Connect with us

Americas

Will Anyone Dare Tell the Emperor That He Goes Around Naked?

Emanuel L. Paparella, Ph.D.

Published

on

Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it, so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect.”–Jonathan Swift “Facts are a stubborn thing”–John Adams “People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole.” –Donald Trump in The Art of the Deal

[yt_dropcap type=”square” font=”” size=”14″ color=”#000″ background=”#fff” ] T [/yt_dropcap]ruthful hyperbole” as defined in the last quote above by Donald Trump may go a long way in explaining, at least partially, why he won the presidency.

It is a formula by which one gives oneself permission to lie. Truth is not objective, it is not determined by the stubborn facts out there staring me in the face, whether I like them or not, but what I say it is, what is convenient and useful for me at the moment. This is the mind-set that is convinced that the end always justifies the means, no matter how reprehensible those means are.

It also explains the success of a used car salesman. This is a great car, you will be very happy with it; it’s a winner of a car. You will get tired of being a winner with this car. And so the car gets handly sold. The unpleasant surprise will come later when the unfortunate client realizes that he has been sold a lemon by a con-man.

The metaphor of the used car explains what happened a few days ago to all those who voted for Trump and expected a replacement of Obama Care. Yes, a replacement was presented by the GPO legislators but what it misguidedly proposed was to deduct 900 billion dollars from health benefits to the poor and transfer them to the rich in the form of tax relief.

Intriguing too the fact that Trump did not put his name on the bill. He refused to dub it Trump care. That would have been appropriate given that Obamacare was invented as an insult of sorts; the proper name of the original bill was and remains Affordable Health Care Act. The aim of the Republicans in the last seven years has been to make it unaffordable and a mere privilege for the well-to-do.

Be that as it may, the first legislative act of Donald Trump, the Health Bill that would have replaced Obama Care went down in flames and proved to be a big loser. Only 17% of the people approved of it. But the used car salesman is still enthusiastically selling his used cars by telling those disappointed voters that the car they presently still owe (that is, Obama Care) is a lemon and will soon explode in their face. Then they will be left with nothing and will have to walk to work. You get the picture: after it explodes, come back to me and I have a used car to sell you.

Let’s now briefly analyze this concept of “truthful hyperbole” under the light of the philosophical branch of philosophy called “epistemology,” that is to say: the investigation of how do we get to know anything and how do we know if what we do actually know is true or false; in short, how do we know that we know. Ultimately it is the question by cynical Pilate: What is truth?

It should be quite obvious that Trump’s conception of truth is quite elastic. Even relativism wouldn’t fit very well. Relativism says that everything is relative to the situation and the society in which one finds oneself; that truth is not something transcendent outside of time and space, but has to be determined existentially in the context of the real world in which we live and have our being. Truthful hyperbole, on the other hand, says that truth is what I wish you to believe. It really didn’t rain during my inauguration, even though the evidence is still on the ground and there are pictures with their umbrellas open, the crowds were more numerous at my inauguration than at President Obama’s, even though there are pictures that prove the opposite. I lost the popular vote by 3 million votes but I want you to believe that 3 million illegal aliens voted illegally. I want you to believe that Senator Cruz’s father was linked to Kennedy’s assassination, that president Obama tapped my phone during my campaign for the presidency; and the list goes on and on.

Recently Trump held an interview with Time’s Michael Scherer where he explains that instead of weighing evidence he much prefers to trust his gut. As Trump put it: “I am an instinctual person, but my instinct turns out to be right.” The question arises: how does one make instinctual decisions based on instinctual beliefs? With Trump there are three possibilities: one, he is already correct to begin with, or two, he will be proven correct at some point in the immediate or remote future, or three, he will correct the record of the past saying that he already subscribed to whatever view is proven right now; to wit, the Iraq War. In other words, when confronted with statements made without evidence, Trump will simply respond that what happened retroactively more than justifies the claims he made. That is to say, lies are magically transformed into truths after the fact. All you need is the magic wand called “instinctual decision making.”

If this again sounds like a used car salesman, it is because it is that, even though Trump wants us to believe that he is similar to the scholarly historian revising his judgment after studying the facts carefully, but he is no scholar even if he went to the Warton School of Business (another trumped up fact) and he certainly does not respects facts.

What Trump has discovered in his business career is that while truth may be real, it may be to one’s short-term advantage to disown it and present a contrary claim. To support those claims there is plenty of biased press on cable TV to tell him that he is always right. Fox news is an example; so it The National Inquirer which he reads dutifully.

Mussolini came to believe that “Mussolini is always right!” That is to say, falsehood works much better for Trump and other assorted authoritarian personalities and dictators, and the fact that they sit at the pinnacle of power more than confirms it for them.

But this is far from being an original insight. As the initial quote above by the 18th century satirist Jonathan Swift, intimates, it is an age-old stratagem of all dishonest and manipulative people. Eventually, as Plato and Aristotle pointed out, the truth catches up, even after the damage has been done.

One can of course continue to sell used lemon cars as a successful business entrepreneur and accumulate wealth and even fame, and call it “art,” or one may, as an entertainer and expert in reality shows, rely on selective TV-edited reality, and people are usually willing to suspend their disbelief while they enjoy the show. One may continue to trust only the stories, like those in the National Inquirer, which affirm one’s biases and prejudices, but the “stubborn facts,” as John Adams put in in his defense of British soldiers who had to defend themselves against a mob, remain therefore incontrovertible, and will give pause to a wise man to make him aware of his limitations and the constraints imposed on one’s likes and dislikes by a reality-based truth.

Not so for Trump. He disregards rational consensus by experts and acts on emotions and guts. This is found liberating by many people, including Vice-president Pence who goes around praising the fact that Trump “tells it like it is.” They have never seen before the kind of president who simply disregards expertise and relies on instincts. It’s a strange marvelous phenomenon. But here the question arises: are issues of national security, say the initiation of World War III, to be decided on instincts?

Of course the confirmation of one’s biases comes easy to someone like a Caligula who was constantly surrounded by sycophants who served at his pleasure, catered to every one of his whims, who interpreted every criticism of the emperor as bad faith. He may even begin to think of himself as a demigod and have his guards kneel before him, even kiss his ass from time to time. We know what happened to Caligula.

In more democratic times a different scenario may ensue. Now presidents have to resist the temptation to think of themselves as demigods by relying on longtime friends and confidants. Those friends usually keep them grounded in reality so that they don’t end up saying that 2+2=5 because I the president say so. At that point, the only solution in enlightened democratic times is impeachment, or resignation, or perhaps an ambulance to the insane asylum, or perhaps to jail.

Adams had it on target. Facts are a stubborn thing. They tend to catch up with one’s lies and fantasies. The urgent question now is this: will enough journalists find the courage to do their job–which is that of searching for the truth–and have the backbone to shout to the four winds that “the emperor is naked?”

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

A self-inflicted wound: Trump surrenders the West’s moral high ground

Dr. James M. Dorsey

Published

on

For the better part of a century, the United States could claim the moral high ground despite allegations of hypocrisy because its policies continuously contradicted its proclaimed propagation of democracy and human rights. Under President Donald J. Trump, the US has lost that moral high ground.

This week’s US sanctioning of 28 Chinese government entities and companies for their involvement in China’s brutal clampdown on Turkic Muslims in its troubled north-western province of Xinjiang, the first such measure by any country since the crackdown began, is a case in point.

So is the imposition of visa restrictions on Chinese officials suspected of being involved in the detention and human rights abuses of millions of Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims.

The irony is that the Trump administration has for the first time elevated human rights to a US foreign policy goal in export control policy despite its overall lack of concern for such rights.

The sanctions should put the Muslim world, always the first to ring the alarm bell when Muslims rights are trampled upon, on the spot.

It probably won’t even though Muslim nations are out on a limb, having remained conspicuously silent in a bid not to damage relations with China, and in some cases even having endorsed the Chinese campaign, the most frontal assault on Islam in recent history.

This week’s seeming endorsement by Mr. Trump of Turkey’s military offensive against Syrian Kurds, who backed by the United States, fought the Islamic State and were guarding its captured fighters and their families drove the final nail into the coffin of US moral claims.

The endorsement came on the back of Mr. Trump’s transactional approach towards foreign policy and relations with America’s allies, his hesitancy to respond robustly to last month’s missile and drone attacks on Saudi oil facilities, his refusal to ensure Saudi transparency on the killing a year ago of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and his perceived empathy for illiberals and authoritarians symbolized by his reference to Egyptian field marshal-turned-president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi as “my favourite dictator.”

Rejecting Saudi and Egyptian criticism of his intervention in Syria, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan gave the United States and Mr. Trump a blunt preview of what they can expect next time they come calling, whether it is for support of their holding China to account for its actions in Xinjiang, issues of religious freedom that are dear to the Trump administration’s heart, or specific infractions on human rights that the US opportunistically wishes to emphasize.

