I wonder if the job will transform from publishing mostly objective facts about the past, to subjective interpretations of those facts. Since we’re doing the former portion for them pretty effectively.
? Yes maybe. You don’t think if Lincoln posted like Trump history wouldn’t be different? If he attacked his own side, attacked those in the south in a much more aggressive manner, attacked everyone who didn’t agree with him?
Wouldn’t you say Lincoln’s mostly calm and measured speech had an effect on his outcomes as a President? It seems to me like being like Trump could potentially have altered most everything. Imagine a Trump where he was in control of his thoughts and emotions. You don’t think all the things he has wanted would have had a much better chance?
1 Like
How true is this, @mr.v3lv3t.
What is mind-boggling to me is how Trump can do, say or Twitter something…and those actions can be interpreted in vastly different ways, depending on one’s biases.
or Dave Chappelle, or Bill Gates, or Chauncey Billups, or some guy recording himself in his pickup truck. I agree with your sentiment but imo it applies universally.
2 Likes
@mr.v3lv3t…you reminded me of something else that history,historians and time tend to do is “tone-down” some of those biases…and at least get closer to some objective interpretation of individuals and events.
It never is perfect, though, is it?
Example.
I think that it is safe to say that a Biography of Hillary Clinton written by Rush Limbaugh would be vastly different from one written by Chelsea Clinton. What tends to happen with “history” is that the obvious biases are slowly whittled away until we get closer…and I emphasize closer to some objective truth about a person and/or events…
1 Like
The thought experiment I was imagining was Lincoln posting like Lincoln would have, if Lincoln had Twitter and was prone to posting unfiltered thoughts. Or Churchill. Same historical outcomes, but with Trump-level posting patterns of whatever their thoughts at the time happened to be.
If we imagine a history where every leader acted like Trump it would be a very difficult trajectory to predict.
No, but John Wilkes Booth snatched turned a total rout into a victory for the South, cemented by subsequent actions from Andrew Johnson.
You expect states to leave the U.S. over this one, and for the then-President to attack them?
1 Like
Historical consensus of good or bad can even swing wildly over time. I recently re-listened to a podcast that pointed this out with a classic historical figure, Ghengis Khan. History has grown to view him much more favorably over time, using the argument that his actions paved the way for all of this positive long-term changes across the world.
And they have a point.
You just can’t get too far away from the fact that he murdered millions. Ask someone who had to pay that bill. Not just their life, but their families lives. Their friends lives. Their whole town and all of the towns around them. Their religion. The sports they played. Their language.
All gone, like a stone dropped in water.
If you could somehow ask them, you’ll get a lot different answer of whether or not Ghengis Khan was a good leader than you might get from a modern historian. Hell, if you asked a Mongol horse archer what makes a good leader, they’ll probably tell you a guy like Subutai is, who has also seen to the deaths of millions.
Ghengis Khan is still on the Mongolian money, so asking a modern Mongol whether Ghengis Khan was a good leader will probably get you a biased answer. I happen to think he’s probably the greatest military leader of all time, if success is measured in military outcomes. Can a good leader be responsible for the slaughter of millions?
I think the answer is YES.
It’s a good thing Trump isn’t a good leader who favors early 13th century Mongol foreign policy.
1 Like
To me a leader should have a goal of doing what’s best for the population being lead. I think those decisions should be made using the best information available. This often involves making unpopular decisions. Sometimes the best information will result in outcome that in hind sight does not pan out. That’s okay, because the decision was the most likely to produce the best result. I can live with that.
I think he was probably forgetting about that election.
I think it will be a farcical shitshow that’s easily recognizable as such to the majority of Americans, even people who voted for Trump last time and will do it again.
I think you’ll see a pretty energetic field of candidates in the 2024 Republican primary, but I don’t see anyone trying to out-Trump Trump.
1 Like
Agree…but you are going to see some tight-rope walking as they try to appeal to that 30% Trump Base, while at the same time trying to not appear as some limp-dick Rhino.
I see that even happening now as I receive e-mails from a presumptive candidate…Nikki Haley.
You can read some of her Ad-Copy as that very balancing act I am talking about; meat for a Trump Base while at the same time trying to broaden her overall appeal.
And think about this; will Trump’s endorsement be sought after in 2024? Will Trump remain “neutral” until an actual candidate is chosen? Will a candidate “risk” whatever broad appeal they may have gained by having Trump as-lib at their rallies?
I know, I know…2024 is an eternity in politics; and neither Trump (nor Haley for that matter) may be alive in 2024…or some Conservative and/or Liberal Political beast can seem to come from nowhere…but these are issues that an interesting to ponder.
1 Like
I think the GOP have been masters of the tactic of aim far right and settle right off center. Many of them want just right of center IMO. The problem is a portion of the GOP base does not understand this tactic, and their wants align with the far right because they have taken the initial stances as what is actually wanted by the GOP politicians (and have grown to want those things themselves).
IMO, this portion of the base has grown to the point that a center right candidate is unpalatable. The GOP have won races because of high turn out on their side (and things like voter suppression, and gerrymandering to a greater extent than the left). If a center right candidate gets the nomination (which is unlikely with the primary system, and the identity of the people who vote in the primary), they risk low voter turn out. If that happens, IMO they lose.
Do you think Mao fits that criteria?
I don’t know really much about him.
Wouldn’t this just increase their views as being seen as crazy though? I mean being unable to control what comes from your mouth (or keyboard) is a sign of mental instability. I don’t think Trump can really help himself. I think he has a few mental disorders and I think occasionally he can keep himself in check. But he always returns to being unhinged.
Maybe I’m looking at or understanding the question wrong. It seems like we would view those accomplishments the same, but agree they were fucking nuts? But that comes back to the issue that Trumps outcomes (or others in a similar scenario) are greatly impacted by their mental problems.
How?
? You don’t think what Trump has done hasn’t been greatly effected by his behavior? You don’t think he would have been more likely to achieve certain things, had higher political capital with the population, etc if he acted like a human?
Trump for sure demonstrates narcissistic behavior.
And more. But let’s just say Trump comes in with all three branches, but hasn’t ran putting down everyone who ever has been critical. He is viewed as empathetic, thoughtful, and listens to others. Maybe he achieves universal healthcare like he said. Maybe the “trade war” has a shorter time frame or better outcome. Maybe he takes quicker action on this and it doesn’t get it’s hooks in so much. Maybe he works with governors right now instead of against them.
I can’t think of a lot of situations where his personality has been a benefit in his outcomes. Which his outcomes right now ain’t looking grand.