of "How We Got Here", but the subject is better discussed in future posts.
[3] Remembering that when the country first started, we identified with our states as Virginians, Georgians, New Yorkers, etc. So, saying American states deserved their own sovereignty was not that much of a leap.
[4] There is a historical argument that if the South had been left alone, slavery would have ended by itself, sparing millions of lives lost in the Civil War. Certainly, technology and economic changes were reducing the need for slavery, and in the rest of the world, it was ending on its own. All British own colonies had ended slavery in 1834. Many others are the New World soon followed.
My own feeling is that the South had grown stubborn and would have continued slavery for decades after 1865. The arguments trade the lives of millions for another generation of slavery. But that is my feeling, and I'll leave the rest of the discussion to historians.
[5] I'd like to now indulge in a historical parallel of the Antebellum South with the Spartans. We think of them as great warriors who saved European culture, and not without reason. However, they were also tyrants who terrorized and subjugated the Helots. Compared to how militarized they were, Spartans did not engage in much external conflict. Their emphasis towards militarism stemmed from the economic need to subjugate the Helots and constant fear of revolt. (That the Helots outnumbered Spartans did not help.)
I would not suggest that the Antebellum South approached the militarism of Sparta, but they were more militarized than the North. Even today, more enlist from the South Atlantic states. If you look, you can also see similar ideas of the glorification of strength and racial purity. OK. I am being ambitious, but interesting, don't you think?
[6] At this point, you will probably conclude that I have no respect for State's Rights. For the most, part I don't, but it's more complicated than that. I'll have to explain more in another post. For now, let's just say that I don't see State's Rights as evil, and I can see practical, and sometimes necessary, arguments for delegating power to the states. What I don't have respect for is the notion that State's Rights gives any moral high ground.
[2] Though, this is often how it's described, it was more complicated than that. Jackson received a plurality of electoral votes and as we know that is not always the same thing. At the time, 6 states appointed their electoral votes by state legislators, which makes whether he actually won a plurality of votes less clear. However, this is trivia. People were more outraged of the Corrupt Bargain, then the fact that the plurality of votes was not determinative.
[3] That Adams had "bribed" Clay is questionable. Neither Jackson nor his allies were able, then or afterward, to offer a scintilla of evidence backing up their charge of a bargain. Furthermore, Clay detested Jackson and needed no further reason to have not wanted him to be president. Secretary of State is, also, a less powerful position that Speaker of the House, so you could almost say it was a demotion. (Though it is a good stepping stone for being a future president). Most importantly, Henry Clay was genuinely qualified to be Secretary of State at a time when the pool of qualified candidates was much lower than today. In the end, we can never know for sure. But certainly, the Corrupt Bargain was a political argument, not a factual one.
[4] The new party was not called the Democrats until 1834.
[5] The basic issue against the National Bank (or Federal Reserve) is that it is an institution of significant power with little democratic oversight. Also, at issue is the belief that paper money is inherently unstable. At some point, I'm going to have to write more about this, but I don't want to. The debates over this subject quickly get wacky, so much so, that I'm scared to even give you links.
[6] The Act Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves was passed in 1807.
[2] These statistics were taken from the 1860 Census, Wikipedia entry on 1860 Election of House of Representatives, and 270toWin 1860 Election.
[3] I hesitate to call this uniquely American. The allure of a disillusioned veteran drifter becoming the reluctant hero is tempting on so many levels, I have to expect other cultures have them. The Japanese ronin is a good candidate (and also the inspiration for many westerns).
[2] You may see a parallel to the tech revolution, and I see it too. Just wait, you're going to see a lot more. However, while tempted, I'm not yet ready to do that examination and all it implies.
[3] There is some debate as to whether the Long Depression went until the end of the Gilded Age, but that there was a series of booms and bust is not in dispute.
[4] Yes, yes. I know that is a contentious statement these days. But with Keyes's publication of The End of Laissez-faire in 1926, the inability of President Hover to stop it, and President FDR's New Deal, we can at least say that Laissez-faire economics was blamed, even if unfairly
[5] Again, I'm being a bit provocative. Associating Social Darwinism with fascism is not hard. However, I have not found a clear connection. It's more like Social Darwinism to eugenics to fascism.
[2] For now, I am taking the position that Majority Leader McConnel will not end the filibuster, except maybe for supreme court nominations.
[2] Remember that primaries factor into this. There would be a gray area where a politician praises him during the primaries than avoids mentioning him in the main election.
[3] The discussion of how “trumpism” could affect future politics is a longer discussion. An illustrative example of this is Barry Goldwater. His failed campaign left a fervent following including a politician and actor, Ronald Reagan. However, most don’t remember Goldwater. They remember Reagan. So, sure. After Trump fails another politician could take the remnants of his following, soften and reshape his message, apply significant political skill, and then govern responsibly. Still, that would be his success. Trump would still be a failure.
