US Politics Gedanken Experiment

[sunmaster14]

Just to preface this experiment, I'll note that Trump makes me cringe at times (actually quite often), and I do wish that he behaved like he had a well-developed id and not like he was a spoiled child. Still, I am very, very pleased with his Presidency so far, and I'm starting to come around to the belief that you need somebody like Trump to make real change happen. As I've said before, Trump is an extraordinarily thick-skinned leader masquerading as a thin-skinned diva. Or perhaps he's a thin-skinned diva, who is so perceptionally-challenged, that he doesn't realize what people must truly think of him. A distinction without a difference from my point of view.

Anyhoo, Ann Althouse, who is one of my favorite bloggers, posed the following thought experiment. I will quote it in full here <SNIP>, since I think it diminishes the effectiveness of the posited hypothetical to force everybody to go the link:

1. Imagine a President Trump whose policies all accord with your own. Substantively, he's like, perhaps, Barack Obama. He'll appoint the Supreme Court Justice who will give the liberal faction a decisive 5-person majority. He's very accepting of undocumented immigrants, committed to Obamacare, etc. etc. — whatever it is that you like. But he has all the personal characteristics of Donald Trump. He entered politics from a successful business career, funded his own campaign using his private wealth, and figured out how to do politics on the fly, making mistakes and correcting his course. He got knocked around in the press and by party insiders who wanted to stop him, but he kept going, overcoming 16 opponents. He had his own way of talking and he took it straight to the people, with hundreds of rallies, and he especially connected with working class people. They just loved him, as the elite shook their heads, because he didn't have the diplomacy and elegance they'd come to expect from a President. Be honest now. How would you like this man? How would you speak about his personal style?

2. Imagine a President Trump with all of the substantive policies of the real Donald Trump — all of them, exactly the same. But this Donald Trump meets your stylistic ideal. He looks, acts, and speaks the way you picture a perfect President. He never seems at all rude or crude or imprecise in his words. His tone — you know the word 'tone'? — is well-modulated. His sentences are the right length, his vocabulary large without verging into show-offiness. He seems confident, but not arrogant. He's nice looking and the right age, perhaps 58, and his wife, who's only exactly as good-looking as he is, is almost the same age. He's got what everyone regards as a "good temperament." He's on task and organized — his administration is up and running like a fine-tuned machine — and putting through all these policies that you loathe and dread. What would you be saying about this Donald Trump?

I'll note that experiment 2 has actually already pretty much been run. That was in 2012, so it's not necessary for anti-Trumpers to use their imagination.

Experiment 1 is more hypothetical, but I think elements were present at the climax of Bill Clinton's 2nd term after he failed to come up with an innocent explanation for how his semen wound up on Monica Lewinsky's dress. At the time I thought it wouldn't be that hard to come up with a satisfactory one, but apparently it was too hard. At least for him.

<SNIP>

Edited by Locknar: 

Please do not discuss forum moderation issues or concerns outside of FMF.

 

[Garrette]

Experiment 1 is not accurate in that it says "has all the personal characteristics of Donald Trump" then goes on to list a fantasy version of them. He partly funded his own campaign but not remotely fully, and he has not corrected any mistakes; he will not even admit them.

 

[sunmaster14]

Experiment 1 is not accurate in that it says "has all the personal characteristics of Donald Trump" then goes on to list a fantasy version of them. He partly funded his own campaign but not remotely fully, and he has not corrected any mistakes; he will not even admit them.

Fine. I didn't mean for it to be tendentious. Paste your own perceptions of Trump, or paste an actual Trump, on a President who aligns with Hillary's policy views, or Bernie's, if that's the way you swing.

 

[Civet]

Experiment 1 is not accurate in that it says "has all the personal characteristics of Donald Trump" then goes on to list a fantasy version of them. He partly funded his own campaign but not remotely fully, and he has not corrected any mistakes; he will not even admit them.

