Interesting Trump Critique of Trump from David Frum

[guido]

David Frum: Recovery From Trump Will Be ‘The Work Of A Generation’ | On Point

Interesting discussion...

[Too Tall]

David Frum: Recovery From Trump Will Be ‘The Work Of A Generation’ | On Point

Interesting discussion...

"interesting" is a word that makes me flinch reflexively. This will be fun ;)

Guy, I've got great faith of inherit strength of the Union. Changing or "breaking" norms is bad because we suffer these consequences? What are you thinking? Personally, I LOVE strong opinions and people who vote!!! This past year I've witnessed more people having actionable political and social opinions than in my lifetime....this is good.

If David F. laments loss of status quo I say too bad, seek higher ground and fight like it matters.

[guido]

Listen to the first half hour of the piece to understand his thesis. Then we can chat...

[Too Tall]

Listen to the first half hour of the piece to understand his thesis. Then we can chat...

Yup. Done. What I do not like is his assertion "Global Crisis of Democracy". That makes good podcast and denies reality that democracy is fully intact, working and will "survive" D.J.T.

[guido]

Yup. Done. What I do not like is his assertion "Global Crisis of Democracy". That makes good podcast and denies reality that democracy is fully intact, working and will "survive" D.J.T.

Given the rise of totalitarian leaning or ultra right wing parties in many of the new and even older democracies, it could be argued that the optimism about democracies spread might have been premature. Given DJT's attempts to intimidate the justice department, FBI etc. it remains to be seen what the long range effect will be in this country.

[bdaghisallo]

Given the rise of totalitarian leaning or ultra right wing parties in many of the new and even older democracies, it could be argued that the optimism about democracies spread might have been premature. Given DJT's attempts to intimidate the justice department, FBI etc. it remains to be seen what the long range effect will be in this country.

It must be remembered that every single individual in the Executive Branch, including everyone at the DoJ and the FBI, works for the President and are in place to manage the workings of the Federal Government as he directs. Constitutionally, that's how it's designed to work. The Legislative Branch makes the laws and the Executive Branch enforces them.

[Corso]

Let’s see, a Bush confidant who has “distain” for Trump writes a book that appears to be (I have not and most likely will not) negative about Trump, who embarrassed the younger brother of the President Frum worked for. The hard right Republican establishment did not like Trump and still does not.

He’s afraid Trump has his finger on the nuke button, and will “send” thugs out to hurt journalist, and will take "years to recover from this presidency."
ALARMIST tag fits this guy, I believe.

Agrees with the tax bill, but says it is “unconstitutional”. Well, THAT has not been determined, it was voted for. The big high tax democratic states are the ones pushing that “unconstitutional” war cry. If I lived in those states, I’d be more concerned that my state fell into that category, and why.

The same journalist (he quotes in the book) who have been slandering and disrespecting trump form the day he announced. If anyone on the planet has the right to condemn the press, it’s the guy who’s been attacked daily by them.

He won’t (like many Trump haters) believe the Mueller report if it say there was no collusion.

He does say “don’t take his word for it”…and i’m not. The only shocking thing I heard is that Frum doesn’t believe Trump will be impeached. By the sound of this interview, I assumed Frum would be “all in” for that.

Thanks for the link, but even a well educated, well spoken Trump hater is still just that.

[djg714]

6'3
239

[Scott G.]

6'3
239

Maybe his tailor is a David Frum supporter ?

[guido]

It must be remembered that every single individual in the Executive Branch, including everyone at the DoJ and the FBI, works for the President and are in place to manage the workings of the Federal Government as he directs. Constitutionally, that's how it's designed to work. The Legislative Branch makes the laws and the Executive Branch enforces them.

The the question of who looks at lawbreaking by the executive is not addressed well in the constitution. Conflicts arise when balancing the national interest and the presidential interest. For example the attorney general is the nations attorney, not the presidents. This conflict didn't work out so well for Nixon. Be interesting to see how it works out this time...

[Corso]

For example the attorney general is the nations attorney, not the presidents. This conflict didn't work out so well for Nixon. Be interesting to see how it works out this time...

Worked out pretty well for the last guy though, didn’t it? Holder WAS that presidents attorney.
I know I sound like a broken record, but if Trump had a D next to his name (like he once did), I feel we wouldn’t be having these discussions.

One other thing I AGREE with from the pod cast: the parties not working together at all started in the 90s. Both sides voting party vs what’s right, as well as going out of the way to work against each other really sickens me. Just freakn vote across the aisle once in a while, both sides!

Guido and I don’t agree politically, but if he was on the side of the road with a flat, I’d give him a tube! And I’m pretty confident he’d do the same for me.

[bdaghisallo]

Worked out pretty well for the last guy though, didn’t it? Holder WAS that presidents attorney.
I know I sound like a broken record, but if Trump had a D next to his name (like he once did), I feel we wouldn’t be having these discussions.

One other thing I AGREE with from the pod cast: the parties not working together at all started in the 90s. Both sides voting party vs what’s right, as well as going out of the way to work against each other really sickens me. Just freakn vote across the aisle once in a while, both sides!

Guido and I don’t agree politically, but if he was on the side of the road with a flat, I’d give him a tube! And I’m pretty confident he’d do the same for me.

Constitutionally, the President is the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. The attorney general is the person who carries out that responsibility on behalf of and at the direction of the President. The AG is primarily a political position, as they carry out the President’s preferred manner in executing the Executive Branch’s responsibility to enforce the laws passed by Congress.

The Solicitor General is really the nation’s attorney in that they are the one responsible for representing the national government in legal matters, and this is less political in its scope even though the position is an appointed one that reports to the AG.

[Saab2000]

Worked out pretty well for the last guy though, didn’t it? Holder WAS that presidents attorney.
I know I sound like a broken record, but if Trump had a D next to his name (like he once did), I feel we wouldn’t be having these discussions.

One other thing I AGREE with from the pod cast: the parties not working together at all started in the 90s. Both sides voting party vs what’s right, as well as going out of the way to work against each other really sickens me. Just freakn vote across the aisle once in a while, both sides!

Guido and I don’t agree politically, but if he was on the side of the road with a flat, I’d give him a tube! And I’m pretty confident he’d do the same for me.

Regarding your first point, I'd be awfully nervous if Trump were a Democrat and engaged in the same egregious behavior and used the same kind of inflammatory language against the press, our allies, any kind of intellect, etc. I am an independent centrist with some very liberal views on some issues and some traditional conservative views on a handful of things (like fiscal responsibility). I am alarmed by the president's attacks on the press. It reeks of the same kind of attacks on the press that have occurred in other places. I see this president as a threat to American representative democracy and if a Democrat engaged in the same behavior I think most people would be equally alarmed.

Regarding your second point, I agree that it was in the 1990s that partisanship got really toxic and to some degree I blame Newt Gingrich for this. Had it been an equally obnoxious and hypocritical Democrat I would feel the same way and blame that person. I also think that the rise of blatantly partisan cable TV channels, in particular Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, has been extremely unhelpful in American politics.

I left the US for Europe for the first time in the late 1980s and spent most of the next 15 years in Europe, during which time Fox News came into existence. When I returned I switched it on and was appalled by the total lack of objective news coverage or critical thought and the obvious partisan nature of nearly everything they broadcast. It can be argued that some news media have had a liberal bias (which I struggle to see but I'll accept that I've heard it occasionally - I certainly don't observe it nearly as much as is generally mentioned), but I've never observed the 'mainstream' media to be so blatantly partisan as Fox News.

I've certainly find that avoiding these kinds of toxic, simpleton broadcasts (and most of MSNBC's hosts are no better, though I do sometimes watch a few minutes of Morning Joe) makes me a happier and better informed person.

But even without these examples, the rise of the internet and 24/7 for-profit news channels makes this inevitable. We have so much more immediate information available than we did 20 years ago.

My disdain for politicians like Gingrich and my disgust with Fox News doesn't mean there aren't folks on the left who are equally poisonous. There are. To reach common ground we need to participate in the electoral process and prevent the narrowly focused extremist weirdos from gaining traction in the primaries. How did Trump get to be the candidate? He won his party's primary elections. My point is that we should never let these awful candidates get to the final elections. They ought to be voted out in the primaries, which means we all need to vote in the primaries.

