The question going forward for me regarding Trump is: will it matter that he doesn’t know much about anything other than promotion, PR, working the media? He’s not stupid, clearly - but it’s also clear he has no deep understanding about anything other than ‘selling’ - will it matter? What you’re really asking with that question is: are his comprehension skills good enough, his instincts apt enough to lead to ‘good’ results once combined with knowledge and depth of understanding added by his cabinet, advisors etc etc? People often confuse knowing things with intelligence and for good reason - hard to ‘know’ a lot of stuff if your comprehension skills are limited - but the connection between the two can be tentative, often nominal - and the connection between the two and great leadership can be virtually nonexistent. Cunning matters, sure - it occupies the murky ground between intelligence and experience - but what is cunning without good instincts? Not much, I’d say - and that's because intelligence does not equal insight, does not mean wisdom - it's just an attribute without much value until it's effectively applied to something - and what are the things that dictate, govern that application? Look no further than the current president - smart, knowledgeable, certainly cunning - and an unmitigated disaster as Commander in Chief. Why? I can suggest several reasons but suffice it to say, using Obama as the yardstick, it’s clear ‘intelligence’, although obviously important, falls some ways down the list of things that matter when it comes to making good decisions as President - and further down the list still when it comes to effective leadership.
The metrics the left clings to when judging a president are, particularly when it comes to Obama, misguided and definitely out of touch with 'average' Americans. This is why the left simply cannot seem to accept the notion that Obama has been a bad president - it seems inconceivable to them that anything other than 'racism' could motivate a person to think ill of the man - and this no doubt explains much of why Trump drives the left so nuts - his very unObama-like qualities tell the left he must be bad - to them it's obvious even though the metrics used to reach this conclusion are clearly delusional and utterly lacking in any logical appeal to substance - in other words, it's very much an emotional response masquerading as something 'rational' - idealism - and progressivism is definitely an idealist ideology - always ends up as emotionalism hiding behind a contrived intellectual 'system'. Think about the two things that stood out as drivers of the near fanatical embrace of Obama in 2008 ; his putative' intelligence' and his race. As far as metrics go in judging a potential president, these two things are meaningless - they tell you nothing substantive - as said before, intelligence only maters in absolute terms if it positively impacts decision making - that clearly didn't happen with Obama and therefore what does it matter how intelligent he may have been? And race - entirely an emotional construct - is indicative of nothing at all in real terms regrading how a person might perform as a chief executive. Yet in 2008 these two things drove a near fanatical embrace of Obama - and in many ways these two largely vapid 'perceptions' still drive much of the left's political wherewithals.
The point being, those who are convinced Trump is going to be awful do so based on assumptions that have no demonstrable connection to reality - which is exactly what one could have said of their conviction in 2008 that Obama would be brilliant. As for me, I remain an agnostic - until Trump does something definitive as President that I can grade relative to the actions of other presidents, I'll keep an open mind. Does this mean I'm in denial re the many red flags swirling round Trump? No - but if Hillary were the president elect, what exactly in that regard would be different? That's right, nothing - we'd still have the parade of red flags but with the malaise of four more years of Obama thrown on top - I'll take Trump any day over that shit. [I think we're already forgetting that just a couple of months ago the election for many was about which choice for president would be the least bad - that reality hasn't changed, and criteria have yet to emerge to clarify that question - but I think it's human nature, when something new comes along, for people to generally feel 'optimistic' about it - I'd say that's where we are with Trump - but six months down the road? We'll see]
The metrics the left clings to when judging a president are, particularly when it comes to Obama, misguided and definitely out of touch with 'average' Americans. This is why the left simply cannot seem to accept the notion that Obama has been a bad president - it seems inconceivable to them that anything other than 'racism' could motivate a person to think ill of the man - and this no doubt explains much of why Trump drives the left so nuts - his very unObama-like qualities tell the left he must be bad - to them it's obvious even though the metrics used to reach this conclusion are clearly delusional and utterly lacking in any logical appeal to substance - in other words, it's very much an emotional response masquerading as something 'rational' - idealism - and progressivism is definitely an idealist ideology - always ends up as emotionalism hiding behind a contrived intellectual 'system'. Think about the two things that stood out as drivers of the near fanatical embrace of Obama in 2008 ; his putative' intelligence' and his race. As far as metrics go in judging a potential president, these two things are meaningless - they tell you nothing substantive - as said before, intelligence only maters in absolute terms if it positively impacts decision making - that clearly didn't happen with Obama and therefore what does it matter how intelligent he may have been? And race - entirely an emotional construct - is indicative of nothing at all in real terms regrading how a person might perform as a chief executive. Yet in 2008 these two things drove a near fanatical embrace of Obama - and in many ways these two largely vapid 'perceptions' still drive much of the left's political wherewithals.
The point being, those who are convinced Trump is going to be awful do so based on assumptions that have no demonstrable connection to reality - which is exactly what one could have said of their conviction in 2008 that Obama would be brilliant. As for me, I remain an agnostic - until Trump does something definitive as President that I can grade relative to the actions of other presidents, I'll keep an open mind. Does this mean I'm in denial re the many red flags swirling round Trump? No - but if Hillary were the president elect, what exactly in that regard would be different? That's right, nothing - we'd still have the parade of red flags but with the malaise of four more years of Obama thrown on top - I'll take Trump any day over that shit. [I think we're already forgetting that just a couple of months ago the election for many was about which choice for president would be the least bad - that reality hasn't changed, and criteria have yet to emerge to clarify that question - but I think it's human nature, when something new comes along, for people to generally feel 'optimistic' about it - I'd say that's where we are with Trump - but six months down the road? We'll see]