"I prefer incompetent evil to competent evil"

[John Dule]

I have seen this statement flippantly thrown around several times on this site as of late. It is typically used in a comparison between Ron DeSantis and Donald Trump-- the implication being that DeSantis is somehow more dangerous to American society than Trump because he is more competent.

Even overlooking the fact that "evil" is not a useful characterization of anyone's political beliefs, this is a dumb argument, and its popularity is a major indicator of how polarization has deeply damaged our country. In today's partisan framing, only extremely politicized issues-- gender identity, guns, abortion, voter ID, etc-- receive any coverage. This has distracted us from the fact that much of what the president does is essentially apolitical.

Would you like a president who is incompetent at international diplomacy? At combatting inflation? At ensuring that energy prices remain low for consumers? Do you want a president who is too stupid to effectively combat terrorism or deal with our adversaries on the global stage? Would you prefer a president who lacks basic critical thinking skills in the event of a serious disaster-- such as a pandemic or a hurricane? Do you want someone in charge who has no legal background and cannot understand basic policy issues and does not know what he is constitutionally permitted to do?

Out of sheer stubbornness, you might be saying "Yes, John! If the 'bad guys' are incompetent and they fail, people will realize it, vote them out, and then everything will be ok again." This is accelerationist idiocy for two reasons:

1) In rooting for the opposite side to fail, you are essentially rooting for expensive food, housing, and electricity for average Americans. You are rooting for high unemployment and inflation. You are rooting for irreversible damage to America's position on the world stage, and irreparable damage to our strategic alliances. You are rooting for riots and property damage. You are rooting for unpaid pensions, economic strife, and a general breakdown of the basic functions of government. This all might sound fun to a middle-class tween anarchist on an internet forum who has never experienced scarcity in any meaningful sense of the word, but it affects real people who will suffer as a result of government incompetence. Imagine the narcissism it takes to actively cheer on the suffering of millions of people just because your personal brand of extremely online socialism didn't win the last election cycle.

2) Strategically speaking, there is no evidence that the accelerationist approach will turn people away from the Republican Party. There have been two catastrophic GOP presidents in my lifetime. The first managed a 25% approval rating, an economic collapse, and two pointless foreign wars that squandered the budget surplus. What was the Republican Party's response? It abandoned that era and rapidly reinvented itself as something far worse. The total ideological and practical failure of Trumpist policies might cause his supporters to finally come to terms with their stupidity, yes. But it is equally likely to push them further down the rabbit hole of extremism. I do not see what is to be gained here.

I don't care if anyone responds to this with a serious argument. I just wanted to let you know that if you say this, I will think you're stupid.

[tik 🪀✨]

the accelerationist argument would favour competent evil

[bagelman]

"Who cares if they won! At least they're incompetent!" is usually less of an argument and more of an emotional cope.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Like you pointed out, this comparison is normally used in comparing Trump and RDS. I'm automatically skeptical of it, because even if it is true, it's clearly used to advance a political agenda/viewpoint. I mean, the idea of the other party's people getting worse over time is a very convenient and effective narrative, it's why we saw a certain kind of Democrat being nostalgic and almost sympathetic about Bush during the Trump years even though they almost certainly hated Bush during his presidency too. You also see this from the right, although less commonly - Republicans lamenting how much worse today's Dems supposedly are compared to Bill Clinton, although they would probably hated Clinton in his day too.

Anyway, it's actually a hard one to answer. If I accept that one person is incompetent and evil, and the other is competent and evil, who do I prefer? On one hand, incompetent evil is going to be, well, more incompetent at implementing their evil. On the other hand, incompetence at the highest level of power is an evil in its own right.

I'd go with competent evil only because I reject the idea that any politician represents "pure evil", as in everything they do will inherently have devious motives and horrible outcomes. But if I were to accept that both the incompetent and competent politicians being compared were evil to the core and incapable of doing any good whatsoever, I'd go with incompetent evil just to minimize damage

Edit: To clarify the "no politician represents pure evil" thing - no politician can represent pure evil in a system of strong checks and balances, because the worst excesses of human nature are limited by those systems. In a dictatorial or tyrannical system things are different, I wouldn't extend that sympathy to Hitler or Saddam Hussein obviously.

