What is Trump’s White House About on Politics?
April 5, 2017
Abstract: Americans have never seen a government like Trump before, and because of this, there are little consensus what Trump government is about, other than seeing the result of the government, meaning the policies that comes out, and some genera consensus that there are a great deal of lying and fake news from the government. And there is not a great deal have been written about what Trump’s government is about other than a few saying Trump is authoritarian and other saying Trump is a Fascist. However, there is much evidence to draw some general conclusion. And these are Nepotism, Cronyism, Oligarchy, Kleptocracy, Corporatocracy, Fascism, Orwell’s 1984 & Grifter. These are political thinking that are used mostly in developing countries. With these, clearly, America’s democracy is not functioning well & there is a cost.
Underlying that Trump’s political beliefs & philosophy, is Trump as a person. And here, much have been said that Trump suffers some mental problems & is mostly about dirty and corrupt tactics in being “Transactional.”
Transactional analysis (TA) is an integration approach to the theory of psychology and psychotherapy. TA is described as integrative because it has elements of psychoanalytics, humanist and cognitive approaches. TA was first developed by Canadian-born US psychiatrist Eric Berne, starting in the late 1959s and TA is a widely recognized form of modern psychology. TA is a theory for analysing human behavior and communications. TA is a model for explaining why and how people think, act and interact like they do. TA is very useful in studying various behavior patterns and TA is a social psychology and method to improve communications.
What is Tr Government About
What is Trump about when it comes to governing a country, many have asked and many have gave explanations. For me, there is enough facts, truth and reality to answer this question, Trump government is, basically, a combination of fundamentals, with lots from some of the and less from other.
The fundamentals are Nepotism, Cronyism, Oligarchy, Kleptocracy, Corporatocracy, Fascism, Orwell’s 1984 & Grifter
Clearly, with those 8 fundamentals, Trump’s America is far from being a well functioning “Democracy.” In fact, these fundamentals are what many developing countries are about. According to political scientist Larry Diamond, democracy consists of four key elements: (a) A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections; (b) The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life; (c) Protection of the human rights of all citizens, and (d) A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.
The 8 Fundamentals of Trump Government:
Nepotism: is based on favoritism granted to relatives in various fields, including business, politics, entertainment, sports, religion and other activities. The term originated with the assignment of nephews to important positions by Catholicpopes and bishops.
Cronyism: is the practice of partiality in awarding jobs and other advantages to friends or trusted colleagues, especially in politics and between politicians and supportive organizations. For instance, this includes appointing “cronies” to positions of authority, regardless of their qualifications. The Russian president Vladimir Putin is alleged to be the “head of the clan”, whose assets are estimated at $200 billion. A list of Russian and Ukrainian politicians associated with “kleptocractic style” has been published by the Kleptocracy Archives project.
Oligarchy: meaning ‘few’, and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning ‘to rule or to command’) is a form of power structure in which power rests with a small number of people. These people might be distinguished by nobility, wealth, family ties, education or corporate, religious or military control. Such states are often controlled by a few prominent families who typically pass their influence from one generation to the next, but inheritance is not a necessary condition for the application of this term.
Kleptocracy: from Proto-Indo-European *klep- (“to steal”); and from the Ancient Greek suffix -κρατία (-kratía), from κράτος (krátos, “power, rule”; klépto– thieves + –kratos rule, literally “rule by thieves”) is a government with corrupt rulers (kleptocrats) that use their power to exploit the people and natural resources of their own territory in order to extend their personal wealth and political power. Typically this system involves the embezzlement of state funds at the expense of the wider population, sometimes without even the pretense of honest service.
Corporatocracy: is a recent term used to refer to an economic and political system controlled by corporations or corporate interests. It is most often used today as a term to describe the current economic situation in a particular country, especially the United States. This is different from corporatism, which is the organisation of society into groups with common interests. Corporatocracy as a term is often used by observers across the political spectrum.
