Our least-favorite quality in Trump: everything about him
Here is an interesting concept –
Twitter is also a regular reminder of what has long been Americans’ least-favorite quality in Trump: his temperament. A Quinnipiac University poll this month found that just 29 percent of Americans describe Trump as “levelheaded.” Even one-third of Republicans said the president is not a prudent man.
Our “least favorite quality”? What, because he has other, better ones? His temperament is everything. It’s not as if you can put his temperament to one side in order to give due credit to other things about him; his temperament suffuses everything he does and says. It’s a very “Aside from that, Mrs Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?” idea that Trump is separable from his temperament. It’s the fact that he’s a mean vengeful narcissistic reckless pig that causes us to detest him. Other than that, he’s not so bad.
And for those who like him, it’s that he is a mean, vengeful narcissistic reckless pig that’s attractive.
“….how did you enjoy the play?”
Any idea how to remove coffee stains from a startled wife’s pj’s?
The US Constitution became the foundation of US law in 1776, and thereafter it has been in many ways a lighthouse for the rest of the world. But the words ‘Trump’, ‘constitutional’ and ‘crisis’ are increasingly used together, often enough in the same sentence.
After a losing post-revolutionary war (1812) to get the lost colonies back, England adjusted to doing without them, and attempted to muddle on with a monarchy and parliament, and with to this day, no written constitution at all. Queen Elizabeth the Second is the Head of State, and Theresa May is Head of Government; whereas across the Atlantic, Trump is both, and only removable by the long drawn-out process of impeachment.
If May were to start behaving like an overgrown toddler (ie like Trump) probably sooner but maybe later her government would fall and the Queen would order a fresh election. More likely of course, her party would revolt and replace her quick smart.
Our Australian Constitution was inspired by the American one, but retains the above desirable qualities of the British constitutional monarchy.
A local Trump would not get to first base here. Of that I am sure. Not that we are short of starters..
So there has been progress in the Anglophone world.
Omar, I wouldn’t be so sure about the advantages of the Westminster system as it’s practiced in the former British colonies. Let’s say your country were dealing with a situation similar to what the US finds itself in, namely an incompetent, corrupt and authoritarian prime minister whose party has a majority in both the house and the senate. Would there be any meaningful parliamentary check on the PM’s power? Or would the only check be the judiciary?
Sam Day
One peculiarity of the parliamentary system is that you are not voting for a Prime Minister, you are voting for a party. The Prime Ministership is actually determined by whoever happens to be leading the party while it is in power, and that position is chosen entirely by party insiders. They are therefore never constrained by the popular vote to accept a lunatic, preventing someone cornering the crackpot vote and storming in to power.
Usually, this distinction is meaningless because the party is fairly unified behind their chosen leader, but it remains the case that that they can strip the PM of power if he or she is woefully unpopular by casting an internal vote. This has happened twice in recent memory. The downside of this is that every PM is selected from a fairly drab pool of career politicians, but at least that guarantees every candidate at least has some idea of how the government functions. I will gladly accept blandness as the price to pay for shutting the Trumps of the world out of leadership.
Not that Australian politics is entirely immunised against absurd idiots gaining traction – look up Pauline Hanson or Bob Katter for a facepalm – but it does make it an uphill slog for them to gain power. Someone eyeing off high office needs to be in it for the long run.
As for the OP,
You forgot his incredible stupidity and resentment of knowledge.
I wonder what Trump smells like?
Before those of us in parliamentary democracies get too smug, it’s worth remembering that our democracies largely work because we want them to work. Much of what we take for granted is actually constrained by agreement that that is the practice, not by law. From that perspective many of the US ‘checks and balances’ are not so dissimilar. Under stress they can simply evaporate.
https://www.facebook.com/144310995587370/photos/a.271728576178944.71555.144310995587370/1584577821560673/?type=3&theater
Sam,
As you probably know, Britain at the time of the American Revolution had to put up with ‘Mad’ King Gorge III, who had a genetic condition called porphyria, symptoms of which can include severe mental confusion. The medication for it of the day was arsenic,which in George’s case apparently only made it worse. But a British head of state can still function under such circumstances. Today the Queen in the UK and the Governor-General in Australia are both highly important figureheads, and with more than nominal power. It includes the power to sack the government of the day, but an immediate election must then decide who forms the new one. From my knowledge of Australian history, we have never had “an incompetent, corrupt and authoritarian prime minister whose party has a majority” in both parliamentary houses: ie the House of Representatives and the Senate.
We have one fringe populist party on the far right, which could supply one if only it could get more than about 10% of the federal vote. That is ‘Pauline Hnason’s One Nation’.
At the time of Nixon’s Watergate Crisis, this contrast became rather stark, because Nixon was both head of state and head of government: effectively an elected 18thC monarch. Trump on the other hand inclines to behave like a pre-Cromwellian one.
@ Omar
Pet peeve of mine! Britain does have a written constitution. What we don’t have is a codified constitution. i.e. the basis of our consitutional law is spread over about 25 or so documents, rather than having all the relevant bits copied into a single self-contained one. Nor do we have the sort of “bullet point” guide to constitutional law that the US has. It works perfectly well. Those who need a professional knowledge of constitutional law know what is where. Those who wish to know for their own amusement can find out.
There used to be a joke that we didn’t need to put constitutional law in one place, because all anyone had to do was ask (senior Law) Lord Denning. Alas, he’s dead now.
Having said that, I agree that our constitution works because we want it to work. That’s true of pretty much any system. The problem with Trump and the US isn’t that their constitutional processes allow him to do as he wants; it’s that the checks and balances that should be restraining him aren’t, mostly, happening.
