I was stymied. How could I possibly answer that question? Other than the two being American presidents and both being accused of various types of bad behavior, their cases weren't the same. I am not a believer that history repeats itself. Every event deserves to be examined individually.
In addition, there was a fallacy embedded in the question--that the two people had to be rated. I couldn't just dislike them both.
I often argue that comparisons are part of human psychology--noting comparisons is an evolutionary survival mechanism since knowing the difference between a saber-tooth and one's tribe is mostly a good ability to have.
But it's a survival mechanism that is glorified beyond its helpfulness.
Maybe you feel like I did then and often do now--like you're caught between two sides neither of which you have any desire to defend: one politician or another when politics is by its nature, messy and compromising and arguably, a necessary evil (yet an evil).
Maybe you despair of arguments on the "other side," only to turn around and find the same arguments on the side you're supposedly on: it's okay when "we" do it, not when "they" do it. Ah, the ubiquitous "they." And "we"! (Who are all these people?)
Maybe you are exhausted at being backed into corners and asked to take sides on topics at all, not because you are lazy or lacking in courage but because the sides miss the point: to adhere to any of them is to miss out on art and trust and belief and empiricism and learning and personal integrity and principles, all the stuff you value but don't find (despite the platitudes and claims and trumpeting language) coming from the people asking you to take sides/join a group/defend a leader.
Below are some voices I trust on social issues. I don't agree with everything that they write or say. But I do trust them to be honest.
(And if you are thinking, But you left out...I either don't know the person you're thinking of or I have a reason to leave that person off the list. I provide no links to groups (non-individuals) except Substack and to no institutions except John McWhorter's page on The New York Times. My choices here are quite deliberate.)
- Bari Weiss: Substack: So sensible and insightful!
- Jonah Goldberg: Clear, sensible, well-read, and funny--plus, kudos to Jonah Goldberg for saying what I wrote above only better: https://gfile.thedispatch.com/p/donald-trumps-megaphone
- Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Amazing--can't say enough good things!
- John McWhorter: Brave and level-headed.
- Coleman Hughes: Intelligent, level-headed, very interesting young man.
- Niall Ferguson: I often don't agree with him but his writing is fascinating.
- Joe Rogan: Rarely watch him since I'm not into sports, but I do trust him. Thoughtful guy!
2 comments:
People have a bad habit of seeing politics as an us versus them situation. People also have a bad habit of simplifying complex situations.
One of the ironies of the Clinton / Nixon comparison is that for the 1996 Clinton vs Dole contest, the Clinton campaign had its own version of CREEP that ran afoul of the law. The extent of illegalities and obstruction of justice engaged by the Clinton campaign & administration were somewhat suppressed by a friendly press, and then buried in the noise once the Lewinsky scandal broke.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy
One of the problems with answering the "who is worse" question is that it assumes a linear scale which is a simpleton approach to assessing human character. It is also a poor question because it assumes those answering it and those asking it share a common rubric of what it means to be "good" and "bad". Add in the reality of political bias and such value judgments are going to be meaningless. As an aside, I think the Clinton / Gingrich agreements were some of the most successful political outcomes in American history. And yet both men failed the marriage fidelity test.
The economist / blogger Arnold Kling has turned his writing to this question of identifying "real intellectuals". He refers to this effort as FITs or "Fantasy Intellectual Team". The easiest description to give of what Kling views as a "real intellectual" is someone who elevates his understanding of the world. As he complains in one of his posts:
"Lately, I have been asking myself: how can we have so much intelligence around us and yet find ourselves deluged by stupidity? I mean, we have smart phones, smart TV’s, smart thermostats, computers everywhere, information at our fingertips. . .But if stupidity were a river, I would say that it’s at flood stage."
I enjoy checking his site and seeing who he is reading and what he is writing about: https://arnoldkling.substack.com/
Post a Comment