“The Constitution of the United States is the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.”-William Gladstone, Prime Minister of England
[yt_dropcap type=”square” font=”” size=”14″ color=”#000″ background=”#fff” ] A [/yt_dropcap] s the above quote suggests, most educated Europeans are aware of the importance of the US Constitution for the birth and development of modern democracy. Many consider it among the great contributions to political philosophy. What many don’t know, however, is that before the Constitution, Madison, Hamilton and John Jay had put together the so called Federalist Papers in order to win over the state of New York to the ratification of the proposed Constitution.
It can be argued, that a full understanding of the US Constitution requires an attentive reading of those papers, for those papers are nothing less than a work of original practical philosophy in the ancient tradition of Plato and Aristotle. Those essays constitute a veritable education in the founding of a nation: political philosophy on a grand scale written by men who were young but wise, and confident that things that have never been done cannot be done save by methods never tried before; acutely aware that historically republics have always failed. In brief, they are an education on the grounds, political and ethical, for any republic or federal union to succeed and survive. We, on both sides of the Atlantic, ignore them at our own peril.
The greatest danger is to confuse “populism” for the rule of the ignorant, vulgar mob. You see this phenomenon with the rise to power of individuals such as Le Penn, Le Farge, Trump, Grillo, Berlusconi, just to mention a few. All were democratically elected by misguided people who expect those so called leaders to redress their grievances not by democratic methods but by bullying, Machiavellian tactics of power grabbing, and even clownish methods. Give people bread and circuses and one can do what one wants. These unfortunately have never been very democratic tactics and far from solving people’s social problems, it may exacerbate them and be a prelude to demagoguery and even tyranny. We find ourselves in that deplorable situation as we speak.
But to return to The Federalist papers, they are and remain important documents because they offer the philosophical background to the US Constitution. To be sure, the dominating political treatises of the time were those of Locke (which most founding fathers had read), Montesquieu, and Rousseau, but none of those essays were the template for a national government, for the “American experiment” so called, which would be imitated and repeated by newer sovereign states in the subsequent two centuries.
As one surveys those essays one becomes increasingly aware that their writers (Hamilton, Madison and Jay) had in mind an audience that was large and pluralistic. That kind of audience could only be won over by specific arguments that confronted specific criticisms. This is a first, indeed, in political philosophy: an in depth conversation with the people on how to self-govern.
In total, the three authors of The Federalist Papers published 85 essays in New York newspapers between October 1787 and April 1788 under the pseudonym Publius. Hamilton planned the whole project and contributed the greatest share, followed by Madison. Jay’s contribution was slight but nevertheless addressed some important points. In any case, it is Madison, more than any other of the delegates, who deserves the praise for giving Americans their Constitution.
Madison says in those essays that a political regime is a republic only when the government’s power is derived entirely from the people and administered by persons holding their offices for a limited period and during good behavior. There is nothing new here, but Madison then observes that history shows that the closer something comes to that sense of a republic, the sooner it dies.
The only republics that seem to succeed for a long time are the ones which he refers to as a kind of puritanical republic. John Adams was behind that view. He had written that only “pure religion or austere morals” will be capable of holding a republican form of government together. Keeping those observations in mind, Madison distinguishes between pure democracies, subject to the functionalism that leads to anarchy, and the right sort of republic, in which power is delegated by the people. There is a tension here, almost a paradox, between the need of a central government able to secure the finances and defense of the nation and the jealously guarded freedoms of the individual states.
We must also observe that a remarkable feature of the Convention of 1787, which drafted the Constitution, is that it specifically refused to incorporate a Bill of Rights. This was written separately with the expressed purpose of defending the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. It was a deliberate omission, for a self-governing people should decide what its own rights are. To list them is ipso facto to limit them. That is to say, the federal government should not trump the communities, or the states, that compose the federation; the people of a particular state have formed self-governing communities based on their own views of their rights.
