Search This Blog

30 November 2016

Trump – A new President with a new Attitude


By Sam Frescoe
http://samfrescoeproject.blogspot.com/

#Trump, #President, #Clinton, #Election, #Nationalist, #Populist, #Authoritarian
 
Hallelujah! The election is over! Donald Trump is going to be the next president of the United States. – The Clinton machine was derailed, the mainstream media has a black eye, and the political establishment is about to wet their pants.

From the American Discourse
·         The billionaire businessman who never before held elected office shocked America and the world. – Politico [1]
·         Donald Trump…claimed an establishment-stunning victory that exposes the depth of voter dissatisfaction – and signals immense changes ahead for American policy at home and abroad. – Fox News [2]

Still, even though the election cycle worked as expected, I remain skeptical about the wisdom demonstrated by the American electorate during the process as a whole. On the one hand, I am pleased that Clinton was defeated. On the other hand, Trump is the President-elect.

Think about this for a moment. Americans were presented with Governors, Legislators, socialists, warriors, doctors, philanthropists, and criminals; and, the final decision was for a not-so-squeaky-clean fat-cat-billionaire with a TV mouth.

It seems that Trump provided political space for common Americans to express “voter dissatisfaction” in a way that was meaningful to Washington DC (at least in the short-term). It just so happens that Trump is a popular celebrity icon with a catchy signature line…you’re fired! Still, however you may come to accept it, the “game” of the election cycle is over, and the nation has made its bed. Now it’s time to lie in it.

What can we reasonably expect from a Trump administration? Setting aside his complete lack of service in an elected office, and the significant limitation of “no directly relevant” prior performance, it does seem clear that Trump subscribes to a “way” of thinking. This suggests he has a framework by which to assess situations, measure options, and establish vision. It’s also clear that his behavior is changing. This suggests he has “modes” of thinking and filters his thoughts accordingly. But, just how “presidential” is Trump’s preferred behavior?

So, what did we get?

I my view, President-elect Trump is a nationalist-populist that prefers an authoritarian doctrine tempered by American culture.

Nationalist-Populist Framework – It seems reasonable that Trump will champion an America First philosophy. For international matters, I would expect him to protect American interests before considering other diplomatic concerns, and even go so far as to disband longstanding prior arrangements (a bad deal for America is no deal at all). For domestic matters, I would expect Trump to continue to frame the “establishment” as an aggressor and root cause for strife in American inner cities and the economy in general. However, at some point, as the nation’s Chief Executive, Trump will represent the “establishment.” When this happens, I would expect him to adapt his thinking to leverage the desire of middle and working class Americans to have their rights secured, wisdom respected, and virtues upheld.

American Culture Filter – Trump loves the American limelight. He can’t get enough of it; and, in this area, Trump is a grand-master and superb craftsman. I believe he views those that drive American culture, especially the mainstream media, as broken tools (relics of a sort) and nothing more. It seems clear that social media and live speeches are his platforms of choice, and that he is equally comfortable in scripted and impromptu settings. Trump knows how to talk to the basic nature of the American mindset.

Authoritarian Preference – I wish I could get my mind more settled in this area.
·         In my view, it is critically important that any President fully subordinate themselves to the Constitution of the United States; particularly its arrangements, duties, and intent. – The big question in my mind is as follows: will Trump respect the prescribed constraints of the Office of President of the United States?
·         Clearly, as President, Trump is in charge of the Executive branch; and, clearly Trump knows this as a fact. He will have full access to the bully pulpit, and be supported by a history of using executive actions (versus executive orders) to navigate the bureaucracy of the federal government. – Given the “Trump will fix _____” rhetoric, will a Trump administration respect the role of the Congress?

Wrapping Up

Trump is a Presidential wildcard similar to Obama. Both represent strong departures from the status quo. Both began their runs for President with very little, if any, executive branch experience. Both are charismatic and more popular than free stuff. Both built their brands on the shoulders of the “I’m pissed” voter block. While I don’t have a problem with these similarities, I do have significant concern about the next. Both, Trump and Obama, were empowered to “fix it.”

The first requisite of a good citizen in this republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his own weight. – Theodore Roosevelt

Will the calls of “we’ll fix it together” become “I’ll fix it for you”? – Time will tell.


Thank you. – Sam Frescoe

Your View
Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I invite you to tell me what you believe with the comment section below or at samfrescoe@gmail.com. Please check out The Sam Frescoe Project on Facebook.




Building My Premise

President-elect Trump is a nationalist-populist that prefers an authoritarian doctrine tempered by American culture.

Nationalist – Nationalism is a political ideology oriented towards achieving and maintaining American sovereignty over its territories. This nationalist seems are further oriented towards the development and maintenance of a common American identity based on shared characteristics including culture, language, religion, and political goals.[3] It’s clear that Trump promotes the value of a national consciousness that exalts the United States of America above all other nations. [4]

Populist – Populism is a political doctrine that stems from a viewpoint of struggle between the populace and a ruling faction.[5] This populist brands himself as a “people’s champion” by being associated with, yet clearly operating independently and above, a major political party. He seems to rally voters by speaking to the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people. [6]

Authoritative Doctrine – This is the fuzzy portion of my premise. In my view, Trump does display authoritative leanings; however, I am not sure the breadth and depth of those leanings, nor am I sure of just how far Trump will go when he is directly challenged. I am left with playing all sides of the faceted dice.
·         Trump does present himself as an authority. He is commanding, self-confident, and likes to be well respected and return respect in-turn.[7] However, there are some persons that claim Trump is dictatorial and can be arrogantly overbearing toward others.[8]
·         Trump seems to prefer an authoritative personality. He tends to divide opponents into two distinct classes - the weak and the strong. He professes that he was born to achieve high places. Trump likes to rally willpower to overcome weakness or difficulty. Finally, he seems to prefer addressing the most pressing social problems by somehow removing immoral, crooked, and feeble-minded people. [9]
·         Trump does have an authoritative leadership history. It seems clear that he is comfortable dictating policies, procedures, goals and direction to subordinates toward a common vision. Additionally, he is known for abruptly punishing and/or rewarding subordinates trying to impress him.[10] A common trait of authoritative leaders is a tendency to leave the means of getting things done up to each individual.[11] 
·         Trump likes to argue from the position of authority. This is a common type of argument which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert.[12]
·         Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by strong central power and limited political freedoms. Qualities of this doctrine typically include: 1) limited political pluralism; 2) a basis for legitimacy based on emotion, especially as necessary to combat "easily recognizable societal problems" such as underdevelopment or insurgency; 3) minimal social mobilization; 4) informally defined executive power. [13]

Tempered – An adjective suggesting that something was made less intense by the influence of something good.[14]

American Culture – The manifestations of American intellectual achievement. The exceptional meaning and behavior of being an American. [15]

© 2016 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com – All Rights Reserved



29 November 2016

Progressive Feelings – Oppressive Happiness


By Sam Frescoe
samfrescoe@gmail.com


Who wants happiness in their lives? I do.

Who wants to obtain happiness on your terms? I do! – As for me, if happiness is something I can obtain, then happiness looks like: secure ownership of my stuff; the choice and able to protect myself, loved ones, what is mine, and those in need; and, have enough of my money to do as I please. Simple, but that’s just me. I’ll bet that there are as many formulations as there are People of the nation.

What happens when someone’s pursuit of happiness interferes with another’s? – Wow! This is a huge question that spans the breadth of negligence, and the depth of our human nature.

“So What?”

Assuming that “happiness” is obtained through some form of voluntary exchange, and that there is only so much “happiness” to be obtained, then it’s reasonable that an economy exists. Additionally, it seems reasonable that this economy has rules to some degree; therefore, a governance to some equal degree. Finally, due to the collision of humanity and scarcity, it is likely disputes will arise.

What happens if the law is used to resolve disputes?

What happens if the dispute is long on feelings and short on facts?

What happens if the law holds one party higher than the other?

What if circumstance outweighed evidence and intent?

What if enforcement of the law is more valuable than keeping the peace?

What does “obtain happiness on your terms” look like now?

Let me tell you a story. – Fiction or Nonfiction?

A politician presented to you a “great idea” for a “great society” that will bring about “happiness” for all. – Would you go for it? Maybe? It sounds good!

Now, a committee chair, with that same politician standing nearby, promises you that they presented a bill that outlined “happiness” and how it should be pursued. In exchange for that promise, the committee chair and the politician expects everyone to surrender to the government certain liberties, traditions, and rights concerning employment, public accommodation, business practice, family employment, housing, land ownership, commercial space, real estate dealings, licensing, registrations, permitting, use of lawful criminal background checks, issuance of job qualifications, the written word and spoken voice, differential treatment, boycotts, refusal to purchase, refusal to sell, refusal to trade, protected rights, relationships or associations, unemployment and employment status, pregnancy, childbirth, maternity related conditions, interns and internships, use of lawfully obtained credit history, victim status for domestic offenses, victim status for sex offenses, victim status for stalking offenses, all natural persons, proprietary partnerships, private and public associations, group associations, organizations, corporations, legal representatives and fiduciaries, trustees, bankruptcies, determination of personal and corporate liability, receipt of products, physical impairment, medical impairment, mental impairment, psychological impairment, medical history, law enforcement, compliance with federal immigration law, personal identity, personal self-image, personal appearance, personal behavior, personal expression, conduct in cyberspace, government agencies, clothing choices, grooming, use of makeup, selection of jewelry, issue of uniforms, fringe benefits and rewards, and all medical procedures. – Would you go for it? Does “happiness” still sound good?

Now, a prosecuting attorney, with the same politician and committee chair standing nearby, asks you to trust this law because, unlike others before, it is fair, firm, and responsible. Because this law is “constructed generously” it will be instrumental in remediating unfairness and inequity across society at large. In fact, punishments include up to a year-long prison term and $250,000 fine for violators. – How does “happiness” sound to you now?

This story is NOT a work of fiction. I did NOT just make it up.

This situation already exists within the United States of America, home of the free and land of the brave. Enter The New York City Human Rights Act.[i] In New York City it is believed by 51 politicians, that government can proactively intercede on behalf of those that complain to eliminate “prejudice, intolerance, bigotry, and discrimination and disorder” from its 8.4 million inhabitants by force of government. The New York City Human Rights Law

Mandatory “Happiness”

I believe that every American has an inherent right to pursue prosperity in terms of property ownership, personal safety, and financial security…the pursuit of happiness. I believe this right extends equally to all Americans. However, I am increasingly alarmed because I am not seeing this understanding reflected as the norm in modern discourse, the dominate culture, or across the spectrum of accepted political philosophies. I am seeing the pursuit of happiness in terms of equal outcomes, mandated uniformity, and recognition of feelings as class qualifiers.

So, what is the role of government with respect to pursuing American happiness?

Is government the right social instrument to change unpopular behaviors? – No.

The progressive assumption is that because there is an inferior population that believes the superior population needs to change in order for them to feel fairly included and equally treated, then there must be a government program to effect that change on behalf of the inferior group. The fallacy is the assumption that the inferior population is small and will remain small. This does not hold because when a government subsidizes the solution to a problem, then more of that problem will develop. In other words, when a government recognizes parity of an inferior group with the superior group, then the inferior group will grow in order to gain recognition and begin to demand resources. In turn, because resources are limited, government will forcibly acquire and redistribute resources from those that have to those that do not. The moral foundation for this action is the assumption that wealth is wrongfully stolen versus rightfully earned. Therefore, differential treatment of others due to any dissimilarity is moral justification for action and the use of force.

Of course, this is nonsense. It is plain to observe around the globe and throughout all of recorded time that dissimilarity of persons, peoples, and groups is a matter of natural law. Additionally, the progressive belief that wealth can be stolen gives rise to the idea that wealth is subject to ownership. Therefore, because wealth is owned and can be stolen, it can also be rightfully earned. If wealth can be rightfully earned, and dissimilarity is a matter of natural law, then what is the true need for government involvement? Simply stated, the true need for government involvement is power.

