Trump - Clown Genius

[Riggerjack]

I didn't make my point clearly enough. The head of an agency needs NO real knowledge of his agency's mission.

So, Rick Perry in charge is a problem. Whether it is Rick Perry in charge of the Dept of energy, the army Corp of engineers, or DEA.

BTW, DOE has regulatory authority over nuke power plants, an entirely different animal from nuclear weapons.

[Riggerjack]

How does your WWI example meet the definition of soft power? The whole point is to not use hard power at all.

Soft Power: Soft power is a concept developed by Joseph Nye of Harvard University to describe the ability to attract and co-opt rather than by coercion (hard power), using force or giving money as a means of persuasion. Soft power is the ability to shape the preferences of others through appeal and attraction. A defining feature of soft power is that it is noncoercive; the currency of soft power is culture, political values, and foreign policies.

Uh huh. And, every domino placed to trigger WWI, was placed by a diplomat, concerned with soft power. Of course, this is before Harvard defined it, so they used terms like Prestige. But it is all the same thing, jockeying for position.

At the end of the day, powerful nations were tied by treaty to weaker nations, in efforts to influence them. Those treaties included triggers for declaring war. Soft power made WWI inevitable, and automatic.

Harvard trying to separate one subset of diplomatic tools from another is fine if you just want a paper to publish. But restricting yourself to use of just a screwdriver, and no hammers means at some point using a screwdriver as a hammer.

"A defining feature of soft power is that it is noncoercive; the currency of soft power is culture, political values, and foreign policies." Sounds really good, until you look at the history of such use, and see the results. Then it just seems naive.

[Chad]

So, the use of hard power is never actually the use of hard power, it's just soft power fucking things up? Come on.

[Gilberto de Piento]

BTW, DOE has regulatory authority over nuke power plants, an entirely different animal from nuclear weapons.

The national nuclear security administration, part of the department of energy, is tasked with the design, testing and production of all nuclear weapons" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ar_weapons.

[jacob]

@Riggerjack - Yeah, what GdP says ... DOE is for all practical purposes (and idiosyncratic historical reasons) in charge of all the nuclear weapons/national security focused national labs (Los Alamos (been there and presented a talk), Oak Ridge(been there and presented a talk), Argonne(been there and presented a talk), Livermore(worked there for two years), Berkeley(never been there), ...) and they do all the scientific stuff wrt nuclear weapons research while Sandia does the actual engineering. These labs also do related research as part of the overall security mission, e.g. global security (aka "what could possibly go wrong with the world that nobody has thought of before") as well as cutting edge research in nuclear physics and complex physics simulations. For example, the astrophysical research I worked on as a postdoc in Livermore was funded by a DOE grant. (BTW you can wiki all this. I verified just to ensure that I'm not inadvertently giving any "secrets" away.)

The reason why this could be relevant to the Trump administration given his other picks for StateSec and EPA is that Livermore, for example, is rather heavily involved in climate science research (they run the model comparison project, important for model validation) because a) they got really big computer centers; and b) it's rather relevant to national security to know what's going on in detail (same reason the Pentagon takes it seriously). Ben Santer, who while probably not as well-known/controversional as Mann when it comes to the culture wars of climate change, works at Livermore and has been a target from various denialist PR campaigns---see Merchants of Doubts (book) for the story on that.

Otherwise, I have no idea why Rick Perry's background/expertise could conceivably have any relevance to the DOE's mission. He is following Steven Chu (PhD in chemical engineering, Nobel Prize winner 1997 for laser cooling) and Ernest Moniz (PhD nuclear physics). Rick Perry has a BSc in Animal Science from Texas A&M. I can't imagine why that makes me smirk but it seems funny. Seriously, though, .. he was the Gov of Texas. Maybe he's just the guy to be in charge of the vast bureaucracy that is government-organized science.

