New Yorker: How Trump could get fired

Discuss whatever you want here ... movies, books, recipes, politics, beer, wine, TV ... everything except classical music.

Moderators: Lance, Corlyss_D

Post Reply
jserraglio
Posts: 2945
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 7:06 am
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

New Yorker: How Trump could get fired

Post by jserraglio » Fri May 05, 2017 7:10 pm

The Political Scene
MAY 8, 2017 ISSUE
HOW TRUMP COULD GET FIRED
The Constitution offers two main paths for removing a President from office. How feasible are they?
By Evan Osnos

https://www.google.com/amp/www.newyorke ... -fired/amp

The history of besieged Presidencies is, in the end, the history of hubris, of blindness to one’s faults, of deafness to warnings.

lennygoran
Posts: 12345
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: New Yorker: How Trump could get fired

Post by lennygoran » Sat May 06, 2017 4:59 am

jserraglio wrote:
Fri May 05, 2017 7:10 pm
The Political Scene
MAY 8, 2017 ISSUE
HOW TRUMP COULD GET FIRED
The Constitution offers two main paths for removing a President from office. How feasible are they?
By Evan Osnos
Thanks for the article but it left me a little discouraged-for me the major way to his being impeached would be if there was collusion between him or his people and the Russian influence of our election and of course we need the house in 2018. Regards, Len

jserraglio
Posts: 2945
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 7:06 am
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: New Yorker: How Trump could get fired

Post by jserraglio » Sat May 06, 2017 5:17 am

If you’d have asked me around Election Day, I would have said it’s not realistic,” Robert B. Reich, Clinton’s Secretary of Labor, told me in April. “But I’m frankly amazed at the degree of activism among Democrats and the degree of resolution. I’ve not seen anything like this since the anti-Vietnam movement. ” In April, Reich, who is now a professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, released an animated short, mapping out the path to impeachment, and it became an unlikely viral hit, attracting 3.5 million views on YouTube in the first twenty-four hours.
William Kristol, the editor-at-large of The Weekly Standard, one of the most prominent conservative critics of Trump, told me that the Administration’s failure to get any bills passed was stirring frustration. “Most Republicans, I would say, wanted him to succeed and were bending over backwards to give him a chance,” Kristol said. “I think there was pretty widespread disappointment. You kind of knew what you were getting in terms of some of the wackiness and also some of the actual issues that people might not agree with him on—trade, immigration—but I think that just the level of chaos, the lack of discipline, was beginning to freak members of Congress out a little bit.”

Trump has been meeting with congressional Republicans in small groups. By and large, they have found him more approachable than they expected, but much less informed. “Several have been a little bit amazed by the lack of policy knowledge,” Kristol said. “God knows Presidents don’t need to know the details of health-care bills and tax bills, and I certainly don’t, either—that’s what you have aides for. But not even having a basic level of understanding? I think that has rattled people a little bit.” He added, “Reagan may not have had a subtle grasp of everything, but he read the briefing books and he knew the arguments, basically. And Trump is not even at that level.”

When I asked Kristol about the chances of impeachment, he paused to consider the odds. Then he said, “It’s somewhere in the big middle ground between a one-per-cent chance and fifty. It’s some per cent. It’s not nothing.”
Last edited by jserraglio on Sat May 06, 2017 5:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

lennygoran
Posts: 12345
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: New Yorker: How Trump could get fired

Post by lennygoran » Sat May 06, 2017 5:26 am

Thanks I hadn't seen that before-made me feel a little better! Regards, Len :D

jserraglio
Posts: 2945
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 7:06 am
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: New Yorker: How Trump could get fired

