Listen in to Victor Davis Hanson and cohost Jack Fowler talk about Biden’s Middle East trip, Jill Biden’s taco comment, Florida bill to reform tenure and political ends of factcheck.org.
Related
Share This
5 thoughts on “Non-compos Mentis or How Joe Biden Gaffed His Way Around the Middle East”
Barbara Humphreys
I realize that politics has been, and probably always will be, a dog eat dog profession. American politics was down and dirty even back when the USA was very young. Having said that, the people slinging the dirt at the founding were intellectually quite capable of lucid and informed communication, the proof being such documents as the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers, “Common Sense”, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and other such works. I see no evidence of such intellect and wisdom today among our politicians at the local or national level. It would be good to hear what VDH thinks drove this general, inexorable degeneration of political discourse over the past 240 years. Is it because we, as a nation, have demonstrated for all to see that government is not only not the answer to most of the problems that plague us but that government actually facilitates the bad at the expense of the good and, as a result, the people who should be in government (those with the intellect, wisdom, and morals) avoid it because they know it isn’t the answer? Is this the actual outcome of our 240 year experiment?
Excellent analysis Ms Humphreys. I would add that the mud slinging has gotten much worse over the centuries, particularly in the current 21st in a large part due to the media abandoning any resemblance of non partisanship.
Even in the late 20th Century those presenting the News kept a low profile regarding their political bent. Not so much today and our news reports are as divisive as our political parties.
This is a terrific essay and challenge for substantive analysis. I have been very discouraged in the quality of the Republican candidates that have graced our debates and primaries for over 30 years. Bush Sr. was a liar and had no depth of understanding. Remember “No new taxes”? Bush Jr. did a lot of things correctly, but when push came to shove he retreated to Texas with a mad woman living in the curvert by his driveway. There was no hill he would “die” on, and graceful surrender seemed to be his strategy. Why didn’t he award Purple Hearts to the 20 or so soldiers who were severely injured attempting to decontemainate the non-mythical poison gas depots in Iraq? Then we had two candidates who simply didn’t deserve the support of anyone of conscenious. Then Trump flayed Cruz with school-yard taunts. I supported Cruz, despite his place of birth (which I think is now null and void given Obama.) But he couldn’t run a competent campaign. The stodges he selected to be his leaders in our state were nothing but opportunists. They hadn’t even donated to his campaign! Local poltitians seems to be equally opportunistic and vacuous. I have some hopes for our local legislative district, but even there the campaigns seem to be dominated by “likes” and crowds of supporters. Remember “Where’s the beef?” That’s my question.
I get the impression that 18th and early 19th century papers were horribly biased, but open about their biases. It also seemed to be a habit of intellectuals to subscribe to several periodicals so you could get all the sides.
I realize that politics has been, and probably always will be, a dog eat dog profession. American politics was down and dirty even back when the USA was very young. Having said that, the people slinging the dirt at the founding were intellectually quite capable of lucid and informed communication, the proof being such documents as the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers, “Common Sense”, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and other such works. I see no evidence of such intellect and wisdom today among our politicians at the local or national level. It would be good to hear what VDH thinks drove this general, inexorable degeneration of political discourse over the past 240 years. Is it because we, as a nation, have demonstrated for all to see that government is not only not the answer to most of the problems that plague us but that government actually facilitates the bad at the expense of the good and, as a result, the people who should be in government (those with the intellect, wisdom, and morals) avoid it because they know it isn’t the answer? Is this the actual outcome of our 240 year experiment?
Excellent analysis Ms Humphreys. I would add that the mud slinging has gotten much worse over the centuries, particularly in the current 21st in a large part due to the media abandoning any resemblance of non partisanship.
Even in the late 20th Century those presenting the News kept a low profile regarding their political bent. Not so much today and our news reports are as divisive as our political parties.
This is a terrific essay and challenge for substantive analysis. I have been very discouraged in the quality of the Republican candidates that have graced our debates and primaries for over 30 years. Bush Sr. was a liar and had no depth of understanding. Remember “No new taxes”? Bush Jr. did a lot of things correctly, but when push came to shove he retreated to Texas with a mad woman living in the curvert by his driveway. There was no hill he would “die” on, and graceful surrender seemed to be his strategy. Why didn’t he award Purple Hearts to the 20 or so soldiers who were severely injured attempting to decontemainate the non-mythical poison gas depots in Iraq? Then we had two candidates who simply didn’t deserve the support of anyone of conscenious. Then Trump flayed Cruz with school-yard taunts. I supported Cruz, despite his place of birth (which I think is now null and void given Obama.) But he couldn’t run a competent campaign. The stodges he selected to be his leaders in our state were nothing but opportunists. They hadn’t even donated to his campaign! Local poltitians seems to be equally opportunistic and vacuous. I have some hopes for our local legislative district, but even there the campaigns seem to be dominated by “likes” and crowds of supporters. Remember “Where’s the beef?” That’s my question.
I get the impression that 18th and early 19th century papers were horribly biased, but open about their biases. It also seemed to be a habit of intellectuals to subscribe to several periodicals so you could get all the sides.
I like VDH, the name.