Is there anything wrong with having lower expectations about the political qualification of Trump than Clinton?
As far as I'm concerned: of course not.
If Hillary was trying to become a real estate developer, we wouldn't expect her to be instantly familiar with all the intricacies.
So to give Trump some slack when it comes to foreign and domestic policies is not in itself wrong.
BUT
the whole point of 'The Curve' is that those graded on a lower slope over time get to the steep, demanding part. The bottom of the curve is to make entry easy, but it's not there to excuse staying ignorant.
In the past, candidates with obvious gaps in their knowledge (or even just lack of expertise) have tried to surround themselves with experts as advisers to overcome their shortcomings. Or they have worked hard to appear knowledgeable in debates and speeches.
None of that is true for Trump: we could have expected him to learn a bit about the powers and limitations of the job he seeks in the year or more since he started his nomination - but he still has no clue. And neither has he any recognizable advisers, and those he does have says that they've never spoken to him so far.
Trump appears the most intelligent when he says (or tweets) nothing.
If the media and voters have decided to make the entry bar for Trump low, they have to raise the bar over time and see if the candidate is doing his homework. Knowing the US constitution or reading a single book, even if it's the bible, are not too demanding qualifications for the highest office in the land.
As far as I'm concerned: of course not.
If Hillary was trying to become a real estate developer, we wouldn't expect her to be instantly familiar with all the intricacies.
So to give Trump some slack when it comes to foreign and domestic policies is not in itself wrong.
BUT
the whole point of 'The Curve' is that those graded on a lower slope over time get to the steep, demanding part. The bottom of the curve is to make entry easy, but it's not there to excuse staying ignorant.
In the past, candidates with obvious gaps in their knowledge (or even just lack of expertise) have tried to surround themselves with experts as advisers to overcome their shortcomings. Or they have worked hard to appear knowledgeable in debates and speeches.
None of that is true for Trump: we could have expected him to learn a bit about the powers and limitations of the job he seeks in the year or more since he started his nomination - but he still has no clue. And neither has he any recognizable advisers, and those he does have says that they've never spoken to him so far.
Trump appears the most intelligent when he says (or tweets) nothing.
If the media and voters have decided to make the entry bar for Trump low, they have to raise the bar over time and see if the candidate is doing his homework. Knowing the US constitution or reading a single book, even if it's the bible, are not too demanding qualifications for the highest office in the land.
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/2c8WsWg
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire