I write this as a Canadian, living in Canada, which has afforded me a seat to watch this American drama.
I recall vividly on election day in 2016 receiving an email from a relative who had emigrated to Ireland that "at least we won't have to listen to Trump anymore!" [Apparently many Trumpisms had made headlines in Ireland.] I emailed back that I did not know how the election would turn out but that the election - and the voters - was and were much more complicated than he appreciated and, well, neither he nor I could predict. And, of course, we couldn't; we were both surprised in a variety of ways.
Given that on the day of the election we could not predict, why on earth should we should we believe that we can predict five months out? Not one whole heck of a lot, that's what. And if "the deranged monster" should actually win? Or the "somnambulistic dementiated incumbent"? Again, we simply cannot predict with any possible certainty.
One prediction that I will stand by: it is a complicated world and pretty much anything can happen and likely will; perhaps good things, perhaps bad things, and usually impossible to sort good from bad for many, many years.
So, get a grip, sit down enjoy your coffee; accept humanity's hubris and read some history to realize that this too shall pass. To better or worse we cannot say.
But part of the point here is that most of the people prognosticating about Lincoln's likely defeat were in some sense correct at the time of their greatest pessimism--the thing is, something *happened* to change the momentum. There were several pivotal events that Lincoln himself could not fully control or anticipate that changed how his possible voters felt about him, about how his leadership was understood. Contingency IS important, and it isn't just about unexpected events or uncertain outcomes. People do change their minds for more subtle reasons, and sometimes the instruments we use to measure their likely actions are badly flawed to begin with. You and I both are skeptical about the entire apparatus of futurism, even in these ordinary kinds of prognostications by people involved in a particular situation or circumstance. But the problem is that the reminder of uncertainty extends in all directions. For example, it might be that if Biden were to suddenly announce he was throwing the convention open and would not be running, that this would be the equivalent of Grant and Sherman's victories. Or Trump's VP choice might shift everything dramatically away from him. And so on.
The challenge for leaders--what we hope from them--is that they not leave *everything* to chance, or that they don't just sit back and say "well, this might turn out well". There's a version of the Serenity Prayer that most of us look for--to change what can be changed and accept what can't be, to set *agency* against contingency. None of us want to live in a world where there's no leverage at all against uncertainty, where the future is infinitely indeterminate. I think we all hunger for leadership that does more than accept that there are still possibilities. Lincoln, after all, despite his pessimism about his own prospects, put Grant and Sherman into command precisely because he understood that McClelland and Burnside were not going to fight the war as it needed to be fought. (And that's why the Wilderness was a victory and understood by soldiers and observers as such--Grant didn't retreat but kept moving south, because he knew he had men and materiel to spare and Lee didn't.) So Lincoln did not wait passively for his uncertain fate to be resolve: he acted.
As I was reading, I thought I'd respond by mentioning the Serenity Prayer! So I agree entirely. This worldview is anything but fatalistic. Also, see my response to Ed Writes, above.
I taught American history for 41 years and cannot agree more with what you wrote about history. I fell into a chasm of depression when Republicans went psychotic and not only nominated the orange Wizard of Oz and persuaded enough Americans that they needed an imperial oaf in need of new clothes and wig/dye job as the leader of the United States. Thank you for your writing.
I'd rather watch Ken Burns' the "Civil War" Lovely soundtack if nothing else. American Politics is more than anything right now the best reality show on TV. J.D Vance isn't.an actor,.he's a.sincere hypocrite and turncoat, lying with.an effortless.ease that is disgusting. Still it could win him the VP spot. Stay.tuned.. All of them such an undistinguished pack of carpetbaggers and snake oil salesmen. The "Christians" who have no problem with his lifestyle. And of course Bibi, whoi - in my estimation - is helping Trump win because he would be easily led into a war with Iran. Or "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb. Bomb, Bomb Iran," as John McCain the "loser." There isn't a TV show pst or present that holds a candle to what's happening for realsies.right now. "Idiocracy" does, however, come toi mind. Conrad will have to write "A President Like No Other: Volume Ii." Or maybe "That Last President of the USA."
Any prediction about the future (that isn’t merely wild speculation) must be based on conditions in the present. I give our 16th President credit for a pretty reasonable prediction. Things were going terribly at the time, and he did include the caveat “unless some great change takes place,” which, fortunately, did happen.
I generally agree. It's perfectly reasonable to say, "if current conditions persist, I will lose." But that should put the focus on how conditions could change and the likelihood of their changing, and not the "I will lose" part. But that's absolutely not how people ordinarily treat these matters. Instead, we "extend the trend" into the future and never ask how likely the trend is to change. Which is why I can say with confidence that my 15 year old soon will eventually be 11 feet tall.
Lincoln was generally the sort of smart, intellectually humble person who got that sort of nuance instinctively. I could provide many examples from his statements. But here? It's not clear. He says "unless some great change takes place" but that seems to apply to "lose badly," not merely "lose." Or I may be splitting hairs and Lincoln's intent was to say, as you suggest, "under current conditions I will lose but those conditions could change." Given Lincoln's record, I think your interpretation is quite plausible. But it's not clear. (It's another example of how, without extreme care, ambiguity creeps into the language of prediction, rendering after-the-fact judgement difficult, if not impossible. There's a long discussion of that in Superforecasting.)
My colleague writer/friend sent me this article more than a week ago, but I was buried in stuff. Considering last Thursday's Biden-Trump speech, your piece is contextual and urgent.
I write this as a Canadian, living in Canada, which has afforded me a seat to watch this American drama.
