I suspect that most of us have known at least one person of average intelligence who forged his way ahead in life through the gift of gab, people skills (with the right people), and unflagging self-confidence (at least on the surface).
Someone with an average level of intelligence can succeed if he has the instincts to rely on the proper advice of others. See e.g. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan. Someone with a staggering level of intelligence can be a failure if they fail to rely on the proper advice of others. See e.g. Jimmy Carter. Someone with average intelligence can make terrible decisions if they don't rely on the proper advice of others due to believing they are smarter than they are. See e.g. Barak Obama. Someone with below average intelligence who believes they are brilliant can bring disaster. See e.g. Joe Biden.
I don't think Biden's assumption that problems are due to experts being incompetent, and that problems in fact are easily solved by the application of emotional intelligence, is surprising. I think it's a theme which liberal Democrats have followed for a generation. Bill Clinton's health care proposal was a mess because he assumed that the only reason there were problems with health care in this country was that no one before him really cared; that's why he farmed out the project to his wife and Ira Magaziner, who also behaved flippantly. Bernie Sanders thinks every problem can be traced to someone else's greed. Barack Obama said he was a better campaign strategist than his campaign strategist, etc.
As for his alleged "empathy," I gave up hope on liberals' empathy in 2007 when Nancy Pelosi pushed through a resolution calling for the abandonment of Iraq, and stood at the podium and raised her arms in a prominent cheer. She cheered abandoning twenty million men, women, and children to psychopathic fascist killers. That is what Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan did. What, exactly, does his indifference to suffering for a few days in August of 2021 tell us that we didn't already know? Are we supposed to believe that selling millions of people into slavery and death meant that he was still an OK guy, but indifference to a few bad pictures on TV means he's "icy"?
I disagreed with the decision to leave Afghanistan, but there were policy arguments in favor of leaving, and most Americans wanted us out. I don't think disagreeing with me (or you) about whether to stay in Afghanistan makes one morally hollow. I'm not that self-righteous.
Biden's cold reaction to the images from Kabul is different. A normal, morally grounded person could regard the consequences of our withdrawal as acceptable on balance, given competing considerations, but still be moved by images of those consequences. Biden's reaction is evidence that he is not such a person.
The "normal, morally grounded person" you invoke would, like you and me, be an outside observer, not the person responsible for the decision. The observer could regard the impending suffering of the Afghan people as a shame, without feeling any personal shame for bringing it on. Biden was personally responsible, more than any other American. Watching the suffering on TV for a few days would force him to confront the real meaning of his actions. He had an incentive to be detached, to enter denial, to treat it as just a TV show, not something real which he should be bothered to care about.
I never read real policy arguments for leaving -- that is, arguments that leaving would be worth the ensuing catastrophe. I think the advocates for leaving didn't care about the consequences, any more than Nancy Pelosi cared about the Iraqi people, or George McGovern cared about the Vietnamese and Cambodian people, or Vivek Ramaswamy cares about the people of the ROC. The policy arguments are some variant of "get this war off TV because I don't like seeing bloody pictures." I assumed that Biden's basic withdrawal plan, like Trump's was to get the cameras out first so that no one would have to see the consequences, and that his real screwup was not getting the cameras out first.
Someone with an average level of intelligence can succeed if he has the instincts to rely on the proper advice of others. See e.g. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan. Someone with a staggering level of intelligence can be a failure if they fail to rely on the proper advice of others. See e.g. Jimmy Carter. Someone with average intelligence can make terrible decisions if they don't rely on the proper advice of others due to believing they are smarter than they are. See e.g. Barak Obama. Someone with below average intelligence who believes they are brilliant can bring disaster. See e.g. Joe Biden.
I don't think Biden's assumption that problems are due to experts being incompetent, and that problems in fact are easily solved by the application of emotional intelligence, is surprising. I think it's a theme which liberal Democrats have followed for a generation. Bill Clinton's health care proposal was a mess because he assumed that the only reason there were problems with health care in this country was that no one before him really cared; that's why he farmed out the project to his wife and Ira Magaziner, who also behaved flippantly. Bernie Sanders thinks every problem can be traced to someone else's greed. Barack Obama said he was a better campaign strategist than his campaign strategist, etc.
As for his alleged "empathy," I gave up hope on liberals' empathy in 2007 when Nancy Pelosi pushed through a resolution calling for the abandonment of Iraq, and stood at the podium and raised her arms in a prominent cheer. She cheered abandoning twenty million men, women, and children to psychopathic fascist killers. That is what Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan did. What, exactly, does his indifference to suffering for a few days in August of 2021 tell us that we didn't already know? Are we supposed to believe that selling millions of people into slavery and death meant that he was still an OK guy, but indifference to a few bad pictures on TV means he's "icy"?
I disagreed with the decision to leave Afghanistan, but there were policy arguments in favor of leaving, and most Americans wanted us out. I don't think disagreeing with me (or you) about whether to stay in Afghanistan makes one morally hollow. I'm not that self-righteous.
Biden's cold reaction to the images from Kabul is different. A normal, morally grounded person could regard the consequences of our withdrawal as acceptable on balance, given competing considerations, but still be moved by images of those consequences. Biden's reaction is evidence that he is not such a person.
The "normal, morally grounded person" you invoke would, like you and me, be an outside observer, not the person responsible for the decision. The observer could regard the impending suffering of the Afghan people as a shame, without feeling any personal shame for bringing it on. Biden was personally responsible, more than any other American. Watching the suffering on TV for a few days would force him to confront the real meaning of his actions. He had an incentive to be detached, to enter denial, to treat it as just a TV show, not something real which he should be bothered to care about.
I never read real policy arguments for leaving -- that is, arguments that leaving would be worth the ensuing catastrophe. I think the advocates for leaving didn't care about the consequences, any more than Nancy Pelosi cared about the Iraqi people, or George McGovern cared about the Vietnamese and Cambodian people, or Vivek Ramaswamy cares about the people of the ROC. The policy arguments are some variant of "get this war off TV because I don't like seeing bloody pictures." I assumed that Biden's basic withdrawal plan, like Trump's was to get the cameras out first so that no one would have to see the consequences, and that his real screwup was not getting the cameras out first.
Great. And things are even worse when we consider who's in the on-deck circle. Jim Dueholm.
"Maybe Biden is as hollow emotionally as he is intellectually." Maybe?