[Riggerjack]

Again, I need to clarify. It's like I am not making the clear arguments in my posts, that I'm making in my head. Someday, I'm going to have to get a nephew to show me how to type on my phone more quickly...

Nukes, yes DOE is in charge of all nuke research, and reactors. Research, and facilities, yes, bombs, no. As far as I remember, nobody has done any nuke weapons design, testing or production since the 90's in the States. Really, what would be the point? So no, Rick Perry is not going to be a nuclear power. Hell, he won't even be able to authorize disposal of nuke waste.

Nuke missle maintenance is done by army and navy enlisted men, I trained with them. Fire control is all air force and navy. Rick Perry will not have a say.

Rick Perry will be in a position to influence the criteria of studies of nuclear power plant efficiency (currently a big deal among nuke proponents, as the current criteria credits nukes at 6% capacity greenhouse gas offset to make a better case for replacing with natural gas). I'll dig up a link later.

I'm not saying Rick Perry is a good choice here. I'm saying it is an admin job, and it will be done in accordance with the wishes of the President, as it always has been, and tech skills are only useful as cover. It's not like the last guy was doing research while there, his skills were wasted as an administrator.

[Riggerjack]

So, the use of hard power is never actually the use of hard power, it's just soft power fucking things up? Come on.

Not what I'm saying at all.

Soft power and hard power are part of the diplomatic tool set. Sometimes, the right tool is a hammer. Sometimes it is a screwdriver. If you only have screwdrivers, eventually, you WILL use a screwdriver as a hammer.

Breaking down a tool box into " good" and "bad" tools will affect which tools will be replaced, and the quality of the replacement.

I contend that the track record of soft power is no better than that if hard power at achieving the purposes intended. And, that those horrible wars can often be traced to soft power failure.

Don't get me wrong, I strongly support soft power and prefer it to be used. But, until it's failures are analyzed, we won't know it's limits, and when it's use is inappropriate.

My example was the lead up to WWI. That was ALL soft power, leading up to a war between powerful nations, with no hard gains in sight. As a simple hard power assessment would have clearly shown.

[Riggerjack]

Real life examples, the first 3 energy secretaries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Schlesinger
According to one account, "Schlesinger impressed candidate Jimmy Carter with his brains, his high-level experience... and with secrets regarding the defense spending vacillations of his old boss, Ford, just in time for the presidential debates."[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Duncan_Jr.
Charles William Duncan Jr. (born September 9, 1926) is an American entrepreneur, administrator, and statesman best known for serving as U.S. Secretary of Energy on the Cabinet of President Jimmy Carter from 1979 to 1981. He had previously served as Carter's United States Deputy Secretary of Defense during the Iranian Revolution. Earlier, Duncan had run the family business, Duncan Coffee Company of Houston, Texas, for seven years, until the Coca-Cola Company acquired it in 1964. After seven years on the Coke board, Duncan became the corporation's president.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_B._Edwards
James Burrows Edwards (June 24, 1927 – December 26, 2014) was a politician and administrator from South Carolina. He was the first Republican to be elected the Governor of South Carolina since Reconstruction.

At that time South Carolina Governors were not allowed to serve two terms in succession, so Edwards was unable to seek re-election in 1978. In 1981, U.S. President Ronald W. Reagan appointed Edwards to be the Secretary of Energy.

And the rest can be found here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... _of_Energy

I'm not going to pick thru them all. They fit my expectations, Political Operator, CEO of Coke, Former Governor. Rick Perry fits right in.

[Tyler9000]

Otherwise, I have no idea why Rick Perry's background/expertise could conceivably have any relevance to the DOE's mission. He is following Steven Chu (PhD in chemical engineering, Nobel Prize winner 1997 for laser cooling) and Ernest Moniz (PhD nuclear physics).

Well, Perry was governor for 14 years of the state that currently leads the nation in oil, natural gas, and wind power production, is #5 in nuclear energy, and #3 in overall renewable electricity generation. Texas is an energy powerhouse in no small part because Perry maintained an inviting business and regulatory environment for energy producers. That's not a bad resume for leading a 30 billion dollar federal energy bureaucracy compared to your typical college professor.