Fascism: Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies. Since the end of World War II in 1945, few parties have openly described themselves as fascist, and the term is instead now usually used pejoratively by political opponents. The descriptions neo-fascist or post-fascist are sometimes applied more formally to describe parties of the far right with ideologies similar to, or rooted in, 20th century fascist movements.
1984: is a dystopian novel published in 1949 by English author George Orwell. The novel is set in Airstrip One (formerly known as Great Britain), a province of the superstate Oceania in a world of perpetual war, omnipresent government surveillance, and public manipulation. The superstate and its residents are dictated to by a political regime euphemistically named English Socialism, shortened to “Ingsoc” in Newspeak, the government’s invented language. The superstate is under the control of the privileged elite of the Inner Party, a party and government that persecutes individualism and independent thinking as “thoughtcrime“, which is enforced by the “Thought Police“.
Grifter: A confidence trick (synonyms include confidence game, confidence scheme, ripoff, scam and stratagem) is an attempt to defraud a person or group after first gaining their confidence, used in the classical sense of trust. Confidence tricks exploit characteristics of the human psyche such as dishonesty, vanity, compassion, credulity, irresponsibility, naïveté and greed.
Trump’s Fundamentals and Corruption
With those shades of Trump, various types of corruption in America have flourished,
Forms of corruption vary, but include bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, parochialism, patronage, influence peddling, graft, and embezzlement. Corruption may facilitate criminal enterprise such as drug trafficking, money laundering, and human trafficking, though is not restricted to these activities. Misuse of government power for other purposes, such as repression of political opponents and general police brutality, is also considered political corruption.
The activities that constitute illegal corruption differ depending on the country or jurisdiction. For instance, some political funding practices that are legal in one place may be illegal in another. In some cases, government officials have broad or ill-defined powers, which make it difficult to distinguish between legal and illegal actions. Worldwide, bribery alone is estimated to involve over 1 trillion US dollars annually. A state of unrestrained political corruption is known as a kleptocracy, literally meaning “rule by thieves”.
Some forms of corruption – now called “institutional corruption” – are distinguished from bribery and other kinds of obvious personal gain. A similar problem of corruption arises in any institution that depends on financial support from people who have interests that may conflict with the primary purpose of the institution.
Political Corruption is the use of powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain. An illegal act by an officeholder constitutes political corruption only if the act is directly related to their official duties, is done under color of law or involves trading in influence.
Trump’s Fundamentals, Corruption and the Rule of Law:
Trump’s shades, bringing to America vast corruptions of various types, have greatly damaged America’s Rule of Law.
Corruption’s Impact on the Rule of Law & Security (source): Moving from the Vicious to the Virtuous, no country is free from the risk of corruption, but from Ukraine to Afghanistan, from Nigeria to Iraq, the tide is turning on the acceptance of corruption as a benign issue that ‘greases the wheels of bureaucracy.’ Rather, corruption is now recognized as gravely contributing to global insecurity, manifesting in human rights violations, and even being considered a human rights violation itself. Corruption drives citizen grievance and mistrust towards the state by corroding rule of law institutions. Corruption compromises the security sector, rendering it unable to respond to threats or making it a threat itself. Finally, corruption enables rule of law spoilers – criminals, terrorists, and kleptocrats – to thrive.
The “Rule of Law” is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by arbitrary decisions of individual government officials. It primarily refers to the influence and authority of law within society, particularly as a constraint upon behaviour, including behaviour of government officials. The phrase can be traced back to 16th century Britain, and in the following century the Scottish theologian Samuel Rutherford used the phrase in his argument against the divine right of kings. John Locke defined freedom under the rule of law as follows:
“Freedom is constrained by laws in both the state of nature and political society. Freedom of nature is to be under no other restraint but the law of nature. Freedom of people under government is to be under no restraint apart from standing rules to live by that are common to everyone in the society and made by the lawmaking power established in it. Persons have a right or liberty to (1) follow their own will in all things that the law has not prohibited and (2) not be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, and arbitrary wills of others.”
Where corruption flourishes, development and the rule of law fail, says UNODC chief (source).
On September 2012, speaking at a high-level meeting of the sixty-seventh session of the General Assembly in New York, UNODC Executive Director Yury Fedotov expressed concerns that corruption was undermining the rule of law by eroding democratic institutions essential for fair and equitable societies.
Mr. Fedotov said that it was essential for Governments and their partners to take drastic measures to combat corruption: “Without these measures, there can be no equity, no inclusivity, no fairness and no lasting social and economic development.”
Identifying sustainable economic growth as crucial for progress, the Executive Director noted that businesses thrive where laws are well defined and clearly applied but can languish or fail where the level playing field becomes the “uphill struggle of unfair competition”.
Bribery and corruption circumvents fair tendering processes, and the consequences are severe: funding meant for hospitals and schools can be diverted into the hands of corrupt individuals. Just as importantly, the failure to win contracts can cause businesses to fail and create unemployment. All of these factors place an additional strain on weak and fragile societies.
“Where corruption exists, the rule of law cannot flourish. Too many people fail to understand the impact of corruption on development and on prosperity. The victims exist in every developing and least developed country. Denied education, denied healthcare, denied opportunities”, the Executive Director said.
Highlighting the work of UNODC, Mr. Fedotov said that the blueprint for helping countries was the United Nations Convention against Corruption. The Convention calls on States Parties to take a series of measures that lay the foundations for free and fair markets and sustainable economic development.
Parties to the Convention are involved in a unique process known as the Implementation Review Mechanism, which enables States to assess their implementation of the Convention and contribute to efforts to combat corruption and promote the rule of law. Since the Mechanism was launched, 157 States have participated in the review process either as the State under review or as a reviewing State.
“[The Implementation Review Mechanism] is creating forward momentum among nations for transparency and good governance that will assist the rule of law and development,” said Mr. Fedotov.
Mr. Fedotov was speaking at the high-level meeting of the General Assembly on the rule of law, entitled “Strengthening the rule of law: the fight against corruption and its impact on sustainable growth.” The event was hosted by the permanent missions of Austria, Estonia, Japan and Tunisia and was attended by President of Austria Heinz Fischer, President of Estonia Toomas Hendrik Ilves and an audience of ministers, ambassadors and distinguished guests. Speakers from the Mitsubishi International Corporation, the International Anti-Corruption Academy and Siemens International also attended.
Corruption, income, and rule of law:
empirical evidence from developing and developed economies
This article (source) presents an empirical analysis based on cross-country data concerned with two points regarding corruption: (i) its effects on income; and (ii) how to mitigate corruption. The findings can be highlighted in two points. Firstly the idea that corruption is intrinsically connected with income is confirmed. Secondly, the traditional argument that an increase in rule of law represents a good strategy in the fight against corruption is valid for developing countries. Furthermore, this study reveals that the search for increasing the human development index represents a rule of thumb for high levels of income and to control corruption.
In the last years the empirical analysis regarding the effects of corruption on economic performance gained the attention of several researchers. The main argument is that corruption is a symptom of institutional weakness and thus reduces economic growth (Mauro, 1995). The relevance of the subject is unquestionable, as pointed out by Akçay (2006, p. 32), “corruption is mainly a governance issue and is widespread around the world”. Particularly, the negative effects caused by corruption have motivated studies for identifying elements that can avoid them. In brief, nowadays there are two fronts that cannot be neglected when the literature regarding corruption is considered: (i) the effects of corruption on income; and (ii) how to mitigate corruption.
According to Svensson (2005), there exists a strong relationship between corruption and income. With the objective of attesting this relation, the correlation between real gross domestic product per capita (GDP) available from PWT 6.2 and the corruption perceptions index (CPI) disclosed by Transparency International (the index varies between zero — highest corruption — and 10 — lowest corruption) was made. The simple regression lines in all scatter plots (see Figure 1) reveals that corruption is strongly correlated with GDP for both developed and developing countries, 0.58 and 0.63, respectively.