I recall vividly on election day in 2016 receiving an email from a relative who had emigrated to Ireland that "at least we won't have to listen to Trump anymore!" [Apparently many Trumpisms had made headlines in Ireland.] I emailed back that I did not know how the election would turn out but that the election - and the voters - was and were much more complicated than he appreciated and, well, neither he nor I could predict. And, of course, we couldn't; we were both surprised in a variety of ways.
Given that on the day of the election we could not predict, why on earth should we should we believe that we can predict five months out? Not one whole heck of a lot, that's what. And if "the deranged monster" should actually win? Or the "somnambulistic dementiated incumbent"? Again, we simply cannot predict with any possible certainty.
One prediction that I will stand by: it is a complicated world and pretty much anything can happen and likely will; perhaps good things, perhaps bad things, and usually impossible to sort good from bad for many, many years.
So, get a grip, sit down enjoy your coffee; accept humanity's hubris and read some history to realize that this too shall pass. To better or worse we cannot say.
But part of the point here is that most of the people prognosticating about Lincoln's likely defeat were in some sense correct at the time of their greatest pessimism--the thing is, something *happened* to change the momentum. There were several pivotal events that Lincoln himself could not fully control or anticipate that changed how his possible voters felt about him, about how his leadership was understood. Contingency IS important, and it isn't just about unexpected events or uncertain outcomes. People do change their minds for more subtle reasons, and sometimes the instruments we use to measure their likely actions are badly flawed to begin with. You and I both are skeptical about the entire apparatus of futurism, even in these ordinary kinds of prognostications by people involved in a particular situation or circumstance. But the problem is that the reminder of uncertainty extends in all directions. For example, it might be that if Biden were to suddenly announce he was throwing the convention open and would not be running, that this would be the equivalent of Grant and Sherman's victories. Or Trump's VP choice might shift everything dramatically away from him. And so on.
The challenge for leaders--what we hope from them--is that they not leave *everything* to chance, or that they don't just sit back and say "well, this might turn out well". There's a version of the Serenity Prayer that most of us look for--to change what can be changed and accept what can't be, to set *agency* against contingency. None of us want to live in a world where there's no leverage at all against uncertainty, where the future is infinitely indeterminate. I think we all hunger for leadership that does more than accept that there are still possibilities. Lincoln, after all, despite his pessimism about his own prospects, put Grant and Sherman into command precisely because he understood that McClelland and Burnside were not going to fight the war as it needed to be fought. (And that's why the Wilderness was a victory and understood by soldiers and observers as such--Grant didn't retreat but kept moving south, because he knew he had men and materiel to spare and Lee didn't.) So Lincoln did not wait passively for his uncertain fate to be resolve: he acted.
As I was reading, I thought I'd respond by mentioning the Serenity Prayer! So I agree entirely. This worldview is anything but fatalistic. Also, see my response to Ed Writes, above.
I taught American history for 41 years and cannot agree more with what you wrote about history. I fell into a chasm of depression when Republicans went psychotic and not only nominated the orange Wizard of Oz and persuaded enough Americans that they needed an imperial oaf in need of new clothes and wig/dye job as the leader of the United States. Thank you for your writing.
Really interesting, and instructive. But, I don't like the uncertainty I feel right now. My hope is being worn away and my fear notched up every week.
I'd rather watch Ken Burns' the "Civil War" Lovely soundtack if nothing else. American Politics is more than anything right now the best reality show on TV. J.D Vance isn't.an actor,.he's a.sincere hypocrite and turncoat, lying with.an effortless.ease that is disgusting. Still it could win him the VP spot. Stay.tuned.. All of them such an undistinguished pack of carpetbaggers and snake oil salesmen. The "Christians" who have no problem with his lifestyle. And of course Bibi, whoi - in my estimation - is helping Trump win because he would be easily led into a war with Iran. Or "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb. Bomb, Bomb Iran," as John McCain the "loser." There isn't a TV show pst or present that holds a candle to what's happening for realsies.right now. "Idiocracy" does, however, come toi mind. Conrad will have to write "A President Like No Other: Volume Ii." Or maybe "That Last President of the USA."
Any prediction about the future (that isn’t merely wild speculation) must be based on conditions in the present. I give our 16th President credit for a pretty reasonable prediction. Things were going terribly at the time, and he did include the caveat “unless some great change takes place,” which, fortunately, did happen.
I generally agree. It's perfectly reasonable to say, "if current conditions persist, I will lose." But that should put the focus on how conditions could change and the likelihood of their changing, and not the "I will lose" part. But that's absolutely not how people ordinarily treat these matters. Instead, we "extend the trend" into the future and never ask how likely the trend is to change. Which is why I can say with confidence that my 15 year old soon will eventually be 11 feet tall.
Lincoln was generally the sort of smart, intellectually humble person who got that sort of nuance instinctively. I could provide many examples from his statements. But here? It's not clear. He says "unless some great change takes place" but that seems to apply to "lose badly," not merely "lose." Or I may be splitting hairs and Lincoln's intent was to say, as you suggest, "under current conditions I will lose but those conditions could change." Given Lincoln's record, I think your interpretation is quite plausible. But it's not clear. (It's another example of how, without extreme care, ambiguity creeps into the language of prediction, rendering after-the-fact judgement difficult, if not impossible. There's a long discussion of that in Superforecasting.)
My colleague writer/friend sent me this article more than a week ago, but I was buried in stuff. Considering last Thursday's Biden-Trump speech, your piece is contextual and urgent.
historian chiming in with HUZZAH for the outstanding read.
Was the intent of this article to make me hopeful because I’m uncertain and don’t know what will happen this November? Maybe. I don’t know…..
I’m still anxious and uncertain but reassured that I’m not alone. There is always hope.
Nope, not hopeful in an immediate sense. Only uncertain. Which is a big step up from "oh God, he's going to win."