There are a couple of things I wanted to comment on this morning. The first is President Trump’s remarks about the limits of his global power reported by Isabela Murray and Michelle Stoddart at ABC News:
President Donald Trump reportedly told The New York Times that his “own morality” serves as the thing that could potentially limit his global powers — adding that he doesn’t “need international law.”
As part of a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times published Thursday, Trump was asked Wednesday whether there were any limits to his global powers.
“Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me,” Trump reportedly said to The New York Times.
That highlights why I have never voted for Donald Trump. He inhabits a different world from the rest of us. I think the Japanese have a word for it—betsu sekai, a separate world. F. Scott Fitzgerald put it well in The Rich Boy:
Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft where we are hard, cynical where we are trustful, in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is very difficult to understand.
That applies just as well to John F. Kennedy as to Donald Trump. They can never really understand us and vice versa and, importantly, we can’t just rely on their good will and good judgment. In a constitutional system built on external restraints including laws, institutions, and norms, any leader who believes only his own conscience limits him is already operating outside the system’s logic. Trump is dangerous because he is unbounded and morally under-equipped.
The difference between President Trump and his predecessors is he ‘says the quiet part out loud’. The US flouts international law, treaties, standards, norms, etc. as it sees fit. Furthermore, support for these actions is usually subjective based upon ‘where one sits’.
Few people strive to be philosophically consistent and intellectually honest, but I do not know that they are aware of this or care. I know you do.
Regarding the rich, I have no idea, but I would suggest that being “rich” is subjective. To me, @Drew is rich, but to Elon Musk, he may be a beggar.
I am not going to quite buy that Trump does what everyone else has done. In fact, everyone else has done a few things that are kind of similar to what Trump has done and is doing but no one has done this stuff on anywhere near the same scale. At the same time we have discovered that we dont really have any tother institutions that are capable of stopping a POTUS who is willing to ignore norms. SCOTUS does in theory but in practice they are mostly cheerleading for him and if they do issue a negative ruling it’s long after the harm has been done. Just look at how much he is single handedly dictating industrial policy as well as foreign policy.
Steve
Unlike many I mean something very specific by “the rich”. I mean the topmost .1% of income earners. Without remotely being one of them I dealt closely with them since I was ten years old.
Dave Schuler: That applies just as well to John F. Kennedy as to Donald Trump.
Kennedy served on a PT-boat during WWII. While he was an officer; on a small boat, highly exposed to danger, he was just as much a combatant as any sailor. That doesn’t mean he didn’t have the advantages of wealth before and after that, but those events will inevitably change a person, and people who served recognized that in him. He shared in their travails. Meanwhile, John Wayne acted tough in Hollywood, and Jimmy Stewart was flying missions over Germany.
International law is made up of various treaties, which, when ratified by the Senate, are “the supreme Law of the Land” (U.S. Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 2). So, he’s saying he doesn’t need the law.
steve: Just look at how much he is single-handedly dictating industrial policy as well as foreign policy.
It is against the principles of republican governance when a one person has the power to reorder foreign and domestic policy.
Trump just announced he is going to cap rates on credit cards. In theory, conservatives should oppose one person in the government making that decision but it’s Trump so they will bow down and find some way to praise it.
Steve
In the U.S., people often conflate conservatism with the political right. While conservatism is on the political right, a lot of what is called conservatism in the U.S. isn’t conservatism, but reactionism. Of course, that assumes conservatism means anything like conserving long-standing institutions. Those who want to radically overthrow the modern world to return to a mythical past are not conservative in this sense. They are subject to the same laws of unintended consequences as anyone else who advocates for rapid change, or for striving for change that is not actually attainable.
See Chesterton’s Fence for a valid statement of conservatism.
I completely agree that today’s conservatives are not conservatives. What are referred to as “paleocons” arguably were but not today’s conservatives.
I also don’t think that “right” and “left” actually tell us much these days, either. There is significant difference between Marxists and what used to be called “liberals”, e.g. Hubert Humphrey.
“Liberal”, “conservative”, “fascist” and many other political descriptions have been considerably corrupted over time.
Dave Schuler: I also don’t think that “right” and “left” actually tell us much these days
Actually, left and right still largely work. Marxists and liberals have always been distinguished, and both have been seen as on the political left. Similarly, fascists and conservatives have always been distinguished, and both have been seen as on the political right. Left refers to those who advocate increased egalitarianism. Right refers to those who advocate for hierarchies.
It’s “liberal” and “conservative” that have been co-opted to rope in the entire left and the entire right respectively. However, the word roots are strong enough for their inherent meanings to persist.