You have no need of federal guarantees of your rights against your local community. This is derivative of the concept of “unalienable rights” mentioned in the declaration of Independence: a people are born with certain human rights. They have them by the mere fact that they are human. No State can confer them or violate them. Their violation is, for all intent and purpose, a violation of the natural law. So, right from the beginning we observe a tension between a centralized government, intent on consolidating its power, and a decentralized federalist government intent on leaving power in the hands of the people. In some way this is the current dilemma afflicting that other confederation called the EU.
The lesson taught by Montesquieu was that there are only three types of government: 1) despotism, which rules by will with the people cultivating reverential fear and submission, 2) monarchy, with rule by law in the hands of a single person, which calls for the cultivation of honor, 3) republic, dependent on the cultivation of virtue. A republic is what Garibaldi had in mind before the monarchy succeeded in coopting him to the cause of unification.
In any case, here power needs to be separated or the republic will convert into a tyranny. This is what we find in the Stoic outlook of the founding fathers: the republic will succeed in as much as we create and preserve lives of virtue and self-sacrifice. Power in this kind of republic would flow toward a natural kind of aristocracy which would arise spontaneously when the free exercise of virtue is permitted and even encouraged.
There is no doubt that The Federalist Papers and “the great experiment” in self-governance mark a special chapter in human history; a chapter where there would be convergence of political, scientific, and moral energies capable of overturning the old order. But the signal feature of the whole enterprise was the direct, open, respectful address to the people, an attempt to gain support by appealing to the common sense and mature political understanding of those who, in virtue of being fit for the rule of law, are fit to rule themselves. That address to the people is the essence of The Federalist Papers.
Perhaps at this point we begin to comprehend the open admiration of William Gladstone for the American Constitution as expressed in the above quote. One can only hope that more people, on both sides of the Atlantic, would take the time to read The Federalist Papers, constituting a theoretical but also pragmatic approach to political philosophy. This is essential for an enduring friendship and alliance among democracies; they cannot long last if they are based on a misunderstanding of each other’s political patrimony.
Trump impeachment failure: What is in store for America and the world?
On February 5, the US Senate found President Donald Trump not guilty of actions which could be classified as requiring his removal from office. All Republican Senators, who have a majority in the house, except Mitt Romney, turned down both charges against the president which accused him of “abuse of office” and ” obstructing Congress work.”
That impeachment is not the option was obvious to any Washington insider from the very beginning. To remove Trump from office it was necessary to enlist the support of two thirds in the Senate, which is unrealistic at the moment. The more moderate opponents of the head of the White House could, if they wanted, remind themselves and others that until the very last they were calling for considering all the pros and cons of an attempt to remove the president from office. A number of experts believed that “a threat of the impeachment procedure, without specific measures to this effect, would be a much safer way to ensure the defeat of Donald Trump in the next year’s presidential election.”The hearings as such would demonstrate the “incompetence” of the current head of state. Even Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, who ultimately came to lead the Democratic attack against Trump, warned in March last year that “impeachment divides the country in such a bad way that … we should not follow this path”. Last December, The Washington Post pointed out that in America, “there is extremism, there is no political clairvoyance, while the voices of reason are drowned in hyper-party cacophony.”
Over the past years, Washington has indeed seen a continuing buildup of fierce political battles. The political layout which came into place after the mid-term elections in 2018 – the Democrats control the lower house and the Republicans have majority in the upper – has resulted in a situation in which battles are waged not just for every yard, but for every inch of political space.
Success in the lower house midterm elections, that is, getting the largest number of seats since 1974, has clearly encouraged the Democrats. Given the situation, an attempt to impeach the president was seen by their leadership as a good opportunity to return anti-Trump inquiries to the political agenda. In addition, the expectations of Democratic Party supporters regarding the launch of impeachment procedure were so high that a refusal of the party leadership to try to remove Trump from office could cost Democrats votes this year. We should not forget that we are talking not only about the presidential election, but also about the next congressional election campaign.
