Sunday, July 28, 2019
IS OUR SOCIAL CONTRACT UNRAVELING?
The past four years have shaken up what political scientists tend to refer to as the social contract between our government and its citizens. An implicit contract none of us was explicitly asked to opt in on, but a choice we assume to enjoy all the benefits that government provides, while implicitly agreeing to accept governmental authority.
President Trump and his congressional supporters are gradually dismantling the vestiges of 20th century liberalism from 21st century America. They appear set on redefining the underlying social agreement between the healthy and the sick, between immigrants and native born, between men and women, between differing sexual orientations and religions, between rich and poor and between those who own capital and those who don’t. The privatization of FDR’s Social Security, Johnson’s Medicare and Medicaid and Obama’s Affordable Care Act are in the ruling party’s sights. So much so that this year’s contender for the presidency, former Vice President Joe Biden, has considered that what is at stake is nothing less than the soul of America.
While a social contract may be tacitly greed to in general, its constructs can become very explicit. Our Constitution is often cited as an explicit example of part of our social contract. It sets out what the government can and can’t do.
Social contract is a theory or a model which originated during the Age of Enlightenment, an intellectual and philosophical movement that dominated the world of ideas in Europe between the 17th and 19th centuries. The starting point for most social contract theories was an examination of the human condition prior to, or absent of any political order. Theorists sought to demonstrate why a rational individual would voluntarily consent to give up their national freedom to obtain the benefits of political order. The most profound social contract theorists of the time were: Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), John Locke (1632-1704), and Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778).
Thomas Hobbes’s theoretical basis was “the state of nature,” during which human life was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” In the absence of political order and law, everyone would have unlimited natural freedoms, including the right to plunder, rape and murder. To avoid this, free men would engage in a contract to establish a civil society in which they all gain security in return for subjecting themselves to an absolute sovereign. Hobbes saw absolute government as the only alternative to the terrifying anarchy of the state of nature.
The English philosopher John Locke came from quite a different starting point. He believed that human nature was characterized by reason and tolerance, even though it allowed people to be selfish. In a natural state, all people were equal and independent. Everyone had a natural right to defend his “life, health, liberty, or possessions.” The sole right to defend in the state of nature was not enough, so people established a civil society to resolve conflicts in a civil way with the help from government in an organized state. He argued against the absolute monarchy and in favor of individual consent as the basis for political legitimacy. His ideas had a profound influence on our “Declaration of Independence” and “Constitution,” and can be found back in the written works of Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison and others.
The Swiss philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, writing in 1762, became increasingly aware that the ordering in society was unjust. Rules were made by the rich to suit their own interests, not those of the common people. He argued that laws could only be binding if they were supported by the “general will” of the people.
Today, most of us still believe that we live together in accordance with an agreement that establishes moral and political rules of behavior. Based on responses to polling, our American social contract suggests that we generally share a number of values: Everyone should have an equal chance to get ahead; No one should be discriminated against because of race, religion, gender or sexual preference; No one who works full time should have to live in poverty; People should take responsibility for themselves and their families, but deserve help if they need it through no fault of their own; And no one should have special privileges and power based on wealth and class. These values are anchored in moral teachings and democratic ideals that often predate the founding of our republic. We have veered away from all these principles. However, that does not make us less dedicated to them.
A problem with social contract theory is that it could give governments too much power to make laws under the guise of protecting the public. Governments may use the cloak of the social contract to invoke the fear of a state of nature to warrant laws that are intrusive.
Theo Wierdsma
Monday, July 22, 2019
TIME TO EXHALE
A few weeks ago, my wife and I took a few days away from our daily routine and exposed ourselves to the multifaceted cultural experience provided by Nashville, Tennessee. We visited before, but never managed to attend the Grand Ole Opry, something not necessarily on our bucket list, although it probably should have been. The city of Nashville offered more than “just” music, and much more than the cacophony of country and western sounds blaring at full blast from every bar and restaurant along Broadway, its main thoroughfare.
Although the city is currently less “southern” than it reportedly was during the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, it did retain much of the niceness typically associated with the South. Nevertheless, its southern culture is gradually being diluted by a net migration of about 100 new arrivals a day, making it the 7th fastest growing city in the U.S.. Many of the cultural attractions, however, are fixed in place. We visited the Belle Meade plantation, the Carter House located on the site of one of the Civil War’s last major battles near the city of Franklin, the Hermitage, the estate of our 7th president, Andrew Jackson, the Ryman Auditorium and the Grand Ole Opry, all the while indulging in southern food, and practicing the language. For almost an entire week we saw no newspaper, and only rarely got a glimpse 0f what was going on politically that might increase our blood pressure. In other words, we were able to exhale, and take a break from what we knew would face us again once we returned home.
Belle Meade Plantation
This 200 year old facility is famous for turning 250 acres of remote wilderness into the nation’s leading thoroughbred farm. It’s founder, John Harding, brought two slaves with him when he settled in the area. Over time, the Harding family became one of the largest slave-holding families in Nashville. Initially, John Harding earned his living through boarding horses and subsistence farming. He would eventually shift the operation into what became known as the Belle Mead Stud. His son William took over operations of the plantation in 1839, and continued breeding thoroughbreds. He donate $500,000 to the cost of the Confederate States army, was arrested after the Union forces took control of the sate in 1862, and was imprisoned in Fort Mackinac in Michigan for 6 months. Somehow he kept all his horses. In 1872, he purchased a prime stud, Bonnie Scotland, and established one of America’s most prominent thoroughbred bloodlines. The estate claims that most recent Kentucky Derby and Triple Crown winner can trace their lineage directly to its most famous stud, Iroquois. The plantation’s head hostler and trainer, Robert “Bob” Green, was an enslaved man who became a nationwide celebrity. A fabulous place to visit.
The Battle of Franklin
Franklin, a small town just outside of Nashville, is a friendly tourist-focused hamlet, made more famous for the location where on November 30, 1864 the Battle of Franklin, one of the last major Civil War battles, took place. It seems almost inconceivable that in that small area 27,000 Union troops fought with 20,000 Confederates. The combat lasted only five hours, but resulted in 9,500 casualties – 2,000 dead, 6,500 wounded, and 1,000 missing. The focal point of this battle field, the Carter House, provides a fascinating historic perspective, not to be missed by anyone visiting the area.