[Mr. Smith]

Depends on the type of competence and incompetence than anything else.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Depends on the type of competence and incompetence than anything else.

Yeah, it's really not possible to answer this kind of question in the abstract. In some cases malicious intent will be more harmful, in other cases incompetence will be worse. It depends on a lot of factors.

[John Dule]

Depends on the type of competence and incompetence than anything else.

Yeah, it's really not possible to answer this kind of question in the abstract. In some cases malicious intent will be more harmful, in other cases incompetence will be worse. It depends on a lot of factors.

I think that at the very least, a mentally competent US president will be smart enough to know when he can and can't rock the boat, and when he's pushing things too far. This is to be distinguished from someone (like Trump) who has never studied US history, has never read the Constitution, does not know the basic duties entrusted to the different branches of government, does not understand the law, has no background in public service, and is not capable of understanding the perspectives or feelings of other human beings. Other good examples of this personality type include Marjorie Taylor Greene and Darrell Brooks.

If you allow these people to flail around with unchecked power, they are just as likely to self-immolate as they are to immolate everyone else. Maybe I'll be proven wrong about this someday-- I hope not-- but I cannot see someone like Ron DeSantis or Glenn Youngkin ordering their supporters to attack the US capitol to overturn an election. I say this simply on the basis that they are capable of self-awareness, and they would understand the implications of their actions (which has never been true for Trump).

I think it is important for us to distinguish between Republicans with whom we have policy disagreements and Republicans who belong in padded cells. If you lump them all together, people will stop taking your argument seriously.

[Mr. Smith]

Depends on the type of competence and incompetence than anything else.

Yeah, it's really not possible to answer this kind of question in the abstract. In some cases malicious intent will be more harmful, in other cases incompetence will be worse. It depends on a lot of factors.

I think that at the very least, a mentally competent US president will be smart enough to know when he can and can't rock the boat, and when he's pushing things too far. This is to be distinguished from someone (like Trump) who has never studied US history, has never read the Constitution, does not know the basic duties entrusted to the different branches of government, does not understand the law, has no background in public service, and is not capable of understanding the perspectives or feelings of other human beings. Other good examples of this personality type include Marjorie Taylor Greene and Darrell Brooks.

If you allow these people to flail around with unchecked power, they are just as likely to self-immolate as they are to immolate everyone else. Maybe I'll be proven wrong about this someday-- I hope not-- but I cannot see someone like Ron DeSantis or Glenn Youngkin ordering their supporters to attack the US capitol to overturn an election. I say this simply on the basis that they are capable of self-awareness, and they would understand the implications of their actions (which has never been true for Trump).

I think it is important for us to distinguish between Republicans with whom we have policy disagreements and Republicans who belong in padded cells. If you lump them all together, people will stop taking your argument seriously.

A mentally competent president will know how to go too far and gaslight everyone else into thinking otherwise. This cannot be forgotten when making decisions.

An incompetent one will just stumble along.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

At this point, I don't like the performative woke crowd but I am also sick of everything Reaganomics and austerity. (Democrats talking about Dobbs is good, don't get me wrong, but the systemic problems need to be addressed as well.) The GOP is still the rich man's party to me, regardless of which side is more competent. Now unlike most of this forum, I actually have had to live with scarcity of necessities. I have gone days without eating because I couldn't afford food. I don't say this because I want sympathy (many here already know about it), I say that because I would rather have incompetent people with their handlers in charge than with people who are  competent at screwing over the poor or working man.

I will be voting for Donald Trump in the 2024 primary, not only because I think he's the weaker candidate, but:

1. Because he's better at exposing the hypocrisy of the Christian Right.
2. Legislatively, he deserves credit for signing the First Step Act, HEROES ACT, and NAFTA renegotiation.
3. After 2024, it's game over and Democrats will hopefully have new leadership and fresh people running for president next time.

If that makes me stupid, that's fine.

