100% agree with John about Trump. As a kid growing up in California, I first really became aware of Trump in my teenage years in the late 80's when reading a Doonesbury anthology that absolutely eviscerated Trump for being the embodiment of a low class rich guy. From the start, he was a ridiculous figure; the kind of guy that proved that just because you had money, didn't mean you had class or character or competence.
Then, living in New York, in the early 2000s, Trump kind of grew on me. In New York business circles he was viewed as a joke; the rich son of a successful developer who was pretending to be a great businessman while obviously knowing nothing about what it actually takes to build a successful business. But he played the part so well, both with conviction but also a note of self-aware irony and a willingness to play along with jokes about him, that it was appealing and fun. Trump was like the closest thing to a merger of pro wrestling and the business world, and I loved pro wrestling as a kid. This period obviously hit its peak with The Apprentice, which was a lot of fun to watch, even though succeeding on the show obviously had as much to do with succeeding in business, as succeeding in pro wrestling has to do with being successful in actual combat sports.
So when Trump entered the 2016 presidential race, I thought it would be fun. And as someone who thought the Republican party had already gone a little crazy by then, I rooted for him to win the nomination, since I assumed there was no way that someone who is such an obvious buffoon could actually get elected.
Clearly, I was wrong about that. And so the question Glenn raises really is an important one. What does it say about the state of our country that such a significant percentage of the population is willing to vote for (and in some cases idolize) a figure like Trump: the publicity seeking non-religious son of a rich real estate developer who was spectacularly unsuccessful as a businessman (known primarily for the strategic use of bankruptcy law and law suits to avoid paying vendors) turned successful reality TV star, who dodged military service through a bogus medical deferment, married and cheated on multiple women, and ran for president despite having no experience in politics or government?
You did the same thing John did in this short video: plenty of descriptors of Mr. Trump, but nothing about his work as *president*. I'm sure you and John dislike some things he did *as president*, and I have no doubt both of you could present them articulately. Why, then, do you resort to "He's a ridiculous figure, he's a buffoon...." therefore he shouldn't be president? It's nice to have class, but incivility is not a presidential disqualifier, any more than bad breath disqualifies someone from being a race car driver.
"What does it say about the state of our country that such a significant percentage of the population is willing to vote for (and in some cases idolize) a figure like Trump"
It says a significant percentage of the population prefers low gas prices, affordable groceries, and peace more than they care about a president with good manners.
Good question and points Jesse. It made me think about George W. and Trump. I thought both were disastrously bad presidents in their own ways; but definitely dislike Trump far more intensely even though I would agree that from a pure policy perspective, George W. was worse. To your point, Trump didn't launch any wars and the economy was strong during his presidency.
So why do I dislike Trump so much more intensely? I think it comes down to two things:
- First, I think Trump's behavior during and after the 2020 election has been disastrously bad for the country, in ways that could permanently damage it. Trump lost a close election in 2020, just as he won a close one in 2016. The idea that the election was stolen has been comprehensively debunked (https://www.readtangle.com/2000-mules-fact-check-stolen-election/). But Trump has continuously claimed he was cheated in a way unlike any other Presidential candidate in American history. And while that would be bad enough in and of itself, the fact that has managed to parley that claim into being nominated again means that candidates may conclude that falsely claiming they were cheated is the best way to remain politically viable. I think that could be terrible for the country's future.
- The second reason has to do with character. You're right that "class" and "civility", while I hope and think they are helpful, are not prerequisites for being a president (and maybe not even for being a good president). Certainly, those are freighted concepts. But I think I always believed, maybe naively, that all of our presidents before Trump were men of character. Which doesn't mean they were perfect or even good people all of the time (many were unfaithful, LBJ stole a Senate election, Wilson was a racist , etc. etc.), but I think they all ran for President not only because of personal ambition but because they actually did want to make a difference for their country. And I think that is also true for most Congresspeople today, even the ones I disagree with intensely, whether it is an Ilhan Omar on the left or a Mike Johnson on the right. I don't think that is true for Donald Trump. I believe that Trump as President is the same person he was before he became President: a completely amoral person whose only motivation is self aggrandizement. I think it's sad that we had someone like that as our President for even one term, much less two.
Finally, Jesse, to your last point, I think you're probably right that lots of folks lean toward Trump because they associate him with a good period of time in their lives. What is sad, however, is that this association is likely to prove disastrous if Trump is reelected. Trump was incredibly fortunate to come to office at a time when he inherited an economy in marvelous shape and one where low interest rates meant that even increasing the budget deficit in the way that Trump did was not going to lead to bad outcomes for people. But whoever is President in 2025 is going to be faced with a very different situation, and Trump's plan to simply run it back will lead to a huge spike in inflation this time around: https://www.slowboring.com/p/trump-would-make-inflation-worse
Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the articulation of actual reasons, even if I don't agree with them.
1. The first reason I think is overstated, considering such behavior is not uncommon for the loser. I took 60 seconds for an Internet search, and it's easy to find stories--even on CNN and NPR--of Democrats questioning and challenging the 2000, 2004, and 2016 elections. Yes, Trump's complaints were louder and longer--in part because he planned to run again, unlike Gore, Kerry, and Hillary--but I don't see how that translates to permanently damaging the country.
2. Your second reason is a big part of Trump's popular appeal. You are not alone in naively thinking previous presidents were men of character; but at this point, I think most of us realize politicians (on both sides) are sleazy, who will do or say anything to get elected. When people saw Trump in all his buffoonery, they said, "That's who he really is; he's not pretending to be someone else in order to secure votes." As Trump himself said, "I'm not a politician. That's why I got elected."