Is government the right instrument to secure social guarantees? – No.

The progressive assumption about perceived social injustice is that future wrong-doing can be successfully addressed by adjusting the rules of society. They promise that Scenario-A can no longer happen because of Law-B. In other words, they present a type of social guarantee.


Again, this is nonsense. As with any human endeavor, when a government proposes change, that government cannot guarantee that this or that will happen. History has shown again and again, that regardless of the amount of force applied by the government onto a people, that government can never guarantee that anything will happen or not happen when anything is changed. This is not a useful argument for objective analysis or debate on any level because it assumes an outcome. Its sole purpose is to plant and cultivate fear.

Can government mandate happiness, meaning prosperity in terms of property ownership, personal safety, and financial security, on behalf of one individual without oppressing another? – No

Going Forward – A Solution

For a free People to flourish, then the following ideals must be realized in real life: the government must be restrained; everyone is singularly responsible for their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and the circumstances in which they are found; no one has the right to do what is wrong. – All of these ideals begin with subordinating the government to a morally straight People.

It’s time for Americans to take to heart the true meaning and value of the American way of life.  The American way of life is a liberating force, not a progressive license.

It’s time for Americans to set aside partisan hatred, turn off the media crap, and elect morally strong statesmen, representatives, and judges. The American way requires leaders that are strongly aligned according to what is morally right, not what is dominantly popular. It is always up to us, the citizens of this nation, to select and empower those that have strong moral character and high respect for our common American ideals.

It’s time for Americans to take charge and remove those that believe otherwise. They work for us. Not the other way around.

Thank you. – Sam Frescoe

Your View

Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I invite you to tell me what you believe with the comment section below or at samfrescoe@gmail.com. Please check out The Sam Frescoe Project on Facebook.

© 2016 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com – All Rights Reserved



[i] The New York City Human Rights Law; Administrative Code of the City of New York Title 8; http://www.nyc.gov/html/cchr/downloads/pdf/human-rights/nyc-human-rights-law.pdf  (accessed 26 Dec 2015)

Fairness and Equality – What are we doing to ourselves?


By Sam Frescoe
samfrescoe@gmail.com
http://samfrescoeproject.blogspot.com/
The Sam Frescoe Project

Who wants fairness and equality in their lives? I do. I must admit, at first glance, the idea of more fairness and equality seems like a great American idea. Let’s face it, it sounds good to say, and it feels good to consider.

Thinking of myself before others, my initial thoughts are along these lines: “Okay, Sam, how are you going to get more fairness and equality in your life?” “Okay, Sam, how are others going to provide more fairness and equality in your life?” However, if I think of others before myself and begin again, then my thoughts begin to change: “Okay Sam, how are others going to get more fairness and equality in their lives?” “Okay, Sam, how are others going to provide more fairness and equality in their lives?” And, because these are simply thoughts and opinions, there are thousands of additional questions that can be asked as well.

However, when ideas of “fairness and equality” become entrained in discourse, law, and the American Way of Life, then the context of “fairness and equality” is no longer confined to the “thoughts and opinions” of a person; but, expands to influence the “culture and governance” of a society. In turn, the ideas of “fairness and equality” take on moral and virtue tones, and demand careful examination in such terms.

“So What?”

So what is an all-American solution to the question of “fairness and equality”?

If the United States of America is to remain true to its founding principles (self-evident and inalienable right to life, liberty, and pursuit of wealth), then how should those principles be folded into daily life?

If America is a nation of freedom loving People, then what is the role of government relative to The People and The People relative to the government?

What is the value of “fairness and equality”?

“Fairness and Equality” in America

The subjective nature of “fairness and equality” is well suited to sustaining the seemingly never-ending back-and-forth of rivals. This is not unique to America, nor is it a recent development; and, this turbulence weighed on the minds of The Founders.

“The public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.” – James Madison, Federalist #10

“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. – Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would at the same time be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.” – James Madison, Federalist #10

Understanding subjective nature of “fairness and equality” is as critically important today as it was before the Constitution was ratified. Madison warns us of this nature and describes it as follows: it’s un-just and oppressive; it’s chaotic and conflict-oriented; it’s in opposition to natural law; it’s violent and leads to death of accordance; it’s contrary to human nature.

The People – The Government

I subscribe to the following ideals: For a free People to flourish, then the government must be restrained; everyone is singularly responsible for their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and the circumstances in which they are found; no one has the right to do what is wrong. – In other words, with regard to The People, the government can take a flying leap.

“Just because it is important, does it follow that we should have government provide it?” – “Obedience to law is liberty,” L. Tom Perry

If The People turn to the government in matters of “fairness and equality”, then how should the government (the monopoly holder over use of force and determination of justice) be constrained? If The People expect the government to be impartial, then by what framework does should government abide? If a “fair and equitable” framework exists, then how would The People create, recognize, and protect it? Again, Madison points us in the direction to go.

For a free People to flourish under a limited government, then that government must secure the following ideals on behalf of The People: promote the natural law, individual justice for all, and collective oppression for none.

Today’s Discourse

America’s history is rich and troubled by movements seeking to adjust the “fairness and equality” equilibrium across society. From the 1920’s to today, the struggle for “fairness and equality” continues. But, has all of this effort actually benefited The People? Well, truth be told, yes and no. Again, it depends on your point of view.

Movement
Individual Justice
Collective Oppression
Labor (1920-1950)
Workers
Business Owners
Civil Rights (1950-1970)
Minorities
Everyone Else
Women’s Rights (1960-1980)
Women
Men
LGBTQ Rights (1960-Now)
LGBTQ
Everyone Else
Environmental (1960-Now)
Government
The People
Disability Rights (1970-Now)
Disabled
Business Owners
Racial Justice (1980-Now)
Minorities
Everyone Else
Reproductive Rights (1980-Now)
Women
Born and Unborn
Justice Movements (1980-Now)
Those Selected
Those Blamed

My first question is this: where is the natural law? – A natural law is an individual right that is given by no person, is taken from no person, and exists regardless of government recognition.

Movement
Natural Law
Labor (1920-1950)
 
Civil Rights (1950-1970)
Human value of individuals regardless of how that individual was created.
Women’s Rights (1960-1980)
 
LGBTQ Rights (1960-Now)
 
Environmental (1960-Now)
 
Disability Rights (1970-Now)
Human value of individuals regardless of how that individual was created.
Racial Justice (1980-Now)
 
Reproductive Rights (1980-Now)
 
Justice Movements (1980-Now)
 

My second question: why are we doing this? – The answer is deceptively plain: to leverage the virtue of justice in order to settle a dispute between society and culture.

Movement
Society-Culture Dispute
Labor (1920-1950)
What is a worker’s value?
Civil Rights (1950-1970)
What is a human’s value?
Women’s Rights (1960-1980)
What is a woman’s value?
LGBTQ Rights (1960-Now)
What is the value of the different?
Environmental (1960-Now)
What is the value of the environment?
Disability Rights (1970-Now)
What is a human’s value?
Racial Justice (1980-Now)
What is the value of feelings and the past?
Reproductive Rights (1980-Now)
What is the value of personal choices?
Justice Movements (1980-Now)
What is the value of feelings and the past?

Going Forward – A Solution

First things are first. For a freedom loving People to live a free individuals, then two things must exist is equal measure: moral straightness, and government restraint. Both begin with the recognition of natural law as an absolute. 

Second, individual justice for all means that each individual person is singularly responsible for their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and the circumstances in which they are found. There are no qualifiers.

Third, collective oppression for none means that no one has the right to do what is wrong. To do otherwise, is a violation of natural law and accountability of the individual.

Finally, courageous people of high moral character must rise up with a common voice to accomplish three things: subordinate the government; permit, promote, and do that which is good (not feels good, but is good); ostracize and punish that which is evil (the actor and the bystander).

Thank you. – Sam Frescoe


Your View

Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I invite you to tell me what you believe with the comment section below or at samfrescoe@gmail.com. Please check out The Sam Frescoe Project on Facebook.

© 2016 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com – All Rights Reserved