The Hermitage
The Hermitage planation is the home of Andrew Jackson, located about twelve miles east of Nashville. It sits on an estate of over 1,100 acres, that includes the tomb of Jackson and his wife Rachel. He lived there from1804 until his death in 1845. It served as a place of rest for “Old Hickory,” where he entertained a steady flow of family and friends. But it was also a place of captivity and suffering for hundreds of slaves. Nevertheless, a must place to visit for history buffs touring the area.
Grand Ole Opry
Our impetus for visiting Nashville was to attend a concert at the Grand Ole Opry. We managed to book two performances. Downtown, at the Ryman Auditorium, the former Grand Ole Opry House, colloquially known as the “Mother Church of Music,” built in 1892 as a permanent location for tent revival-style gospel meetings. A statue of Little Jimmy Dickens sits in front of its main entrance. We attended a performance by singer-songwriter Jill Scott. Our main event, however, was at the current location on Opryland Drive. We managed to include a fascinating backstage tour during the morning of our concert date. That night, more than 4,000 country and western aficionados and interested tourists swarmed the facility, ready to enjoy a multi-faceted program, including, among others, “The Gatlin Brothers” and Merle Haggard’s son Ben. These were the names we recognized. However, we were intrigued by a bluegrass band: “Joe Mullins and the Radio Ramblers” performing a rousing rendition of “Bacon in my beans,” and their reference to another performance favorite: “If I had shot her when I fist met her, I would be out about now.” We were a day early for a feature performance by “Leftover Salmon W/Horseshoes and Hand Grenades.” You wonder why we can’t stick to common names like the “Beatles,” or “Rolling Stones.”
All in all, this trip did exactly what it was intended to do. We crammed a lot into four days. We did partake of hot chicken and waffle dishes, but passed on moonshine tastings, or the redneck comedy tour. I did pick up an instructional manual teaching me “How to Speak Southern,” something I may dig into before we go again.
Theo Wierdsma
Thursday, June 13, 2019
TRUMP’S TARIFFS CREATE DOMESTIC CONSEQUENCES
Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign swings throughout our country’s heartland successfully honed in on the loss of manufacturing facilities, the millions of jobs lost, and the difficulties encountered by the farming communities scratching out a living when competing with low priced imports. Trump pointedly identified our deficient balance of trade - a measure of the value of exports of goods an services compared with our imports from other countries - as the culprit. While no country escaped his wrath, China rose to the exalted position of being his primary target. He accurately indicated that it contributed 61% of our entire 2016 deficit.
Trump and his advisors argued that this deficit was concentrated in the manufacturing sector. They asserted that surging imports of low cost Chinese products had not only lowered the wages of our non-college educated workers, they also forced many industries into bankruptcy, which, in turn, led to a loss of somewhere between two and three million jobs during the preceding decades. The “balance of trade” talking point became a simple, convenient, be it unsophisticated populist theme that elevated Trump’s electoral chances. While many economists argue that the trade deficit is not economically significant as an indicator of economic health, and that a larger trade deficit could in fact be the result of a stronger economy, Trump would not let go, and installed the concept as a centerpiece of his economic policies.
As he complained that unfair trading practices were being used against us, Mr. Trump has used the “threat of tariffs” as a weapon to persuade competitors to help us reduce our trade deficit. This strategy did not work out as planned. Our balance of trade deficit with China was almost $44 billion higher in 2018 than it was the year before. Doubling down, Trump increased his aggressive posture against the second largest economic superpower in the world, in an attempt to force it to comply with his demands. On May 5th he announced that he would increase the tariff on $200 billion of Chinese goods to 25%, and threatened to tax the remaining $325 billion to the same percentage "shortly."
He mistakenly, or blatantly, asserted that the tariffs paid to the USA have had little impact on our product cost, claiming that they are mostly borne by China. The latter, in turn, retaliated by announcing plans to impose tariffs on $60 billion worth of American goods, specifically targeting commodities originating in states Trump won by significant margins in 2016. The trade war was on. Donald Trump was fulfilling election promises, making political points in an attempt to solidify his base, even though he clearly displayed his ignorance about how the economy works, and seemed untroubled by the consequences of his impetuous posturing.
Our president falsely claims that China pays the tariffs levied by his administration. In reality, companies like Ford, Walmart and others that import goods from China foot the bill - costs that are passed on to U.S. consumers. Economists calculate that the tariffs imposed on imports from China cost American consumers $68.8 billion last year alone. David Weinstein, an economist at Columbia University, estimates that the latest round of tariff increases will push the annual cost per household well above $800. Larry Kudlow, director of the "National Economic Council" concedes that both sides in the conflict will pay. "Both sides will suffer on this," he said on "Fox News Sunday" recently. "You've got to do what you got to do...The economic consequences are so small that the possible improvements in trade and exports and open markets for the United States, this is worth doing."
However, tariffs not only increase prices, they also kill jobs. "The Tax Foundation" calculated that in 2018 459,816 jobs were lost because of enacted and announced tariffs. The Washington based "Trade Partnership World Wide" estimates that job losses during a U.S.- China trade war would top 2 million if Trump imposes a 25% tariff on all Chinese imports.
Mr.Trump's celebrated constituency of so-called "Patriot Farmers," those still supporting him, but caught between a rock and a hard place, find themselves hoping beyond hope that he knows what he is doing. China's retaliatory tariffs effectively killed the market for domestic producers of agricultural products. A May 19 article in Newsweek quoted a Wisconsin farmer telling Fox News that suicides and bankruptcies in rural America are rising dramatically. A poll backed by the American Farm Bureau reported that 91% of respondents revealed that financial issues are impacting mental health, 87% of farmers fear losing their farms, and one third had sought mental healthcare. With Trump promising that "short term pains" inflicted on farmers are worth the "long term gains," farmers are asking: "How long is short term?" and "what does success ultimately look like?" Many are beginning to worry that other countries will permanently replace American suppliers. In response, Donald Trump offered another $16 billion bail-out package for farmers most hurt by the dispute - funds paid by the U.S. Treasury Department, not by China.
