Donald Trump

[Ginger]

Also, since we seem to be on the topic, I think we underestimate Robespierre if we limit the scope of discussion to the French Revolution.

Robespierre impresses me deeply. He's largely overlooked today, but he's one of the pivotal figures of history, without whom the ideological tyrannies of the 20th century such as Communism and Naziism would probably never have happened. Certainly there had been tyrants in the past, but all of them recognized that there were practical limits to their power. Robespierre did not. Robespierre was the first to imagine that it might be possible to build a perfected society by changing human nature itself.

Like most men who have launched Wagnerian-scale political disasters, Robespierre honestly meant to do good, and had unshakeable faith in his own judgement of right and wrong. The phrase "The Reign of Terror" wasn't bestowed upon his government by his enemies - he named it that himself. His shining vision of a perfect world justified any measures needed to bring it about, and he minced no words about what was required.

So, take a moment today to reflect on the legacy of Maximilien Robespierre. In a very real sense, he built the 20th century.

(Last three paragraphs recycled from an old journal of mine, but they seem relevant, so I re-used them).

[John G]

Were I in his position, yes, that's exactly how I'd be. I'd use my wealth and power to insulate my family and friends away from the world, and everyone else could shift for themselves.

I'm not seeing that in him. Did you watch him at his rallies? Onstage roaring and gesturing like Dale Carnegie overdosing on meth, wearing that goofy hat (I bought one, yeah), and generally just feeding off the energy of the crowd and broadcasting it back at them in a feedback loop. I don't think that was faked. I'm not sure it could be faked.

For whatever reason, the man craves to be worshipped, and he responds to it by showing enthusiasm and love for his worshippers, which gets him even more of what he wants. He's going to serve the working class (and anyone else he can get on his side), not because he cares about some principle in abstract, but because it gets him the attention and approval he needs.

Some of Trump's ideals are actually pretty left wing, such as his anti globalization stance and promise to protect American jobs, and he's consistently been an advocate of universal healthcare. I mean, it's like Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz morphed into the same person! It's also very disconcerting. Frankly, I have no idea what Trump really believes in and, somewhat worryingly, I'm not sure he does either!

Maybe you're right: he just wants to be loved. However, I've feeling that, in the end, there's going to be an awful lot of disappointed people.

[Abby Normal]

WAAAAAAA!!!! cry baby. heres your participation trophy and pink balloon.
now run along.

LOL. your so lame you cant even come up with your own insults.

Instead you have to mimic like the two year old you are. Exactly why I posted that above.

Its why posters on here don't even bother to debate with you. your not worth it.

as exemplified by patricks appropriate response to your smarmy, underhanded, deliberately playing stupid response to his post.

why don't you grow some balls and really say what the ef you mean instead of always responding like a twat.

and now I'm done wasting my time with you, you little mouse turd.

[Hercule Poirot]

It sure does when you disparage the whole American people and on Veterans day no less. Veterans that have fought and died for this country and other people and their countries.

.

LOL. if you even knew my opinions from my past posts you would know I'm no Trump fan.



the only argument I'm making is your a dooshbag for your ignorant and over generalized comment about the American people.



"everyone here"?? LOL. whos that? everyone in your dooshbag club? or have you got a pocket full of mice?



well considering you responded counter-arguing against basically nothing I said, I think its obvious whos limited.



case in point. There you are blathering on about Trump again, when I never mentioned him.

Now go crawl back in your hole from whence you came.

I pity you.

[GUT]

Hopefully nothing to do with me, DownUnder, but I think he will either go down as the best or worst America has ever had.

Time will tell which it is, but I doubt he will end up being average.

[GUT]

I was thinking about the minor points like that one Stan. Here are a few

Hillary had been the first U.S. former Secretary of State to be nominated for the Presidency AFTER her time as Secretary of State since James G. Blaine was in 1884 (Blaine having been s Secretary of State for Garfield and Chester Arthur in 1881). She was the first female Secretary of State to be nominated. She was the eighth ex-Secretary of State to get nominated (Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, Henry Clay (in 1832 and 1844), Buchanan, James G. Blaine), and the third (after Henry Clay and James G. Blaine) to fail to achieve the Presidency. James Buchanan (Polk's Secretary of State in 1845 to 1849) was the last one who got elected (1856). Only six ex-Secretary of States became President (Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Quincy Adams, Van Buren, Buchanan). One Secretary of State was the winner of a posthumously given electoral vote: Daniel Webster had been re-appointed Secretary of State by Millard Fillmore in 1850, and had remained there until his death in 1852. He had (despite failing health) tried to get the 1852 nomination of the Whigs, but it went to General Winfield Scott (who would be defeated). In the election of 1852, Georgia Congressman Alexander Stephens was one of the state's Electoral College electors, and hated casting his vote for either Scott or Democrat Franklin Pierce. He decided to give it posthumously to Daniel Webster.]

