Once upon a time, I found myself managing part of a large
outsourcing contract, with a customer who turned out to be, shall we say, a
little difficult. The approach to anything they didn’t like was a combination
of shouting and threats, and there was a lot they didn’t like and on which the
contract was either silent or vague. In an internal meeting, I asked the guy
who had negotiated the contract how on earth we’d got ourselves into such a
situation where there was so little clarity on the detail, and his response was
along the lines of, “We thought we were dealing with honourable people”.
An interesting, if less than entirely helpful response.
I wonder if the framers of the 22nd
Amendment to the US Constitution may have been suffering from a similar degree
of trust in the integrity of individuals. It seems to me to be crystal-clear
that Trump is ineligible to stand again, yet he repeatedly holds out the prospect
of serving a third term. But what’s not clear from the amendment itself is the
actual mechanism for preventing him from standing. Can the US equivalent of the
Returning Officer refuse to accept his nomination? Can the Chief Justice refuse
to swear him in? Or was it just assumed that making his ineligibility clear was
enough in itself? The issue would probably end up before multiple judges at
some point. It’s probably academic, though. I don’t think that Trump has any
intention of fighting another presidential election, even if the ravages of
time (he’s not a young man and is clearly deteriorating both physically and
mentally) throw at least a degree of doubt on whether he will be able to. He
was quite taken with what Zelensky told him some months ago about not holding
elections during a period of martial law – his preference is likely to be for a
third term without the bother of an election.
The framers of the 25th
Amendment may have suffered from a similarly touching degree of faith in
the integrity of individuals. Whilst they wisely foresaw the possibility that a
president might need to be removed from office if he was no longer able to
discharge the duties, including by reason of insanity, they don’t seem to have allowed
for the possibility that those given the responsibility for deciding that the
president was insane might be even madder, just better at completing an
occasional sentence. Those US citizens – to say nothing of the rest of the
world – resting their hopes on Vance and the Cabinet eventually deciding that
enough is enough should be careful what they wish for. There is absolutely no
reason for anyone to believe that the removal of Trump would end the nightmare.
The whole approach of governments the world over, including
Starmer in the UK, seems to be predicated on an assumption that there will be
an end to Trumpism in a defined electoral timescale. They need to be preparing
a Plan B.
Posts
2 comments:
Comfort ye my people. Its not what you think. I say this because I follow US politics closely and am married to a Southern Belle from N.Carolina, quietly the oldest colony. 22nd Amendment: Trump is absolutely not seeking a 3rd term. There are a number of reasons/aspects. He has said he won't, many times. I personally think he is feeling his age badly. His health is not 100%. It was clear from his Inaugural that he had a 2-year timescale ie get to the 2026 Mid-Terms. Everything pointed to this. He might lose the House in 2026 and become a lame duck - as he is very well aware. He might like to rest on his oars then and let the next generation (Vance, Rubio, Desantis) have a shot, which is very wise. He wants the US in safe hands because he cares for the next generation as an affectionate grandfather would. But he is Trump, and is a wind-up merchant. An American boosterist, if you like. Just stops short of actually lying. So he will tease about things and say "A lotta people want me to stand again....." But somehow it is not reported that he then says, as I have heard, "No, the law is clear. I can't." As I say, I don't think he wants to. He has a number of problems. His Tariff policy is an instinctual Trumpian gamble and might go sour. Trump, being a construction guy ie male is just not interested in health policy. But he realises its political importance, which is different. He was disgusted in 2016 that the GOP had no policy to offer. He has said again and again he will not cut health provision, whatever the MSM say. But he knows his party needs a viable health policy which cuts the cost of health and has not got one. He is completely vulnerable on health. But that'll be a problem for Vance etc. And for Marjorie Taylor Greene who is very vocal indeed on this gap in GoP policy.
What's has happened to you, Borthlas, is that you have been lied to by the US media which thinks its ok to lie, because the ends justify the means. Nothing illustrates this better than lies about Trump and 22A. And lies about Biden who, not Trump, should have been booted under the 25th Amendment. As we now know, the lying has spread to at least the BBC in the UK. We all need the micro-media as some kind of check or corrective as we try to navigate the future. I am very pleased that Plaid - at last, and like the rest of the world - is inching towards the centre and could do well in Wales. Its base would like it to. Its activists are still capable of wrecking things eg bumping Luke Fletcher down the hated party list. Things might get better, though maybe there'll be an almighty shake-out first.
Clearly whether Trump does or does not want a third term is an interesting academic debate - I think he does, you think he doesn't; only time will tell who is right. I think we agree, though, that his obvious, if repeatedly denied, health issues make it unlikely to be a viable option anyway. Whether he has enough self-awareness to realise that is another of those issues which only time will answer.
I'm not at all sure that he will ever "let the next generation (Vance, Rubio, Desantis) have a shot" - at least not with the individuals you name. They've changed their minds abut him before, and who's to say that they won't do so again? It seems to me that the only people he really trusts, even a little, are his own family and if there has to be a succession, I suspect he'd prefer it to be dynastic rather than electoral.
"Just stops short of actually lying" - when I read this, it was the immortal words of John McEnroe ("You cannot be serious") which leapt into my mind. He lies, regularly, compulsively and instinctively, even when the truth would serve him better. Just compare two possible statements a) I had an MRI, I don't know on which part of my body, I don't know what they were looking for, but it's normal, everyone has one, and the doctors said they'd never seen one so good and b) I had an MRI on my _____ because the doctors thought there might be a problem, but it came back entirely normal. I wouldn't know whether to believe the last part of option b, but sticking close to the truth would surely have been a much better option.
I don't consume US media, so I'm not sure how I could have been deceived by their lies. And I've long assumed that much of what I read in the UK media is at the least biassed. I also tend to agree with you that someone should have been looking at the 25th for Biden, but the fact that they didn't isn't much of a reason for not considering it for Trump. That merely turns a serious issue into a partisan argument.
Post a Comment