3. I agree the debt/economy will be a big challenge, no matter who is elected. I'm not pleased that Trump increased the national debt, even though nearly half of it was covid relief.
Were I to wholly agree with your three reasons, I still don't see how this translates to....Adolf Hitler. Some say: "But he tried to take over the country!". It's a great propaganda point against Trump, but very silly when thought through. Consider the scenario: this vile, extremely charismatic dictator with 500,000 of his loyal devotees, most of whom own GUNS, are gathered to take over the country, with only 340 National Guard soldiers and the Capitol Police to stop them. In the afternoon, 1100 more Guardsmen are called, and in the evening, another 6200. (These numbers from the National Guard website report on Jan. 6.)
According to Wikipedia (which leans left), there were five deaths (one by shooting, one by drug overdose, three of natural causes); 174 injured police officers; and $2.7 million in damage. Five hundred thousand gun owners (following orders from their charismatic dictator) against a few thousand troops, and that's the best they can do? This is the wimpiest revolution of all time. It's hard to imagine a less Hitlerian result than that feeble attempted insurrection.
I know you, Gordon, didn't bring up "Hitler," but John and many others have made the comparison, and you state you agree 100% with John.
"1. The first reason I think is overstated, considering such behavior is not uncommon for the loser. I took 60 seconds for an Internet search, and it's easy to find stories--even on CNN and NPR--of Democrats questioning and challenging the 2000, 2004, and 2016 elections. Yes, Trump's complaints were louder and longer--in part because he planned to run again, unlike Gore, Kerry, and Hillary--but I don't see how that translates to permanently damaging the country."
Here's why that "Dems did it too:" argument comes across to me as incredibly weak.
In 2000, Al Gore believed that with a proper recount of FL, he would have won. He said as much, he took that claim to court, I think he won some legal victories in Florida but eventually lost when the US Supreme Court ruled against him in Bush v Gore. The VERY NEXT DAY, he gave a very gracious speech in which he acknowledged that he was giving up his legal challenges and acknowledging Bush as the next President. On Jan 6, 2001, the date of the electoral vote certification, a few Democratic House members made objections to counting the electoral vote count, and Al Gore himself, presiding over the electoral vote count as the sitting VP, ruled all of the objections out of order so that Bush could be certified the winner.
Other than the fact that both Trump in 2020 and Gore in 2016 filed lawsuits, absolutely no part of what Gore did in 2000 has even the slightest resemblance to what Trump did 2 decades later. No attempts to break Florida law by producing an "alternate" slate of electors, no attempts to bring a huge mob to Washington to strom the Capitol, and even though Gore was literally the guy who presided over the electoral vote count, no attempts to monkey with that.
In 2004, Bush defeated Kerry, and Kerry conceded. A smattering of Dem lawmakers protested, including one Senator who actually did object to the electoral vote count, but that objection was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 74-1 (8 Dems and 17 Republucans did not bother to vote). Kerry himself filed no lawsuits and made no efforts to scheme or foment violence in order to steal the election.
In 2016, Hillary Clinton called Trump and congratulated him on his victory on election night and gave a concession speech the next day. No lawsuits, no mobs, no "alternate" slates of electors. On Jan 6th, 2017, the then VP presided over the counting of electoral votes and overruled all objections from the floor. No mob stormed the Capitol that day in an effort to change the result.
Good points, Michael. "Dems did it too" is not to say their behavior matched Trump's precisely; it's mentioned only because there seems to be a large contingent who think the very thought of questioning the election (no matter the method) is dangerous and unpatriotic, etc.
My main point was this: in each case (2000, 2004, 2017, 2021) the RESULT was the same: a peaceful transition to the next president on the appointed day. In other words, mostly a lot of hot air. I think it's naive to assume other presidential candidates (and governors, mayors, senators, etc) don't work hard to "find" votes, and ask (in private conversation) for help finding such votes. Bush and Gore probably both did it in Florida. Politics is dirty business, yet the country abides. You can say Trump went overboard, that he worked dirtier than Gore and Hillary, but he still left office on the appointed day, and the country is still here. The aftermath of each election was the same. The outrage over Trump seems to be largely over what MIGHT have happened. But to repeat my earlier comment: if Trump actually wanted to "take over the country" in an unlawful manner (i.e. not through the courts)--with tens of millions of brainwashed, gun-toting followers at his disposal--don't you think he could have done more damage than a few broken windows, some trespassing arrests, and five deaths (only one--a Trump supporter--killed by another human)?
I don't think there is any reasonable characterization of what happened in 2021 as a peaceful transition. Moree than 1,000 police engaged in hand to hand fighting for several hours is "peaceful." Nope.
It is true Trump give up his fight after losing that battle, but there was still a physical battle fought, and it could have turned out differently than it did.
I would say there are a lot of meaningful differences between 2021 and 2001, 2005, and 2017, but the largest of these is this: in each of the prior years, the losing candidate accepted the outcome of the election and made abundantly clear long before it mattered they had done so. Outside of Gore's lawsuit, none made any effort, through the courts or outside them, to change the result. When Gore lost he abided by the decision. Trump did not accept his defeat until after his attempt to subvert the election failed.
To be clear Jesse, I'm definitely not saying that Trump equals Hitler. Nor is he Stalin or Mao. Or Idi Amin. Or even Castro. But to be fair, I don't think John was really equating Trump to Hitler either. I think his point about reading the Hitler biography was just that he was trying to understand how demagogues come to power.
Anyway, two points (and then I'll probably give you the last word if you want it).
