Several readers have written to me about the interview with philosopher Scott Soames (USC) posted last week. It's quite an enjoyable and interesting interview, as Professor Soames speaks plainly and candidly about so many events in his life, both intellectual and personal. But that is not what seems to have most caught the attention of readers; instead it was this:
How do you feel about Trump's performance so far?
Very good on judges, good on foreign affairs, largely good on the economy — GDP, unemployment, work-force participation, wage growth, the stock market — but I worry that the deficits remain far too large. Pretty good on balancing the value of free trade against the need to protect certain parts of the country, certain groups of workers, and portions of our economy from stagnation or decline. I am concerned about the needs of the working and lower middle classes who have suffered economically, socially, and culturally in the last 30 or 40 years. I think they are right in seeing Trump as someone who takes them more seriously than elite politicians normally do. Finally, I suspect Trump views the vast apparatus of the administrative state with the proper skepticism.
No criticisms of Trump strike you as fair? Thoughts on impeachment?
Of course some criticisms are fair, as would true of any leader. But Trump is more sinned against than sinning. His enemies have been looking for ways to remove him, or to cripple his ability to govern, since before his inauguration. He had to fight back with equal intensity. I see no valid grounds for impeachment. I do see grounds for thoroughly investigating, and perhaps prosecuting, some of those who led the witch hunt against him.
Here's a typical missive I got about this:
I am very puzzled by Professor Soames - clearly he is a highly intelligent and extremely well educated man, far more so than your humble correspondent and yet he supported Reagan and supports Trump. I find this inexplicable (although I confess that I am also disconcerted because there is a small part of me which would echo Bob Dylan’s words “Sometimes I wonder if it’s them or me that’s insane”). So, my question to you is simply ‘Why is it so?’ If you have the time (I appreciate you are a busy man) I would be very grateful for your thoughts, either by email or perhaps on your blog - I suspect there would be many other readers who share my puzzlement.
I don't think either I, my correspondent, or Soames are insane. As Professor Soames aptly observed elsewhere in the interview,
Of course I am much more conservative than most philosophy professors, but probably not much more conservative than the average American of my age. In my own case, I can see the factors in my family and early life that make my orientation pretty natural. Something similar is probably true of other philosophers whose political ordinations are quite different from mine.
This is surely right: the emotional identifications of one's youth color profoundly most people's later political (and moral) sympathies. And yet, still, it is disappointing that "family and early life" could blind anyone, let alone an educated person, to Trump in the way it appears to have blinded Soames, especially regarding the impeachment question. Consider this very clear, to-the-point explanation of Trump's impeachable wrongdoing. It's hard to see how any of this is disputable, except by the self-interested liars in the House and Senate. Or consider this longer assessment from a lawyer, noted the other day. And, finally, here's another longer, but apt, take from George Conway, a movement conservative but not a fascist (this is the lawyer, recall, who managed Paula Jones's lawsuit against Bill Clinton).
Anyone who has watched Donald Trump since the 1980s knows that Mr. Conway is exactly right: he will betray his oath of office again, as he already has multiple times, including with his attempt to obstruct the Russia investigation (the amazing thing about the latter is that the allegations about Russia never seemed very plausible, as I noted long ago, and yet he managed to commit repeated crimnial obstruction offenses of an investigation into a case where it did not appear he had engaged in wrongdoing!). If Mr. Conway, a far more politically active and diehard conservative than Professor Soames could see the light, why can't he? It is puzzling, but there is little more familiar in life than people with excellent skills in one domain (e.g., philosophy of language) being quite ignorant or naive in others.
Recent Comments