Post by jserraglio » Sat May 06, 2017 5:44 am

As the scandal ground on, Nixon made his second mistake: he flouted the authority of a coequal branch of government.
“They [WH aides] said he [Reagan] wouldn’t come over to work—all he wanted to do was watch movies and television at the residence.”
Law and history make clear that Trump’s most urgent risk is not getting ousted; it is getting hobbled by unpopularity and distrust. He is only the fifth U.S. President who failed to win the popular vote. Except George W. Bush, none of the others managed to win a second term. Less dramatic than the possibility of impeachment or removal via the Twenty-fifth Amendment is the distinct possibility that Trump will simply limp through a single term, incapacitated by opposition.
Were Trump to face impeachment, his lawyers would likely try to present him as a victim of a partisan feud, but his unpopularity would be a liability; Republicans in Congress would have little reason to defend him. Nonetheless, the Clinton impeachment may contain an even larger warning for Democrats in pursuit of Trump. “It’s pretty important to be seen in sorrow rather than anger,” Stewart, the historian of impeachment, said. “Don’t emerge red in tooth and claw. That’s not merely tactical—it’s good for the country, because you should only pursue impeachment if you really have to.”
Last edited by jserraglio on Sat May 06, 2017 6:28 am, edited 2 times in total.

lennygoran
Posts: 12345
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: New Yorker: How Trump could get fired

Post by lennygoran » Sat May 06, 2017 6:26 am

jserraglio wrote:
Sat May 06, 2017 5:44 am
warning for Democrats in pursuit of Trump. “It’s pretty important to be seen in sorrow rather than anger[/u],” Stewart, the historian of impeachment, said. “Don’t emerge red in tooth and claw. That’s not merely tactical—it’s good for the country, because you should only pursue impeachment if you really have to.”
[/quote]

This caught my eye-seems to me right now there's more anger than sorrow being shown--wonder if that will change? Regards, Len

jserraglio
Posts: 2945
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 7:06 am
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: New Yorker: How Trump could get fired

Post by jserraglio » Sat May 06, 2017 6:30 am

IS POLITICAL HUBRIS AN ILLNESS?
By Evan Osnos May 5, 2017

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-com ... an-illness

In February, 2009, the British medical journal Brain published an article on the intersection of health and politics titled “Hubris Syndrome: An Acquired Personality Disorder?” The authors were David Owen, the former British Foreign Secretary, who is also a physician and neuroscientist, and Jonathan Davidson, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University, who has studied the mental health of politicians. They proposed the creation of a psychiatric disorder for leaders who exhibited, among other qualities, “impetuosity, a refusal to listen to or take advice and a particular form of incompetence when impulsivity, recklessness and frequent inattention to detail predominate.”

Owen and Davidson studied the behavior and medical records of dozens of American and British political leaders, from Prime Minister Herbert Asquith, who took office in 1908, to President George W. Bush, who left office in 2009. Across that century, they identified a tendency among some otherwise high-achieving individuals to close themselves off from critics and to overestimate their odds of success. Neville Chamberlain wrongly believed that he could appease Hitler; Tony Blair supported the invasion of Iraq even after his envoy informed him that the plan had “no leadership, no strategy, no coördination,” among other defects. When a leader succumbs to hubris syndrome, the authors wrote, his experience at the top has distorted his personality and decision-making.

“The Greeks warned us about it,” Owen told me recently, when I called him at home, in Britain. “When you see it, you’ve got to be very conscious that you may be watching somebody who is intoxicated with power.” After training as a doctor, Owen spent thirty-two years in politics, heading the Foreign Office from 1977 to 1979, and he developed a fascination with the ways in which C.E.O.s, dictators, and parliamentarians who are otherwise successful in their professions can be warped by the pressures and self-glorification presented by power. “It takes one to know one,” he said, dryly. “For a lot of us who are in leadership roles, the problem with the word ‘narcissism’ is that it has a very Freudian linkage and, if you use it, people will shy away from it.”

