Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
History judges on the whole of a persons performance.
Is history already judging? Are you a historian in judgement? What particular history are you referring to? Henry Ford said "History is more or less bunk."
I think he was partially right. Depends on how accurate and truthful it is.
Pure history doesn't judge. It records. If history is of any use to us other than some sort of academic pleasure, if it is used as a tool in making general or particular judgments on how to live in the present, then the more accurate, the more truthful it is, the more valuable it is.
What we say today is only useful to the future if it is true. So it behooves us to make accurate, truthful, arguments and reports. Commentary that is speculative, conjectural, rather than factual, can mislead those in the future who depend on the record of what we say today. And that can lead to false judgments and failed societies who read them as truth.
The divide is like between the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street?
I didn't say that. I mentioned it as an example of the major division that was already brewing well before Trump. In my opinion, Trump is a result of our huge divide, not the cause of it.
One a powerful part of a major party and the other a splinter group?
They were developing trends. They were indicators of which direction the parties were going. Of what message either party would use to give the base a choice. Many establishment Republicans were afraid of the Tea Party, considered it a splinter group of sorts, and helped to eventually marginalize it. Especially after it helped them to win elections, they pretty much abandoned anything to do with it.
Yes, Occupy Wall Street is like the left wing of the democratic party, but the Trumplican Cult is far to the right of most Americans.
Few people see Nixon as having a good record, well then again you wouldn't be happy with his successes anyways.
|
Trump won in 2016 and reportedly got 74 million votes in 2020. That's a pretty huge "cult." And he doesn't seem to be far right, whatever that is. How many times does he have to condemn white supremacy, if that's what you mean by far right. He got a greater percentage of Black and Latino votes than many previous Republican Presidents.
You're deep into labeling and branding. To me that's an escape from fact to metaphor. Not very useful, other than to smear and deceitfully win political war.
And Nixon was quite Progressive, whatever that's worth. Nixon is refried political leftovers. Feast on him as much as you want. Not interested at this time.