The Democratic primaries concern me a bit more than Trump, mostly because Trump probably doesn't have enough support to actually win. (Seems crazy how, over and over again, the political parties seem to be doing their best to lose the election. Poll after poll shows Hillary is viewed unfavorably by many people. Not just 'not liked', but actively disliked. She could have been easy to beat, if the Republicans had put out a decent candidate. Instead we get Trump?!?)
Again, full disclosure. I have never been a Hillary fan. I hadn't rabidly disliked her the way some Republicans do. It's funny, but when she first ran for President part of me disliked the idea of her candidacy simply because I didn't want to deal with that level of drama again. She has so many enemies that any action will probably get drowned out in 'scandals'. I know it's not fair to hold it against her, but if she stays in the political limelight Republicans will continue to look for issues (like Benghazi, or Whitewater, or whatever). I find it somewhat ironic that I say this, because I find the classified e-mails on her server a real problem. You can see my previous post if you want more detail.
So. I studied political science in college, and one of my classes explored psychology in politics. The professor felt the easiest way to identify whether personality made a difference was to look at presidential candidates. When I assess a political candidate, I try to consider the whole person. It's not enough to know what issues they stand for, I want to know how they make decisions in general. What their likely reactions are. After all, politicians regularly deal with the unexpected. How they will handle a Cuban Missile Crisis matters as much as whether or not they support free trade. (Besides, the President can't create legislation all on their own. Whatever agenda they have has to get through Congress first, so in a sense the character and personality of the President matters even more than their political agenda).
So, for example, back in 2000 I vaguely recall reading an article about Gore. It basically said he was obsessed with reading all the details of every report. Which sounds kind of impressive, except I imagine the President is so busy that he wouldn't have time for that...I want someone who knows how to build a great team and delegate, not someone who will get bogged down trying to understand everything first.
George W. Bush had a team. I don't really want to call it 'great', though I suppose it's very typical of elite opinion. Probably not enough diversity of thought, and not enough safeguards against groupthink.
So anyways. Since I used to have a security clearance and worked in a SCIF I've been following the Hillary e-mail scandal pretty closely. And part of what disturbs me is a sense that her staff really does feel they are above it all. The NSA rejected a request for a secure smartphone, so she and her staff just decided to find a way around it to get what they want.
I feel like she lives in a bubble, her staff supports her in that bubble, and it means that she's probably not in touch enough to make good decisions. She's got some sort of feedback loop encouraging her to do whatever she wants, and nobody who can put a brake on it and say 'wait a minute, should we really be doing that?"
I also have the ironic feeling that she really does represent the establishment. Ironic because (as per my undergraduate political science classes) I remember that Bill Clinton campaigned as a political outsider. I even remember someone suggesting that this hurt him, in that he probably should have had a little more experience before getting elected President. Not in the sense of 'he needed more familiarity with legislation'...but in the sense that Washington DC, from what I can tell, runs off relationships. And an outsider doesn't have those relationships, doesn't know who to talk to in order to get things done. So Bill, as an outsider, was a little less effective because he didn't know who was who. (That's what I remember from class, at least.)
Hillary's gone to the extreme other end. She probably knows who is who for everything. This is one of their campaign points, basically saying that she'll be able to get things done. Yet in the process I feel she's lost any objectivity she might have had. She's an über establishment candidate. Which wouldn't be so bad if I didn't feel like the establishment had a serious case of groupthink.
They (and Hillary) live in a bubble of their own making, and don't even know it.
Again, full disclosure. I have never been a Hillary fan. I hadn't rabidly disliked her the way some Republicans do. It's funny, but when she first ran for President part of me disliked the idea of her candidacy simply because I didn't want to deal with that level of drama again. She has so many enemies that any action will probably get drowned out in 'scandals'. I know it's not fair to hold it against her, but if she stays in the political limelight Republicans will continue to look for issues (like Benghazi, or Whitewater, or whatever). I find it somewhat ironic that I say this, because I find the classified e-mails on her server a real problem. You can see my previous post if you want more detail.
So. I studied political science in college, and one of my classes explored psychology in politics. The professor felt the easiest way to identify whether personality made a difference was to look at presidential candidates. When I assess a political candidate, I try to consider the whole person. It's not enough to know what issues they stand for, I want to know how they make decisions in general. What their likely reactions are. After all, politicians regularly deal with the unexpected. How they will handle a Cuban Missile Crisis matters as much as whether or not they support free trade. (Besides, the President can't create legislation all on their own. Whatever agenda they have has to get through Congress first, so in a sense the character and personality of the President matters even more than their political agenda).
So, for example, back in 2000 I vaguely recall reading an article about Gore. It basically said he was obsessed with reading all the details of every report. Which sounds kind of impressive, except I imagine the President is so busy that he wouldn't have time for that...I want someone who knows how to build a great team and delegate, not someone who will get bogged down trying to understand everything first.
George W. Bush had a team. I don't really want to call it 'great', though I suppose it's very typical of elite opinion. Probably not enough diversity of thought, and not enough safeguards against groupthink.
So anyways. Since I used to have a security clearance and worked in a SCIF I've been following the Hillary e-mail scandal pretty closely. And part of what disturbs me is a sense that her staff really does feel they are above it all. The NSA rejected a request for a secure smartphone, so she and her staff just decided to find a way around it to get what they want.
I feel like she lives in a bubble, her staff supports her in that bubble, and it means that she's probably not in touch enough to make good decisions. She's got some sort of feedback loop encouraging her to do whatever she wants, and nobody who can put a brake on it and say 'wait a minute, should we really be doing that?"
I also have the ironic feeling that she really does represent the establishment. Ironic because (as per my undergraduate political science classes) I remember that Bill Clinton campaigned as a political outsider. I even remember someone suggesting that this hurt him, in that he probably should have had a little more experience before getting elected President. Not in the sense of 'he needed more familiarity with legislation'...but in the sense that Washington DC, from what I can tell, runs off relationships. And an outsider doesn't have those relationships, doesn't know who to talk to in order to get things done. So Bill, as an outsider, was a little less effective because he didn't know who was who. (That's what I remember from class, at least.)
Hillary's gone to the extreme other end. She probably knows who is who for everything. This is one of their campaign points, basically saying that she'll be able to get things done. Yet in the process I feel she's lost any objectivity she might have had. She's an über establishment candidate. Which wouldn't be so bad if I didn't feel like the establishment had a serious case of groupthink.
They (and Hillary) live in a bubble of their own making, and don't even know it.
No comments:
Post a Comment