Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Heather Digby Parton — Trump's Rumored Candidate to Run the CIA Could Plunge America into a Hot War

Backgrounder on Tom Cotton.
According to Molly Ball of The Atlantic, Cotton's Harvard thesis reveals his philosophy:
Cotton insists that the Founders were wise not to put too much faith in democracy, because people are inherently selfish, narrow-minded, and impulsive. He defends the idea that the country must be led by a class of intellectually superior officeholders whose ambition sets them above other men. Though Cotton acknowledges that this might seem elitist, he derides the Federalists’ modern critics as mushy-headed and naive.
“Ambition characterizes and distinguishes national officeholders from other kinds of human beings,” Cotton wrote. “Inflammatory passion and selfish interest characterizes most men, whereas ambition characterizes men who pursue and hold national office. Such men rise from the people through a process of self-selection since politics is a dirty business that discourages all but the most ambitious.”
On the surface, such a belief would seem to be an odd mix with the allegedly populist Donald Trump and his "alt-right" white nationalist allies, but it really isn't. Trump himself is a big believer in eugenics and Steve Bannon is looking for a few good men to lead his army into the big final battle. Tom Cotton may be just the grownup they've been looking for.
Democracy is for "liberals."

Where do they find these people?



Matt Franko said...

"ntellectually superior officeholders "

Maybe if it was actually tried.... not these dumb sobs....

Kaivey said...

They're deluded ego maniacs. They probably have no soul and are not human. I don't mean that they are aliens but just oddballs and very peculiar. They feel that they are special and chosen, but its a rotten system that allows them through. We should have a system to screen out psychopaths and weirdos like these.

Matt Franko said...

Cotton seems to indicate the System selects for the ambitious:

"country must be led by a class of intellectually superior officeholders whose ambition sets them above other men. "

I wouldn't say that ambibition and intellectual superiority are the same thing as this sentence seems to assert...

But he is probably right about the ambition....

We have ambitious morons and psychos....

Tom Hickey said...

Ambition is neither good nor bad of itself. Another way to look at ambition is as aspiration.

The question is "ambitious for what?" and "aspiration to what?"

Part of the answer lies in the person's disposition and upbringing, while another part of it lies in the socially constructed incentives of a group or society.

Some people are driven by lust for fame, fortune, power and pleasure, while others are control freaks. Few are driven by aspirations that are noble rather than base.

The political challenge is to construct a system that filters the low life and selects those who are noble and also qualified. This is the true meaning of "aristocracy" as the rule of the best. This is also the basis for a genuine meritocracy.

The rule of the base and unqualified is the worst, while the rule of the base but qualified, while better, still leads to social dysfunctionality.

Representative democracies attempt to correct for this by limited terms of office, but better would be some filter to exclude the base.

This is difficult, however, since many don't show their true colors until they assume power. Then there needs to be a way of removing them democratically. Some US state constitutions provide for recall, but not the US Constitution.

Noah Way said...

Not sure how much any intelligence head can influence real policy. This seems more like a political position that is filled from a pre-approved selection of "candidates" who have all been clearly vetted by the shadow government for compliance with The Program.

Just like the presidency - at least until Trump, who had to be firmly pressed into compliance. One thing is for sure, they won't let that happen again.