Trump's Style of Arguing (Logic 101)

It's probably pretty well known by now--it's been going on for a long time--that when he is attacked in any way, Donald Trump fights back, lashes out. He tends to do this in a manner which is childish and illogical: he attacks the person rather than what they said about him. This is worthy only of a school child, and is known as the argumentum ad hominen. That means simply attacking the person rather than his ideas or comments or argument. In logic, it's considered one of the fallacies.

His latest is that he attacked former President Jimmy Carter. Carter questioned Trump's legitimacy as a president because his election may have depended on Russia's interference in the US presidential election in 2016.

Trump's response: Not trying to refute or dispute what Carter said, but saying Carter was "a  terrible president." Now, to try to be logical for just a second, let's suppose Carter was a terrible president--probably at least a somewhat arguable proposition. Even if he was, does that have any bearing on what he said?

As I said, and as anyone knows who has paid attention to things Trump has said for two or three years, he does this over and over again. I wonder how many people are swayed by this brand of terrible logic. As I have said before, I have to think that many people who listen to Trump, who pay attention to what he says, don't have the habits of thinking critically. Trump lies over and over (The New York Times, Washington Post, and CNN have often called attention to some of his lies). Sometimes it's not immediately apparent that something Trump said was a lie--we need to hear from "fact checkers" like the ones just mentioned--but other times even a moment's thought should tell the hearer that what he has said is not likely to be true. For example, some of his ridiculous and ego-serving assertions, like saying he's the greatest president ever. Other times there are photos, videos, and so forth that can tell us that Trump on an earlier occasion said the exact opposite of what he's saying now.

So my assertion is, Trump possibly would not be president if people were critical thinkers more of the time. And the people who continue to support him continue to uncritically take in what he says and take it as truth. It's very scary when he expects his assertions to be accepted and he can discredit the media by calling it "fake news." Manipulating public opinion by discrediting the media is a tactic used by dictators like Hitler.

Copyright © 2019.

Donald Trump, Ronald Reagan, and Their Attitudes toward Their Predecessors

I have to believe that Donald Trump has multiple staffers in the White House whose main or perhaps only job is to look over everything that former President Barack Obama did while he was in office, and especially his "executive orders" --so that Trump could reverse every one.

"Obama did this? Okay, now it's reversed." "Obama did that? I'll reverse it!"

I am not the first one to point out that Trump seems hell-bent on reversing every single thing that Obama did. "We don't like you, never did, and we're going to wipe out every last little bit of your legacy." Yes, Trump is that childish.

But this thumbing your nose at your predecessor reminds me of at least one thing that President Ronald Reagan did, some 30 years ago. His predecessor, Jimmy Carter, had installed solar panels on the White House roof. Reagan ordered the solar panels removed and dismantled.

Why on earth would he do this? Were there any bad or harmful results of having those solar panels there? Possibly Mr. Reagan thought that the hot water for his bath was not hot enough and so the entire water-heating system, as it was, needed to be substantially modified.

But I doubt that the reason was anything like that. I think Reagan just wanted to thumb his nose (or give the finger, or flip the bird. . .) to Carter. Jimmy Carter had told the American public that fossil fuels were a finite resource that needed to be conserved. He advocated for a more serious attitude toward energy use, perhaps even a bit of belt-tightening.

Reagan, on the other hand, comes along and, while campaigning for President, says, basically, We don't need to tighten the belt. Screw conservation. We are America and austerity is not for us. There is plenty of oil.

Incidentally, and at risk of straying from my subject: Reagan did not believe in government support of research into alternative energy sources. The day he took office he froze Department of Energy funding of alternative-energy research projects, thereby setting American alternative energy programs back by 30 years.

Copyright  © 2017

Reagan (and Bush) on Energy and Consumer Protection

News has it that President Obama is installing solar energy-producing panels on the roof of the White House.

This item, and earlier ones, reminded us that President Jimmy Carter had also installed solar panels on the White House roof—and then Ronald Reagan removed them. Why would he do this, when it must have cost taxpayers money to remove them? My guess is, simply to thumb his nose at environmentalists.

