The Donald and the Decider

[applegrove]

The Donald and the Decider

by Paul Krugman at the NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/21/opinion/the-donald-and-the-decider.html?_r=0

"SNIP...............


And when Mr. Gore tried to talk about policy differences, Mr. Bush responded not on the substance but by mocking his opponent’s “fuzzy math” — a phrase gleefully picked up by his supporters. The press corps played right along with this deliberate dumbing-down: Mr. Gore was deemed to have lost debates, not because he was wrong, but because he was, reporters declared, snooty and superior, unlike the affably dishonest W.

Then came 9/11, and the affable guy was repackaged as a war leader. But the repackaging was never framed in terms of substantive arguments over foreign policy. Instead, Mr. Bush and his handlers sold swagger. He was the man you could trust to keep us safe because he talked tough and dressed up as a fighter pilot. He proudly declared that he was the “decider” — and that he made his decisions based on his “gut.”

The subtext was that real leaders don’t waste time on hard thinking, that listening to experts is a sign of weakness, that attitude is all you need. And while Mr. Bush’s debacles in Iraq and New Orleans eventually ended America’s faith in his personal gut, the elevation of attitude over analysis only tightened its grip on his party, an evolution highlighted when John McCain, who once upon a time had a reputation for policy independence, chose the eminently unqualified Sarah Palin as his running mate.

So Donald Trump as a political phenomenon is very much in a line of succession that runs from W. through Mrs. Palin, and in many ways he’s entirely representative of the Republican mainstream. For example, were you shocked when Mr. Trump revealed his admiration for Vladimir Putin? He was only articulating a feeling that was already widespread in his party.




.................SNIP"

[treestar]

1. that macho crap has killed more people

than anything else.

[applegrove]

2. The GOP likes dumb dyslexics they can control: Palin, George W. Bush, Reagan, Quayle.

Last edited Tue Jan 5, 2016, 04:43 AM - Edit history (4)

George H. W. Bush was a dyslexic but he was too smart for the GOP and refused to follow voodoo economics though he did tow the line on other issues. The Democrats like the smart dyslexics like Wilson, Kennedy and Al Gore. Dyslexics are interconnected and connect to and read crowds and speak in vague generalities. They are great at leading because they are big picture people, not detailed ones. Being vague allows people to project their needs onto the dyslexic. Marco Rubio is being vague but I'm not sure if he is dyslexic or simply pretending to be one. Dyslexics do great at debates because they do great when they have to fight. That is when they truly come alive. They also do well in science and business, areas that require fight with something outside and 3D thinking. That is why Trump always attacks himself when he makes speeches. Dyslexics create a world view by appealing to people's truths and pull down fictions. The GOP are a racist party and Trump pulls off that veil. That is why Trump is doing so well. He is a dyslexic. I think he will be a dumb one. He will not look at the big picture himself but will buy into the GOP agenda. He has already stopped his talk of stopping trade deals. His tax plans are less centrist than they started out as. He is towing the line in many ways. Jeb, "the smart bush", is not a dyslexic. Why he is failing when facing Trump. By the way Kennedy was the smartest President and dyslexic. Dyselxia is a type of brain and series of attributes that vary a bit one dyslexic to another, not someone's intelligence. Churchill, Einstein, Edison were also dyslexics. In a way, dyslexia is a leadership style, a big picture way of seeing the world. If the dyslexic follows their own truth that they get to using their 3D abilities, and not the made up baloney of some master, they get to the truth. Trump is acting more like Tom Cruise at this juncture and less like a self made man.

[longship]

3. Krugman nails this.

Last edited Mon Dec 21, 2015, 10:39 PM - Edit history (1)

I have read the book more than once.

Steve Eisman, more or less the lead in the book, is a real character. He is unafraid to say anything to anybody. And he does. He tells a Japanese president of a real estate firm... Well, here it is from Lewis' book:

Eisman noted that the guy's financial statements didn't actually disclose any of the important details about the guy's company; but, rather than simply say that, he lifted the statement in the air, as if disposing of a turd. "This... this is toilet paper," he said. "Translate that."

"The Japanese guy takes off his glasses," recalled a witness to the strange encounter. "His lips were quavering. World War Three is about to break out. 'Toy-lay paper? Toy-lay paper?'"

I laughed my ass off the first time I read that.

To be more kind about Eisman, late in the book, it is he and two of his compatriots who, sitting on the steps of St. Patricks as the whole financial world is crumbling around them, and having bet against the banks were immensely more wealthy, it is Eisman who takes little joy in it.

He is obviously a compassionate person, albeit a flawed one. Those are the types of narratives that weave through Lewis' book. It is a wonderful read. The newer edition even has an index, which is helpful.

I recommend the book. I will be seeing the flick if it makes it to rural west Michigan theaters.

The cast looks great. Brad Pitt! Steve Carell plays the Eisman character, for some reason cast as Mark Baum. He even looks like Eisman. Christian Bale, Marisa Tomei, etc.

Here's the trailer:

[applegrove]

4. I can't wait to see the movie. I should read the book first though.

[longship]

5. I suspect that it won't matter.

The film renames several of the characters, but strangely not others. There will undoubtedly be the usual compression and changed time frames due to the 90-120 minute film narrative. So I suspect that the book will be fresh, even after viewing the film.

It is a really good read with a diverse cast of characters. The film has accrued several preliminary pending award nominations and is being acclaimed by critics as one of the best this year. Notably the ensemble cast has been particularly mentioned as outstanding. Lots of talent there.

Here's the Wik ifor the film: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Short_(film)

My advice, see the film.

Happy happy to you.

[applegrove]

6. I will. I just read the Krugman piece on the big short and it gave me shivers. I know someone

who was told the Big Lie. I don't know if I did the right thing in forwarding the Krugman piece to him. Not my place. What do I know of economics these days...I never read anything in depth about it. (Later: I had a bad moment. I back on board with Krugman).