August 6, 2017

At least Trump undermines the myth that businessmen should run our republic

Sophia A. McClennen, Salon - For some bizarre reason the public is aware that businessmen, whether they work on Wall Street or are New York real estate moguls, are often shady, greedy and selfish, but they still believe somehow that they possess critical and valuable skills that could transfer to running government. There is the public sense that businessmen are effective leaders despite overwhelming evidence that businessmen can and have been vile, corrupt and incompetent.

Generalizations are always a fraught enterprise: clearly not all businessmen are terrible people, but that isn’t the point. The point is that the mistaken idea that businessmen are better equipped to run the country is exactly why our nation is poised for catastrophe. And that’s not an exaggeration. We literally have a government being run by a kakistocracy that has no idea whatsoever what they are doing. I’m not trying to put politicians on a pedestal here either. But there is a basic difference between people trained to accumulate profit and people trained to foster public support.

... We can track the legend of the businessman back to the Gilded Age or to Ayn Rand or to Ross Perot, but regardless of its historic origin, the key question is whether the complete and utter disaster that is the Donald Trump administration will finally put an end to the delusion that a business background naturally prepares one to hold public office.

... Much has been made about his authoritarian impulses and his dictatorial qualities. But face it; he would be a lousy dictator, too. Even despots know that they have to build alliances and garner popular support. Less than 200 days into his presidency, Trump is at a new all-time low in support with only about one-third of voters approving of him. Most dictators would be worried at those numbers, but Trump blusters on.


Anonymous said...

...But Sam, what about the authoritarianism of the Deep State?

They have controlled all the presidents since JFK and you see what happened to him - just after Eisenhower warned us of the dangers of "Military-Industrial (Congressional) Complex". Ike wanted to include "Congressional" but it was removed from his final speech for some apparently political reason.

Nixon tried to buck them and they took him out with Watergate. Reagan was co-opted by Bush and his people (who he was forced to take as VP against his will or the GOP was going to sabotage him).

Both Bushes, Clinton and Obama all have direct ties to the CIA that have been documented.

Trump is not under their direct control. He has already stopped (or at least ordered a stop to) the CIA funding of Al-Nusra/Al-Queda/ISIS elements trying to overthrow Assad.

This is why the Russia collusion story was started BEFORE the election - in case Trump won to try to diminish and take him out - OR if Hillary won, to be able to justify relaunching the Cold War against Russia (and Iran, Syria, etc.)

This is what you SHOULD be covering Sam - instead of being a cheerleader for the Deep State - this makes you complicit in their activities.

Sam, you should be helping anyone who is fighting the Deep State - the same Deep State that put us $20 TRILLION in debt, has enabled and enforced a medical monopoly that's bankrupting the country and preventing effective treatments for health conditions, endless foreign wars, selecting our candidates and subverting democracy (Hillary instead of Bernie), and smothering economic progress and liberty.

Bill Hicks said...

If Bush, who was a Harvard Business School graduate and ran a string of filed businesses before entering politics (and who was the poster child of the boss's son) didn't puncture that myth, nothing will. It's isn't like the Democrats are touting the likes of Mark Zuckerberg to be president, is it?