A legitimate president knows “Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue.”

President Johnson meets with candidate Richard...

President Johnson meets with candidate Richard Nixon in the White House, July 1968 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Over the past year, we have been treated to, or rather forced to endure, the unsavoury aspects of a president’s personality. Over the past year, we have tweets and public statements that show us something that is usually hidden. We see a president’s feuds rather than his compromises, his grudges rather than his forgiveness, and his boasts rather than his humility. For his supporters he is telling it like it is. Yet, far from removing hypocrisy he wants to impose his own by replacing the presidential persona with his own.

The President’s behaviour is similar to Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon who were often crude, vulgar, and cruel in private. In public, they presented a different persona to fulfil their presidential responsibilities. They had to adopted a persona that respects common decency since the president is the highest public figure. They respected the office and its public role. They accepted its constraints. What the President has done is blur the two realms through social media and his own personality to avoid these constraints. In particular, he has done this to define himself against the media. The media upholds an expected presidential persona by holding him to account, which in turn filters his public persona to the public. However, the issue is not his struggle with the media nor is it the President’s unwillingness to accept hypocrisy.

To justify his behaviour, his supporters and defenders argue that presidents hide their private vices and that lie to the public with their public virtues. Robert Mercer, for example, claimed he funded Milo Yiannopoulos to attack what he saw as the hypocrisy of those who would shut down free speech in the name of political correctness. In this, though, he refused to accept a view that a society rest upon a shared or common opinion that has to be defended and is not open to “debate.” We can see this respect for the common opinion when previous presidents were genuinely embarrassed to have their private indecency revealed or known. They respected the office and the presidential persona. By contrast, the President broadcasts it, he is *proud* of it, and most importantly, he is celebrated for it by his supporters. They think this reflects the world as it is so they want the world to know he is crude, he is boorish, and he is vicious. Except it doesn’t. Instead, he manipulates the public with his behaviour. He does this for effect and to reshape the presidential persona to his ends, not the public’s.

The President’s behaviour means that his persona supplants the presidential persona. To do this, though he has to undermine any institutions, such as the press, that reminds the public of the presidential persona and the public good. The President and Mercer attack the press or common decency as “fake news” or political correctness so that they can redefine common decency to enhance, not resist, the President’s persona. If they succeed, a private good will supplant the public good.

Advertisements
Posted in Government, statesmanship | Tagged , , , , , , ,

Trump’s Warsaw Speech: some tentative thoughts on the Crisis of the West

Trump’s Warsaw speech has attracted a lot of attention. Grown men and women have literally swooned at its beauty, grandeur, and audacity. Their claims suggest that if you combined Lincoln’s Lyceum Address, King’s I have a Dream speech, and Kennedy’s Inaugural Address and you combined Lincoln, King, and Kennedy into one speaker, they would only be half as good as Donald Trump’s Warsaw speech. Trump is, apparently, a master persuader so much better than Lincoln, King, and Kennedy combined. In light of this effusive praise, what has been lacking is a dispassionate analysis of his speech. The following attempts to provides a tentative or partial analysis to bring to light the issues it contains.

On the surface, Trump’s speech was not legendary; it was not even, adventurous. It appears, at best, a stump speech for foreign policy. His speech relied on standard rhetorical devices to create an enthusiastic audience response. Trump flattered his audience and they loved it. Who would not love to be flattered by the President of the United States? Trump praised Poland to Poles in Poland. Praising the audience is as old as Pericles’s Funeral Oration. The speaker is literally telling the audience what they already know, and what they want to hear. Who does not want to be praised? Who does not want to have their ancestors praised? Who does not want a heroic failure praised?

I am Polish by descent on my father’s side. That side of my family goes back to 13th century to what was Poland before the modern Poland was born. Anyone of Polish descent is going to know, at a minimum, about Pilsudski, the Polish Home Army, and Katyn Massacre. These are touchstones as potent as Washington, Gettysburg, or the Alamo, but they are not the only touchstones nor are they the most important. For Trump to praise these takes no effort. For Poles to cheer when they are praised takes no effort. Flattering an audience takes no effort. At best, this is emotional bribery; at worst, it is a cynical manipulation to avoid the deeper issues within the speech or faced by the audience.

What is overlooked amidst the incontinent praise was that the speech posed a deeper question, a question whose historical echoes remind us of the political consequences from a previous attempt to answer it. Trump appears, through the effusive praise of heroic Poles and heroic Poland, to Poles, in Poland, to have obscured the question and his answer. A few commentators heard his question and the answer, but most have confused the question and the answer such as those invoke Reagan’s Berlin Wall speech as a comparison. The comparison does force us to consider their similarities especially what they both say about America and the West, but they differ in a fundamental way. Reagan did not offer platitudes. He did not offer flattery. He spoke a hard truth that he was prepared to defend with blood and treasure. More to the point he engaged with his adversary and challenged them to come into the community of nations. If we stay on the surface of Trump’s speech, the hollow, shallow, refrain “the west is the best”, we stay with the easy, “feel good” bumper sticker slogans so that his base can feel powerful, important, and crucially, indomitable. Beneath that superficial exterior, the speech presents a less reassuring answer if we understand Trump’s answer. The empty, unthinking, praise does not understand that the West is in crisis. More to the point, it does not understand that Trump’s apparent answer to the Crisis of the West reveals a deeper problem. An answer that could worsen rather than lessen, or resolve, the crisis.

The West is in a crisis. All civilizations, nations, and people, are by their nature not eternal. Their mortality, their fragility, gives their accomplishments, even their death, significance, nobility, and meaning. For Trump, and others, it appears that the Crisis of the West is a spiritual crisis as the search for meaning that will endure or forestall that mortality. Although he rightly notes that Poland does hold a potential answer to that crisis, or at least part of an answer to part of the crisis, it is not necessarily the answer that defines the West. Trump’s attempt to address the spiritual crisis by reference to the will confuses the issue for it fails to ground the spiritual solution politically. Even though the will is not the same as the spirit, Trump’s approach reminded us of another speech that attempted to address a spiritual crisis by way of the will. In his praise of will, he sounds a theme similar to one raised by Martin Heidegger who also spoke of the will and spiritual renewal when he spoke of the self-assertion of the German university. Both Trump and Heidegger, though, evoke a spiritual renewal that differs from the one offered by Popes John Paul II or Benedict. They also called for the West’s spiritual renewal in important speeches that differ from Trump and Heidegger. It is perhaps in this divergence, over the West’s spiritual renewal or the best response to the Crisis of the West, that we need to understand Trump’s speech. To analyse the speech, we need to understand both its structure as well as it content.

Analyzing Trump’s speech

The speech has 70 paragraphs. Within the first 35 paragraphs, there are 18 that contain praise or celebrate Poland or the Polish people. In the remaining 35 paragraphs, there are only 6 paragraphs of praise or celebration. In the first half of the speech, we see many praise paragraphs such as

  1. So it is with true admiration that I can say today, that from the farms and villages of your countryside to the cathedrals and squares of your great cities, Poland lives, Poland prospers, and Poland prevails. (Applause.)

And

  1. And so I am here today not just to visit an old ally, but to hold it up as an example for others who seek freedom and who wish to summon the courage and the will to defend our civilization. (Applause.)  The story of Poland is the story of a people who have never lost hope, who have never been broken, and who have never, ever forgotten who they are.  (Applause)

In the second half, of the speech, Trump addresses many interrelated issues about the West, spirituality, God and the threats they faced. The second half of the speech, it is noticeable that the praise is reduced, the strategic drop-ins regarding foreign policy options occur, and the speech turns to the threats faced by the West, and by extension, Poland.

What is the threat?

The second half of the speech opens with the only paragraph to use the word threat.

  1. This continent no longer confronts the specter of communism. But today we’re in the West, and we have to say there are dire threats to our security and to our way of life.  You see what’s happening out there.  They are threats.  We will confront them.  We will win.  But they are threats.  (Applause.)

Any society or civilization must face the physical threats to its security and its way of life. However, these are only one type of threat. Trump describes several more which are central to his foreign policy. The first is, as expected, radical Islamic terrorism. Trump raises this threat at nearly every opportunity as if it is *the* threat facing America and the West. He describes it in similar terms to the existential threat that the Soviet Union, through its Communist ideology, posed during the Cold War when he calls it “another oppressive ideology”. Yet, by referring to radical Islamic terrorism as an ideological threat, he misunderstands both the Communist ideological threat and the threat of Islamic extremism. To put it crudely, he conflates ideological threat with a spiritual threat and assumes that the Islam, even radical Islamic extremism, is an ideology rather than a spiritual challenge. Perhaps by conflating these he reflects the muddled thinking of his advisors who seem unable to disentangle existential military threats, ideological threats, and the spiritual threat. In this, they appear to misunderstand the Crisis of the West, which is not so much caused by Islamic extremists as revealed by it and exacerbated by it. However, the subtlety of thought required to parse these issues and develop a confident, coherent, and consistent foreign policy appears to escapes him and, and most importantly, his strategic advisors. Leaving that issue, aside, we need to focus on the remaining threats to understand Trump’s attempt at a strategic vision.

The threat of powers that seek to test the West.

Trump refers to powers that confront the West and “seek to test our will, undermine our confidence, and challenge our interests”. He does not refer to states or countries but powers. The nuance is important as it allows him to make the first of two strategic “drop ins”; the strategically placed asides that allow him to speak to a different audience within his speech. In the next paragraph (41) he asks Russia to cease destabilizing Ukraine and supporting hostile regimes. What needs to be considered is whether Trump sees Russia as part of the West or a threat to it because it is outside of it. If Trump understands Russia through the Cold War lens, then he will see the West as a category that referred to non-communist states. Yet, this category, at a basic, level, would include Russia as it is no longer communist. If we consider the West as Christendom leavened with Greek Philosophy, what Thomas Aquinas synthesized to found the West, then Russia has a claim on the spiritual side to be part of the West since its leadership understands its fate, and identity, as Christendom’s true, final, guardian. Yet, if the West is understood as post-Christian liberal democratic alliance since the determinative characteristic is not Christendom but adherence to liberal democracy, then Russia would be excluded from the West. In an interesting twist, perhaps to avoid this nuanced problem, Trump asks Russia to join the Community of Responsible Nations (CORN). However, he does not clarify whether the CORN is the West or whether the CORN is a subset of the West or even if CORN transcends the West. Perhaps, he seeks to differentiate this difference for three paragraphs later (44) “responsible” is dropped so it becomes Community of Nations. He then turns to the next threat.

The unknown existential threat–bureaucracy.

On both sides of the Atlantic we face a tangible, visible, danger—bureaucracy. Bureaucracy as a threat seems to pale when compared to the apparent existential ideological threat from radical Islamic terrorism or the powers that threaten the West’s will, confidence, and interests. If we remain on the surface, the bureaucratic danger appears misplaced. Beneath that surface, though, bureaucracy appears to offer us an insight into the deeper, if not deepest, threat for the West. Although some commentators have seen bureaucracy as a short-hand for the law and the rule of law, they misunderstand how Trump sees the threat since bureaucracy attacks an individual’s autonomy that is sacrificed as the state regulates our behavior whether by law or by fiat. With the three threats identified, Trump turns to how the West will defend against them.

The defence of the West.

In the face of these threats, the West will stand resolute. Here Trump begins his attempt to develop a strategic vision. The West must remain firm in its culture, faith and tradition, so that its courage, spirit, will, remain intact. What is important, though, is that the West is ready for the effort since its alliance, countries, and power will ensure it prevails. It will prevail as long as we remember who we are, our achievements, and our salient characteristics. What is common across the West is that the people are the foundation of freedom and the cornerstone of its defense. If we accept popular sovereignty as the basis for political legitimacy, then a state like the United Kingdom is excluded since it is not founded on popular sovereignty. The Crown, including Parliament, is the source of political legitimacy. How this is expressed, though, is what brings us to the speech’s second “drop in” (paragraph 54) which forms an important parallel with the first. The West’s defense is expressed in NATO and Trump reaffirms America’s support for Article 5 mutual defense commitment. At this point, we have seen the threats and we have seen the West’s response. Yet, there is a deeper threat, which was hinted at earlier in the speech, that comes to the surface.

The Crisis of the West.

Despite the reference to an oppressive ideology as a potential threat to the West and the required reference to radical Islamic terrorism, which the community of nations can meet, we find something more difficult, the gravest threat, except it is not called a threat, it is posed as a question. Does the West have the will to survive?

  1. We have to remember that our defense is not just a commitment of money, it is a commitment of will. Because as the Polish experience reminds us, the defense of the West ultimately rests not only on means but also on the will of its people to prevail and be successful and get what you have to have. The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive. Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost?  Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders?  Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?  (Applause.)

The question is one that has challenged the West for several decades. The question reminds us of the Crisis of the West, which is that the West is no longer certain of its purpose. For decades, the West has continued to face this question despite claims that it was answered in 1989 with the end of the Cold War and the apparent triumph of liberal democracy. The question, especially for America, has become urgent after 2001 as that provided a potential answer that simply raised a deeper question for America and the West. Trump will present an answer to the question. For his answer, he turns to the speech’s only historical example that has an extended discussion as the question posed in paragraph 57 is addressed over the next eight paragraphs (58 to 65) as he describes the Warsaw Uprising and the battle for Jerusalem Avenue. This section praises Poland’s spirit so that it appears that praise brackets the discussion of threats and the West’s response which means that the speech begins with praise and ends with praise. Except it doesn’t.

The speech shifts dramatically to two short, important, paragraphs. Trump suddenly shifts from the previous threats and their respective defences to something else, something more urgent, and more difficult. In paragraph 66 we find that the fight is not on the battlefield, it is in our minds, wills, and our souls. At the centre stands our will. It is from this beginning that our freedom, civilization, survival, are to be determined since these depend on our bonds of history, culture, and memory. The central word in each three-word series creates an interesting triad: will, civilization, and culture. Our fate rests upon our will. Yet, is our will enough? Are we ready to demonstrate the will to survive? Do we have what it takes to defend our civilization and our culture. Although neither civilization nor culture are described, it appears that the there is an answer to the Crisis of the West. There is an answer to question of whether the West has the will to defend itself.

What is the Crisis of the West? Three thinkers provide a context.

Before we consider Trump’s answer, we need to consider what the Crisis of the West means with three thinkers who have addressed the question of the Crisis of the West–Leo Strauss, Pope Benedict, and Martin Heidegger. Each came to it from their respective disciplines (political philosophy, revealed religion, philosophy) and each offered a different, if related, proposal to address the Crisis.

Leo Strauss

Through a series of books and a lifetime of scholarship, Strauss developed a complex, subtle, and controversial argument about the Crisis of the West. I cannot do justice to his writings or his thoughts, but I can sketch very briefly, and perhaps too crudely, what the Crisis of the West meant. At a basic level, the West has lost faith in its purpose to realize a universal society of free and equal nations where everyone can develop all their faculties. In this universal society, the nations would realize greater freedom and justice. When the world was infused with the principles that animated the West, it would have achieved its purpose. Yet, the belief in this purpose has been lost. It has been lost, to put it too briefly and too directly, because of the death of reason as evidenced in the slaughter of World War One and the monstrous regimes that emerged before World War Two and the brutality of the regimes that followed. Reason had died to the extent that a modern society, pursuing the goal of a universal society of free and equal nations, was built upon the belief in reason as a basis and guide for life so that if reason was to fail or to be shown to be incomplete, then the basis for life within the West would be in crisis. However, this is too simple of argument since Strauss also understood that reason had to be understood as in tension with and in contradistinction to revelation as an important guide to life. Revelation, as a guide to organize society and provide meaning for that society, presents an ever-present rival to the belief in a society guided by reason. For Strauss, it is the tension between these two alternatives that gives the West its vitality. Yet, both of these pillars are in crisis. In brief, the death of God has shaken the West since it destabilizes the necessary tension between reason and revelation. With the decline in reason and revelation as guides to how we should live, the West had succumbed to the illusory belief in progress as promised by two ways of thinking that had emerged from the death of reason–Positivism and Historicism. Yet, these only proved temporary solutions since they only accelerated the flight from reason and revelation. Without reason or revelation, man soon succumbs to nihilism, the belief in nothing since the infinite progress promised by the radical alternatives to reason and revelation is illusory. Instead what was needed to resolve or address the crisis was a way to return to an understanding of reason that would shape public life that avoids modern reason’s pitfalls. However, within that broad alternative, there is another potential alternative as presented by Pope Benedict, through the Catholic Church, which is closely related to Strauss’s but contains an important difference in how it understands the Crisis of the West and the potential response by the West.

