I never thought I'd be agreeing with David Brooks but - " — StreetlightX

Yep.

Actually, it was Brooks' column that was cited by the Jacobin writer I quoted a few pages back. It's not altogether trash, surprisingly:

"Democrats are playing Trump’s game. Trump has no policy agenda. He’s incompetent at improving the lives of American citizens, even his own voters. But he’s good at one thing: waging reality TV personality wars against coastal elites. So now over the next few months he gets to have a personality war against Nancy Pelosi and Jerrold Nadler.

The Democrats are having a pretty exciting and substantive presidential primary season. This is what democracy is supposed to look like. Why they would want to distract from that is beyond reason. Trump vs. Nadler is exactly the contrast Trump wants to elevate.

This process will increase public cynicism. Impeachment would be an uplifting exercise if we had sober leaders who could put party affiliation aside and impartially weigh the evidence. It would be workable if Congress enjoyed broad public affection and legitimacy. We don’t live in that world."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/opinion/impeachment-trump-mistake.html

Imagine being so entitled as to think there must be an impeachment process because Trump is yucky, and if substantive democratic debate must be washed over in the process, then so be it.

Trump is out there putting people in cages and Plutocrtizing the cabinet and someome thinks the most appropriate response is to extensively cite milennia old dead people on virtue ethics and the subtleties of Machiavelli. It's almost like you want Trump to win. The US burning down might not be such a bad thing after all. It'd take a bunch of political incompetants with it. — StreetlightX

I was responding to your claims about character. Far from being the stuff of gossip magazines, TV reality shows, and children's fairytales, it is an essential part of political philosophy and practice.

Concern for character does not preclude opposition to what Trump does, which, of course, is based on his character. Do you think he would put people in cages and make wealth the criterion for holding political power if he had any regard for anyone but himself?

It is not simply a matter of Trump's character but of the character of whoever it is we vote into office. Suppose candidate X puts forth policy proposals that you agree with, but X is not trustworthy and his actions raise serious questions about whether he has any intention of doing what he proposes to. Will you vote for him because you like the policies he is running on?

It is not simply a matter of Trump's character but of the character of whoever it is we vote into office. Suppose candidate X puts forth policy proposals that you agree with, but X is not trustworthy and his actions raise serious questions about whether he has any intention of doing what he proposes to. Will you vote for him because you like the policies he is running on? — Fooloso4

Not interested in hypotheticals. We don't live in theory-land. More distraction. More useless discussion.

There's nothing more disempowering than moral outrage. — Janus

Really? Did moral outrage have nothing to do with ending the Vietnam war? Do you think it is moral indifference that fuels efforts to reverse reproductive laws and attempts to make law based on religious beliefs? Do you think significant changes in environmental protection will be the result of moral indifference?

Again, I don't see how this follows. Perhaps you could make a structured argument for all these claims. — Echarmion

I refer you to the majority of the discussion around Trump, which is almost singularly devoid of policy or process, of which this thread and it's participants are exemplary.

Not interested in hypotheticals. — StreetlightX

A feeble dodge.

Streetlight thinks we ought to change the topic of the thread to discuss politics rather than character. But we're the peanut gallery here, and we like to think we're judging the politician's character, not the politician's policies. There's no fun in the latter.

When politics is confused with morality, people fucking die. Morality is for those who can't think.

Yes. The more people learn to discard irrelavent questions, the better off we'll all be.

Streetlight thinks we ought to change the topic of the thread to discuss politics rather than character. But we're the peanut gallery here, and we like to think we're judging the politician's character, not the politician's policies. There's no fun in the latter. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think it is a false dichotomy.

When politics is confused with morality, people fucking die. Morality is for those who can't think. — StreetlightX

Your understanding of morality seems to be as impoverished as your understanding of character. The irony is that you object to Trump's putting children in cages, but that is not a morally neutral objection and the decision to do so is directly related to his amoral character. If morality is irrelevant than why are you not indifferent to people fucking dying?

