Connect with us

Americas

The Forward-looking Impeachment of a Frankenstein Monster

Emanuel L. Paparella, Ph.D.

Published

on

Some two thousand years ago there was a Roman Emperor by the name of Caligula who led the Roman army into Normandy in France and stopped at the shores facing Britain. Thereafter, rather than give orders to prepare for the invasion, he instructed his generals to dismount from their horses and look for shells on the beach that he could add to his collection at home. After his return home, to show his contempt for Roman republican ways he nominated his horse as senator of Rome and send it to the Senate.

At that point some, including his own praetorian guards in charge of his security, began to suspect that Caligula was not only a psychological sociopath, but that he was insane and therefore a political danger to the whole polity of the Roman Empire. After all, he had given proof that he was a man at such a point of acute narcissism and megalomania that he could use the most powerful army in the world to enrich his private shell collection and think of a horse as superior and more intelligent than a Roman senator. In equivalent modern terms this was a madman with his finger on the nuclear button. Most would agree that such a man is unhinged.

They began to devise all kinds of stratagems by which to remove him as an emperor, for indeed the emperor was naked and devoid of any rationality; he had in effect become a clown but a dangerous one at that, good at staging extravagant reality-shows in the Coliseum, but still parading as the most intelligent man in the land since intelligence and power and money are proportional to each other; so did the amused zombie-like masses thought.

This projected removal from power proved rather difficult since, as elite praetorian guards, they had sworn an oath of fealty to the supreme authority of the Empire and that loyalty had to be absolute and neutral with no political strings attached. Besides there would be predictable repercussions and reactions; a civil war might ensue. Many in the land were ideological fanatics and were harmed to their teeth, after all this was a rather militaristic society used to constant war. They had Caesar’s assassination episode and the ensuing civil war in mind. Nevertheless, they concluded that the best method was that of assassination as a form of execution without any democratic preliminary trial or discussion, it is after all the most unequivocal and final: the assassination (or in modern Machiavellian parlance, the liquidation) of the madman, or tyrant if you will, is un-appealable. As we know, from Roman history, this was actually carried out one fateful day as the emperor was walking back to his quarters in a dark tunnel after watching the reality-show presented on that day to the adoring crowds in the Coliseum. The transition to a more sane emperor (Caligula’s own uncle Claudius) went quite smoothly. In any case, the war games in the Coliseum continued unabated; which is to day, the madness in a more moderate form continued too.

This is ancient history. Let’s now jump to a parallel scenario in modern Western history: the presidential campaign going on as we speak in the US. As previously commented upon, for the last three years or so the Republican party has been steadily grooming a Frankenstein monster who has now grown too big and powerful to be stopped and is proceeding to the destruction of the whole party.

Today’s headline is “Civil War in the Republican Party,” meaning that there is an acrimonious discussion going on as we speak among the party leaders on whether or not there is still time to remove the threat to the unity of the party and, most importantly, to the chances of their own re-elections to the Senate and the House, should the Democratic party win in a landslide in November, which is a real possibility. The more brave among them have repudiated not only the character and the persona of the republican nominee, but the nomination itself. Under no circumstance they will support his nomination; some have declared that they will vote for Hillary Clinton. The more pusillanimous, usually comprising the majority of opportunistic politicians, want the cake and eat it too, they repudiate the person and his bigotry but accept the nomination of the party. The results of these two differing defensive strategies in November will be intriguing.

Be that as it may, the removal of the Frankenstein monster has proven to be quite a difficult task. It might have been easier three years ago when he was going around with his trumped up birther issue completely made up by his fertile imagination, never mind the truth. His arrogance and bully-like behavior grows by the day. He has now taken to collecting purple hearts from simple-minded naïve adoring followers saying that he had always wanted to have one and it is easier that way; he has repeatedly insulted a golden medal family, implying via his surrogates that the reason their son was killed is the fault of the present “illegitimate” occupier of the White House, never mind that he was not president when Captain Khan was killed on the field of battle, and the list could go on and on. The gaffs and embarrassments also grow by the day, the polls are showing a decline. The party is deeply worried. To go back to the comparison with ancient history: the praetorian guards are worried; they are in a pickle. After all, they helped in the creation of the monster. What to do?