Owen was only partly interested in establishing a formal diagnosis. (Hubris syndrome does not appear in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.) More fundamentally, he wanted to call out a kind of public cognitive bias, in which voters and shareholders are often slow to acknowledge signs of irrational behavior in their chosen leaders because that acknowledgment reflects poorly on the decision to put them there. “You get rumors or people are telling you that things aren’t going all that marvellously, and either you’ve made a wrong choice or something has happened to him,” Owen told me. He helped establish a charity, the Daedalus Trust, which raises public awareness of hubris syndrome in public life, and he encourages institutions—banks, schools, political entities—to assess leaders’ mental health on a fixed schedule. “Then it’s easier to spot an incipient intoxication of power,” he said.

President Donald Trump, in the months since he entered the White House, has become a kind of international case study of mental health’s role in politics. To his friends and allies, he elicits an array of anodyne, even appealing, adjectives: unpredictable, fearless, irascible, sly. Many of his counterparts in diplomacy, and in American politics, are rapidly shedding the euphemisms that they once used to express their appraisals, however. When Trump, after a confused viewing of a Fox News segment, urged people at a rally to look at “what’s happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this?,” suggesting that an incident—which no one could identify; nothing notable had happened the night before—had something to do with Sweden being overrun by refugees, Swedes reached a judgment. “They thought the man had gone bananas,” Carl Bildt, Sweden’s former Prime Minister and foreign minister, told Susan Glasser, of Politico, in an interview published this week. “It was a somewhat unsettling thing to see the president of the United States without any factual basis whatsoever lunge out against a small country in the way that he did.”

Though politicians often accuse each other of being crazy, Trump has inspired a more clinical and sober discussion. (In the magazine this week, I write about proposals in Congress to assess the President’s mental health.) In recent days, the discussion of Trump’s stability has entered a blunter phase. Over the weekend, Trump made a series of bizarre comments, including questioning the history of the Civil War, saying he was “looking at” breaking up banks (prompting a stock-market slide), and demonstrating unfamiliarity with basics of the health-care bill known as Trumpcare. The Presidential historian Douglas Brinkley told an interviewer that it was “among the most bizarre recent twenty-four hours in American Presidential history,” adding, “It was all just surreal disarray and a confused mental state from the President.” Joe Scarborough, the former Republican congressman, told his television audience, “My mother’s had dementia for ten years. . . . That sounds like the sort of thing my mother would say today.”

In the Washington Post on Thursday, the conservative columnist George Will wrote, “It is urgent for Americans to think and speak clearly about President Trump’s inability to do either. This seems to be not a mere disinclination but a disability.” After months of bemoaning Trump’s policies and incivility, Will is now bluntly warning of his instability. “Americans have placed vast military power at the discretion of this mind, a presidential discretion, that is largely immune to restraint by the Madisonian system of institutional checks and balances,” Will wrote. “So, it is up to the public to quarantine this presidency by insistently communicating to its elected representatives a steady, rational fear of this man whose combination of impulsivity and credulity render him uniquely unfit to take the nation into a military conflict.”

When I asked Owen if Trump meets the threshold of hubris syndrome, he replied that Trump was a hard case, because he reigned over a family business for so long before entering politics. “He has obviously got hubris, but did he acquire it in his business? What was he like when he was twenty? I refuse to put a label on him because I don’t know enough.” Owen added, “Watch him very carefully. It’s a phenomenon that needs to be analyzed, but it will not be very revealing to put labels on it that are inappropriate just because you desperately want to say, ‘He’s crazy.’ ”

Evan Osnos joined The New Yorker as a staff writer in 2008, and covers politics and foreign affairs. His recent subjects include the reconstruction of a train crash that exposed the underside of China’s boom; a group of Chinese tourists on their first trip to Europe; and a barber who set out to beat the house in Macau. For four years, he wrote the Letter from China for newyorker.com. Parts of his book, “Age of Ambition: Chasing Fortune, Truth, and Faith in the New China,” based on eight years of living in Beijing, first appeared in the magazine. The book won the 2014 the National Book Award in nonfiction and was a finalist for the 2015 Pulitzer Prize in general nonfiction.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ricordanza and 1 guest