Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Bully in the Bully Pulpit?

Doug:
As you know, I find Trump's temperament completely disqualifying for many jobs, including Leader of the Free World. In fact, there are many personality traits that really bother me about Trump, but perhaps the worst is how he deals with any kind of disagreement. Any difference one makes with him (in which he responds) is met with an over-the-top smack down. Does this worry you in any way?



David:
To be honest, I haven't decided just yet. It's something we have not really seen in some time, and with access to social media, the instantaneous timing of his responses are unprecedented. There have certainly been presidents before who did not get along with the media, and there have certainly been presidents with fiery dispositions, so his temperament is certainly not disqualifying, or even unique. Teddy Roosevelt comes to mind.

To be factual, there are very few requirements to be qualified to be POTUS. This is laid out in the Constitution:

    Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

  • No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
You will note that temperament is not listed as a qualification.  Neither is your background, your education, nor any special training. If you win the electoral college, you become President.

Doug:
But this isn't how normal, intelligent, adult people respond to disagreement.

David:
I disagree with you on that point. Perhaps you don't spend enough time discussing things with people who are outside of your circle of friends and colleagues at the university. In dealing with the public, and with a huge number of diverse "friends" on FB, I run across people who talk like trump more than I don't. I guess you don't believe in diversity of temperment?

Doug:
I don't disagree that many people talk this way, perhaps even on social media. But I hold people that want to have an intelligent conversation to a higher standard.
       
David:
But, the POTUS is not interested in having a discussion with the American people. Obama wasn't, and neither will Trump. A discussion occurs when people are talking about an issue or idea to reach a decision or share ideas. When Obama was giving speeches, he was telling us what he had already decided, and usually why he was right and anyone who disagreed with his decisions were wrong, obstinate, and bad for the country. You and I having a conversation is not the same as the President talking to the public. Trump is certainly more blunt than Obama, or Bush, or Reagan, or just about anybody since LBJ, but that doesn't make his use of the bully-pulpit any different.

As time goes on, and President Trump gets busier with the job of running the multiple aspects of the country, I suspect he'll turn his tweets more towards swaying public opinion regarding policy rather than exchanging in tit-for-tat tweets with celebrities or newsmen that derail the conversations we need to be having about the myriad of problems we, as a country, face.

Doug:
Perhaps. But he should be pretty busy now, right? Instead, he has taken the time (16 minutes against Meryl Streep!) to tweet against people for various slights. Not all of these are from the last week, but some are:

Of course, the list goes on and on. My complaint isn't about each issue at all, but the manner that he chooses to have a disagreement. He does not argue with the issue, but insults the person. Usually he attacks them with ad hominem complaints. And he does this across the board: Republican representatives, Democratic representatives, teenage girls, or other regular citizens. When you are Leader of the Free World, these are are examples of Trump "punching down".

David:
You have to keep things in context. Streep attacked Trump from the stage at the Golden Globes, a major television event with a large audience. Heaven forbid he spend a whole 16 minutes defending himself.

Doug:
That will be fine with me... I know how to keep him busy over the next 4 years!

David:
But I do agree that he needs to drop the responses to each and every slight he feels from everywhere and anyone. I'd rather think he's focusing on more important things than what a petty entertainer thinks.

Doug:
Because of this kind of reaction, I can understand why some want to claim already that he is "Not My President." But for me, it goes deeper. I want to claim that he is "Not My Species." I live in the world where smart, thoughtful people disagree over pretty much everything (academics). I fear of Trump's anti-rhetoric. This is the playbook of the bully. What will we see from the generation of kids growing up in this environment?

David:
You mean the generation that is currently being taught that just seeing the words "Vote Trump" written in chalk on a sidewalk is hate speech? The generation that is being taught that if they disagree with how the president talks, they can claim he isn't their president? The generation that needs safe spaces because they haven't learned any coping skills in dealing with disagreement? I assume those kids will wither away, just like they've been trained to do.