[2] Note that when you include the belief that certain races and ethnicities are more prone to alcoholism, you can see how racists and bigoted ideas crept into the progressive movements.
[3] I'm sure if you were Native American or Mexican, you would not say America rejected imperialism. However, Americans understood it as staying out of conflicts beyond North and South America.
[4] The Spanish-American War was a major one-sided success for the United States. However, the aftermath was not. The American people supported the war mostly by idealistic sentiments. They soon found that imperial wars are never idealistic. The main impetus for the war, the sinking of the Maine, was questionable, and we now know unjustified. The argument that American was freeing people oppressed by Spain proved hypocritical when it ended up doing the same to the Philippines. Granted this interpretation of events is debatable. But given that, even now as a world power, imperialism is still unpopular. Furthermore, if the Spanish-American War looks like a parallel to the 2nd Iraq War to you, yeah I see it too.
[5] Theodore Roosevelt's death is significant because it ended the Progressive Party and weakened the progressive faction of the Republican Party.
[6] When or even if it did is a long-standing argument between historians. Many progressive ideas are still advocated today, after all. Some would say 1917 when America entered WW1. Some say 1920 when the 19th Amendment was passed, and some will go as far as 1932 when the New Deal was 1st proposed.
[2] There is a good argument that some have had their vote suppress of which I agree, but no non-partisan evidence of it.
[3] This is not an indictment of authoritarian thinking. There are many situations that work well with an authoritarian style, such as the military. However, eventually, even in the military, you must develop some flexibility to succeed. At least in this country, you do.
[2] As of writing this, the lowest approval from FiveThirtyEight and RealClearPolitics since he took office is 39.2% and 39.6% respectively. The good news is that it is still on a downward slide. Just slowly.
[3] If you look at the website, it says we need 216 representatives, not 218. However, that’s because there are still 4 representatives to be chosen by special election. Once those are done the number will be 218.
[4] This is called “honing’ folks which I told you I would do.
Post Post 1st Debate
[1] Depending on when you read the post, you might remember it as 4 strategies. Well, I missed one. There is a 5 strategy where a candidate makes the other unacceptable to True Pragmatist. I already cowardly fixed the post and covered my tracks.[2] I made 2 of these completely up. He never said it. But, I bet you didn't notice until now, and that should tell you something.
Echoes of Hitler
[1] As you probably know, Hitler was born Austrian. However, early in his life, he became a believer in Pan-Germanism and later moved to Germany to avoid being drafted into the Austrian army. Ironically, he later volunteered into the German army at the start of World War I. Given this history, you can see why he annexed Austria.[2] The references to anti-Semitism are obvious, but I am not saying this about Trump. Ivanka converted to Judaism upon marrying her Jewish husband, and there is no direct evidence that Trump is anti-semitic. Instead, I would like to point out that racism and hatred are much more complicated than our examples in history and stereotypes. By nature, these attitudes have no logic and easily survive internal contradictions. That Trump has a Jewish daughter does not mean he cannot have other forms of racism or imitate Hitler.
[3] You can read the full transcript here.
Did Trump Ever Want to Win?
[1] It's a little complicated here. the famous Frederick Douglas is often considered the 1st African American to run for the presidential nomination, but he did not actually run. He spoke at the 1888 Republican National Convention and got one vote. After George Edward Taylor ran in 1904, Shirley Chisholm became the first candidate of a major party at the 1972 Democratic National Convention.[2] To be a fairer to Huckabee and Santorum, they do look like serious candidates that did have some hopes of winning in a year where conservative social issues were forefront. There later work in media can also be argued as was to keep their agendas relevant.
[3] I have to admit I'm given a Herman here a little undue flak. Cain did have some political experience, just a small amount. He was a Tea Party activist, part of Newt Gingrich's Kemp Commission, senior economic advisor to the Bob Dole campaign, and CEO of the National Restaurant Association. However, he had gotten the nomination, I would be pointing out his lack of political experience where only Trump had less.
[4] Again I'm taking some liberties here. Both Herman Cain and Ben Carson have made significant money doing speeches. In the case of Cain, he mostly spoke for corporate executives offering his business experience as CEO of Godfather's Pizza. For Carson, some were about his ideas in conservatism, but many were about his life story. So, both have eccentric personalities, left distinguished careers with significant achievements, only to leave and make money from books speaking tours. That sounds like a "motivational speaker" to me.
[5] In the style of business I describe in Trump Is Broke, there's a disturbing trend where Trump's businesses fail, but he still makes money by milking the business to bankruptcy. Trump Magazine could be an example of what may become of Trump TV. Trump received a 6 figure licensing fee for every issue.
