This blog is not about politics, although sometimes I have wandered into the political thicket when the events of the day involved scientific and statistical issues.[1] Our current events today do not involve statistical evidence so much as political, moral, and practical judgment. At some point, however, I cannot avoid a sense of responsibility to speak on the issues. On the one side, we have a grumpy old man who has evidenced some senior moments. On the other side, we have a grumpy old man who has evidenced senior moments as well as a vile character and temperament, generally devoid of decency, historical knowledge, and practical judgment.
Some have argued that the first grumpy old man is propped up by Marxists, the ultra-woke, and “haters” of the USA. Others have argued that the second grumpy old man is a creature of a personality cult, and that he is a documented rapist, fraudster, liar, hustler, and worse.[2]
Well, I know I am not going to firm up the political quagmire on which we now stand. But I have a humble, and I hope constructive, suggestion. Supporters of both grumpy old men would, I think, agree that they care about strength, intelligence, tactical and strategic ability, mental acuity and stamina, and a desire to win. My suggestion is instead of having debates between the main protagonists, which many would agree to be a waste of time and money, we should instead require the grumpy old men to face off in a chess match. It need not be long; it could be, say, best of three games. Their moves would be observable by all, including their ability to conform to the rules of game, which require, among other things, refraining from talking and making noise. The American public, and the world, would see whether one or the other, or both, or neither, of the grumpy old men have the cognitive and intellectual ability and a true “killer” instinct, to be a national leader in these troubled times. Professional psychologists could analyze the intelligence of the players in real time.
Perhaps the rules of the game might be modified to include shock collars to discipline either player who spoke during the game, other than to offer a draw, or to resign.
Perhaps I am grumpy old man myself.
[1] See “Pernicious Probabilities in the Supreme Court” (Nov. 21, 2020); “A Trumpence for Your Thoughts” (Nov. 21, 2020). And I have supported sound deployment of statistical evidence. See, e.g., Brief of 27 Election Law, Scientific Evidence, and Empirical Legal Scholars as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellees, in Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422, Supreme Court of the United States (Mar. 9, 2019); Brief of 44 Election Law, Scientific Evidence, and Empirical Legal Scholars as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellees, in Gill v. Whitford, No. 16-1161, Supreme Court of the United States (Sept. 1, 2017).
[2] The supporters of the second grumpy old man have criticized those who criticize his supporters, on grounds that there are substantive issues at stake in their support. See Julian Adorney, “Stop Dunking on Trump Supporters: No one is beyond reach—unless everyone around them refuses to reach out,” Quilette (Feb. 7, 2024). This of course misses the point that the supporters have had plenty of other viable candidates to support who would have actually been articulate voices on their behalf. The supporters have shown, consistently over eight years, that they do not care about immorality or sycophancy to dictators, and that they prefer a sexual abuser and fraudster.