Also, as is not very well known, on the day of his inauguration, Reagan froze all funding of alternative energy research by the Department of Energy. I can tell you that a lot of alternative energy research that is being called for today or has recently been started up, was going on in 1981 when Reagan halted it. On the smaller scale, Reagan's move cost many jobs (including, ultimately, mine—so yes, I have a personal axe to grind here) but it also set back the efforts to find new energy sources by 30 years.

Many of the bad things that Reagan did (okay, bad at least from my perspective, or any liberal perspective) were not publicized at the time. Reagan was very popular—remember, he was called "the Teflon President," and the Press was afraid to criticize him because of that popularity.

For example, he gutted federal regulatory agencies such as the EPA and FDA that were intended by Congress to safeguard our food, water, air, and so forth. He appointed as heads of these agencies industry-sympathetic people or even industry insiders who had no intention of allowing these agencies to function effectively.

Similarly, Congress passed laws to beef up (no pun) government inspections of food-processing plants. Had these measures taken effect, they might have prevented some of the recent outbreaks of food-borne illnesses such as Salmonella and E. coli from eggs, peanut butter, and so forth (there have been many in the last few years). But the stiffer inspection schedules were never implemented, because of eight years of foot-dragging by the Bush administration.

Update, August 26, 2011
I recently learned that Rodger Mudd, of CBS TV news, did at the time report on Reagan removing the solar panels from the White House. It was a very brief news item and didn't mention any possible explanation.

Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein

Politics, Energy Policy, and Financial-System Reform

Anyone who pays attention to current news has heard about the environmental disaster in the making, due to an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. An offshore oil-drilling platform caught fire and then sank. This has resulted in loss of lives (I think 11 at latest estimate), plus some 40,000 gallons of oil per day are being spilled into the gulf waters.

Such accidents are a constant risk of offshore oil drilling. Yet President Obama recently issued an order to expand offshore oil drilling off the U.S. coast.

Yes, we need energy. For now, unfortunately, we need oil. But it still is surprising, disappointing, and saddening to Obama's liberal constituency and anyone concerned with the environment that he has done this. It seems to be a philosophy of "more oil at any cost." Well, I say, let people driving 3-ton SUVs pay more for their gas than they are currently. They don't care about the environment, and I'd like to see them bear more of a burden for their actions. (The U.S. still has gasoline for half of what it costs in Europe.)

Lest I seem to be attacking Democrats and a (supposedly) liberal president, let me hasten to lay some blame at the door of Republicans. The energy problem goes back at least 30 years. Or rather, 30 years ago, when things could have been done, they were not. The day of his inauguration, Ronald Reagan halted all U.S. Department of Energy funding for research on alternative energy. (I know this because I was working for a nonprofit engineering research group that did a lot of research into fuel from biomass, ocean thermal energy, fuel cells, and so forth. This institution depended very heavily on DOE contracts and was extremely impacted by Reagan's actions, and had to cut, eventually, two-thirds of their staff.) Other commentators have said that we have lost 30 years out of the alternative-energy program.

Ronald Reagan even stamped out or undid what was viewed as Jimmy Carter's last legacy: a solar water-heating system Carter had installed on the White House roof. I don't know what reason, if any, Reagan gave for this action. It was not publicized at the time, if I recall. I have to think it was just thumbing his nose at Carter, liberal policies, and environmentalism.

Also on the subject of Republicans: Right now they are opposing legislation in the Senate that would reform the financial system. During the years of laissez-faire, some of the reforms of the post-Depression era—such as the Glass-Stiegel Act, which separated banking from investment business--were repealed. That was a cause of the recent economic mess. (I think some of this occurred, in fact, under Clinton. Any reader, please correct me if I am wrong here.)

The Republican approach clearly is, "If the Democrats want it, we're going to oppose it." That's called obstructionism. In fact they are filibustering, which is nothing more nor less than an obstructing tactic.

But there is lots of evidence that the people want these reforms. The Republicans in Congress surely are professional politicians; we will see if they are astute politicians as well. To oppose the will of the people should result in their being voted out of office. That message probably is just now starting to penetrate their osseous skulls.

Note added April 29: The news on the oil spill continues to get worse. Yesterday they said it is much worse than originally estimated. Today they said that 210,000 gallons of oil are leaking into the Gulf every day. This promises to be one of the worst environmental disasters ever.

Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein