So... who wrote the NYT op-ed?

[Belsnickel]

(09-10-2018, 02:20 PM)GMDino Wrote: Sounds a little too much like "just be quiet and let them hang themselves" to me.  Sometimes things need to change.  Sometimes other changes occur to fight those changes.   Trying to bring civility back to politics seems, again to me, a worthwhile cause to move away from a norm.

Other than Bill Clinton I can't think of another ex-POTUS that would have done what Obama did in my lifetime.  

Of course, the whole norm that the ex-POTUS club doesn't criticize the person sitting in the Oval is a part of that civility. So you're eroding civility to, as you claim, bring civility back.

[GMDino]

(09-10-2018, 02:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Of course, the whole norm that the ex-POTUS club doesn't criticize the person sitting in the Oval is a part of that civility. So you're eroding civility to, as you claim, bring civility back.

Can we disagree on what is civil then?!?!

'Cause I'd rather deal with Obama breaking anrom to get us BACK to normal than just having civility die because it's not civil to try and change it.

[Belsnickel]

(09-10-2018, 02:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: Can we disagree on what is civil then?!?!

'Cause I'd rather deal with Obama breaking anrom to get us BACK to normal than just having civility die because it's not civil to try and change it.

I think the issue here is that the target of the efforts to bring back civility is Trump. We could all agree that he lacks any sort of tact. However, he isn't the cause of it all. There needs to be an effort, a bipartisan one, of former presidents and retired Representatives and Senators, that comes together to decry the current climate. Not Trump. Not McConnell, Ryan, Pelosi, or Schumer. The entire political environment needs to be targeted in order for this to be brought back on course.

[Benton]

(09-10-2018, 01:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, no doubt we should blame Trump.

I don’t that’s why I didn’t mention him. I blame social media (largely) and alt media for giving voice to hate filled idiots that exacerbate existing tensions.

But I don’t blame you for blaming trump. It’s hard not to.

[GMDino]

(09-10-2018, 02:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think the issue here is that the target of the efforts to bring back civility is Trump. We could all agree that he lacks any sort of tact. However, he isn't the cause of it all. There needs to be an effort, a bipartisan one, of former presidents and retired Representatives and Senators, that comes together to decry the current climate. Not Trump. Not McConnell, Ryan, Pelosi, or Schumer. The entire political environment needs to be targeted in order for this to be brought back on course.

There's no way to do that, to talk about the things that need changed without everyone assuming they are talking about Trump.

Look at McCain's funeral.  His never was never mentioned and his followers were up in arms.

If anyone, let alone Obama, suggests we need to be more tactful, more truthful and more civil, Trump will be dead center in teh conversation whether it was intended or not.

There's just no getting around the biggest hole in the room.

[*bfine32*]

(09-10-2018, 03:10 PM)Benton Wrote: I don’t that’s why I didn’t mention him. I blame social media (largely) and alt media for giving voice to hate filled idiots that exacerbate existing tensions.

But I don’t blame you for blaming trump. It’s hard not to.

Meh, seemed like you would have addressed the point of Social media in your retort instead who was the sitting POTUS if that was the impetus of your point.

But maybe that's just my bias

[*bfine32*]

(09-10-2018, 02:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Of course, the whole norm that the ex-POTUS club doesn't criticize the person sitting in the Oval is a part of that civility. So you're eroding civility to, as you claim, bring civility back.

It's a dynamic that many not only here but nationwide are employing.

"I blame Trump for using this particular tactic, so I can use the exact same tactic to attack him. because when he does it, it's wrong, but when I do it, it's right".

Fortunately, there are some that will not cheapen their objectivity.

Who was it that said: "When they go low, we go high"?  I don't see too much of that.

[GMDino]

(09-10-2018, 04:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's a dynamic that many not only here but nationwide are employing.

"I blame Trump for using this particular tactic, so I can use the exact same tactic to attack him. because when he does it, it's wrong, but when I do it, it's right".

Fortunately, there are some that will not cheapen their objectivity.

Who was it that said: "When they go low, we go high"?  I don't see too much of that.

Yes, you are exactly right except that Obama did not use the "same tactic" but rather talked about how to makes things better.

If you do not see how Obama's statements go "high" while Trump's go "low" that is probably, as you say, your bias.

[Benton]

(09-10-2018, 04:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Meh, seemed like you would have addressed the point of Social media in your retort instead who was the sitting POTUS if that was the impetus of your point.

But maybe that's just my bias

If you need a detailed explanation...


I'd say protocol for sitting and previous presidents went out the window with this one considering the regurgitation and lengthy history modern era candidates have thanks to social media. Used to, if an elected official made a comment about another elected officials it largely just stayed between the two of them. Or maybe just among colleagues (POTUSs, members of Congress, etc.). Now everything is permanently out there to be brought up, dissected, brought up again and rehashed. You can't just call some guy an idiot and buy him a drink next week because the fact that you called him an idiot is always going to be out there. People making outrageous, inflammatory claims can't just ignite something and only burn down the parts they were hoping for. In Trump's case, he's said a lot of inflammatory comments about Obama; Obama has responded to some of those. It's already out there, and that's probably going to be an ongoing issue as long as we keep running ugly campaigns.


... but at the time it just seemed easier to say  "I'd say protocol for sitting and previous presidents went out the window with this one" since the parameters of their feud seemed known.

[*bfine32*]

(09-10-2018, 04:21 PM)Benton Wrote: If you need a detailed explanation...


I'd say protocol for sitting and previous presidents went out the window with this one considering the regurgitation and lengthy history modern era candidates have thanks to social media. Used to, if an elected official made a comment about another elected officials it largely just stayed between the two of them. Or maybe just among colleagues (POTUSs, members of Congress, etc.). Now everything is permanently out there to be brought up, dissected, brought up again and rehashed. You can't just call some guy an idiot and buy him a drink next week because the fact that you called him an idiot is always going to be out there. People making outrageous, inflammatory claims can't just ignite something and only burn down the parts they were hoping for. In Trump's case, he's said a lot of inflammatory comments about Obama; Obama has responded to some of those. It's already out there, and that's probably going to be an ongoing issue as long as we keep running ugly campaigns.


... but at the time it just seemed easier to say  "I'd say protocol for sitting and previous presidents went out the window with this one" since the parameters of their feud seemed known.

Nope, no further detail needed. I'll take you at your word. My apologies for suggesting you were placing the onus of blame of Trump

[*bfine32*]

(09-10-2018, 04:20 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yes, you are exactly right except that Obama did not use the "same tactic" but rather talked about how to makes things better.

If you do not see how Obama's statements go "high" while Trump's go "low" that is probably, as you say, your bias.

No doubt, a former POTUS attacking a sitting POTUS and his policies is "going high". I'll work on that bias of mine.

[Belsnickel]

(09-10-2018, 04:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's a dynamic that many not only here but nationwide are employing.

"I blame Trump for using this particular tactic, so I can use the exact same tactic to attack him. because when he does it, it's wrong, but when I do it, it's right".

Fortunately, there are some that will not cheapen their objectivity.

Who was it that said: "When they go low, we go high"?  I don't see too much of that.

I think it is an especially precarious situation when a former president does it. The norm we're talking about isn't just a matter of stability. The reason this norm was established throughout the years is because it is important to the peaceful transition of power. The reason a president removes themselves from public life, for the most part, once they leave office is because of that transition. I know I can often take these sorts of things into an extreme example, but this is why it happens, to keep those extremes from occurring. We get comfortable with things not happening because of these norms, not thinking about them, and then we end up going down a path we oughtn't.

Washington retired to Mt. Vernon after his two terms because he knew that staying in the public eye could cause a conflict of leadership. Sure, it's not as extreme as the whole two popes situation we had, but it's a similar thing. Obama violating that norm can create this sort of conflict, especially when there is currently no individual on the left that really stands out as the leader for 2020.

Maybe I think about political/democratic theory too much with these things, but I just see the cracks in the walls of the house that is our democracy widening before our eyes.

[Benton]

(09-10-2018, 04:20 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yes, you are exactly right except that Obama did not use the "same tactic" but rather talked about how to makes things better.

If you do not see how Obama's statements go "high" while Trump's go "low" that is probably, as you say, your bias.

