The effect of Trump on culture

[Cortopassi]

The Scott Adams blog was pretty persuasive (hah).  I always read Dilbert, but not his blog.  I have added his blog to stuff I read.

I am an engineer who has worked a few 3 day long trade shows, trying to sell product to people walking by, stopping them, extolling the virtues of the product, etc.  I would come home every night completely mentally exhausted, but I see people built for sales (like Trump) who come back from these shows energized. 

I believe I tested INTP as well.

[Benko]

As effective as he is and I gather the techniques are, I doubt many people will pick them up.  Why?  The majority of people do what they have always done e.g. see current presidential race. 

[MediumTex]

A good name for a Trump-centric communication style fad might be "Asshole Chic".

Conservative and moderate men in the current era might look back on things 20 years from now and marvel at their personal Trump-inspired "Dickhead Phase" of life.

At best, I think it will be an ant farm version of various historical iterations of nationalist frenzies.  At worst...well, hopefully we won't have to find out how that would look.

[Pointedstick]

Trump appears to me to be like political water, always seeking the lowest level of discourse.

Yes, all the other candidates and sitting politicians definitely exemplify a significantly elevated level of discourse.

[Reub]

Trump is a doer. A builder. A winner. A negotiator. A badass, take no prisoners kind of guy. An American.

[MediumTex]

Trump appears to me to be like political water, always seeking the lowest level of discourse.

Yes, all the other candidates and sitting politicians definitely exemplify a significantly elevated level of discourse.

My wife and I were watching the debate last night and she asked me when I thought Trump and Cruz were going to start sniffing each other's butts.

I told her that Trump was probably too preoccupied with deciding whether Jeb's whimpers were sufficiently servile to release the grip he had on Jeb's throat, but that some vigorous Trump-Cruz butt sniffing was definitely in their future.

The visceral appeal of this kind of primal display of power between two men shows us that we may not be nearly as civilized as we think we are.  However sexy and virile such displays of swagger and bravado may be during courtship, ambitious narcissists like these guys almost never prove to be good leaders in a democracy.  Ultimately, their need for control is too great to bother with collaboration or consensus.  This is exactly what Cruz has shown since arriving in the Senate, and I'm pretty sure it's what Trump will show if he were to move into the White House.

It's a fascinating thing to watch in real-time.  As we each come to see the reality of what's going on, it's interesting to watch how others who haven't figured it out yet (mainly the media and the other candidates) are fumbling around trying to grasp what's happening.  Jeb Bush in particular seems completely baffled and Ben Carson seems utterly oblivious.

The only person who really reminds me of Trump and Cruz when it comes to these raw testosterone-fueled displays is Lyndon Johnson, who used to do things like take a dump in front of aides and force people to go skinny dipping with him in the White House pool so that he could show off the size of his penis (which was reportedly very large).  With the benefit of hindsight, we see that this style of leadership in the U.S. system can work pretty well in a Congressional leader (Johnson was perhaps the finest legislator in our history), but in the office of the President it can fail badly, as we saw when Johnson's testicles made it impossible for him to understand that Vietnam was a lost cause.  What's worse, truly canny opponents soon begin to see through such forceful but clumsy leadership, and the contest turns into a matador vs. bull face off where the bull's power is skillfully used against him.

What is impressive about a leader like Putin, who also sports a big sack, is that he seems to have a steel trap mind that has harnessed the power of his sack without allowing the sack to have final say over any decision he makes.  Such an opponent is supremely challenging to deal with because he has both all of the attributes of the alpha ape, but he also has the detachment of a disciplined mind that has conquered his own desire. 

A guy like Putin gets to that place of Master of the Universe equanimity through a lifetime of honing his figurative throat slashing skills.  By contrast, when I look at Trump and Cruz, I see one guy who loves the taste of other's blood, but who has never tasted much of his own, and I see another guy with a poster of Jack the Ripper on his dorm room wall who just graduated magna cum laude from throat slashing school.

The ability to lead and govern in a political setting utilizes a broad set of skills, while getting elected only requires the ability to charm the voters for a short period of time.  Cruz has never shown an ounce of aptitude when it comes to governing, and Trump's claim that corporate governance skills translate into political governance skills is one that has repeatedly shown to be false.

Charismatic leaders of rebel movements often make the worst leaders once they are in power.  Once they lose their ability to blame the current leadership for everything that is wrong, they can often turn into the worst kind of tyrants.

[jafs]

Amen.

[Pointedstick]

Trump knows that raw testosterone is what the Republican primary electorate wants. I fully expect him to become significantly more Putin-esque during the general election. If Trump fails to make this switch, I will be surprised.

