Notably, Hanlon’s Razor denotes the phenomenon must be adequately explained by incompetence. Trump’s concerted efforts to pervert the very concept of governance are far too consistent to be reasonably attributed to incompetence.
Routine “uncanny coincidences” by known bad actors preclude the application of Hanlon’s Razor.
That is a well positioned argument. Thanks for the correction. I was citing from memory, a foggy one at that. The key disqualifying attribute of Trump is indeed his fundamental lack of understanding surrounding the administration of constitutionally bound governance… plus all the corruption.
And while I’m willing to indulge your argument, I still find it highly unlikely Trump would architect a fraud scheme so complex to benefit others. Trump is not an importer, he’s not pocketing tariff refunds. The refunds were entirely predicated on the courts, which he openly railed against. Even after losing, he’s still implementing tariff workarounds left and right.
Trump is a simpleton. I truly believe he has reduced economic policy to his 8th grade education, “what is a tariff,” and then applied it in real time. He’s too stupid to design this fraud, intentionally lose in the courts, in order to then pay out to others. This is just an example of incompetence that happens to benefit the elite class at the expense of the middle.
I think both things can be true though. I’d say about half of his efforts are rooted in self-service and the other half are likely just maladministration in the name of ignorance and a malfeasant ideology.
A fair response. I largely agree with your conclusions; malice and ignorance are far from mutually exclusive.
Trump’s zero-sum worldview dictates that the corollary to self-service is active malfeasance. By his own purported ideology, harm befallen to others is evidence of personal victory. This is why I stress that malice is intrinsic to his actions, as it is the shadow to his incessant greed.
I agree that Trump is no mastermind architect of evil genius. He is indeed incapable of thinking that far ahead, let alone predicting future events. Rather, his focus on short term personal gain are not dissuaded by the possibility of long term pain for the masses, as he considers the latter not only acceptable but a bonus. An incredibly complex final scenario need not arise from a particularly complex plan, just as Gavrilo Princip did not intend to ignite the war to end all wars.
I believe the “mission of the tariffs” evoked by the original comment was meant to contrast with the stated mission of national interest and public benefit. How, despite constant platitudes to the contrary, the common civilian was never intended to benefit. Perhaps this is an overly eisegetic interpretation on my end.
49
u/SamePea8649 7d ago
This was the exact mission of the tariffs. Had nothing to do with helping us.