How We Got Here - Post 1
[1] Saying when slavery ended is subjective because the definition of slavery is. The last “recognized” country to abolish the institution of slavery was Mauritania in 2007. However, many will point out that slavery still exists outside of an official institution, including forced labor and prostitution.[2] There were, of course, many forms of taxation by the states, including poll and property taxes. However, for the federal government, it was primarily tariffs.
[3] There is some controversy over this statement. Definitely, there was a conflict between the North and South on tariffs, at its strongest from 1824 to 1852. Tariffs are considered part of Sectionalism, the division between the North and the South, However, this is where the controversy is because historians and certain political advocates argue over its effect compared to slavery.
How We Got Here - Post 2
[1] The 15th Amendment ensures African Americans have the right to vote. The 19th Amendment ensures Women have the right to vote. The 23rd Amendment gives those living in Washington, DC limited rights to vote, The 24th Amendment ends poll taxes, and the 26th Amendment makes the voting age 18.[2] The rise of Jacksonian Democracy began in 1824, and I'm largely deemphasizing its impact. Certainly, this means America was becoming less a republic run by the elite rich, as I described, to our modern democracy, in practice. However, the movement remained at least neutral on the subjects of slavery and other causes of the Civil War. In fact, ideas of white supremacy were largely supported. The Jacksonian Democracy is critical to our understanding of "How We Got Here", but the subject is better discussed in future posts.
[3] Remembering that when the country first started, we identified with our states as Virginians, Georgians, New Yorkers, etc. So, saying American states deserved their own sovereignty was not that much of a leap.
[4] There is a historical argument that if the South had been left alone, slavery would have ended by itself, sparing millions of lives lost in the Civil War. Certainly, technology and economic changes were reducing the need for slavery, and in the rest of the world, it was ending on its own. All British own colonies had ended slavery in 1834. Many others are the New World soon followed.
My own feeling is that the South had grown stubborn and would have continued slavery for decades after 1865. The arguments trade the lives of millions for another generation of slavery. But that is my feeling, and I'll leave the rest of the discussion to historians.
[5] I'd like to now indulge in a historical parallel of the Antebellum South with the Spartans. We think of them as great warriors who saved European culture, and not without reason. However, they were also tyrants who terrorized and subjugated the Helots. Compared to how militarized they were, Spartans did not engage in much external conflict. Their emphasis towards militarism stemmed from the economic need to subjugate the Helots and constant fear of revolt. (That the Helots outnumbered Spartans did not help.)
I would not suggest that the Antebellum South approached the militarism of Sparta, but they were more militarized than the North. Even today, more enlist from the South Atlantic states. If you look, you can also see similar ideas of the glorification of strength and racial purity. OK. I am being ambitious, but interesting, don't you think?
How We Got Here - Post 3
[1] In a cruel irony, the move toward removing property rights included a step back for non-white voting. Several states granted suffrage to free men of color after the Revolution, including North Carolina. But with time, the movement became "white man only".[2] Though, this is often how it's described, it was more complicated than that. Jackson received a plurality of electoral votes and as we know that is not always the same thing. At the time, 6 states appointed their electoral votes by state legislators, which makes whether he actually won a plurality of votes less clear. However, this is trivia. People were more outraged of the Corrupt Bargain, then the fact that the plurality of votes was not determinative.
[3] That Adams had "bribed" Clay is questionable. Neither Jackson nor his allies were able, then or afterward, to offer a scintilla of evidence backing up their charge of a bargain. Furthermore, Clay detested Jackson and needed no further reason to have not wanted him to be president. Secretary of State is, also, a less powerful position that Speaker of the House, so you could almost say it was a demotion. (Though it is a good stepping stone for being a future president). Most importantly, Henry Clay was genuinely qualified to be Secretary of State at a time when the pool of qualified candidates was much lower than today. In the end, we can never know for sure. But certainly, the Corrupt Bargain was a political argument, not a factual one.
[4] The new party was not called the Democrats until 1834.
[5] The basic issue against the National Bank (or Federal Reserve) is that it is an institution of significant power with little democratic oversight. Also, at issue is the belief that paper money is inherently unstable. At some point, I'm going to have to write more about this, but I don't want to. The debates over this subject quickly get wacky, so much so, that I'm scared to even give you links.
[6] The Act Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves was passed in 1807.
How We Got Here - Post 4
[1] The Senate, of course, has the most disparagement, now as then. The ratio between Wyoming and California is about 67 if you were curious.[2] These statistics were taken from the 1860 Census, Wikipedia entry on 1860 Election of House of Representatives, and 270toWin 1860 Election.
[3] I hesitate to call this uniquely American. The allure of a disillusioned veteran drifter becoming the reluctant hero is tempting on so many levels, I have to expect other cultures have them. The Japanese ronin is a good candidate (and also the inspiration for many westerns).