In addition to all this, economists suggest that these tariffs, if sustained, increase the probability of a recession, could shave 0.25 - 0.35 percentage points off GDP, and would more than cancel out all of the economic benefits of the 2017 tax law. Forbes Magazine, in its May 23rd issue, reported that the Japanese financial services company "Nomura Securities" offered 65% odds that 25% tariffs on additional $300 billion worth of Chinese goods will go into effects by the 3rd quarter of this year. In the mean time, Donald Trump is on record tweeting that he would be happy to leave tariffs in place indefinitely.
Most of our allies agree that we need to do something to reign in China's irresponsible trading practices. However, the consensus is that coordinated action would promise far better results. Trump's gamble does not merit the consequences, intended or not.
Trump and his advisors argued that this deficit was concentrated in the manufacturing sector. They asserted that surging imports of low cost Chinese products had not only lowered the wages of our non-college educated workers, they also forced many industries into bankruptcy, which, in turn, led to a loss of somewhere between two and three million jobs during the preceding decades. The “balance of trade” talking point became a simple, convenient, be it unsophisticated populist theme that elevated Trump’s electoral chances. While many economists argue that the trade deficit is not economically significant as an indicator of economic health, and that a larger trade deficit could in fact be the result of a stronger economy, Trump would not let go, and installed the concept as a centerpiece of his economic policies.
As he complained that unfair trading practices were being used against us, Mr. Trump has used the “threat of tariffs” as a weapon to persuade competitors to help us reduce our trade deficit. This strategy did not work out as planned. Our balance of trade deficit with China was almost $44 billion higher in 2018 than it was the year before. Doubling down, Trump increased his aggressive posture against the second largest economic superpower in the world, in an attempt to force it to comply with his demands. On May 5th he announced that he would increase the tariff on $200 billion of Chinese goods to 25%, and threatened to tax the remaining $325 billion to the same percentage "shortly."
He mistakenly, or blatantly, asserted that the tariffs paid to the USA have had little impact on our product cost, claiming that they are mostly borne by China. The latter, in turn, retaliated by announcing plans to impose tariffs on $60 billion worth of American goods, specifically targeting commodities originating in states Trump won by significant margins in 2016. The trade war was on. Donald Trump was fulfilling election promises, making political points in an attempt to solidify his base, even though he clearly displayed his ignorance about how the economy works, and seemed untroubled by the consequences of his impetuous posturing.
Our president falsely claims that China pays the tariffs levied by his administration. In reality, companies like Ford, Walmart and others that import goods from China foot the bill - costs that are passed on to U.S. consumers. Economists calculate that the tariffs imposed on imports from China cost American consumers $68.8 billion last year alone. David Weinstein, an economist at Columbia University, estimates that the latest round of tariff increases will push the annual cost per household well above $800. Larry Kudlow, director of the "National Economic Council" concedes that both sides in the conflict will pay. "Both sides will suffer on this," he said on "Fox News Sunday" recently. "You've got to do what you got to do...The economic consequences are so small that the possible improvements in trade and exports and open markets for the United States, this is worth doing."
However, tariffs not only increase prices, they also kill jobs. "The Tax Foundation" calculated that in 2018 459,816 jobs were lost because of enacted and announced tariffs. The Washington based "Trade Partnership World Wide" estimates that job losses during a U.S.- China trade war would top 2 million if Trump imposes a 25% tariff on all Chinese imports.
Mr.Trump's celebrated constituency of so-called "Patriot Farmers," those still supporting him, but caught between a rock and a hard place, find themselves hoping beyond hope that he knows what he is doing. China's retaliatory tariffs effectively killed the market for domestic producers of agricultural products. A May 19 article in Newsweek quoted a Wisconsin farmer telling Fox News that suicides and bankruptcies in rural America are rising dramatically. A poll backed by the American Farm Bureau reported that 91% of respondents revealed that financial issues are impacting mental health, 87% of farmers fear losing their farms, and one third had sought mental healthcare. With Trump promising that "short term pains" inflicted on farmers are worth the "long term gains," farmers are asking: "How long is short term?" and "what does success ultimately look like?" Many are beginning to worry that other countries will permanently replace American suppliers. In response, Donald Trump offered another $16 billion bail-out package for farmers most hurt by the dispute - funds paid by the U.S. Treasury Department, not by China.
In addition to all this, economists suggest that these tariffs, if sustained, increase the probability of a recession, could shave 0.25 - 0.35 percentage points off GDP, and would more than cancel out all of the economic benefits of the 2017 tax law. Forbes Magazine, in its May 23rd issue, reported that the Japanese financial services company "Nomura Securities" offered 65% odds that 25% tariffs on additional $300 billion worth of Chinese goods will go into effects by the 3rd quarter of this year. In the mean time, Donald Trump is on record tweeting that he would be happy to leave tariffs in place indefinitely.
Most of our allies agree that we need to do something to reign in China's irresponsible trading practices. However, the consensus is that coordinated action would promise far better results. Trump's gamble does not merit the consequences, intended or not.
Wednesday, June 12, 2019
MR. TRUMP BEFUDDLES EUROPE
President Trump's European trip earlier this month was nervously anticipated to be an improvement over the experience of last year's visit, but still expected to contain some surprises and awkward situations, some potentially consequential, and some relegated to fodder for the talk show circuit. Some controversies already preceded the flight from Washington D.C.. Mr. Trump's ongoing feud with London's mayor Sadiq Khan had been in the headlines for days, and his characterization of Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, as "nasty," during an interview, rankled more than some royal feathers.
Helicopters transported Mr. an Mrs. Trump from Stansted Airport to Buckingham Palace, where they were received by Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles and Camilla. Mr. Trump would later claim that they flew over thousands of cheering supporters in downtown London, not recognizing that these were actually protesters expressing their disapproval of his presence.
The pomp and ceremony at Buckingham Palace fit President Trump very well. He appeared coached and scripted, acting statesman-like. Trump, being Trump, was very pleased with himself. After the state dinner, he soon boasted about having had "automatic chemistry" with the queen. When asked during a Fox interview if he fist-bumbed the queen, he said: "I did not, but I had a great relationship, we had a really great time. There are those that say they have never seen the queen have a better time, a more animated time... We just had a great time together." (The Guardian, Jun. 7, 2019). Queen Elizabeth, who has met with 12 U.S. presidents since 1951, was predictably not asked for a comment.