The operative word at present seems to be “unfit.” Mr. Trump is unfit to be president. He does not understand what that document called the American constitution is all about, if he ever read it. He has propensities toward bigotry, racism and xenophobia. He has no inkling of what it means to be an American, and so on, and so on. So far the term mentally “unhinged” and psychologically impaired has been studiously avoided. After all, some 30% of the Republican electorate chose him. Are they also “unhinged?” If one watches carefully the documentaries of the Mussolini and Hitler rallies in the 30s, there seemed to be a lot of unhinged people enthusiastically saluting the Duce and the Fuhrer at those rallies. It seemed that the whole nation had gone insane. After the war, most of them declared themselves anti-fascists and anti-Nazis and probably said so to their children and grandchildren. Interesting!

But to go on. The praetorian guards are now frantically asking: how do we proceed with this unstoppable monster? They seem to have come up with a new stratagem. The stratagem is this: let’s impeach forwardly the Frankenstein monster and prosecute him by listing all the reasons why he is unfit to be president, without mentioning that he may also be unhinged. After he is found guilty, he will have effectively and legally been removed retroactively, that is to say, removed from the presidency five months ahead of time. The way is now open for the vice-president, Mr. Pence, to step in. After all, we are not barbarians any longer; we don’t solve our problems by violent assassinations, they are even against the law, aren’t they?; that might have been still ok in the 60s and 70s and the 80s when a president was assassinated and an attempt was made on two others, but now that we have evolved politically we do our removals and liquidations democratically by impeachment, and so we can impeach a president ahead of time as unfit to be president. Voilà, problem solved. Will this clever stratagem work? History will soon give us an answer. Stay tuned.

Professor Paparella has earned a Ph.D. in Italian Humanism, with a dissertation on the philosopher of history Giambattista Vico, from Yale University. He is a scholar interested in current relevant philosophical, political and cultural issues; the author of numerous essays and books on the EU cultural identity among which A New Europe in search of its Soul, and Europa: An Idea and a Journey. Presently he teaches philosophy and humanities at Barry University, Miami, Florida. He is a prolific writer and has written hundreds of essays for both traditional academic and on-line magazines among which Metanexus and Ovi. One of his current works in progress is a book dealing with the issue of cultural identity within the phenomenon of “the neo-immigrant” exhibited by an international global economy strong on positivism and utilitarianism and weak on humanism and ideals.

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

In Praise of the Lioness of Law: Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her Jurisprudence

Punsara Amarasinghe

Published

on

image credit: Wikipedia

The death of the US Supreme Court Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg has created an abyss in the court for the liberal voice where justice Ginsburg was seen as the linchpin of the liberal block of the Supreme Court at a time when that block was shrinking. Especially late judge had vociferously advocated for women ‘rights, environmental issues and often came up with unique dissents in delivering her judgements which were propelled by her jurisprudence which embodied the solemn ideal in American legal system “Equal Protection under the Law “. She was on a quest to defend the delicate balance between honoring the timelessness of American Constitution and recognizing the depth of its enduring principles in new centuries and under new circumstances.

She grew up in an era where men held the helm in every aspect of social life and especially the legal profession was utterly dominated by men. Recalling her legal studies at Harvard law school in the 50’s judge Ginsburg had stated later how she was once asked by the Dean of Harvard law school to justify her position as a law student that otherwise would have gone to a man. Yet she had the spunk to overcome all the obstacles stood on her way and excelled as a scholar becoming the first female member of the Harvard Law Review.

In tracing her legal career that it becomes a salient fact, Judge Ginsburg marked her name in American legal history even decades before she joined the bench. While at the American Civil Liberties Union in the early seventies she made an upheaval in American in legal system in famous Supreme Court Case Reed Vs Reed. In Reed Vs Reed the brief drafted by Ginsburg provided an astute analysis on the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause. Ginsburg’s brief changed the aged long practice existed in the State of Idaho on favoring men over women in estate battles by paving the path for a discourse on gender equality rights in the USA.