[Interestingly, more men who were nominated for the Presidency but lost have (traditionally) ended up becoming Secretary of State as a type of door prize in recognition of their lost Presidential talents: Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun (never nominated but sought the office), William Marcy (sought the nomination from the Democrats), Lewis Cass, William Seward, James G. Blaine (he was twice Secretary of State, once in 1881 and again from 1889 to 1892), Thomas Bayard (sought the nomination from the Democrats), John Sherman (a perennial candidate for the Republican nomination - who never achieved it), Charles Evans Hughes, Philander Knox (suggested by a few for the Presidency), William Jennings Bryan, Cordell Hull (another candidate for the Democratic nomination who never achieved it).]

As mentioned in a previous comment of mine here, Hillary was the first woman nominated by a major party for the Presidential slot on the national ticket. Previously the two people recalled who were women who got that nod were Victoria Woodhull in 1872 and Belva Lockwood, a very talented female lawyer (who ran in 1884 and 1888) who argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. Senator Margaret Chase Smith had been suggested in the 1950s and 1960s, but never got nominated, and Congresswoman Shirley Chisum of New York sought the nomination in 1972 but did not get it (Chisum also being the first African-American to seriously seek the Presidential nomination). Hillary was the third woman to achieve a place on a national ticket from a major party for the Executive Branch (but the other two, Geraldine Ferraro (1984) and Sarah Palin (2008) failed in their VICE PRESIDENTIAL bids (Democrat in the former case, Republican in the latter). Hillary was the second Democrat (after Ferraro) to get a nomination but fail to win.

It is rare for the two parties to nominate a candidate each that are from the same state or connected to the same state. Both Hillary and Trump are New Yorkers, although Hillary was not born in the state (though a current resident and our former Senator). Trump is the fifth New Yorker born here to achieve the White House (after Van Buren, Millard Fillmore, Theodore Roosevelt, and Franklin Roosevelt), as well as the sixth New York resident to achieve the office after becoming a resident by birth or moving here (the above four and Chester Alan Arthur and Stephen Grover Cleveland).

Trump did reverse a tendency - since F.D.R. we have had no New Yorker who either was nominated by a major party to run for the Presidency nor win it. Cleveland, by the way, is the only one whom after his second (and last) term moved out of the state, returning to spend his last eleven years in Princeton, in his native New Jersey. He became a trustee of the University there.

[Three ex-Presidents resided in New York City after their Presidencies, who were not born in the state: Ulysses S. Grant (whose tomb is in Manhattan), James Monroe, who for financial reasons moved to live with his daughter and son-in-law in 1825 and resided here until his death in 1831 (but his body is buried in Virginia), and Herbert Clark Hoover (who lived in an apartment at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel), but he is buried in California near Stamford University. At various times other men who were President lived briefly in New York, mostly in New York City but two at West Point: U.S. Grant and Dwight D. Eisenhower (at the Point); Hoover, Eisenhower (when President of Columbia University), John Fitzgerald Kennedy (as a young man), Richard Milhouse Nixon (as a practicing attorney at the New York bar, though he eventually moved to a home in New Jersey). Ex-two time Democratic nominee (and loser) Adlai Stevenson had to reside in New York City from 1961 to his death in 1965 because he was our Ambassador to the United Nations. Otherwise his residence was in Illinois.]

One President (who got married in New York City - the church he got married in is still standing in Manhattan on lower Fifth Avenue) was married to a wealthy New Yorker, whose family owned much real estate on Long Island, and whose family name is on the map there: John Tyler married (his second wife) Julia Gardiner, of Gardiner's Island fame, in 1844. But they resided in Virginia, on his family estate there. In fact, Tyler would be the only U.S. President to be elected after his Presidential term ended to an office in a non-U.S. government: he was a Confederate Congressman in 1862 when he died. Julia resided in Virginia until her death in the 1880s.

Trump is the first President to graduate from the Wharton Business School (as he loves to drop into conversations!). Ironically, it means he is the first President we will have with a background in economics.

Hillary (of course) was the first "First Lady" who ever achieved a Presidential nomination, or whoever was elected to public office (and re-elected to it) and whoever appointed to serve in the Presidential cabinet. However, Eleanor Roosevelt was the first "First Lady" to ever get a public position after leaving the White House, when appointed to be part of our United Nations delegation by Harry S. Truman.

Hillary seems to have been the victim of the curse of the Electoral College, in that she won more popular votes than Trump across the nation, but the falling of the votes in each state gave Trump an advantage (a big one) in the College. This is not the first time this has happened (nor the first time it happened to a New Yorker, or to a candidate associated with a Clinton Administration or two.

1876 - Samuel Tilden wins the majority of voters over Rutherford Birchard Hayes by 250,000 votes, but in a major dispute ("settled fairly" by Congress), Hayes gets the returns of three disputed Southern States, and their electoral votes, plus one elector in Oregon, and wins in the College. Tilden was the Governor of New York when he ran.

1888 - Incumbent President (and former New York Governor, and Mayor of Buffalo, New York) Grover Cleveland wins the majority of the voters over Senator Benjamin Harrison of Indiana, but the votes of several of the key electoral vote states (including New York) go for Harrison, so he wins the Electoral College and the election.

2000 - Incumbent Vice President Al Gore (in the two Bill Clinton Administrations) wins the majority of the popular vote across the country, but he is deprived of the Presidency by losing the electoral votes in Florida so that the Republican George W. Bush wins. This election result is determined by the U.S. Supreme Court under William Rehnquist.

To date no New York City Mayor has ever become President, unlike Buffalo's Mayor Grover Cleveland. One Mayor who did get nominated, did it early. DeWitt Clinton was Mayor in the early 1800s, but when his uncle George (who was Governor of New York) became Jefferson's second Vice President, DeWitt was made Governor (for the first time). DeWitt managed to get the 1812 Federalist nomination for the Presidency. Most people today forget the Democrat-Republican/Federalist National elections after the 1800 brouhaha between Jefferson - John Adams - Charles Pinkney - Aaron Burr - and Alexander Hamilton, basically because we are misinformed about the slow decline of the Federalists (twice under another Pinkney, Charles Coatsworth Pinkney, in 1804 and 1808, and then under Rufus King of New York in 1816*. But actually, DeWitt Clinton gave James Madison a tight race in 1812, due to Madison's inept handling of the Presidency (if Madison was not "Father of the U.S. Constitution" he'd be considered among our ten worst Presidents). Except for the votes of Pennsylvania, which went to Madison, Clinton could have won the election - most of the states were not enthralled by our unofficial alliance with Napoleon against Britain and our declaration of war. Also Madison had inherited a serious depression from his friend and predecessor Jefferson, due to that gentleman's idiotic "Embargo Act of 1807". Clinton would have ended the war and resumed a working relationship with Britain. Clinton, of course, went on to achieve the New York State governorship again, and to crown his career by getting the Erie Canal built in the 1820s.

One New York City Police Commissioner did become President: Theodore Roosevelt.

While many New York State Governors got serious, major party nominations for the Presidency (DeWitt Clinton, Martin Van Buren, Horatio Seymour, Samuel Tilden, Grover Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt, Charles Evans Hughes, Al Smith, Franklin D. Roosevelt), only one Comptroller of the State of New York ever became President - though not elected to that post: Millard Fillmore had been the ranking Congressman on the House Ways and Means Committee, getting the funding for the final experiments of Samuel Morse's telegraph. In 1845 he was elected to the Comptroller's office. In 1848 he was nominated by the Whigs to be the Vice Presidential candidate, and he won with General Zachary Taylor as Presidential candidate. Fillmore succeeded to the Presidency after Taylor's death in July 1850 and served until March 4, 1853.

[*I mentioned earlier how Monroe moved with his wife to live in Manhattan with his daughter and son-in-law, for financial reasons, in 1825 until his death in 1831. Actually the house he lived in (in what is now Little Italy) was still in existence in the 1920s, when it was finally torn down for street repair reasons (regarding traffic problems). Ironically, his New York 1816 Federalist rival, former Senator and ambassador Rufus King, lived on a large estate in what is now the "Jamaica" area of Queens. King's home is still standing as a museum in it's own little park. This is doubly ironic, as it is treated with respect in the neighborhood by the large African-American community there. King, unlike the slave-owning Monroe, was a leader in the early fight for abolition like King's close political friend and ally Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton's home is also standing, near the Harlem area in Manhattan, as a museum. But Monroe's New York City house got torn down, and nobody seems to give it a thought.]