[MediumTex]

Trump is a doer. A builder. A winner. A negotiator. A badass, take no prisoners kind of guy. An American.

They said all of those same things about Herbert Hoover before he was President.  He was the badass can-do corporate guy of his time.

Unlike Trump, who for many years has mostly just sold his brand to those who do the actual building while pursuing his career as an entertainer and self-promoter, Hoover was actually someone recognized as a brilliant engineer and executive in mining, which was one of the dominant industries of his era.

In the presidential election of 1928, Hoover easily won the Republican nomination, despite having no elected-office experience. Hoover is the most recent cabinet secretary to be elected President of the United States, as well as one of only two Presidents (along with William Howard Taft) elected without electoral experience or high military rank.

Hoover, a globally experienced engineer, believed strongly in the Efficiency Movement, which held that the government and the economy were riddled with inefficiency and waste, and could be improved by experts who could identify the problems and solve them. He also believed in the importance of volunteerism and of the role of individuals in society and the economy. Hoover, who had made a small fortune in mining, was the first of two Presidents to redistribute his salary (President Kennedy was the other; he donated all his paychecks to charity).

LINK

The great engineer

After graduation, Hoover worked for a San Francisco engineering firm, and later took a job with an English mining company to run their gold mines in Australia and China. At age 27, Hoover was made a partner in the company, and began to travel the world, visiting the company's mines and searching for new ones.

In 1908, Herbert Hoover started his own engineering business. His company specialized in reorganizing failing companies, hunting for new mining prospects, and finding investors to pay for developing the best mines. Hoover's consulting firm employed 175,000 workers all over the world, with offices in England, France, Russia, San Francisco and New York City. He soon became known as the "Great Engineer."

LINK

When the Republican convention in Kansas City began in the summer of 1928, the fifty-three-year-old Herbert Hoover was on the verge of winning his party's nomination for President. He had won primaries in California, Oregon, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Maryland. Among important Republican constituencies, he had the support of women, progressives, internationalists, the new business elite, and corporate interests. Party regulars grudgingly supported Hoover, but they neither liked nor trusted him. Hoover's nomination was assured when he received the endorsement of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, who controlled Pennsylvania's delegates.

The convention nominated Hoover on the first ballot, teaming him with Senate Majority Leader Charles Curtis of Kansas. The Republican platform promised continued prosperity with lower taxes, a protective tariff, opposition to farm subsidies, the creation of a new farm agency to assist cooperative marketing associations, and the vigorous enforcement of Prohibition. The party also proclaimed its commitment to delivering a "technocrat" known for his humanitarianism and efficiency to the White House. In his acceptance speech, Hoover promised "a final triumph over poverty"—words that would soon come to haunt him.

[...]

Hoover ran a risk-free campaign, making only seven well-crafted radio speeches to the nation; he never even mentioned Al Smith by name. The Republicans portrayed Hoover as an efficient engineer in an era of technology, as a successful self-made man, as a skilled administrator in a new corporate world of international markets, and as a careful businessman with a vision for economic growth that would, in the words of one GOP campaign circular, put "a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage." Republicans also reminded Americans of Hoover's humanitarian work during World War I and in the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927. Hoover the administrator, the humanitarian, and the engineer were all on display in the 1928 campaign film "Master of Emergencies," which often left its audiences awestruck and in tears. But perhaps Hoover's greatest advantage in 1928 was his association with the preceding two Republican administrations and their legacy of economic success.

LINK

Any of that stuff sound familiar?

[jafs]

Trump knows that raw testosterone is what the Republican primary electorate wants. I fully expect him to become significantly more Putin-esque during the general election. If Trump fails to make this switch, I will be surprised.

Given Putin's authoritarianism and undemocratic nature, such a move wouldn't be that attractive to me.

[Pointedstick]

Hoover's problem was that he was a technocrat. Our system of government in no way supports technocratic change from elected officials, and this is something I think frustrates a lot of liberals, too. For better or worse, our media-government axis encourages and requires that elected officials be self-absorbed narcissists, as evidenced by, well, the fact that all politicians are self-absorbed narcissists. As an engineer, it pains me to admit it, but there is no room for engineer types in the U.S. government, except maybe hidden away in the bureaucracy, but certainly not as someone who runs for high office. That's simply not how it's set up. The skill set is completely different, and for better or worse, "leadership" involves a lot more swagger and big brass balls than technically-minded people like many of us might care to admit. Trump, as the ultimate self-absorbed narcissist, has the perfect skill-set to succeed in this world. Hoover was doomed from the start because he was fighting the system. Trump seems to thrive in it.

Perhaps this is a damning indictment of the system itself, but it is what it is.

[Reub]

Trump is a doer. A builder. A winner. A negotiator. A badass, take no prisoners kind of guy. An American.

