Althouse: "Have we ever had a president before this one who so disdains the advice and policies of those who have spent their lives working for the government he leads?"

October 30, 2019

"Have we ever had a president before this one who so disdains the advice and policies of those who have spent their lives working for the government he leads?"

"Have we ever had a chief executive who is so skeptical of the judgments of career diplomats and military leaders, who rejects the advice of top intelligence leaders, who trusts his family more than those with a lifetime of experience? Yes we have. And his name was John Fitzgerald Kennedy.... Throughout Kennedy’s presidency, he came more and more to distrust the received wisdom of the 'permanent government' or 'deep state' or 'military-industrial complex' or whatever term seems apt today. In his case, that skepticism may have saved the planet from nuclear annihilation.... [I]n the reflexive rush to criticize Trump, we risk forgetting the lesson of the Kennedy years: There is danger in relying too heavily on the 'wisdom' of the elders. A president with a well-honed resistance to the certainties of experts and a strong sense of history can be a crucial protection against disaster..."

From "When JFK Was Trump/In the rush to criticize the current president, we risk forgetting the lesson of the Kennedy years: There is danger in relying too heavily on the 'wisdom' of the elders" by Jeff Greenfield (in Politico).

101 comments:

daskol said...: I hope Greenfield is ready for his doxxing.; 10/30/19, 6:21 AM
rehajm said...: I’m always reminded of Bobby when Trump haters bring this up. Also...Hillary. Remember her husband was President for a time, too...

It only becomes a real problem when the decisions are proven to be bad. Making up fake diplomatic crises to try and oust a political opponent doesn’t count.; 10/30/19, 6:23 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: The people who once excoriated Presidents for involving us in Vietnam now complain that the current President won't mire us in Syria.

Cross-reference this with yesterday's 'Boomer' post, perhaps?

I am Laslo.; 10/30/19, 6:31 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961 farewell address:

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”; 10/30/19, 6:35 AM
David Begley said...: These government employees want to impose their policies on POTUS. Trump was elected by these people to enact the policies he campaigned on.

If the Deep State had its way, the US would still be in the Paris Agreement and Iran Deal. I heard Samantha Power say that exact thing in Austin on Saturday.

Elections have consequences.; 10/30/19, 6:36 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: A rather dim real estate heir and a hand bag retailer are not exactly the top draw of external advisors.; 10/30/19, 6:36 AM
iowan2 said...: I have been saying the same thing forever. Yelling it at the TV screen while watching msnbc
The sanctimonious air heads go on and on about President Trump ignoring the Generals, and Intell experts (read spies), bypassing career diplomats. My response? The constitution specifically rests the power of Military control in civilian hands. The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief. Full stop. Donald Trump is doing exactly what the constitution directs. A civilian commanding the military. The current dust up is manufactured by the media. Yet another conduit to get to the same destination, Orange man bad. But President Trump campaigned on getting out of endless military babysitting operations, where United States interests are increasingly hard to identify. Getting out of Syria was not a rash decision. President Trump gave the military and the State Department 3 years to structure the withdraw.

Imagine that. The Generals, and the Diplomats, are so smart, have so much more experience, More educated on the history, a complete understanding of the mission. These experts are so accomplished, they could not, by the shear force of their massive brains, convince just one person, what the right thing to do is. Just one person, is all they had to convince of their righteousness. But these Career, experts, with right, on their side, failed to convince Donald J. Trump. Three years and these experts failed to convince their Commander to acquiesce to their superior position.
Quite the display of brain power, and experience; 10/30/19, 6:41 AM
Amadeus 48 said...: Experts and incumbents have a huge stake in the status quo. Their dismissal is an existential threat to them. Who wouldn't fight to retain their own authority, status, and power?

Freedom is death threat to the "you may/you may not" crowd. It is a concern to the "you should/you should not" crew. It is a challenge to the "I know better than you" party.

I used to avidly read and follow George Will, Bret Stephens, Jonah Goldberg, etc., but they have lost me. I am aware of Trump's shortcomings, but who was the alternative (sorry, Althouse)? How has Trump done? How have his critics done? On substance, what has he proposed that is unprecedented? His manner is offbeat and to a degree loutish, but so what?; 10/30/19, 6:43 AM
traditionalguy said...: JFK and DJT were both raised by fathers that were self made men who learned how to fight the power establishment on their way up inside its ranks. And they passed those truths needed to survive on the struggle to their sons. And both sons have been targeted as usurpers who are not from British connected, and Skull & Bones initiated, families. So far DJT has survived and his enemies are falling away one at a time.; 10/30/19, 6:50 AM
MikeR said...: Interesting. Of course this includes the required attacks on Trump; he at least is definitely the one who is wrong...; 10/30/19, 6:53 AM
virgil xenophon said...: How does that old saying go? " 'Experts' should be on call NOT on top."; 10/30/19, 6:54 AM
Wilbur said...: The crowd at the World Series game which the President attended was largely Washington career bureaucrats. That's who buys the season tickets. No wonder those Deep State pieces of shit booed him.; 10/30/19, 6:55 AM
Ralph L said...: And he bears substantial responsibility for sending 15,000 “combat advisers” into Vietnam.