Pope Benedict

Pope Benedict confrontation with the Crisis of the West can be seen in his life’s work as presented through his many books, his academic career, and his religious life culminating in becoming Pope, where he set forth Christ’s message through Catholic theology. His work, in contradistinction to Strauss’s, develops faith to explain Christ’s message as a response to what he understands as the heart of the Crisis of the West. Although, it is too simplistic to simply differentiate Strauss and Benedict as philosopher versus the priest, that dichotomy does allow us to see their similarities and their differences.

Like Strauss, Benedict understood the Crisis of the West as one that involved faith and reason. The West had lost its belief in God and in reason where reason had become distorted to serve man without understanding God’s role, the divine spark that animates Truth and the search for Truth both through reason and faith. Instead, reason had become a tool to serve man’s appetites without reference to his soul or the need to find a spiritual path for reason to find the Truth. For Benedict, unlike Strauss, faith and reason work together or complement each other. They are not so much in tension, as suggested by Strauss, as they are continually working out how to reconcile themselves to each other to serve the Truth. One could summarize Benedict’s understanding of the Crisis of the West, perhaps too crudely but with enough clarity as to help us understand Trump, as reason distorted to understand the world without God, as presenting the illusion that will deliver a better understanding of how to live than a reason reconciled to revelation. The illusion expresses the Crisis of the West since it cannot offer man a path to Truth as it only points back to man. However, Strauss and Benedict only present a theoretical response with the political consequences implicit or only suggested. Instead, the political consequences from the Crisis of the West came from the alternative presented by the third thinker who they both confronted in their work.

Martin Heidegger

Both men are connected by their encounter or confrontation with Martin Heidegger. In many ways, we can understand their work as a response to him and his teachings. It would not be too far to suggest that their works present an ongoing dialogue since he presents a challenge to both since he offers an alternative that neither accepts reason nor revelation in the same way. He, more than any 20th century thinker, explored the crisis of reason and faith. Yet, his final interview, published posthumously, is noted for his claim that only a god can still save us. Through his work we also see a certain synthesis of reason and faith, that runs contrary to both Strauss and Benedict that has marks Heidegger’s thought, writing, and teaching. The synthesis is unique to Heidegger and it was perhaps never seen so clearly as his 1933 address The Self-Assertion of the German University. This speech also appears to mark his last, perhaps only, attempt at political philosophy. His synthesis challenged what was previously understood as that which had founded Europe and the West– Thomas Aquinas’s work to harmonize Aristotle and Christianity. Aquinas is considered to have founded the West to the extent it is understood as an enterprise that harnesses Faith and Reason or harmonizes Aristotle to Christianity. Heidegger, though confronted this synthesis with a radical alternative as presented through his work. In this uncanny speech, he offered the political response to the break between Faith and Reason and the decay in both that had left modern man bereft of direction and in need of guidance. Instead of drawing those ends together in new tension, as suggested by Strauss, or seeing that faith and reason were in harmony, as suggested by Benedict, and the political consequences suggested by either, Heidegger offered a radical alternative drawing on an ancient idea and yet one that was uniquely updated to respond to the question of technology, which had altered man’s relationship to reason within a world where God was dead.

Heidegger as a harbinger for Trump?

Through this speech Heidegger addresses the spiritual crisis of the West. A crisis that was threatening to consume the West, Germany, and the German University. If we begin or return to a beginning in the face of Nietzsche’s claim that God is dead, then we find that we face a radical uncertainty that requires questioning as the highest form of knowing. In the midst of this crisis of radical uncertainty we are exposed to the most extreme danger that will create a truly spiritual world. It is only in the spiritual world that the people find greatness for it is there that they face the decisive struggle between the will to greatness and the acceptance of decline. Either we will ourselves to greatness or we accept, will ourselves, to decline. Through their struggle, the people will fight for their spiritual world so that the people will be a spiritual people. Heidegger saw the crisis as one of will, which required a new type of leader who could resolve the spiritual crisis. He argued that through the self-assertion could the German University fulfil its mission to the national community, the nation, and the spiritual mission of the German people to confront this crisis. However, the struggle was not simply within the German university or the German people since it engulfed the West. Heidegger saw the spiritual strength of the West would fail and this would only be resolved by the German people as a spiritual people wills itself and thus stop the Crisis of the West. They achieve this through battle and it is this struggle that defines them as a spiritual people who fulfil their historical mission. They would achieve this if they placed themselves under the leader’s will, since it is this will that provides them the way to determine their essence as a spiritual people. Heidegger’s response to the Crisis of the West was through a leader who wills the people to fulfil their historical mission. The tension between reason and revelation, the complementary relationship between reason and faith are now reconciled in this new leader.

Heidegger and Trump: distant echoes or a recurrent theme?

Heidegger’s proposed response to the Crisis of the West and the Strauss/Benedict responses foreshadow Trump’s Warsaw Speech. In particular, Trump’s speech has a strong resonance with Heidegger’s address since both speak of a spiritual struggle, a battle that the West was in danger of losing, which called forth the will to respond by a select, if not elect, people. Trump speaks of a similar struggle, a test of spirit, and the need for the will to respond. Moreover, we have something that Heidegger could only suggest in 1933. What Heidegger’s thought, as expressed within his address, was the need for the will, the need for a leader to resolve the tension between Faith and Reason; the need for one man who had the spiritual strength to stand in the storm. Such a man would resolve the crisis. Such a man appears to have arrived in Warsaw.

Trump’s answer to the Crisis of the West

Trump made an important, if not historical defining, declaration. His declaration transforms the speech from something ordinary to something extraordinary and daring, if not decisive for the West.

….I declare today for the world to hear that the West will never, ever, be broken. Our values will prevail. Our people will thrive. And our civilisation will triumph. (paragraph 67)

Trump has answered the West’s existential question. As Leo Strauss argued, the West had become uncertain of its purpose. The West’s purpose was to realize a universal society of free and equal nations where everyone can develop their faculties. To do this and as a result of this universal society, the societies within the free and equal nations would realize greater freedom and justice. When the world had become infused with the principles that animated the West, it will have achieved its purpose and its future would be secure. By contrast, the Crisis of the West was that the West was no longer certain of its purpose, no longer able to deliver that vision, and the societies of greater freedom and justice were unrealized because the individual was unlikely to develop their full faculties. All of this is gone now. Trump is now certain of its purpose and its ability to deliver its vision. He has the answer.  He has declared that spirit of Jerusalem Avenue is the answer. However, we have to consider whether it is an answer or the answer. In paragraph 67, Trump declares his answer the question of whether the West has the will to survive. In this one paragraph Trump has done something no other president, statesman, or thinker had done—he addressed the Crisis of the West.

  1. And today as ever, Poland is in our heart, and its people are in that fight. (Applause.)  Just as Poland could not be broken, I declare today for the world to hear that the West will never, ever be broken.  Our values will prevail.  Our people will thrive.  And our civilization will triumph.  (Applause.)

In one bold statement, one simple declaration, Trump has solved the crisis of the West. Thinkers from Heidegger, to Strauss, to Pope Benedict can rest assured. The Crisis is at an end. Trump has resolved it by asserting that the West has the will to survive. He moves beyond the need to reconcile reason and revelation, by restoring the West’s faith in its purpose, to replace that tension or harmony with new certainty. A certainty, that while foreshadowed by Heidegger in 1933, eluded him. Trump by contrast has declared he has replaced the tension or even the harmony with a certainty. A certainty that has been missing in the West for decades and one that resolves the tension between global technology and modern humanity. With one simple declarative sentence, we have moved to a new world historical age with this speech.

Has Trump used a flawed example to illustrate his answer to the Crisis of the West?

If you accept Trump’s declaration as true and binding, then it would be worthy of its praise. It would be worthy of the highest praise since it would have rescued the West from the fate that Heidegger, Strauss, and Pope Benedict had feared and were unable to avoid. If Trump has reconciled the West to its past and its future, then he has done what no political philosopher or statesman has been able to achieve. Trump will have refuted Nietzsche since we have the will to believe in God and the will to believe in the West’s purpose which reason provides. Yet, that belies a deeper problem within Trump’s speech, its central example, and the claim to resolve the Crisis of the West.

Understanding the Jerusalem Avenue in a different light

When we consider the historical example of Jerusalem Avenue, we have to consider there are two unstated outcomes. One is less problematic than the other for what his speech means or suggests, but both present a serious question to Poland and the West. Trump focuses on the struggle, an enduring struggle, so that the normal situation is struggle not peace. Within this claim is the deeper problem of constant struggle since struggle is not the basis for the common good that embodied the West and has ensured it can endure. If we accept Trump as having transcended the West and founded it anew upon the eternal struggle then he rejects peace as the normal state and sees it only as the exception. Within this worldview, the two outcomes become even more important for their consequences for the West.

First, The Poles lost. They were defeated at Jerusalem Avenue. The Nazis won that battle. The Soviets won the war and enslaved Poland. Only with the end of the Cold War was Poland freed. It was not freed by itself, its own arms, its will, its spirit. It survived, barely, but it did not defeat its erstwhile masters. Its spirit allowed it to endure, to survive, but offered no means to throw off the shackles or present an alternative to defeat that which enslaved it. However, it did not survive because of or solely because of it spirit. Instead, the Poles survived because they tapped into something beyond their spirit, something that shapes and transcends their spirit. Trump did not address this political thing although another speech in Poland to Poles did. Trump’s speech makes no reference to that political thing nor that speech. Before we consider the other speech and the political thing, we have to consider the darker, more problematic, outcome from Trump’s example.

Second, as we noted, Trump praised the Poles for their spirit. Yet, they lost. We know that Trump does not rate losers. He likes winners. We know that the Poles were defeated at Jerusalem Avenue. In the Warsaw Uprising and the battle for Jerusalem Avenue, the Nazis won. They defeated the Poles. They closed Jerusalem Avenue. Only when the Soviet Union attacked were the Nazis defeated. Even then Jerusalem avenue was closed. To be sure it was “open” in that the Nazi snipers were gone and the traffic passed through it, but it was closed in that the Soviet Union’s forces controlled it. It is this darker, more problematic, outcome that makes Trump’s speech so dangerous for its focus on the will evokes historical memories, historical echoes, that should awaken Poland and the West to a political danger that lurks beneath the surface of his claims. If we reflect on how Poland found itself fighting in Jerusalem Avenue and the consequences of Heidegger’s speech, we find that the return to will and the spirit, without reference to the political things, provides the potential for a political alternative that can destroy Poland and the West. One could argue it is the danger coeval with the West.

Instead, it is America, a republic, built upon a common good, literally the res publica (the public thing) that led the struggle against Soviet Communism and freed Poland. America is the example that offered the hope, the alternative, and the system that undermined Soviet Union. It is America, founded in belief of Nature and Nature’s God, where all men are created equal, where the majority rule must protect minority rights as people rule and are ruled in turn, that we find the potential response to the Crisis of the West. America, through its founding in Liberalism, offers the alternative to the desire for supremacy that fuelled the Nazis and the Soviet Union since its promise of political equality allows for a community, a common good, founded in justice which will reflect and express decent politics.

Has Trump overlooked the common good that defines the West?

Trump’s response does not appear to be the answer so much as an answer and one, that as Heidegger showed us, has already been tried. To understand why Trump’s answer appears misplaced we need to consider another speech in Poland. One by John Paull II (hereafter JPII). Speaking to the Polish Parliament in 1999, he presented an alternative vision for Poland and the West. He understood politics, reason, and faith differently from Trump or Heidegger. In his speech he encouraged the Poles, and the West, to develop a common good where the new democracy avoided the twin dangers of moral relativism, where the majority decided what was right and wrong, and the harsh authoritarianism where the poor and weak are cast aside in the pursuit of material wealth. Before Trump, JPII spoke about the Poland’s spirit, its heroism and sacrifice. Unlike, Trump, though, JPII connected that spirit to a tangible political thing—the common good. In an interesting occurrence, JPII mentions spirit and common good 15 times each. It is not too far to suggest that for JPII the two are linked since a community’s spiritual health reflects its devotion to the common good. To put it perhaps too simply, the common good is a political expression of a community’s spiritual health as a corrupted society will display a spiritual malaise.

Unlike Trump’s speech, the central paragraph of JPII’s speech talks of a common good as it has a direct message for those devoted to political life. By contrast, Trump’s message to those devoted to the political life suggests something different since it focuses on struggle and the will. JPII talks of a common good that can embrace all for it starts within Poland and it is applicable to all societies.

13. It is clear that concern for the common good should be the task of all citizens and should be seen in every aspect of social life. In a special way however concern for the common good is required in the field of politics. I am thinking here of those who give themselves wholly to political life, as well as of individual citizens. The exercise of political authority, whether in the community or in the institutions of the State, ought to be a generous service to man and to society, not a pursuit of gain by individuals or groups, disregarding the common good of the nation as a whole.

Trump talks of the West at war and facing a constant struggle without mentioning the common good. Yet, without a common good, how can one create a lasting peace? Trump appears to believe that military might will deliver victory and in victory stability will be created. Yet, the deeper problem is that unless the status quo is just, then the peace is simply transitory if not illusory since the desire for political change, to redress historical or material wrongs, the desire for justice will become violent. One cannot defeat extremism or terrorism without creating a common good that removes the reason for terrorism or extremism or presents an alternative that has a greater appeal. If Trump’s vision of the West only relies on its military might or its spiritual strength as expressed in its creativity or material prosperity, then it will lack the political things necessary to create an enduring peace for it will not reflect a common good, it will reflect a particular good one that is imposed by force. In a word, in Trump’s vision, the West lacks a common good or a vision for the common good.

Is the West losing faith in the common good?

Without a common good or a vision of the common good, the political community can fall prey to ethical relativism. Ethical relativism emerges in a democracy when it no longer acts in the belief that a common good can be built upon a shared or ultimate truth beyond what the community declares. When a community no longer sees an ultimate truth as a guide, it is ripe to be manipulated by what the majority or the government decide.

This is the risk of an alliance between democracy and ethical relativism, which would remove any sure moral reference point from political and social life, and on a deeper level make the acknowledgement of truth impossible. Indeed ‘if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism’” (No. 101).

In a curious twist, we find that Trump has never mentioned the common good in his campaign speeches, his tweets, or any White House statement and attacks the news, which attempts to report the truth of what the government or Trump does, as “fake news.” Throughout his campaign speeches he never spoke of the common good and his behaviour and speeches have focused on his individual good and the good of his party. To this extent, Trump forces us to consider his character since he presents himself as an authoritative measure, the standard, by which the good of the country is to be understood. When he did refer to the good of his country, it reflected the good of his party and his personal good. If he is founding a new order for all time, then it reflects his interests not a common interest or a common good that can be shared. As it cannot be shared, it raises questions about the American common good and the common good that defines the West. If this common good is in question, as Heidegger’s alternative in 1933 suggested and Trump appears to be revisiting, then the we face a path, a difficult path, but one that gives us a choice.

