2019.12.18
I listen to the Sam Harris podcast, and there are a lot of things I don't agree with, and some that I do. But one podcast that has stuck with me was from February 2018, with Scottish historian Niall Ferguson - glancing at Ferguson's twitter these day I find plenty to disagree with (especially about Brexit) - but a few passages from his dialog with Harris have really struck with me over those 2 years (before the current Ukraine quid pro quo scandal, so the focus is on the then-ongoing Mueller report.)
I am almost surprised I was able to locate the bits (I didn't even remember Ferguson's name) but I think his longer-term perspective is useful today as the House votes to impeach:
The Republicans weren't exactly in a hurry for Nixon to fall, and only abandoned him when there was simply no way of refuting the evidence of obstruction of justice. I think it will be very similar this time around in that the big issue will be obstruction and the Republican party will stick with Trump until there is no way of being able to do that. If his approval rating stays in the 38-40% range, then they're not going to desert. They deserted Nixon when Nixon was in free fall. So let me make clear: this is not new territory for American politics. What should strike us is- its familiarity. And it wasn't just Nixon. With Reagan it was Iran-Contra, with Clinton we all know what the impeachment was about. This is how American politics is played, it's a contact sport.
So my paradoxical view is that liberalism will ultimately be the beneficiary of the Trump presidency and Conservatism will be the casualty. The question of impeachment I think should be seen in that light. By the time we get there, if we get there [...] we know from the experience of Clinton and also the Iran-Contra scandal that it can backfire on Congress if it goes down that road. It doesn't necessarily guarantee the collapse of a presidency. Clinton became even more popular even as he was being impeached.
Having been put to the test by being elected and becoming president Trump is almost bound to disappoint his supporters over the 4 year time frame... and if he doesn't, if the economy miraculously keeps going all the way to 2020, if wages rise in real terms in ways that they didn't during the Obama years then Hey! He'll be entitled to re-election, because he'll have delivered something to the kind of people who didn't get much out of the previous 8 years. One can't rule that scenario out. And when I ask myself is this a 2-year presidency or a 4-year presidency or an 8 year presidency, well probably I'm inclined to the 4-year view but I wouldn't give *very* low odds to re-election, presidents tend to get re-elected, even ones as mercurial as Trump.I checked the "real wage" chart, and it looks like - as with a lot of trends - Trump has managed to continue the trajectories started in the Obama years, which given the cyclical nature of economies is kind of impressive, though I think his tax cuts were dumping fuel into an engine that was going along well already.
I think the point about Clinton's popularity increasing during and after impeachment is important. You get resentment at the question being asked. For Clinton, it was the Republicans bringing sex into politics so stupidly. I fear for Trump it might be "look, the folks who voted for him knew he was gonna run the place like a wanna-be Mafia Don, sending out his consigliere Giuliani to replace actual ambassadors, so what's the big deal"...
And don't get it twisted - I am no Trump fan. The damage he has done to so many things we hold valuable - international alliances, judicial appointments, the balance of powers as lesser Republicans follow him like the pied piper - is immense.
Figure out who you are, and then do it on purpose.(repost but bears repeating! Though come to think of it maybe Trump does that too much, so nevermind.)