Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 10:32:23 GMT -5
Seeing this article this morning reminded me of a subject I've been meaning to discuss: what does Trump's base think "draining the swamp" means? I understood it to mean what this Washington Post writer does: curtailing the influence of lobbyists and politicians who are all about profiting from government. www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/06/01/daily-202-president-trump-s-commitment-to-draining-the-swamp-is-being-tested/592fd1d5e9b69b2fb981dc10/?utm_term=.d715364ce9adBut lately I've been paying more attention to the alt-right blogosphere world. And time after time, I see alt-right commenters talk about draining the swamp as meaning "getting rid of all those libtard-y politically correct regulations.' And using that definition, they assert Trump is keeping his promise to "drain the swamp." I have to slither down the work hole now, but later will try to dig up some examples. I see this as yet another example of Trump's hard-core base speaking an entirely different language than most of us. Anyway -- am interested in hearing what you all think "draining the swamp" meant and means. |
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 1, 2017 10:47:55 GMT -5
The reality that Trump is discovering is the same one Obama discovered: the people with the needed skill sets for various positions have "lobbyist" on their resumes, more often than not. Remember, Obama flat out broke a specific campaign promise here, by any reasonable standard: That simply didn't happen, regardless of the numbers (there's a problem in here--that I alluded to in the Weiner thread--of some people getting to work as lobbyists, yet not being classified as such). Anyway, for me "draining the swamp" means getting rid of bureaucrats and politicians who serve their own interests and agendas above all else, via their accumulated power/authority from being at their jobs or in office for long periods of time. For those who are not elected, this means they often operate contrary to goals/orders/instructions that come down the chain of command from a new admin or new Congress. The problem, of course, is that such people are the ones who know how to do the jobs they hold, know how "the game" is played. They're tough to unseat (in the case of elected officials) and tough to fire. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 11:12:53 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 13:27:48 GMT -5
Some additional recent articles defining drain the swamp as decreasing regulations patriotpost.us/posts/49167townhall.com/columnists/majorityleaderkevinmccarthy/2017/06/01/oped-n2334354www.conservativehq.com/article/25638-outsiders-vs-insiders-drain-swamp-trump-needs-good-people-work-pumpsYes, Trump saud he'd decrease regulations. But I am certain that this was not what he originally meant when he talked about draining the swamp. The thing is, his admin and supporters cannot claim he is making progress (or IMO, any real efforts) to drain the swamp as Rob and I understand it, so there is an active attempt on the part of the alt-right to shift that goalpost to claim a win. Having previously only kept tabs on more intellectual right-leaning places like the WSJ and National Review (which I'll bet the Trump base never goes near), I've been finding the more partisan stuff...illuminating. I wish I'd bookmarked the comment sections I found where people (some of them self-described conservatives) were hooted down by self-described "deplorables" for defining drain the swamp as Rob and I did. It's harder to dig those up again than it is to find articles. But I'll try. ETA: I regard "draining the swamp" and "reducing regulations" as two different conversations, though there may at times be overlap in the discussion. You can be a regulation-loving liberal and think the swamp should be drained. |
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 1, 2017 15:19:24 GMT -5
It's seems to me that such political redefinitions are pretty common. This is the same basic treatment--albeit with less intellectualized support--that "judicial activism" has received. And frankly, redefining there has proved to be more than fruitful for political left, as many common and accepted definitions now reflect this as if it were legitimate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 16:04:17 GMT -5
Gaah. It bothers me. A lot. How can we discuss and debate when we're not even using the same definitions?
And, I mean, you and I are pretty politically aware and keep up with the news far more than most, and I think it's fair to say we both at least try to keep plugged in to what both sides are saying, rather than getting all our news from partisan sources. And yet we both were that tiny bit behind the curve on this redefinition, and apparently the mainstream news isn't there yet.
I really need to find those comment conversations. it was surreal to see people debating over whether Trump was draining the swamp, only to find they were talking about two different things.
Even more surreal: the Trump supporters were saying drain the swamp was NEVER about getting rid of politicians using government for their own business ends -- and doubling down on there being no problem with the admin being full of Goldman Sachs billionaires, etc.
And yet during the campaign...
I think I'm getting one of my headaches.
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 1, 2017 16:20:11 GMT -5
I think that--as a matter of course--draining the swamp would absolutely require getting Goldman Sachs people out of DC, out of government, in toto. Of course, that would leave people like Schumer (and Frank, once upon a time) without any staff, whatsoever...
