|
> It doesn't seem to be in the same category of things as the sorts of things Trump's doing. Indeed. While we have similar laws regarding denaturalization, Trump did not make them. But you're probably right about the rest; I doubt a Tory PM would demonstrate the same level of sloppy, slapdash, incompetent jackassery we're seeing from the new occupant of the Oval Office. Tangentially: I get there's a lot of fear going around on the subject of authoritarianism, dictatorship, Nazis, et al. I don't buy it, not least because we had the same with Bush, and the only difference of note in today's rhetoric is that it's as much hotter and faster as the Internet that powers it - remember that Facebook and Twitter weren't a thing back then. (So far we've come!) Trump is no Hitler, though, any more than Bush was. He's not even a Mussolini. He might be some fraction of a Berlusconi, but most of all, at least to judge his performance so far, he's an utter boob, and not the first we've had in the office. I suppose an appeal for moderation in rhetoric, and awareness of history in one's analysis, is foredoomed to mockery and oblivion in this age of hot takes and clickbait. But it might ease the mind a bit to take, where you can, a somewhat longer view. |
As an example, you say "he's an utter noob", and, sure, that is one of the possibilities. But it's not the only possibility, so one would be wrong to say that it's obvious, for example, that he's an utter noob. He might be, or he might not be. How do you know? And those other possibilities have to be considered too, to be fair. It'd be wrong to dismiss them straight up as clickbait without examining the merits.
(I'm not sure if you meant noob or boob, it looked like a typo to me, but as luck would have it, my reply works both ways.)