A FB Friend posted this Letter to the Editor from the Quad City Times
I got on an airplane last year with other passengers. As I watched the pilot go into the cockpit and lock the door, I realized I didn’t know anything about him. Was he the best pilot the airline had, or was he the worst pilot in the nation?
That began to concern me. If I had met the pilot, I might not have been happy with him being in charge. What if I really didn’t like this pilot? What if he had character flaws? What if he almost got kicked out of pilots’ training? I did not choose him. He wasn’t my choice. Somebody else chose him for this flight, not me. But he was the pilot.
Still, we were going to fly together. So one thing was certain, I did not want him to fail. If he fails – we all fail. I read the emergency card, and I was alert for any trouble, but I hoped for the best. Maybe he wasn’t the worst pilot; or maybe he was. But that didn’t matter. I wanted him to succeed; I didn’t want him to fail.
I think a lot of us need to remember that about our presidents. It is sad that some people want a president to fail. Although I didn’t want Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump to be president, I definitely did not want them to fail. Whoever is president; we should hope for the best.
There are no winners in a plane crash, and no winners in a divided nation.
Steve GarringtonMy initial responses were:
Maybe someone should send this to Trump. 😁 It would be nice if he would work to increase his support amongst all Americans instead of just reinforcing his support among the religious right, NRA supporters, anti-immigrant folks, etc....
He is bit like a captain who cares for half the passengers while insulting the folks in coach. 😂 By the way, President Pence sounds okay to.... And we would not hear so much whining, tweeting, etc.However I think this requires more thought and discussion... I even voted for this "pilot" in hopes that he could become "better". And he just has not... I assume this is why planes have co-pilots. That way if the Pilot becomes indisposed or loses his mind, they can be replaced for the good of the passengers. Or do we recommend keeping the questionable Pilot in charge no matter what?
Thoughts?
22 comments:
If Donald Trump were the pilot, I wouldn't board the plane.
I want Boeing to succeed, but does that mean we should let them off the hook when their planes crash?
--Hiram
Well overall the USA and it's adult citizens are doing pretty good with Trump in the cock pit.
Of course it sucks to be one of our children
Donald Trump isn't someone I would trust to go out door knocking for a suburban city council candidate. Surely there was vast room for improvement, but is that a reason to prefer him to people who start out at a basic level of competence?
--Hiram
A basic problem in politics, and maybe in life, also, is whether and to what extent one should put one's own interests ahead of those of others. Where the two parties are concerned, the way this issue comes up and is addressed are asymmetrical owing to the different roles the two parties play out. In broad strokes, Democrats are the party of government; Republicans are the anti government party. What this means in practice is that Democrats benefit when government succeeds, Republicans benefit when government doesn't succeed.
One example that has come up recently is with interest rates. Last year, when the economy was showing signs of struggling, President Trump of the anti Keynesian Republican spoke out in favor of the purely Keynesian solution, that interest rates should be cut. They were, and further increases were put off indefinitely. Confidence was restored, and recession fears eased. As a result, the president received a tremendous boost going into an election year. As I recall, there was no Democratic opposition to these rate cuts. We, after all, shared the president's concerns about the economy and felt the inflation hawks appointed by the president had gotten important stuff wrong.
Contrast this with the behavior of Republicans during the Obama years. President came to office after eight years of Republican mismanagement had brought the economy close to ruin. With little or no republican help but with lots of complaining from the sidelines, President Obama steadied the economy resulting in 8 years of growth. What did Republicans do? Well, they advocated higher interest rates in a weak economy which would have been disastrous. That was the same policy they rejected when faced with economic problems far less serious than President Obama had to contend with. Were Republicans trying to sabotage the economy for personal political benefit? I certainly thought so. Why could they do that without fear of political damage? Because they knew, as the anti government party they wouldn't be blamed for failed government policies they advocated and put into effect. Consider the election of 2008. It's hard to think of an administration that combined both failed foreign and domestic policies to such an extent. The Bush presidency was a disaster from which are even now just recovering. Yet people actually voted for him. They did that because the Bush government failed, and government is a Democratic Party thing.
--Hiram
Actually it was the work of Bush, Obama, Democrats and Republicans that set the stage for the recovery.
Though I do agree that the GOP likes to blame the government for many things.
Well overall the USA and it's adult citizens are doing pretty good with Trump in the cock pit.
I am sure flight attendants were distributing bags of peanuts quite happily right up until the moment the planes crashed.
--Hiram
Actually it was the work of Bush, Obama, Democrats and Republicans that set the stage for the recovery.
I remember those interest rate fights quite vividly. Clearly, Republicans were trying to crash the economy.
--Hiram
It does seem that many of them are hypocrites as we have discussed before.
I am not sure they wanted to crash the economy, but they sure weren't interested in using government spending and low interest rates to stimulate it.
Now they don't care about deficits as long as the economy keeps chugging along.
Hiram,
In the past you have not cared about stealing money from the kids. (ie deficit spending)
What do you have to complain about during this Presidency?
Business and jobs are booming, retirement investments are increasing in value, etc...
We have not entered into any new wars...
I saw a news snippet that trump is tied with Obama for the most admired man. There is something seriously wrong with the judgement of half the people in this country.
Now the big question.. Which half? :-)
Here are some interesting quotes:
"The incumbent president has typically been Americans' choice as the most admired man, having earned the distinction in 58 of the 72 prior Gallup polls. When the incumbent president is not the choice, it is usually because he is unpopular politically, which was the case for Trump in 2017 (36% approval rating) and 2018 (40%).
Trump is more popular now than he was in the past two years, with a 45% job approval rating, among his best as president. Coincident with the rise in his job approval rating, the 18% of Americans currently naming Trump as the most admired man is also up, from 13% in 2018 and 14% in 2017. Increased mentions of Trump as the most admired man have come almost exclusively among his fellow Republicans -- 32% of Republicans named Trump in 2018 and 35% did so in 2017."
"Obama's 18% mentions among U.S. adults as the most admired man are in line with his 2018 (19%) and 2017 (17%) figures, all of which are high for a former president. Dwight Eisenhower is the only other former president who received double-digit mentions at any point after leaving office.
The post-presidency popularity for Obama and Eisenhower allowed each to finish first a record 12 times. Each man was named most admired man in the year he was elected president and all eight years he was in office, plus three additional years. Obama has finished first during the first three years after he left office, while Eisenhower won once before he ran for president (1950) and twice after leaving office (1967 and 1968)."
Since the incumbent President usually wins, it is a pretty sad state of affairs that Trump can't oust Obama...
On the upside apparently Obama has a long lasting and record tying appeal.
Another good thing is that only 18% of Americans voted for Trump.
Does that give you hope?
I am not sure they wanted to crash the economy, but they sure weren't interested in using government spending and low interest rates to stimulate it.
Knowing that would be the result of raising interest rates, it's hard to reach another conclusion.
--Hiram
People voted for Trump on the theory that he could get things done. After all, thirty years ago he built a big building in Manhattan, although even then, it wasn't the first one. But what Trump voters never seemed to think about was why things weren't getting done. To begin with is, ours is a consensus based system. To get anything done, you have to work with people of different political views and different political interests. This is true both legislatively, but also socially. Obamcare was passed not just because there was a rare moment when Democrats had the legislative power to deliver on their agenda, but also because it was essentially a Republican program signed off on by Republican political interests. Given our druthers, Democrats would have enacted quite a different program, one that did not protect traditional Republican constituencies, particularly doctors and the insurance industry.
So, to be effective, a political leader needs to be a consensus builder. He needs to respect and deal with others. Lots of folks thought Trump was that guy. What is hard for me to figure out is why.
--Hiram
Well, regarding the interest rate complaints. From the source I found, it was another Trump / GOP conspiracy theory and not a real request. They were trying to say the FED was propping up Obama. Which of course was not true.
As for consensus: "the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned".
Apparently they mistook his ability to market, sell, manipulate, brow beat, sue, etc in a private corporation into something more... They were definitely incorrect.
Is this really an argument for allowing incompetent people to fly planes and just hoping for the best?
--Hiram
Maybe...
But I think it is an argument that our system is pretty robust, with lots of checks/balance. Therefore it is hard for one person to screw it up.
But I think it is an argument that our system is pretty robust, with lots of checks/balance
Which is it better at checking or balancing? But I think what is now being demonstrated is that the system depends on good faith and respect for the law, and if that's missing the system comes crumbling down.
--Hiram
I read an opinion essay that Trump has mid-stage dementia that will keep progressing. I'm not linking to it as the source is not up to my usual standards, but I did find it persuasive and it explains a lot about Trump's comments and behaviors. If this writer is right about the dementia, it would be very good for the country if it would progress quickly and prevent Trump from winning reelection.
Hiram,
I guess I don't see it as "crumbling down", but I agree it is frustrating when so many citizens and politicians do not want to enforce it.
Laurie,
I am guessing not, but I have been wrong before.
Post a Comment