Enough of this trivia. Have a good day all!

Jeff

Thanks Jeff, very informative.

[Ginger]

Hopefully nothing to do with me, DownUnder, but I think he will either go down as the best or worst America has ever had.

Time will tell which it is, but I doubt he will end up being average.

Well, if we go well and truly off the rails, Australia won't be far enough away. The moon might.

But yeah, he's going to be one of the memorable ones, and I hope he's the best ever.

[Abby Normal]

I pity you.

Delusions of grandeur much?

And stick your pity where the sun don't shine pal. I'm the happiest luckiest son of a bitch on the planet.

[Mayerling]

Also, since we seem to be on the topic, I think we underestimate Robespierre if we limit the scope of discussion to the French Revolution.

Robespierre impresses me deeply. He's largely overlooked today, but he's one of the pivotal figures of history, without whom the ideological tyrannies of the 20th century such as Communism and Naziism would probably never have happened. Certainly there had been tyrants in the past, but all of them recognized that there were practical limits to their power. Robespierre did not. Robespierre was the first to imagine that it might be possible to build a perfected society by changing human nature itself.

Like most men who have launched Wagnerian-scale political disasters, Robespierre honestly meant to do good, and had unshakeable faith in his own judgement of right and wrong. The phrase "The Reign of Terror" wasn't bestowed upon his government by his enemies - he named it that himself. His shining vision of a perfect world justified any measures needed to bring it about, and he minced no words about what was required.

So, take a moment today to reflect on the legacy of Maximilien Robespierre. In a very real sense, he built the 20th century.

(Last three paragraphs recycled from an old journal of mine, but they seem relevant, so I re-used them).

Peculiar person Maximillian. According to some historian I read decades ago (Hobsbawn?) only Napoleon and he emerged as truly important figures in the French Revolution (try to remember the Girondists, for example) that went somewhere, even if in Robespierre's case it went badly. Yes he did set the modern stamp for the type of Left or Right wing totalitarian dictatorship model. Can't say it's a good thing though. His religious viewpoint is curious. He was the one who got the Jews equality in France as far as voting and property rights. Imagine that.

There was a real debate at the end of the 19th Century between the followers of the historian Aulard, and those of Mathiez as to who was the leading French revolutionary figure: Aulard favored Danton, while it was Mathiez who pushed for Robespeirre. Most historian feel Mathiez made his case more strongly. Danton remains more attractive - he had a happy married life, and seemed to enjoy the creature comforts, while Robespierre was too much of a relatively lone, monkish type. But Danton appears to have been corrupt (though one wonders how much of this were rumors spread by his enemies; to be fair he did have connections to corrupt figures like Fabre de Eglantine).

You will notice that while movies were made about the Revolution in which both men appear, only one was named for either - the film "Danton" that starred Gerald Departuis. There is an old U.S. film, "The Black Book" (1949), about the hunt to reveal Robespierre's (Richard Basehart's) personal list for future political proscription trials. But Basehart (although a major figure in the film) was not the star: Bob Cummings was as the agent sent to find the book and reveal it. Significantly he succeeds only because of an assist by Joseph Fouche (Arnold Moss).

By the way, in France there is more recognition of the various Revolutionary figures from 1789 through 1796 than Americans or even Englishmen would note. Just like if an American was asked to guess who Fleetwood and Ireton and Sir Henry Vane were regarding the English Revolution of the 1640s to 1660, or if an Englishman or Frnchman were asked to tell what campaign in what U.S. war John Sullivan was the American commander in.

Jeff

[Hercule Poirot]

Delusions of grandeur much?

And stick your pity where the sun don't shine pal. I'm the happiest luckiest son of a bitch on the planet.

Typical low quality arguments. You need some serious mental help.

[Karl]

LOL. your so lame you cant even come up with your own insults.

Instead you have to mimic like the two year old you are. Exactly why I posted that above.

Its why posters on here don't even bother to debate with you. your not worth it.

as exemplified by patricks appropriate response to your smarmy, underhanded, deliberately playing stupid response to his post.

why don't you grow some balls and really say what the ef you mean instead of always responding like a twat.

and now I'm done wasting my time with you, you little mouse turd.

I copied your post so that you could perhaps see what you sound like, and how all of your accusations are thus vapid and hypocritical. I'll ignore you from here on out, because it is evident that your arguments - and I use that term loosely - consist entirely of grade school level insults. "Mouse turd." "Twat". "Grow some balls". "You're not worth it". "Two year old". "Lame". And those were just from your latest post. Your previous posts are no better. When you insult all the time (and when the quality of your insults is such as it is), they have no impact. I mean that as advice, not as insult. Reflect upon your own behaviour.

[Robert]

I think the Flight to Varennes was a massive blow. When your own King intrigues with foreign Powers against his own people, it does rather pull the rug from under everything.

In "The Old Dark House" Charles Laughton says "Once you start making money, it's hard to stop." Replace 'money' with
'forms of government' and you have the French problem in a nutshell.

[Abby Normal]

I copied your post so that you could perhaps see what you sound like, and how all of your accusations are thus vapid and hypocritical. I'll ignore you from here on out, because it is evident that your arguments - and I use that term loosely - consist entirely of grade school level insults. "Mouse turd." "Twat". "Grow some balls". "You're not worth it". "Two year old". "Lame". And those were just from your latest post. Your previous posts are no better. When you insult all the time (and when the quality of your insults is such as it is), they have no impact. I mean that as advice, not as insult. Reflect upon your own behaviour.

Thanks for the "advice". But I'll pass. You and your pal HP really need to get over yourselves. I call them as I see them. And losers like you two need to be called out.

And I'll happily do it again the next time you post your typical garbage.

[Abby Normal]

I copied your post so that you could perhaps see what you sound like, and how all of your accusations are thus vapid and hypocritical. I'll ignore you from here on out, because it is evident that your arguments - and I use that term loosely - consist entirely of grade school level insults. "Mouse turd." "Twat". "Grow some balls". "You're not worth it". "Two year old". "Lame". And those were just from your latest post. Your previous posts are no better. When you insult all the time (and when the quality of your insults is such as it is), they have no impact. I mean that as advice, not as insult. Reflect upon your own behaviour.

And as for my" previous posts being no better", if you had a modicum of intelligence or integrity you would see and admit that my previous posts in this thread were rather benign, fair and in many cases positive until you and HP started posting your typical holier than thou crap.

[Ginger]

Peculiar person Maximillian. According to some historian I read decades ago (Hobsbawn?) only Napoleon and he emerged as truly important figures in the French Revolution (try to remember the Girondists, for example) that went somewhere, even if in Robespierre's case it went badly. Yes he did set the modern stamp for the type of Left or Right wing totalitarian dictatorship model. Can't say it's a good thing though.

I'd have trouble, really, naming any Girondists. To fade away unremembered does seem to be the all too common fate of cautious men in memorable times. It's Danton, Robespierre, and (barely) Hebert that define the Revolution for me, with Napoleon representing more of a return to the normalcy of monarchy, for all that his brand of monarchism was like nothing seen since the time of the Caesars.

Of all the varied legacies of the Enlightment, and the Age of Reason, it is the particular legacy of Robespierre, I firmly believe, which continues to shape our lives and thinking to this day.

What Robespierre invented wasn't totalitarianism per se. Augustus had already done that. What Robespierre hit upon was the notion of human perfectibility through governmental intervention. Robespierre hoped to produce a New Man, one whom reason and natural theology would lead to virtue, when society was structured in such a way as to support virtue.

For all that we generally think of heroic-scale social engineering as a late 19th century idea, it dates from the summer of 1793. Gladstone's reforms; the Commune of Paris; Bismarck's Welfare State; Johnson's Great Society; and even Pol Pot's Re-education Camps all have their roots in Robespierre's notion of restructuring society to produce men of virtue by eliminating the causes of human weakness.

No one prior to Robespierre had even come close to this. Human nature had always been conceded to be the realm either of the Church or of the individual. Attempts to change it were made as appeals to the individual conscience. The idea that it might depend upon environmental factors was probably one that would never even have occurred to anyone before Descartes. The Church had certainly made attempts to suppress heresy by killing heretics; but those campaigns had the limited goal of stopping unwanted memes by killing their carriers. The Church's very zeal in suppressing dangerous ideas can be seen as an implicit admission of their belief in the impossibility of changing human nature.

To turn this back around (albeit perhaps clumsily) to the topic of the thread, I see Trump as battling, successfully so far, against Robespierre's legacy. The rage that the white working class is expressing, the rage that has fuelled Trump's campaign, is in some large part a rage against being told what to think, and how to feel, by the political elites. And not just telling people what to think, not just trying to shame people for contrary points of view, but literally trying to manipulate the language to make it difficult to coherently express dissenting opinions. The elites may not realize the genesis of their system, but Robespierre would know his own.