Trump's reputation will age like fine wine

[perplexed]

Time often smooths rough edges. Political movements tend to turn polarizing leaders into symbols — simplified and idealized.
People will remember “he spoke for ordinary Americans” more than “he tweeted insults at 3 a.m.”
Populism will remain strong globally, Trump will come to represent the origin point of a major political realignment rather than just a single administration.

 

[PloverWing]

I agree that he will probably be remembered as a symbol of a major political movement in the US.

 

[NxNW]

Time often smooths rough edges. Political movements tend to turn polarizing leaders into symbols — simplified and idealized.
People will remember “he spoke for ordinary Americans” more than “he tweeted insults at 3 a.m.”

I can't remember him speaking for ordinary Americans.

Populism will remain strong globally, Trump will come to represent the origin point of a major political realignment rather than just a single administration.

The "facts don't matter" movement, for sure.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I agree that he will probably be remembered as a symbol of a major political movement in the US.

Like VP John C. Calhoun.

 

[Paulos23]

It is already smelling like vinegar.

 

[Desk trauma]

!remind me in 10 years

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You're correct... many of the earlier presidents that are still revered and celebrated to this day are people who had views, that by today's standards would be considered ghastly.


Case in point:

Anyone remember this quote?:
"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races ... I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."


That's Abraham Lincoln... someone who's on our currency, and often gets discussed in terms of being some sort of pioneer for racial equality.

There's an anti-Trump group named "The Lincoln Project" that often condemns Trump for "racist dogwhistles and rhetoric"... meanwhile, their group is named after a guy who didn't even use dog whistles, and openly said "I've never been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes or interracial marriage"... let that sink in for a moment.


FDR's Japanese internment camps would rival any level of racism Trump has been perceived to have exhibited, and his attempts at court packing and his 3000+ executive orders would suggest that he had more of a "Kingly ambition" than Trump, yet, the people at the "No Kings" rallies who are appalled by Alligator Alcatraz will undoubtedly have a somewhat positive view of FDR.


Lydon Johnson (who some progressives celebrate for his enactment of the various "Great Society" programs), per Snopes, wasn't a particularly nice guy... saying things like this:
He referred to the Civil Rights Act of 1957 as the "n-word bill" in more than one private phone conversation with Senate colleagues. And he reportedly said upon appointing African-American judge Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, "Son, when I appoint a n-word to the court, I want everyone to know he's a n-word."

 

[Hans Blaster]

You're correct... many of the earlier presidents that are still revered and celebrated to this day are people who had views, that by today's standards would be considered ghastly.


Case in point:

Anyone remember this quote?:
"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races ... I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."


That's Abraham Lincoln... someone who's on our currency, and often gets discussed in terms of being some sort of pioneer for racial equality.

There's an anti-Trump group named "The Lincoln Project" that often condemns Trump for "racist dogwhistles and rhetoric"... meanwhile, their group is named after a guy who didn't even use dog whistles, and openly said "I've never been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes or interracial marriage"... let that sink in for a moment.


FDR's Japanese internment camps would rival any level of racism Trump has been perceived to have exhibited, and his attempts at court packing and his 3000+ executive orders would suggest that he had more of a "Kingly ambition" than Trump, yet, the people at the "No Kings" rallies who are appalled by Alligator Alcatraz will undoubtedly have a somewhat positive view of FDR.


Lydon Johnson (who some progressives celebrate for his enactment of the various "Great Society" programs), per Snopes, wasn't a particularly nice guy... saying things like this:
He referred to the Civil Rights Act of 1957 as the "n-word bill" in more than one private phone conversation with Senate colleagues. And he reportedly said upon appointing African-American judge Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, "Son, when I appoint a n-word to the court, I want everyone to know he's a n-word."

Oh good grief. This is a new low. Those Presidents actually accomplished things. Let me know when Trump does something worth remembering for the good.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Oh good grief. This is a new low. Those Presidents actually accomplished things. Let me know when Trump does something worth remembering for the good.

"Oh good grief, new low, I'm appalled, clutch the pearls"

Do you have a bit of a flair for the dramatic or something?

He's had accomplishments that are viewed as positive. Operation Warp Speed, his involvement in some middle east peace deals like the Abraham Accords, his involvement in getting the First Step Act pushed through, the opioid support act... those aren't "nothing".

Are you literally suggesting that he's never done anything remotely redeeming or good in his entire tenure as president? If your answer is no, then I know not to take you seriously...because even the most terrible presidents have at least a few accomplishments to their name. (With the exceptions of people like William Henry Harrison who contracted Typhoid and died less than 2 months into his tenure before he had time to accomplish anything.)

 

[Fantine]

Well, he's whitewashing the Smithsonian, libraries, the Kennedy Center, etc. Changing textbooks.

Nixon's reputation has improved slightly, but he was able to speak in complete sentences. He didn't surround himself with recovering heroin addicts, alcoholics, wrestling moguls and hedge fund managers. He didn't outsource mass firing responsibilities to billionaires with fat government contracts.
Nixon listened to briefs, did his homework, and made reasoned decisions.
His misdeeds over 6 years were about 5% as numerous and 10% as serious as Trump's.
And yes, he will always be remembered for the Watergate coverup.

 

[Hans Blaster]

"Oh good grief, new low, I'm appalled, clutch the pearls"

Do you have a bit of a flair for the dramatic or something?

No. I'm just sick of your "centrist" apologetics for the far right.

He's had accomplishments that are viewed as positive. Operation Warp Speed, his involvement in some middle east peace deals like the Abraham Accords, his involvement in getting the First Step Act pushed through, the opioid support act... those aren't "nothing".

Are you literally suggesting that he's never done anything remotely redeeming or good in his entire tenure as president? If your answer is no, then I know not to take you seriously...because even the most terrible presidents have at least a few accomplishments to their name. (With the exceptions of people like William Henry Harrison who contracted Typhoid and died less than 2 months into his tenure before he had time to accomplish anything.)

 

[RocksInMyHead]

He's had accomplishments that are viewed as positive. Operation Warp Speed, his involvement in some middle east peace deals like the Abraham Accords, his involvement in getting the First Step Act pushed through, the opioid support act... those aren't "nothing".

They're not nothing, but they're also far from groundbreaking or revolutionary. Of those, only the Abraham Accords and Trump's general work on middle east peace have the potential to be a real legacy of his administration, but that requires those treaties to actually stick. If we're back to the same squabbles and conflicts in a few years, then they'll just get added to the list of failed middle east peace plans.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

No. I'm just sick of your "centrist" apologetics for the far right.

It's not centrist apologetics for the far right...it's simply an acknowledgment that he's not "Hitler" when his position on the various issues aren't all that far off from that of establishment politicians from the mid-90's (in fact, some are even more progressive).

I am a centrist. In the Overton Window that is "the US body Politic", my positions are "closer to the middle". The key difference is, there's one faction that is more likely than the other to say that "the middle" is an unacceptable position.

If I went to a pro-2A rally, but said "Hey, I'm cool with gay marriage, I have a nuanced position on abortion, I'm an atheist...but hey, I feel like people should have the right to defend themselves with the most effective tool possible", they'd be cool with me. If I showed up at a left-wing rally and said "I'm a fan of giving people equal marriage rights, I'm a big fan of separation of church and state, but I'm a capitalist, and think you guys need to tone it down on the various 'critical theories' and that borders are still important", I'd get a urine bottle whipped at my head and told that I'm a fascist.

This shows how intolerant of contrasting viewpoints "team left" has become in the past 15 years.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

They're not nothing, but they're also far from groundbreaking or revolutionary. Of those, only the Abraham Accords and Trump's general work on middle east peace have the potential to be a real legacy of his administration, but that requires those treaties to actually stick. If we're back to the same squabbles and conflicts in a few years, then they'll just get added to the list of failed middle east peace plans.

I noted that in the other thread, in fact, I'm pretty sure I even used the words "if the agreements stick"

...yes, after looking I did use that word

"if those peace agreements stick"

My point in that thread was to highlight
A) that the bar is low for the peace prize (Yasser Arafat got one)
B) People who are overjoyed that "Trump didn't get it" are ignoring the the fact that the person who did is by no means progressive. -- she basically was begging for US oil interests to come in and take over Venezuela's natural resources.


This imposition that in order to be considered "sensible", one has to subscribe to (and give lip service to) the notion that "we're living under the worst president ever" is tiring lol.

No, we're not...

Is Trump the greatest? No
Is everything stellar? No

But we don't have to pretend that we're on the verge of having the Fourth Reich.

We have a president who appoints people to his cabinet that even democrats of 20 years ago wouldn't have appointed because it'd be considered "too politically risky", we don't have to lie and pretend they're firing up the gas chambers tomorrow to prove some sort of point.

If the "current furthest right guy" is picking black, Indian, women, gay, hispanic, and Jewish people to his inner circle, I don't think we have to worry about another Auschwitz.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's not centrist apologetics for the far right...

Apologetics, distractions, whatever you you want to call it. Perhaps I should have said the authoritarian right.

it's simply an acknowledgment that he's not "Hitler" when his position on the various issues aren't all that far off from that of establishment politicians from the mid-90's (in fact, some are even more progressive).

Of course he's not Hitler. Hitler is dead.

I am a centrist. In the Overton Window that is "the US body Politic", my positions are "closer to the middle". The key difference is, there's one faction that is more likely than the other to say that "the middle" is an unacceptable position.

If I went to a pro-2A rally, but said "Hey, I'm cool with gay marriage, I have a nuanced position on abortion, I'm an atheist...but hey, I feel like people should have the right to defend themselves with the most effective tool possible", they'd be cool with me. If I showed up at a left-wing rally and said "I'm a fan of giving people equal marriage rights, I'm a big fan of separation of church and state, but I'm a capitalist, and think you guys need to tone it down on the various 'critical theories' and that borders are still important", I'd get a urine bottle whipped at my head and told that I'm a fascist.

This shows how intolerant of contrasting viewpoints "team left" has become in the past 15 years.

This isn't about the position of your politics. It's what you give cover to. Do you ever challenge any of the Trumpists here?