Presidents typically take credit for the good things that come to them from previous administrations, and past presidents typically don't say much about it. I always just assumed it was 1- a matter of respect and 2- the fact that presidents typically take lumps for bad things the previous administration did.

Welcome to the modern era.

Obama did a lot to turn the economy around, but he also made a point to note that in went in the toilet under "the previous administration" and that policies "over the eight years" before he got there were mostly tax cuts and trade deficits. It was much more tactful than the stuff Trump spews out, but at the core it's the same. Obama was mostly doing it to pat Dems on the back, Trump is mostly doing it to pat himself on the back, but, again, throwing the last guy under the bus is throwing the last guy under the bus.

I don't recall either Bush or Clinton doing it (although Clinton may have, I wasn't much into politics then to be honest).

[*bfine32*]

(09-10-2018, 04:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think it is an especially precarious situation when a former president does it. The norm we're talking about isn't just a matter of stability. The reason this norm was established throughout the years is because it is important to the peaceful transition of power. The reason a president removes themselves from public life, for the most part, once they leave office is because of that transition. I know I can often take these sorts of things into an extreme example, but this is why it happens, to keep those extremes from occurring. We get comfortable with things not happening because of these norms, not thinking about them, and then we end up going down a path we oughtn't.

Washington retired to Mt. Vernon after his two terms because he knew that staying in the public eye could cause a conflict of leadership. Sure, it's not as extreme as the whole two popes situation we had, but it's a similar thing. Obama violating that norm can create this sort of conflict, especially when there is currently no individual on the left that really stands out as the leader for 2020.

Maybe I think about political/democratic theory too much with these things, but I just see the cracks in the walls of the house that is our democracy widening before our eyes.

Obviously we are on the same page here; however, it has more merit coming from you due to political leanings.

[Belsnickel]

(09-10-2018, 05:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Obviously we are on the same page here; however, it has more merit coming from you due to political leanings.

Nah, it will still be dismissed or ignored. While I agree that one's point of view does tend to lend more credibility to criticisms when they come from the same side, my views are a bit more academic, for lack of a better word, than a lot of people would be comfortable with.

[GMDino]

(09-10-2018, 04:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No doubt, a former POTUS attacking a sitting POTUS and his policies is "going high". I'll work on that bias of mine.

Good.  It will help you see things clearer.

Like when I referring to how they say things and what their goals are.  Civility versus childishness.

I know Trump supporters MUST defend him at all time from everything and everyone.  And I know that Obama breaking the norm is just killing his supporters who assumed he would shut up and let Trump do whatever he wanted.

I'm sorry that his supporters back a guy like Trump, but it is what it is.

In fact I'll bet you your paycheck that when Trump leaves office he won't "follow the norms" either.  Hell, that's why his supporters love him...he does things HIS way.  Right?

[GMDino]

(09-10-2018, 04:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think it is an especially precarious situation when a former president does it. The norm we're talking about isn't just a matter of stability. The reason this norm was established throughout the years is because it is important to the peaceful transition of power. The reason a president removes themselves from public life, for the most part, once they leave office is because of that transition. I know I can often take these sorts of things into an extreme example, but this is why it happens, to keep those extremes from occurring. We get comfortable with things not happening because of these norms, not thinking about them, and then we end up going down a path we oughtn't.

Washington retired to Mt. Vernon after his two terms because he knew that staying in the public eye could cause a conflict of leadership. Sure, it's not as extreme as the whole two popes situation we had, but it's a similar thing. Obama violating that norm can create this sort of conflict, especially when there is currently no individual on the left that really stands out as the leader for 2020.

Maybe I think about political/democratic theory too much with these things, but I just see the cracks in the walls of the house that is our democracy widening before our eyes.

Yeah, it's not Washington's time and people don't want to make anyone king.  They want full sentences, clear thoughts and some getting along.  (All extremists aside.)

I don't see it as cracks anymore than when we see anyone speaking up about the current situation in Washington.  Maybe I don't care as much, or maybe it's just time for a change in the way things are done.

Honestly I wouldn't have any problem with any past POTUS speaking out about his successor.  They are American citizens and have that right, even if the normal protocol is to be quiet.  It doesn't affect the change of power and if the current leadership in the party doesn't like it they can speak out against Obama too.