[John Dule]

At this point, I don't like the performative woke crowd but I am also sick of everything Reaganomics and austerity. (Democrats talking about Dobbs is good, don't get me wrong, but the systemic problems need to be addressed as well.) The GOP is still the rich man's party to me, regardless of which side is more competent. Now unlike most of this forum, I actually have had to live with scarcity of necessities. I have gone days without eating because I couldn't afford food. I don't say this because I want sympathy (many here already know about it), I say that because I would rather have incompetent people with their handlers in charge than with people who are  competent at screwing over the poor or working man.

I will be voting for Donald Trump in the 2024 primary, not only because I think he's the weaker candidate, but:

1. Because he's better at exposing the hypocrisy of the Christian Right.
2. Legislatively, he deserves credit for signing the First Step Act, HEROES ACT, and NAFTA renegotiation.
3. After 2024, it's game over and Democrats will hopefully have new leadership and fresh people running for president next time.

If that makes me stupid, that's fine.

I'm sorry, but I think you are carelessly chucking American democracy in the dumpster for the sake of purely speculative short-term policy gains. Let's hope I'm wrong.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Competent evil is obviously much more dangerous.

[Pulaski]

the accelerationist argument would favour competent evil

I mean, you like it when kids die so I assume you're one of those people.

[PSOL]

Incompetent evil can only lead to positive outcomes once it is “gone” with a dedicated team of people willing to take it out and usher in a better way of things, else it just regresses to the mean evil.

[tik 🪀✨]

the accelerationist argument would favour competent evil

I mean, you like it when kids die so I assume you're one of those people.

hell yeah kids dying mmm sweet
     - me, during my always

[Pulaski]

That's like literally you though, I don't know why you're trying to laugh it off

[tik 🪀✨]

That's like literally you though, I don't know why you're trying to laugh it off

fully serious honestly and feeling very seen, thanks bb 💕

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well, the ur-example of 'incompetent evil' would be the Nazis...

[Mopsus]

Well, the ur-example of 'incompetent evil' would be the Nazis...

Wouldn’t that be the National Fascist Party?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Well, the ur-example of 'incompetent evil' would be the Nazis...

Wouldn’t that be the National Fascist Party?

The Nazis were deeply inept at the most basic aspects of governance in ways that the Fascists, at least early on, were not. Mussolini did not literally make the trains run on time (this is Italy we're talking about), but he was able to rule in a way that didn't require a morally insane plunder economy to sustain itself (although, of course, he chose to go in that direction anyway, a choice that says more about him than his innate tendencies or talents do).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, the ur-example of 'incompetent evil' would be the Nazis...

Wouldn’t that be the National Fascist Party?

The Nazis were deeply inept at the most basic aspects of governance in ways that the Fascists, at least early on, were not. Mussolini did not literally make the trains run on time (this is Italy we're talking about), but he was able to rule in a way that didn't require a morally insane plunder economy to sustain itself (although, of course, he chose to go in that direction anyway, a choice that says more about him than his innate tendencies or talents do).

Italy struggled to invade Albania, which was rather pathetic to the point where Germany delayed their invasion of the Soviet Union to be closer to winter to help them out, so they kind of hurt Germany there. Sure with hindsight we can say that Germany shouldn't have invaded the Soviet Union then since Stalin wasn't planning anything yet and it'd have been easier to get oil from Arabia. But Italy certainly didn't help the situation.

[TheReckoning]

Well, the ur-example of 'incompetent evil' would be the Nazis...

Wouldn’t that be the National Fascist Party?

The Nazis were deeply inept at the most basic aspects of governance in ways that the Fascists, at least early on, were not. Mussolini did not literally make the trains run on time (this is Italy we're talking about), but he was able to rule in a way that didn't require a morally insane plunder economy to sustain itself (although, of course, he chose to go in that direction anyway, a choice that says more about him than his innate tendencies or talents do).

Italy struggled to invade Albania, which was rather pathetic to the point where Germany delayed their invasion of the Soviet Union to be closer to winter to help them out, so they kind of hurt Germany there.

*Yugoslavia. Italy invaded Albania with ease in 1939, before the war even started.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Well, the ur-example of 'incompetent evil' would be the Nazis...

Wouldn’t that be the National Fascist Party?

