Power corrupts (others)
Yes, we all know about Lord Acton’s famous aphorism. But power doesn’t just corrupt the person who wields it, it also corrupts those who observe power in action.
Power causes outside observers to adjust their views in such a way as to make the most powerful men seem more virtuous. When an outsider criticizes a powerful man, many people will naturally gravitate in support of the powerful man, even if their actual views would suggest more sympathy for the attacker. (Perhaps this is true of powerful women as well, I am less sure of that claim.)
Most conservatives have outlooks and personalities more aligned with people like Bolton, Sessions, Mattis, Tillerson, Kelly etc. than with Donald Trump. But when Trump is attacked, they instinctively believe that the attacker is lying, and that Trump is an innocent victim.
Most importantly, they do not reach this conclusion due to any sort of objective information—indeed all the evidence points in the opposite direction. Rather Trump’s power subtly warps their minds, causing them to believe things that are obviously not true.
Of course the Democrats have exactly the opposite reaction. However theirs is more justifiable (in this case) precisely because all the objective information suggests the attackers are correct. The Democrats don’t like the politics of the attackers, but never doubted that they are more honest men than Trump.
American presidents have far too much power, and the corruption I describe is just one of the many bad consequences of the imperial presidency.
The ideal is a bland president like Coolidge, and Biden is a bit closer to that ideal than Trump.
Tags:
19. June 2020 at 10:42
Make politics boring again!
But was it ever?
19. June 2020 at 12:00
Scott has discovered Foucault <3 <3 <3 dream come true
19. June 2020 at 12:39
Important issue, but personality, doesn’t have much to do here. No matter, because, the huge power, US presidents have or had all times, stems from the constitution simply, dictating in relevant part, that: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America”(article 2, section 1).
So, the executive branch,means actually the president. vested in him. Not government (as other democracies). The president, is bound only by the rule of law, the laws, and anyway, obeing courts. That’s it!
Thanks
19. June 2020 at 13:52
Scott
Have you ever given it some thought that every single tell-all book littered with accusations against Trump aren’t verified by other parties. The only person who heard the provocative comment was the author.
19. June 2020 at 14:27
Isn’t Coolidge the president that the whole Left and most scholars want to pin the Great Depression on? Since the leftists are such honest people, and since the scholars are so neutral, I guess we’ll have to trust them on this one.
According to our dear scholars, they rate Coolidge very badly, in the last quartile like Trump. And FDR, the most powerful and authoritarian president ever, is always ranked by them in the top 3, often even as number 1.
These people love brutal authoritarianism, it only has to be the “correct” political direction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States#Scholar_survey_results
I prefer a president who is hated by the media, the scholars, and the elite in Washington. It’s the only way to ensure that power is actually divided.
19. June 2020 at 14:43
With many of the other ‘defectors’ I’d agree, but if corruption is leading Republicans who would otherwise sympathize with Bolton to sympathize with Trump, then that’s an improvement, sorry to say. John Bolton is one man whose politics are worse than Trump’s. Judging by intent, he’s the most dangerous man in Washington. If he’d had his way, we’d be at war with Iran right now. His apocalyptic foreign policy ideas don’t necessarily impugn his credibility, but he is an unabashed Straussian whose proudest accomplishment is helping to sell the Iraq War based on a lie ‘for the greater good’ apparently, something has even said he still supports in retrospect.
In short, he’s like a poster child for the phrase “there are worse things than corruption” and one of the only people next to whom Trump may look good. Inasmuch as he is credible, of course, a witness may still be a useful witness even if he’s a worse person than the defendant, especially if Bolton’s political career is over, which seems to be the case. But I find Bolton’s politics genuinely more harmful.
19. June 2020 at 16:03
JC1, All I need to do is look at Trump’s tweets and I can see he’s exactly the sort of person they describe. And why didn’t lots of Obama advisors write such books. And why do the books mostly agree with each other? And doesn’t the Ukraine phone call transcript confirm that that’s how Trump operates? The mixture of silliness and corruption is obvious in almost everything Trump says and does.
Occam’s Razor–don’t make it complicated.
Christian, You said:
“Since the leftists are such honest people, and since the scholars are so neutral, I guess we’ll have to trust them on this one.”
This stuff just makes you look silly.
“I prefer a president who is hated by the media, the scholars, and the elite in Washington.”
Aren’t you German? How did Germany do when they elected a leader who was hated by scholars and the media.
Mark, Why do people make this so complicated? Of course Bolton’s views on foreign policy are often worse than Trump’s. That has nothing to do with any of this. It’s about the fact that Trumpistas think Bolton is lying when he describes what Trump is like, and he’s obviously not lying. Why is this simple stuff so difficult for people?
19. June 2020 at 17:28
Never paid much mind to the ‘politician as bully attracting other lesser bullies’ theory until Trump. Very disturbing to see it happening to people I know. They don’t see themselves as rooting for the Commander and Cheif Bully but the nonsense they regurgitate online makes it obvious. It’s most blatant when Trump is in trouble for something and they get scared that they’ll lose their supposed protector. Very insecure signaling, you hate to see it.