They said all of those same things about Herbert Hoover before he was President.  He was the badass can-do corporate guy of his time.

Unlike Trump, who for many years has mostly just sold his brand to those who do the actual building while pursuing his career as an entertainer and self-promoter, Hoover was actually someone recognized as a brilliant engineer and executive in mining, which was one of the dominant industries of his era.

In the presidential election of 1928, Hoover easily won the Republican nomination, despite having no elected-office experience. Hoover is the most recent cabinet secretary to be elected President of the United States, as well as one of only two Presidents (along with William Howard Taft) elected without electoral experience or high military rank.

Hoover, a globally experienced engineer, believed strongly in the Efficiency Movement, which held that the government and the economy were riddled with inefficiency and waste, and could be improved by experts who could identify the problems and solve them. He also believed in the importance of volunteerism and of the role of individuals in society and the economy. Hoover, who had made a small fortune in mining, was the first of two Presidents to redistribute his salary (President Kennedy was the other; he donated all his paychecks to charity).

LINK

The great engineer

After graduation, Hoover worked for a San Francisco engineering firm, and later took a job with an English mining company to run their gold mines in Australia and China. At age 27, Hoover was made a partner in the company, and began to travel the world, visiting the company's mines and searching for new ones.

In 1908, Herbert Hoover started his own engineering business. His company specialized in reorganizing failing companies, hunting for new mining prospects, and finding investors to pay for developing the best mines. Hoover's consulting firm employed 175,000 workers all over the world, with offices in England, France, Russia, San Francisco and New York City. He soon became known as the "Great Engineer."

LINK

When the Republican convention in Kansas City began in the summer of 1928, the fifty-three-year-old Herbert Hoover was on the verge of winning his party's nomination for President. He had won primaries in California, Oregon, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Maryland. Among important Republican constituencies, he had the support of women, progressives, internationalists, the new business elite, and corporate interests. Party regulars grudgingly supported Hoover, but they neither liked nor trusted him. Hoover's nomination was assured when he received the endorsement of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, who controlled Pennsylvania's delegates.

The convention nominated Hoover on the first ballot, teaming him with Senate Majority Leader Charles Curtis of Kansas. The Republican platform promised continued prosperity with lower taxes, a protective tariff, opposition to farm subsidies, the creation of a new farm agency to assist cooperative marketing associations, and the vigorous enforcement of Prohibition. The party also proclaimed its commitment to delivering a "technocrat" known for his humanitarianism and efficiency to the White House. In his acceptance speech, Hoover promised "a final triumph over poverty"—words that would soon come to haunt him.

[...]

Hoover ran a risk-free campaign, making only seven well-crafted radio speeches to the nation; he never even mentioned Al Smith by name. The Republicans portrayed Hoover as an efficient engineer in an era of technology, as a successful self-made man, as a skilled administrator in a new corporate world of international markets, and as a careful businessman with a vision for economic growth that would, in the words of one GOP campaign circular, put "a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage." Republicans also reminded Americans of Hoover's humanitarian work during World War I and in the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927. Hoover the administrator, the humanitarian, and the engineer were all on display in the 1928 campaign film "Master of Emergencies," which often left its audiences awestruck and in tears. But perhaps Hoover's greatest advantage in 1928 was his association with the preceding two Republican administrations and their legacy of economic success.

LINK

Any of that stuff sound familiar?

He really doesn't sound much like Trump at all. He sounds like a political insider which Trump is decidedly not. Where does it mention his great negotiating skills, which is Trump's forte? His ability to relate? His stardom with the masses as a media show host? Trump is nothing like an nerdy engineer.

[MediumTex]

Trump knows that raw testosterone is what the Republican primary electorate wants. I fully expect him to become significantly more Putin-esque during the general election. If Trump fails to make this switch, I will be surprised.

You're right about what Republican primary voters want.

Apparently, Fiorina considered having a prosthetic scrotum surgically attached containing spherical testosterone vials that would be injected into her bloodstream every six hours for the duration of the Republican primaries.

I don't know if she decided to move forward with that strategy, but she certainly looked different during the campaign than she did before.

Before the campaign:

[img width=500]http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/11b3beb ... iorina.jpg[/img]

During the campaign:

[img width=500]http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/ ... large2.jpg[/img]

[MediumTex]

He really doesn't sound much like Trump at all. He sounds like a political insider which Trump is decidedly not. Where does it mention his great negotiating skills, which is Trump's forte? His ability to relate? His stardom with the masses as a media show host? Trump is nothing like an nerdy engineer.

Hoover owned a company that employed 175,000 people all over the world.

Hoover was a mutli-millionaire in an age when gold cost $20 per ounce.