Substantial!

Some of the "wise men" actually wanted to win--instead of just not lose--but neither JFK nor LBJ was willing to risk doing what that required. It was Kennedy's weakness in Vienna, Berlin, and BoPigs that emboldened Nikita in Cuba.; 10/30/19, 6:57 AM
minnesota farm guy said...: As a reminder of why to not mindlessly follow the advice of experts, reread: David Halberstam "Best and Brightest"; H. R. McMaster "Dereliction of Duty"; Philip Caputo "A Rumor of War"; James Webb "Fields of Fire". And remember Lincoln's response to the experts who wanted to remove Grant: " I cannot spare this man. He fights."; 10/30/19, 6:59 AM
wendybar said...: And look how great of a job they have done.....I will take a President who gets things done...not just says what you want to hear.; 10/30/19, 7:00 AM
Tank said...: A big part of the reason he was elected was to ignore these forever gov't workers who think they own this country, not the voters. Tucker was talking about this last night. There is a confusion about whether the permanent gov't is there to do the work of the President on foreign policy, or vice versa.; 10/30/19, 7:00 AM
Another old lawyer said...: One weird article. Basically, they are alike only because they don't believe everything or even much from those who have been entrenched in govt for their careers. But per Greenfield, Kennedy because he was essentially enlightened and informed by his knowledge and judgment, Trump because, well, not those reasons. Maybe just dumb luck?

Even those who appreciate Trump's results or big picture attributes can't give him credit while they simultaneously worship other deeply flawed leaders who acted more traditionally 'presidential.'; 10/30/19, 7:03 AM
Amadeus 48 said...: Has anyone considered the senior military staff that Trump inherited from Obama? During the Obama years there was a major purge of senior officers who didn't buy into Obama ideology. I am sure we are all relieved to know that the senior ranks of the US military stand together on gender issues and climate change.

If Trump wanted something different, there would be pushback from incumbents. And there is.; 10/30/19, 7:03 AM
rehajm said...: I don't usually respond to the ARM bot but seems to me ...

X > community organizer

...where X is defined as...pretty much anyone who's had any kind of real job, and the world didn't stop spinning...

We bitch about experience and qualifications of so many political positions like President or diplomatic or military expert when we're all just making shit up as we go.; 10/30/19, 7:04 AM
traditionalguy said...: Always remember that in the Armed Forces most General Officers are appointed because the played ball with the politician Generals/Admirals better than the others who were retired and not promoted. Ability has nothing to do with it, except the ability to play the political games better than others. Catch 22 told this truth disguised as a comedy.; 10/30/19, 7:05 AM
exhelodrvr1 said...: You can always find "experts" on both sides of an argument. But it doesn't really matter at this point, since climate change is going to kill us all in 10 years.; 10/30/19, 7:12 AM
iowan2 said...: A rather dim real estate heir and a hand bag retailer are not exactly the top draw of external advisors.

Put ARM in the column, AGAINST civilian control of he military. The constitution is so yesterdays news.; 10/30/19, 7:12 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: In short, Trump is not sufficiently deferential to the unelected fourth branch of government, much of which has been in open revolt against him (and the Constitution) since well before his inauguration. They all seem to believe that he owes loyalty to them, instead of the other way around, them owing loyalty to him. He, of course, was the one elected President, and all the power that they wield is derivative of his power, under the first sentence of Article II. (And, yes, most of the federal bureaucracy are Democrats who voted for his opponent, Crooked Hillary).

Most of those involved in SpyGate were career bureaucrats, led by Obama political appointees. They were mostly high ranking GS employees, with a smattering of SES, and then FBI DDir McCabe in a unique super-SES position. All members of the permanent bureaucracy. All working to destroy his Presidency.

This shouldn't surprise anyone. The federal bureaucracy is staffed mostly by Democrats because that party is the one that inevitably pushes for a bigger, more powerful central government, giving the federal bureaucrats ever more power. One of the big problems with bureaucracies is that they fairly quickly devolve into private fiefdoms, where their own aggrandizement and garnering of power replace loyalty to the organization, itself (in this case, their loyalty to the President and our Constitutional Republic).; 10/30/19, 7:12 AM
pacwest said...: If you don't pay enough attention to the entrenched interests they become unhappy. We can't have that!; 10/30/19, 7:13 AM
Lou M said...: This is not news, and somewhere David Halberstam ("The Best and the Brightest") is smiling...; 10/30/19, 7:15 AM
Lurker21 said...: It's different in the Kennedy had more experience in government and understanding of how it works. Kennedy probably did listen to the experts more than Trump does, and when he didn't take their advice his reasons for doing so were probably better thought out than Trump's. Even if he didn't take their advice, Kennedy did listen to the "Wise Men" from the older generation, rather than regard them as creatures in a swamp that had to be drained. I think Kennedy is overrated, and I don't hate Trump, but that's the way it is.

Also, not listening to the experts didn't always work out well for Kennedy. If I remember correctly, the diplomats told him how to deal with Khrushchev at Vienna, and he didn't listen and felt humiliated afterwards. Then there was the "Don't get into a land war in Asia" talk with MacArthur. Kennedy didn't listen then and the country paid the price (and some other countries did, too, I guess). MacArthur was just the sort of old fossil that Kennedy's team despised, but he turned out to be right.

Kennedy had his own team of advisers. They were smug and arrogant and blundering, and they weren't entirely different from the entrenched bureaucrats, though they thought they were, but arguably they had a better grasp of what was going on than Trump's team does. At least they were better organized, more disciplined, and more loyal. Maybe a better analogy to JFK would be GWB: bring in a well-oiled, determined team, ignore adverse or skeptical opinions, and look what happens.; 10/30/19, 7:16 AM
TrespassersW said...: I'd sure like it if somebody in the Deep State--or perhaps a thumbsucker from the Lickspittle Media who, after months of telling us there was no Deep State, is now telling us that the Deep State's attempts to get rid of Trump are a Good Thing--could point out some positive results of their work. Instead, we're told about the positions they hold or their educational degrees as a reason why we should trust them.

There's an old joke defining an expert (and it works best in spoken rather than written word): An ex is a has-been and a spurt is a drip under pressure. Given the results we've gotten from the self-styled "experts" inside the beltway, that definition seems spot on.; 10/30/19, 7:16 AM
alanc709 said...: I wasn't aware that the Secretary of State selects the President. I thought it was the other way around. Diplomats IMPLEMENT policy, they don't set it.; 10/30/19, 7:19 AM
Big Mike said...: I’d have more sympathy for the self-alleged experts if (1) they hadn’t spent the first three years of Trump’s term of office undercutting him at every turn, and (2) their prophecies of doom had ever once come true. Syria is a case in point. Remembering the “expert” predictions from 17 days ago when the pullout was announced, and if the doomsayers had been even halfway right then by now every Kurdish man, woman, and child should have been slaughtered by a massive Turkish invasion into northern Syria. Didn’t happen, did it?; 10/30/19, 7:23 AM
h said...: I'm retired, but I spent my working life in government and academia analyzing public policies in a limited area. The problem I face in defending myself and fellow experts is that our recommendations have not succeeded in a number of areas: Poverty, race, education, immigration. We create elegant models and empirical evaluations, but it is difficult to point to successes. Part of the problem is that conservatives don't want to admit that government activity has been successful, because that makes it harder to argue that smaller government is justified, and liberals don't want to admit the problems have been solved because that makes it harder to argue that government programs are no longer needed.

Trump and Brexit illustrate the voters' rejection of the smarty-pants class.; 10/30/19, 7:36 AM
tim maguire said...: But that doesn't help impeachment, which is based in part on Trump taking the advice of his advisers as advice rather than instructions. So Kennedy must be shoved aside.; 10/30/19, 7:37 AM
Larry J said...: The "experts" have run up a national debt of over $20 trillion, yet they want to tell me how to manage my money. They've created a mess of foreign policy. They've made a shit show of just about everything they touch, and they expect us to keep on listening to them. Why should we?

And to Shouting Thomas, Eisenhower also said this in his farewell address:

"Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system-ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society."; 10/30/19, 7:38 AM
AlbertAnonymous said...: Any president have those same “leaders” and “experienced lifers” literally spying on his campaign and transition team?

Fuck off!

(Sorry, I’ve been watching too much Succession on HBO); 10/30/19, 7:41 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: “ I have been saying the same thing forever. Yelling it at the TV screen while watching msnbc
The sanctimonious air heads go on and on about President Trump ignoring the Generals, and Intell experts (read spies), bypassing career diplomats.”

What must always be remembered here is that flag rank is inevitably political. (And a lot of Colonels and Navy Captains are bucking for flag rank). Their promotions require Presidential approval. Most of the generals and admirals whom Trump inherited had been promoted by his predecessor, President Obama. Many even receiving their first star under him. This is always a problem with new administrations, but is probably worse here, because Obama appears to have put more emphasis on ideological orthodoxy in those of flag rank whom he promoted. By the end of his term, we had our Navy, already stretched thin, by all of Obama’s wars, and unable to keep enough of its aircraft flying due to shortages of replacement parts, converting the Navy over to fuel costing 3x as much, in order to save the planet due to bogus, politically convenient, climate “science”.

This is not all bad. It is one of the keys to our civilian control over our military. It gives us a top tier in the military that owes loyalty to the President, and not just their military branch. Except, of course, that their loyalty can often be to the President who promoted them, over the President under who they are now serving.; 10/30/19, 7:42 AM
roesch/voltaire said...: I don’t think a strong sense of history or even knowledge of the constitution describes Trump who seems to enjoy attacking decorated veterans, and trusting Putin’s word over his intelligences agency—something Kennedy never did.; 10/30/19, 7:47 AM
Seeing Red said...: Have we ever had a president before this one who so disdains the advice and policies of those who have spent their lives working for the government he leads? Have we ever had a chief executive who is so skeptical of the judgments of career diplomats and military leaders, who rejects the advice of top intelligence leaders, who trusts his family more than those with a lifetime of experience?

These douches believe socialism will work. (Because they’re the experts. The like-minded are in charge,)

I don’t trust them either. They get so many things wrong.

In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash.

Trust, but verify.

The experts told us we’d have to live with the USSR. Ronnie told the career experts look at things a different way.

I’m from the Government, I’m here to help.; 10/30/19, 8:05 AM
Seeing Red said...: And remember Lincoln's response to the experts who wanted to remove Grant: " I cannot spare this man. He fights."

There’s the response. Who was right? The farm boy who taught himself by lantern or the experts?

4 score and seven years ago....; 10/30/19, 8:13 AM
Jaq said...: Yes, the CIA wold never lie to anybody. And wearing a fancy uniform proves a person’s motives are pure love of country and so their interpretation of what is good for the country should never be questioned.

If a guy in a uniform says that it was OK to give Biden’s son over three million dollars just for political protection, then it’s our duty as patriots to accept his judgement!; 10/30/19, 8:14 AM
Amadeus 48 said...: "Part of the problem is that conservatives don't want to admit that government activity has been successful, because that makes it harder to argue that smaller government is justified, and liberals don't want to admit the problems have been solved because that makes it harder to argue that government programs are no longer needed."

If I believed that, there would a trove of hidden successful outcomes from government and foundation programs. Care to name a few?

I think it is more likely that government and foundation programs over-promise and under-deliver, leading to pressure to double down on under-performance. The lack of profit motive leads to a lack of conceptual and operational discipline. Cory Booker and Mark Zuckerburg spent $100 million of Zuckerburg's money to fix Newark's schools. It didn't work. The stakeholders piled in, and the money disappeared. The schools got worse.

Profit discipline is a powerful force for effectiveness.; 10/30/19, 8:14 AM
Rick said...: Trump is smart not to trust people who would rather America fail than he succeed.; 10/30/19, 8:16 AM
Anonymous said...: It's been fun watching so many progressives and liberals morph into Colonel Blimp under the Trump administration.

The stupidity in the comments to the linked article is predictable, but the Blimpian piety mixed with the schoolgirlish Kennedy veneration is kind of interesting, as an aspect of their take-over of the ultra-reactionary political niche.; 10/30/19, 8:25 AM
Amadeus 48 said...: r/v at 7:47--you need to stop watching so much MSNBC.

Here's an alternative view: Trump is cynically playing Putin by publicly praising him but always in action putting the interests of the USA first. He has just handed Putin a can of worms in Syria. Whatever he says, Trump is angling for advantage over Putin and an irredentist Russia.Trump is not handing the keys to the castle to Putin the way the the civilized, sophisticated Germans have by abandoning their power generation capability in favor of purchasing Russian natural gas. Trump is using Putin.

"Attacking decorated veterans" is a reductive and absurd characterization of disagreements with flag-rank officers who achieved their positions by kowtowing to President Obama and who, if still serving, are subordinates, and if retired, are just citizens like you and me.; 10/30/19, 8:26 AM
William said...: I'm reading the Manchester biography of Churchill. During the WWI war years, there were a number of politicians, including Churchill, who were skeptical of the military strategy. The generals wanted a war of attrition which involved huge battles and casualties in the tens of thousands on a single day. The thinking was that, however many of their own troops died, if you killed more Germans than eventually you would win the war. The generals had the support of the press and the public. None of the politicians voiced their reservations in public.
That would be career suicide.....The military industrial complex is one thing, but it doesn't really approach a totalitarian level of control until the press and the media get solidly behind it.; 10/30/19, 8:32 AM
narciso said...: no halberstam had things aggressively wrong on Vietnam, he relied on the insights of a viet cong spy, and it was that view that influenced kennedy, that led harriman to push the diem coup,