Judge Ginsburg’s appointment to the Supreme Court in 1994 during Clinton administration marked the dawn of new jurisprudential chapter in the US Supreme Court. Two terms later, in the United States v. Virginia (VMI), Justice Ginsburg applied her lucid perspective to a sharply disputed constitutional claim. The United States challenged Virginia’s practice of admitting only men to its prestigious military college, the Virginia Military Institute. Writing for six Justices, Ginsburg held this policy unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. In reaching this result, Ginsburg adroitly cut away potentially confounding issues about women’s participation in the military or the advantages of single-sex education.

Her robust activism in securing gender equality often attracted the admirations of the feminist scholars and activists, but it should be noted that her contribution was not only confined to the protection of gender equality. She was a robust critique of racial dissemination which still pervades in American society and she frequently pointed out how racial discrimination has marred the constitutional protections guaranteed to every citizen. Especially in the case of Gratz Vs Bollitnger, she stressed on the commitment that the state ought to fulfil by eliminating the racial biases existing employment and education. Moreover, disabled citizens. In Olmstead v. Zimring, she held that “unjustified institutional isolation of persons with disabilities is a form of discrimination” violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.45 She elaborated a two-fold concept of discrimination, noting that unneeded institutionalization both “perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that persons so isolated are incapable or unworthy of participating in community life”.

In remembering the mortal departure of this prudent judge that one cannot forget her keenness in incorporating international law into her judgements regardless of the disinclination shown by conservative judges like Antony Scalia. Going beyond the mere textualism approach to the law, Ginsburg’s jurisprudence was much more akin to using international law to make substantive decisions. For instance, in her concurring verdict in Grutter Vs Bollinger, Justice Ginsburg relied upon international human rights law, and in particular upon two United Nations conventions, to support her conclusions.

Indeed, the demise of Ruth Ginsburg is a major blow for the liberalists in the USA, especially in an era where liberalist values are at stake under the fervent rise of populist waves propounded by Donald Trump. Especially late judge had been one of the harsh critics of Trump even before ascendency to the Oval office. The void created by the demise of judge Ginsburg might change the role the US Supreme Court if the successor to her position would take a more conservative approach and it will fortify the conservative bloc in the US Supreme Court. Trump has already placed Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh and the third pick would more deeply entrench the conservative views in the US Supreme Court, which would inevitably undermine the progressive policies taken during Obama’s administration towards issues such as the environment. The political storm appeared after the death of the late judge has already created a tense situation in US politics as president Trump is determined to appoint a judge to fill before the presidential election in November.

Continue Reading

Americas

The Politics of (In)security in Mexico: Between Narcissism and Political Failure

Lisdey Espinoza Pedraza

Published

on

Image credit: Wikimedia

Security cannot be that easily separated from the political realm. The need for security is the prime reason why people come together to collectively form a state. Providing security is, therefore, one of the most basic functions of the state as a political and collective entity.

Last Friday, the Mexican president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) laughed during his daily morning press briefings over a national newspaper headline about 45 massacres during his presidency. This attitude summarises in a macabre way his approach to insecurity: it is not his top priority. This is not the first time that AMLO has showed some serious and deeply disturbing lack of empathy for victims of crimes. Before taking office, he knew that insecurity was one of Mexico’s biggest challenges, and he has come to realise that curbing it down will not be as simple as he predicted during his presidential campaign.

Since the start of the War on Drugs in 2006, Mexico has sunk into a deep and ever-growing spiral of violence and vigilantism as a result of the erosion of the capacity of the state to provide safety to citizens. Vigilantism is when citizens decide to take the law into their own hands in order to fill the vacuum left by the state, or to pursue their own very particular interests. Guerrero, Michoacán, Morelos, Tabasco, Tamaulipas and Veracruz have over 50 vigilante organisations that pose substantial danger to the power of the state.

Vigilantism is not the only factor exacerbating the security crisis in Mexico: since 2006, young people have also started to join drug cartels and other criminal organisations. There are important sectors of the population who feel that the state has failed to represent them. They also feel betrayed because the state has not been able to provide them with the necessary means to better themselves. These frustrations make them vulnerable to the indoctrination of organised crime gangs who promise to give them some sort of ideological direction and solution to their problems.