The confrontational scenario of the 2020 election campaign appears almost inevitable. Critics of the president do understand this, so their statements after the failure of the impeachment move are predictably radical – now Trump is unbound. They believe that he will now move with renewed vigor towards the implementation of his “anti-American fantasies.” Trump’s supporters are so dazed by ideological confrontation with the opponents that they are ready to accept and defend “any lie from his mouth.” As for the American democracy, it is vulnerable “as never before.”
Trump, in turn, makes it clear that he craves political revenge. He has already fired several officials who testified against him during the impeachment hearings in the House of Representatives. Most likely, Trump will continue to rely on “American nationalism” and “white identity”, so hated by Democrats. He has also got more grounds to blame the obstruction-creating Democrats for all his failures during the election campaign. Moreover, what with all the achievements in the midterm elections two years ago, the Democrats were defeated, or could not sufficiently build up their positions in a number of states which are considered to play a key role in the upcoming presidential election. And the recent primaries in Iowa where the calculation of the results dragged on for several days demonstrated that the Democratic Party is still experiencing chaos and confusion.
According to a generalized view of domestic political processes in the United States, the executive branch’s futile attempts to push through the Congress projects of significant legislative changes have long become a “tradition” in American domestic politics. This process originated a long time ago – after the end of the Cold War, when the need for coming to a bipartisan consensus lost the status of a national security issue. As a result, discussions of almost every important point of the presidential election campaign are accompanied by emotions, which prevail over facts and over attempts to propose a reasonable and comprehensive solution.
This trend is consistent under Trump. On the one hand, the Republican president has a good reason to criticize the legacy of his predecessors. He would also be right to appeal to the importance of launching “at last” the practical implementation of reforms, the need for which has been acknowledged by all administrations since the mid-1990s. On the other hand, the presence of a political will faces the realities of the political process, the participants of which, as before, appeal not so much to national interests as to the moods of the public. Demand gives rise to supply – Trump prefers to focus on issues that find the strongest emotional response in society. In response, the opponents accuse Trump of pursuing a “chaotic” policy on almost any issue. However, in the long run, what is taking place is a split that is running through the entire spectrum of American political system, and this split, as impeachment battles have demonstrated, has been deepened by the efforts from both parties, which are ready to contribute to its worsening with “unprecedented” vigor.
Aggravation of internal political struggle in the USA, as historical experience shows, often pushes American presidents into abrupt, often ill-conceived foreign policy measures. A similar situation happened in the days of Nixon and Clinton. It could be the impeachment threat that prompted Trump to take two steps that could “blow up” the Middle East – the assassination of Iran’s IRGC leader Kassem Sulejmani and an ostentatiously one-sided plan for a Middle East “settlement” that has already been rejected by the Palestinians and a number of Islamic states.
Yet, even after the failure of the impeachment move the international community is unlikely to be able to breathe a sigh of relief. In the context of an easily predictable clash with Democrats in the House of Representatives, which is fraught with a dead end in promoting the legislative agenda, the most natural way for Trump to demonstrate effectiveness in the eyes of voters is foreign policy. From a legal point of view, it is in the field of foreign policy that the US president is least bound by the need to coordinate his steps with the Congress.
And hardly can we talk about the USA easing confrontation with China or Russia. Moreover, Washington has a bipartisan consensus on the need to tighten policies in relation to the two countries. On February 5, Trump’s National Security adviser Robert O’Brien said in Washington: “Look, our challenge and the challenge of our generation is China’s growth and the role that Russia continues to play on the world scene”.
After the failure of impeachment, the Democrats may well try to use their majority in the lower house to resume attempts to get the issue of “Trump’s relations with Moscow” and “Kremlin interference” in US domestic politics back into the spotlight. The tightening of parliamentary pressure on the White House will create new obstacles to prevent contacts between Washington and Moscow. Meanwhile, there are grounds to fear that Washington will see a new round of fight for the title of the most irreconcilable opponent of Russia.
Optimists among Russian experts believe that the main focus of the White House, like all of American politics, is finally shifting to domestic issues. This may give Russia a certain freedom of maneuver in international affairs. Dmitry Trenin of the Carnegie Moscow Center argues, “the risk of Congress introducing new sanctions against Russia will dwindle in the very near future.” Especially, if the Republicans consider them a potential threat to the image of Trump and his administration. On the other hand, … “Republicans may agree to approve the sanctions to once again dissociate themselves from” toxic “Russia,” – the expert said.
According to pessimists, for both Washington parties, relations with Russia remain “one of the main grounds of confrontation.” “Fairly soon, Americans may opt for a new strike on Nord Stream-2, the German Handelsblatt believes.” If Russia tries to complete the construction of the missing kilometers of the pipeline through the Baltic Sea, the House of Representatives and the Senate are ready to initiate another sanctions law, Washington’s diplomatic circles say. ”This bill could include sanctions against project investors from Europe, or companies that plan to buy Russian gas through the pipeline.“ As reported, a move to this effect could be taken in in the very near future, possibly in February or March. ”
In general, the failure of impeachment is likely to further increase the degree of uncertainty in US policy. The realities of the political process remain the same – its participants will continue to appeal not so much to national interests as to public opinion, which is experiencing an ever deepening split. A certain political stabilization of America can be expected only after one of the parties regains control over both the executive and legislative branches of government.
From the point of view of an outside observer, what happened on Capitol Hill is all but a political formality. In essence, the US foreign policy will remain intact.
From our partner International Affairs
Impeachment & Intervention: Where American Foreign Policy Goes Wrong
To any ordinary American citizen, it’s well known that government spending is spiraling out of control. The U.S. budget deficit now exceeds $23 trillion — with $1.109 trillion being added to the deficit in the fiscal year of 2019, and another $1.103 trillion projected to be added in 2020. Recently, on December 20th of last year, President Donald Trump signed into existence the huge 2,300-page general bill that includes two spending packages that approximate to $1.4 trillion. The bill received mostly bipartisan support and was lauded as a compromise on both sides.
Senator Ted Cruz, who is an open critic of the bill, said, “This is why Washington is corrupt. This is an example of a government of the lobbyists, by the lobbyists, and for the lobbyists.” This is the unfortunate reality Americans are faced with when it comes to the spending of taxpayer dollars, at home and abroad. In an age where every topic is politicized and party lines are drawn, there is little resistance to multiplying the national debt. While there is mostly bipartisan agreement in Congress for enlarging the deficit, it’s quite the contrary when it comes to impeachment.
The hyper-partisan impeachment of President Trump is an ongoing matter. Both, the right and left have eagerly worked to spin the story to fit their narrative. Republicans say that it’s just another attempt by the left at overturning the 2016 election and/or undermining the upcoming 2020 election; Democrats allege that the President abused his power and tried to use foreign aid as leverage to coerce the newly elected Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, to investigate corruption linked to the Biden family. Whether you like Trump’s politics or not, what’s notable is that Democrats “have failed to allege a violation of established law, i.e. a ‘crime’ or ‘misdemeanor.’ Such an allegation has been present in every other impeachment in history, but not here.”
Nonetheless, foreign aid to Ukraine is at the core of the issue. Specifically, the aid amounted to $391 million of military and medical equipment to assist in their deadlocked civil war that started in 2014 with pro-Russian separatists. Since that time, the U.S. has handed over $1.5 billion in security assistance to Ukraine overall. Instead of funding war, the U.S. should be actively promoting diplomacy. To what advantage, to the U.S. or its citizens, is sending billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine to help fight yet another proxy war? Absolutely none. Career politicians and academics on the left and right will say otherwise. In reference to the conflict, Stanford Professor Pamela Karlan told the House Intelligence Committee during impeachment hearings that intervening in Ukraine was vital, “so they fight the Russians there and we don’t have to fight them here.” Karlan’s logic is not only absurd, it’s dangerous with consideration to what she is suggesting. There is absolutely no evidence to back up her claim that implies Russia would eventually invade the U.S. if they didn’t arm the Ukrainians. This is the new era of McCarthyism. An era in which everything that has gone wrong or could possibly go wrong is blamed on Russia. And, if you disagree — well, you’re a Russian asset and do Putin’s bidding. This kind of manipulative narrative not only validates but fuels American interventionist foreign policy around the world. The U.S. involvement in Ukraine is just a small sample size of this truth. If you want to see the true ramifications of this type of foreign policy initiative, and the rabbit hole it sends the American taxpayer down, look no further than the Middle East.
Within the aforementioned omnibus bill, $4.2 billion is appropriated for the Afghan Security Forces Fund. That’s correct. The U.S. is sending $4.2 billion to Afghanistan to continue its seemingly endless endeavor in the Middle East. In recent years, there have been serious concerns regarding U.S. foreign aid to Afghanistan. Furthermore, this news is shocking bearing in mind the release of the Afghanistan Papers, which lay out in detail how senior U.S. officials knowingly misled the public to make it seem as if reasonable progress was being made in the region. The report bluntly states that over the years they “failed to tell the truth about the war,” “making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable.” Critical statements from Ret. U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn provoked the extensive investigation that uncovered what many feared to be true. This is not the first time the American public has been fed lies from its government, abetted by the mainstream media, in order to mask the true intent of the war on terror. What is the real reason the U.S. is still to this day in Afghanistan? No one can be sure, but remarkably, opium production has skyrocketed since the U.S. arrived. What is now the longest armed conflict in U.S. history, spanning almost 19 years, there is still no end in sight. How much money has to be spent, and how many lives have to be lost before it’s all said and done with? The U.S. military occupation in Afghanistan is the prime example of foreign policy interventionism gone terribly wrong.
The American government should continue to stand strong with its allies and be an advocate of human rights, but they need to reevaluate the ways in which they do that. The U.S. needs to look at and approach international issues from a cost-benefit perspective. It’s time for a change in the establishment. There are valid questions to be asked about how, where, and why foreign aid is appropriated. These are questions of accountability. The status quo in the American government has gone on long enough, unimpeded, serving foreign interests with little benefit to the American public. The U.S. involvement in Ukraine and Afghanistan are just two instances at different scales that demonstrate this reality seen around the world. President Trump needs to critically assess foreign aid distribution, orient and repurpose the aid to specific points of interest that directly help the U.S.; imagine how much could be accomplished with respect to healthcare, education, and infrastructure if the U.S. started investing in itself more. Moreover, the U.S. would be better equipped to address more pertinent national security problems such as securing the border. President Trump would be addressing policy issues for the left, right, and everybody in between by confronting topics that are owned by his political opponents running for the Democratic nomination. If Trump wants to help solidify his chances at reelection, he should take a firmer stance in his “America First” policy and start putting America first.
From our partner RIAC
Former Senator Moise Jean-Charles to Win the Next Haitian Presidential Election
The former Senator, Moise Jean-Charles is the founder and leader of the powerful political party called Platfòm Pitit Desalin or Pitit Dessalines and he’s working really hard to change the situation of his home country called Haiti. For years, the former Senator organized press conferences and rallies across Haiti because he really hopes to deliver Haiti from the devil called ‘Haitian Tèt Kale Party’ because the current Haitian Government led by President Jovenel Moise and PHTK is not really on the population side at all after voting against Venezuela then joined the U.S. and the Trump administration.
According to reports, Senator Moise Jean-Charles was a voice for Haiti during the PetroCaribe scandal and he met with President Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela then apologized on behalf of the Haitian population for the mistakes and the wrongdoings of President Jovenel Moise and Haitian Tèt Kale Party that caused a long-term protest across Haiti when the PetroCaribe money went missing. Back in 2016, Senator Moise Jean-Charles lose the election for President but he hopes to run again in the next election bid coming up soon. The former Senator said that he is getting ready to run again anytime the next presidential election is set to begin and he will win.