now dulles, cabell and co, didn't have the presence of mind to tell him, one couldn't change the landing site from Trinidad, near the escambray mountains, to playa giron, which was fidel's alternate cabin, only accessible from one road,; 10/30/19, 8:40 AM
n.n said...: An acute and progressive phobia normalized with ulterior motives by domestic and foreign special and peculiar interests.; 10/30/19, 8:42 AM
William said...: Eisenhower kindly turned down France's invitation to join them in Vietnam. Ike wasn't the one who gave the green light on the Bay of Pigs, There was no missile crisis during his time in office. That's a feature not a bug. The trick is to avoid a crisis that puts us on the brink of nuclear annihilation and not to negotiate us out of one.....Kennedy was the one who recruited the best and the brightest and, to this day, has the fanboy support of the media. Was it true that he got Dr. Feelgood injections during the crisis or had a booty call with his Mafia comfort woman during the crisis? If true, those facts would heighten our understanding of the Cuban Missile Crisis.; 10/30/19, 8:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Lurker21: Kennedy probably did listen to the experts more than Trump does, and when he didn't take their advice his reasons for doing so were probably better thought out than Trump's.

Could be, but we don't know that. All we have is the loud constant chorus of not particularly reliable speakers telling us, not showing us, that Trump is impulsive and thoughtless and doesn't take advice. The "evidence" for these alleged personal failings is generally no more than an appeal to authority: that the course of action preferred by these speakers has been rejected.; 10/30/19, 8:48 AM
n.n said...: now complain that the current President won't mire us in Syria

And the solution is clear: carve Turkey, slice Syria, disembowel Iraq, establish Kurdovo. Lobotomize and harvest Libya, Ukraine, too, and form an alliance with Iran. The next President can determine a different order.; 10/30/19, 8:51 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: JFK would be a conservative republican in today's climate. The democratic-progressive left are so far radical totalitarian leftist now, it's not even funny.; 10/30/19, 8:52 AM
Jaq said...: We lost our way when we lost Ike.; 10/30/19, 8:55 AM
MD Greene said...: Thanks to h for the comment at 7:36.

It is better to face facts as they are than to agree when others -- any others -- say, "Everyone knows that _______ is true."; 10/30/19, 8:55 AM
Kevin said...: Of course there is always similar hand-wringing when POTUS ignores the generals to integrate blacks into the army, let gay people serve openly, and have the military pay for gender reassignment surgery.

Because otherwise this argument would ring hollow.; 10/30/19, 9:00 AM
minnesota farm guy said...: As for "experienced military experts" may I remind you that Westmorland could not find his ass with both hands! Trump has spent a lifetime listening to expert advice. He knows how to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I think the testimony before Schiff of many "diplomatic experts "proves beyond any doubt that they have less skill and knowledge of the overall picture than the C-inC and I am glad that they are in staff positions where they can do less harm rather than line positions where they can create catastrophes.; 10/30/19, 9:01 AM
minnesota farm guy said...: @Narcisco Halberstam was an author who exposed the hubris of the people who surrounded Kennedy and then Johnson.; 10/30/19, 9:05 AM
Earnest Prole said...: I was just thinking how rare it is these days for liberals in the media (but I repeat myself) to challenge the easy assumptions of their readers.; 10/30/19, 9:19 AM
narciso said...: they didn't know what they were doing and the diem coup was part of it, the replacements from big minh to thieu, had no popular support, and after 1965, were considered puppets,; 10/30/19, 9:20 AM
narciso said...: he followed the path of the advisors that told Truman to cut his losses and jettison chiang, since mao was just an agrarian reformer, carter Vincent, stewart service, et al, whereas the problem lay elsewhere, both harkin and Westmoreland were conventional army officers, that much was true, a small force like galula had recommended in Algeria, might have had better prospects,; 10/30/19, 9:27 AM
Seeing Red said...: I paid $2.40 yesterday for gas in the burbs and IL had a gas tax increase this year.

R/V thinks Trump’s Putin’s butt-boy.

How does cheap oil help Russia, R/V?

Spell it out.; 10/30/19, 9:36 AM
Tim said...: After the last 40? 50? 60? years of foreign policy and trade failures, it is like the career bureaucrats weren't even trying. The defiantly non-elite Trump has shown the way.; 10/30/19, 9:36 AM
Leland said...: Many thought the same about Obama. Except Obama got to fire those people and even prosecuted a few, while the Press claimed it was all good that Obama was cleaning out government. But then, there was Hillary, who had so much disdain for her employees, she created a private email server to keep coworkers out of her business. Then, when other branches of the government found out about Hillary's email server, Clinton disparaged those branches of the government for even pretending to enforce policies. The didn't actually enforce those policies. Still, Hillary had great disdain for them. Sadly, people actually voted for her.; 10/30/19, 9:36 AM
bagoh20 said...: I don't have any empirical data, but my memory is mostly full of examples of the "experts" getting it wrong.