They made a movie about Hoover called "Master of Emergencies" that made people cry.

Trump loves to tell the story about how he rebuilt a skating rink in New York City that the government had struggled with for years.  Hoover helped feed millions of people in Europe after WWI by skillfully managing a massive food production system.  Which management feat is more impressive?

Hoover was truly a self-made man, while Trump basically took over the family business and branched it out into other industries, principally entertainment.

I do agree, though, that Hoover did not appear to have the blustery narcissism of Trump, though his record as a "can do" guy seems far more impressive to me....and yet he still wasn't a very good President.

[Pointedstick]

If anything, Hoover was ahead of his time. I think a technocrat could actually succeed far better today than in the 1930s before FDR. During that time, there was no vast federal bureaucracy to control, no huge profusion of three-letter agencies to direct, and no culture of unbridled executive power. It would be bitter and divisive, but today a technocratically-minded fellow like Hoover could sort of squeeze and cajole the vast federal machine into a rough and crude approximation of his desires. In a lot of ways this is how Obama has governed once he realized that he lacked the political skills to work with or force his way past the Republicans. And indeed, it's been bitter and divisive, but it has basically worked, in terms of his ability to get some of the technocratic changes that he's wanted, particularly in the arena of education. This doesn't mean any of it has been effective or good, of course, but it's pretty undeniable that his administration has been able to do a lot of tinkering without getting congress to pass any laws.

[Reub]

As always,  the most important attribute is the ability to relate to and influence the masses a la Reagan. Trump has this but I don't think Hoover did.

[MediumTex]

As always,  the most important attribute is the ability to relate to and influence the masses a la Reagan. Trump has this but I don't think Hoover did.

Yes.

Reagan also had two terms as governor of California under his belt when he was elected President.

I'm not knocking Trump, I'm just trying to squirt a little reality juice into the discussion.

Electing a political novice as President shouldn't be expected to turn out well.  I would have thought that Obama would have taught us that lesson pretty thoroughly.  Compared to Trump, Obama is like Henry Kissinger.

Trump knows NOTHING about getting legislation passed, navigating the maze of the federal government as an insider, or handling the kind of spotlight the President is under continuously.

Trump may think that he would enjoy the attention that comes with being President, but I imagine that it can become punishing and alienating to a person who actually craves praise more than attention to have a group of snakes like the White House press corps chipping away at you continuously...for years.

Unlike the other Republican candidates, the White House press corps lives for moments when the President gets emotional and lashes out at them.  It makes for great TV.

If he is elected, it will also be interesting to see who Trump selects for his advisors and cabinet heads.  Hopefully we won't select his personal lawyer Michael Cohen as the attorney general.  Can you imagine the Justice Department announcing some kind of law enforcement action and having Cohen make the following statement:

We're going to go after them with everything we've got.  We're going to bury them.  We're going to rip out their eyeballs and have the U.S. Attorney skull fuck them while their whole worthless family watches.  They are disgusting filth.  I wouldn't wipe my butt with them.  We are going to destroy them, and I mean absolutely make them regret the day they were born.  We're going to skin them and make handbags out of their worthless hides.  We're going to throw their mutilated bodies into a tank of Piranhas and play "Do the Hokey Pokey" while the fish tear at their flesh.  We plan to make them hurt like they've never hurt before.

That stuff doesn't play as well when it's the government doing it.

[Benko]

Trump knows that raw testosterone is what the Republican primary electorate wants.

When your political adversaries standard methods include:

1. "Romney didn't pay any taxes"
2. "If they bring a knife to a fight, we bring a gun"
3. the procedural method used to pass Obamacare
4. Abetting your serial sexual abuser husband and then accusing your political adversary of having a war on women

You either have a spine and fight back, or you don't.  Most of the right will not fight back.  Trump will.

[Reub]

Hopefully Trump will play the populist game but not toward the sinister goals sought by leftists.

[MediumTex]

Trump knows that raw testosterone is what the Republican primary electorate wants. I fully expect him to become significantly more Putin-esque during the general election. If Trump fails to make this switch, I will be surprised.

Given Putin's authoritarianism and undemocratic nature, such a move wouldn't be that attractive to me.

Right.  And also I think some are forgetting that Trump's corporation is essentially a totalitarian regime. 

It strikes me as sort of a hybrid totalitarian/monarchy regime.

Trump is sort of like the king and Ivanka is the crown princess.

[Reub]

Thanks for the civics lesson but we all know that.

[MediumTex]

Thanks for the civics lesson but we all know that.

It's not a civics lesson, it's a psychology lesson.

Even more than totalitarian rulers, kings can often be inflexible in their approach to policy making.