First, I think it's sad that so many people believe, in the way that you describe, that there is no real difference between Trump and other politicians. I really do think that all previous presidents (and most politicians) are fundamentally different from Trump. I believe almost all of them were motivated by a mix of wanting to do some good for the world as well as personal ambition. I think Trump’s complete narcissism and self-centeredness is literally unprecedented among major American political figures.
I believe that virtually everyone, on both sides of the aisle, is a better person than Trump. In fact, with the exception of MTG (who I think is simply a whack job), I'm not aware of a single person in Congress of either party who I would not prefer to Trump as President. The only one who even gives me a moment of pause is Ted Cruz. While Cruz is obviously a much smarter and more competent person than Trump and doesn’t present the same kind of threat to democracy, I pause with him only because I've never heard of anyone else in politics who is so disliked by everyone who has ever spent time with him from colleagues to school mates. And like Trump, it seems sad for that bad a person to become President.
Second, with regard to Trump as a danger to democracy, for me it has little to nothing to do with January 6th. While that was obviously the visible moment in his effort to overturn the election, I agree it never had any real chance to actually change anything.
What I think was much scarier was both Trump’s phone call to Kemp trying to get the necessary votes in Georgia by whatever means necessary and his effort to get a slate of fake electors selected in Michigan. These were both real attempts to steal the election that could have succeeded if more officials had been MAGA rather than people of principle.
And I will tell you, speaking only for myself personally, that if a state legislature ever uses its powers to override the votes of the people in the state to throw its electors to its preferred candidate over the will of the voters, I would consider it a coup (even if technically constitutional) and would consider it legitimate to fight back by any and all means (including taking up arms if necessary).
And I think this gets to the real danger of Trump. American is a constitutional republic, but it’s not simply the constitution that has assured peaceful transfer of powers. It’s that we have norms. It’s that candidates for office, once they have exhausted their legal remedies for contesting an election, have agreed to concede and call for their supporters to stop fighting the election and become the loyal opposition. The ultimate example of this, of course, being Al Gore just 24 years ago. Can you imagine if the situation were reversed today? If Trump were to lose an election because supporters of Biden stopped a recount in a state where Biden’s brother was the governor? But 24 years ago, for the good of the country and despite the fact that it was terrible for him personally, when Gore was faced with this situation he agreed to stop the fight once the Supreme Court had made its final ruling.
I do believe that the way Trump has flagrantly violated this norm is immensely dangerous. And it’s all the worse that his supporters back him in this, despite the fact that his the kind of man that Matt Yglesias describes here: https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-orange-man-is-bad
It is refreshing to hear you reject the Trump=Hitler equation. No matter how much one dislikes him, it's still baffling to make the comparison; and people have been doing it since well before January 6. I'm curious if it is simply an ignorance of history. There may be, for instance, a whole generation of young voters who grew up on social media, who don't even know who Hitler was. They might think insulting people on Twitter is actually a Hitler-like move.
Trump has a big ego but I do believe he cares about America. I recently saw a clip from the early 1990s where Trump was on one of the big talk shows (Oprah, I think), talking about how Americans were getting screwed by overseas manufacturing, demanding something be done about it. (The host, seemingly impressed by this off-script rant, asked if Trump would consider running for president someday!) But I get how his ego can distract from any pro-America sensibilities he does have. He has become, unavoidably, a politician; but when people say he's different (or at least *was* different), they mean he's not a career politician. He was never a congressman, senator, or governor; thus he never had those years of "refinement," learning how to be phony, brown-nose, lie with a smile, &c. He's a straight shooter.
I think the Georgia phone call is similar to Jan. 6, in that people overreacted as if the country was in peril, when in both cases nothing (or very little) actually happened. As with Jan. 6, don't you think Trump could have done more, if he were really the evil dictator? Perhaps send some of his gun-toting supporters to Atlanta and demand Kemp's removal, or even his life? (This is just a hypothetical; I know you've clarified Trump is not on par with the evil dictators.) In both cases, Trump was very loud, but it was only words. He's actually followed the rules. He left office Jan. 20th. He's said "Find me votes," but he hasn't actually produces his own votes out of thin air. He was simply saying, in his verbose way, "Make sure you've counted all the votes properly." But again, I can clearly see how Trump's opponents interpret it as trying to steal the election. I'm sure many on the other side would accuse Biden of doing the same, if the scenario were reversed.
Sorry. Having trouble resisting the urge to make one last point. Your bar what constitutes a threat to democracy seems incredibly high to me Jesse. You seem to be saying that anything short of a military coup doesn't qualify.
Finally, if you think Trump's call to Kemp was his way of saying "make sure you have counted all the votes properly", I don't know what to tell you. It's like believing that Tony was telling Christopher to help these guys get a suit (https://youtu.be/9va2KKNCg4o?si=aPjP1Ht1Kf0Die_0&t=261).
As president, he used the powers of his office to try and usurp the presidency from his duly elected successor. As president, he disastrously mismanaged the US response to a worldwide pandemic. As president, he ordered the tear gassing of peaceful protestors so that he could stage a photo op. None of these is reasonably characterized as merely "bad manners."
For those who believe that there are at least some circumstances where pregant women should be allowed to get abortions, Trump appointed the justces who took away that federal right - and he is proud of having done it. People can view that as good or bad depending on where they stand on the issue, of course.
Trump oversaw a nationwide crime wave in 2020 that has taken some time to subside.