I have been investing in real estate since my early 30's. Consequently I no longer have to work, and I'm pretty well off. I have no training, and just winged it on my own. I've made a profit on every investment except one. That one was the one time where I invested with the advice of a financial planner (expert). I lost money on that real estate investment over the last 5 years. A period when nearly every piece of real estate in the country has appreciated and most of them bigly. It was a REIT managed by (you guessed it) "experts".; 10/30/19, 9:42 AM
Michael K said...: A rather dim real estate heir and a hand bag retailer are not exactly the top draw of external advisors.

ARM is about to explain to us how he made his first billion.

R/V assures us that Kennedy never took Putin's word over the CIA.

The history of the CIA that I read is titled "Legacy of Ashes."

There is a saying in the military (I'm sure R/V heard it many times in his long career. It goes "Trust no one above O-6. They are all politicians."; 10/30/19, 9:46 AM
Roy Lofquist said...: Blogger William said...
... If true, those facts would heighten our understanding of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
10/30/19, 8:44 AM
--------
There's actually a ton of information in the public domain which paints a picture different from the conventional wisdom. The problem is that much of it is disinformation. You have to know which threads to follow.

Disclosure: I was in Peshawar, Pakistan monitoring the Soviet Project K EMP tests at the time.; 10/30/19, 9:49 AM
Michael K said...: I had dinner with my FBI daughter last night. I was telling her about the Kim Strassel book. In the book, Strassel discusses the war waged by EPA employees on Scott Pruit until he was driven from office. She, of course , is a 20 year FBI agent and thinks like a bureaucrat. She said "But he wanted to destroy the EPA !"

I did not mention that California is right now burning down because of the policies pushed by the EPA over the years.; 10/30/19, 9:50 AM
stevew said...: Especially when the actions and policies of these wizened, life long government folks has repeatedly failed to produce positive results.; 10/30/19, 9:54 AM
robother said...: Yeah, JFK was a disrupter of the status quo. He brought in Robert McNamara, who thought that a small cadre of Green Berets with air support could fight and win an Asian ground war. Bay of Pigs was another Best n' Brightest brainstorm. JJFK just thought HIS whiz kids were smarter than old WWII hands.

As noted by various commenters, Ike was the far shrewder mistruster of the post WWII military/industrial complex.; 10/30/19, 9:58 AM
robother said...: Yeah, JFK was a disrupter of the status quo. He brought in Robert McNamara, who thought that a small cadre of Green Berets with air support could fight and win an Asian ground war. Bay of Pigs was another Best n' Brightest brainstorm. JJFK just thought HIS whiz kids were smarter than old WWII hands.

As noted by various commenters, Ike was the far shrewder mistruster of the post WWII military/industrial complex.; 10/30/19, 9:58 AM
mockturtle said...: There is no question that LBJ would have fared better without the 'expert' advice of Robert McNamara.; 10/30/19, 10:01 AM
narciso said...: in the modern era, we have the likes of him
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/10/brennan-brays.php; 10/30/19, 10:09 AM
Marty Keller said...: It's been the progressive wet dream for 130 to get rid of that pesky Constitution and turn governing over to the "experts." To them, as Woodrow Wilson sighed, the self-governance experiment had failed. Time to let the adults rule.

Then FDR got the chance to implement the dream, and things have been swirling the drain ever since.

It's ironic, but in a certain way the progs are right: the citizenry let this happen, bribed with our own money, lulled by the cacophony of the MSM. But I still prefer Bill Buckley's willingness to be ruled by the first 1000 people in the phone book than by the self-proclaimed experts.; 10/30/19, 10:09 AM
iowan2 said...: who rejects the advice of top intelligence leaders, who trusts his family more than those with a lifetime of experience? Yes we have. And his name was John Fitzgerald Kennedy.... Throughout Kennedy’s presidency, he came more and more to distrust the received wisdom of the 'permanent government' or 'deep state' or 'military-industrial complex' or whatever term seems apt today

I was in the ophthalmologist's exam room waiting for my eyes to fully dilate, and saw a quote on the wall. Br. Roger Bacon O.F.M.

There are in fact four very significant stumbling blocks in the way of grasping the truth, which hinder every man however learned, and scarcely allow anyone to win a clear title to wisdom, namely, the example of weak and unworthy authority, longstanding custom, the feeling of the ignorant crowd, and the hiding of our own ignorance while making a display of our apparent knowledge.
(I had never ran across Roger Bacon. It was fun doing a little google dive into him. 13th century thinker)
This seems to be at he center of resistance to President Trump.
But only because he is not a Democrat.; 10/30/19, 10:13 AM
RMc said...: I’m guessing there a more than a few people hoping Trump’s presidency ends exactly the same way Kennedy’s did.; 10/30/19, 10:14 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: They had one job, for forty years: keep an eye on Russia. These guys missed the crackup of the USSR until it was on them.
They screwed up Saddam's WMD's.
The Chinese rolled up our spies in their country ten years ago, and not only haven't we recovered from that, the CIA still doesn't know how the Chinese knew who our spies were.; 10/30/19, 10:21 AM
narciso said...: actually that would have been a better strategy, according to mark moyar, who discovered that diem, had some success in the counterinsurgency strategy,

similarly, the forces in the escambray mountains held out for nearly 5 years, because they had a base of support,; 10/30/19, 10:22 AM
john marzan said...: If the Obama holdovers at the (deep) State Dept were so good and so smart, name me one Obama foreign policy accomplishment in his last 8 yrs.

Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election to help Hillary and damage the trump campaign. Ukraine fired a prosecutor who was investigating bidens son to maintain Obama's illusion that his admin is "scandal free"; 10/30/19, 10:25 AM
Gusty Winds said...: That's why the Deep State took JFK out. Who doesn't know that?; 10/30/19, 10:26 AM
narciso said...: now as A general principle, operations like valuable, in Albania, win in Poland, and those in the Caucasus, did not end well,; 10/30/19, 10:37 AM
narciso said...: Codevilla, whose long dialog with samuels, I linked earlier, has suggested that the no of genuine soviet defectors, he even has doubts about penkovsky, and nosenko, but not so much golitsyn were very few,; 10/30/19, 10:41 AM
Francisco D said...: This seems to be at he center of resistance to President Trump. But only because he is not a Democrat.

Hopefully, the Trump presidency will make it obvious to open minds that this is the scam the the Media/Democrat complex has been playing for over half a century.

BTW, I like the Roger Bacon quote.; 10/30/19, 11:00 AM
Matt said...: No shit. Many of us astuteful types have been pointing out for years how disastrous in many ways the last 5 decades under Ivy League "leadership" have proven to be.

We have the worst elites in the history of elites.; 10/30/19, 11:04 AM
Jaq said...: "How does cheap oil help Russia, R/V?

Spell it out.”

They can’t answer that question because their interests align with Putin’s. They want expensive oil. Hillary wanted to ban fracking, Warren wants to ban fracking, they probably all do. Once they cut into the supply of oil, prices. go up and Putin can fund his army better.; 10/30/19, 11:23 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: “Lurker21: Kennedy probably did listen to the experts more than Trump does, and when he didn't take their advice his reasons for doing so were probably better thought out than Trump's.”

Why would anyone realistically believe that? Kennedy had the arrogance of inherited wealth, combined with a mediocre mind. Well, maybe not as mediocre as those of Crooked Hillary, Lurch Kerry, AlGore, or Joe Bidet. I would suggest that Kennedy’s distrust of the experts of the Deep State at the time was more a result of that arrogance than anything. The difference with Trump is that he has spent his long adult life dealing with functionaries, while successfully engaging in business and making a lot of money. Kennedy’s entire experience to the point where he entered the White House had been college, war service as a junior officer, and then as a politician with a mediocre record, his elective offices having been purchased by his father, as he would later do for his two younger brothers.; 10/30/19, 11:44 AM
Achilles said...: Michael K said...

There is a saying in the military (I'm sure R/V heard it many times in his long career. It goes "Trust no one above O-6. They are all politicians."

There is no love for the Pentagon or the people in it in the enlisted core of the army. It comes in a close second to the VA as far as loathing.

Golf course warriors are not appreciated.; 10/30/19, 11:59 AM
Jaq said...: "Kennedy probably did listen to the experts more than Trump does, and when he didn't take their advice his reasons for doing so were probably better thought out than Trump's.”

If Trump gets us into another Viet Nam, I will give this point of view some consideration.

Basically though this sentence parses to “I like Kennedy, I don’t like Trump” as far as content goes.; 10/30/19, 1:00 PM
Ralph L said...: Considering a century of WASP/Irish Catholic friction and disdain, it's surprising JFK trusted the DC Establishment at all.; 10/30/19, 1:07 PM
Martin said...: Have we ever had a President take office after so many and such severe failures by those in power before him? Have we ever had a President take office with more reason to distrust both the competence and the loyalty of virtually everybody who was there the day he arrived?

Ah...; 10/30/19, 1:24 PM
Jim at said...: I’m guessing there a more than a few people hoping Trump’s presidency ends exactly the same way Kennedy’s did. - RMc

Would you be one of them? And if not, why would you suggest that?; 10/30/19, 1:38 PM
LA_Bob said...: JFK arrogantly assumed office bearing the torch of a new generation of Americans. Naturally he had little use for the Old Fogies born in 19th century who couldn't appreciate the dynamic liberalism to which he aspired (shades of the earlier post on Millenial disdain for Boomers). Of course, he and his team (and his successors) made plenty of mistakes out of their arrogance.

Trump ran and won against the "establishment" that dismissed and disdains him (a double-disser to deal with). Why would he genuflect before people who hate him? And these "experts" gave us the Vietnam war, the Middle East muddle after regime change in Iraq, and the financial meltdown of 2008, which they didn't see coming and from which we've never really recovered. Why would he assume he must accept what they offer?