If Trump is suggesting a political community that endures by will alone, it raises the question of whether he is a statesman weaving together the polity’s disparate strands to create a protective web of state. In other words, he does not appear to be creating a common good within his speech. Even if he seeks to re-found the common good on a different basis, neither he nor his speech writers appear to understand the forces they seek to evoke or have unleashed. That the echoes of Heidegger’s speech infuse Trump’s speech in a place where Heidegger’s vision, or at least a variation on it, was put into practice, should cause us to question whether Trump has the vision to heal what has been damaged, if not broken, in America by the 11 September 2001 attack. Jerusalem Avenue does not show us the triumph of the will. Instead, it shows us danger arrives when one forgets the common good and seeks to find certainty in a leader’s will. We are now forced to consider if they seek to awaken what has been long suppressed, an alternative to the common good, in the sheer hubris that this time it will be different. Yet, such a view, if it is indeed what they want, lacks the moderation or grace to understand not so much where this statesmanship leads, but that it pursues a goal that is ultimately self-defeating for it lacks the moderation and grace needed to sustain a common good that for decent politics that neither destroys faith or reason.

 

Posted in philosophy, public opinion, statesmanship | Tagged , , , , ,

Journalists wrestling Trump for the truth: Fake News and a Post-Truth society?

English: Donald Trump at a press conference wi...

English: Donald Trump at a press conference with David Blaine announcing Blaine’s latest feat, The Upside Down Man, in New York City at the Trump Tower. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Jay Rosen in his article (“The Trump White House has turned into a kind of playground for the press.”) has hit upon two important truths about the Trump presidency, the press and the problem of “fake news”.[1]

First, Trump like any political leader is trying to replace the reality created by the press with his reality. Instead of a shared reality, when both seek to create a truth together, we have both sides trying to create their own version of reality with Trump insisting that what does not agree with or confirm his view of reality is “fake news”. All political leaders work with a future reality. They propose policies to create a future and they work with the public to create that future or they have to work to overcome their resistance which is based on a different view of that future reality. What shapes their future reality is how they understand reality. They begin with their own cognitive ability, which is influenced by other forces. The largest external influence on a politician is the media who supply information, opinions, as well as feedback or criticisms on the politician’s vision as expressed in policies and legislation. What Trump is doing, though, goes beyond this because he wants to replace the shared reality with his reality. He wants to impose his reality on the country starting with the press. By contrast, the media who see that Trump is unmoored from the shared reality try to connect him to a shared reality based on facts that reflect reality.

The struggle between the press and presidents is a reason, as Rosen explains, the public have less trust in the media and the government. The public’s trust in the media and the government have declined as the public are caught in the struggle to define reality and in their view neither side captures what they experience. What they see is that each side has its own agenda which relies on a selective approach to the public so that a shared reality is not being created. At a basic level, the public no longer see either party trying to co-create a description of reality so much as to present their reality, or truth, which will be imposed on those who would disagree. For the public, who support their candidate or simply dislike the media, when the journalists say “X” is the story, the public, especially in the social media age, can get other sources, as well as their own experience, that indicates that the story is not “X” but is “Y “or is “XY” but more than “X”. At that moment, they will believe the journalist to be wrong, misinformed, or more importantly-lying. They dismiss the media not for having an opinion that they can evaluate, even though some may lack the capacity to evaluate the media’s claims, but because they see the media as lying. As soon as the media do not correspond to their view of reality, or the reality proposed by their party, candidate, or interest, they dismiss it as a lie.

The source of this problem on both sides is that the news is taken as the reality instead of an appearance based on a reality. In other words, the reporters believe that they report the reality. The politicians believe that what they say is reality. For the public, the reality becomes whatever appears to confirm or conform to their preferences. Where the public live the reality, they become disillusioned with both sides the extent that they fail to reflect their lived reality. Beyond their lived reality, though, the public are caught up in the appearances being created by either side since neither side, at the moment, is tied to facts or an underlying reality that can be access by all parties. In particular, the struggle between both parties serves a deeper purpose. Trump has a convenient excuse, the media or “fake news”, while the media make profits from the conflict that is played out on their pages and platforms. Appearance becomes reality for those who make the news and those who consume it. On many events, the public have no experience or verified understanding so they have to accept the appearances as they created by the media, except where they have a lived reality. The public react to these appearances and accept them as their reality. Thus, they can accept Trump’s claim to hate the press and that the press is the enemy because they accept that appearances are the reality. They confuse appearances with reality. Even if they wanted to transcend appearances, the media have no incentive to disabuse them of the appearances because they benefit from the appearances. However, appearance is not reality nor does appearance create reality. Instead, appearance only covers the reality or clouds the reality. The skill to use appearances to cloud the public’s mind is an idea as old as Machiavelli.

Machiavelli, in his infamous book The Prince wrote the following about the way perceptions or appearances and reality intersect or influence each other.

Men usually judge things by the eye rather than by the hand; everybody gets to see, but few come in touch. Everyone sees what you appear to be, but few feel what you are, and those few don’t have the courage to stand up against the majority opinion which is backed by the majesty of the state. (Chapter 18)[2]

What the press can do, if they want to reinvigorate the public domain as a place for the public to participate, is start to “touch” the president by connecting the president to reality by reporting the facts that either confirm what he has claimed or disprove his claims. In that effort, the press would start to return to the previous role of holding power to account. They are not simply trying to create an alternative to the Trump reality so much as to reveal to the public the reality that Trump is trying to distort or suppress. If done well, their efforts can be used to sustain the common good. Yet, both parties benefit from the gap between the appearance and reality. For their own reasons, neither wants the public to touch Trump. Trump works very hard, and has very aggressive lawyers, to avoid the public and reporters from being able to touch him or uncover the reality about him. Yet, the press has little incentive to do the un-glamourous and financially difficult task to connect Trump and the public to the facts. Which lead us to the deeper problem that Rosen’s article raises.

The deeper problem, as Rosen, alludes is that it is difficult for the press to close the gap. First, the gap makes money. Second, it is hard to close the gap given the nature of what now passes for evidence and reasoning from such evidence. Rosen argues that the solution is that the press change their ways and force the president or the White House to give reasons for their actions.

it’s whether anything journalists do forces the president or the White House to become a little more reality-based, a little more accountable, a little more likely to give reasons for its actions, or to explain what it’s actual policy choices are.[3]

On the surface, this is laudable and appears easy. The journalist simply points to the gap between the appearance, what Trump says about reality, and the reality. At this stage in our democracy, it appears a nearly impossible task. It may occur in a classroom, but rarely in the public domain with Trump. The only example I could find of this approach succeeding was the following. At his first major press conference, a reporter forced Trump to admit that his margin of victory in the electoral college was not the largest since Reagan’s victory.[4] The reporter confronts Trump with the evidence that shows his claim to have the largest electoral collect majority since Reagan is wrong. Trump does not apologize nor does he accept that it was incorrect. He avoids the issue as he says that “someone told him it was the largest margin.” At the press conference, no one else follows up or points out that he had been corrected. Therein we see the first problem. The press rarely challenges the president on his claims since there is no profit in it either financially or politically. They may correct him if he confuses Iraq with Syria, but they will not challenge his claims. The financial part is that the pedestrian work to show Trump is wrong does not garner headlines, clicks, buzz, or whatever metric measures media effectiveness. The second way is that a confrontational approach can jeopardize their access. Although it would be difficult to deny access completely, it could prove problematic for a reporter or a network if their access was limited. These two issues though only look at it from the press perspective. We have to consider how Trump manages the same issue as he works to manage the appearances.

What helps Trump is that he does not have to tell the “truth” as fact checked by the media, he only has to manage the appearance of truth for the public. He shapes a truth, a narrative, that is created by the appearance of what he says which he uses to persuade the public or at least flatter them. For Trump, what is said becomes what is.[5] Anyone who questions him starts at a disadvantage because to question him is a sure sign you disagree with him. If you disagree with him, you will lie about him. In this scenario, only Trump, and those who Trump verifies, tell the truth. Everything else is fake news. Where this can be undone, through patient and rarely rewarded work, is to connect the appearance of truth that he creates with the shared reality understood by all. We saw this when the reporter forced him to accept that his victory margin in the Electoral College was not the largest since Reagan. Only on that basis can Trump be held to account. The attempt to hold him to account by trying to use appearances against him, such as through ridicule, or by a counter “narrative” based on opposing opinions will not work. Once the journalist, or the press, accept that premise, that the issue is decided mainly or exclusively in the realm of appearances, they accept Trump’s premise that the truth is only appearance or what he says it is since they want to say what the truth is what they say it is as well. They will lose in the realm of appearances and their inability to deliver a narrative that flatters the public enough to weaken the public’s support for him.

How Trump answered the question about the Electoral College victory margin gives us an insight into how he deals with bad news or information that does not conform to how he wants to perceive reality. How did he dismiss the question? What he did was say “I was given that information.” He does not take responsibility for it and implies it is someone else’s fault. The response is what his supporters would expect. Trump was given duff information. What matters to his supporters is that Trump won. For Trump, even a single electoral vote is a large margin. To argue that point shows you are a sore loser as you argue about an irrelevant detail because you disagree with the outcome and don’t like Trump. Why else would you question it? Faced with those challenges why would a journalist or an editor want to pursue the point since it will be dismissed, despite the effort, with “I was given that information”?

The realm of appearances, and the belief that what Trump says is “what is” can be seen in Trump’s claim, at the same press conference, that his administration was running like a fine-tuned machine. No one asked him to explain what he meant by fine-tuned or asked him to explain why it was doing so poorly if fine-tuned? If you were to ask Trump to back up his claim, his opinion, that his administration is running like a fine-tuned machine, he would dispute the evidence that contradicts him. Moreover, he would argue that this was your opinion and that it would be dismissed since his opinion is all that matters. If that failed, he would refuse to accept a standard that would allow his opinion to be tested. Without a standard, you have to search for a standard. Once you begin the search for a standard, the journalist, and the public who want to decide between Trump and the press, face another barrier that Trump, and his supporters, raise—the demand for complete evidence linked to a desire to avoid structured arguments.

Even though everyone works and lives with incomplete information, when it comes to political things we find that people demand complete evidence before they will believe a claim. The need for complete evidence is often used by Trump and his followers as part of a common rhetorical technique called “moving the goalposts”. Each time evidence is presented, Trump or his followers demand more evidence, that is “move the goalposts”. We saw this with his claim that President Obama was not born in America. Each time evidence was supplied it was questioned and further evidence was required. If the short-form birth certificate was provided, then the long-form was required. If the long-form was provided, then the persons who authenticated were questioned. At each stage, Trump and his followers insisted that the evidence that was supplied was insufficient. At the same time, they would not accept a common standard by which the claim could be tested. They would not accept that a standard could be accepted that would allow anyone to judge whether the facts corresponded to reality. At each stage, they refused to accept either the standard, the evidence supplied; short-form, long-form, verified newspaper reports, or they would question the veracity of the evidence or the reliability of the people who supplied it. Yet, such an approach is guided by a scepticism that they would not use in any other part of their life. Would the same person demand to see a pilot’s licence before getting on an airplane? Would they demand to see the credentials of the mechanic who serviced the plane? Would they demand the airline prove that its food was not poisoned? Only on the political things they question does it appear they demand complete evidence. Moreover, the demand for complete evidence is linked to the refusal to accept an agreed standard, a structured argument, to resolve the uncertainty or to make a decision based on incomplete information. It is this fear of structured argument, where claims are assessed by an agreed standard such as Occam’s Razor, that makes it difficult to hold Trump and his followers to account as well as sustain a healthy public discourse. However, the public discourse was weakening before Trump came to power, which is where journalists face a particular difficulty in holding power to account.

With the decline in the public discourse, the two barriers mentioned above become much more difficult to overcome. The public have been habituated to what Trump provides as have journalists who can find it easier to navigate the realm of appearances than try to work with facts and structured arguments. If the public want a soundbite or to cheer for their “team”, then the news “market” will reward those who supply that content. The journalists who want to hold Trump or any president to account face a double bind. They must overcome the public who live the realm of appearances, where they want to be entertained or flattered, and they have to challenge Trump on the basis of opinions or appearances while trying to entertain or flatter the public. To do this, the journalists have to connect what he does, not what he says, to the facts. Yet, this is difficult because Trump uses a persuasive rhetoric, which often undermines or attacks the media. One constant refrain is the claim that the media are “fake news” which serves two main purposes. First, it undermines the media’s attempts to hold him to account by questioning their honesty or veracity. Second, it reinforces the idea that Trump alone tells the public the truth. To counter Trump’s rhetoric, journalists need to employ a rhetoric that can convince a public, who are habituated to appearances, opinions, and flattery not rational or structured arguments, and hold Trump to account on facts and arguments. The journalists have to show the gap between what Trump says and what “is”. To show that what he says is empty or is not rooted in facts takes more effort than most journalists and networks will sustain. It can be done, but so infrequently that it has to be reserved for egregious examples where the gap between appearances and reality is so great and so clear that it becomes almost incontestable or, when contested, leads Trump, not the journalist, the network, or the public, into more egregious claims.

If journalists continue to insist on reporting the “palace intrigues” within the administration, they will continue to reside within the realm of appearances. Only when those are connected to facts, clear issues where the gap between appearances and reality is noteworthy, can they hold Trump to account. Where the journalists have succeeded in holding Trump to account are areas such as policies and legislative proposals since those have to be linked to reality, they can be verified, and there is a standard by which they can be judged. Where this works is where the public are ready to be convinced or persuaded such as with the health care reform. In that example, the public were persuaded by the rhetoric and by the facts since both flattered how they understood themselves as well as reflected the reality they lived.

With these issues, the challenge becomes whether journalists and the public want a journalism, and political commentary, rooted in facts and a shared or lived reality that may not flatter them but it will at least serve to sustain a decent public discourse. Without a shared search for the common good neither journalists nor the public will be able to hold the powerful to account for they will be rooted in the desire to be flattered and persuaded which leave them vulnerable to appearances and opinions detached from their shared reality so that they only understand themselves as the powerful want them to be understood rather than how they understand themselves. If the public and journalists are unwilling or unable to work towards this goal, then a shared reality, from which a common good can be discovered and understood, is not possible. What will remain then is a community where the strong do as they will and the weak do as they are told or resist for neither will have seen the other as equals.

 

[1] http://pressthink.org/2017/04/trump-white-house-turned-kind-playground-press/

[2] http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/machiavelli1532.pdf (p.38)

[3] http://pressthink.org/2017/04/trump-white-house-turned-kind-playground-press/

[4] See the video at 32:09 to 32: 45. There is simply says “I was given that information.” https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2017/feb/17/donald-trumps-press-conference-in-full-video

[5]  “What permits the sophist to accomplish this feat of forgery is the assumption that what is said is actually is. In other words, sayings are equal to that which is (to on). Hence, words once coupled with deductive reasoning provide a true account of the generic being (i.e. what is).”

http://balticplus.uk/the-children-of-eleatic-hydra-by-reza-negarestani-c28560/

Posted in corruption, justice | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Trump, supremacism and political extremism

English: Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth Presid...