19. June 2020 at 21:19
Basically when a pot (Bolton) calls a kettle (Trump) black, it doesn’t mean that the kettle IS NOT black. Just that the black pot is calling a black kettle, well black. It doesn’t mean the pot suddenly IS/HAS BECOME white.
Simple.
And any argument on Bolton getting 2m (or 5m) USD for this doesn’t intrude in the fact at all. Capitalism at work right? Someone in the publishing industry decided that paying Bolton 2m is worth the cost to them to make 2m+Xm USD. There is a demand and hence the supply. Now does capitalists have any issue with that – if so what?
20. June 2020 at 02:24
“All I need to do is look at Trump’s tweets and I can see he’s exactly the sort of person they describe. And why didn’t lots of Obama advisors write such books. And why do the books mostly agree with each other?”
This is called speculative reasoning. You would be tossed out at court, and frankly when it comes to Bolton I require the same sort of verification to be convinced. Or he could have testified under oath at the very least.
The real tradegy over the last few decades wasn’t anything Trump has done or even Obama. It was bushes Iraq war.
It’s sad but funny in a twisted way that Mankiw takes issue with this or that Trump tweets, buy when it comes to incinerating Iraqi children, hes sorry of okay with that. Or at least, its not a deal breaker.
20. June 2020 at 05:44
Most educated conservatives embrace Sir Roger Scruton’s ideals, not John Bolton. Trump doesn’t have definitive ideals. He would not, for example, be able to quote Kant or Locke, or warn about judicial activism. But he does resonate with folks who feel that their freedom is being eroded, and that their values are under attack by post modernist nonsense. The uneducated factory worker may not be able to express himself with same elegance of a Jordan Peterson, but that doesn’t make their gut feeling is incorrect. Take a look at today’s music, architecture, and art. Would you call it transcendent? I suspect most people would not. I highly suggest reading Roger Scruton’s book “how to be a conservative”, and Douglas Murray’s “Madness of Crowds”.
20. June 2020 at 09:01
I am amazed by the inability of some people to see what Trump is, when the evidence is literally overwhelming. How dense can a person be? Are these people even able to read a novel or watch a serious film? Presumably they’d be unable to figure out anything about the characters in the narrative. Trump is one of the most transparent villains in all of human history. How can people not see what’s right in front of their eyes?
It seems their only defense is to change the subject, talk about bad things other people did.
BTW, I’d include Bolton in this criticism. He seems to have taken the job without understanding what Trump is, even though the previous advisors who quit the administration said exactly the same thing. What did Bolton expect? Is he dense?
Like that guy in Casablanca, Bolton’s “shocked” by what he saw. LOL.
20. June 2020 at 10:18
Scott Said: “The ideal is a bland president like Coolidge, and Biden is a bit closer to that ideal than Trump.”
I totally agree about Coolidge. After reading Amity Shlaes’ biography of Coolidge I came to the conclusion that Coolidge was our third best president after Washington and Lincoln.
I have to disagree about Biden being closer to Coolidge. Biden will lead us down a road towards socialism, the exact opposite of Coolidge! Trump has been trying to reduce the power of the Federal Agencies, Biden (like Obama) would greatly expand them. Coolidge would have no time for Biden’s approach as he was the ultimate small government president.
20. June 2020 at 11:45
I am sorry to say, but “we trust Trump” Republicans are just cowards, or “realists”, to be polite. Obviously, Trump won’t keep in his administration people who publicly disagree with him, but it also true that the Republican electorate won’t abide anone insufficiently loyal to Trump. 2018 midterms were quite a proof. Utah with Romney and possibly Maine with Collins are exeption.
Then there are “we just need his pen-holding digits” Republicans like McConnel.
I do not believe any of them are blinded by the power, they are just pragmatists.
20. June 2020 at 11:45
In Bolton v. Trump, Judge Royce Lambert is siding with Trump. While he refused to halt publication of the book, it was only because it’s too late to close the barn door.
However, he did rule that Bolton probably broke the law, and Bolton may lose all his royalties, because future litigation will probably be decided in Trump’s (or the government’s) favor.
BTW, is it Scott’s belief that Trump is a worse liar than Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff? Living in Seattle, I know that Trump is absolutely spot on with his opinions of Governor Inslee and Mayor Jenny Durkan.
20. June 2020 at 11:49
Again, more haphazard reasoning from Scott. Trump is a transparent villian, ergo what Bolton says must be true.
20. June 2020 at 12:48
What scott misses is the fact that many who support trump accept the lies and prevarications because they see a greater threat from the left than from trump’s make it up as you go style. Trump will be gone sooner or later but America’s Red Guard will continue to be a major force in society. A small example of the Red Guard’s coercion and the economics profession cAn be found per a recent post by John
Cochrane. America’s Red Guard have corrupted medicine and science, economics and academia in general , big business, professional and amateur athletics, religion, courts, news media, arts , rejecting America’s founding principles including free speech, the rejection of the nuclear family, the rejection of biological sex differences (gender dysphoria), and the list goes on and on. I am much more concerned about America’s Red Guard than Trump’s bloviations and ignorance. Still he has done some good things based on instinct and that’s all I can ask for until we have another gop candidate who can win
20. June 2020 at 13:12
I should say an admirable gop candidate who can win.