Like I said other than Clinton who could have?  Who was young enough with the background to do it?  JFK?

A person who leads wants to lead.  I have no problem with it.

[GMDino]

(09-10-2018, 04:53 PM)Benton Wrote: Presidents typically take credit for the good things that come to them from previous administrations, and past presidents typically don't say much about it. I always just assumed it was 1- a matter of respect and 2- the fact that presidents typically take lumps for bad things the previous administration did.

Welcome to the modern era.

Obama did a lot to turn the economy around, but he also made a point to note that in went in the toilet under "the previous administration" and that policies "over the eight years" before he got there were mostly tax cuts and trade deficits. It was much more tactful than the stuff Trump spews out, but at the core it's the same. Obama was mostly doing it to pat Dems on the back, Trump is mostly doing it to pat himself on the back, but, again, throwing the last guy under the bus is throwing the last guy under the bus.

I don't recall either Bush or Clinton doing it (although Clinton may have, I wasn't much into politics then to be honest).

I won't fully repeat my response above, but I don't have a problem if Bush does it or Clinton, or if anyone had in the past.

They all give their (paid) speeches after office...if it's about policy, so be it.

Sure they take all the credit and shift all the blame...they play the game.

Let them have their say too.  It's not like conservatives will listen to Obama or liberals will listen to Trump.  It's just another voice and norms be darned IMHO.

[*bfine32*]

(09-10-2018, 05:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: Good.  It will help you see things clearer.

Like when I referring to how they say things and what their goals are.  Civility versus childishness.

I know Trump supporters MUST defend him at all time from everything and everyone.  And I know that Obama breaking the norm is just killing his supporters who assumed he would shut up and let Trump do whatever he wanted.

I'm sorry that his supporters back a guy like Trump, but it is what it is.

In fact I'll bet you your paycheck that when Trump leaves office he won't "follow the norms" either.  Hell, that's why his supporters love him...he does things HIS way.  Right?

I had no idea that Matt and Benton were Trump supporters or maybe, just maybe they're seeing this rationally.

Hopefully, if Trump leaves office and does the same rational folks will call him out as well.

I'm sure you'll be fine with it.

[Dill]

(09-10-2018, 02:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It is still a continued erosion of norms. Norms bolster the written policies, procedures, and laws that we have. Without upholding the norms, the rest of it starts to crumble. I get that Obama doing this seems trivial to a lot of people, but when you look at it in the bigger picture, in the view that these norms have been chipped away at for decades, what seems minor is a part of a larger issue. The erosion of norms got us to this point, and continuing the same trajectory means we aren't going to see a course correction.

I agree with most of what you say here, and most of my critiques of Trump have focused both on his disregard for norms and the disregard of his base for the same. 

However, I am not sure that Obama's critique is continuing the same trajectory here. Bush II kept his mouth shut about Obama for 8 years, but he stepped forward at McCain's funeral to throw his weight behind "the resistance" even if he did not mention Trump by name. Obama kept his mouth shut for 19 months while Trump systematically undid almost all of his accomplishments and blamed every current problem on him and Hillary, and lied every day about the economy and unemployment.

A history of "the erosion of norms" would be very interesting, and if it went back far enough might negate your thesis of "continued erosion."  But if we take US politics from Watergate forward, then it is easy to point to certain political events and groups which have massively accelerated such erosion--the Gingrich Revolution and its offspring, like the Tea Party and Trumpism.

Trump's reckless, unprincipled and daily violation of norms (and very likely laws), coupled with the absence of any power to check his excesses, has created a situation in which more and more people feel it necessary themselves to violate norms. Think of the unprecedented anonymous op ed piece, not from a "leftist" but from a conservative Republican within the administration. Think of the ex-Generals and CIA directors who have broken silence.

So I would make a distinction between people who are breaking norms for short-sighted personal gain and even because they are unaware of them (like Trump and supporters), and others who break certain norms which prevailed when presidents behaved normally in order to restore those norms. Their goal is to recall memory of a time when it was unthinkable that someone like Trump could be nominated, let alone win the presidency.

I would say that people like Clapper, Obama, and McMullen speaking out does increase our chances of righting the ship.  They are refusing to accept bad behavior in a commander in chief as normal. I don't see how their continued silence would help.