English: Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth President of the United States. Latviešu: Abrahams Linkolns, sešpadsmitais ASV prezidents. Српски / Srpski: Абрахам Линколн, шеснаести председник Сједињених Америчких Држава. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy.”– Abraham Lincoln

Donald Trump has made America confront its darkest fears. His success has awakened ideas and beliefs that have long been suppressed as unsavory, unpleasant and un-American. He has encouraged supremacist beliefs that run counter to the country’s founding in equality. Equality is what gives America its greatest strength and freedom. Without freedom, there is no equality and without equality there is no freedom. Yet, Trump has encouraged those forces and ideas, long discredited, that seek to re-awaken and re-assert the older ideas of supremacism and with it-inequality.

Continue reading

Posted in education, justice, philosophy, republicanism, statesmanship, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , ,

Of course, the Queen wants Brexit.

Queen of United Kingdom (as well as Canada, Au...

Queen of United Kingdom (as well as Canada, Australia, and other Commonwealth realms) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If we read Aristotle, his effort to insist that the function of political science is to describe accurately the regime we are talking about or living in, it becomes clear that the most dangerous thing we can do sometimes is precisely that, to state accurately what sort of regime it is under which we live. —- James V. Schall, S. J.

What is often forgotten in the Brexit debate is that the Queen has to be, by default, in favour of Brexit. Even though the Queen will follow political convention and accept what Parliament decide in this matter, it would be rare for her to act otherwise since by constitutional convention she has to accept Parliament’s legislation where it directly relates to her, she is in favour of Brexit. As a Monarch, she supports Brexit for she is intrinsically opposed to the European Project. Even though an alliance, or in this case a treaty, may be in her country’s interest, and she rules in the public interest, she remains intrinsically or institutionally opposed to the European Project. The European Project is a direct result of the French Revolution. Within the French Revolution, the Rights of Man emerged as a viable alternative to the divine right of kings. The French Revolution unleashed a political revolution which has become the modern Human Rights. The UK Monarchy is founded in direct opposition to the Rights of Man and by inference it is intrinsically opposed to Human Rights. To understand why there is this institution conflict, we have to return to the French Revolution.

The French Revolution remains a threat to the Monarchy.

The French Revolution was and remains an existential threat to the Monarchy. In response to this threat, the UK led a counter revolutionary campaign to resist its worst political and military excesses (Napoleon) Even at a less dramatic level, the Monarchy supported efforts to resist the French Revolution’s political philosophical challenges. Unlike the American Revolution, which was up to a point willing to live and let live with the United Kingdom, the French Revolution was focused on overthrowing Monarchies near and abroad. The Crown understood this threat and fought it. Although Napoleon was defeated, the threat remained. The revolutionary spirit had encouraged democratic tendencies and changed European and world politics. As with all great threats it has faced, the Monarchy has adapted to remain relevant and thereby survive.

PREVENT and the question of political philosophy.

The threat is not that a revolution will topple the UK Monarchy. How could it when the PREVENT strategy exists to counter any “extremism”.[1] Instead, it is that the revolution planted the seed that encouraged a political culture, a political thinking, that is the existential threat. The Monarchy understands institutionally that each constitutional change is away from it and towards democracy. As legislation limits its power either as it curtails its Royal Prerogative or imposes financial constraints that weaken it, Parliament’s power waxes as the Monarch’s wanes. To the extent that the two are intertwined within the Crown, they remain united against the People which they seek to manipulate to further their ends. In this historical struggle, the greatest political philosophical threat since 1789 is the Human Rights Act (HRA) in 1998. The HRA helps the People, which is why it was passed as it helped Parliament in its struggle against the Monarchy. What Parliament did not expect, though, was the extent to which as the EU project advanced it would become a threat to Parliament. Suddenly Parliament and Monarchy had a common enemy, but how to get the People to give up on the European project that gave them leverage over both Parliament and the Monarchy?

The answer to this question was the EU referendum which offered the ideal opportunity. The Monarchy will have encouraged those forces, especially within the Conservative Party, who wanted to remove this threat. At the same time, the other institutions, in particular the Press, began to see the threat and swung into action. Once the media saw the advantage that they could go back to an era before the right to privacy existed they saw the advantages to leaving the EU. They too would sell out the People and join Parliament and the Monarchy against the European Project and the Human Rights Act.

The Human Rights Act is a threat to the Monarchy

Just as the UK Monarchy in 1789 recognized the threat from the Rights of Man, it recognized the same threat in 1998. The difference, though, was that to survive and remain relevant to the UK political society, the Monarchy had accepted Parliamentary sovereignty so that it could not openly resist the HRA nor the EU project as both benefitted the people. The UK in 1789, in 1998, and today understand that its sovereignty is constrained by the principles that animate Human Rights. Either the Crown is the source of all laws,[2] as the Crown asserts, or there is a source beyond the Crown, which the Crown cannot alter.[3] For the Crown to accept it is limited by an outside force or is not the source of all laws is to suggest it is no longer sovereign. In effect, if the Crown were to accept the HRA would be to accept the principles of the French Revolution as legitimate.

Will Brexit be the end of the UK’s compliance with Human Rights?

What does this have to do with the Brexit and the Human Rights Act? The Human Rights Act has been an anathema to the conservative (small C) who resist the constraints required to obey some universal principles (human rights) which is predicated upon an idea that explicitly and purposefully renders the idea and practice of a hereditary monarchy as invalid.[4] The UK Monarchy is based on the idea that the strong rule the weak. No one rules the Monarchy, it rules the People. The People do not rule the Monarchy. To put it another way, no one elects the Monarchy. It does not exist by the People’s consent. By contrast, the French Revolution introduced the idea that became the Human Rights of the philosophical proposition that we are equal in our humanity. As such, a person who is equal can only be ruled by with their consent. The UK Monarchy is not based on that idea as only certain people may become the Monarch. Thus, the difference between royalty and commoners. (As an aside it is why the Queen is so interested in husbandry since breeding horses and dogs is similar to managing the royal blood line.) The difference is both natural, different blood, and philosophical, some are entitled to rule and others are required to be ruled, both of which combine to create a political outcome.

The conservative elements have reasserted their intellectual hold on the UK

With Brexit, the conservative elements will have broken an important psychological and philosophical link to Europe and its ideas of Human Rights. With the public mind soften to reject all things European, for fear it infringes on sovereignty, it is only a relatively small step to leave the Council of Europe and repeal the Human Rights Act. Both of these have been promised by the government as a consequence of Brexit.[5] Some may say that this is a step too far yet we are now discussing Brexit so that view seems untenable. To reassure those who are fearful, the campaign to repeal the HRA will stress the *British* Bill of Rights. Even if it is roughly the same, or is indeed the same, what will be clear is that there will be no appeal to a higher authority. As they say, the buck will stop with Crown not with Europe or some *foreign* body.

Is this speculation or simply the trend that is unfolding before us?

Now some may argue that this is a crude simplification and that rights and duties as the UK government will respect Human Rights as expressed as British Rights. Yet that idea of British Rights is already a particular and not a universal approach. If you consider human rights as a framework outside of the state’s immediate control, then it has to justify itself before that standard or in accordance with that standard. That is, it will be measured against human rights not British Rights or rights derived from the state. By contrast, the people, if they lack human rights, can only appeal to the government that determines their rights. It is vital that people understand that the UK government does not exist by consent. The public do not have a say in who is the Monarch or who succeeds to the throne as such, and to the extent they are ruled by the Monarch, they are not consenting to who rules them. Yes, can consent to the government that is offered, they can decide, within limits, the make-up of the government that is formed. However, the central point is that the People have had no say in a constitutional moment. One could argue that the UK lacks a constitutional moment. Therefore, for it to reject Europe and Human Rights in favour of sovereignty and British Rights, it would have to undertake a constitutional moment since the people are being asked to surrender their Human Rights that they obtained by the Human Rights Act and the EU.

If we understand Brexit in this context, especially if a constitutional moment will not arrive[6], then we realize we have surrendered our human rights. We now enter a realm where we will see a government with the power to declare someone is no human or lacks British Rights which strips them of any protection before the state. If you lack human rights and the government can decide your British Rights, what status do you have? Europe was created to escape such a fate. If surrendering our Human Rights is the price of Brexit, what has been gained?

What is clear is that Brexit serves the Crown more than the People.

For Crown, they will have removed an existential threat to their identity and their legitimacy. For Parliament, they will have greater power over the People for there is no check on their sovereign will. For the People, they will have gained the benefits of having protected the Crown and empowered Parliament to determine whether they are worthy of any rights beyond what the Crown and Parliament allow them.[7] In the final analysis, we see that the UK press has served both the Crown and Parliament but not the People. I am not sure what is worse, that the People have been betrayed or that they have been convinced that it is for their benefit.

[1] https://lawrenceserewicz.wordpress.com/2015/12/15/in-the-uk-political-philosophy-is-a-pre-crime/

[2]https://web.archive.org/web/20150416194014/https://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Queenandthelaw/HowUKandEUlawaffectTheQueen.aspx (accessed 7 May 2017)

“People often wonder whether laws apply to The Queen, since they are made in her name.

Given the historical development of the Sovereign as the ‘Fount of Justice’, civil and criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the Sovereign as a person under UK law. Acts of Parliament do not apply to The Queen in her personal capacity unless they are expressly stated to do so.

However, The Queen is careful to ensure that all her activities in her personal capacity are carried out in strict accordance with the law.

Under the Crown Proceedings Act (1947), civil proceedings can be taken against the Crown in its public capacity (this usually means proceedings against government departments and agencies, as the elected Government governs in The Queen’s name).

In the case of European Union law, laws are enforced in the United Kingdom through the United Kingdom’s national courts. There is therefore no machinery by which European law can be applied to The Queen in her personal capacity.

However, it makes no difference that there is no such mechanism, as The Queen will in any event scrupulously observe the requirements of EU law.

As a national of the United Kingdom, The Queen is a citizen of the European Union, but that in no way affects her prerogatives and responsibilities as the Sovereign.”

The page was removed from the www.royal.gov.uk page when it was updated in 2016. The updated version does not refer to the Queen’s superiority to the law. https://www.royal.uk/queen-and-law (accessed 7 May 2017)

“In the earliest times the Sovereign was a key figure in the enforcement of law and the establishment of legal systems in different areas of the UK. As such the Sovereign became known as the ‘Fount of Justice’.

While no longer administering justice in a practical way, the Sovereign today still retains an important symbolic role as the figure in whose name justice is carried out, and law and order is maintained.

Although civil and criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the Sovereign as a person under UK law, The Queen is careful to ensure that all her activities in her personal capacity are carried out in strict accordance with the law.”

[3] I will leave it to others to consider why the Monarchy would wish to hide its status within the UK constitutional system.

[4] A monarchy is by its nature is conservative.

[5] http://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/what-are-the-consequences-for-human-rights-if-we-change-our-relationship-with-the-eu/

See

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/28/theresa-may-fight-2020-election-plans-take-britain-european/

and

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-24338921/tories-to-scrap-human-rights-act

[6] http://www.consoc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/COSJ2947_The-Crisis-of-the-Constitution_WEB_FINAL.pdf

[7] The Crown retains its Henry VIII powers which means that it can amend any legislation passed by Parliament which means it retains a prerogative power beyond Parliament’s control. http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/henry-viii-clauses/

Posted in Government, public opinion, statesmanship | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Thoughts on Michael Anton and Leo Strauss’ Machiavelli

Leo Strauss

Leo Strauss (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In a recent interview, Mr Anton said that he knew “Nick”, his short hand for Niccolo Machiavelli, for over 30 years. He qualified his support by saying he followed the Leo Strauss’ Machiavelli.[1] For his interviewer, this made sense. Leo Strauss is a famous scholar with a well-known book about Machiavelli’s teaching–Thoughts on Machiavelli. Why else would someone speak proudly, publicly, and unapologetically of Machiavelli? For his listeners, it would sound rather intellectual, hip, and a bit “edgy”. For the public audience, a presidential advisor at the centre of political power who cites Machiavelli will sound like they know what they doing. Only serious, scholarly, sophisticated people would be able to drop his name so casually. Yet, there is also a deeper message attached to Machiavelli’s name. For Trump’s white nationalist followers, Mr Anton would appear to hit the right notes when he referred to Machiavelli’s revival of Western Philosophy and with it Western Civilization. Such followers are not interested in philosophy but they do want to defend the West for they see it under attack. Thus, Mr Anton has done his mentor proud for he has spoken to many audiences simultaneously. However, with all things Machiavelli, we have to look beneath the surface. The surface often hides a deeper meaning that explains the surface since we cannot begin to understand the surface until we understand the depths. We have to consider whether Mr Anton intended a deeper meaning or whether the surface view is sufficient.

In that spirit, to learn and be instructed by those who know and test whether our understanding is sufficient, I raise the following points and questions. For it is in questioning those with superior knowledge that the less experienced may gain some hope to have an opinion about the truth. If we are lucky with such questions, we receive a glimpse of the truth. I beg the reader’s indulgence if my remarks and comments appear obvious or simplistic. If they do, please correct me so that I may learn. I ask Mr Anton’s indulgence if I misunderstand him or if my understanding of his intent distorts what he meant. If he or any of his friends could correct me on these points, I would be grateful.

As Mr Anton has spent 30 years studying and reading Machiavelli, I hope he can help me understand him. There are two issues, out of many, to consider when Mr Anton speaks to a select audience when he refers to his Machiavelli. The first is his reference to Publius Decius Mus (the Elder). The second is his reference to the Leo Strauss’s Machiavelli.

In this interview and elsewhere, Mr Anton discusses why he chose Publius Decius Mus (the elder) as a pen name. He says that he was attracted to his self-sacrifice that won a decisive battle that would determine Rome’s fate. I am curious to understand, though, whether he intended that we understand Decius as Machiavelli intended[2] or as Livy intended. When we read Machiavelli or Livy, we see that Mr Anton seems to overlook or at least leave unstated issues that would qualify Decius’s sacrifice effectiveness. The first is how Livy and Machiavelli understood the religious context for the sacrifice. He refers to the divinatory sacrifices before the battle which Decius followed, but he seems to forget how Livy, according to Machiavelli, dismissed such auspices. Harvey Mansfield argues Machiavelli makes a bold attack on Christianity with this episode. Machiavelli had a deep, abiding, hatred for Christianity because he believed it eroded the virtu needed to rule.[3] This sections within the Discourses refers frequently to the weakness of Christian armies. Earlier in the Discourses, Machiavelli refers to the way the auspices offered by the chicken men (religious augurs) are dismissed as required by necessity (see Discourses on Livy (I, 14)) so that they fit what is needed. The second point is that Machiavelli and Livy, contrast Decius’ self-sacrifice with Torquatas’ sacrifice of his son. From the Christian perspective, as Mansfield points out, the sacrifice of self, in this context suicide, is an atrocity while sacrifice of the son is the laudable.[4] Livy appears to suggest that Decius’ sacrifice was of secondary importance. He indicates (Book 8, Chapter 7, sections 8-22) that the success was due more to Titus Manlius Torquatus. Torquatus understood that with both armies, and virtues, being equal, he needed to give his side an advantage. To strengthen his army, he brought back the ancient military discipline. To demonstrate the ancient discipline, he killed his own son when he disobeyed orders. Livy argues that example instilled the soldiers with the obstinacy needed to defeat the Latins. What remained after the battle and contributed to the Roman army’s continued success was the ancient discipline rekindled by Torquatus not Publius Decius Mus’s sacrifice.

