What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Oexmelin]

It didn't stop all the people.  Things that discourage rational discourse don't uniformly shut people up; they disproportionally discourage those who have some rational discourse to offer in the first place.

I really don't see it in this case. It seems like your objection is based on principle, rather than on what is unfolding.

[alfred russel]

Trump tweeted he is going to release the full transcript of his call with Pres. Zelensky of Ukraine tomorrow.

He is also going to release his tax returns. It will probably be any day now...

[Admiral Yi]

The Greta Thune situation is akin to Congressional hearings in which celebrities make speeches about increasing funding for their pet causes.  They're not offering technical expertise or moral authority or special insight, but their own charisma.  My unsubstantiated opinion is that charisma sways the opinions of desperate housewife types and twittertard young people without generating any backlash.  So talk away Greta.

[The Minsky Moment]

Being a child doing adult things, such as calling out adult politicians, is what's not helpful, because it's abusing protections accorded to children.  It doesn't matter if she goes "I'm playing an adult game, so go ahead and treat me like an adult"; those who disagree will still be unfairly constrained from arguing with her, and those who agree will still be tempted to play the age card on behalf of someone who voluntarily does adult things.

Early returns suggest there are plenty of people who don't seem constrained against arguing with her and they seem to focus on her neurological diagnosis as opposed to her arguments or position.  You underestimate the general scummery of human beings and climate denier types in particular.

There is plenty of room for adults to disagree with her in an adult fashion.  I think her assumption that economic growth is a fantasy or is incompatible with moving to a zero emissions outcome is mistaken and ironically is a premise shared with many of her political detractors.

Of course the reality is as many have already stated here - her main function is symbolic, hence the thrust of the attacks tends to the ad hominem as way of tarnishing the symbol.

[DGuller]

It didn't stop all the people.  Things that discourage rational discourse don't uniformly shut people up; they disproportionally discourage those who have some rational discourse to offer in the first place.

I really don't see it in this case. It seems like your objection is based on principle, rather than on what is unfolding.

It is based on principle, I've said that in the beginning.  A bad argument in support of a good position is still a bad argument, and in some ways more pernicious than even a bad argument in support of bad position.

[frunk]

It is based on principle, I've said that in the beginning.  A bad argument in support of a good position is still a bad argument, and in some ways more pernicious than even a bad argument in support of bad position.

It's not based on arguments at all.  It's based on who she is rather than what she is saying.  There will always be grounds for complaining about who is saying it rather than focusing on the actual content.

[DGuller]

It is based on principle, I've said that in the beginning.  A bad argument in support of a good position is still a bad argument, and in some ways more pernicious than even a bad argument in support of bad position.

It's not based on arguments at all.  It's based on who she is rather than what she is saying.  There will always be grounds for complaining about who is saying it rather than focusing on the actual content.

Her being a child saying blunt things to adults is the argument.  Argument to innocence, or something of that nature, the converse of ad hominem.

[frunk]

Her being a child saying blunt things to adults is the argument.  Argument to innocence, or something of that nature, the converse of ad hominem.

Can you think of someone who wouldn't be criticized or lauded for who they are rather than what they say?

[Sheilbh]

Quite frankly, considering the state of current political leadership, being worried about what a 16 year old teen brings to the debate seems like a misplaced concern.

Agreed. I do think there's something interesting in the symbolic world she's tapping into which seems to me very Euro-Christian, especially the way that she scorns and rages at left-wing leaders who want to co-opt for failing as much as the "right" on this. It's a really interesting contrast from a typical "political" campaign, such as by the Parkland survivors.

There's something of Fatima, and other visions of a teenage girl speaking with moral clarity in the face of our coming apocalypse that does seem interesting away from her specific message.

But I say that as someone who admires and agrees with the Parkland surivors and Greta.

[Admiral Yi]

Agreed. I do think there's something interesting in the symbolic world she's tapping into which seems to me very Euro-Christian, especially the way that she scorns and rages at left-wing leaders who want to co-opt for failing as much as the "right" on this. It's a really interesting contrast from a typical "political" campaign, such as by the Parkland survivors.

There's something of Fatima, and other visions of a teenage girl speaking with moral clarity in the face of our coming apocalypse that does seem interesting away from her specific message.

But I say that as someone who admires and agrees with the Parkland surivors and Greta.

Twittertard. 

My first thought was Joan of Arc.

[Sheilbh]

The difference is, of course, Joan of Arc is just a witch so....

[Malthus]

I'm with DGuller on this, even though as I've said many times on this site, environmental matters are an issue on which I feel strongly. I agree with her message, and I agree that action is urgently required, but I fundamentally distrust appeals to popular emotion and symbolism.

Yes, its great that this is attracting attention - for the moment. I understand the feeling that 'well, nothing is otherwise being done, so we have nothing to lose by trying this'. Problem is that an appeal to emotion is of necessity based on the fickleness of the popular mood. Today this is working. Tomorrow something else will attract their attention and this will be yesterday's news. Someone will produce an earnest kid plugging some new cause. 