And, as president, Biden is using the DOJ to go after his political opponent. The Democrat attorneys general are using spurious and concocted laws that have never been applied against other businessmen, to go after Trump. Peaceful (unlike the George Floyd rioting criminals) anti-abortion protesters are being prosecuted. The entire justice system is being perverted by Biden and his Democrat party and people like oyu who hate Trump, are OK with that.
The tear-gassing to which you refer, never happened. It was just another lie concocted to attack Trump.
I'm certainly not a huge Biden guy. I think both Obama and Clinton are much smarter and more impressive people (though I would fully agree that Clinton is no better than Trump or JFK or LBJ when it comes to being faithful).
But in terms of what he has done at President, I think it's clear that Biden has gotten it mostly right. The American economy has been by far the strongest in the world (https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/03/14/americas-extraordinary-economy-keeps-defying-the-pessimists), his support for Ukraine has been unwavering and vital, he has generally done the right thing on Israel (though he should be pushing back again Netanyahu even more strongly than he has), the withdrawal from Afghanistan was poorly executed but ultimately the the right decision, and he has begun to call for the right steps on the border (only to be stopped by the Republicans trying to keep it as an issue).
Not a perfect record, but certainly a good one. If you feel differently, it would be good to know why.
Meanwhile, that's a response about policy. In terms of comparing Biden and Trump as people, the differences are much more stark. Biden is a career politician (which I'll agree has negatives as well as positives), who has dealt with incredible personal hardship with class and grace and is someone who was historically popular with his colleagues on both side of the aisle.
Trump, on the other hand, has a good sense of humor but otherwise has no redeeming qualities. He's a publicity seeking cheat in all senses of that word. He cheats in golf, cheats on his wives, cheats the people he does business with, and has tried to cheat in elections as well. He has almost no redeeming qualities, and I guarantee that 20 years from now, folks will be embarrassed to tell their grandchilden they voted for him.
I think we have to conclude that marital fidelity as a presidential characteristic is low on the pole. I've never been impressed with Biden, regardless of his political affiliation.
Biden was supposed to be a unifier, but his actions seem to me more as a divider the way he rags on Republicans/Trump supporters.
I believe he appears weak and feeble as a president and that does not engender confidence either here in the States and abroad, which is why we have so many conflicts going on.
The border is a disaster and has been since Biden got into office. Why has it taken 3.5 years to figure out what to do, and it's my understanding simply enforcing the laws and keeping the remain in Mexico ruling would have given time to put something together.
I don't understand the ultimate goal for the Ukraine War, do we just keep giving money indefinitely or do we try to broker some kind of negotiation?
Hamas released a shit storm with that raid, and now the ME is in an uproar. I am confident Hamas knew what it was doing and has no compunction about the dead Palestinians left in its wake. Biden now has to decide how to assist Israel kick Hamas' ass and get the hostages back, or let that conflict drag on with danger of escalation.
I fully agree with the Afhgan pullout, but yes, it was a disaster.
The economy may be doing OK, but most Americans aren't feeling it.
The pandering to the Trans movement, DEI, and all the other attendant "Theories" is unwarranted and over the top.
At this point, I am not voting for a personality, I am voting for who I think will steer us in the right direction.
I might ask since you seem to lean Democrat- what is your opinion of RFK?
Trump was very complicit in the bad Afghanistan withdrawal. By cutting the ostensibly US-supported Afghan government out of the negotiations with the Taliban, he signaled that that government was a sinking ship and the Afghans outside of Kabul saw the writing on the wall and cut their own deals with the Taliban, leading to the much faster than expected collapse when the actual US withdrawal began. Not one of Biden's or US intelligence's finest hours, but he was absolutely set up to fail by his predecessor. To change course he would have had to risk attacks on US forces (something Trump supporters generally oppose in other contexts).
What a pathetic justification of Biden's disastrous handling of Afghanistan, leaving Americans there to die, as well as billions in equipment, now in the hands of terrorists.
PSW: Why do you think Biden is going way too fast into alternatives? I think his energy policy has actually been arguably his strongest area, since he is both investing in alternative energy, while also taking steps to boost domestic oil production to its highest rate ever. I'm a big believer in a policy of energy abudance (https://www.slowboring.com/p/energy-abundance), and my main recommendation for Biden in this area is to become a stronger supporter of nuclear power.
And speaking of nuclear power PSW, to answer the question you asked above, I have no interest at all in RFK Jr. as an alternative to Biden. I think Jr. is wrong on nuclear power, wrong on vaccines, and wrong on Ukraine.
As for Ukraine, PSW, I suspect we may in some agreement there. Certainly, I think it's fair for you to ask the question of what the endgame is? Ultimately, I think a negotiated solution that gives up the Crimea (at least for now) will have to be the answer, but I think it's vital that Ukraine enter those negotiations from a position of relative strength, so that it is clear to everyone (including the Russian people) that launching the war was a huge mistake.
I also think, PSW, that some of your other criticisms are fair as well. I think it's reasonable to criticize for Biden for being late to address the border issues and for pandering too much on some social issues.
But ultimately, even from a strictly policy perspective, these criticisms are outweighed by the fact that Biden is far better on both the economy (https://www.slowboring.com/p/trump-would-make-inflation-worse) and our energy future. Then when you add in the huge weaknesses that Trump brings to the table because of his election denial and his lack of character (discussed in detail on a different thread above), I think the choice to vote for Biden is an easy one.
I think both Glenn and John have it right here.
100% agree with John about Trump. As a kid growing up in California, I first really became aware of Trump in my teenage years in the late 80's when reading a Doonesbury anthology that absolutely eviscerated Trump for being the embodiment of a low class rich guy. From the start, he was a ridiculous figure; the kind of guy that proved that just because you had money, didn't mean you had class or character or competence.