Doug:
I don't see how you can compare chalk on a sidewalk with the style of argument I just described. Safe spaces are for people that have been abused. If any kid learns to actually have logical discussions based on the topic, that is what we want.

David:
"Vote Trump!" Wow, you're right. I can see how abusive that is. And I can see how any kid who sees that would want to run and hide....wait a minute! They should be out having a logical discussion if they disagree, not running and hiding. You seem to be contradicting yourself a little bit, and training kids to do just the opposite of what you claim they should be doing.

You have complained for 8 years that Republicans didn't work with President Obama, and yet now Democrats are already planning obstruction, even though they don't even know what he may propose. What does your attitude say about how you are affecting the kids you are teaching? When people said Obama wasn't their president, you felt they were wrong to do so. Yet now, what you're saying about Trump is even worse. It looks as though the pot was calling the kettle black.

Doug:
I'm only complaining about Trump's temperament at this point. No one (including Trump, I suspect) has any idea what he is "planning to do." So, this isn't about that. It isn't about Russians. It isn't about taxes. It isn't about policy, or claiming that Trump was born in Kenya. It is about arguing by insulting.

David:
And yet, all of the Democratic leaders have vowed to block anything Trump does, before they even know what his plans are. They plan to fight against all Supreme Court nominees, without Trump having named a nominee. They plan to fight against all of his cabinet nominees. (In a notable comedic round of questioning, Senator Kamala Harris, the freshman Democrat from California, badgered Mike Pompeo, the nominee to head the CIA, about how that agency would address climate change. Perhaps the Senator needs a refresher course on what it is the CIA does.) Even though Obamacare is failing under it's own rules (that were designed and passed by Democrats alone) they will fight any efforts to replace it with something better.

Doug:
But see, those kinds of points could lead to some interesting discussion. Why would the CIA be interested/concerned/knowledgeable about climate change?  And should we be interested in why the CIA is interested in climate change? Perhaps you trust the CIA to do whatever they want? Or perhaps you don't believe that the American people should be involved in that discussion? 

David:
And what's the EPA doing to combat Russian hacking? What's NASA doing about illegal immigration? For Pete's sake. How about we let agencies concentrate on their core missions, so they are actually effective at what they are supposed to be doing?

Doug:
Bait and switch! CIA? Now EPA? Keep 'em rolling, never stopping to actually answer. By the way, the "Democratic leaders" don't have a unified view on Trump. Some want to work with him on common areas, some don't want to legitimize him at all (much like what Republicans did to Obama). I, too, am wrestling with this dilemma, exactly because I am of afraid of his temperament. As I said, it isn't a policy issue. 

David:
Returning to your point about arguing with insults, I suppose calling everyone who supported Trump irredeemable deplorables was not insulting?

Doug:
Time will tell whether that insult it was warranted or not.

David:
So Clinton's insults towards a large swath of America are justified, but Trump's insults are petty and a sign of bad temperament? Perhaps a calculated and calmly delivered insult (rather than in a tweet) is just fine because it represents good temperament? Your statement sounds like ridiculous partisanship to me.

Doug:
Yes, please do compare any of the above Trump comments to Clinton's one statement in context (for which she apologized for). If you throw out enough details, anything can be anything. But my other even larger fear is: how can he engage other countries? Will he attempt to bully, rather than to have a deep discussion on the merits of an issue? This is the root of my fears over a Trump presidency.

David:
In case you haven't noticed, a great many of the countries engage each other via their militaries. Sitting at a table and discussing the issues is not how many countries settle their disagreements. Holding the big stick, and making sure everyone knows we will use it, is likely the best way to negotiate with Russia, North Korea, Iran, and China. As time has passed, we have found ourselves with fewer opportunities to negotiate with Russia and China, and more issues where we will face confrontation. This reality has come about because Obama talked, and talked, and talked, and then, talked some more. While you and I can discuss merits of an issue in our blog, when another country is making moves to militarily invade an ally of ours, discussion won't cut it. Having a President who will threaten the invader with military repercussions is the correct response.

Doug:
That is the opposite of the world I want to live in.

David:
I know. You live in a complete fantasy world. The world I describe is the one we actually live in. Obama offered up his views on how the world should work, and those views were repudiated in our last election, and in elections all over the globe. The world is a more volatile place because of Obama's actions. It's great to aspire to something better, but it isn't how it is. Maybe someday.

Doug:
I don't really understand why you would want to mock my desire to want to live in a peaceful world. I do agree that there has been worldwide movements to isolationist views, and lack of empathy for those seen as "other." But there are a great number of people in the world, and our country, who wish for better conversations without bullies in pulpits.

David:
I'm not mocking your desire to live in a better world. We all want a better world for our children. I'm just noting that you're making your argument as though that world existed right now. It doesn't. We've had eight years of conversations, and a majority of Americans in a majority of states rejected that course.

Doug:
Not a majority of people by nearly 3 million people. And I said "That is the opposite of the world I want to live in." Want. Desire. Wish. Work to make it that way.

David:
A majority of people in a majority of states is what the Electoral College is made of. The Presidency is not won by popular vote.

Let's at least let President Trump get inaugurated before you fail to give him an even shake. At the time of Teddy Roosevelt, the term Bully meant "excellent" or "first-rate".

Doug:
There was some blurring between two different ideas of the term "bully." From the 1897 Dictionary of Slang, Jargon, and Cant  :



Even then, the common meaning of the word was a "braggart". And from the 1922 "A Dictionary of English Phrases":


You can see that the two ideas are "swaggering heroic leader" and "forceful boasting, subjugator". This last example was from the time, right after Theodore Roosevelt's presidency, where the word was at its height of popularity:


Obviously, Trump is a braggart. My fear is the threatening and terrorizing aspects of Trump's bully persona.

David:
I'm not sure you understand what the word terrorizing means.  President Obama was never able to use the word to describe actual terrorists, but Trump's words and persona are somehow terrorizing? That is somewhat illustrative of the left's warped views of reality, I suppose. (Okay, now I'm kind of mocking you.)

Doug:
I was using the definition as used at the time of Roosevelt's election, and still in use today. See above: "(1.) a man who terrifies and threatens." Remember, I'm concerned about this meaning.

David:
Trump may yet surprise you. One way or another, I'm sure he'll surprise a lot of folks with his use of the bully-pulpit.

Doug:
Unless you have some belief that his temperament is going to change, I think you missed my complete and only point. But if his temperament does change, I'll be the first to welcome our new, non-bully president and look forward to thoughtful, engaging tweets. Place your bets.

Dave:
I don't think either of us has any expectation that a 70 year old billionaire CEO is suddenly going to change his personality, but that isn't the surprise I'm talking about.  Americans voted to get results rather than engaging tweets this past election. Trump is already producing results.  Teddy Roosevelt isn't on Mount Rushmore for being a braggart. He's there for getting results. That's how all presidents are ultimately measured.


3 comments:

  1. Trump has certainly laid claim to results (job creation? - LOL) with which he had nothing to do. But that's a classic tactic: Claim responsibility for good things you didn't (or couldn't) bring about and blame everyone else for the nasty effects of your own blunders.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I was at the march, and no one "invited" me, I just went. I passed a large group of pro-life women also at the march. Any woman who felt so inclined could go to the march, and that definitely included pro-life women. There weren't really invitations going around.

    And while I saw very few actual vaginas on hats, and only one penis, I did see a large number of pussy (cat) hats--probably not the same kind of pussy our President mentioned grabbing whenever he wanted some.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the information! Only those that were there can give such detail. Excellent point about the "invitations"... this was a march, not a garden party. Anyone could participate, and it looks like they did!

      Delete

Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!