“Let me start with Saudi Arabia,” Mr. Erdogan said in blistering remarks to members of his Justice and Development Party (AKP). “Look in the mirror first. Who brought Yemen to this state? Did tens of thousands of people not die in Yemen?” he asked, referring to the kingdom’s disastrous military intervention in Yemen’s ruinous civil war.

Addressing Mr. Al-Sisi, Mr. Erdogan charged: “Egypt, you can’t talk at all. You are a country with a democracy killer.” The Turkish leader asserted that Mr. Al-Sisi had “held a meeting with some others and condemned the (Turkish) operation – so what if you do?”

The fact that the United States is likely to encounter similar responses, even if they are less belligerent in tone, as well as the fact that Mr. Trump’s sanctioning of Chinese entities is unlikely to shame the Muslim world into action, signals a far more fundamental paradigm shift:  the loss of the US and Western moral high ground that gave them an undisputed advantage in the battle of ideas, a key battleground in the struggle to shape a new world order.

China, Russia, Middle Eastern autocrats and other authoritarians and illiberals have no credible response to notions of personal and political freedom, human rights and the rule of law.

As a result, they countered the ideational appeal of greater freedoms by going through the motions. They often maintained or erected democratic facades and payed lip service to democratic concepts while cloaking their repression in terms employed by the West like the fight against terrorism.

By surrendering the West’s ideological edge, Mr. Trump reduced the shaping of the new world order to a competition in which the power with the deeper pockets had the upper hand.

Former US national security advisor John Bolton admitted as much when he identified in late 2018 Africa as a new battleground and unveiled a new strategy focused on commercial ties, counterterrorism, and better-targeted U.S. foreign aid.

Said international affairs scholar Keren Yarhi-Milo: “The United States has already paid a significant price for Trump’s behaviour: the president is no longer considered the ultimate voice on foreign policy. Foreign leaders are turning elsewhere to gauge American intentions… With Trump’s reputation compromised, the price tag on U.S. deterrence, coercion, and reassurance has risen, along with the probability of miscalculation and inadvertent escalation.”

Continue Reading

Americas

Trump’s effects on diplomacy

Irfan Khan

Published

on

No longer has Trump’s haphazard behaviour persisted, more will be easy for his administration to enact actions against China, Iran and Taliban. The state department is in a quandary because of it, on each front. Trump’s entrenched eagerness to remain “great” and “first” on the chessboard of International power, could damage the world more ahead than before.

Following the Iran’s attacks on the Kingdom of Saudi-Arabia’s oil infrastructure, US wanted to deploy troops to the Kingdom. It is primarily a justification for why the US has been imposing sanctions over Iran. Is troops deployment a solution? Or will it provide safe horizon to Kingdom oil’s installation? Or will it be revolutionary in oil diplomacy? Or is it the only target retaliated on, by Iran. However, such kind of engagement has short term beneficiary spots, while in broader perspective it has consequential effects for all stakeholders. The episode of nuclear deal has, as a factor of quid-pro-quo, been further dramatised by the state department, withdrawing from. Notwithstanding, the deal has advantageous prospects for the Middle East, and an exemplary for rest of nations, has been further dramatised by the US, in order to seek its diplomatic wins. What significant at this point, is an agreement to reback to the deal.

Embracing a different economic model, China, is plausibly on a runner-up position to the US. Whether it’s 5G tech. Or leading status of green energy, or ultra-scales exports or its leading developments for the nations having indigent economies, is a source of chaos for US administration. The current trade war is an antidoting tool for the whole scenario. The US should, I assume, eye China’s hegemony a piece of cake, and welcome its come out while securing its interests under the umbrella of cooperation. This logic, while posing no threat, seems to be long term functional. Is it?

Trump, according to many native writers, is psychologically unfit, unstable and fickle, however have had strong narrative to prevent America’s engagement into “useless wars” and end “endless” wars. Following this token, Trump announcement of troop withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan put the world politics and even his administration into chaos. This divided strategists and Washington security officials, which was underpinned by the resignation of James Mattis and recently John Bolton. The ten months of peace process which followed the US’s announcement of troop withdrawal, precipitously ended, putting once again the international and national politics into chaos. Trump, grandiloquently fired a tweet that talks with Taliban are dead and futile. The argument he contended was the Attack in Kabil, where one American soldier with 12 other people were lost. The policymakers and high officials in Washington who already negated the policy of troop withdrawal and then after peace deal. They, of course are winner in this policy discourse, have staunch beliefs in their opinion, who may make Trump’s change of heart. The Kabil attack was given, probably, an agent of resurgent for Obama’s approach. However, Trump’s administration had already scripted their policy framework for the region, and pretending Kabul attack was perhaps a way of redemption from the peace talk.