One would hope that Mr Anton does not share Machiavelli’s hatred of Christianity or America’s religion which is reverence for the law. Perhaps he means to suggest that one can excuse Machiavelli this trait, in much the same way we are told we must excuse President’s various traits because the current false religion has weakened America. When POTUS talked publicly and unashamedly that he would date his daughter or how she could make a lot of money with her body, we are to excuse these as inconsequential since they show us how far we have been debased by the false religion that rules America. Yet, we know that President Trump shares a disdain for Christian beliefs with his frequent fornication, infidelity, and disdain for Christ’s example as a guide for his personal or professional behaviour so we are puzzled as to how we are to understand him or those who defend him. Instead, Trump appears to practice a different religion. He gives lip service to Christ, acts worldly in other ways and in this he appears like Machiavelli’s Prince for he appears to adapt himself to the public morality. One would hope that Publius Decius Mus the Elder is more than a veneer of the apparently virtuous as a shield for the secretly sinful. These questions bring us to the second issue—Leo Strauss’ Machiavelli.

Mr Anton defends his love for Nick (it is curious he uses this familiar name) by referring to Leo Strauss’ Machiavelli.

I mean Leo Strauss’ Machiavelli, the great mind who revived Western philosophy in the 16th century.[5]

For the casual listener, this sounds honourable and enlightened. Leo Strauss wrote a famous book about Machiavelli and a seminal article about Machiavelli’s intention. On the surface, Mr Anton associates his love of Machiavelli with Leo Strauss’ reputation as a Machiavellian scholar. Yet, like the reference to the Publius Decius Mus (the Elder), we need to look beneath the surface to see whether the depths reflect the surface. If we look beneath the surface, it appears Mr Anton has shaped Leo Strauss’ legacy to support his position. What did he intend? In much the same way that the Pepe crowd signal their allegiance with gestures and language so too it appears Mr Anton signalled something with his reference to Leo Strauss’ Machiavelli. In this instance, I fear he has confused me.

I believe he meant to refer to Harvey C Mansfield Jr.’s Machiavelli for the Machiavelli that Mr Anton describes reflects what Professor Mansfield has said publicly while Leo Strauss never said such things publicly.[6] In particular, Machiavelli is proud of his supremacist credentials. Such a view is acceptable as a matter of intellectual probity. Is this the heritage that Mr Anton seeks to support? As Strauss said in Thoughts on Machiavelli, Machiavelli “is one of the two fundamental alternatives of political thought.” (p.14). Is Mr Anton suggesting that Strauss chose Machiavelli? If so, it would seem to undermine what Strauss wrote in On Tyranny when he explained that “tyranny is the danger coeval with political life.” (p.22). Is Mr Anton suggesting that Strauss shared Machiavelli’s supremacist ethos, which he argued against in Thoughts on Machiavelli? I would be grateful if he could show me where or how Strauss embraces that alternative of political thought in Thoughts on Machiavelli or any of his other works. If that is his intent, which I hope it is not, it dishonours a great teacher, thinker, and gentle soul. Mr Anton should know better and refrain from using a great man’s reputation to further Machiavelli’s supremacist agenda. I raise this tentative objection because Mr Anton appears to overlook what Leo Strauss wrote about Machiavelli.

Leo Strauss wrote famously that Machiavelli was a teacher of evil.[7]

“We shall not shock anyone, we shall merely exposes ourselves to good-natured or at any rate harmless ridicule, if we profess ourselves inclined to old-fashioned and simple opinion according to which Machiavelli was a teacher of evil.”

And

“If it is true that only an evil man will stoop to teach maxims of public and private gangsterism, we are forced to say that Machiavelli was an evil man.”

He never qualified this opinion nor did he change it. Strauss paid homage to Machiavelli as a thinker if not a philosopher, just as he accepted that Heidegger was a great thinker, but he never accepted his political acts or their consequences. Strauss would never accept Machiavelli’s political project just as he would never accept Heidegger’s. It is noteworthy that despite writing a seminal work on Machiavelli he never taught a course on him. Unlike Harvey Mansfield, Leo Strauss never went beyond what he wrote in Thoughts on Machiavelli to celebrate Machiavelli, advocate his broad acceptance, or show how he had been made safe for liberal democracy. It would follow that if you thought someone was a teacher of evil, you would refrain from public praise. Strauss never tried to make Machiavelli “safe” or “respectable” for America or American democracy. Perhaps he saw Machiavelli as a lesser threat than Heidegger since he never published anything on Heidegger in his lifetime.

Mansfield, by contrast, has written extensively on Machiavelli’s teachings. He appears to introduce him to American public as someone acceptable and necessary for American regime or any political regime. His book Taming the Prince appears to justify Machiavelli as if he has been “made safe” for liberal democracy. In this light, it is understandable that Mr Anton would refer to Leo Strauss’ Machiavelli in an attempt to refer to a safer version. Yet, neither Mansfield nor Anton can explain how Machiavelli can be made “safe” for America especially as his teaching represents the danger coeval with politics. In particular, I am puzzled as to how Mr Anton can discuss Leo Strauss’ Machiavelli in the White House, when Strauss wrote that the United States of America may be said to be the only country in the world founded in direct opposition to Machiavelli.[8] Strauss follows that claim by pointing out that Machiavelli argued the “foundation of political greatness is necessarily laid in crime”. Perhaps Mr Anton is trying to signal something about the Trump administration for as he says Machiavelli would approve of Trump.[9] To understand why or how America is founded in direct opposition to Machiavelli, we have to understand that it is founded in the principle of equality, the belief in the natural rights that all men are created equal.[10] Machiavelli wrote explicitly and emphatically against that belief. To put it bluntly, Machiavelli promoted a supremacist agenda for what is imperialism but supremacism? Trying to cover this up by referring to a safer Machiavelli, Leo Strauss’ Machiavelli, seems disingenuous. If Mr Anton is suggesting that Leo Strauss would promote or endorse supremacism, Machiavellian or otherwise, he does him a grave injustice.

To be sure, other commentators might note that Strauss sometimes referred to Plato’s discussion of the philosopher’s superiority and the need for philosopher kings who could transcend the law. Yet, these references would further distort his legacy. Strauss always qualified those as the Ancient view of political philosophy that would have no place within the modern era. He noted that such views were unachievable politically in an age where consent is required for political rule. Further, if Mr Anton were to make these references he would need to show the context for such remark. When we find these references in Plato’s work, they are in a private not a public setting. Strauss was clear, especially in Thoughts on Machiavelli, that the Ancients would never state such political things publicly. He understood directly that such public teaching has consequences that were deleterious for the common good that is needed for decent politics. One wonders if Harvey Mansfield misunderstood Strauss’ warnings about the perverted prince that followed from Heidegger’s teaching if he believed that a return to Machiavelli or a Machiavelli made safe for liberal democracy would offer a suitable constraint or prophylactic for those who indulge a knowing irreverence for America’s reverence for the laws.

One aspect of Trump that Mr Anton believes that Machiavelli would approve is his unpredictability, especially in foreign policy. In such unpredictability, we are reminded that another avid reader of Machiavelli was Benito Mussolini. In 1924, he wrote a Prelude to the Prince where he dismisses the idea of popular sovereignty or democracy with a clear disdain for power derived from consent. In this, he is faithful to Machiavelli. One wonders if it is this view that Mr Anton understands as Machiavelli’s defence of Western Philosophy. In a curious twist, Mr Anton sees President Trump’s unpredictability as a virtue[11], which is something he has in common with Mussolini. Unpredictability is also synonymous with arbitrary which is a trait that Strauss noted defined a tyrant.[12]

As Strauss noted, Machiavelli separates wisdom from moderation for he rejected classical political philosophy. When he rejected that moderation, he encouraged an immoderate approach to politics and statesmanship. His political project threatens any constitutional regime. The immoderate approach champions virtu at the expense of moderate thought and acts that sustain the constitutional order with its reverence for the laws. Perhaps Mr Anton would have been better served, as a citizen and a man, if he had read and reflected on Xenophon’s Hiero with the same attention he gives Machiavelli. Yet, if his or Trump’s success comes from such immoderate thought and behaviour is it any surprise he is attracted to a captain who will best embodies what he desires?

Two things emerge from this interview. First, Mr Anton’s admires Publius Decius Mus the elder. Second, he believes there is such a thing as Leo Strauss’ Machiavelli. From these two facts, I would speculate tentatively about his intent. If my analysis is incorrect or incomplete, I would be grateful if he would clarify his intent. I base this analysis on my limited understanding of his writings, Strauss’ writings, and Machiavelli’s writings. First, he intends to show he shares Machiavelli’s views about Christianity although this could be seen to suggest he embraces Epicureanism, the deeper intent is to show that the false religion that holds sway over America has weakened it. Second, he uses Leo Strauss to conceal Machiavelli’s problematic character and teaching so that Machiavelli can be made safe for the White House. Third, Mr Anton seems to have embraced as necessary the separation of wisdom from moderation since our age requires an unpredictable, or arbitrary, chief executive who will be freed from constitutional framework. We must accept such an approach to deal with a normal state that is warfare not peace. I would note in passing when considering this analysis that Mr Anton would do well to reflect that Strauss warned about a thinker who was contemptuous of reasonableness and praised resoluteness. If this analysis misunderstands his intent, then I would ask him what he meant when he referred to his love for “Nick” and Leo Strauss’ Machiavelli. One could accept that he follows Trump out of opportunism. Machiavelli would understand as a seasoned political operative, since one cannot practice politics effectively from the kitchen. As Mr Anton appears to follow Trump from a deep passion, a reasoned choice, and political judgement we may be led to the fearful conclusion, which I hope he can reassure is not the case, that suggests he prefers the political alternative that Machiavelli proposes and Trump attempts to embody. Whatever the intent, Mr Anton is to be lauded for his rhetorical skills for he has surpassed Machiavelli as his job application succeeded whereas Machiavelli’s failed.

 

 

[1] See http://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-russia-foreign-policy-machiavelli-would-approve-michael-anton/ the full text of the interview is here:  http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/michael-anton-the-full-transcript-215029

[2] The attentive reader will note that the Publius Decius Mus (the elder) story occurs near the centre of Machiavelli’s Discourses on Livy as well as in the centre of book 2, the central book.

[3] I will leave it to readers more perspicuous than I to determine whether Mr Anton is attacking the current religion. What is the American religion that he is attacking? Is the American religion progressivism, at least within the elites, or is it equality, or is the civil religion that binds America together the Constitution?

[4] See Harvey C. Mansfield, Machiavelli’s New Modes and Orders: a study of the Discourses on Livy University of Chicago Press, Chicago 2001 pp233-235.

[5] http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/michael-anton-the-full-transcript-215029

[6] Harvey C. Mansfield Jr has written extensively on Machiavelli with the following books:  Machiavelli’s Virtue (University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1996), Taming the Prince: The Ambivalence of Modern Executive Power John Hopkins University Press, 1989) as well as Machiavelli’s new modes and orders: a study of the Discourses on Livy (Cornell University Press, Ithaca 1979). He has published translations of Machiavelli’s Prince, Discourses on Livy, and Florentine Histories.

I leave to others to consider why Mansfield felt that the time was right within America to make explicit what Strauss, at best, alluded to and why he thought it would be healthy to expose American democracy to Machiavelli’s thought in such an immodest fashion. I would also leave to readers to consider Professor Mansfield’s timing.

[7] See Leo Strauss Thoughts on Machiavelli p. 9 (University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1978 (paperback edition)

[8] See Leo Strauss Thoughts on Machiavelli p. 13

[9] We have to be cautious of such signals since the comments may only be for Mr Anton’s benefit not for enlightening others about himself or Trump.

[10] Here it is not surprising that Mr Anton overlooks Harry Jaffa’s work. Jaffa would want to know why he is praising Niccolo Machiavelli in the White House especially as Machiavelli’s praise of supremacism suggests that the truth that all men are created equal is simply a half-truth or a noble lie. It is also noteworthy that Harry Jaffa wrote on Lincoln rather than Machiavelli. Perhaps this is a sub-theme to the dispute between Jaffa and Mansfield as captured by Thomas West. http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/author/jaffa_v_mansfield.pdf

[11] By contrast, the Athenians had no need for Machiavellianism because they were so powerful. In the Melian Dialogue, the Athenians are unapologetically clear and consistent in their approach to the Melians. It is the Melian oligarchs who rely on Machiavellian like methods in the hopes they can avoid what Athens says they will deliver. See Harry Neumann Socrates and the Tragedy of Athens,Social Research, Vol. 35, No. 3 (AUTUMN 1968), p427 http://www.jstor.org/stable/40969919

[12] See Leo Strauss On Tyranny Corrected and Expanded edition Including the Strauss-Kojeve correspondence, (University of Chicago Press, Chicago 2013) p

Posted in good writing, Government, justice, philosophy, republicanism, statesmanship | Tagged , , , , ,

Trump’s Syrian missile strike was a strategic blunder with Xi

English: Celebrity Apprentice star Dennis Rodm...

English: Celebrity Apprentice star Dennis Rodman and Donald Trump (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Dedicated to the memory of Dean Rusk; a Southern gentleman, an American patriot, and a public servant who understood what is at stake with China.

In statecraft, there are three types of blunders or sins. Two are punished and one brings rewards. The first is the sin of commission. The basic blunder where you do something wrong or you execute a plan or act poorly. No matter how well-intentioned, a blunder is something that does not work. Churchill’s ill-fated Dardanelles proposal is an example of a blunder. The second type of blunder is the sin of omission. Such a blunder is the failure to seize an opportunity or an opening. In this blunder, the leader does not see the chance they could take or they seize the wrong option as they have misunderstood the strategic opportunity. The final type of blunder is very rare but it does occur. It is the intentional blunder. Here, the leader does something that appears to the casual or uninformed view to be a blunder but has a deeper intent, something to lure in an opponent, so that the larger opportunity can be realized. These are very rare and difficult to arrange let alone execute. For example, a leader might blurt out what he appeared to want to keep secret or allow someone to see information because they know it will be leaked. The target believes that they can capitalize on the mistake as they cannot perceive the intent that guides it.[1]

Donald Trump appears to have committed the second type of blunder. What is surprising is that commentators have not picked up on this blunder. Why they have overlooked it is a question to be answered another time. To understand this blunder, we have to consider the context.

In a recent fawning interview, Donald Trump revealed when he told President Xi that he had launched the missile strike on Syria.[2] Here is the relevant section from the interview transcript.

BARTIROMO:  When you were with the president of China, you’re launching these military strikes.

TRUMP:  Yes.

BARTIROMO:  Was that planned?

How did that come about that it’s happening right then, because right there, you’re saying a reminder, here’s who the superpower in the world is, right?

TRUMP:  You have no idea how many people want to hear the answer to this.  I have had — I have watched speculation for three days now on what that was like (INAUDIBLE).

BARTIROMO:  When did you tell him?

TRUMP:  But I’ll tell you (INAUDIBLE)…

BARTIROMO:  Before dessert or what?

TRUMP:  But I will tell you, only because you’ve treated me so good for so long, I have to (INAUDIBLE) right?

I was sitting at the table.  We had finished dinner.  We’re now having dessert.  And we had the most beautiful piece of chocolate cake that you’ve ever seen and President Xi was enjoying it.

And I was given the message from the generals that the ships are locked and loaded, what do you do?

And we made a determination to do it, so the missiles were on the way.  And I said, Mr. President, let me explain something to you.  This was during dessert.

We’ve just fired 59 missiles, all of which hit, by the way, unbelievable, from, you know, hundreds of miles away, all of which hit, amazing.

BARTIROMO:  Unmanned?

Brilliant.

TRUMP:  It’s so incredible.  It’s brilliant.  It’s genius.  Our technology, our equipment, is better than anybody by a factor of five.  I mean look, we have, in terms of technology, nobody can even come close to competing.

Now we’re going to start getting it, because, you know, the military has been cut back and depleted so badly by the past administration and by the war in Iraq, which was another disaster.