The decision to do so is directly related to his amoral character — Fooloso4

Imagine thinking immigration policy is a result of either charatcter or morality.

It's pretty clear that a great deal of Trump's opponents have been uniquely useless at actually opposing anything whatsoever, insofar as their efforts continue to centre upon utterly unpolitical - that is to say, unactionable - vectors of resistance. — StreetlightX

The midterms proved to be a significant and effective opposition, and it even seemed reactive to the ‘personality’ of the Trump administration, with a record number of women elected, and a Muslim woman as well.

Trump is stacking the courts and destorying the environment... — StreetlightX

The conservative agenda, which it could be argued has been largely successful despite Trump. Perhaps Trump cost them the midterms loss, as well as other things like failing to repeal and replace Obamacare, etc. Perhaps he is more of a liability to their agenda then an asset.

The midterms proved to be a significant and effective opposition, and it even seemed reactive to the ‘personality’ of the Trump administration, with a record number of women elected, and a Muslim woman as well. — praxis

The most effective 'reactions' to Trump to my mind have been precisely those who have not merely re-acted but acted to change the conversation entirely. Medicare for all, the green new deal, labour reform - substantial policy agendas which have shifted the conversation away from Trump's diva-nature and onto things that will actually have an effect on people's lives.

Only the lowest common denominators talk about 'character' - it's what those with nothing to say speak about. They're the deplorables of the anti-Trump train, political rednecks who like to stew in their apparent moral superiority rather than actually talk about anything that has any bearing on the lives of ordinary people.

Anyone with half a brain understood Trump's 'character' from day zero. The adage that insanity is doing or saying the same thing over and over agin and expecting anything to change applies nowhere better to those who find themselves continually 'morally outraged' by Trump. For three years they've been having that same, unchanging conversation, and that it continually steers back to this pearl clutching ('did u see what he said this time?' *gasp/faints*) that tells us nothing new is an indictment on the total impotence of most of the Trump 'resistance'.

My apologies. I misspoke: I should have qualified that statement with "moral outrage over trivialities or points of order". Of course being opposed to politically motivated acts or legislations which cause significant animal or human suffering and death is another matter altogether. But even then the point is, if you are opposed to something, to do something about it, to make some personal sacrifices for your cause if you really care enough, not just to bitch and complain about some politician showing bad form or character in continuing to do exactly what you have come to expect s/he will do..

The midterms proved to be a significant and effective opposition, and it even seemed reactive to the ‘personality’ of the Trump administration, with a record number of women elected, and a Muslim woman as well.
— praxis

The most effective 'reactions' to Trump to my mind have been precisely those who have not merely re-acted but acted to change the conversation entirely. Medicare for all, the green new deal, labour reform - substantial policy agendas which have shifted the conversation away from Trump's diva-nature and onto things that will actually have an effect on people's lives. — StreetlightX

Policy proposals “that will actually have an effect on people's lives.” Hmm, and more effectively than gaining a majority in the house, no less. Conservatives are using these proposals to motivate their party, you realize.

When politics is confused with morality, people fucking die. Morality is for those who can't think. — StreetlightX

If you were to substitute “morality” with “religion” in this statement I could agree. Otherwise, it could use some explaining.

Conservatives are using these proposals to motivate their party, you realize. — praxis

Awesome. Good. Yes. The more these themes dominate the conversation, the more the left claims the very terms of debate, the better off the US will be.

If you were to substitute “morality” with “religion” in this statement I could agree. Otherwise, it could use some explaining. — praxis

Politics is about the exercise of power. Morality erases considerations of power. As one of my favourite writers put it - morality is dead politics. Morality elevated to political principle issues in injustice, always. This is not the place for this discussion though.

focusing on how Trump is distracts form seeing what is being done (not just by Him but in His name!) and trying to counteract it. — Janus

I think that's highly questionable though. You're only going to be distracted if you didn't care about the policies beforehand. And if that's the case, what exactly would arouse your interest absent the distraction?

There is also the question of what exactly we should be doing that we're not because of the distraction.

I refer you to the majority of the discussion around Trump, which is almost singularly devoid of policy or process, of which this thread and it's participants are exemplary. — StreetlightX

I don't think it's all that singular. People are interested in personal drama. If it wasn't Trump's personal drama, it would be someone else's. Of course, the constant drama is part of the strategy with Trump. But I think you're overlooking one aspect of the strategy: It only works because people are willing to tolerate this kind of behaviour from a president. If everyone thought it was a moral outrage, Trump would have long since been abandoned by his party. And that is true for a lot of the dirty tactics the republicans use to stay in power.

If everyone thought it was a moral outrage, Trump would have long since been abandoned by his party. — Echarmion

'Ifs' are of no use to anyone. Especially since as a 'strategy', it has quite obviously been - and will continue to be - a marked failure. In fact more than a failure, banking on 'moral outrage' at this point would count as outright maliciousness and strategic support for Trump, if I did not believe instead in the infinite capacity of human stupidity.

Especially since as a 'strategy', it has quite obviously been - and will continue to be - a marked failure.In fact more than a failure, banking on 'moral outrage' at this point would count as outright maliciousness and strategic support for Trump, if I did not believe instead in the infinite capacity of human stupidity. — StreetlightX

Oh I agree with that. I just don't agree we shouldn't care about the character of the people we elect. I think that the trend towards only looking at a narrow band of policy questions - who will do what for immigration, jobs, families etc. - has truned politicians into wishing wells. Whoever has the best promises wins. I think this is an important factor in the ability of populists to tap into the disillusionment of the working class. If instead we looked at their actual voting history, their industry affiliations, their record on factual questions, we might have avoided a couple of contemporary catastrophes in terms of people in power.

See this:

"Federal law establishes a unique process for disclosures made to OSC. This process is intended to protect the confidentiality of the whistleblower and ensure that the alleged wrongdoing is investigated and, where necessary, corrected."

It is long established procedure to allow second hand information in whistleblower reports. The Republican lie that this was a recent change is exposed Here

Trump’s Claims About Biden Aren’t ‘Unsupported.’ They’re Lies.

It’s very simple - if Trump’s lies become normalised, if lies and ‘alternative facts’ are accepted as being equivalent to facts in the public domain, then there is no possibility for any kind of political system other than dictatorship. Democratic liberalism relies on a commitment to there being objective realities, facts which all sides have to acknowledge. This is what is under siege from Trump, although I remain hopeful that truth will out, even if the struggle involved will be immense and exhausting.

Political life is not an epistemological game, and if you play it as one, you will lose, and people will suffer immensely. Only the dead can eat truth.

I just don't agree we shouldn't care about the character of the people we elect. — Echarmion

This isn't a question of principles, this is one of strategy. It is the obsessional concern with Trump's character that is, when not naive, actively harmful to alleviating the worst of his administration's maleficence. You don't fight a black hole by pointing out over and over again that it sucks.

‘If anybody thinks that inviting this dictatorship in Beijing to investigate a distinguished American is a good idea, they should speak up because it's a terrible idea.’

So - how can it be OK for the GOP to support a President, who stands on the White House lawn, and invites collaboration from the Chinese Communist Party against the Democratic Party? In what parallel world would that be justifiable?

It's like flies to an electric light... Pseudo questions posed as if not everyone already knew the answer. This fucking world. Its here. Stop acting. Stop enjoying yourself.

Imagine thinking immigration policy is a result of either charatcter or morality. — StreetlightX

It is not a matter of it being the result of character or morality but of the fact that they factor into one's own views on what that policy should be. Someone who has little or no regard for the plight of others will favor policies that keep them out. Someone who is xenophobic will favor policies that keep them out. Someone who believes that we should help those is need will favor policies that allow them entry.

A factor is not the whole of the matter. There are other considerations as well - security, economic impact, overpopulation, and so on. It is about the relative weight one gives to these competing factors.

But some are not capable of doing this. They are incapable of or have limited capacity for reasoned deliberation. They are governed by fear or hatred or anger or sentiment or ideology or self-certainty.