After insulting Prime Minister Theresa May during their last visit, this year's face-to-face meeting was much more civil. Mr. Trump actually managed to compliment the outgoing P.M. on her negotiating efforts with he European Union. He did, however, all but encourage the U.K. to pursue a "no deal Brexit," a scenario British lawmakers adamantly oppose. He also strongly suggested that Nigel Farage, a supporter and leader of the recently formed "Brexit Party," should lead ongoing negotiations with the E.U.. And, while he continued providing unwelcome advise, he insinuated that former U.K. Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, an old friend, should replace Theresa May as leader of the Conservative Party, and as Prime Minister. (To not hurt his chances of being elected, Mr. Johnson declined to meet with the president.) Finally, he proposed a post Brexit free trade agreement with the U.S., but stipulated that everything, including the popular British healthcare system, should be on the table. A deal breaker for anyone in the audience.
The interview with Piers Morgan for "Good Morning Britain" should probably never have happened. The president appeared very uncomfortable when Morgan asked him how he evaded the draft during the Vietnam war. Trump received four student deferments and two medical excuses for bone spurs. Trump's rambling explanation quickly made the news: "I was never a fan of that war, I'll be honest with you. I thought it was a terrible war; I thought it was very far away. You're talking about Vietnam. At that time nobody had ever heard of that country."
His televised pep-talk to Ireland's Prime Minister Leo Varadkar became another awkward moment. Referring to Brexit, a hot topic of significant concern in Ireland, Trump said: "I think it will all work out very well, and also for you with your wall, your border. I mean, we have a border situation in the United States, and you have one over here. But I hear it's going to work out very well here." Mr. Varadkar's retort that Ireland would like "to avoid a border or wall" did not seem to penetrate or resonate.
Aside from the state visit, the other featured objective of Trump's visit to Europe at this time of the year was to participate in the commemoration of the 75th Anniversary of D-Day at the "Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial" in Colleville-sur-Mer in France. President Trump managed to do a commendable job during the solemn and emotional ceremony. However, even here he managed to redirect attention onto himself. With the D-Day ceremony as a backdrop, and the 9,388 white crosses covering burial sites behind him, he inserted a sit-down interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham, during which he blasted his political rivals at home. At some point he suggested that the officials attending probably did not recognize that he was the one holding up the entire ceremony just to do that interview. Even Ingraham admitted that that was fake news.
A final parting gift to the pundits surfaced during the family's trip home. Becoming aware that NASA planned to go back to the moon during he coming few years, something Trump actually proposed not too long ago, he flipped on his space objectives, tweeting: "For all the money we are spending, NASA should NOT be talking about going to the moon - we did that 50 years ago. They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including MARS (of which the moon is a part). Defence (sic) and Science!" For some in the Trump entourage this may have counted as enlightenment. For many at home and abroad this tweet resembled pure nonsense.
Most controversial statements chronicled during Mr. Trump's European trip this time around are attributable to self-aggrandizement, and expressions of, mostly unwelcome, opinions fueled by narcissism and essential ignorance of the political facts and climate on the ground. I am certain that many in Europe anticipated much of this. If this was his objective, Mr. Trump did great job leaving much of the citizenry in host countries confused and bewildered.
Helicopters transported Mr. an Mrs. Trump from Stansted Airport to Buckingham Palace, where they were received by Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles and Camilla. Mr. Trump would later claim that they flew over thousands of cheering supporters in downtown London, not recognizing that these were actually protesters expressing their disapproval of his presence.
The pomp and ceremony at Buckingham Palace fit President Trump very well. He appeared coached and scripted, acting statesman-like. Trump, being Trump, was very pleased with himself. After the state dinner, he soon boasted about having had "automatic chemistry" with the queen. When asked during a Fox interview if he fist-bumbed the queen, he said: "I did not, but I had a great relationship, we had a really great time. There are those that say they have never seen the queen have a better time, a more animated time... We just had a great time together." (The Guardian, Jun. 7, 2019). Queen Elizabeth, who has met with 12 U.S. presidents since 1951, was predictably not asked for a comment.
After insulting Prime Minister Theresa May during their last visit, this year's face-to-face meeting was much more civil. Mr. Trump actually managed to compliment the outgoing P.M. on her negotiating efforts with he European Union. He did, however, all but encourage the U.K. to pursue a "no deal Brexit," a scenario British lawmakers adamantly oppose. He also strongly suggested that Nigel Farage, a supporter and leader of the recently formed "Brexit Party," should lead ongoing negotiations with the E.U.. And, while he continued providing unwelcome advise, he insinuated that former U.K. Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, an old friend, should replace Theresa May as leader of the Conservative Party, and as Prime Minister. (To not hurt his chances of being elected, Mr. Johnson declined to meet with the president.) Finally, he proposed a post Brexit free trade agreement with the U.S., but stipulated that everything, including the popular British healthcare system, should be on the table. A deal breaker for anyone in the audience.
The interview with Piers Morgan for "Good Morning Britain" should probably never have happened. The president appeared very uncomfortable when Morgan asked him how he evaded the draft during the Vietnam war. Trump received four student deferments and two medical excuses for bone spurs. Trump's rambling explanation quickly made the news: "I was never a fan of that war, I'll be honest with you. I thought it was a terrible war; I thought it was very far away. You're talking about Vietnam. At that time nobody had ever heard of that country."
His televised pep-talk to Ireland's Prime Minister Leo Varadkar became another awkward moment. Referring to Brexit, a hot topic of significant concern in Ireland, Trump said: "I think it will all work out very well, and also for you with your wall, your border. I mean, we have a border situation in the United States, and you have one over here. But I hear it's going to work out very well here." Mr. Varadkar's retort that Ireland would like "to avoid a border or wall" did not seem to penetrate or resonate.