So what happens is I said we’ve just launched 59 missiles heading to Iraq and I wanted you to know this. And he was eating his cake. And he was silent.[3]

 

What is noteworthy is that Trump seemed genuinely pleased to have had an interviewer be “good” to him.[4] I suppose that as long as interviewers are “good” to him Trump will reward them with exclusives. If this is all it takes to receive a scoop [sic], then we can expect other reporters to commence the fluff interviews. In this effort, the Fox News interviewers seem to excel at this.[5] However, the interviewer who elicited this scoop [sic] failed to understand its importance, but this is not surprising since other commentators have focused on the wrong thing or simply misunderstood what was at stake.

The chocolate cake is not the issue.

From the transcript, most commentators have focused on the chocolate cake and Trump’s self-satisfaction that Xi appeared to approve of the missile strikes. What Trump missed is an opportunity that other presidents would have worked their whole lives to achieve. President Nixon, had he been given such a golden opportunity, would have seized it with both hands. He had to work for decades to reach such an opportunity. What was this opportunity and what was Trump’s response?

Without a strategic intent, a strategic act is meaningless.

Trump was able to get Xi to a meeting in the US. During his visit, he was able to strike Syria with Tomahawk missiles in response to a chemical weapons attack by Syria. Trump appeared to have seized an opportunity to do what Obama could not or would not do. Moreover, Trump was able to announce it to Xi and thus impress him with America’s military technological prowess. For Trump, it is important to impress others so that he can feel in charge as he believes that such behaviour is impressive and one that carries more than a symbolic effect. When a strategic event, such as the missile strike, is done without a strategic effect or intent, it is reduced to a symbolic act, an event “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Trump’s blunder shows that it was an empty gesture.

What was the blunder?

When Trump told Xi he had hit Syria in response to the chemical weapons attack, he asked him what he thought. If Trump was aware of Chinese history he would have known that China are one of the few countries to have suffered severe and sustained chemical and biological warfare. China’s hatred for Japan is derived in no small part from Japan’s chemical weapons attacks, biological attacks, and experiments on Chinese during Japan’s war against China.[6] If Trump knew this, then he would know Xi’s likely response. It is Xi’s response that offered the amazing strategic opportunity that Trump appears to have missed.

But Xi apparently told Trump that he “agreed with” the attack.

“He said to me, anybody that uses gases — you could almost say or anything else — but anybody that was so brutal and uses gases to do that to young children and babies, it’s OK … he was OK with it, he was OK,” Trump said.[7]

What Trump had was the chance to put Xi on the spot and force him into a strategic decision or lose serious face. Alternatively, he could have put Xi on the backfoot and gained a strategic advantage on him. Trump did neither. Trump failed to take advantage of the strategic opportunity. At some point, he and his advisors will have to explain why.

Trump had many options that he let slip away.

Trump could have followed up Xi’s statement with the following or something like the following.

“Mr President, I am glad you agree. What would you propose I should do to a country that supports such a leader who is willing to use chemical weapons? Should countries that support such behaviour be seen as complicit in such attacks? I am sure you would agree with me that any decent country, such as yours, that opposes chemical weapons attacks would publicly condemn such attacks and stop supporting such a country. Would you stop supporting Assad so that we can stop these chemical weapons?”

Alternatively, he could have said the following.

“Mr President, I am glad you approve and endorse my approach to chemical weapons. As a decent country who has suffered the scourge of chemical weapons attacks from a monstrous regime, will you join with me to convene a summit between America, China, and Syria, to remove Assad and end the chemical weapons attacks?”

If Trump had wanted to drive a wedge between China and Russia over their support for Assad and resistance to sanctions against Syria[8], he could have said something like the following.

“Mr President, you and I know it is in our interests to avoid military action over Syria so let us agree on sanctions against Syria with America and China standing together against chemical weapons as your country has suffered greatly from chemical weapons attacks in the past. Let us take a stand against Syria. If we stand together, then only one country remains a clear supporter of chemical weapons attacks. Let this be the start of our strategic relationship.”

Even if this language is not used, Trump had an opportunity to contrast publicly China’s opposition to chemical weapons, its history as a victim of chemical weapons, against its continued support for Syria and Assad. Trump never made that public connection and with it he lost a unique moment that will never return.

Trump was given what most statesmen work their lives to achieve and he wasted it.

Faced with a unique opportunity that most statesmen work and wait a lifetime to create or exploit, Trump chose instead to brag about his shiny military toys and bask in Xi’s apparent approval. Instead of creating a strategic opportunity with China, the missile strike has become an empty symbolic gesture that far from showing Obama to be indecisive, showed that military action without a strategic goal is a sign of bluster, insecurity, and incoherence. Perhaps this is the deeper lesson that Xi took from Trump who now talks excitedly about impressing Xi and chocolate cake.

 

Analysis: Xi has humiliated Trump and Trump does not even know it. First Trump allowed Xi to explain that North Korea was complicated to such a degree that China had little influence. Trump accepted this story and said publicly that Xi taught him a history lesson. Trump placed himself as a student to Xi as a teacher. In China, such a relationship is between a superior, the teacher, and the inferior, the student. Trump, the President of the United States, has publicly made himself Xi’s inferior. For Xi, and China, this is a huge success and will have great consequences across Asia given the historical and cultural meaning of teacher and pupil.[9] No president, even Obama, has done such a thing. Yet, here is Trump stating it publicly and proudly. If he had staffed the State Department properly, he would have known about North Korea and called “Bullshit” when Xi told him such nonsense. China has great control over North Korea’s energy supply and its food supply.[10] Moreover, China has a large military force on the border and has likely co-opted or penetrated the North Korean military and the North Korean intelligence services. To say that China has limited influence over North Korea is laughable.[11] It is embarrassing. Yet, there is Trump proudly saying “North Korea is complicated” as if discovering a new idea.[12] One shudders to think that if North Korea collapsed that Trump would accede to the Korean peninsula being neutralized and thus erasing a major strategic and geopolitical vulnerability for China because Xi Jinping tells him it is a good idea.[13]

Playing games with the call readout has global consequences.

To add insult to injury, China releases a call readout from the telephone call between Xi and Trump. The White House, inspired by Bannon and Miller who like petulant, vindictive children want to annoy the press, released a 28-word statement about the call.[14] The most powerful nation during a crucial summit with the threat of war in the Middle East and increased tension in Korea, issues a 28-word statement. By contrast, China released a 6 paragraph copy of 420 words.[15] Their statement is balanced, measured, and comprehensive. The call readout makes Xi and China appear the competent, dignified, and confident power. If a reader did not know the context, it would appear that China was the more powerful state responsible for the status quo and America the weaker, revisionist power closed to itself, insecure, and defensive. You would think that China had an open, vibrant, independent media and America had a state controlled press.

By thwarting American media, the White House surrenders status to China.

By releasing a 28-word statement, Bannon and Miller think they are being cute. They think they are controlling the American media and winning the “media game.” What they do not realize is that they are losing the statecraft game and literally surrendering world leadership to the Chinese. China’s allies will read this communique and trust China’s views. To world opinion, China appears to be in charge. What are America’s allies to make of this? What is South Korea, Japan, and Australia to make of this? They will be embarrassed. They will be worried. It is China’s account that they will have to read to know what is happening in the United States and on the issues discussed by Xi and Trump. This is the sign of an American administration that is incompetent and does not even know it.

Americans have the luxury of decent politics without realizing what that means.

The White House, perhaps echoing the attitude shown by Bannon and Miller, provided a brief call readout. In this, they act like children. I don’t blame them because they really don’t know any better. They know little about statecraft for despite their claims to being “tough”, they accept the liberal-democratic myths about statecraft. They live in a smug, self-satisfied, protected bubble where politics is a pastime, a game, where the loser gets to retire and make money as a consultant. In the rest of the world, in places like China, if you lose you are lucky if you only end up in a corruption trial where a death sentence is a possibility.[16] China and Russia do not live within a self-satisfied bubble because for them politics is a serious business with life or death consequences.[17] I do blame someone like Michael Anton who should know better.[18] If he had attended James H. Nichols, Jr’s Thucydides course at Claremont, he would have understood statecraft, the need to maintain honour and most of all to manage the appearance as the reality of power. He spent time in Bush’s NSC so he should know better. To allow this humiliation to occur on his watch is shameful. What is truly worrying is that despite his claims to be a “thinker” about politics and statecraft, he really does not know what is going on and what needs to be done.[19] Trump’s ignorance is compounded by his advisors’ incompetence. They are burning through the legacy created by honourable, competent, decent men like Dean Rusk who knew what was at stake and would never have allowed something like this to happen. They dishonour his memory and they threaten America’s safety.

Xi has taken Trump’s measure and found him wanting.

What did Xi and his advisors learn from this summit? Xi and his advisors have learned that Trump and his advisors lack the competence to be feared, respected, or even insulted. What Xi and his advisors will be telling themselves is: “We will have no difficulty with this president.” For the first time since China entered international politics it is now more competent, confident, and composed than America. Xi and his advisors will patiently and ruthlessly exploit this advantage. Having convinced Trump that North Korea is difficult for China to influence, they will encourage North Korea’s intransigence so that they can exploit it, and most importantly they will continue to support Assad as they patiently expand their role in the Middle East and North Africa while America acts like a paper tiger with strategically meaningless missile strikes that lack a strategic goal beyond “doing something decisive.” Xi and China would never be so foolish as to waste their power, reputation, and status in this way, but Trump and his advisors are quite content to do so.

China continues to support Syria and Assad without cost or consequence.

When the next chemical weapons attack occurs, what will Trump do? Another missile strike? To achieve what end? Trump has now engaged America’s military and reputation in Syria. Xi and his advisors continue to support Assad without cost and they can humiliate Trump by encouraging Assad in his attacks and coordinating that with North Korea activity. Trump becomes a child who is being taught a lesson in statecraft by his Chinese teacher. China call readout shows Xi continuing to condemn the use of chemical weapons and asking the matter be resolved through the United Nations *even though* China has vetoed attempts to hold Syria to account in the United Nations.[20] At no point during the summit was China held to account for opposing sanctions for chemical weapons nor was its legacy as a victim of chemical weapons attacks used as public leverage to show China’s hypocrisy. Trump ends his summit with Xi without any progress on North Korea or Syria. By contrast, Xi comes away without having conceded anything and had Trump publicly tell the world Xi taught Trump a lesson about North Korea. What does Trump tell the American public? “we had the most beautiful piece of chocolate cake that you’ve ever seen and President Xi was enjoying it.”

 

I bet Xi was enjoying it. I bet he was enjoying it more than Trump will ever realize.

 

 

 

[1] I cannot overlook the possibility that this is what Trump and his advisors have done with Xi Jinping. In this strategy, Trump intends to look foolish to give Xi status. In return, Xi will help him solve the Korean problem. The challenge is to see how Xi or any China leader would accept a unified Korea that is not beholden to them. Why would Xi accept a unified Korea that put a US ally right on its border? If Trump a strategy to unify Korea, maintain US strategic interests, and create a wedge between China and Russia, it is so well hidden that it reflects a strategic vision and patience that would put Nixon and Obama to shame. Time will tell.

[2] The full interview can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dZNPKrEcrE

[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/12/president-trumps-throughly-confusing-fox-business-interview-annotated/

[4] Most worryingly is that Trump publicly assesses other leaders on whether they “like him”. It matters very little if a leader is liked since that is immaterial to statecraft as the leader must be respected for their word is their bond. It matters not whether someone is liked, it matters what they can or cannot do, what they will or will not do. Xi will be nice to Trump and be his friend if that gets him what he wants from America. By stating his desire to be “liked”, Trump puts himself at a disadvantage since he can be manipulated for he believes in the appearance of being liked.

[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-I2B6HiKgw Jesse Watters received high praise from Trump for “being so nice to me.” See 11:26-11:34 for reference. Curiously, Rupert Murdoch’s papers in the UK always appear to menace politicians with the ever present inference that they will be “monstered”.

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

[7] http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-chinese-president-syria-chocolate-cake-2017-4?r=US&IR=T

[8] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-chemicalweapons-idUSKBN167232

[9] See for example how Xi Jinping draws on Confucianism with the role of teacher and ruler. http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1417/creating-the-cult-of-xi-jinping-the-chinese-dream-as-a-leader-symbol In this we see echoes of Mao’s Great Teacher, Great Leader claims. At the same time, by drawing on Confucianism with the five relationships, Trump assumes an inferior relationship to Xi Jinping’s leadership. See David Elstein, Beyond the Five Relationships: Teachers and Worthies in Early Chinese Thought. Philosophy East and West,  Vol. 62, No. 3 (JULY 2012), pp. 375-391 Published by: University of Hawai’i Press http://www.jstor.org/stable/41684457

[10] China accounts for over 60% of North Korea’s exports and 68% of its imports. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_North_Korea To say that China has little influence over North Korea beggars belief. That Trump would proudly accept and repeat the line that China has little influence over North Korea is astounding. It is unprecedented for an American president to say this publicly.

[11] http://www.heritage.org/asia/commentary/china-must-pressure-pyongyang

[12] http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2087518/10-minutes-xi-jinping-changed-donald-trumps-mind-north

[13] China knows that with the Korean Peninsula neutralized, it would accept the fall of North Korea to achieve that outcome, it would be a gigantic strategic and geopolitical success that would undermine America’s geopolitical capacity to contain its naval power. Does Trump understand what is at stake? Do his advisors? Do any of them even read about geopolitics? If Mr Anton had attended Bill Rood’s courses at Claremont he would have understood why the Korean Peninsula is vital for America’s geopolitical security.

[14] Bannon told the media they needed to shut up and listen. http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/02/15/steve-bannon-care-less-repairing-relationship-opposition-party-media/ Miller told the media and the world that the president’s powers “will not be questioned.” https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/12/trump-administration-considering-narrower-travel-ban

[15] http://time.com/4737001/donald-trump-xi-jinping-phone-call-readout/

[16] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14197485

[17] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/03/23/here-are-ten-critics-of-vladimir-putin-who-died-violently-or-in-suspicious-ways/

[18] Especially as he claims to be devoted scholar of Machiavelli’s treatises on statecraft. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-28/reading-michael-anton-s-book-the-suit-written-in-machiavelli-s-voice

[19] https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2017/02/america-liberal-international-order/ Mr Anton talks of prestige and he is party to this humiliation. One wonders what prestige means when it is given away without even realizing it? He wants America to avoid contempt, yet what can Xi Jinping have for Trump after this meeting? What will he do when a serious crisis emerges if Trump cannot even manage to keep from abasing himself before Xi Jinping?

[20] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39116854

Posted in Government, statesmanship, strategy | Tagged , , , , ,

To salvage his presidency Trump must defeat himself to escape the wilderness of mirrors

speaking at CPAC in Washington D.C. on Februar...

speaking at CPAC in Washington D.C. on February 10, 2011. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Rick Wilson has written something that every member of the Trump White House, including Trump, needs to read.[1] They need to read this if they want to salvage Trump’s presidency. Unlike Mr Wilson, I believe that the Trump presidency can be salvaged. Will it be salvaged is another question. Does Trump want to manage it is a question for another time. However, it cannot be salvaged unless they read Mr Wilson’s analysis. If they dismiss it as a partisan or a Never Trump attack, they will fail. Our enemies often tell us the deepest truths about ourselves.

Only your enemies will tell you the truth, but will you listen?

At the same time, our friends, our true friends tell us the same truths. It is rare to have a true friend like Mr Wilson. He does not want Trump to succeed so he is not friends with President Trump. Instead, he is friends with America, the American regime, and it is for their benefit that he tells the truth. If Mr Wilson did not care about America, he would not offer this advice. What he would be doing is telling President and his staff that everything was going well, it could not be better. He would encourage them on their self-destructive path. However, he has hit the root cause of Trump’s problem, he is not self-aware, he does not know what political success looks like or what it requires.

Trump’s character is his fate and now he has revealed it to the world.

Mr Wilson is correct to focus on Trump’s character. Trump cannot change his character. He can develop self-awareness and he can learn what political success is and what it requires. At the moment, Trump believes appearances matter more than substance. He has to rely on what other people tell him about political success and failure. During the campaign, what mattered was popularity, the attention, the buzz. Governing, as many have already noted, is different from campaigning. It is here that Trump’s weaknesses are revealed. A statesman, which is the standard against which we measure the presidency, is defined by their judgement and their ability to weave together the disparate political strands to create a shared political good. In this, though, any ruler has to adapt to the community they wish to shape. The statesman and the good ruler, the one who succeeds for he improves or helps his people, does this for all, not for his party, and not for himself. He and his party might benefit, but they can only benefit if they put the larger or greater shared good first.

A statesman must use judgement to link interdependent events

To achieve this success, a statesman must exercise their judgement. Unlike a politician, the statesman must act prudently to reconcile competing demands where the best choice is still a politically unsuccessful one. When the statesman does this, though, he understands the consequences within the decision and for his larger political project. Trump does not appear, yet, to be aware of how his various choices are influencing his larger political project. He does recognize this weakness for he has brought in Ivanka and Jared to tell him the “truth” that he needs to hear. However, this solution can only be temporary since it does not avoid his responsibility it only displaces onto their judgement. If he uses them as a “sense check” for the advice and information that he receives, that will help him. In this approach, we might see his attempt to learn in the job. However, they are only helpful to the extent that they help him move beyond political appearances to political reality.

Can Trump stop watching TV? Even to save his Presidency?

What Trump has to do, which is perhaps the supreme test, is to stop watching TV for his political intelligence or his political understanding. The television is a mediated experience, it acts as a mirror instead of a window to the political reality. To the extent that Trump accepts their appearances as a political reality, he has not escape the wilderness of mirrors. As a mirror, it is already digested and packaged to be consumed by him and others so their views can be confirmed or affirmed.  He is not simply second-hand from the political thing, he is third hand. Moreover, as the television network he appears to watch most is Fox News, he must be aware it exists to confirm his views, or at least affirm them. In that regard, it presents an inbuilt bias that distorts his political intelligence. If he accepts their views he is captured by appearances, and the statesman above all else has to work with political reality so that he can manage political appearances. Trump appears to be working backwards from appearances to reality since he has mastered one form of appearances, the Hollywood variety. What he is unaware of how to manage is Washington’s appearances.

In the wilderness of appearances can Trump find political reality?

Only one city can rival Washington for the way that appearances determine success—Hollywood. In Hollywood, like Washington, you can succeed if you appear successful. You can even succeed if you are incompetent. What you cannot do, though, what both cities punish with a maniacal ruthless, is to lacks self-awareness. The appearance of success or incompetence can be overcome. If the person is aware of these, then they can take steps to shore up the weakness. One only need look at how Bush handled Katrina. The initial response showed that “Brownie” was doing “ok”, as soon as the White House became aware that he was not they started to take steps to replace him and fix the issue. The fix might not have been ideal or as successful as critics charged, but what is clear is that Bush was self-aware enough to act when something was not working. He was able to adapt to the changed situation.

Foreign policy deals with a political reality that cannot be escaped.

Where Trump appears to be learning most quickly is in foreign policy since it provides a clear political reality. The challenge, though, is he learning the wrong lessons or rather lessons that distort his understanding if he equates military acts with approval or behaviour that will define political success. In the missile strike decision meeting, we saw a man desperately trying to figure out what was happening and what it would mean since he had never experienced it or thought about it before he became president. All presidents start with domestic policy and become consumed by their foreign policy because that is their sole responsibility. They cannot delegate it nor can they rely on institutional responses to cover their inactivity. Trump has confronted this moment and the effects are yet to be felt, but they provide the moment of self-awareness needed to adapt.

To escape appearances Trump must accept a reality that he doesn’t understand

For someone like Trump, he is at a double disadvantage. He appears to lack self-awareness because he has not filled key institutions. In turn, those institutions are unable to provide the political intelligence about the political reality. He may believe that he is saving money or sending a signal that the White House runs foreign policy, but these beliefs misunderstand the political reality. He has accepted the appearances he has been provided about the political thing that is the State Department. Like any institution, it exists to survive. Like all human beings, an organisation is driven by self-preservation. As part of that survival mechanism, it possesses an inbuilt self-awareness, a bureaucratic system to provide institutional truths that will protect an organisation from its leader and from itself if necessary. Trump has taken away that institutional response and until he restores it he will lack the institutional support that provide the political intelligence he needs to understand the political reality not political appearances.

Without a plan Trump cannot innovate or take advantage of opportunities.

Trump will not be able to salvage his attempt to repeal Obamacare. To the extent that his other legislative projects were based on the success of that bill, Trump has placed himself in a double bind. If he continues his attempt to repeal it, he delays other legislation. If he does not repeal it, he cannot finance his other projects and he will have failed on a major campaign promise. He seems to lack the interest or capacity to reconfigure his legislative package to work without having repealed Obamacare. His claim that he continues to negotiate a bill to repeal Obamacare shows how far he has to go to develop self-awareness. He seems unaware of what political success requires and the way the 2018 mid-term elections will affect his ability to pass legislation. All of this is already known within the White House. Moreover, everything that Mr Wilson has written is known within the White House. What remains to be seen is whether they and Trump have the self-awareness to adapt. If they can adapt, they can salvage Trump’s president from a disaster to mediocre. If they are very lucky, they just might win a second term. The problem, though, is that to exploit any luck, they have to be self-aware and adapt. What is clear, though, is political reality is unforgiving. The 2018 mid-term election results provide a political realty that cannot be spun or hidden by political appearances no matter how powerful or desired.

Trump must defeat Trump to save himself, can he?

Trump cannot change his character. He can develop self-awareness. If he does the latter, he can mitigate the former and potentially salvage his presidency. However, as Mr Wilson noted, it all depends on Trump and if he fails, he has no one to blame but himself. It is this fate that his family want to avoid because they recognize the catastrophic effect such failure will have on his brand and their future fortunes. They are now in a race to save Trump from himself.

 

Afterword: On could see a scenario where Trump does not want a second term. He may simply engage in a democratic Gotterdammerung where he welcomes a victory by the Democrats in the mid-term election so that he can blame them for his failure. When he leaves office in 2020 he can claim that no one expected him to win and he proved them wrong so anything else was a bonus. He will insist that he could have done more but for the Democrats and the Media which conspired against him. He will claim he left on his own terms as he achieved what he set out to do. What he did not achieve is because Republicans betrayed him and Democrats blocked him. If anything goes wrong it is his successor’s incompetence to blame. In this scenario, Trump simply loses interest in being President as a politician. He only holds office to enjoy the perks, privileges, and publicity. He continues to visit Mar-a-Lago every week-end, he set up deals for his corporations, and he enhance his brand to reap post-presidency riches. For Trump, what is most important is Trump and leaving in 2020 could be a way to save his brand. In this scenario, we would see that America and the American people only ever existed to serve his ends. He was never there to serve them. To the extent that he was there to serve them, it was to allow him greater freedom to enrich himself and his family. If Trump cannot leave on his own terms, he loses the 2020 election, his brand will suffer catastrophic damage. Who wants to work with a failed president who promised so much and delivered so little?

[1] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/10/the-trouble-with-trump-s-white-house-is-donald-trump.html

Posted in Government, philosophy, privacy, statesmanship | Tagged , , , ,

Why Scarlett Johansson does not understand Ivanka Trump’s public silence

Ivanka Trump

Ivanka Trump (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In a recent interview, Scarlett Johansson criticized Ivanka Trump. She said that Ivanka’s failure to challenge her father’s public betrayed her claims to be an advocate for women.[1] In response, Ivanka explained that her influence was hidden from the public. She argued that a private criticism was more effective than a public one.[2] Although Ms Johansson did accept that Ivanka was in an awkward situation with her father and touched on the potential family dynamics that restrained Ivanka, she seemed uncertain as to why Ivanka could not speak publicly and preferred to work behind the scenes. What Ms Johansson lacked was an understanding of Ivanka as she understands herself. This essay attempts to create that understanding.

Can you criticize publicly that which provides you with luxuries?

For all of her power, status, and privileges Ivanka is in an invidious position. She cannot publicly rebuke her father because she lives in his shadow. As Trump runs his empire, like a patriarch of old, Ivanka knows that to cross him publicly would be sever herself from the family. The family and business are blurred to the point where there is no difference.[3] As a friend commented, the Trump empire rotates around Donald. It is all about him with the children accessories to his success.[4] A break with her father would endanger all of it. Is it a relationship she is free to criticize publicly?

Ivanka has always worked this way, why would she change it?

If we look at Ivanka’s previous behaviour, we see a pattern that reflects her precarious situation. The pattern does reveal to some extent how she understands herself and her relationship to her father. Even when her father’s comments bordered on sexual harassment, she did not criticise him directly. Even when asked directly “Have you challenged your father”, she gave an indirect answer that provides the impression she does without saying it.

“On whether she ever admonishes her father for his more outrageous assertions and personal insults: “Well, I’m his daughter. In a political capacity, I don’t. It’s his campaign. I don’t feel that’s my role. But I would challenge him as a child. That’s what children do. [My daughter] Arabella challenges me every day. People ask me, do I ever disagree with my father? It would be a little strange if I didn’t.”” [5]

She also responded indirectly when the issue was raised directly on the View in 2006. In the video, she is an outfit that to put it modestly puts her modelling assets on display.[6]

“Notoriously, appearing on the View in 2006 with Ivanka sitting beside him, Trump announced: “If Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.”

Ivanka gamely shook her head, tongue firmly in cheek, as if to say, “Yep, that’s my dad!” (This was before she became someone who tweeted out #ITWiseWords, including quotes from Eleanor Roosevelt about self-worth).” [7]

Ivanka is modelling a behaviour as old as Rome

To understand Ivanka’s behaviour we need to go back to ancient Rome. Tacitus, a famous Roman orator, described in his work the Annales how virtuous courtiers survived within a Caesar’s court. They survived by finding a mean, a path, between servile obedience and rash resistance.

I find, Lepidus to have been a serious [gravem] and wise [sapientem] man in those times. For often he bent aside the cruel adulations of others into a better [course] Nevertheless he was not lacking in moderation [temperament!] either, since he flourished with constant authority and influence with Tiberius. Thence I am compelled to be uncertain [dubitare] whether the inclination of First Citizens toward some and their ill will toward others comes by fate and the lot of being born, as other things, or whether there is some [room] for our own counsels, and it is permitted to follow a course devoid of ambition and dangers, between rash obstinacy [abruptam contumaciam] and servile obedience [deforme obsequium] (iv.20.2-3).[8]

Scarlett Johansson has the luxury of not having Trump as her father. Ivanka does not have that luxury. In a sense, she lives within a tyranny, a wider network of relationships that exists for one purpose—to server her father.

Ivanka serves he father because it serves her.

Ivanka knows that she must serve her father. She does so because she also serves herself. Her success is derived from her father and her father’s name. At times, she acts as his surrogate.[9] If his brand fails, so does hers. She has no existence beyond the name Trump. Moreover, her husband is no longer independent of her father. Although they might have carved out a life beyond his immediate circle, had they wanted to, they would have needed to do it when they first married. Instead, they have embedded themselves within the family. Perhaps there was no conscious choice for to have a choice one must understand the alternatives. If you have been conditioned since birth to rely on your father and to live within his shadow, you would find it hard to challenge it or question it especially when all that is good in your life is derived from it.

The Presidency magnifies the president’s psychological characteristics

The relationship appears psychologically complex. Yet Trump is not the first president to come to the White House with psychologically complex relationships. One recalls that Bill Clinton’s relationship with his mother was similarly complex. One effect was it appeared to help him empathize with other people. In a curious parallel, Chelsea Clinton remarked that Ivanka had a similar trait.

“Chelsea Clinton and her husband, Marc Mezvinsky. “She’s always aware of everyone around her and ensuring that everyone is enjoying the moment,” says Chelsea. “It’s an awareness that in some ways reminds me of my dad, and his ability to increase the joy of the room.”” [10]

Consider this view of Bill Clinton’s behaviour and his success as a politician who could “feel your pain” because he had lived with such pain.

“”He was abused,” Clinton told Franks. “When a mother does what she does, it affects you forever.”

Clinton continued: “I am not going into it, but I’ll say that when this happens in children, it scars you. You keep looking in all the wrong places for the parent who abused you.”

Franks does not specify the nature of the abuse in the book passage and writes that the then-first lady “declined to give me details.””[11]

Trump’s public comments shape his private relationships

Trump’s public comments about his daughter’s sexual allure and sexual availability indicate that their relationship is complex.[12] What is certain is that what we see publicly may not reflect what occurs privately. If the public behaviour reflects the private relationship, then it would be difficult to speak publicly. Yet, if the relationship allows for private criticism, why does Ivanka need to speak publicly? Either way, the relationship does not allow for the easy independence Ms Johansson demands. She may have it, but to demand it of someone else seems obtuse. She misunderstands Ivanka’s position. If we understand that Ivanka might be acting prudently by seeking a middle path between servile obedience and publicly obstinacy, her behaviour makes sense. Today’s social media age, which Ms Johansson reflects, works on public appearances so that public displays become our standard for public and private behaviour. Such a belief, though, reverses the public-private relationship and removes the chance to act modestly and moderately.

Do we have an author who can capture this family’s complexities?

What is overlooked by many commentators, though, is that the relationship is mutual and it shapes Donald Trump’s behaviour. Trump relies heavily on his children and Jared for he trusts them for the loyalty they have is not found elsewhere in the White House. What we need are writers who can capture this complex family dynamic as it shapes our lives. If Shakespeare were alive we might see him reprise King Lear to capture the Trump presidency. If Faulkner were alive, we would have a writer who do justice to the relationship between the Trumps and the Kushners for he which he would have to reprise the Snopes Trilogy.[13] Perhaps nothing better demonstrates the decline in oratory and the servility of our thought that there is no living writer who can write something half as good with such rich material. For now, we will have to settle for writers who celebrate Ms Johansson’s indignation at being unable to understand Ivanka Trump.

 

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbKPMNt4PCQ

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUaoUPfs1aI

[3] “The Trump Organization has a unique culture. Everyone calls the boss “Mr. Trump.” Employees often eat lunch at the Trump Grill, in the lobby of Trump Tower, which offers a dish called Ivanka’s Salad. The higher you get in the company, the more the family and business blur. Michael Cohen, the executive vice-president of the Trump Organization, told the Jewish Chronicle, “To those of us who are close to Mr. Trump, he is more than our boss. He is our patriarch.”” http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/08/22/ivanka-trump-and-jared-kushners-power-play

[4] A Trump family friend told me, “It’s a close family in many ways—except it’s all about Donald all the time.” He went on, “Donald only thinks of himself. When you say, ‘Donald, it’s raining today,’ he says, ‘It doesn’t matter, I’m indoors.’” http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/08/22/ivanka-trump-and-jared-kushners-power-play

[5] http://www.justjared.com/2015/12/29/ivanka-trump-defends-dad-donald-trump-hes-one-of-the-great-advocates-for-women/

[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP7yf8-Lk80

[7] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/ivanka-versus-the-donald/483542/

[8] Cited in James C Leake’s Tacitus’ Teaching and the Decline of Liberty at Rome (Chapters 3 to 7) 15 (2) Interpretation: A Journal of Political Philosophy 73, 242 (1987). For anyone who wants to understand oratory, writing, or life under a tyranny, this work is essential. In the United States, as evidenced by the extent to which Ms Johansson misunderstands Ivanka Trump, we believe that our freedom of speech represents a liberty without realizing the appearance of liberty is not the same as freedom from tyranny.

