How is it possible for a court, Supreme or otherwise, to be divided along ideological lines? The purpose of courts is to uphold and, if necessary, interpret the law. Courts must be above ideology, else they mock the very law they purport to uphold.
The USA is obviously not in so much danger that President Chump can't spend a week arguing the toss with the courts and then jetting off to Florida for the weekend, rather than immediately and humbly withdrawing the existing order, redrafting it and issuing a new legal one. Methinks this is a vanity issue, rather than the stated one of security. The courts are an obvious scapegoat for his incompetence.
I was having a discussion with Hay about the situation in the UK and the prevailing opinion among commentators that politicians are out of touch with the electorate. I think it's an over-simplification - many of them are themselves from the working class and all have teams of people within their constituencies producing surveys and seeing people in surgeries. What I think is the issue is that much of the electorate has totally unrealistic expectations - free NHS, libraries opened, buses subsidised, social care for the elderly, but with reductions in taxation while we're trying to pay off a huge bill for the 2008/9 financial crisis. It simply doesn't work like that - no party has ever been elected that stood on a manifesto of increasing taxation. It's the electorate that's out of touch with reality, as evidenced by the record, unsustainable, personal debt mountain.
That's not to say this is the only issue - the loss of manufacturing to a service economy hits the poorly educated and low paid more than the well educated, as it's manufacturing and assembling things that provides them with jobs, so yes, globalisation and the search for cheaper labour is a contributary cause of disaffection with the world order, but how can that be changed within a capitalist system that demands competitiveness for growth?
Perhaps it's time the powers that be gave consideration to the concept of a universal wage, funded by creaming off some of the profits from a rampant system that cares more for profit than people. But then those companies will simply move to a country where they can continue to operate as they always have. It's a difficult question that requires a global solution (there's that word global again), or simply higher taxes for those who have the money but can't move - the better paid electorate. We've come full circle though, as turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
The usual answer is populists politics that promise everything but deliver nothing, except a loss of freedom and possibly igniting war in the process. That said, war is good for making things and eliminating surplus populations...
The USA is obviously not in so much danger that President Chump can't spend a week arguing the toss with the courts and then jetting off to Florida for the weekend, rather than immediately and humbly withdrawing the existing order, redrafting it and issuing a new legal one. Methinks this is a vanity issue, rather than the stated one of security. The courts are an obvious scapegoat for his incompetence.
I was having a discussion with Hay about the situation in the UK and the prevailing opinion among commentators that politicians are out of touch with the electorate. I think it's an over-simplification - many of them are themselves from the working class and all have teams of people within their constituencies producing surveys and seeing people in surgeries. What I think is the issue is that much of the electorate has totally unrealistic expectations - free NHS, libraries opened, buses subsidised, social care for the elderly, but with reductions in taxation while we're trying to pay off a huge bill for the 2008/9 financial crisis. It simply doesn't work like that - no party has ever been elected that stood on a manifesto of increasing taxation. It's the electorate that's out of touch with reality, as evidenced by the record, unsustainable, personal debt mountain.
That's not to say this is the only issue - the loss of manufacturing to a service economy hits the poorly educated and low paid more than the well educated, as it's manufacturing and assembling things that provides them with jobs, so yes, globalisation and the search for cheaper labour is a contributary cause of disaffection with the world order, but how can that be changed within a capitalist system that demands competitiveness for growth?
Perhaps it's time the powers that be gave consideration to the concept of a universal wage, funded by creaming off some of the profits from a rampant system that cares more for profit than people. But then those companies will simply move to a country where they can continue to operate as they always have. It's a difficult question that requires a global solution (there's that word global again), or simply higher taxes for those who have the money but can't move - the better paid electorate. We've come full circle though, as turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
The usual answer is populists politics that promise everything but deliver nothing, except a loss of freedom and possibly igniting war in the process. That said, war is good for making things and eliminating surplus populations...
No comments:
Post a Comment