Before President Jovenel Moise won the election in 2016, the former Senator Moise Jean-Charles knew the country might go through a crisis under the Government of President Jovenel Moise and Haitian Tèt Kale Party (PHTK). Years later, all the sectors in Haiti surprised to see how the former Senator Moise Jean-Charles was right about his speech and the long-term protest for the resignation of President Jovenel Moise will cause President Jovenel Moise and PHTK to lose the next election coming up because everyone in Haiti no longer trust President Jovenel Moise.
gen pou pi tris.”, said Moise Jean-Charles, the former Senator, during an
interview with Radio Télévision Pacific.
The former Senator, Moise Jean-Charles want to see a better Haiti for this generation and upcoming generations. The former Senator said the current leaders in the Haitian Government were wrong for voting against Venezuela because the Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has done a lot more for Haiti than any other country in the world. According to local media like Bon Déjeuner! Radio and Radio Television Caraibes, Senator Moise Jean-Charles is looking forward to running for President again in the next election coming up.
“I think everyone in Haiti believes that the former
Senator Moise Jean-Charles is the answer for Haiti and I guarantee you that
Haiti will prosper when Platfòm Pitit Desalin or Pitit Dessalines lead the
country.”, said Mr. Werley Nortreus, the founder of Vanyan Sòlda Ayiti, on
Officials organized a poll so people could vote, and according to the voting results, 99% of the Haitian population across Haiti and in the Diaspora want President Jovenel Moise to step down so an honest leader like Senator Moise Jean-Charles or else can lead the country in the right direction in 2020. The other 1% want President Jovenel Moise to stay in power. According to these votes, the Haitian population no longer wants PHTK and ‘Les Mulâtres’ in power because they failed the country during their Presidency.
The Haitian population is not against former Senator Nenel Cassy, Mr. Youri Latortue, Mr. André Michel, and other opposition leaders or judges because they are all fighting for a better Haiti but the Haitian population believes the former Senator Moise Jean-Charles is the answer for Haiti and they are looking to vote for him in the next election coming up.
Since President Jovenel Moise’s Presidency failed the country, President Jovenel will not win the next election coming up. According to Zenith FM, the population continues to demand his resignation in 2020 after another crisis hit the country again.
Trump impeachment failure: What is in store for America and the world?
On February 5, the US Senate found President Donald Trump not guilty of actions which could be classified as requiring...
Year-old peace agreement must be implemented for ‘lasting peace’ in Central African Republic
Following a visit to the Central African Republic, a UN independent expert said that everyone must take all measures necessary...
The forgotten world of female silence (around issues of mental cruelty and abandonment)
I think of victims of abuse. Have I been a victim of abuse all of this time, all of these...
Climate-neutral Europe: EU invests more than €100 million in new LIFE Programme projects
The European Commission today announced an investment of €101.2 million for the latest projects under the LIFE programme for the...
Pakistan puts press freedom at the core of struggle for new world order
Sweeping new regulations restricting social media in Pakistan put freedom of expression and the media at the heart of the...
Mobile game aims to bridge gap between citizens and leaders on climate action
Millions of people worldwide will get to share their views on climate action through a UN campaign launched on Thursday aimed at connecting them with Governments and...
Lithuania: To serve or not to serve in the army
It is well known that in 2015 Lithuanian authorities reintroduced compulsory military service due to the potential threat caused by...
Southeast Asia3 days ago
Political advantage through aid or trade: India’s knee jerk on Malaysia and Turkey
Energy2 days ago
Gazprom and Europe
Africa2 days ago
Violence in North and West Africa increasingly targeting civilian and border areas
Energy News3 days ago
New Strategy to Help Vietnam Scale Up and Better Utilize Solar Power
Eastern Europe2 days ago
Russia’s Changing Economic Attitude towards Abkhazia & Tskhinvali Regions
Middle East3 days ago
Growing Political Instability in Middle East: A Case Study of Yemen
Reports2 days ago
“Westlessness”: Munich Security Report 2020
EU Politics2 days ago
Future ACP-EU Partnership