No one reading the Bulwark fails to grasp that bigoted voters are the downside of democracy. It is the worst form of government, except for all the others. What is most troubling to me is the pandering for votes by people who should know better -- or at least we think they should know better based on their credentials. I don't know Duke …
No one reading the Bulwark fails to grasp that bigoted voters are the downside of democracy. It is the worst form of government, except for all the others. What is most troubling to me is the pandering for votes by people who should know better -- or at least we think they should know better based on their credentials. I don't know Duke (Greitens), but I am quite familiar with the "Ivys" and Stanford (Hawley), and one does not generally think of Rhodes Scholars (Greitens) as school-yard bullies. Carol S, above, invoked "moral indulgence" which of course leads to the age old questions about the relationship of intellect to virtue. We do seem to elect to office persons of scholastic achievement (note, this too does not confer intellect) and other accomplishments in keeping with our ideals for leadership, but too many fail on the question of virtue, and most destructively, it would seem some of them are making a false virtue of meanness.
This is what makes it most sad. If I recall, I believe at one point Greitens supported Obama and even flirted with running as a Democrat.
By the way, let me repeat, what the heck is up with Rhodes Scholars? I mean seriously. These people are some of the worst characters. Someone needs to discuss the selection requirements with the Cecil Rhodes Trust.
As the parent of a 17 year old currently looking at colleges, I can say that I am not surprised by the character (or lack thereof) in many Ivy League and near Ivy League grads. My son, who is a straight A, G&T student, told me that many of the kids in his classes are so consumed with academic success that they "have no souls." While that is a bit hyperbolic, I think what he is saying is that these kids have no social skills, and are ill-equipped to deal with the world. They are so focused on academic achievement that they cannot countenance any crook in the path (right school, right profession, right company/firm, etc.). The stories of kids in his class that threatened suicide because they received a C+ in AP Physics and/or Calculus is too many to count. This sort of mental anguish and unwillingness to deal with reality can lead people to strange places. I imagine someone like Greitens, as well as Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz (all Ivy leaguers), got to a place in life, realized that to achieve the ultimate success (POTUS) they would need to make compromises, and have now lost themselves. Cruz is the worst, only because at one point he pretended to have principals. Hawley is just a punk and a charlatan.
No one reading the Bulwark fails to grasp that bigoted voters are the downside of democracy. It is the worst form of government, except for all the others. What is most troubling to me is the pandering for votes by people who should know better -- or at least we think they should know better based on their credentials. I don't know Duke (Greitens), but I am quite familiar with the "Ivys" and Stanford (Hawley), and one does not generally think of Rhodes Scholars (Greitens) as school-yard bullies. Carol S, above, invoked "moral indulgence" which of course leads to the age old questions about the relationship of intellect to virtue. We do seem to elect to office persons of scholastic achievement (note, this too does not confer intellect) and other accomplishments in keeping with our ideals for leadership, but too many fail on the question of virtue, and most destructively, it would seem some of them are making a false virtue of meanness.
This is what makes it most sad. If I recall, I believe at one point Greitens supported Obama and even flirted with running as a Democrat.
By the way, let me repeat, what the heck is up with Rhodes Scholars? I mean seriously. These people are some of the worst characters. Someone needs to discuss the selection requirements with the Cecil Rhodes Trust.
As the parent of a 17 year old currently looking at colleges, I can say that I am not surprised by the character (or lack thereof) in many Ivy League and near Ivy League grads. My son, who is a straight A, G&T student, told me that many of the kids in his classes are so consumed with academic success that they "have no souls." While that is a bit hyperbolic, I think what he is saying is that these kids have no social skills, and are ill-equipped to deal with the world. They are so focused on academic achievement that they cannot countenance any crook in the path (right school, right profession, right company/firm, etc.). The stories of kids in his class that threatened suicide because they received a C+ in AP Physics and/or Calculus is too many to count. This sort of mental anguish and unwillingness to deal with reality can lead people to strange places. I imagine someone like Greitens, as well as Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz (all Ivy leaguers), got to a place in life, realized that to achieve the ultimate success (POTUS) they would need to make compromises, and have now lost themselves. Cruz is the worst, only because at one point he pretended to have principals. Hawley is just a punk and a charlatan.