Quote:
Originally Posted by Flint
There's a thread through all of this. People want him to do the objectively right thing.
Declare a national shutdown-- good
Produce/distribute medical supplies-- good
Force people back to work, against the warnings of scientists-- "not good"
What he can or can't actually do be damned. If he would just use whatever powers he thinks he has to do GOOD THINGS.
|
ƒlint, that's a pretty good summation. I would add that the very senior Whitehouse official in question *DOES* do good things, at all times, but the official's definition of what's good and our definition of what's good are rarely aligned and almost always polar opposites.
This comes from the underlying affinity for authoritarianism that lies in each of us. That Force is strong in this one, but produces a certain amount of revulsion in you and me.
He is doing good, deflecting responsibility, continuously editing and rewriting the narrative, taking credit for positive events (real or imagined), valuing loyalty over competence and honesty, the beat goes on and on and on. These are definitely good things for an authoritarian. For those of us who want a more representative leader, it misses the mark; these actions seem counterproductive.
He's reliable, consistent, predictable;
he'll do what's good for him. You and I are no more than props, foils, reflective surfaces for him to bask in.