Perhaps the saddest aspect of the 2016 Post Election Ethics Train Wreck and the resulting mass effort to bring down Donald Trump was the corruption of virtually all of our society’s professions, and the vast majority of their members. Educators, psychiatrists, teachers, judges— journalists, of course, though they were already pretty far gone; broadcasters, of course. Entertainment professionals and performers, heaven knows (That’s the Dixie Chicks and their clever and subtle political commentary above.) In addition to theater professionals, two more of my professions have disgraced themselves: lawyers and ethicists. The listserv of a legal ethics organization I belong to was virtually cackling with joy over Rudy Giuliani’s partisan and dangerous interim suspension in New York, while the same group has been notably unenthusiastic about criticizing out-of court hyperbole by anti-Trump lawyers like the recently sentenced Michael Avenatti. (I may have missed some more balanced attention because I dropped out of the group for about 18 months in disgust over its bias.) Here is a tweet by a conservative attorney that was just offered to the group for comment on whether it raised issues of professional misconduct:
It’s certainly a cheesy piece of self-promotion, and there are issues with some of her assertions—her credentials as a “law school dean” are dubious—but this isn’t legal advertising, and if any progressive lawyer running for Congress has ever had an ad flagged by the legal ethicists, I haven’t seen it. This is First Amendment speech…just like what Rudy was suspended for. Legal ethics aren’t supposed to be Red or Blue.
Then there are the historians. They have been perhaps the most biased and corrupt of the academics and scholars since November 2016, and again they proved it with a recent survey on C-Span, which periodically asks participating historians to rate the Presidents using a numerical formula that assesses various qualities of Presidential leadership. Not only is that a lousy way to rank Presidents (or any leaders in any field) it is particularly unfair to eccentric leaders like Trump. What matters in leadership is results. A ship captain who scores high in all categories but whose ship sinks is not a great leader by definition: there are no theoretical great leaders. I learned about the survey after reading one of several “nyah, nyah, nyah!” juvenile columns on Trump’s ranking by the Times’ Gail Collins. See, the fact that a group of almost entirely Democratic and progressive historians rated Trump as the 4th worst President proves the resistance was right all along.
Here’s the survey results:
The partisan tells are screamingly obvious. Only a Democratic shill group could place Jack Kennedy, who had great style (it was all a lie) but who accomplished little in his three years other to avoid a nuclear war that his own incompetence nearly triggered, ahead of Ronald Reagan. Obama is 10th, which is a joke: he was an affirmatively bad President, even if one rationalizes the achingly slow financial recovery he oversaw. His legacy was the divided America and collapse of racial trust his failures created. Tenth??
Woodrow Wilson placing anywhere but dead last would be an embarrassment, but he’s a jaw-dropping 13th. I guess other than the fact that he energized Jim Crow, spread the Spanish flu overseas, maneuvered the U.S into World War I in which we had no stake at all, helped engineer the disastrous Treaty of Versailles that led to Hitler’s rise, and secretly allowed his doctor and wife to run the country when he was incapacitated, he was pretty great! Richard Nixon was a better President than Wilson, and so was Donald Trump.
These are our “experts.” Bias made them stupid.
And they wonder why so many Americans don’t trust the “experts” about vaccines?