Agree that the description of Trump's characteristics is inaccurate. Will concede that I would vote for someone I agreed with on the issues even if I thought him an *******. Would still call him an *******. Thought Clinton (male) was an *******. Voted for him. Would not vote for someone I did not agree with even if he seemed like a good guy. Would still call him a good guy. Thought McCain was a good guy. Liked him. Still do. Voted against him.

 

[Garrette]

Fine. I didn't mean for it to be tendentious. Paste your own perceptions of Trump, or paste an actual Trump, on a President who aligns with Hillary's policy views, or Bernie's, if that's the way you swing.

My position is similar but not identical to Civet's.

Agree that the description of Trump's characteristics is inaccurate. Will concede that I would vote for someone I agreed with on the issues even if I thought him an *******. Would still call him an *******. Thought Clinton (male) was an *******. Voted for him. Would not vote for someone I did not agree with even if he seemed like a good guy. Would still call him a good guy. Thought McCain was a good guy. Liked him. Still do. Voted against him.

I will add that while I think any good that comes out of the Trump administration (and there is a possibility of it), it will likely be incidental to him and not because of him with one exception: there is value in the settled establishment being vigorously poked and unsettled. The question here is whether the potential value outweighs the risks.

 

[Cleon]

Experiment 1 is not accurate in that it says "has all the personal characteristics of Donald Trump" then goes on to list a fantasy version of them. He partly funded his own campaign but not remotely fully, and he has not corrected any mistakes; he will not even admit them.

Yeah, this "thought experiment" could be neatly summarized as: "If the situation were different, would your opinions be different?"

 

[Garrette]

Yeah, this "thought experiment" could be neatly summarized as: "If the situation were different, would your opinions be different?"

Yes.

I would add that the experiment misses the truly salient point which is that the largest complaint is not policy based but rather a question both of competence and corruption.

 

[LSSBB]

Useless thought experiment is useless.

Exercise in self justification, maybe.

 

[PhantomWolf]

At the end of the day you should vote on policies, and if it turns out that your choices are an asshat who you agree with and a nice guy you disagree with you might have to hold your nose and vote.

However, when you have 16 people to start with, there is likely a nice guy you agree with in that bunch, or perhaps a not as much of an asshat who you agree with.

I really have little issue with people that voted for Trump because they liked his policies, other than that I think they are idiots for liking his policies. I have a bigger issue with those that disliked him and his policies but voted for him anyways because they disliked the things Hillary was accused of and ignored that Trump was doing much the same or worse himself.

 

[Cleon]

I really have little issue with people that voted for Trump because they liked his policies, other than that I think they are idiots for liking his policies. I have a bigger issue with those that disliked him and his policies but voted for him anyways because they disliked the things Hillary was accused of and ignored that Trump was doing much the same or worse himself.

I like that. Well put.

 

[Garrette]

At the end of the day you should vote on policies, and if it turns out that your choices are an asshat who you agree with and a nice guy you disagree with you might have to hold your nose and vote.

However, when you have 16 people to start with, there is likely a nice guy you agree with in that bunch, or perhaps a not as much of an asshat who you agree with.

I really have little issue with people that voted for Trump because they liked his policies, other than that I think they are idiots for liking his policies. I have a bigger issue with those that disliked him and his policies but voted for him anyways because they disliked the things Hillary was accused of and ignored that Trump was doing much the same or worse himself.

I like that. Well put.

Agreed.

 

[theprestige]

Yeah, this "thought experiment" could be neatly summarized as: "If the situation were different, would your opinions be different?"

"If the situation were different *in this specific way*, how do you think it would affect your opinions?"

 

[crescent]

The key fallacy in scenario one is to see any daylight between Trump's demeanor and his policies.

He says sexist things because he actually is sexist. He mocks disable people because he really has no respect for them. His personality so far has been a good indicator of what policies he will support.

Comparing him to Bill Clinton also seems fallacious. Were the Monica Lewinsky thing to occur to a sitting Democratic president today, he would be judged much more harshly. Society has changed in the 16 years since BC left office.