Aside from the state visit, the other featured objective of Trump's visit to Europe at this time of the year was to participate in the commemoration of the 75th Anniversary of D-Day at the "Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial" in Colleville-sur-Mer in France. President Trump managed to do a commendable job during the solemn and emotional ceremony. However, even here he managed to redirect attention onto himself. With the D-Day ceremony as a backdrop, and the 9,388 white crosses covering burial sites behind him, he inserted a sit-down interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham, during which he blasted his political rivals at home. At some point he suggested that the officials attending probably did not recognize that he was the one holding up the entire ceremony just to do that interview. Even Ingraham admitted that that was fake news.
A final parting gift to the pundits surfaced during the family's trip home. Becoming aware that NASA planned to go back to the moon during he coming few years, something Trump actually proposed not too long ago, he flipped on his space objectives, tweeting: "For all the money we are spending, NASA should NOT be talking about going to the moon - we did that 50 years ago. They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including MARS (of which the moon is a part). Defence (sic) and Science!" For some in the Trump entourage this may have counted as enlightenment. For many at home and abroad this tweet resembled pure nonsense.
Most controversial statements chronicled during Mr. Trump's European trip this time around are attributable to self-aggrandizement, and expressions of, mostly unwelcome, opinions fueled by narcissism and essential ignorance of the political facts and climate on the ground. I am certain that many in Europe anticipated much of this. If this was his objective, Mr. Trump did great job leaving much of the citizenry in host countries confused and bewildered.
Friday, May 17, 2019
TRUMP DEFIES SIMPLISTIC COMPARISON
"Tall trees catch a lot of wind." This traditional Dutch expression translates to something like: "people in high places catch a lot of flack." This is something we are all familiar with. No matter who runs our government, critics will quickly attach labels in an attempt to pigeonhole them, sometimes even well before they take power. These days many seem tempted to simplistically compare current political leaders to historical figures. Two of the more popular characterizations we have all become familiar with are: "Fascist" and "Machiavellian." Hitler's moustache has adorned George Bush as well as Barack Obama, while Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were often considered to be Machiavellian. No surprise therefore that Donald Trump is receiving the same treatment - be it probably more prevalent because he is currently more visible and more intensely controversial. However, none of this should imply that the characterizations being bantered about this time are somehow less simplistic or more appropriate.
Political antagonists from all sides of the political spectrum have made ignorant use of the term "Fascist" to describe their opposition to mean something or someone cruel, unscrupulous or arrogant. Political affiliation doesn't protect against this kind of assault. Back in 20017, Keith Oberman, political commentator for MSNBC, chastised then President George W. Bush for commuting Lewis Libby's prion sentence by exclaiming: "If you believe in the seamless mutuality of government and big business, come out and say it! There is a dictionary definition, one word that describe that toxic blend. You're a Fascist!" Ten years later, Seth Connell, writing for "The Federalist Papers," penned a piece headlined: "The Democratic Party Has Officially Gone Full Fascist." Any political leader in between has at some point become the focus of similar treatment. As former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright points out in her new book: "Fascism, a warning," "at this point, anybody who disagrees with us is a Fascist."
Many who use the term have often degraded it to the level of a swearword. It is usually not the "ideology" behind the term, such as it is, but the visual impression of Adolf Hitler that gets highlighted. As Secretary Albright explains, "Fascism is not an ideology, it is a process for taking and holding power." She continues: "A Fascist is someone who is willing to use whatever means are necessary - including violence - to achieve his or her goals. A Fascist will likely be a tyrant, but a tyrant need not be a Fascist." The adoption of violence to impose fascist authority is key to Fascism. Hitler's objective was cleansing his Aryan race. He was a sociopathic narcissist, delusional egomaniac, unfeeling and cruel. Whatever tendencies Donald Trump is perceived to have, they don't raise to that level. Those equating Trump's supposed fascism with that of Benito Mussolini, in many ways the father of fascism, are wrong as well. Mussolini was obsessed with power, a trait Trump also appears to possess, but he was more cerebral, resorting to extreme manipulation by writing interpretative entries on the definition of fascism for the Italian Encyclopedia, and composing multiple biographies and speeches. Trump does not have the mental capacity to do these without the use of a ghostwriter. "The Art of the Deal" does not qualify.
Those depicting Donald Trump as being Machiavellian generally focus on philosophical content rather than propagandistic imagery. Superficially, being Machiavellian refers to being sneaky, cunning, lacking a moral code, and the idea that the end justifies he means. Early on, before Trump was even inaugurated, David Ignatius, in a Washington Post column, proclaimed that: "Donald Trump is the American Machiavelli." (Washington Post, Nov. 10, 2016.) He explained that: "Rarely in the United States have we seen the embodiment of the traits Machiavelli admired quite like Donald Trump," while referring to Machiavelli's masterpiece "The Prince," a book Trump had listed as one of his favorites. Ignatius goes on to enumerate some of the character traits Machiavelli listed as an advantageous or even necessary part of leadership, including: occasionally lying, bullying, mocking political correctness, decisively exercising power, and the proclivity to rather be feared than loved. The prince's task was to create a "strong state," not necessarily a "good one."
Several months later, Ignatius reversed himself, and wrote: "Trump is not so Machiavellian after all." (Washington Post, March 23, 2017). He stated that Trump embodied some of the moral qualities Machiavelli had recommended in his book: "He is ruthless, he lies, deceives and manipulates where necessary." However, he did not believe that our president, among other qualities, really embodies the spirit of "virtue," something Machiavelli regarded as essential for political success. Multiple analysts and observers agreed, sometimes even referring to Trump as the "Anti-Machiavelli." (See for instance: Stefano Albertini, "La Voce di New York," Jan. 14, 2018.)
One might wonder whether the attempt to attach superficially defined labels to our political leaders represents an act of convenience, not intended to educate but to agitate, counting on the unquestioning acceptance of a receptive audience. Then again, some critics may use ill-defined, but recognizable labels in lieu of what could be called "Trumpism," something even more difficult to define, since it tends to refer to unpredictability, and is ever changing, without a philosophical or ideological underpinning.
