Trump: We Need to Get Rid of Judges

Donald Trump observes “we have to get rid of the judges.”

Trump, in particular, was elected as a “man of action.” Laws get in the way of action. However, it is false and stupid to assume action for action’s sake will always be undertaken in the interest of the People. Laws are supposed to get n the way so that actions taken are well-considered and appropriate. The political philosopher John Locke observed that the freest societies were the ones with the fewest laws. So, yes, there’s something to be said about avoiding over-regulation. Locke also argued that a government could only govern if it had the confidence of the People, i.e. it had to rule with the interests of the People as a whole in mind (and not just one affluent tribe).

Experience and logic tell us that if a corporation can cut costs (thereby maximizing profits) by polluting the environment, it will; thus, regulation is required. Governments have used political power to marginalize minorities, e.g. the Jim Crow laws and segregation laws in the American South. Martin Luther King, Jr. argued this made the law an “instrument of power, not justice.” The law is supposed to be, in principle, a reflection of the fundamental principles of justice, e.g. no one is above the law and it is consistently applied on the basis of stare decisis (precedent).

Laws are necessary. Judges are necessary to interpret those laws because, in the great scheme of things, the average person lacks power and needs to be protected from a resource rich government and wealthy corporations.

The judicial branch developed out of the Western tradition as a foil to the executive branch in order to preserve the rule of law, e.g. think of how wise it is to not have all the decision-making power located in one branch of government. We separate different aspects of decision-making power–the Legislative Branch passes laws, the Executive Branch enforces those laws, and the Judiciary interprets those laws and their application–to prevent any one segment of society from dominating another.

Government action must conform with the law which itself reflects broadly what kind of society the People want to live in; that is, presidents and prime ministers cannot just make up the rules as they go along. Trudeau can’t place political pressure on Canada’s Attorney General to render this or that decision. Trump does not get to spend money unless he first has Congressional approval to do so.

Getting rid of judges might make it easier for a leader to do whatever they want, but that is the point: the People, if they are wise, do not want the leader to get to do whatever he/she wants to do when they want to do it. This is the form dictatorship takes, not democracy. If you value freedom, better still if you understand liberty, you must appreciate the importance of placing reasonable limitations on governments, corporations and individuals through the law.

Societies dominated by men of action, so-called, devolve into societies governed by the rule of caprice, e.g. kings in the 13th through to the 17th century in Great Britain ruled absolutely without consulting the People. The People rose up through the English Civil War and, only after constitutional limits were placed on the monarch, was the king restored to power.

The rule of caprice is characteristic of fascist states like Italy in the 1920s and Germany in the 1930s. Abraham Lincolon tells us what such societies look like when he said “perfect liberty for the wolves means death to the sheep.”

We need judges. Who knew? Sad.

Advertisements

Catz and Marx

John Steinbeck made a pretty nifty observation: he said socialism never took root in America because the poor never saw themselves as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. I suppose this is why so many of them oppose progressive tax reform that would be in their interest to support.

American culture is so hostile to the idea of limits, i.e. Marx was surely right when he called capitalism a “machine for demolishing limits.” It does a pretty bang-up job demolishing planets, as well.

And now for the obligatory cat picture…with an ideological twist.

10881520_10206714857896010_1544405235182764622_n

 

Fascism 101: Pay Attention to Trump’s Quirks

President Trump recently claimed that the noise from wind mills cause cancer. Quirky opinion. He is full of quirky opinions, really. But people continue supporting him, overlooking his “quirks” because he promises to do some things they want. I don’t blame the people who support him who want a job. Not one bit. Completely understandable. I wonder, though: is it possible to elect and support someone who can get things done without simultaneously undoing 200 plus years of liberal democracy?