20. June 2020 at 13:12
I should say an honest gop candidate who can win.
20. June 2020 at 13:14
Duplicate – mistake.
20. June 2020 at 15:24
It’s time to cancel your 3% impact Presidents have. Maybe you just meant relative to economy. You instinctively believe this is untrue. Perhaps that was always meant to be a joke, but I thought you were being sincere. Presidents and their opponents matter a great deal . Go all in
22. June 2020 at 12:15
Garrett, yes, make politics boring again! I’ve said the same many times.
22. June 2020 at 12:23
Jg, you give what you call the “Red Guard” way WAY too much credit. Do lefty extremists have a negative effect on science? Absolutely but so do RW quackophiles like the anti-vaxx crew, HCQ cranks, turpentine gulpers, creationists and flat Earthers. Is religion corrupt? Absolutely, from the day it was invented it has been nothing except 100% pure corruption. That has nothing to do with the “red guard.” Big business is still just interested in profits. If their marketing operation detects they can squeeze out an extra penny by pandering to the “woke” crowd or the “awake” (i.e. QAnon) crowd, they’ll do it. As for the 1st Amendment, the only person I see using the government to silence critics are on the right: Trump against Bolton and his niece Mary, Nunes against a twitter cow, section 230 hand wringing, etc.
22. June 2020 at 12:39
Democrats had a chance to go far left this primary and they rejected it. The party is still dominated by socially conservative Southern Blacks and suburbanite grown ups with mortgages. They prefer boring Biden to statue toppling pink haired 20 something gender fluid wokistas. I don’t think Biden was the ideal pick, but if he’s as boring as it looks like he’s going to be, he’s a million times better than “exciting” Trump and his rollercoaster of imperious stupdity, obvious dishonesty, Dunning-Kruger ignorance, arrogance, ineptitude and self serving corruption.
22. June 2020 at 12:48
Bob OBrien, you write:
“Biden (like Obama) would greatly expand them.”
Biden won’t accomplish anything without a Supreme Court and a filibuster proof senate majority backing him up, which he won’t have, so even if he wanted to (which I doubt) I don’t believe this RW scare spin. All he’ll be able to do is sign executive orders reversing a few of Trump’s executive orders.
He will simply be a boring break from the “exciting” incompetence of Trump.
22. June 2020 at 13:22
Scott,
I think that this is a very common misconception, maybe out of Hollywood movies or whatever.
Nazis were quite successful amongst scholars and at universities.
The media in Weimar was very fragmented, but large parts were much more nationalistic than they are today. “Nationalism” was much more extreme back then, and more or less the standard way of thinking about the world.
Before the Nazis, the German parties were very fractional as well, each party had its own specific clientele. Your social group basically determined who you voted for. Workers had their party, Catholics had their own, farmers had their party, and so on.
The Nazis invented what is now called a “Volkspartei”, a party for all social groups. They were ultimately elected by all social groups: workers, housewives, freelancers, farmers, public officials, students, professors. All social groups, except, of course, the marginalized groups who were persecuted mercilessly.
Do not think that you can build such a dictatorship without massive support from large parts of the intellectuals and the media. This is another reason why one really doesn’t have to be afraid of this little Trump.
I was honestly more concerned with the Obama government, because I had the impression that large parts of the intellectuals and the media were really busy sucking up to them, instead of being distant, and critical, and doing their job. The Nazis called a similar concept “Gleichschaltung”: everyone follows one drum. That’s a danger that really doesn’t exist with Trump. Trump doesn’t even follow his own drum. And when he plays chess, he puts the king in his mouth, swallows and almost chokes to death.
Boring Biden is fine with me as well, as long as he keeps the more extreme members of his party under control, which is not certain.
22. June 2020 at 14:31
I’ve become much more in the trump camp. Would prefer a Romney but trump is far better than the left.
1). On monetary policy trump pushed for expansion even with sub 4% unemployment. As you say stable ngdp growth is the best tool against socialism’s. He nominated Powell who initially didn’t understand monetary policy but now he does. He’s coming closer to ngdp targeting than Berman or or yellen ever got to.
2. I am against cancel culture and all the identity politics of the left. Trumps the only one that stands up to that.
I’m pro-China as I think they’ve done an excellent job over the last 30 years with the hand they were dealt. But a modest supply side shock from sub optimal trade is minuscule compared to an appropriately expansionist fed.
22. June 2020 at 22:53
JC1, All I need to do is look at Trump’s tweets and I can see he’s exactly the sort of person they describe. And why didn’t lots of Obama advisors write such books. And why do the books mostly agree with each other? And doesn’t the Ukraine phone call transcript confirm that that’s how Trump operates? The mixture of silliness and corruption is obvious in almost everything Trump says and does.
Give me a break, Scott. The demonrats went after this guy as a wussian agent from the first day of his inauguration. They’re now destroying the cities because they were unable to oust him in a coup.
You ask, don’t people realize what this person is. Do you even realize what the Demonrats have become?
23. June 2020 at 06:15
Why did scott change his name to Tom Brown?