Political antagonists from all sides of the political spectrum have made ignorant use of the term "Fascist" to describe their opposition to mean something or someone cruel, unscrupulous or arrogant. Political affiliation doesn't protect against this kind of assault. Back in 20017, Keith Oberman, political commentator for MSNBC, chastised then President George W. Bush for commuting Lewis Libby's prion sentence by exclaiming: "If you believe in the seamless mutuality of government and big business, come out and say it! There is a dictionary definition, one word that describe that toxic blend. You're a Fascist!" Ten years later, Seth Connell, writing for "The Federalist Papers," penned a piece headlined: "The Democratic Party Has Officially Gone Full Fascist." Any political leader in between has at some point become the focus of similar treatment. As former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright points out in her new book: "Fascism, a warning," "at this point, anybody who disagrees with us is a Fascist."
Many who use the term have often degraded it to the level of a swearword. It is usually not the "ideology" behind the term, such as it is, but the visual impression of Adolf Hitler that gets highlighted. As Secretary Albright explains, "Fascism is not an ideology, it is a process for taking and holding power." She continues: "A Fascist is someone who is willing to use whatever means are necessary - including violence - to achieve his or her goals. A Fascist will likely be a tyrant, but a tyrant need not be a Fascist." The adoption of violence to impose fascist authority is key to Fascism. Hitler's objective was cleansing his Aryan race. He was a sociopathic narcissist, delusional egomaniac, unfeeling and cruel. Whatever tendencies Donald Trump is perceived to have, they don't raise to that level. Those equating Trump's supposed fascism with that of Benito Mussolini, in many ways the father of fascism, are wrong as well. Mussolini was obsessed with power, a trait Trump also appears to possess, but he was more cerebral, resorting to extreme manipulation by writing interpretative entries on the definition of fascism for the Italian Encyclopedia, and composing multiple biographies and speeches. Trump does not have the mental capacity to do these without the use of a ghostwriter. "The Art of the Deal" does not qualify.
Those depicting Donald Trump as being Machiavellian generally focus on philosophical content rather than propagandistic imagery. Superficially, being Machiavellian refers to being sneaky, cunning, lacking a moral code, and the idea that the end justifies he means. Early on, before Trump was even inaugurated, David Ignatius, in a Washington Post column, proclaimed that: "Donald Trump is the American Machiavelli." (Washington Post, Nov. 10, 2016.) He explained that: "Rarely in the United States have we seen the embodiment of the traits Machiavelli admired quite like Donald Trump," while referring to Machiavelli's masterpiece "The Prince," a book Trump had listed as one of his favorites. Ignatius goes on to enumerate some of the character traits Machiavelli listed as an advantageous or even necessary part of leadership, including: occasionally lying, bullying, mocking political correctness, decisively exercising power, and the proclivity to rather be feared than loved. The prince's task was to create a "strong state," not necessarily a "good one."
Several months later, Ignatius reversed himself, and wrote: "Trump is not so Machiavellian after all." (Washington Post, March 23, 2017). He stated that Trump embodied some of the moral qualities Machiavelli had recommended in his book: "He is ruthless, he lies, deceives and manipulates where necessary." However, he did not believe that our president, among other qualities, really embodies the spirit of "virtue," something Machiavelli regarded as essential for political success. Multiple analysts and observers agreed, sometimes even referring to Trump as the "Anti-Machiavelli." (See for instance: Stefano Albertini, "La Voce di New York," Jan. 14, 2018.)
One might wonder whether the attempt to attach superficially defined labels to our political leaders represents an act of convenience, not intended to educate but to agitate, counting on the unquestioning acceptance of a receptive audience. Then again, some critics may use ill-defined, but recognizable labels in lieu of what could be called "Trumpism," something even more difficult to define, since it tends to refer to unpredictability, and is ever changing, without a philosophical or ideological underpinning.
Tuesday, May 7, 2019
DEMOCRATS PONDER THEIR "TREXIT" STRATEGY
The Democratic Party appears to be in turmoil over what strategy to pursue to affect President Trump's exit (Trexit) from the White House. While playing defense, the Republican Party is laser-focused on protecting their leader, who only garners a 39% approval rating, from electoral defeat in the rapidly approaching national election.
Democrats are in a quandary about whether to impeach or not impeach. With the election just 18 months away, how this dilemma is resolved would almost certainly have an effect on its outcome. National polls indicate that only 37% of respondents indicated they favor starting the impeachment process, while 56% oppose that idea. Moreover six in ten independents appear to be against impeachment now, a sign of potential electoral danger for Democrats.
Article II of our Constitution states that a president can be impeached for bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors. The latter condition is not defined, and its application is purely political. Pro "impeachment now" Democratic members of Congress point out that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's heavily redacted but revealing report identified at least ten instances of potential obstruction of justice, impeachable offenses if proven, providing a blueprint for Congress to decide how to handle them.
Congresswoman Maxine Waters is clear in her conviction, proclaiming: "We're going to have to impeach. I just wish it was sooner rather than later." Presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren the first of few major candidates to immediately call for impeachment, saying that "there is no political inconvenience exception to the United States Constitution," and asserted that President Trump's actions would "inflict a great and lasting damage on this country." Other candidates like Sen. Kamala Harris and former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro, publicly concurred. By contrast, mainstream Democrats warn about the political risks of an unsuccessful impeachment. While Democrats control the House, and could muster the simple majority it takes to adopt articles of impeachment, virtually every political observer concedes that the Republican Senate would never round up the 2/3 supermajority it takes to convict.
Party leaders fear that the impeachment process would work to President Trump's advantage, giving him the sympathy vote, especially while a significant segment of the public is growing tired of the ongoing Mueller probe. Sen. Cory Booker, another Democratic candidate for the presidency, said that "there is a lot more investigation that should go on before Congress comes to any conclusion like that," meaning the need to impeach. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand made clear that she feels that a meeting with Robert Mueller should precede any decision. Sen. Bernie Sanders reiterated as well that impeachment might distract from other important issues important to voters that "works to Trump's advantage."
Democratic congressional leaders cautiously remind their membership about what happened when Republicans impeached President Bill Clinton two decades ago. The House impeached Clinton in 1999. House Speaker Newt Gingrich intimate that they did "because we can." He predicted that, because of what they were doing, Republicans would gain 25-30 seats in the 2002 election. However, the Republican Senate failed to convict, Clinton became even more popular than his 72 percent approval rating at the start of the process, ostensibly because people saw his impeachment as Republican overreach. The Democrats ended up gaining five seats in the 2002 election, and Gingrich was forced to resign. Speaker Pelosi could direct Donald Trump's impeachment as well, "because she can." But party insiders fear that the fall-out could well mirror what happened in 2002.
Given this historical context, Republicans might actually prefer confronting impeachment proceedings over the drip, drip, drip of ongoing investigations into the multitude of instances Mueller identified as possibly bordering on obstruction of justice. Democrats run the risk of being branded one-trick ponies. Michigan Rep. Debbie Dingell argued that Americans expect more from Congress, and suggested they pursue a legislative agenda that includes "lowering prescription drug prices, creating 16 million good-paying jobs through a real infrastructure plan, and to make sure our government is working" instead. With the election around the corner, timing also becomes a factor. President Nixon's impeachment process took 14 months from the start of the Watergate hearings until he resigned. Given that timeframe, impeachment might still be debated when the election takes place. Many Democrats are unlikely to enjoy that prospect.
Even as they strategize to reclaim the White House, Democrats would benefit from showing they are able to walk and chew gum. This involves compartmentalizing their constitutional oversight responsibilities involving ongoing investigations, while simultaneously advancing legislative objectives. Republicans would benefit from signing on to these pursuits as well, and the country at large would be the better for it.
Democrats are in a quandary about whether to impeach or not impeach. With the election just 18 months away, how this dilemma is resolved would almost certainly have an effect on its outcome. National polls indicate that only 37% of respondents indicated they favor starting the impeachment process, while 56% oppose that idea. Moreover six in ten independents appear to be against impeachment now, a sign of potential electoral danger for Democrats.
Article II of our Constitution states that a president can be impeached for bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors. The latter condition is not defined, and its application is purely political. Pro "impeachment now" Democratic members of Congress point out that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's heavily redacted but revealing report identified at least ten instances of potential obstruction of justice, impeachable offenses if proven, providing a blueprint for Congress to decide how to handle them.
Congresswoman Maxine Waters is clear in her conviction, proclaiming: "We're going to have to impeach. I just wish it was sooner rather than later." Presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren the first of few major candidates to immediately call for impeachment, saying that "there is no political inconvenience exception to the United States Constitution," and asserted that President Trump's actions would "inflict a great and lasting damage on this country." Other candidates like Sen. Kamala Harris and former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro, publicly concurred. By contrast, mainstream Democrats warn about the political risks of an unsuccessful impeachment. While Democrats control the House, and could muster the simple majority it takes to adopt articles of impeachment, virtually every political observer concedes that the Republican Senate would never round up the 2/3 supermajority it takes to convict.
Party leaders fear that the impeachment process would work to President Trump's advantage, giving him the sympathy vote, especially while a significant segment of the public is growing tired of the ongoing Mueller probe. Sen. Cory Booker, another Democratic candidate for the presidency, said that "there is a lot more investigation that should go on before Congress comes to any conclusion like that," meaning the need to impeach. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand made clear that she feels that a meeting with Robert Mueller should precede any decision. Sen. Bernie Sanders reiterated as well that impeachment might distract from other important issues important to voters that "works to Trump's advantage."
Democratic congressional leaders cautiously remind their membership about what happened when Republicans impeached President Bill Clinton two decades ago. The House impeached Clinton in 1999. House Speaker Newt Gingrich intimate that they did "because we can." He predicted that, because of what they were doing, Republicans would gain 25-30 seats in the 2002 election. However, the Republican Senate failed to convict, Clinton became even more popular than his 72 percent approval rating at the start of the process, ostensibly because people saw his impeachment as Republican overreach. The Democrats ended up gaining five seats in the 2002 election, and Gingrich was forced to resign. Speaker Pelosi could direct Donald Trump's impeachment as well, "because she can." But party insiders fear that the fall-out could well mirror what happened in 2002.
Given this historical context, Republicans might actually prefer confronting impeachment proceedings over the drip, drip, drip of ongoing investigations into the multitude of instances Mueller identified as possibly bordering on obstruction of justice. Democrats run the risk of being branded one-trick ponies. Michigan Rep. Debbie Dingell argued that Americans expect more from Congress, and suggested they pursue a legislative agenda that includes "lowering prescription drug prices, creating 16 million good-paying jobs through a real infrastructure plan, and to make sure our government is working" instead. With the election around the corner, timing also becomes a factor. President Nixon's impeachment process took 14 months from the start of the Watergate hearings until he resigned. Given that timeframe, impeachment might still be debated when the election takes place. Many Democrats are unlikely to enjoy that prospect.
Even as they strategize to reclaim the White House, Democrats would benefit from showing they are able to walk and chew gum. This involves compartmentalizing their constitutional oversight responsibilities involving ongoing investigations, while simultaneously advancing legislative objectives. Republicans would benefit from signing on to these pursuits as well, and the country at large would be the better for it.
Thursday, April 18, 2019
EUROPE'S VEXING CHARISMA PROBLEM
The 2019 elections to the European Parliament will take place between May 23 and May 26. Many in the Union prepare for this election with trepidation. It threatens to be shaping up as a battle between the forces of integration an fragmentation. A Reuter poll, executed in June of last year, projected that Eurosceptic political parties could well expand their representative strength in the Parliament by more than 60%. These largely critical, sometimes entirely anti EU, movements operate outside of the traditional mainstream support structure within the 28 nation bloc. If Brexit does happen before the election, 19 members of the United Kingdom Independent Party, which openly opposes the EU, will leave. However, Italy's coalition of populist parties, "5-Star" and "The League," combined with the rise of "Alternative for Germany," the French "National Rally," the Dutch "Freedom Party," and the recently surging "Forum for the Democracy," as well as Poland's "Law and Justice Party" are anticipated to more than make up for the British absence, and increase their collective representation from the current 80 to a potentially consequential 122 seats.