[Oexmelin]

Trump administration's concern for American journalists abroad:

To give you a sense of what this retreat looks like on the ground, let me tell you a story I've never shared publicly before. Two years ago, we got a call from a United States government official warning us of the imminent arrest of a New York Times reporter based in Egypt named Declan Walsh. Though the news was alarming, the call was actually fairly standard. Over the years, we've received countless such warnings from American diplomats, military leaders and national security officials.

But this particular call took a surprising and distressing turn. We learned the official was passing along this warning without the knowledge or permission of the Trump administration. Rather than trying to stop the Egyptian government or assist the reporter, the official believed, the Trump administration intended to sit on the information and let the arrest be carried out. The official feared being punished for even alerting us to the danger.

Unable to count on our own government to prevent the arrest or help free Declan if he were imprisoned, we turned to his native country, Ireland, for help. Within an hour, Irish diplomats traveled to his house and safely escorted him to the airport before Egyptian forces could detain him.

We hate to imagine what would have happened had that brave official not risked their career to alert us to the threat.

And:

Eighteen months later, another of our reporters, David Kirkpatrick, arrived in Egypt and was detained and deported in apparent retaliation for exposing information that was embarrassing to the Egyptian government. When we protested the move, a senior official at the United States Embassy in Cairo openly voiced the cynical worldview behind the Trump administration's tolerance for such crackdowns. "What did you expect would happen to him?" he said. "His reporting made the government look bad."

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/23/opinion/press-freedom-arthur-sulzberger.html

[Oexmelin]

Yes, its great that this is attracting attention - for the moment. I understand the feeling that 'well, nothing is otherwise being done, so we have nothing to lose by trying this'. Problem is that an appeal to emotion is of necessity based on the fickleness of the popular mood. Today this is working. Tomorrow something else will attract their attention and this will be yesterday's news. Someone will produce an earnest kid plugging some new cause. 

I think this is a misunderstanding of how politics work. There will be no great rational Parliament of Climate Change. There will be no Expert Executive Directory of Climate Change. All the information is out. All the data is out. There will be more data. There will be contradictory data. There will be more experts publishing reports.

The lack of rational debate is not what has stopped action, and a hypothetical surge of rational debate will not solve the crisis either. This will be a matter for conviction, fortitude and activism. Pinning all of our hopes on Greta is stupid and dangerous. But Greta is part of a vast ensemble of mobilization that will be required to transform data, and expert voice, and irrational fears, and ecological anxieties, and passion, and reluctance, into political action. The more time people spend undermining these voices, the more we keep waiting on some political Godot. If you want Greta to be just a symbolic child, then relay her message with the kind of passion she has, but with the kind of "rational engagement" you wish to see. But too often, people deride passion without ever actually engaging with the issues.

So, other causes will trot out their symbolic child, and passionate voices. And so what? They already do. And reason will not make them stop either.

[Malthus]

Yes, its great that this is attracting attention - for the moment. I understand the feeling that 'well, nothing is otherwise being done, so we have nothing to lose by trying this'. Problem is that an appeal to emotion is of necessity based on the fickleness of the popular mood. Today this is working. Tomorrow something else will attract their attention and this will be yesterday's news. Someone will produce an earnest kid plugging some new cause. 

I think this is a misunderstanding of how politics work. There will be no great rational Parliament of Climate Change. There will be no Expert Executive Directory of Climate Change. All the information is out. All the data is out. There will be more data. There will be contradictory data. There will be more experts publishing reports.

The lack of rational debate is not what has stopped action, and a hypothetical surge of rational debate will not solve the crisis either. This will be a matter for conviction, fortitude and activism. Pinning all of our hopes on Greta is stupid and dangerous. But Greta is part of a vast ensemble of mobilization that will be required to transform data, and expert voice, and irrational fears, and ecological anxieties, and passion, and reluctance, into political action. The more time people spend undermining these voices, the more we keep waiting on some political Godot. If you want Greta to be just a symbolic child, then relay her message with the kind of passion she has, but with the kind of "rational engagement" you wish to see. But too often, people deride passion without ever actually engaging with the issues.

So, other causes will trot out their symbolic child, and passionate voices. And so what? They already do. And reason will not make them stop either.

Assuming the alternatives are 'do the politics of populism' and 'do nothing' (the 'waiting on some political Godot' strategy), I would agree: doing something is better than doing nothing.

However - arguments based on passion are so easily misplaced, because they can only be judged by the quality of the passion. There are people equally, or more, passionate about a host of causes: vegetarianism, animal rights, anti-racism, or for that matter, on the other side - freedom to own guns, racist agitation against the harms created by immigration, whatever.

The difference between these various worthy (and unworthy) causes and climate change, is that the latter is a true existential crisis, requiring truly extraordinary sacrifices to address. Mixing it in with these other causes of the week risks having it taken on the same level as them.