 

[The Shrike]

Some of my objections to Trump (in no particular order):
1) The dude has been in the public eye for decades and has never shown me anything about himself that didn't scream "self-absorbed, womanizing, two-faced, shallow, tacky, delusional, attention-whoring prick." So no, this person is not one who I think is fit to represent the United States of America, mostly because I sincerely doubt his ability to act for the good of the country if it might be at odds with what's good for Trump.
2) His rhetoric emboldens dictators, Nazis, racists.
3) He has admitted on tape, in the context of a story bragging about his attempt to begin an affair while married to a married woman, that he is a habitual sexual predator. For this he should be in jail, not in the Oval Office.
4) He is very likely compromised by Russia and a serious threat to our national security.
5) He has made disastrous Cabinet and other appointments.
6) He refuses to release his tax returns.

etc.

So let's say I could somehow ignore all those things about a dangerous, odious, unhinged individual, but that he supported policies I support. I still could not support him. The problem is not that he's unpolished, it's that I seriously don't think he can be trusted with classified information.

And a kinder, gentler, more experienced, smooth, and intelligent Trump pushing the same policies? No way! That would just be putting style over substance. No matter who the messenger is, the border wall is a ridiculous waste of time.

 

[Spindrift]

So basically think of two different people who aren't anything much like Trump and what would you feel if they were president?

 

[theprestige]

So basically think of two different people who aren't anything much like Trump and what would you feel if they were president?

Not really.

Think of a President with Obama's|Hillary's|Bernie's policies but Trump's demeanor and backstory. Would you have voted for him? Would you have supported his policies?

Think of a President with Trump's policies but Obama's class and decorum. Would you have voted for him? Would you have supported his policies?

 

[Spindrift]

Not really.

Think of a President with Obama's|Hillary's|Bernie's policies but Trump's demeanor and backstory. Would you have voted for him? Would you have supported his policies?

Think of a President with Trump's policies but Obama's class and decorum. Would you have voted for him? Would you have supported his policies?

Okay.

1 - No. Trump's demeanor disqualifies anyone.
2 - No. Trump's policies disqualifies anyone.

 

[marplots]

I don't know what my opinions would be in a counterfactual world. But, in the spirit of fairness, I'm willing to dump Trump and find out. Let's just run the experiment.

 

[The Shrike]

1 - No. Trump's demeanor disqualifies anyone.
2 - No. Trump's policies disqualifies anyone.

Thank you for pith in this response that mine lacked.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Just to preface this experiment, I'll note that Trump makes me cringe at times (actually quite often), and I do wish that he behaved like he had a well-developed id and not like he was a spoiled child.

You know, you say that, but I don't recall ever seeing it myself. It's always "I don't like Trump, but here's why Trump is the greatest." If you'd join in on the bellyaching now and then when it's appropriate, you'd probably get along better with a number of people here.

But to answer your hypotheticals, no and no, although the first no is far more important. Even if I had a pocket Trump who would instead stay up until 3 am tweeting about the "fascist Fox News" and issue scores of poorly worded executive orders demanding more funding for space and basic science research while appointing me Secretary for Smooth Lovemakin', he still should not see office, for two reasons.

The first is that I'm not qualified to be President. If he's doing everything I'd want him to do, he's doing enough wrong that he's not qualified to be President either.

But also: the man is a child. His handlers have literally said that they handle him like they do their own children. He should not be managing a McDonald's, much less running the country. He doesn't have the patience to process the information needed to be President, nor the wisdom to make his own decisions.

Have you even seen that scene in cartoons where a goatee'd vizier gives the King of England or Caesar a stack of legislation to approve, and he signs it all without looking at any of it? Trump already does that. The EO that put Bannon on the National Security Council was written by Bannon and verbally summarized for Trump, by Bannon. The summary did not include the promotion.

We're only a month into his presidency and already his unelected cronies are calling the shots. All that it takes to influence the actual leader of the free world is a mean enough tweet or fawning enough praise. Ensure that he's pissed off (or if reports are to be believed, pissed on), and he'll do whatever you want.

And we've got four more years of this crap ahead of us.