To say the least, this situation is awkward. EU member states could end up with a governing body seating a very significant percentage of representatives ideologically opposed to its essential objective. Outsiders with suspect intentions also join the fray. Steve Bannon, Donald Trump's former White House Chief Strategist, even set up shop here, launching a project intended to coordinate and bolster the anti-EU vote across the continent. While a 2018 "Eurobarometer" survey commissioned by the Parliament indicated that 67% of EU citizens thought that membership had benefitted their country, and slightly more than half continue to express strong support for the Union - possibly stimulated by the Brexit vote - the Eurosceptic movement and its electoral success has exhibited steady growth. The question is: "why?" The temptation has been to blame the outcomes on populism fed by immigration. While this is important, it is only part of the answer.
EU leadership has become a haven for technocrats. The government in Brussels is filled with obscure bureaucrats few Europeans recognize or know by name. Post-war Europe was rebuilt on the strength and vision of charismatic leaders. German sociologist Max Weber referred to charisma as "a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities." After World War II Europeans looked up to leaders with these qualities, men like Charles De Gaulle, Konrad Adenauer, Winston Churchill and Alcide De Gasperi. Some of these inspired the development of the European Union project, aiming to end the frequent and bloody wars between neighbors.
Ultimately, the EU grew to what it has become today. However, it appears to be suffering some consequences of its success. Europe has not seen wars for decades. Its crises have become largely economic. Its technocratic leadership will solve economic issues, but it does not articulate these for popular consumption, and does not really inspire. Hence, ordinary citizens in membership countries are less inclined to develop an emotional connection with Brussels than with their native institutions.
Opposition parties competing in parliamentary elections are clearly taking advantage. Globalization, immigration, and the transfer of power to a source outside of their own country, gradually generated erosion of native cultures. This has often led to identity crises, a perceived loss of direction, and becoming a ripe environment for populist politicians. Political scientists have asserted that the charismatic bond between leader and follower is central to populist parties. Populism advocates the power of the people, yet relies on seduction by a charismatic leader. Populist politicians clearly articulate these identity crises, cast blame on the supranational government in Brussels, and justify their leadership by challenging its legitimacy and pontificating against it. By its nature, their messaging is more focused, and the messengers tend to be skillful and inspirational orators. By using fear and focus their messianic demeanor forges trust, a stable emotional connection with domestic citizenry, and develops a reliable electoral base. People understand what eurosceptics stand for.
Between Brussels and most of Europe, this connection is lacking. Many remain unclear about the direction mainstream parties want to take them. As far back as 2012, Frederico Castiglioni, an articulate member of the European Federalist Movement, warned that "Europe's technocrats might solve the economic conundrum, but they cannot restore trust between Europe and its citizens. We need a charismatic, democratic leader before illiberal and nationalistic forces gain ground." ("Europe's need for a charismatic leader," The European, Nov. 29, 2012). Others have issued similar warnings. Brussels continues to hope to convert dissatisfaction into democratic zeal rather than more political apathy. Thus far with little success.
Lacking major changes in campaign strategies, the upcoming election threatens to remain a confrontation between technocratic competence and charisma, a battle charisma very often wins. In the mean time, the pro EU centrist majority in the European Parliament hangs by a thread, lucky that eurosceptics thus far appear unable to unite under one political umbrella.
To say the least, this situation is awkward. EU member states could end up with a governing body seating a very significant percentage of representatives ideologically opposed to its essential objective. Outsiders with suspect intentions also join the fray. Steve Bannon, Donald Trump's former White House Chief Strategist, even set up shop here, launching a project intended to coordinate and bolster the anti-EU vote across the continent. While a 2018 "Eurobarometer" survey commissioned by the Parliament indicated that 67% of EU citizens thought that membership had benefitted their country, and slightly more than half continue to express strong support for the Union - possibly stimulated by the Brexit vote - the Eurosceptic movement and its electoral success has exhibited steady growth. The question is: "why?" The temptation has been to blame the outcomes on populism fed by immigration. While this is important, it is only part of the answer.
EU leadership has become a haven for technocrats. The government in Brussels is filled with obscure bureaucrats few Europeans recognize or know by name. Post-war Europe was rebuilt on the strength and vision of charismatic leaders. German sociologist Max Weber referred to charisma as "a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities." After World War II Europeans looked up to leaders with these qualities, men like Charles De Gaulle, Konrad Adenauer, Winston Churchill and Alcide De Gasperi. Some of these inspired the development of the European Union project, aiming to end the frequent and bloody wars between neighbors.
Ultimately, the EU grew to what it has become today. However, it appears to be suffering some consequences of its success. Europe has not seen wars for decades. Its crises have become largely economic. Its technocratic leadership will solve economic issues, but it does not articulate these for popular consumption, and does not really inspire. Hence, ordinary citizens in membership countries are less inclined to develop an emotional connection with Brussels than with their native institutions.
Opposition parties competing in parliamentary elections are clearly taking advantage. Globalization, immigration, and the transfer of power to a source outside of their own country, gradually generated erosion of native cultures. This has often led to identity crises, a perceived loss of direction, and becoming a ripe environment for populist politicians. Political scientists have asserted that the charismatic bond between leader and follower is central to populist parties. Populism advocates the power of the people, yet relies on seduction by a charismatic leader. Populist politicians clearly articulate these identity crises, cast blame on the supranational government in Brussels, and justify their leadership by challenging its legitimacy and pontificating against it. By its nature, their messaging is more focused, and the messengers tend to be skillful and inspirational orators. By using fear and focus their messianic demeanor forges trust, a stable emotional connection with domestic citizenry, and develops a reliable electoral base. People understand what eurosceptics stand for.
Between Brussels and most of Europe, this connection is lacking. Many remain unclear about the direction mainstream parties want to take them. As far back as 2012, Frederico Castiglioni, an articulate member of the European Federalist Movement, warned that "Europe's technocrats might solve the economic conundrum, but they cannot restore trust between Europe and its citizens. We need a charismatic, democratic leader before illiberal and nationalistic forces gain ground." ("Europe's need for a charismatic leader," The European, Nov. 29, 2012). Others have issued similar warnings. Brussels continues to hope to convert dissatisfaction into democratic zeal rather than more political apathy. Thus far with little success.
Lacking major changes in campaign strategies, the upcoming election threatens to remain a confrontation between technocratic competence and charisma, a battle charisma very often wins. In the mean time, the pro EU centrist majority in the European Parliament hangs by a thread, lucky that eurosceptics thus far appear unable to unite under one political umbrella.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)