Beyond nuclear research, the DOE manages a massive loan program for all kinds of energy related initiatives both public and private. That part of the job is not particularly suited to PhDs. For example, the DOE under Chu loaned $465 million to Tesla at a massive discount to market rates (they made a bad deal) and lost half a billion on Solyndra alone. Regardless of whether Perry is the best choice for the job, I personally have no problem with letting a pragmatic business-minded person manage the financial ship while the scientists stick to what they do best.

[subgard]

In normal personality development, people realize that good and bad can be present in one whole. A person may have good qualities, and yet also be flawed. A thing can have both positive and negative attributes. Some people never develop this insight into reality.
Instead, they "split".
To them, a person is either all bad, or all good. Things are either "fantastic", or a "disaster".
If the person never develops coping mechanisms, they have borderline personality disorder. They switch back and forth between demonizing and idealizing both themselves and others. They oscillate between feeling they are worthless trash (borderlines have a much greater rate of suicide than normal), and feeling like they are better than everyone else. Their friends and family are alternately horrible villains and virtuous saints.

But, most splitters develop coping mechanisms. They become addicted to various "supplies" which prevent them from feeling flawed.
Histrionic supply is attention. If people are paying attention to them, they must be worth something, not bad, or flawed.
Narcissistic supply is admiration, or a feeling of superiority. Obviously, a superior person is not flawed.
Psychopathic supply is control, or making others do things they don't want to, or make others feel an emotion they would rather not.

Even if a person is addicted to these supplies, the underlying splitting is still there. They describe objects as "the best", or "the worst". No middle ground. They use almost exclusively ad hominem attacks in an argument. To them, if you can prove anything at all is wrong with a person, then the entire person, and everything about them is entirely bad and flawed.

They themselves appear very thin-skinned, for the same reason. They must defend themselves from any attack or insult, because, if the attack were true, that would mean their entire self was flawed.

Their insults can appear to be strange and irrelevant. But to them, they make perfect sense - if you can discredit any part of a person, you've discredited the entire person - anything they have to say, everything they've ever done.

They're also light on details. If something is "good", it's good. There is no reason to go into any detail about why. If something is a "disaster", it's completely bad, there's no reason to explain why.

Their agenda can seem very opaque if you don't realize that it's to constantly acquire the aforementioned supplies. Like an alcoholic's life revolves around drinking, a heroin junkie's life revolves around acquiring heroin, the splitter's life revolves around getting histrionic, narcissistic, and psychopathic supply. They literally have no other agenda or aim in life. At all.

Because they have no other aim in life, they have no real beliefs, principles, preferences, ideals, positions, tastes, likes, dislikes, etc. So, to appear normal to other people, they develop a very "false self". This false self is very inconsistent across time, breadth, and depth.
Time - Beliefs and positions change on a whim, to suit the circumstances. Seemingly deeply held beliefs will change to a polar opposite literally in the span of a conversation.
Breadth - There is no consistent thread to their beliefs. It's hard to tell whether they are conservative or liberal, pious or irreligious, pro anything, or anti anything.
Depth - There is no deeper reason to why they hold beliefs. Beliefs are just a surface display, not something that emanates from deeper principles.

When interacting with other people, they are very attuned to what behaviors make them most effective in getting their desired supply. They inevitably discover that "like likes like", or people like people who are like themselves.
So, they engage in "mirroring" - Pretending to have the same beliefs, preferences and ideals of those they're interacting with. Whether speaking to a large crowd, or one on one with a variety of people, they appear "charming" and "likeable" by pretending to be like the people they're interacting with. Their "personality" is such a reflection of others that they appear to have completely different personalities, depending on who they are with.