The Nazis were deeply inept at the most basic aspects of governance in ways that the Fascists, at least early on, were not. Mussolini did not literally make the trains run on time (this is Italy we're talking about), but he was able to rule in a way that didn't require a morally insane plunder economy to sustain itself (although, of course, he chose to go in that direction anyway, a choice that says more about him than his innate tendencies or talents do).

Benito Mussolini experimented with all sorts of economic policies during his rule (partly in response to events and partly because he was delusional) and it sums up to an incoherent mess, but he was ultimately interested in economics and to an extent in materialism - after all he had eagerly followed Vilfredo Pareto's university lectures and had been a socialist, though he came to reject both - in a way Adolf Hitler was not.

[Estrella]

Well, the ur-example of 'incompetent evil' would be the Nazis...

Wouldn’t that be the National Fascist Party?

The Nazis were deeply inept at the most basic aspects of governance in ways that the Fascists, at least early on, were not. Mussolini did not literally make the trains run on time (this is Italy we're talking about), but he was able to rule in a way that didn't require a morally insane plunder economy to sustain itself (although, of course, he chose to go in that direction anyway, a choice that says more about him than his innate tendencies or talents do).

Benito Mussolini experimented with all sorts of economic policies during his rule (partly in response to events and partly because he was delusional) and it sums up to an incoherent mess, but he was ultimately interested in economics and to an extent in materialism - after all he had eagerly followed Vilfredo Pareto's university lectures and had been a socialist, though he came to reject both - in a way Adolf Hitler was not.

I don't think it made much of a difference in the end, but it's telling that Italian fascism was so influenced by futurism (science! technology! speed! glass and steel! shiny new things! more and faster!) while Nazism owes just as much to 19th century Romantic mysticism about a mishmash of everything between a medieval pastoral society and the times when Norse gods roamed the Earth.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Well, the ur-example of 'incompetent evil' would be the Nazis...

Wouldn’t that be the National Fascist Party?

The Nazis were deeply inept at the most basic aspects of governance in ways that the Fascists, at least early on, were not. Mussolini did not literally make the trains run on time (this is Italy we're talking about), but he was able to rule in a way that didn't require a morally insane plunder economy to sustain itself (although, of course, he chose to go in that direction anyway, a choice that says more about him than his innate tendencies or talents do).

Benito Mussolini experimented with all sorts of economic policies during his rule (partly in response to events and partly because he was delusional) and it sums up to an incoherent mess, but he was ultimately interested in economics and to an extent in materialism - after all he had eagerly followed Vilfredo Pareto's university lectures and had been a socialist, though he came to reject both - in a way Adolf Hitler was not.

I don't think it made much of a difference in the end, but it's telling that Italian fascism was so influenced by futurism (science! technology! speed! glass and steel! shiny new things! more and faster!) while Nazism owes just as much to 19th century Romantic mysticism about a mishmash of everything between a medieval pastoral society and the times when Norse gods roamed the Earth.

[Mr. Smith]

Well, the ur-example of 'incompetent evil' would be the Nazis...

Wouldn’t that be the National Fascist Party?

The Nazis were deeply inept at the most basic aspects of governance in ways that the Fascists, at least early on, were not. Mussolini did not literally make the trains run on time (this is Italy we're talking about), but he was able to rule in a way that didn't require a morally insane plunder economy to sustain itself (although, of course, he chose to go in that direction anyway, a choice that says more about him than his innate tendencies or talents do).

Benito Mussolini experimented with all sorts of economic policies during his rule (partly in response to events and partly because he was delusional) and it sums up to an incoherent mess, but he was ultimately interested in economics and to an extent in materialism - after all he had eagerly followed Vilfredo Pareto's university lectures and had been a socialist, though he came to reject both - in a way Adolf Hitler was not.

I don't think it made much of a difference in the end, but it's telling that Italian fascism was so influenced by futurism (science! technology! speed! glass and steel! shiny new things! more and faster!) while Nazism owes just as much to 19th century Romantic mysticism about a mishmash of everything between a medieval pastoral society and the times when Norse gods roamed the Earth.

Even more telling when one considers how primitive their war machine was, while Nazi one was able to take France near effortlessly.