As a result, it is not enough to carry out a kingpin arrest strategy and to preach on the moral duties we have as citizens as well as on human dignity. People need to be given enough means to find alternative livelihoods that are attractive enough to take them out of organised crime, Mexico can draw some important lessons from Sierra Leone who successfully demobilised and resettled ex-combatants after the armed conflict. Vigilantism, recruitment by organised crime, and insecurity have also flourished because of a lack of deterrence. The judicial system is weak and highly ineffective. A large proportion of the population does not trust the police, or the institutions in charge of the rule of law.

A long-term strategy requires linking security with politics. It needs to address not only the consequences but also the roots of unemployment and deep inequality. However, doing so requires decisive actions to root out widespread and vicious corruption. Corruption allows concentration of wealth and also prevents people from being held accountable. This perpetuates the circle of insecurity. Mexico has been slowly moving towards a borderline failed state. The current government is starting to lose legitimacy and the fragility of the state is further perpetuated by the undemocratic, and predatory governance of the current administration.

Creating a safer Mexico requires a strong, coherent, and stable leadership, AMLO’s administration is far from it. His popularity has consistently fallen as a result of his ineffective policies to tackle the pandemic, worsening insecurity, and the economic crisis. Mexico has reached over 72,000 Covid-19 deaths; during his initial 20 months as incumbent president, there has been 53,628 murders, among them 1800 children or teenagers, and 5888 women (11 women killed per day) This criminality rate is double than what it was during the same period in the presidency of Felipe Calderón (2006-2012); and 55% higher than with the last president, Enrique Peña Nieto (2012-2018). Mexico is also experiencing its worst economic recession in 90 years.

Insecurity remains as the issue of most concern among Mexicans, seeing the president laughing about it, can only fill citizens with yet more despair and lack of trusts in the government and its institutions. AMLO’s catastrophic performance is not surprising, though. Much of his failures and shortcomings can be explained by both ideology and a narcissistic personality. Having someone with both of those traits ruling a country under normal, peaceful times is already dangerous enough, add an economic crisis and a pandemic to the mix and the result is utter chaos.

AMLO embodies the prototypical narcissist: he has a grandiose self-image; an inflated ego; a constant need for admiration; and intolerance to criticism. He, like many other narcissists, thinks about himself too much and too often, making him incapable of considering the wellbeing of other and unable to pursue the public interest. He has a scapegoat ready to blame for his failures and mistakes: previous administrations, conservatives, neoliberalism, academics, writers, intellectuals, reporters, scientists, you name it, the list is long and keeps getting longer.

AMLO keeps contradicting himself and he does not realise it. He has been claiming for months that the pandemic is under control: it is not. He declares Mexico is ready to face the pandemic and we have enough tests and medical equipment: we do not. He says Mexico is on its way to economic recovery: it is not. He states corruption is a thing of the past: it is not. He says Mexico is now safer than ever before: it is not. When told the opposite he shrugs criticism off and laughs, the behaviour of a typical narcissist.

AMLO, alike narcissists, due to his inability to face criticism, has never cared about surrounding himself by the best and brightest. He chose a bunch of flunkies as members of his cabinet who try to please and not humiliate their leader. A further trait of narcissistic personalities is that they love conflict and division as this keeps them under control. The more destabilisation and antagonism, the better. AMLO since the start of his presidency has been setting states against states for resources and for pandemic responses, instead of coordinating a national response. He is also vindictive: playing favourites with those governors who follow him and punishing those that oppose him.

Deep down, narcissistic leaders are weak. AMLO is genuinely afraid to lead. He simply cannot bring himself to make decisions that are solely his. This is why he has relied on public referendums and consultations to cancel projects or advance legislation. He will not take any responsibility if something goes wrong: It was not him who decided, it was the people, blame them. He inherited a broken system that cannot be fixed during his term, blame the previous administrations, not him.

AMLO is a prime example of a textbook narcissist, unfortunately he is not the only one: Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Recep Erdogan, Rodrigo Duterte are only a few more examples of what seems to be a normalised behaviour in contemporary politics. Every aspect of AMLO’s and other leaders presidencies have been heavily marked by their psychopathology. Narcissism, however, does not allow proper and realistic self-assessment, self-criticism, and self-appreciation therefore such leaders will simply ignore the red flags in their administration and have no clue how despicably and disgracefully they will be remembered.

