Pages

Sunday, August 26, 2018

Should only one side play by the rules?

The legal noose is tightening around Trump. A few observations:

1. I don't know what Trump opponents hope to accomplish. If the end-game is forcing him to resign, legal threats are counterproductive. To my knowledge, a sitting president can't be indicted. He can only be prosecuted after he leaves office. By building a criminal case against Trump, they are giving him a disincentive to resign. Since he enjoys legal immunity so long as he's in office, they are giving him a powerful incentive to finish out his first term, run for reelection, and run out the clock. It may even be possible for a president to pardon himself on the way out. So what's the point? 

Technically he might try to cut a backroom deal with Pence, but that's unenforceable. If he resigns and Pence takes over, he has no leverage over Pence. Moreover, there's no presumption that Pence would win in 2020. So why take the risk?

2. Trump poses a moral challenge for conservative ideologues. Is it possible to support the Trump administration when it does good things without becoming morally complicit in his misconduct? This is an issue raised by Ben Shapiro:


On the one hand, there's the danger of moral drift. Do we keep adjusting our standards to excuse Trump? There's the danger of resorting to one compromise after another. 

3. Insofar as Trump may have broken the law, that seems to go back to his previous career as a private businessman. Some of Trump's shady business practices are catching up with him. That's fair game. But thus far I don't think he's broken any laws as president. 

4. While Shapiro makes some good points and raises some valid concerns, his own position fails to draw some necessary distinctions. In this post I'll fall back on some principles I've articulated before Trump ever threw his had into the ring. So this isn't me reinventing my ethics in the Trump era. For instance:

i) I did this post two months before he even announced his presidential bid: 


ii) Most of my posts about deception antedate the Trump candidacy. 

iii) During the Bush 43 administration, I objected to treating terrorists like POWs. I pointed out that the laws of warfare are based on reciprocity. 

iv) Likewise, I cited the salus populi suprema lex principle.  

5. All things being equal, the rule of law is very important. But that's not absolute. Maybe Shapiro is using "law" as a shorthand expression. Take so-called campaign finance "laws". Aren't some of these actually regulations promulgated by the FEC? 

If so, we have a huge problem with the regulatory state, where Congress abdicates its responsibility, giving Executive agencies a blank check. That subverts the democratic process. Rather than elected lawmakers answerable to the voter, unaccountable Executive bureaucracies become rogue dictatorships. 

In addition, it's my impression that some (many? most?) campaign finance "laws" violate Constitutional free speech. Not to mention rubbery laws. 

6. There's a standard distinction between laws of morality and laws of utility. We need to distinguish between moral norms and legal technicalities. And even in the case of moral norms, there are priorities. Not all moral obligations are equally obligatory, and sometimes duties conflict. 

We can never justify wrongdoing, but that's not equivalent to law and policy. For instance, consider the California law that punishes employees with imprisonment if they refuse to use the transgender speech code. Or consider the bill working its way through the Sacramento legislature to crack down on churches that don't capitulate to the LGBT agenda. There's nothing morally sacrosanct about those laws. 

7. It's harebrained to play by the rules if the other side routinely breaks the rules to win. That's a recipe for unilateral disarmament. At that point the rules subvert their original rationale. Imagine playing by the rules when you know the opposing team bribed the referees? Why play at all under those conditions? Why go through the motions? 

8. Under Obama, agencies like the FBI and DOJ tried to rig the election for Hillary. And there's a continued effort to sabotage the will of the electorate. They refuse to accept the fact that Trump is the duly elected president. They use any means at their disposal to nullify the elections results. To disenfranchise Trump voters. (And I didn't even vote for Trump.)

There's no obligation to cooperate with that agenda. This isn't ultimately about fighting for Trump but fighting for our Constitutional liberties. Defending majority rule and the consent of the governed. 

4 comments:

  1. I agree with your analysis, but I wonder if another factor at play, in addition to your points, in Shapiro’s position is that of persuasion. Does this analysis have any persuasive power with those who aren’t already in agreement with conservatives? Maybe Shapiro thinks that the moral consistency argument will stand a better chance at gaining a hearing from others, specifically Millennials. Better luck convincing others to follow our consistent example than for us to follow leftists’ double standards.

    ReplyDelete
  2. For the meantime it seems that some books in the Cambridge Elements series is freely available at the following link. It includes:

    Miracles by David Basinger

    The Atonement by William Lane Craig

    Atheism and Agnosticism by Graham Oppy

    Cosmological Arguments by Michael Almeida

    https://www.cambridge.org/core/series/elements-in-the-philosophy-of-religion/6DB49122CD407CF5E4CB65DE7BCC052E

    I got the link on facebook when professor Yujin Nagasawa posted:

    Mike Almeida's new book in the Cambridge Elements series _Cosmological Arguments_ is out! You can download it for FREE!
    https://www.cambridge.org/…/6DB49122CD407CF5E4CB65DE7BCC052E

    ReplyDelete
  3. //By building a criminal case against Trump, they are giving him a disincentive to resign. Since he enjoys legal immunity so long as he's in office, they are giving him a powerful incentive to finish out his first term, run for reelection, and run out the clock.//

    Anyone else think that if there aren't any major surprises in the future that Trump's re-election seems very likely? It seems that way to me for a few reasons.

    1. Conservatives like myself who didn't vote for Trump because they didn't know what they'd be voting for, now DO know what kind of POTUS he'd be and will likely vote for him in 2020. I voted third party for only the second time in 2016 [Darrell Castle]. Trump's policies have been very good for the most part because he's surrounded by conservatives. Trump plays with those who are willing to play with him. Since liberals and (esp.) lefties refuse to cooperate with him, he's only getting advice from conservatives. That's the irony of liberal politicians attacking him. He'd take their advice or compromise if only they stroked his ego.

    2. The "Walk Away Movement" is gaining more and more momentum that by the time 2020 comes around it'll seriously affect democratic votes in a negative way. More and more democrats are awakening to the corruption, lies and evils of the democratic party, agendas and politicians. For example, Since Hillary lost, democrats are willing examine and admit that she was a seriously flawed candidate. Many democrats are silently opposed to SJW agendas but don't openly admit it for fear of reprisals. Some of those will either vote for Trump or not vote at all, or vote 3rd party [wasted vote?]. Many liberals in the democratic party feel that the party has been taken over by the extreme views of lefties.

    3. Like the first reason, I suspect some (many?) of those who were disgusted with Trump and intentionally voted against him in 2016 now realize that he hasn't been that bad of a president and has, in fact, jump started the economy. So they'd be less aggressive and intentional on voting for the 2020 democratic candidate as they were last time. Since they didn't win via the electorial college the last time, there's no reason to think they will this time.

    4. The conservative movement is experiencing a rebirth due to folks like Shapiro, Klavan, Knowles, Crowder, Young Conservatives of America (etc.). Then there are silent or not so silent partial sympathizers like Dave Rubin, Joe Rogan [and his influential podcast] etc. While I doubt folks like Bill Maher would ever vote Republican, even he is mocking the insanity of leftist extremism. The socialistic and fascistic tendencies of the Democratic party are being exposed as well as the reasons why they don't work in real life is being disseminated. Think of the effective Prager University videos.

    5. At present there is no plausible democratic potential candidate who's got the charisma, following and visibility that matches Trump's.

    Before the 2016 election when some said Trump could never become POTUS I said that they were underestimating the ignorance, folly and wickedness of U.S. voters. I think I was proved right. My prediction so far is that Trump will be re-elected barring sickness or a refusal to run again in 2020.

    ReplyDelete