Then, living in New York, in the early 2000s, Trump kind of grew on me. In New York business circles he was viewed as a joke; the rich son of a successful developer who was pretending to be a great businessman while obviously knowing nothing about what it actually takes to build a successful business. But he played the part so well, both with conviction but also a note of self-aware irony and a willingness to play along with jokes about him, that it was appealing and fun. Trump was like the closest thing to a merger of pro wrestling and the business world, and I loved pro wrestling as a kid. This period obviously hit its peak with The Apprentice, which was a lot of fun to watch, even though succeeding on the show obviously had as much to do with succeeding in business, as succeeding in pro wrestling has to do with being successful in actual combat sports.
So when Trump entered the 2016 presidential race, I thought it would be fun. And as someone who thought the Republican party had already gone a little crazy by then, I rooted for him to win the nomination, since I assumed there was no way that someone who is such an obvious buffoon could actually get elected.
Clearly, I was wrong about that. And so the question Glenn raises really is an important one. What does it say about the state of our country that such a significant percentage of the population is willing to vote for (and in some cases idolize) a figure like Trump: the publicity seeking non-religious son of a rich real estate developer who was spectacularly unsuccessful as a businessman (known primarily for the strategic use of bankruptcy law and law suits to avoid paying vendors) turned successful reality TV star, who dodged military service through a bogus medical deferment, married and cheated on multiple women, and ran for president despite having no experience in politics or government?
It’s a fascinating question and an important one.
It’s says we have a disconnected elite based in dc.
Gordon,
You did the same thing John did in this short video: plenty of descriptors of Mr. Trump, but nothing about his work as *president*. I'm sure you and John dislike some things he did *as president*, and I have no doubt both of you could present them articulately. Why, then, do you resort to "He's a ridiculous figure, he's a buffoon...." therefore he shouldn't be president? It's nice to have class, but incivility is not a presidential disqualifier, any more than bad breath disqualifies someone from being a race car driver.
"What does it say about the state of our country that such a significant percentage of the population is willing to vote for (and in some cases idolize) a figure like Trump"
It says a significant percentage of the population prefers low gas prices, affordable groceries, and peace more than they care about a president with good manners.
Good question and points Jesse. It made me think about George W. and Trump. I thought both were disastrously bad presidents in their own ways; but definitely dislike Trump far more intensely even though I would agree that from a pure policy perspective, George W. was worse. To your point, Trump didn't launch any wars and the economy was strong during his presidency.
So why do I dislike Trump so much more intensely? I think it comes down to two things:
- First, I think Trump's behavior during and after the 2020 election has been disastrously bad for the country, in ways that could permanently damage it. Trump lost a close election in 2020, just as he won a close one in 2016. The idea that the election was stolen has been comprehensively debunked (https://www.readtangle.com/2000-mules-fact-check-stolen-election/). But Trump has continuously claimed he was cheated in a way unlike any other Presidential candidate in American history. And while that would be bad enough in and of itself, the fact that has managed to parley that claim into being nominated again means that candidates may conclude that falsely claiming they were cheated is the best way to remain politically viable. I think that could be terrible for the country's future.
- The second reason has to do with character. You're right that "class" and "civility", while I hope and think they are helpful, are not prerequisites for being a president (and maybe not even for being a good president). Certainly, those are freighted concepts. But I think I always believed, maybe naively, that all of our presidents before Trump were men of character. Which doesn't mean they were perfect or even good people all of the time (many were unfaithful, LBJ stole a Senate election, Wilson was a racist , etc. etc.), but I think they all ran for President not only because of personal ambition but because they actually did want to make a difference for their country. And I think that is also true for most Congresspeople today, even the ones I disagree with intensely, whether it is an Ilhan Omar on the left or a Mike Johnson on the right. I don't think that is true for Donald Trump. I believe that Trump as President is the same person he was before he became President: a completely amoral person whose only motivation is self aggrandizement. I think it's sad that we had someone like that as our President for even one term, much less two.
Finally, Jesse, to your last point, I think you're probably right that lots of folks lean toward Trump because they associate him with a good period of time in their lives. What is sad, however, is that this association is likely to prove disastrous if Trump is reelected. Trump was incredibly fortunate to come to office at a time when he inherited an economy in marvelous shape and one where low interest rates meant that even increasing the budget deficit in the way that Trump did was not going to lead to bad outcomes for people. But whoever is President in 2025 is going to be faced with a very different situation, and Trump's plan to simply run it back will lead to a huge spike in inflation this time around: https://www.slowboring.com/p/trump-would-make-inflation-worse
Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the articulation of actual reasons, even if I don't agree with them.
1. The first reason I think is overstated, considering such behavior is not uncommon for the loser. I took 60 seconds for an Internet search, and it's easy to find stories--even on CNN and NPR--of Democrats questioning and challenging the 2000, 2004, and 2016 elections. Yes, Trump's complaints were louder and longer--in part because he planned to run again, unlike Gore, Kerry, and Hillary--but I don't see how that translates to permanently damaging the country.
2. Your second reason is a big part of Trump's popular appeal. You are not alone in naively thinking previous presidents were men of character; but at this point, I think most of us realize politicians (on both sides) are sleazy, who will do or say anything to get elected. When people saw Trump in all his buffoonery, they said, "That's who he really is; he's not pretending to be someone else in order to secure votes." As Trump himself said, "I'm not a politician. That's why I got elected."
3. I agree the debt/economy will be a big challenge, no matter who is elected. I'm not pleased that Trump increased the national debt, even though nearly half of it was covid relief.