They have the communication style of pathological liars. Pathological liars are not interested in either the truth or in actual deceit. They are interested in spinning a narrative to get a desired reaction. Maybe it's mostly truth, maybe it's mostly false. Doesn't matter. The result is what matters. In this case, getting that supply is what matters. So, they say things that are easily refuted. They say things that are inconsistent with things they've said before. They say things that are unnecessarily and obviously untruthful. What matters is spinning that tale in real time, to get the desired reaction in the moment. And it actually works quite a bit of the time.

They get bored easily. If they aren't getting histrionic, narcissistic, or psychopathic supply, they get restless, and will shirk duties that don't provide such supply. They will then spin a tale to others of how the duty is unnecessary, or how other people should be doing it for them.

Because of their constant manipulation of others, and their underlying splitting, they do not (want to?) separate perception from reality. If they can convince someone of something, it's as good as true. So, no need to actually accomplish anything if you can simply convince people you are accomplished.

They're always looking for allies (even from former enemies) to pit against other people's perceptions. If they can get a majority of allies on their side, then they are "right", "good", "flawless". According to perception. Which is what matters. In organizations, they stir up infighting, and pretend to be everyone's ally so that they always appear to be on the "right" side.

Edit: This is an analysis of just Trump, not his supporters.

[BRUTE]

what's interesting is how this child-like persona is embodied by Trump, but also seems to apply to his most harsh critics. maybe they hate him so much because he's a mirror of their own personalities?

[subgard]

Narcissistic criticism: "This entire person is bad"
More legitimate criticism: "This one feature of a person is bad"

[steveo73]

In normal personality development, people realize that good and bad can be present in one whole. A person may have good qualities, and yet also be flawed. A thing can have both positive and negative attributes. Some people never develop this insight into reality.
Instead, they "split".
To them, a person is either all bad, or all good. Things are either "fantastic", or a "disaster".

You are on fire here. This is what people that I see can't seem to get. They can't face reality as being middle of the road.

If the person never develops coping mechanisms, they have borderline personality disorder. They switch back and forth between demonizing and idealizing both themselves and others. They oscillate between feeling they are worthless trash (borderlines have a much greater rate of suicide than normal), and feeling like they are better than everyone else. Their friends and family are alternately horrible villains and virtuous saints.

I think BPD is bullshit. Maybe better put you can diagnose way too many people as suffering from this.

But, most splitters develop coping mechanisms. They become addicted to various "supplies" which prevent them from feeling flawed.
Histrionic supply is attention. If people are paying attention to them, they must be worth something, not bad, or flawed.
Narcissistic supply is admiration, or a feeling of superiority. Obviously, a superior person is not flawed.
Psychopathic supply is control, or making others do things they don't want to, or make others feel an emotion they would rather not.

I don't believe this. I think that normal human reactions get developed into these psychological issues when it's normal.

Basically I think you can't label it if it's normal.

Even if a person is addicted to these supplies, the underlying splitting is still there. They describe objects as "the best", or "the worst". No middle ground. They use almost exclusively ad hominem attacks in an argument. To them, if you can prove anything at all is wrong with a person, then the entire person, and everything about them is entirely bad and flawed.

This is normal people. Trump is the devil. The world is ending because of climate change. They can't face reality.

They themselves appear very thin-skinned, for the same reason. They must defend themselves from any attack or insult, because, if the attack were true, that would mean their entire self was flawed.

Their insults can appear to be strange and irrelevant. But to them, they make perfect sense - if you can discredit any part of a person, you've discredited the entire person - anything they have to say, everything they've ever done.

I agree but it's normal.

I think you take your post too far in that I think you are making it too big of an issue rather than viewing people as being screwed up fallible human beings.

[steveo73]

what's interesting is how this child-like persona is embodied by Trump, but also seems to apply to his most harsh critics. maybe they hate him so much because he's a mirror of their own personalities?

This is the funny thing. Trump appears to be child like but so are his critics. It's nutters.

[steveo73]

Narcissistic criticism: "This entire person is bad"
More legitimate criticism: "This one feature of a person is bad"

How many people though get this.

[BRUTE]

none. they're all idiots!

[theanimal]

What are people's thoughts here with regards to the electoral college vote tomorrow? I read the post by John Robb mentioned in ShriekingFeralHatred's journal. He takes an extreme stance and seems biased as his blog focuses on disruption and societal collapse, but it doesn't seem that far fetched in my brain with all the outrage post election. It being Trump losing the electoral college. Here's a snippet of Robb's post. You can find the rest here: http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/

We can expect to see more leaks this weekend, before the EC votes on Monday.

What kind of info? A shred of evidence (a taped conversation would be best), gathered by US allies and not the CIA, that shows that Trump knew about the hack or came to an agreement with Putin.

At that point, the EC will definitely flip and Trump will be denied an electoral college win on Monday.

After that we head to the courts and start down the road to street level violence.

To avoid the chaos of merely unseating Trump, the electors may award Hillary Clinton the win since she is best able to gather the establishment around her to fight off Trump's bid.

Regardless, we have moved another step towards what looks more and more like another US civil war.

And then of course this came out this morning: Clinton campaign chief says Trump and Russians may have colluded over hacked emails to swing election It's an attention grabbing headline. But there's no substance. The first sentence is:

"It's very much unknown whether there was collusion," John Podesta said on NBC's Meet the Press.

Worthless article. But with the reading comprehension and critical thinking skills of most people today, the content doesn't matter.

[Tyler9000]

What are people's thoughts here with regards to the electoral college vote tomorrow? .

Most likely Trump will win the EC exactly as designed, prompting grieving Dems to finally move past the bargaining stage.

[subgard]

I think I should clarify. My analysis was a description of just Trump, not his supporters. Trump is quite a bit different critter than most people.

[subgard]

Steveo wrote:
I think BPD is bullshit. Maybe better put you can diagnose way too many people as suffering from this.

Mental illnesses are any mental condition that cause a person to be dysfunctional. While "dysfunctional" is a bit subjective, there are people that "split" so much that they can not function at all in daily life. Those are the people that would be diagnosed with an actual mental disorder.

subgard wrote:
But, most splitters develop coping mechanisms. They become addicted to various "supplies" which prevent them from feeling flawed.
Histrionic supply is attention. If people are paying attention to them, they must be worth something, not bad, or flawed.
Narcissistic supply is admiration, or a feeling of superiority. Obviously, a superior person is not flawed.
Psychopathic supply is control, or making others do things they don't want to, or make others feel an emotion they would rather not.

I don't believe this. I think that normal human reactions get developed into these psychological issues when it's normal.

Basically I think you can't label it if it's normal.

Most mental disorders are normal functioning features that get exaggerated into dysfunction. But you do have a point. Most histrionics, narcissists, and psychopaths are fairly functional. Many of them usually cause more problems for other people than they cause for themselves.
The reason I explained about the underlying splitting of these people is you need to have ways of detecting them before they wreak havoc in your life (or your political system. Too late for that, I guess.)

So, I really don't care if it's a mental disorder, a character flaw, or just part of normal human behavior. These people do exist, they do cause problems, and I like to be able to identify them before they get too close.

My interest in Trump's personality is more curiosity than political partisanship. I've witnessed characters like him close up in real life, and it's interesting to see him displaying these traits very obviously and publicly.

Politically, I think he will simply be very ineffective, because his primary goal will be causing conflict in order to get attention and feel powerful. And he won't be in conflict with the Democrats. Characters like Trump cause the most problems for the people who are closest to them.
So, the people who will have headache after headache are:
1. People in his own administration.
2. The Republicans in Congress. Trump won the primaries by being in almost open warfare with Republican leadership. He's currently pretending to be nice with them in order to get their help in building his administration. My prediction: After January 20th, McConnell and Ryan are going to feel very backstabbed.