Replies

I apologize in advance for this lengthy response, but it is something I feel strongly about.

I think it is human nature, especially in tightly confined arguments that are not widely separated, to change your view based on the last information to come in. I know I have fallen into that hole, personally.

For me, it is often the case of availability of information. When making a judgement, I make the judgement based on the information available, then overlay my principles on that information.

If they are in harmony, I can proceed with making an information/principles based judgement.

If they are not in harmony, it can become far more difficult. When that happens, you have to overlay both information and principles with real-world considerations, and occasionally have to go against your principles.

It could be your principles and fundamental premises are flawed. But more often (in my opinion) real world considerations can force you to go against your principles.

I think that in the case of someone like Trump (or any chief executive in a decision-making scenario), the choice is made the way I laid out, and those people making decisions are dependent on the people providing them with information to to it in a complete and timely manner as possible.

In a complicated world, sometimes the information is incomplete because it just isn’t available and the executive has to make a choice based on the information at hand. This is complicated by the fact that the people supplying the information are fallible, or have their own biases and agendas, which is why it is important to have people working for you whose principles and fundamental premises align with yours, but who are both intelligent and honest.

The intelligence and honesty are vital, because even if your principles are aligned, you need to know all the information that is relevant...not just information that makes you nod your head vigorously in agreement, but also information that contradicts your principles when it is important.

It is why having “Yes Men” is so dangerous and destructive.

The other problem is timeliness of information. Sometimes some vital information simply isn’t available when you have to decide. Then, when it becomes available, you have to re-evaluate. And when you do that, well, that is when you discover the quality of people, because if you have to go against your principles because it is the right thing to do, that is difficult for principled people.

You must make the choice: Is it preferable to be consistent with principles you hold, or...should you be right? (This is one of the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives. Liberals are dogmatic, set their principles, and will not re-evaluate them. There is no introspective argument. Liberals are buttressed by and echo chamber of liberal media that constantly praises them and discourages introspection. Conservatives have to constantly evaluate their principles and ensure they are set correctly, because conservative principles are constantly questioned and discouraged by liberal media, educational entities, and government at all levels.)

So, in the shifting sands of staff at a high government level, I think this is a real problem for a chief executive like the President. I try to be tolerant when it happens and they change their decisions in a way that contradicts the principles they campaigned on, but if it happens too often, that indicates deeper flaws in the makeup of a team. I hope that isn’t the case with Trump.

I don’t see it as a bad thing. Look at a reprehensible team like Obama’s...in their case, their fundamental principles were (and are) flawed, but they adhered to those principles rigorously, even when it was blatantly wrong and sometimes malignantly so. That is what we would expect from liberals who admire, and are disciples of Saul Alinsky. The Ends justifies the Means in all cases, no questions for them.

American Liberty is the egg that requires breaking to make their Utopian omelette. (I am going to use that as my tagline for a while...:)