Were I to wholly agree with your three reasons, I still don't see how this translates to....Adolf Hitler. Some say: "But he tried to take over the country!". It's a great propaganda point against Trump, but very silly when thought through. Consider the scenario: this vile, extremely charismatic dictator with 500,000 of his loyal devotees, most of whom own GUNS, are gathered to take over the country, with only 340 National Guard soldiers and the Capitol Police to stop them. In the afternoon, 1100 more Guardsmen are called, and in the evening, another 6200. (These numbers from the National Guard website report on Jan. 6.)
According to Wikipedia (which leans left), there were five deaths (one by shooting, one by drug overdose, three of natural causes); 174 injured police officers; and $2.7 million in damage. Five hundred thousand gun owners (following orders from their charismatic dictator) against a few thousand troops, and that's the best they can do? This is the wimpiest revolution of all time. It's hard to imagine a less Hitlerian result than that feeble attempted insurrection.
I know you, Gordon, didn't bring up "Hitler," but John and many others have made the comparison, and you state you agree 100% with John.
"1. The first reason I think is overstated, considering such behavior is not uncommon for the loser. I took 60 seconds for an Internet search, and it's easy to find stories--even on CNN and NPR--of Democrats questioning and challenging the 2000, 2004, and 2016 elections. Yes, Trump's complaints were louder and longer--in part because he planned to run again, unlike Gore, Kerry, and Hillary--but I don't see how that translates to permanently damaging the country."
Here's why that "Dems did it too:" argument comes across to me as incredibly weak.
In 2000, Al Gore believed that with a proper recount of FL, he would have won. He said as much, he took that claim to court, I think he won some legal victories in Florida but eventually lost when the US Supreme Court ruled against him in Bush v Gore. The VERY NEXT DAY, he gave a very gracious speech in which he acknowledged that he was giving up his legal challenges and acknowledging Bush as the next President. On Jan 6, 2001, the date of the electoral vote certification, a few Democratic House members made objections to counting the electoral vote count, and Al Gore himself, presiding over the electoral vote count as the sitting VP, ruled all of the objections out of order so that Bush could be certified the winner.
Other than the fact that both Trump in 2020 and Gore in 2016 filed lawsuits, absolutely no part of what Gore did in 2000 has even the slightest resemblance to what Trump did 2 decades later. No attempts to break Florida law by producing an "alternate" slate of electors, no attempts to bring a huge mob to Washington to strom the Capitol, and even though Gore was literally the guy who presided over the electoral vote count, no attempts to monkey with that.
In 2004, Bush defeated Kerry, and Kerry conceded. A smattering of Dem lawmakers protested, including one Senator who actually did object to the electoral vote count, but that objection was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 74-1 (8 Dems and 17 Republucans did not bother to vote). Kerry himself filed no lawsuits and made no efforts to scheme or foment violence in order to steal the election.
In 2016, Hillary Clinton called Trump and congratulated him on his victory on election night and gave a concession speech the next day. No lawsuits, no mobs, no "alternate" slates of electors. On Jan 6th, 2017, the then VP presided over the counting of electoral votes and overruled all objections from the floor. No mob stormed the Capitol that day in an effort to change the result.
Good points, Michael. "Dems did it too" is not to say their behavior matched Trump's precisely; it's mentioned only because there seems to be a large contingent who think the very thought of questioning the election (no matter the method) is dangerous and unpatriotic, etc.
My main point was this: in each case (2000, 2004, 2017, 2021) the RESULT was the same: a peaceful transition to the next president on the appointed day. In other words, mostly a lot of hot air. I think it's naive to assume other presidential candidates (and governors, mayors, senators, etc) don't work hard to "find" votes, and ask (in private conversation) for help finding such votes. Bush and Gore probably both did it in Florida. Politics is dirty business, yet the country abides. You can say Trump went overboard, that he worked dirtier than Gore and Hillary, but he still left office on the appointed day, and the country is still here. The aftermath of each election was the same. The outrage over Trump seems to be largely over what MIGHT have happened. But to repeat my earlier comment: if Trump actually wanted to "take over the country" in an unlawful manner (i.e. not through the courts)--with tens of millions of brainwashed, gun-toting followers at his disposal--don't you think he could have done more damage than a few broken windows, some trespassing arrests, and five deaths (only one--a Trump supporter--killed by another human)?
I don't think there is any reasonable characterization of what happened in 2021 as a peaceful transition. Moree than 1,000 police engaged in hand to hand fighting for several hours is "peaceful." Nope.
It is true Trump give up his fight after losing that battle, but there was still a physical battle fought, and it could have turned out differently than it did.
I would say there are a lot of meaningful differences between 2021 and 2001, 2005, and 2017, but the largest of these is this: in each of the prior years, the losing candidate accepted the outcome of the election and made abundantly clear long before it mattered they had done so. Outside of Gore's lawsuit, none made any effort, through the courts or outside them, to change the result. When Gore lost he abided by the decision. Trump did not accept his defeat until after his attempt to subvert the election failed.
To be clear Jesse, I'm definitely not saying that Trump equals Hitler. Nor is he Stalin or Mao. Or Idi Amin. Or even Castro. But to be fair, I don't think John was really equating Trump to Hitler either. I think his point about reading the Hitler biography was just that he was trying to understand how demagogues come to power.
Anyway, two points (and then I'll probably give you the last word if you want it).
