Seldom has that Ethics Alarm clip been more appropriate than in response to the video below:
Stipulated: I have no idea how many people were interviewed to compile that selection of angry protesters unable to articulate what they were angry about. In my experience, however, it wouldn’t have taken many. At least the guy who defaults to Trump’s penchant for putting his personal brand on things has a point, but if that’s the first thing that comes to mind, the required retort is “Seriously? That’s what you’re out here demonstrating against? The name on the Kennedy Center?”
I wish there were more answers to work with. At least they would form the foundation for discussion. As with the previous post about people who criticize Supreme Court decisions without reading them, I believe it is incontrovertible that if one is determined to protest in public, one must be capable of articulating what is such a substantial grievance that it justifies doing so.
Ethics Alarms 
“You cant’s see that? I don’t have anything more to say.”
Do you think she really believes it’s that obvious or was there a flicker of realization that she can’t articulate why Trump is “way worse than what any other president has done in this country”?
The most charitable explanation I can think of is that she, like the last guy in the clip, suspects that it’s a “setup”; the reporter is there to ask “gotcha” questions and is prepared to argue with or twist whatever they say. However, it’s still pathetic than none of them can articulate their positions to anyone who isn’t already 100% on their side. “I can look it up”, then do it man! You should at least remember a name, or just Google “American citizen detained by ICE” on your phone.
For so many different reasons, and because of many causes, the average American citizen cannot reason. Once, education was demanding. I’ve read accounts of high school education in the 1940s and 1950s that required reading serious texts, literature and philosophy. Also poetry. In fact poetry can be very demanding to read since it deals in metaphor and metaphysical ideas. What happened? Why is the education process so non-demanding? Ultimately, it is a question and an issue about the decline of the country in general. Junk food, bad media, little mental discipline, laziness, and so many bad examples. There is so little depth of conversation. And so many walk around with nothing in their heads.
I found this book (Selected Readings in English Prose and Verse (1871) in a used bookstore in Colombia not long ago. It is a book with short essays, poems, chronicles, and it was used to teach English to foreigners. Wordsworth, Shakespeare, Longfellow, Byron, Dryden, Newman — the ideas presented (this is my impression when I think of people up North, my friends, acquaintances) are simply beyond the grasp of most.
Take one example: Of Truth by Francis Bacon. Here is one part:
To pass from theological and philosophical truth to the truth of civil business, it will be acknowledged, even by those that practice it not, that clear, and round dealing is the honor of man’s nature, and that mixture of falsehoods is like alloy in coin of gold and silver, which may make the metal work the better but it embaseth it. For these winding and crooked courses are the goings of the serpent, which goeth basely upon the belly and not upon the feet. There is no vice that doth so cover a man with shame as to be found false and perfidious.
Frankly, my friends (those I am thinking of) would struggle with even this. And there are far more difficult essays and poems.
Did anyone ever watch the movie Dazed & Confused (Richard Linklater) or Slacker? These are 1990 films. And (in my opinion) deal on mindless, brainless, fallen, drugged, senseless, lost people who are dedicated to their stupidity. Who celebrate it. Not only could they not read the texts I refer to, it would anger them and seem like horrible oppression to be forced to think about things about which they have no relationship. So, that is only 100-plus years from 1870 to 1990 and the descent is unbelievable.
The people “interviewed” in the video cannot answer a question it requires having a small bit of knowledge and interest in the topic. They simply do not have enough material in their heads to reason with.
I guess it has come to this. To give up hope. To let things follow their inevitable course. To ‘manage decline’ and to watch it all fall apart. Why? How did this come about? Who oversaw it? What administrator allowed this? Ultimately, it is a spiritual question when reduced to the most basic.
My favorite poem is “The Road Not Taken” by Robert Frost, but perhaps “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” by T.S. Eliot is more appropriate.
It could be only me, but I do think there is a much-greater-than-usual disconnect between the Executive and Legislative branches. More than any other Administration in recent memory (including President Obama’s “I have a pen and I’ll use it” term), this one seems to operate an awful lot on its own, relying on Executive Orders to get things done.
Maybe that’s the intransigence of Congress, maybe it’s the unwillingness of those bodies to actually put forth any meaningful legislation, or maybe it’s just my lack of perception in the matter. But it seems to me that I’ve seen precious little of the historical pattern…the House creates a bill, approves it, and passes it to the Senate, which approves and passes it to the President for his signature or a veto.
If my perception is real rather than imagined, then it’s possible that others sense that, too. And while President Trump looks nothing like a king and is operating completely within the limits imposed by our founding document, there are many who could interpret this Administration as a very “pointy, king-like” structure, even if they have no concrete example of why that is.
Thoughts? And “Joel, you’re flat wrong” is an appropriate response.
I think it’s the fact that there are so many agencies, and so much “administrative law”, that what used to be the purview of the legislative is now under the executive.
It’s also that Clinton and Obama used law (and EOs) as a tool to be exploited to their political advantage. Most conservatives see the law as a boundary, and don’t think that way.
When someone not on their side is effective using their own methods, it’s shocking.
And of course, the media tilt everything in a particular way, so they amplify “he’s acting like a king!” when it’s not their guy doing it, and “what an effective leader!” when it is.
In all fairness to DJT, a lot of what he did initially was “re-signing” all the stuff that JRB “unsigned” first thing. I think we can look forward to a lot of that every time the White House flips.
you aren’t wrong on the facts, but the Congress isn’t even remotely operating in a healthy fashion. Last budget passed traditionally and before sep 30th was 1997. How many funding bills were started in the Senate and then consolidated with a House response. The federal Administrative State is finally being pruned a bit between 45 and now 47. The Supreme Court is currently using the words of the written laws and the Constittution more than any other in recent memory. We are in the position of having the system limp along and take the improvements we can and minimize the bad.
Personally, I think the crux of the issue here is that liberals are not used to a president who pushes boundaries (in ways they’re uncomfortable with). Yes, Biden pushed A LOT of boundaries. Yes, Obama did. Maybe Bush did, but that was on the heels of 9/11 and it had a lot of non-partisan support.
But that was good boundary pushing! This is different.
Trump hatred originated with him beating HRC. It was she that initiated the resistance movement as well as set the stage for his multiple impeachments. Democrat legislators found the notion that “there is only the fight” mantra played well in the media and prevented any real structural changes in the administrative state.
For years the economist in me argued against a balance budget amendment because I thought the Federal government needed some latitude to prevent extreme economic recessions. I now believe that idea caused legislators to not to have to make hard political choices while allowing big government advocates to acquire significant power by giving more stuff to more people.
What I find fascinating is that Americans are enamored with the Royal family but then march against kings
I wouldn’t even include the Kennedy Center.
Kennedy was arguably unworthy of most of the adulation he received, both before and after his death. He had no executive experience, would likely have faced a court martial for losing his boat if he hadn’t had an influential (bootlegger) parent, and was blatantly immoral during his White House tenure. There’s very strong evidence that he actually stole the presidential election. He was helped to fame with a ghost-written book, and his faults ignored by a fawning press. Ben Franklin wants his half-dollar back.