I hate the comparison (because I feel like it’s intellectually lazy) but, in all honesty, there are some parallels to draw with Germany’s situation in 1933: Hitler’s “excesses” (a synonym for “quirks”) were tolerated by the business class because he promised to put labor unions in their place (thus maximizing profits); the army looked past Hitler’s quirks because he promised to rebuilt the military (something the “weak kneed” Wiemar Republicans refused to do). Vice-Chancellor von Papen, and President Hindenburg particularly, looked past Hitler’s quirks because he would bring order to disorder (or make “Germany Great Again” (a trope Hitler literally used)). He quickly outsmarted both men and was dictator within a year of being made chancellor.

As it turns out, those “quirks” everyone seems to conveniently look past are kind of telling: they reveal what’s going on or not going on in the mind of that person you are supporting with such unqualified loyalty. Oh, I don’t support Trump, he’s cRaZy, but I like what he’s doing. So what is he doing?

Fascism is an insidious thing: democracies can evolve into them (as was the case with Wiemar Germany in the 1930s and Italy in the 1920s). Democracies die the death of 1000 wounds. Every time you look past a quirk because you or your tribe are going to somehow materially benefit, democracy becomes just a little weaker.

You cannot put a price tag on the rule of law. Once it’s gone, it’s gone (and only restored after great violence). History tells us as much.

The philosopher Hegel observed the only lesson history teaches us is that we don’t learn from history.

fascism_101

Pluralism Versus Tribalism

Pluralistic societies are less tribalistic and partisan. The advantage of this is you avoid the dysfunction that, say, led Germany to embrace Nazism to solve its internecine issues in the 1920s and 30s and a similar dysfunction that appears to be affecting the United States in 2019.

Pluralistic societies, like Canada’s, tend to have a strong sense of fairplay, the rule of law is entrenched, and although not everyone agrees on all issues individuals still largely possess a greater sense of overall civic responsibility. In the long term, the stablest societies—England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand—are pluralistic, have minimal corruption, and a greater capacity for creating spaces where people who belong to historically marginalized groups and minorities can enjoy equality under the law.

The United States has had periods where it has enjoyed something akin to pluralism; however, while America is a nation of immigrants and a society that prides itself as one established under the rule of law, there are aspects to the political culture and history of the United States that makes it difficult for the country to maintain a genuinely pluralistic society, e.g. frontier mentality, rugged individualism, a disdain for government, and so on.

Canada in the Age of Trump

Months before Donald Trump won the Republican nomination and then the U.S. Presidency, Matthew MacWilliams, a University of Massachusetts postdoctoral candidate, stumbled across a striking way of looking at a candidate who seemed to defy all the rules of politics.
 
His polling research had revealed that parenting styles were a powerful predictor of voter attitudes towards Trump. In particular, MacWilliams discovered that those who preferred authoritarian child-rearing approaches—who valued traits such as obedience and good behavior in their children over curiosity or independence—were much more likely to back Trump. Moreover, their support wasn’t strictly contingent on traditional party preferences. As MacWilliam’s polls showed, authoritarian parenting preferences can be found among both Republicans and Democrats.
 
To further confirm his hypothesis, he also looked at correlations between those with authoritarian outlooks and more specific political views, such as attitudes towards the protection of minorities, terrorism and immigration. The results further confirmed the distinct alignment of values and politics that allowed Trump to win over working-class Midwesterners, religious South¬erners and even some affluent younger people, among them voters who might have balked at his positions on LBGTQ+ rights or looked askance at his behavior.
 
Extracted from Michael Adams’ Could It Happen Here? Canada in the Age of Trump and Brexit.

Stand Up for Democracy

https://www.amazon.ca/Democracy-Chains-History…/…/1101980966

Democracy in Chains written by historian Nancy Maclean has written one of the most important books published within the last 100 years. If you want to see what the enemies of democracy are up to while Trump deliberately distracts everyone then give this a read; while everyone has been distracted by Trump’s antics (and he’s doing it on purpose because if there’s one guarantee its liberals will lose their shit at the least provocation), the Republican Party has garnered 24 of the 30 votes necessary to call a constitutional convention. The last convention was held by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, etc. back in the 1770s.