Trump’s factor in US foreign policy was chaotic to his subordinates for which, he attempted to compensate by cancelling peace deal with Taliban. However , on the domestic front, it is likely to be more pluses than on diplomatic front given to Trump in next year’s presidential election. Let’s see which side the wind blow. 

Continue Reading

Americas

Trump Cannot Be Impeached Over Ukrainegate, But Pelosi and Schiff Can Be Charged Criminally

Rahul D. Manchanda, Esq.

Published

on

Pursuant to United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court issued an unmistakable clear edict concerning the foreign affairs powers of the President of the United States.

In its majority opinion, the Court held that the President, as the nation’s “sole organ” in international relations, is innately vested with significant powers over foreign affairs, far exceeding the powers permitted in domestic matters or accorded to the U.S. Congress.

The Court reasoned that these powers are implicit in the President’s constitutional role as commander-in-chief and head of the executive branch.

Curtiss-Wright was the first decision to establish that the President’s plenary power was independent of Congressional permission, and consequently it is credited with providing the legal precedent for further expansions of executive power in the foreign sphere.

In a 7–1 decision authored by Justice George Sutherland, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. government, through the President, is categorically allowed great foreign affairs powers independent of the U.S. Constitution, by declaring that “the powers of the federal government in respect of foreign or external affairs and those in respect of domestic or internal affairs are different, both in respect of their origin and their nature…the broad statement that the federal government can exercise no powers except those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and such implied powers as are necessary and proper to carry into effect the enumerated powers, is categorically true only in respect of our internal affairs.”

While the Constitution does not explicitly state that all ability to conduct foreign policy is vested in the President, the Court concluded that such power is nonetheless given implicitly, since the executive of a sovereign nation is, by its very nature, empowered to conduct foreign affairs.

The Court found “sufficient warrant for the broad discretion vested in the President to determine whether the enforcement of the statute will have a beneficial effect upon the reestablishment of peace in the affected countries.”

In other words, the President was better suited for determining which actions and policies best serve the nation’s interests abroad.

Period.

It is important to bear in mind that we are here dealing not alone with an authority vested in the President by an exertion of legislative power, but with such an authority plus the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations – a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress, but which, of course, like every other governmental power, must be exercised in subordination to the applicable provisions of the Constitution.

Separation of Powers Doctrine

In other words, neither the U.S. Congress nor the U.S. Senate can say or do very much of anything to prevent or interfere with this power, and if they do, they can in fact be held responsible for violating the Separation of Powers doctrine pursuant to the U.S. Constitution wherein the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial) are kept separate.

This is also known as the system of checks and balances, because each branch is given certain powers so as to check and balance the other branches.

Each branch has separate powers, and generally each branch is not allowed to exercise the powers of the other branches.

The Legislative Branch exercises congressional power, the Executive Branch exercises executive power, and the Judicial Branch exercises judicial review.

National Security and Foreign Affairs

The Curtiss-Wright case established the broader principle of executive Presidential supremacy in national security and foreign affairs, one of the reasons advanced in the 1950s for the near success of the attempt to add the Bricker Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would have placed a “check” on said Presidential power by Congress, but that never passed, or became law.

If Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats really wanted to interfere with or prevent President Donald Trump from engaging in the activity that they are trying to prevent vis-a-vis Ukraine, China, and Joseph Biden’s alleged corruption and its effect on National Security, they would have to first draft, propose, enact, and pass sweeping legislation, and this could take years and would most probably never pass.

Even so, it could not affect President Donald Trump’s actions already occurred, since the U.S. Constitution prohibits ex post facto criminal laws.

Turning This All Against Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff

To that end if Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Congressman Adam Schiff persist in pushing said “impeachment proceedings” against President Donald Trump, it is actually they who could find themselves on the wrong side of the law, with formal and actual charges of Treason, Sedition or Coup D’ Etat being levied upon them by the U.S. Government.

The consequences of that occurring, are truly horrific indeed.

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy