A common form of state policy, if not a natural strategy, is to handicap some people and then come back on a white horse to save them in return for their support. The practice is not new and comes in many shapes. We had an illustration yesterday when President Donald Trump took on to Twitter to reinforce the bullying of his Attorney General who wants to force Apple to help decrypt its iPhones or, better, to offer a permanent backdoor to the government (and to other hackers).
We are helping Apple all of the time on TRADE and so many other issues, and yet they refuse to unlock phones used by killers, drug dealers and other violent criminal elements.
The caps on “trade” are from the president himself. Obviously, “the United States” is being taken advantage of again. The president added (the Wall Street Journal did not quote this last bit):
They will have to step up to the plate and help our great Country, NOW! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.
As we know, Apple needed help on trade because the president’s trade war itself was threatening the company’s customers with price hikes.
As if a Providence of Humor had arranged the whole affair and wanted to make sure we did not miss her visible hand, the excuse for this new government attack on encryption is a crime that was committed in a facility of the federal government itself and a military facility at that, and while training soldiers from a foreign allied tyranny.
Right now, H.L. Mencken must be begging God to let him come back.
READER COMMENTS
Phil H
Jan 15 2020 at 9:49pm
While I completely agree with the sentiment here, it is important to note just how strong America’s constitution is proving to be. Trump can tweet whatever he likes, and it doesn’t make the blindest bit of difference. His tweets are not government actions.
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 15 2020 at 11:05pm
You’re right, and that’s the hope. However, overt disregard for the truth likely corrupts the constitution. How much remains to be seen.
nobody.really
Jan 16 2020 at 12:22am
This post illustrates the difference between Trump’s transnational worldview and a more liberal/libertarian world view. Liberals/libertarians have a philosophical idea of autonomy, and believe government has a duty to defend that autonomy without any (incremental) fee. Trump appears to be freed from such a limiting metaphysics. Duty is a foreign concept to him. Instead, he sees everything government does as a kind of largess that he provides, and he expects favors in return.
I sometimes like to imagine that I’m freed from intellectual prejudices. But Trump disabuses me of this notion. Rather, it is he who is free of intellectual prejudices–free to embrace nihilism. And I find myself, like any fundamentalist, writhing in revulsion.
That said, is there some specific Mencken reference that I should know related to this topic?
IronSig
Jan 16 2020 at 1:42pm
I assume you meant the President has a “transactional view.” Transnationalism would go against the realpolitick “sphere of influence” paradigm from which he occasionally launches complaints and frustrations.
That said, I would say that the president lives with little interest of stringing together concepts and really thinking until he ruminates away contradition. He’s basically Thrasymachus with bone spurs, raised by a far more individualistic society.
I can’t find the columns from a few search results, but several of my favorite Mencken columns are blistering rasps against Maryland sheriff’s and police departments that neither prevented nor investigated lynchings, accusing them of deriliction of duty.
https://niemanreports.org/articles/h-l-mencken-courage-in-a-time-of-lynching/
Despite his admiration of Nietzsche, Mencken insisted that if government is to be trusted, it must commit itself to a constant duty. In fact, if the government is ever going to be a help and never a hindrance to the personal excellence that Nietzscheans await, than a liberal guarantee should be the governments baseline duty.
Thomas Hutcheson
Jan 16 2020 at 5:12am
I agree with the main point, but I’d dispute that this is a common form of state policy. Most transfers do not just try to offset or make right some other state-imposed disability.
Fred
Jan 16 2020 at 11:05am
I have wondered about this issue. Tariffs on Chinese goods lead to them lowering importation of American soybeans resulting in a larger supply in our country that lowers the price of feed and ultimately the price of pork. Meanwhile, the President graciously hands out price support dollars to farmers. Consumers are happy with the price of bacon; farmers are happy with the support dollars; everybody wins especially the President.
Jon Murphy
Jan 16 2020 at 11:50am
Not quite. You’re not looking at the whole picture. Consumers may be facing lower prices for bacon, but they are facing higher prices for other goods (because of the tariffs) and higher taxes (either now or in the future) to pay for the subsidies. Farmers are facing the lost business because of the retaliatory tariffs (and no guarantee they will get it back) and even the support dollars do not appear to be enough as many are now facing bankruptcy. The government faces the costs of the lost projects those funds could have gone to.
Not to mention all the deadweight loss from the tariffs themselves.
Comments are closed.