Continue Reading

Americas

Minor Successes And The Coronavirus Disaster: Is Trump A Dead Duck?

Dr. Arshad M. Khan

Published

on

That reminder from the Bible, ‘He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone’ may give us pause — but not journalists who by all appearances assume exemption.  And the stones certainly bruise.

Evidence for the bruises lies in the latest poll numbers.  Overall, Joe Biden leads Donald Trump 50 to 43 percent, a margin that has continued to increase since January.  It is also considerably wider than the few points lead Hillary Clinton had over Trump four years ago.  It gets worse for Trump. 

In the industrial states of Michigan and Pennsylvania, which Trump in 2016 won by razor thin margins, he is losing by over 4 percent.  Also key to his victory was Wisconsin where, despite his success in getting dairy products into Canada, he is behind by a substantial 7 percent.  Key states Ohio and Florida are also going for the Democrats.

Trump was not doing so badly until the coronavirus struck and during the course of his news conferences he displayed an uncaring persona larded with incompetence.  Dr. Anthony Fauci, the man he fired for correcting Trumpian exaggerations became a hero and Trump the bully.

If that bullying nature won him small rewards with allies, he hit an impasse with China and Iran … while bringing the two closer to each other.  Then there is the border wall, a sore point for our southern neighbor Mexico.  President Lopez Obrador made sure the subject never came up at the July meeting with Trump,   Thus Mexico is not paying for it so far and will not be in the foreseeable future.

The United Arab Emirates, a conglomeration of what used to be the Trucial States under British hegemony. have agreed to formalize its already fairly close relations with Israel.  In return, Israel has postponed plans to annex the West Bank.  Whether or not it is in Israel’s long term interest to do so is a debatable question because it provides much more powerful ammunition to its critics who already accuse it of becoming an apartheid regime.  However, it had become Prime Minister Netanyahu’s sop to the right wing who will have to wait.  Of course, the reality is that Israel is already the de facto ruler.

If Mr. Trump was crowing about the agreement signed on September 15, although it is akin to someone signing an agreement with Puerto Rico while the United States remains aloof.  As a postscript, the little island of Bahrain also signed a peace deal with Israel.  Bahrain has had its own problems in that a Sunni sheikh rules a Shia populace.  When the Shia had had enough, Saudi and UAE troops were used to end the rebellion.  Bahrain is thus indebted to the UAE.

How many among voters will know the real value of these historic (according to Trump) deals particularly when he starts twittering his accomplishments as the election nears?

There things stand.  As they say, there is nothing worse than peaking too early.  Bettors are still favoring Trump with their money.  The longer anyone has been in politics the more there is to mine, and for an opponent to use to his/her advantage.  Time it seems is on Trump’s side.  

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Newsdesk37 mins ago

As Businesses Embrace Sustainability, a Pathway to Economic Reset Emerges

In the midst of a deep recession brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a growing consensus that the...

New Social Compact3 hours ago

Right to Education as an elementary Human Right: From Thinking to Living it

The situation of education in general, and of higher education in particular, is not considered as a priority in developing...

Southeast Asia5 hours ago

Reflection of Indonesia’s National Farmer’s Day

September has been a memorable and recorded month in the nation’s development process. One important event that should not be...

Urban Development7 hours ago

Rebuilding Cities to Generate 117 Million Jobs and $3 Trillion in Business Opportunity

COVID-19 recovery packages that include infrastructure development will influence the relationship between cities, humans and nature for the next 30...

South Asia9 hours ago

Russia expanding influence in India and Sri Lanka

Authors: Srimal Fernando and Vedangshi Roy Choudhuri* In the post-World War II era the diplomatic influence of former Soviet Union...

Europe11 hours ago

From Intellectual Powerhouse to Playing Second Fiddle

A multi-ethnic, multi-religious culture built Spain into an intellectual powerhouse so much so that after the reconquesta scholars from various parts of...

Environment13 hours ago

How environmental policy can drive gender equality

Environmental degradation has gendered impacts which need to be properly assessed and monitored to understand and adopt gender-responsive strategies and...

Trending