How We Got Here - Post 5
[1] As is often the case, the people of an era do not call it the name we later give that era The name, Gilded Age, was invented by none other than Mark Twain in his book The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today. Historians found it so suiting they adopted it.[2] You may see a parallel to the tech revolution, and I see it too. Just wait, you're going to see a lot more. However, while tempted, I'm not yet ready to do that examination and all it implies.
[3] There is some debate as to whether the Long Depression went until the end of the Gilded Age, but that there was a series of booms and bust is not in dispute.
[4] Yes, yes. I know that is a contentious statement these days. But with Keyes's publication of The End of Laissez-faire in 1926, the inability of President Hover to stop it, and President FDR's New Deal, we can at least say that Laissez-faire economics was blamed, even if unfairly
[5] Again, I'm being a bit provocative. Associating Social Darwinism with fascism is not hard. However, I have not found a clear connection. It's more like Social Darwinism to eugenics to fascism.
What Counting Teaches Us
[1] This also means that a trend line for the Congress Count is useless. Don't expect one, and don't bother doing one even in your head.[2] For now, I am taking the position that Majority Leader McConnel will not end the filibuster, except maybe for supreme court nominations.
The Presidential Elevator Pitch
[1] Perhaps in President Trump's twisted view it would be. A TV show lasting 4 to 8 years with a 40% market share would be an incredible success.[2] Remember that primaries factor into this. There would be a gray area where a politician praises him during the primaries than avoids mentioning him in the main election.
[3] The discussion of how “trumpism” could affect future politics is a longer discussion. An illustrative example of this is Barry Goldwater. His failed campaign left a fervent following including a politician and actor, Ronald Reagan. However, most don’t remember Goldwater. They remember Reagan. So, sure. After Trump fails another politician could take the remnants of his following, soften and reshape his message, apply significant political skill, and then govern responsibly. Still, that would be his success. Trump would still be a failure.
How We Got Here - Post 6
[1] The influences appear during the Progressive Era, but eugenics does not produce any impact until afterward and is soon discredited with the rise of Nazism.[2] Note that when you include the belief that certain races and ethnicities are more prone to alcoholism, you can see how racists and bigoted ideas crept into the progressive movements.
[3] I'm sure if you were Native American or Mexican, you would not say America rejected imperialism. However, Americans understood it as staying out of conflicts beyond North and South America.
[4] The Spanish-American War was a major one-sided success for the United States. However, the aftermath was not. The American people supported the war mostly by idealistic sentiments. They soon found that imperial wars are never idealistic. The main impetus for the war, the sinking of the Maine, was questionable, and we now know unjustified. The argument that American was freeing people oppressed by Spain proved hypocritical when it ended up doing the same to the Philippines. Granted this interpretation of events is debatable. But given that, even now as a world power, imperialism is still unpopular. Furthermore, if the Spanish-American War looks like a parallel to the 2nd Iraq War to you, yeah I see it too.
[5] Theodore Roosevelt's death is significant because it ended the Progressive Party and weakened the progressive faction of the Republican Party.
[6] When or even if it did is a long-standing argument between historians. Many progressive ideas are still advocated today, after all. Some would say 1917 when America entered WW1. Some say 1920 when the 19th Amendment was passed, and some will go as far as 1932 when the New Deal was 1st proposed.
How Much Does Trump Firing Comey Threaten Us - Part 1
[1] He was Awar al-Awlaki who was involved in the planning and inspiring of terrorist acts, including the Fort Hood shooter. Another mitigating factor was that it was in Yemen, considered a war zone. Many would feel this was a justified killing, including myself. However, it is still the first case I know where a president openly ordered the assassination of a U.S. citizen.[2] There is a good argument that some have had their vote suppress of which I agree, but no non-partisan evidence of it.
[3] This is not an indictment of authoritarian thinking. There are many situations that work well with an authoritarian style, such as the military. However, eventually, even in the military, you must develop some flexibility to succeed. At least in this country, you do.
How Much Does Trump Firing Comey Threaten Us - Part 2
[1] Nixon was never impeached. He resigned under threat of impeachments. Remember that impeachment is not conviction or removal from office. It is the vote to do so, and neither Johnson or Clinton were removed. Nor would removal from office mean a criminal conviction. One of the purposes of impeachment is to remove a president to stand trial. This was part of the argument in Clinton’s case. In Nixon’s case, his successor, Ford, “pre-pardoned” him preventing any criminal prosecution.[2] As of writing this, the lowest approval from FiveThirtyEight and RealClearPolitics since he took office is 39.2% and 39.6% respectively. The good news is that it is still on a downward slide. Just slowly.
[3] If you look at the website, it says we need 216 representatives, not 218. However, that’s because there are still 4 representatives to be chosen by special election. Once those are done the number will be 218.
[4] This is called “honing’ folks which I told you I would do.
No comments :
Post a Comment