We could do without the Harvard and Yale connections, as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 17:27:04 GMT -5
I don't think we need to/should eliminate all such people just to eliminate them. That would actually be a pretty big buttload of smart, qualified people. They aren't all corrupt.
But I do think there are issues with people being there solely because of such connections. Just as I think there is a problem with people bring there solely because they are related to the president (e.g , would anyone other that Jared's father in law put him where he is?) And it would be good to have some diversity in background and experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jun 1, 2017 20:20:01 GMT -5
I think that the Trumpers who are claiming that he actually is "draining the swamp" are doing some incredibly contorted mental gymnastics in order to redefine what Trump actually meant when he said he was going to "drain the swamp:" money.cnn.com/video/news/2017/02/28/donald-trump-congress-address-drain-the-swamp-mixed-reaction.cnnmoney/It's blind, partisan, motivated reasoning in its purest, powdered form and they're chopping those blatant lies into sweet coke-lines and snorting that shit like Tony Montana on a weekend bender. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 20:22:14 GMT -5
Trump always tells the truth. Even when he lies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jun 1, 2017 20:26:23 GMT -5
I found a picture of where pro-Trump bloggers get a lot of their warped ideas about him from:  |
|
|
|
Post by maxinquaye on Jun 2, 2017 3:01:48 GMT -5
I regard "draining the swamp" and "reducing regulations" as two different conversations, though there may at times be overlap in the discussion. You can be a regulation-loving liberal and think the swamp should be drained. I'm reminded by the former FCC Chairman Wheeler who, before he was the FCC head, was the chief lobbyist for the cable industry. There was a lot of bluster about "revolving doors" when he was appointed, and as a former cable lobbyist he was accused of only taking the job to do Comcast bidding. A lot of people was worried that Wheeler would end net neutrality. He didn't. Instead he pulled the internet providers under Title II, which gave the FCC great powers in imposing restructions on ISP behaviour. Wheeler was in fact a good chairman, despite being a lobbyist. Because "the swamp" probably isn't tied to your CV, but to your character. "Libtard red tape" probably has to do with Comcast being unable to block Netflix and HBO for its own shittier offering because Title Ii. |
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 2, 2017 7:59:28 GMT -5
I don't think we need to/should eliminate all such people just to eliminate them. That would actually be a pretty big buttload of smart, qualified people. They aren't all corrupt. In my mind, it's not always about being corrupt per se, it's also about being there just to play the game, to use connections to move up the ladder, as it were, oftentimes to jump back to the private world for a big payday. Such people aren't necessarily bad people. Indeed, I think many see themselves as just doing their thing, like others before them. They imagine that it really is their vocation and that it necessarily and rightfully leads to that juicy top level position, either in government or in a boardroom. A perfect example of this are the GSEs, Fannie and Freddie. They represented a place for long-term DCers to cash out, as it were. Draining the swamp would, I think, entail breaking down these connections, mostly by getting rid of the people who maintain them. And that starts at or near the top, unfortunately, which is why the swamp remains. And FYI, the Harvard/Yale line was a joke. I was dead serious about Goldman Sachs, however. People bitch and moan about corporate interests being served by politicos all the time. But no situation comes close to rivaling this one. It's why the bailout occurred exactly when it occurred, why some firms were saved and others weren't. And that was total bullshit. |
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 4, 2017 17:01:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jun 4, 2017 18:29:57 GMT -5
This transmogrification of the term "draining the swamp" by the right is on a par with the transmogrification of the terms "tolerance" and "progressive" by the left. "War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength" just doesn't seem all that far-fetched anymore.
Expecting the swamp to be drained (in the influence-peddling sense) is a fine example of believing in unicorn government.
If only the right person was in control, the political class would behave as fiscally responsible servants of the people, instead of "government officials tossing out favors to friends and family that cost the taxpayers money" and "government officials willing to waste money by using two separate jets to fly two people to the same event."
In reality, these are the truly bi=partisan behaviors of the political class. Incentives matter, and the incentives here are clear. Public choice theory settled that long ago.
Of course no one--Trump included--is willing to actually do shit about it. Expecting Trump to actually reduce influence-peddling in government requires believing in unicorn government. And Trump is certainly no unicorn.
Being surprised that "draining the swamp" has morphed in meaning the way it has requires believing in unicorn government.
|
|
