Where do Legality and Morality Intersect?
The Insufficency of Checks and Balances
Trump represents the end of an era, not the beginning.
He is a symptom of the decay, not the underlying illness.
Once more I return to the old game-theory chestnut which illustrates the process so succintly and which is described in exquisite simplicity by James Allworth here:
Trump’s election has served, not to create racism or discontent, but to embolden voices and actors who were already perpetrating these ideas.
The end of the rule of law began in earnest when the Florida vote recount was halted and George Bush was illegally declared president by a supreme court some of whose members (David Souter and Clarence Thomas) his own father had appointed.
Nobody even mentioned the “N”-word, nepotism; although many referred to his inauguration as a coronation. This represented the capitulation of the supposedly-neutral judical branch of government and the corruption of the executive branch.
The legislative branch is inextricably linked to law enforcement. James Comey, the head of the FBI, is legally bound to behave neutrally, despite the fact that he is a political nominee. However, he chose to interfere at a late stage in the election process, certainly skewing the results of the election, even though he was a (Republican) nominee. The process was ultimately inevitable, Comey merely precipated it:
Our entire capitalist system is based on the willingness to pay. When a man does not pay typically small businesses who do work for him and continues unabated to the highest office in the land, he is undermining the commercial basis of our entire society.
Remember example is not the best way to influence people, it is the only way.
I find JFK’s inaugural speech to be oddly prescient:
“…unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of human rights”
Thank you for reading.
You might also like:
