What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Eddie Teach]

Marco Rubio, on Twitter:

One more thing about KJU. While I know @potus is trying to butter him up to get a good deal, #KJU is NOT a talented guy. He inherited the family business from his dad & grandfather. He is a total weirdo who would not be elected assistant dog catcher in any democracy.

I think Rubio is underestimating the difficulty of court politics.

[Valmy]

But I do not think either the pendulum theory or the barnacles of government provides a good explanation for the rise of right wing populists. 

Just for the record, I wasn't doing that.  Populism seems to bubble up on the left, center, and right at irregular times.

I don't see anything irregular about this.  It is a political movement that is not unique to Trump and which observers have been concerned about pre Trump.  It is a world wide phenomenon that is very troubling and shows no particular sign of lessening even if Trump himself goes down in flames.

But it is based on something right? It is not some magical malevolent evil force right?

I think it is because there has been this consensus around liberal ideas of free trade and democracy and international cooperation for awhile. And whenever an ideology holds sway for a certain period of time it gets blamed for all the various ills that come regardless of how much they directly are responsible. And even when there was consensus around it we still had massive numbers of assholes burning down cities whenever their would be a trade meeting. So right now there is a movement to reject these ideas and incorporate other failed ideas of the past.

Hey maybe that Hegelian synthesis awaits us

[crazy canuck]

I think the basic idea is useful but, like most historical theories, falls apart when you try to apply it to actual historical events.

How useful is it, then? It neither explains, nor predicts anything. Are there things that are not subjected to the pendulum? When is that pendulum about "freedom" going to swing back to "slavery"? Or does it only work on small-scale events? When can we expect the next genocide?

It seems much more harmful than useful, for being basically a fatalistic, disempowering outlook, or fostering a false sense of confidence - no need to do anything, just wait for the pendulum to swing back - presumably to a safe space. There's no pendulum. People have coped in the past with terrible regimes, and horrible things for centuries, without any mystic pendulum to bring them back.

No there is no literal or mystical pendulum. It is just an observation of political patterns not a magic trick. I think there is a pattern to react the other way after awhile to whatever has been in power or popularity for awhile, since its problems will be very observable. But, of course, in real life it always works 60% of the time or whatever.

What political patterns act like a pendulum even 60% of the time?  I wonder how much of this metaphor is explained by the fact that you have only two political parties in the US and so there is an illusion of a "swing" from one to the other even though  policy positions of both parties change over time and so the notion of a pendulum swinging between static positions is at the very least problematic.

[Oexmelin]

I think Rubio is underestimating the difficulty of court politics.

I think Rubio is trolling Trump.

[Valmy]

What political patterns act like a pendulum even 60% of the time?  I wonder how much of this metaphor is explained by the fact that you have only two political parties in the US and so there is an illusion of a "swing" from one to the other even though  policy positions of both parties change over time and so the notion of a pendulum swinging between static positions is at the very least problematic.

The 60% thing was a reference to a Will Ferrell movie. I put my thoughts on this in my other response to you. It doesn't work very well but it does point to something I think. Which was all I was saying.

Since I did not invent the metaphor and never even mentioned the US in my post, or any other post on this topic, I am not sure what the second sentence has to do with anything.

Edit: But that is not quite the same thing as agreeing that populism tends to burn itself out because the level of engagement required to keep that going is pretty exhausting to a body politic.

[Valmy]

I think Rubio is underestimating the difficulty of court politics.

I think Rubio is trolling Trump.

I really dislike trolling in general but damn it sucks to have it be such a huge amount of political discourse now.

[The Minsky Moment]

Today I learned Bob Gibson was only 6'1"
But I bet he looked at least 6'4" on the mound, 6'6" if he was throwing inside.

I was at a dinner where George Foster told a fun story about his first time facing Gibson.  Willie Mays advised him not to take too much time getting set in the box or he'd get plunked.  He ignored the advice and got plunked before he even had a chance to look towards the mound.  He never repeated that mistake.

  That's great.

Great but apocryphal . . .
Foster raked against Gibson. 6-14 lifetime, 2 triples 1 HR, 429avg .467 obp .929 slg
Gibby did get 6Ks on him.
BUT NO HBP.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/play-index/batter_vs_pitcher.cgi?batter=fostege01
Maybe it was spring training?

First time Foster ever faced Gibson in a regulation game was pinch hitting for the Giants in 1971.  Foster hit the HR.

[crazy canuck]

What political patterns act like a pendulum even 60% of the time?  I wonder how much of this metaphor is explained by the fact that you have only two political parties in the US and so there is an illusion of a "swing" from one to the other even though  policy positions of both parties change over time and so the notion of a pendulum swinging between static positions is at the very least problematic.

The 60% thing was a reference to a Will Ferrell movie. I put my thoughts on this in my other response to you. It doesn't work very well but it does point to something I think. Which was all I was saying.

Since I did not invent the metaphor and never even mentioned the US in my post, or any other post on this topic, I am not sure what the second sentence has to do with anything.

Edit: But that is not quite the same thing as agreeing that populism tends to burn itself out because the level of engagement required to keep that going is pretty exhausting to a body politic.

The relevance of the second sentence is that you are an American and so it is possible that your political system that has only two parties might tend to influence your view of the world.

[Valmy]

The relevance of the second sentence is that you are an American and so it is possible that your political system that has only two parties might tend to influence your view of the world.

Yeah but my username is Valmy, I have a degree in history, I am obsessed with Euroland and I have spent over a decade here talking with you guys in the Canadian politics thread. I don't think I am that parochial in my thinking.

[crazy canuck]

But I do not think either the pendulum theory or the barnacles of government provides a good explanation for the rise of right wing populists. 

Just for the record, I wasn't doing that.  Populism seems to bubble up on the left, center, and right at irregular times.

I don't see anything irregular about this.  It is a political movement that is not unique to Trump and which observers have been concerned about pre Trump.  It is a world wide phenomenon that is very troubling and shows no particular sign of lessening even if Trump himself goes down in flames.

But it is based on something right? It is not some magical malevolent evil force right?

I think it is because there has been this consensus around liberal ideas of free trade and democracy and international cooperation for awhile. And whenever an ideology holds sway for a certain period of time it gets blamed for all the various ills that come regardless of how much they directly are responsible. And even when there was consensus around it we still had massive numbers of assholes burning down cities whenever their would be a trade meeting. So right now there is a movement to reject these ideas and incorporate other failed ideas of the past.

Hey maybe that Hegelian synthesis awaits us

The fact that you do not think there is a consensus that liberal democratic forms of government are the preferred choice proves the point I am making.  It was not so long ago that people had thought that liberal democracy had prevailed - one academic even proclaimed the end of history as a result.  We now live in an age when I am doubtful people fully appreciate what liberal democracy is - some Americans recoil in horror at the mention of the word "liberal".

So not not some evil magical force, but if you are genuinely interested in the factors that are causing the rise of populism and a rejection of liberal democratic forms of government I highly suggest you reading http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674976825

[crazy canuck]

The relevance of the second sentence is that you are an American and so it is possible that your political system that has only two parties might tend to influence your view of the world.

Yeah but my username is Valmy, I have a degree in history, I am obsessed with Euroland and I have spent over a decade here talking with you guys in the Canadian politics thread. I don't think I am that parochial in my thinking.

I did not suggest you were. 

[Valmy]

The fact that you do not think there is a consensus that liberal democratic forms of government are the preferred choice proves the point I am making.  It was not so long ago that people had thought that liberal democracy had prevailed - one academic even proclaimed the end of history as a result.  We now live in an age when I am doubtful people fully appreciate what liberal democracy is - some Americans recoil in horror at the mention of the word "liberal".

Well to be fair they have been recoiling at the word "liberal" since...um...the 50s? A really long time that predates the current issues. And they mean something different than what we mean by 'liberal democracy' but rather about the New Deal and Roosevelt type things.

I was just saying that it is that very success that makes it identified with the establishment and the enemy of all the malcontents. Which, I think, creates this 'pendulum' metaphor where the body politic eventually swings back even if it does not really work that perfectly, or reliably, or predictably. Hence it functions like most historical theories but it does come from something.

So not not some evil magical force, but if you are genuinely interested in the factors that are causing the rise of populism and a rejection of liberal democratic forms of government I highly suggest you reading http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674976825

Typically when I see books explaining things by certain factors those factors could be used to explain any number of political shifts and I do not find them particularly useful. But if I find the time I will check it out. It is really new, have you read it?

[Valmy]

The relevance of the second sentence is that you are an American and so it is possible that your political system that has only two parties might tend to influence your view of the world.

Yeah but my username is Valmy, I have a degree in history, I am obsessed with Euroland and I have spent over a decade here talking with you guys in the Canadian politics thread. I think I am that parochial in my thinking.

I did not suggest you were. 

Right. But BOTH parties have been hijacked, or nearly hijacked, by populism recently. And there was a strong bipartisan agreement on many issues before. So I think if there is a pendulum going on in the US it is not Democrat vs. Republican but Establishment vs. Insurgents.

[derspiess]

Great but apocryphal . . .
Foster raked against Gibson. 6-14 lifetime, 2 triples 1 HR, 429avg .467 obp .929 slg
Gibby did get 6Ks on him.
BUT NO HBP.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/play-index/batter_vs_pitcher.cgi?batter=fostege01
Maybe it was spring training?

First time Foster ever faced Gibson in a regulation game was pinch hitting for the Giants in 1971.  Foster hit the HR.

I may be remembering it wrong and Gibson threw at him but didn't hit him.  Gibby did that a lot.  But I'm pretty sure the rest of the story is right.  I'll ask my brother how he remembers it.

[crazy canuck]

Typically when I see books explaining things by certain factors those factors could be used to explain any number of political shifts and I do not find them particularly useful. But if I find the time I will check it out. It is really new, have you read it?

I read it over my holiday.  I thought it was well written.  The author does not condemn but tries to understand why people have started to support populists - much in the vein of Hillbilly Elegy.

I found the analysis for why populism has taken hold in the world to be compelling.  The part of the book I thought was weak was his prescription for strengthening liberal democratic institutions which was the most worrying thing.  He made a compelling case for why people were turning away from liberal democracy but didnt have a good solution to the problem.