The travel ban is an example of where US constitutional law has reined Trump in. Alas, there are more examples where the “checks and balances” aren’t being applied. Things like his (and his family’s) continuing to profit from his position as president, for instance, or his refusal to release his tax history. I’m sure we can all think of more.
The issue is not that US constitutional law is better or worse than any other, but that it isn’t being applied.
@Omar:
It’s a very British system: we give the queen crazy powers like that providing she promises not to use them. It’s worked reasonably well so far but all bets are off if and when Charles Windsor claws his way onto the throne.
But this is the point, isn’t it? As Steamshovelmama says pretty much every system that works does so because we aid and abet it. We’re only just finding out that the checks and balances we assumed were in place on both sides of the Atlantic are more guidelines than rules and more assumptions even than guidelines. I mean, we *knew* it, but we didn’t think we’d ever have to worry too much about it.
One of the various things I’m occasionally paid to do is break systems so that people can make them better. There are always highly technical things that can be improved but by far and away the most common security problems I find are tacit assumptions about the way systems work and especially the differences between how management thinks things work and how people actually do their jobs. if you want to break a system, that’s the place to start because nobody knows what to do when this happens. We all assume that people in general don’t want to fuck everything up for no reason, an assumption that is about as far from reality as we can possibly – as a species – get.
This kind of thinking leads to some dark places. For example, it’s great that councils are examining and reporting on the cladding on their tower blocks in the wake of the Grenfell horror (and inexcusable that the government is refusing to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding) but it’s also only a matter of time before someone decides to set one of the buildings reported as affected on fire.
Trump is sort of doing what I do but without the caution. I carefully analyse systems by speaking at length with the people who are part of them and we gradually work out together what would happen if people ignored the rules. Trump just ignores them and doesn’t seem to care what might happen. We see the likely proximate results of this because there are a lot of smart people watching, but I don’t think we can guess at the long-term problems yet. The tacit traditions and assumptions are there for a reason. How we’ve allowed ourselves to think they constitute checks and balances is something for sociologists to work out, if there are even any left in four years time.
@Steam: that is also a pet peeve of mine, thanks for bringing it up.
#8
It’s not smugness, it’s a plain fact: the party system acts as barrier to entry to loonies. Perhaps barrier is too strong – a zany idiot can still enter politics – but entry alone does not amount to much; political influence requires a lot of work over years. This stands in stark contrast to the American system in which a party is forced to fully accept any idiot that wins the primary vote. Pauline Hanson is a good example of this, in that she has been in politics for over 20 years and still has no shot at the PM position.
#9
The GG has more-than-nominal power; the queen’s power however is distinctly nominal.
https://www.facebook.com/144310995587370/photos/a.271728576178944.71555.144310995587370/1584856004866188/?type=3&theater
Wasn’t the War of 1812 more about American fantasies of annexing Canada?
Holms @ 6 – yes, and the laziness – I regretted that just now on re-reading. Mea culpa.
Omar @ 3 – actually the US constitution was ratified in 1788. 1776 was the D of I.
Holmes @13, smugness may have been a little strong, although there have been whiffs of that in comments to both this thread and others on the topic. You’re quite right that the nature and streucture of our political life makes a barrier for entry of those we currently regard as dangerous crazies. Here are some points to consider…
Societies change, and not always for the better. Erosion of social norms, liberties and rights, especially when combined with economic (GFC) and external (refugee crisis) stressors allows entry into political life for both unpleasant people and unpleasant ideas espoused by previously reasonable seeming people. We are seeing this across the western world.
As belief that democracy is the best way forward wanes (as studies show is currently happening), the political manouvering room for the unpleasant ones increases.
Political parties are loosely governed by law. To be eligible for state funding they need to have a defined structure, governance and way of selecting leaders. But it is up to them to set this.
Even in a FPP system, such as GB has, an unpleasant minor party need not directly seize power in order to have a substantive influence on government policy and legislation.
Erosion of democracy is not the domain of crazies and obvious demagogues alone. May has done much to increase State surveillance in the U.K., already one of the most surveilled western societies, while closer to home our previous Prime Minister, a populist, quietly slipped through legislation that dramatically widened the Governments ability to spy on its own citizens. You will be more familiar with Australia, but some of the actions I have seen taken over there are popular because they target ‘out’ groups. The problem is that once you have accepted the principle that it’s ok to treat some people a certain way, it’s harder to argue that you shouldn’t treat some other people the same way. I believe this is called the slippery slope.
As I’ve said previously, our democracies function because we want gem to function, not because they are inherently unbreakable. Their strength is in their flexibility and looseness, it allows adapatation. Stressed in the right way that is also a weakness.
I’d agree with the observation that ‘our constitution works because we want it to work’, ie constitutions do not guarantee democracy. There are many depressing instances where the armed forces have suspended a nation’s constitution.
Holms, @13
I don’t agree that the parliamentary system acts as a barrier to idiots though. Sometimes those qualities which make politicians successful leaders of the Opposition make them disastrous PMs, eg our own version of a narcissistic Bourbon, Tony Abbott. Even though he’s a Rhodes Scholar he’s a complete dick and still a wrecker as a back-bencher. However it does make it easier to get deadheads out of office compared to the quasi monarchical US president.
Recent surveys have indicated a rather apathetic attitude to democracy by many voters in the most recent generation. That’s alarming. Politicians undermine our liberties because many voters don’t really care.
Most politicians are inherently antidemocratic, in that they do not want the ideas of the populace to prevail: they want their own ideas to do so. And that’s not quite the same thing.
I think it was Churchill who said parliamentary democracy was the least worst of all the systems around.