[9] http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/13/ivanka-trump-proves-a-savvy-surrogate-for-her-father/?_r=0

[10] http://www.vogue.com/11739787/ivanka-trump-collection-the-apprentice-family/

[11] http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/01/new-book-says-hillary-clinton-blamed-husbands-infidelity-on-abuse-as-a-child/comment-page-1/

[12] http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/donald-trump-awkwardly-hugs-melania-ivanka-expert-weighs-in-w430543

[13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes_trilogy

Posted in philosophy, privacy, public opinion | Tagged , , , , ,

Milo, nihilism, and conservatism’s decayed soul (revised)

Recently, the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) withdrew their offer to Milo Yiannapolous to speak at their event. They withdrew their offer after a video was found that showed him explaining how sex between an older man and a 13yr old boy could be good for the boy. In the furore that followed, Milo lost the CPAC invite, his book deal with Simon & Schuster, and his job with Breitbart. It also forced Milo to apologize for what he had said.

Milo, who had built his recent career as a fearless advocate for free speech, reached the limit of free speech. We should not be surprised that he arrived at this point for he has always been less interested in the defence of free speech, as free speech, and more interested in it as a method to provoke others. As a provocateur, he was quite successful. The angrier the targeted group became, the more attention he attracted, the more he succeeded. He would say whatever he thought, or others told him was not being said, in the public domain, the university, or the home. He would say it and justify it as defending free speech. The targets for his “free speech” were often those associated with the political things that American society, and by extension Western society, held in esteem. In particular, he would speak on Islam, Feminism, Racism, and Homosexuality to attack the accepted opinions about what Harry Neumann, in a different context, called liberalism’s “gods”. These “gods” are the accepted opinions that order the public domain and thereby tell people how to live.[1] You should be tolerant of other religions. You should respect women as politically and socially equal. You should tolerate people on the basis of their race, ethnicity, or sexuality. In his attacks on these opinions and those that held them, he was less concerned with; exploring their meaning, how they fit within American regime, or what would replace them, than he was concerned to attract publicity. Yet, these attacks served a deeper purpose; a purpose Milo may not have even understood.

Milo appeared to give voice to those who hated those “gods” and those that appeared to defend them, identify with them or support their role in society. His attacks appeared to serve those who would depose these “gods” or at least change the opinions about them. To his supporters, he appeared to speak the truth they wanted to hear about these opinions. He was not just saying outrageous things, he was speaking the “Truth”. If he was not speaking the “Truth” he was at least speaking the truth that his audience wanted to hear or could understand. Like rhetoricians of old, he understood the audience better than they understood themselves for he was able to appeal to what would convince them, confirm their views, make them feel better about it. At the same time, he would rile up those who held those opinions so he understood them, in that sense, better than they understood themselves. Islam wants to rape women and kill all Westerners. Feminism hurts men. Homosexuality is not persecuted. Racism is just minorities who whine. All of these claims confirmed what many conservatives believed or wanted to believe was what weakened America and the West. In a sense, they became like an intellectual eunuch watching someone else do what they dared not or could not do. They still feared public rebuke or the power of the gods to rule their lives.

What remains uncertain is the basis of Milo’s appeal to conservatives. Was it that conservatives are so corrupted by liberalism that they no longer possess the intellectual resources to offer an alternative to liberalism? Have they been conditioned by liberalism so they cannot offer a coherent alternative? As they no longer offer an alternative, they play their role within the political contests that decide who gets access to the patronage from the new Caesar. It would appear to explain why they desire someone like Milo or Trump who will “punch back” in the “culture war”. The culture war does not exist so much as it is a device to decide which Caesar rules. For those conservatives habituated and conditioned by liberalism they will tell stories of a 1000 year liberal progressive Reich that will destroy them which they narrowly and only temporarily avoided when Trump was elected.[2] The story teller knows this is not true yet like a good rhetorician he knows he needs a deliberative speech to excite his audience to believe it to be true since it would be too difficult and dangerous to admit they are simply liberals [3]with a different tax shelter preference. Thus, the promise to “punch back” and defeat the 1000-year liberal progressivist Reich appears to offers an alternative, or at least keeps them from having to think about an alternative. Instead, the deeper truth is darker for it is not conservativism to which Milo appealed. Instead, he pandered to a secret desire held by those conservatives who embrace Trump, but dared not speak aloud.

Once upon a time, a conservative scholar claimed that equality was a conservative principle. Today that is an inconvenient reminder that conservativism seeks to offer an alternative within liberalism. To accept such an idea, we are told by a famous Roman general would mean conservatives would lose the election and be exterminated. With such febrile language mind, to talk of equality is to talk of surrender and surrender=death. If conservatives accept equality as a conservative principle, they might be forced to rebuild the American common good, but this seems to be too much hard work. The effort would require the intellectual honesty, and effort, to understand and develop an alternative within liberalism that reminds people what self-government requires. Instead, it appears conservatives now understand self-government to mean that welfare is cut and the size of government reduced to force people to fend for themselves in the market. In such an outlook, we hear and echo of Thucydides who wrote “The strong do what they want; the weak do as they must”. The market is only concerned with an equality that can be enforced and if you subvert the rules there is no equality. If there is no equality, there is no justice. Without justice, we find the common good becomes a particular good that benefits the few at the expense of the many. With this approach to the common good, we can see why conservatives would rather celebrate people like Milo for his ability to punish those who speak of a belief in equality, than they would celebrate those who seek to build a common good based on equality. Yet, it was not these people that caused his downfall.

Milo did not fall because of free speech or being caught out by “social justice warriors” defending liberalism, or following liberalism to its logical conclusion. Instead he chose a topic that showed the limit of free speech within any community. He crossed the liberal divide between public and private spheres, when he decided to talk of a translegal desire.

“Translegal desires”, “are desires that violate the fundamental requirements of the city and acknowledge fully the fiction of the city.”[4]

By talking of pederasty, Milo undermined the core element of the family, society, and most fundamentally the political opinion which animates America. In this he had reached more than the limits of free speech; he reached the end of the political community. He was not simply attacking a political opinion or the opinions that act as “gods” within America, he was attacking an opinion derived from nature and nature’s god. At that moment, he and his brand were revealed both as something popularly unpalatable, pederasty, and something politically unpalatable. Even as he apologised, he undermined what had been his unique selling point. In that moment, his brand collapsed. For someone who was willing to talk about anything to demonstrate “political correctness” had taken over society, schools, the media, and the family, he demonstrated why the limits to free speech exist.

Milo revealed that what many had suspected, he was simply an outrage hustler who prostituted himself for the powerful all the while claiming to defend the weak, the vulnerable, the voiceless. Like a modern day sophist he found that free speech was a profitable business. Yet, Milo’s success was more than his “exoteric” message. Instead, it is his other message, his “esoteric” message, that resonated with people, in particular certain conservatives, who resented liberalism. His esoteric message is supremacism. He may not believe his own message, but Milo’s profound emptiness, unceasing desire for approval, constant claims that his “success” validates him, result from a disordered eros similar to what animates a tyrant. His disordered eros reflects a deeper disordered eros within American conservatism that Trump has excited–the appeal to supremacism. Milo shared the translegal desire, the esoteric message, with another provocateur–Richard Spencer.

Milo and Richard Spencer are closer in their outlook than either would admit publicly or to themselves in their appeal to the same translegal desire. They are both “political catamites” kept for the shock value who are desired to the extent that the conservative movement wants to shake off Lincoln and the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution as a burden or barrier to their electoral success. The past shackles these conservatives as Milo and Richard Spencer say publicly what they often only thought or said privately. To those imbued with the founding principles and Lincoln’s re-founding, Milo and Richard Spencer are politically unnatural.

Both Milo and Richard Spencer appeal to the translegal desire of tyranny—the danger coeval with politics. They express and excite the deep-seated desire to dominate others. Richard Spencer is explicit in this desire. He knows who and what he is. He does not want to ridicule liberals for fun and profit. He has no desire to reform liberalism. He will not spend his time in political debate over the limits of equality within liberal democracy. He wants one thing-supremacy. The strong will rule the weak; the weak will suffer as they must. By contrast, Milo does not know who he is or what he wants. Yet, he shares the same outlook even as he tries to hide it by proclaiming his virtue as free speech defender.[5] When he spoke of how a grown man seducing a young boy could be good for the boy, he reiterated a situation described in Plato’s Symposium. In that dialogue, Pausanias talks of the benefits of an older man seducing a young boy where the older man imparts wisdom in return for sexual favours. We hear the same logic and language that Milo used. It is good for the boy, he gains virtue or wisdom, and it is good for the older man who satisfies his erotic longings. Milo though is not concerned with imparting wisdom for what is valued today is to develop a sexual identity which is what defines you and is more important than wisdom or virtue. In political terms, Pausanias’s homosexual pederasty indicates tyranny not democracy. His claim to virtue (free speech and it is for the boy’s own good) only masks his vice (the stronger to rule the weak).[6] In much the same way that a child ruling an adult is unnatural, so an adult “seducing” a child is unnatural. To conservatives imbued with a belief in nature and nature’s god, such an approach is politically unnatural. They would see that Milo and Richard Spencer for what they are. However, to the extent that they can gain attention if not acceptance within the public domain shows how far America political thought, in particular American conservative thought, if not its soul, has decayed.

The decay is unsurprising. America is the midst of its 15th year of its imperial war. America conservativism, seduced by an imperial ethos, serves the imperial purpose both home and abroad. How else to explain that it would embrace, celebrate, defend and most importantly serve a president who most embodies the disordered eros[7] of a tyrant.[8] It is as if On Tyranny is a forgotten text and Tacitus is a forgotten author for conservatives. Perhaps On Tyranny is only read or understood for the forceful critique of Kojeve as if by dispelling, or embracing, the end of history proves that conservatives have succeeded in the “big ideas”. Yet even that should have given conservatives pause. Do they avoid the threat of a world state when they embracing an alternative that rejects Lincoln?

Instead of Lincoln, one hears Heidegger as conservative scholars have embraced Trump. No, Trump is not Hitler. However, he is a harbinger. Perhaps more than any president since Franklin Roosevelt, he expresses the institutional and personal problem coeval with American politics. The problem, though, is not simply an imperial presidency or academics gleefully prostituting themselves to him as they sell their virtue to be bask in the political glow of their “Daddy”. America and the West faces a crisis for liberalism has run its course and they are intellectually bereft as they focus on “punching back” in the “culture war”. What Heidegger embraced or propounded is slowly emerging from its long sleep as the preferred alternative within conservatism. Conservatives appear unaware they are embracing it. Heidegger may have withdrawn from politics and never again engaged with political philosophy, without ever having disavowed being a Nazi, but his single political philosophical message, what he proposed, is not dead for its spectre now emerges within the West in liberalism’s wreckage.

The West, and conservatives in particular, no longer have an answer to Heidegger for they believed that what defeated his politics defeated what his political philosophy supported. In the unfolding wreckage of the American republic, we have to ask whether the life of virtue is possible. Is it even worth living? Americans, and conservatives in particular, have willingly become the standing reserve. They blindly blunder into Heidegger’s alternative to the West’s technological fate. Is this a life of virtue, the basis for the public life, simply to hustle for outrage, “punch back” in the culture war, and pander to the powerful? Milo appears to embody what American conservatives want the regime to encourage if not produce.

We see someone who jettison’s any principles to become a tool for the powerful, someone who appears to do the bidding of his powerful mentors, such as Steve Bannon. Such a role suggests that for all his talk to defend free speech, to say what others will not say, he simply conforms to the expected role. In reality he and conservatives only seek to promote what satisfies those who will give them fame, wealth, or the appearance of political power. His unique selling point, what differentiates him, is that he appears to be the lack of dignity, restraint or moderation, the characteristics of the tyrant or those that would nurture the tyrant. The disordered eros that marks Milo and the tyrant was once considered antithetical to virtues that animated conservatism where moderation based on a politics that can harness consent and wisdom to act as an antidote to the twin threats of tyranny or political utopianism.

Milo will not speak truth to power nor will he force power to speak the truth for he will not challenge the powerful. He wants to serve. He wants to be used. He is the standing reserve. As long as he can reassure himself, among his adoring entourage, that he is relevant, he will behave as required. He will do as they ask for they appear to treat him with approval. Like a trained pet, he reacts to their praise for that tells him he is “ok”. Perhaps he realizes all of this and does not care for he has what passes for success today-celebrity, infamy, and name recognition simply masks nihilism. What he lacks, restraint, gravitas, honour used to be what defined conservatism. Instead what he does have, a belief in nothing, his nihilism now seems to be what animates conservatism. Heidegger’s question has returned and neither Trump nor Milo have the answer. Does conservativism have an answer? Does it even recognize the question? Or is it content to become the standing reserve so long as it wins elections? Perhaps it is time for conservatism to confront technology and tyranny if still retains any intellectual dignity, rigour or what was once considered virtue.[9]

[1] Harry Neumann’s _Liberalism_ Carolina Academic Press 1991)

[2] http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-flight-93-election/ This essay is simply a job application posed as a critical essay. Had Trump failed, the author could simply point out “Hey, look, I *told you* he was not going to win.” Now that he has won and the author is serving the administration, it has served its other purpose. Perhaps Claremont no longer teaches political philosophy, but it certainly teaches the rhetorician’s art. One wonders if the Gorgias is studied at Claremont.

[3]I am leaving aside the obvious point that the speech existed to show the author would be a loyal servant for Trump which means the author endorses Trump to secure a job even though he gives a knowing wink to his friends that he isn’t really endorsing him.

[4] Seth Benardete Plato’s Second Sailing 1989 p. 205

[5] “Even his preference for Athenian customs arises from a desire to use culture and civilization as a cloak for his vice.” Harry Neumann On the Sophistry of Plato’s Pausanias, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 95 (1964), pp. 261-267 http://www.jstor.org/stable/283791 Accessed: 25-02-2017

[6] “Given the concealed antinomian character of pederasty and its close association not with democratic public spiritedness but a tyrant and a private dispute, one is compelled to entertain the suggestion that at the core of homosexual pederasty as Pausanias understands it is not democracy and law, but tyranny. “ Eros and the intoxications of enlightenment On Plato’s Symposium Steven Berg 2010 p32

[7] https://lawrenceserewicz.wordpress.com/2016/05/30/should-caitlyn-jenner-be-donald-trumps-vice-president/

[8] In the 15th year of the Peloponnesian War, we find the Melian Dialogue.

[9] I doubt it does for we are told that all that ails conservatism in America is 1. The media are against it so the people are against it. 2 Self-censorship keeps us from convincing people of conservativism’s virtue or policies. 3. Foreigners who come and dilute America and make it democratic. (Which begs the strange question that most Muslims are conservatives by nature so we are simply importing the wrong immigrants and should welcome fundamentalist Muslims for they are truly “conservative”. Yes, this is where the logic leads.)

What is simply embarrassing is that not one conservative has yet to muster anything publicly that is more coherent than name calling in response to such analysis. https://amgreatness.com/2016/09/12/decius-responds/ What is simply embarrassing is that not one conservative has yet to muster anything publicly that is more coherent than name calling in response to such analysis or beyond reiterating their policy preferences as if a “Yeah, but…” or a “No, but…”. The merry-go-round continues to enrich the essay’s author and his “interlocutors” without offering a response that addresses the core problem.

No, this essay is not a response to that essay.

Posted in corruption, Government, justice, philosophy | Tagged , , , , ,