Allen Gindler
The Trump Presidency is not boring, that is for sure. His public appearances, pressers, interviews and, most importantly, the actions of his administration have given ample cause for ongoing and heated debates.
Such exchanges of opinions, happen not only on podcasts, TV programs, or newspaper columns but also among family members and close friends. As a rule, there are two camps that take part in the discourse: Trump supporters and his opponents. However, my personal experience has added a more nuanced position, which I called critique from the right, that is, from the libertarian point of view. More precisely, from the point of view of classical liberalism.
My friends utterly reject the leftist policies of progressivism, wokeism, DEI (“Don’t Earn It”), cancel culture, mandatory redistribution of wealth, open borders and illegal immigration, and any form of collectivization. They are proponents of freedom and against all forms of terrorism or aggression (whether Hamas or Russia). And yet, we manage to find a discrepancy in the understanding and explanation of Trump’s policies. I chose the neutral, independent stance politically, as libertarianism does not have a viable political organization in the US political duopoly settings. But libertarianism has a rich philosophical tenet that forms a pretty coherent worldview. My friends jumped onto the MAGA bandwagon, and their worldview shrank to the slogan “Trump is always right.”
So, what is my critique from the right of Trump’s policies? His program started with a slew of presidential orders, and some of them caused genuine amazement and made me wary. One of the first orders was “renaming” of the Gulf of Mexico. I put renaming in quotes as the body of water designated in the presidential order does not encompass the entire gulf but renames the U.S. Continental Shelf portion, which does not adhere to the definition of the gulf. Thus, the actual renaming has never happened. Trump’s assistants fooled the President, and he in turn continues to deceive the public, firmly believing that his vision is fulfilled.
The renaming business continues. Now we have the Department of War and the Secretary of War. Did we? Not really. The order stated, “The Secretary of Defense is authorized the use of this additional secondary title — the Secretary of War — and may be recognized by that title in official correspondence, public communications, ceremonial contexts, and non-statutory documents within the executive branch.” And further, “Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of War shall submit to the President, through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, a recommendation on the actions required to permanently change the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of War.” (italic is mine). Statutory references to the Department of Defense remain controlling until changed by law. Thus, the main and the official names for all branches of government and governments abroad are still the Department of Defense and the Secretary of Defense. Some can use the secondary titles (aliases) — the Department and the Secretary of War — to appear tougher, I guess.
No comments:
Post a Comment