I don't know that Trump doesn't listen to the experts. But he has his own decades of expertise dealing with business and governments (foreign and domestic) to inform him as well. He keeps his own counsel. He is not a beginner.; 10/30/19, 2:10 PM
Bilwick said...: If someone spent their life working for the government, his opinions should be automatically suspect.; 10/30/19, 2:24 PM
Caligula said...: "JFK campaigned in 1960 as a conventional Cold Warrior, warning that the United States was falling behind the Soviet Union, arguing that a (nonexistent) "missile gap" was threatening our security"

It's become a matter of faith that there was no "missile gap" yet supporting evidence seems to be somewhere between none and scant.

What the public saw in the years between Sputnik (Oct 4, 1957) and the 1960 election was the USA launching tiny satellites while the USSR launched thousand-pounders (or more). And everyone knew what it took to launch those big satellites: a functional intercontinental ballistic missile, a weapon capable of carrying ~300 lb warhead over a distance of 5,000 miles or more.

The USA's first ICBM, known as Atlas, did not become operational until 1960. The USSR deployed ICBM's in 1957-'58, or at least they deployed something that looked like them (because it's hard to argue that they had the guidance-and-control systems necessary to deliver their nuclear payloads, although the successful-enough Soviet satellite program argues that they were capable enough to present a significant threat.

Of course, that's ancient history now, but, perhaps it's important to get history factually correct in order to understand the bigger picture. The bigger picture is that even if there had been a missile gap it was of little strategic importance, as enough of the USA's B-52s would get through to cause unimaginable damage to the USSR and this was, therefore, sufficient deterrence.

Nonetheless, there's a difference between saying there was no "missile gap" and saying there (probably) was but, really it made little strategic difference.; 10/30/19, 2:24 PM
Caligula said...: Then again, there's was JFK's successor, LBJ, who apparently did listen to the "experts." Experts like McGeorge Bundy and Robert McNamara. Experts who advised LBJ on how he could win the war in Vietnam, experts who were just so sure that if the USA would only spend enough blood and treasure on the War then victory was sure to follow.; 10/30/19, 2:35 PM
narciso said...: and the Georgetown set, as Gregg herken calls it wasn't much better, only frank wisner, had any presence of mind, where they had gone wrong, but the notion of those on the ground, like Richardson and lynch, who spoke of the brigade's bravery, or tony poesepny in the case of the hmong peoples, were not considered authoritative,; 10/30/19, 2:42 PM
narciso said...: no that's not it, the u2 overflights told us the disposition of soviet forces, the r7s which were deployed in 1957, were much like the Huabang boosters we saw fly from North Korea, but it was convenient to make Eisenhower irrelevant.; 10/30/19, 2:46 PM
effinayright said...: Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
A rather dim real estate heir and a hand bag retailer are not exactly the top draw (sic) of external advisors.
************************

But I'm sure you think YOU are "top draw".; 10/30/19, 3:29 PM
Birkel said...: What the ever-loving-fuck good have those "experts" ever fucking delivered?
Fuck them.; 10/30/19, 4:13 PM
narciso said...: it's a different type of booster but you get the point, a rocket that was powerful to launch sputnik, would be powerful enough to strike the us mainland, ironically thought it was the navy's reliance on the program, that would turn into vanguard, over the army's redstone group, that allowed sputnik to launch before hand,; 10/30/19, 4:19 PM
narciso said...: the reigning experts at the time, were those that pushed containment, specially after hungary went pearshaped, but the likes of james burnham and herman kahn were ignored, there was another group represented by mark raskin was all about disarmament, he helped fund the institute for policy study, the new frontier group, fundamentally misunderstood the communist threat and hence brought us to the brink in October 62, on the soviet side, the likes of Mikhail suslev, had no illusions about the ultimate goal,; 10/30/19, 4:38 PM
GingerBeer said...: There is a story about a conversation between LBJ and then-Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT) not long after LBJ assumed the presidency. LBJ was bragging about the "Best and Brightest" advisors that he inherited from JFK. Signaling his skepticism of the credentials and expertise surrounding LBJ Mansfield told LBJ "I just wish one of them had run for dog-catcher."; 10/30/19, 4:50 PM
mockturtle said...: WTF does a Harvard MBA know about running a war?; 10/30/19, 5:15 PM
narciso said...: kahn was satirized as Strangelove, and Kissinger, who also suggested tactical nuclear weapons, could be employed, was grotinger from fail safe,; 10/30/19, 5:32 PM
narciso said...: it's not an accident, they gave kurtz in apocalypse now, a Harvard sheepskin, much like one of the people he was supposed to be based on colonel Robert rheault,; 10/30/19, 6:14 PM