The objective of the new convention will be to repeal certain amendments. For example, they want to repeal Amendment 17. Amendment 17 was considered a victory by progressives back in the 1930s because it got rid of the practice of appointing senators and introduced the current system of having the People themselves vote for them. By repealing Amendment 17 the practice of appointing senators would be reintroduced and I can assure you that the will of the People will be utterly ignored. What you’ll see is an increase of corporate influence and interference over the organs of government.

You guys: if democracy fails in the United States it is only a matter of time before that sickness spreads to other countries. Quit falling for the distractions, put aside your petty differences, and come together.

Note: for context you need to also read a book published by Mark R. Levin (an influential thinker from the far right in the United States, e.g. The Liberty Amendments). You can see ALL of the amendments that the Right wants to push through. Another amendment is to make it illegal to pass budgets that create deficits. This sounds great in principle (i.e. don’t spend money you don’t have, etc.), however, this will be the Trojan Horse leading to the repeal of social programs like Social Security and Medicare.

One way or another, the United States will not look, feel or be the same following the next presidential election.

If You Seek Wisdom Drop Your Opinions

The Buddha observed that if you seek wisdom you should drop your opinions. Experience has taught me an additional truth: if you seek wisdom develop your capacity to empathize, perceive and see issues from someone else’s point of view. Specifically, just because an idea or issue isn’t important to you (or doesn’t affect you directly) this doesn’t mean that that idea isn’t worthy of consideration or that the issue isn’t important in principle.

Too many of us, without even realizing it, think and operate from a narrow position of egocentrism or self-interest; we think we’re informed, and we hold strong opinions, but–instead of seeing the 1s and 0s that make-up reality like Neo from The Matrix–we are ultimately just making things up as we go along. We are being arbitrary. This kind of thinking follows the formula: if I don’t personally approve of X, or if I don’t like X, I appeal to a combination of my dislike, and fundamental ignorance, as a sort of evidence in support of my opinion on X. The problem, though, is your like or dislike has absolutely nothing to do with anything whatsoever.

I’ll explain.

I make mistakes in reasoning all of the time. I know for a fact I reach conclusions without having all the necessary information or without taking time for proper consideration. So why, I wonder, should I ever hold an opinion or view so strongly I am unwilling to change my mind? Moreover, should my experience ever be the standard by which everything else and everyone else is measured? I’m thinking, no.  I understand people are going to form opinions (that’s inevitable). Yet, isn’t it possible to form more thoughtful, nuanced, and principled opinions? I think so. But we must practice more empathy and more humility. We have to drop some of our opinions.

Former American Vice-President Dick Cheney was an outspoken opponent of the LGBTQ community for decades. Then, suddenly, he changed his mind…when his daughter came out as a lesbian. Now he supports gay rights. Gay rights are human rights. Women’s rights are human rights. The rights of people of color are human rights. Rights don’t just belong to my tribe. Cheney should’ve supported gay people, not because his daughter is gay (and he is now personally affected), but because reasonable people should seek to operate from a consistent set of principles and beliefs. If you do otherwise, you are just making stuff up as you go and living incoherently (worse still you’re imposing your incoherence on others).

 

According to the Buddha, when we form opinions we are creating not discovering reality. We construct a narrative that both makes sense to us personally and which agrees with whatever political culture we just so happen to belong to by the accident of our birth. Arguably, we need to create meaning; doing so helps us navigate and make sense of the world; nevertheless, in the process of creating meaning we would do well to avoid becoming a sort Dr. Frankenstein giving life to a monster (an opinion) reflecting our vanity on to an unwitting world; rather, we have a certain ethical responsibility to ourselves and others to think and contemplate well; and, if you can, give life to opinions reflecting principles that are self-evidently true rather than to ones satisfying the need to win arguments or mock others. In the end, there’s more that links us than separates. Perhaps if we forget some of the things we were taught, or that we’ve taught ourselves, we can in principle work towards building better and happier communities.