First, I think it's sad that so many people believe, in the way that you describe, that there is no real difference between Trump and other politicians. I really do think that all previous presidents (and most politicians) are fundamentally different from Trump. I believe almost all of them were motivated by a mix of wanting to do some good for the world as well as personal ambition. I think Trump’s complete narcissism and self-centeredness is literally unprecedented among major American political figures.
I believe that virtually everyone, on both sides of the aisle, is a better person than Trump. In fact, with the exception of MTG (who I think is simply a whack job), I'm not aware of a single person in Congress of either party who I would not prefer to Trump as President. The only one who even gives me a moment of pause is Ted Cruz. While Cruz is obviously a much smarter and more competent person than Trump and doesn’t present the same kind of threat to democracy, I pause with him only because I've never heard of anyone else in politics who is so disliked by everyone who has ever spent time with him from colleagues to school mates. And like Trump, it seems sad for that bad a person to become President.
Second, with regard to Trump as a danger to democracy, for me it has little to nothing to do with January 6th. While that was obviously the visible moment in his effort to overturn the election, I agree it never had any real chance to actually change anything.
What I think was much scarier was both Trump’s phone call to Kemp trying to get the necessary votes in Georgia by whatever means necessary and his effort to get a slate of fake electors selected in Michigan. These were both real attempts to steal the election that could have succeeded if more officials had been MAGA rather than people of principle.
And I will tell you, speaking only for myself personally, that if a state legislature ever uses its powers to override the votes of the people in the state to throw its electors to its preferred candidate over the will of the voters, I would consider it a coup (even if technically constitutional) and would consider it legitimate to fight back by any and all means (including taking up arms if necessary).
And I think this gets to the real danger of Trump. American is a constitutional republic, but it’s not simply the constitution that has assured peaceful transfer of powers. It’s that we have norms. It’s that candidates for office, once they have exhausted their legal remedies for contesting an election, have agreed to concede and call for their supporters to stop fighting the election and become the loyal opposition. The ultimate example of this, of course, being Al Gore just 24 years ago. Can you imagine if the situation were reversed today? If Trump were to lose an election because supporters of Biden stopped a recount in a state where Biden’s brother was the governor? But 24 years ago, for the good of the country and despite the fact that it was terrible for him personally, when Gore was faced with this situation he agreed to stop the fight once the Supreme Court had made its final ruling.
I do believe that the way Trump has flagrantly violated this norm is immensely dangerous. And it’s all the worse that his supporters back him in this, despite the fact that his the kind of man that Matt Yglesias describes here: https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-orange-man-is-bad
It is refreshing to hear you reject the Trump=Hitler equation. No matter how much one dislikes him, it's still baffling to make the comparison; and people have been doing it since well before January 6. I'm curious if it is simply an ignorance of history. There may be, for instance, a whole generation of young voters who grew up on social media, who don't even know who Hitler was. They might think insulting people on Twitter is actually a Hitler-like move.
Trump has a big ego but I do believe he cares about America. I recently saw a clip from the early 1990s where Trump was on one of the big talk shows (Oprah, I think), talking about how Americans were getting screwed by overseas manufacturing, demanding something be done about it. (The host, seemingly impressed by this off-script rant, asked if Trump would consider running for president someday!) But I get how his ego can distract from any pro-America sensibilities he does have. He has become, unavoidably, a politician; but when people say he's different (or at least *was* different), they mean he's not a career politician. He was never a congressman, senator, or governor; thus he never had those years of "refinement," learning how to be phony, brown-nose, lie with a smile, &c. He's a straight shooter.
I think the Georgia phone call is similar to Jan. 6, in that people overreacted as if the country was in peril, when in both cases nothing (or very little) actually happened. As with Jan. 6, don't you think Trump could have done more, if he were really the evil dictator? Perhaps send some of his gun-toting supporters to Atlanta and demand Kemp's removal, or even his life? (This is just a hypothetical; I know you've clarified Trump is not on par with the evil dictators.) In both cases, Trump was very loud, but it was only words. He's actually followed the rules. He left office Jan. 20th. He's said "Find me votes," but he hasn't actually produces his own votes out of thin air. He was simply saying, in his verbose way, "Make sure you've counted all the votes properly." But again, I can clearly see how Trump's opponents interpret it as trying to steal the election. I'm sure many on the other side would accuse Biden of doing the same, if the scenario were reversed.
Thanks for the discussion.
Sorry. Having trouble resisting the urge to make one last point. Your bar what constitutes a threat to democracy seems incredibly high to me Jesse. You seem to be saying that anything short of a military coup doesn't qualify.
To be clear, I'm not worried about a military coup; I trust the military not to get involved domestically. What I worry about is the Orbanization of America (https://www.illiberalism.org/dismantling-democracy-the-orbanization-of-hungary/), which is what I genuinely think Trump would try to do.
Finally, if you think Trump's call to Kemp was his way of saying "make sure you have counted all the votes properly", I don't know what to tell you. It's like believing that Tony was telling Christopher to help these guys get a suit (https://youtu.be/9va2KKNCg4o?si=aPjP1Ht1Kf0Die_0&t=261).
As president, he used the powers of his office to try and usurp the presidency from his duly elected successor. As president, he disastrously mismanaged the US response to a worldwide pandemic. As president, he ordered the tear gassing of peaceful protestors so that he could stage a photo op. None of these is reasonably characterized as merely "bad manners."
For those who believe that there are at least some circumstances where pregant women should be allowed to get abortions, Trump appointed the justces who took away that federal right - and he is proud of having done it. People can view that as good or bad depending on where they stand on the issue, of course.
Trump oversaw a nationwide crime wave in 2020 that has taken some time to subside.
And, as president, Biden is using the DOJ to go after his political opponent. The Democrat attorneys general are using spurious and concocted laws that have never been applied against other businessmen, to go after Trump. Peaceful (unlike the George Floyd rioting criminals) anti-abortion protesters are being prosecuted. The entire justice system is being perverted by Biden and his Democrat party and people like oyu who hate Trump, are OK with that.
The tear-gassing to which you refer, never happened. It was just another lie concocted to attack Trump.
Joe's had 50 years of experience in politics and government and he's still a screw up.
I'm certainly not a huge Biden guy. I think both Obama and Clinton are much smarter and more impressive people (though I would fully agree that Clinton is no better than Trump or JFK or LBJ when it comes to being faithful).
But in terms of what he has done at President, I think it's clear that Biden has gotten it mostly right. The American economy has been by far the strongest in the world (https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/03/14/americas-extraordinary-economy-keeps-defying-the-pessimists), his support for Ukraine has been unwavering and vital, he has generally done the right thing on Israel (though he should be pushing back again Netanyahu even more strongly than he has), the withdrawal from Afghanistan was poorly executed but ultimately the the right decision, and he has begun to call for the right steps on the border (only to be stopped by the Republicans trying to keep it as an issue).
Not a perfect record, but certainly a good one. If you feel differently, it would be good to know why.
Meanwhile, that's a response about policy. In terms of comparing Biden and Trump as people, the differences are much more stark. Biden is a career politician (which I'll agree has negatives as well as positives), who has dealt with incredible personal hardship with class and grace and is someone who was historically popular with his colleagues on both side of the aisle.
Trump, on the other hand, has a good sense of humor but otherwise has no redeeming qualities. He's a publicity seeking cheat in all senses of that word. He cheats in golf, cheats on his wives, cheats the people he does business with, and has tried to cheat in elections as well. He has almost no redeeming qualities, and I guarantee that 20 years from now, folks will be embarrassed to tell their grandchilden they voted for him.
I think we have to conclude that marital fidelity as a presidential characteristic is low on the pole. I've never been impressed with Biden, regardless of his political affiliation.
Biden was supposed to be a unifier, but his actions seem to me more as a divider the way he rags on Republicans/Trump supporters.
I believe he appears weak and feeble as a president and that does not engender confidence either here in the States and abroad, which is why we have so many conflicts going on.
The border is a disaster and has been since Biden got into office. Why has it taken 3.5 years to figure out what to do, and it's my understanding simply enforcing the laws and keeping the remain in Mexico ruling would have given time to put something together.
I don't understand the ultimate goal for the Ukraine War, do we just keep giving money indefinitely or do we try to broker some kind of negotiation?
Hamas released a shit storm with that raid, and now the ME is in an uproar. I am confident Hamas knew what it was doing and has no compunction about the dead Palestinians left in its wake. Biden now has to decide how to assist Israel kick Hamas' ass and get the hostages back, or let that conflict drag on with danger of escalation.
I fully agree with the Afhgan pullout, but yes, it was a disaster.
The economy may be doing OK, but most Americans aren't feeling it.
The pandering to the Trans movement, DEI, and all the other attendant "Theories" is unwarranted and over the top.
At this point, I am not voting for a personality, I am voting for who I think will steer us in the right direction.
I might ask since you seem to lean Democrat- what is your opinion of RFK?
Trump was very complicit in the bad Afghanistan withdrawal. By cutting the ostensibly US-supported Afghan government out of the negotiations with the Taliban, he signaled that that government was a sinking ship and the Afghans outside of Kabul saw the writing on the wall and cut their own deals with the Taliban, leading to the much faster than expected collapse when the actual US withdrawal began. Not one of Biden's or US intelligence's finest hours, but he was absolutely set up to fail by his predecessor. To change course he would have had to risk attacks on US forces (something Trump supporters generally oppose in other contexts).
What a pathetic justification of Biden's disastrous handling of Afghanistan, leaving Americans there to die, as well as billions in equipment, now in the hands of terrorists.
Energy policy-Going wayyy to fast into alternatives without thinking about the consequences.
PSW: Why do you think Biden is going way too fast into alternatives? I think his energy policy has actually been arguably his strongest area, since he is both investing in alternative energy, while also taking steps to boost domestic oil production to its highest rate ever. I'm a big believer in a policy of energy abudance (https://www.slowboring.com/p/energy-abundance), and my main recommendation for Biden in this area is to become a stronger supporter of nuclear power.
And speaking of nuclear power PSW, to answer the question you asked above, I have no interest at all in RFK Jr. as an alternative to Biden. I think Jr. is wrong on nuclear power, wrong on vaccines, and wrong on Ukraine.
As for Ukraine, PSW, I suspect we may in some agreement there. Certainly, I think it's fair for you to ask the question of what the endgame is? Ultimately, I think a negotiated solution that gives up the Crimea (at least for now) will have to be the answer, but I think it's vital that Ukraine enter those negotiations from a position of relative strength, so that it is clear to everyone (including the Russian people) that launching the war was a huge mistake.
I also think, PSW, that some of your other criticisms are fair as well. I think it's reasonable to criticize for Biden for being late to address the border issues and for pandering too much on some social issues.
But ultimately, even from a strictly policy perspective, these criticisms are outweighed by the fact that Biden is far better on both the economy (https://www.slowboring.com/p/trump-would-make-inflation-worse) and our energy future. Then when you add in the huge weaknesses that Trump brings to the table because of his election denial and his lack of character (discussed in detail on a different thread above), I think the choice to vote for Biden is an easy one.