Willy
Kaiser Wilhelm II sounds familiar:
One of the few things that Kaiser Wilhelm II, who ruled Germany from 1888 to 1918, had a talent for was causing outrage. A particular specialty was insulting other monarchs. He called the diminutive King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy “the dwarf” in front of the king’s own entourage. He called Prince (later Tsar) Ferdinand, of Bulgaria, “Fernando naso,” on account of his beaky nose, and spread rumors that he was a hermaphrodite…
…One of the many things that Wilhelm was convinced he was brilliant at, despite all evidence to the contrary, was “personal diplomacy,” fixing foreign policy through one-on-one meetings with other European monarchs and statesmen. In fact, Wilhelm could do neither the personal nor the diplomacy, and these meetings rarely went well. The Kaiser viewed other people in instrumental terms, was a compulsive liar, and seemed to have a limited understanding of cause and effect…
…Wilhelm was a compulsive speechmaker who constantly strayed off script. Even his staff couldn’t stop him, though it tried, distributing copies of speeches to the German press before he’d actually given them. Unfortunately, the Austrian press printed the speeches as they were delivered, and the gaffes and insults soon circulated around Europe. “There is only one person who is master in this empire and I am not going to tolerate any other,” Wilhelm liked to say, even though Germany had a democratic assembly and political parties. (“I’m the only one that matters,” Trump has said.) The Kaiser reserved particular abuse for political parties that voted against his policies. “I regard every Social Democrat as an enemy of the Fatherland,” he said, and he denounced the German Socialist party as a “gang of traitors.”…
…When Wilhelm became emperor, in 1888, at twenty-nine years old, he was determined to be seen as tough and powerful. He fetishized the Army, surrounded himself with generals (though, like Trump, he didn’t like listening to them), owned a hundred and twenty military uniforms, and wore little else. He cultivated a special severe facial expression for public occasions and photographs…
…Wilhelm didn’t accomplish very much. The general staff of the German Army agreed that the Kaiser couldn’t “lead three soldiers over a gutter.” He had neither the attention span nor the ability. “Distractions, whether they are little games with his army or navy, travelling or hunting—are everything to him,” a disillusioned former mentor wrote. “He reads very little apart from newspaper cuttings, hardly writes anything himself apart from marginalia on reports and considers those talks best which are quickly over and done with.” The Kaiser’s entourage compiled press cuttings for him, mostly about himself, which he read as obsessively as Trump watches television. A critical story would send him into paroxysms of fury.
…
Wilhelm changed his position every five minutes. He was deeply suggestible and would defer to the last person he’d spoken to or cutting he’d read—at least until he’d spoken to the next person. “It is unendurable,” a foreign minister wrote, in 1894. “Today one thing and tomorrow the next and after a few days something completely different.” Wilhelm’s staff and ministers resorted to manipulation, distraction, and flattery to manage him. “In order to get him to accept an idea you must act as if the idea were his,” the Kaiser’s closest friend, Philipp zu Eulenburg, advised his colleagues, adding, “Don’t forget the sugar.” (In “Fire and Fury,” Michael Wolff writes that to get Trump to take an action his White House staff has to persuade him that “he had thought of it himself.”)
Spoiler: it didn’t end well.
Should we be giving serious consideration to the possibility that reincarnation is a thing after all?
Yes, there are eerie similarities. However the most significant difference is that the Germans didn’t vote him into office
RJW, were the Germans also overruled by their electoral college?
Skeletor
So, we’re not blaming the Russians anymore, the light has dawned. It’s that clever gerrymander. I was very interested as to how any anyone could quantify the number of votes that Clinton lost due to Russian interference.
Rob
I hope not, I’d vote for the 70 virgins every time.
RJW – ????
There is the electoral college, there is gerrymandering, there is Russian thumb on the scales. What’s your point? That none of it is true? But all of it is true. That none of it made any difference? How would that work? That we don’t know exactly how much difference any of it made? But nobody said otherwise. So what is your point?
Oh and in addition to gerrymandering there is voter suppression. That too did its bit, as it was intended to.
My point, Ophelia, is that I agree with you. I don’t know why you think that I don’t. So all of it’s true, to some extent.
I commented after Trump’s ‘election’ that Clinton had been defeated by the US electoral system, not the Russians, she won the popular vote. Yes, the Russians interfered, but according to the voting results that intervention wasn’t the critical factor, the Electoral College was.
Oh, sorry. I thought it was cryptic sarcasm.
I don’t think we know it was the electoral system rather than Russian fiddling as opposed to and. I don’t think it’s clear how we could know that.
Agreed. I don’t know how we could quantify the effect of Russian interference without a national survey. All we have is the actual vote, which Clinton won. One could argue that Clinton could have overcome the effect of the College without the Kremlin gremlins, but I’ll leave that to the experts.
I also emphasise that foreign interference in democratic elections, or campaigns to influence public opinion is alarming. Here in Australia the interference comes from Beijing, not Russia. In my opinion, China is a far more serious threat in the long term, to both America and Australia than Russia, for obvious reasons.
Voter suppression is vastly overrated:
http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics
Black voter turnout exceeded white voter turnout in 2008 and 2012. In 2012, 67.4% of black people voted, and 61.8% of whites voted. That’s some horrible voter suppression.
There are individual cases where people got screwed, but on the whole virtually everyone who wants to vote gets to vote, as long as they register in time, which is not that hard to do. Should it be even easier? Sure. But it’s not particularly hard as it is.
So let’s stop bullshitting ourselves. Black people weren’t that excited about Hillary, so a lot of them didn’t bother showing up. And white people showed up in greater numbers (64.7%) to vote for Trump or to cast smartass votes for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson.
Voter suppression was not much of a factor.
But it was a factor to some degree, and should be opposed anyway.
Oh, jesus, Skeletor, that is so fucking smug. “Not particularly hard” to you is not necessarily that to everyone. “on the whole virtually everyone who wants to vote gets to vote, as long as they register in time, which is not that hard to do” is just not true. Massive voting lines for instance make it impossible for some people to vote because they have to get back to their jobs or their kids or their disabled relatives or [life exigency of your choice here]. Having to present a particular form of ID to vote weeds out a lot of people. Plus it’s going to keep getting worse because of the Shelby ruling.
Which hadn’t happened yet in 2008 and 2012, the years Skeletor cites. He assumes that the reason black people didn’t vote in as high numbers in 2016 was their disinterest in Hillary, but he doesn’t know that. Unless he has a crystal ball that works better than mine (which has been broken for 57 years, and the shop is very slow to repair – I put it in the repair shop the moment I was born, and haven’t seen it since. I think the repair shop may have gone out of business).
Personally, I think Skeletor’s crystal ball is crap.
To boil the point down a bit, added [i.e. artificial, unnecessary] obstacles to voting are ALWAYS going to impede poor people more than they are rich people, because one of the great things money does is make it easier to deal with obstacles. A voting system that disadvantages poor people is going to elect politicians who stick it to poor people every chance they get. What are we seeing now? Exactly that.