Party should never come before country and it certainly seems to nowadays, which is why I can't ever see myself joining a political party.

[Scott G.]

One other thing I AGREE with from the pod cast: the parties not working together at all started in the 90s. Both sides voting party vs what’s right, as well as going out of the way to work against each other really sickens me. Just freakn vote across the aisle once in a while, both sides!

When you have safe districts, where the only real threat of losing is in the primary, add in lots of money
from mystery donors. You get primaries decided by who can run further from the middle.
The middle of is full of politicians and appeasers, primary votes want true believers who will
nail the flag to the mast and go down fighting. Compromise is for losers.

In the words of the old spiritual...
Where is Richard Nixon when we really need him ?

[ericpmoss]

Remember Lewis Powell and the "crisis of democracy"? I wonder if Frum is thinking the same way. In any case, my thoughts are "you helped build a monster and now you're shocked by its table manners?"

[guido]

I'm more troubled by those who helped build the monster and find his table manners to their liking... And those who are willing to avert their eyes as long as their goals are being met.

[Matthew J]

I know I sound like a broken record, but if Trump had a D next to his name (like he once did), I feel we wouldn’t be having these discussions.

I would not say a broken record.

T's policies are so anathema to the Democratic platform he would not have made it through one primary let alone get the nomination. BTW while T may have called himself a D from time to time, he so seldom voted there is no way to tell what party affiliation he may have - unless maybe the National Front were to register.

[Matthew J]

I left the US for Europe for the first time in the late 1980s and spent most of the next 15 years in Europe, during which time Fox News came into existence. When I returned I switched it on and was appalled by the total lack of objective news coverage or critical thought and the obvious partisan nature of nearly everything they broadcast. It can be argued that some news media have had a liberal bias (which I struggle to see but I'll accept that I've heard it occasionally - I certainly don't observe it nearly as much as is generally mentioned), but I've never observed the 'mainstream' media to be so blatantly partisan as Fox News.

I wonder whether it was just the shock of witnessing Fox News or also moving from an area where Parliamentary systems are the norm to an urban nation governed by a system designed for agrarian gentry.

The US has an economy dominated by urban centered finance and technical industries whose workers for the most part adhere to a robust, forward thinking urban culture. But its political system is unduly influenced by (to put it nicely) nostalgic minded minded voters who still see this as a country of family farmers and small main street shops.

Either has to change or it will collapse.

[Saab2000]

I wonder whether it was just the shock of witnessing Fox News or also moving from an area where Parliamentary systems are the norm to an urban nation governed by a system designed for agrarian gentry.

The US has an economy dominated by urban centered finance and technical industries whose workers for the most part adhere to a robust, forward thinking urban culture. But its political system is unduly influenced by (to put it nicely) nostalgic minded minded voters who still see this as a country of family farmers and small main street shops.

Either has to change or it will collapse.

I was shocked by the awful news coverage and total lack of critical thinking on Fox. As to the system of government, I have no real opinion on that because I don't study enough other systems to have an opinion.

But you're right about a lot of people thinking it's still 1787 WRT the constitution of the US. It's not 1787 anymore and we are dealing with issues the founders of the nation couldn't have conceived of in any possible manner. For this reason alone the constitution needs to be a living document, not one stuck in 1787.

BTW, the other thing that struck me upon moving back to the US was the total bombardment of the air waves with ads for drugs and drug treatments. "Ask your doctor if XXXXX is right for you". The power of Big Pharma blew me away. Big Pharma is obviously worldwide, but they don't advertise in other places the way they do here.

[Matthew Strongin]

But you're right about a lot of people thinking it's still 1787 WRT the constitution of the US. It's not 1787 anymore and we are dealing with issues the founders of the nation couldn't have conceived of in any possible manner. For this reason alone the constitution needs to be a living document, not one stuck in 1787.

The founding fathers were actually pretty smart on this. Article V of the Constitution provides details on the process for amendment (Article Five of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia). They knew they wouldn't be able to predict the needs of a nation in the future. The Constitution isn't stuck in 1787...the people and politicians are.