Want Further Reading?
Nepotism: is based on favoritism granted to relatives in various fields, including business, politics, entertainment, sports, religion and other activities. The term originated with the assignment of nephews to important positions by Catholicpopes and bishops
The term comes from Italian word nepotismo, which is based on Latin root nepos meaning nephew. Since the Middle Ages and until the late 17th century, some Catholic popes and bishops, who had taken vows of chastity, and therefore usually had no legitimate offspring of their own, gave their nephews such positions of preference as were often accorded by fathers to son.
Several popes elevated nephews and other relatives to the cardinalate. Often, such appointments were a means of continuing a papal “dynasty”. For instance, Pope Callixtus III, head of the Borgia family, made two of his nephews cardinals; one of them, Rodrigo, later used his position as a cardinal as a stepping stone to the papacy, becoming Pope Alexander VI. Alexander then elevated Alessandro Farnese, his mistress’s brother, to cardinal; Farnese would later go on to become Pope Paul III.
Paul III also engaged in nepotism, appointing, for instance, two nephews, aged 14 and 16, as cardinals. The practice was finally limited when Pope Innocent XII issued the bull Romanum decet Pontificem, in 1692. The papal bull prohibited popes in all times from bestowing estates, offices, or revenues on any relative, with the exception that one qualified relative (at most) could be made a cardinal.
Nepotism is a common accusation in politics when the relative of a powerful figure ascends to similar power seemingly without appropriate qualifications. The British English expression “Bob’s your uncle” is thought to have originated when Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, promoted his nephew, Arthur Balfour, to the esteemed post of Chief Secretary for Ireland, which was widely seen as an act of nepotism.
In December 2012, a report from the Washington Post indicated various nepotism practices from the District of Columbia and Northern Virginia‘s Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA), including one family with five members working for the MWAA. One of the reasons given by the associate general counsel to defend the alleged nepotism was “if [the employees are] qualified and competed for [the positions] on their own, I don’t see a problem with relatives working in the same organization.” The inspector general of the U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Congress pressured the MWAA to resolve practices of nepotism. Authority employees are no longer allowed to directly or indirectly influence hiring or promotion of relatives, as documented in their ethics policy.
Nepotism is also practiced in the NBA, as Philadelphia 76ers chairman of basketball operations Jerry Colangelo named his son Bryan Colangelo his general manager without a thorough search for the position.
On 9 January 2017, then-president-elect Donald Trump appointed his son-in-law Jared Kushner as a senior adviser to the president, raising both ethical questions and legal questions about whether this appointment will conflict with a 1967 federal anti-nepotism law. He then announced on 29 March 2017 that his eldest daughter, Ivanka Trump, would also become an
Nepotism refers to partiality to family whereas cronyism refers to partiality to an associate or friend. Favoritism, the broadest of the terms, refers to partiality based upon being part of a favored group, rather than job performance.
Cronyism is the practice of partiality in awarding jobs and other advantages to friends or trusted colleagues, especially in politics and between politicians and supportive organizations. For instance, this includes appointing “cronies” to positions of authority, regardless of their qualifications.
Cronyism exists when the appointer and the beneficiary such as an appointee are in social or business contact. Often, the appointer needs support in his or her own proposal, job or position of authority, and for this reason the appointer appoints individuals who will not try to weaken his or her proposals, vote against issues, or express views contrary to those of the appointer. Politically, “cronyism” is derogatorily used to imply buying and selling favors, such as: votes in legislative bodies, as doing favors to organizations, giving desirable ambassadorships to exotic places, etc.
Another oft-quoted source is the supposed Irish term Comh-Roghna, said by Daniel Cassidy to translate as “close pals”, or mutual friends. However, Daniel Cassidy’s work is untrustworthy. The word comhrogha [ˈkoʊraʊə or ˈkoʊreɪ, depending on dialect] does not have the meanings of pal or friend and Cassidy failed to provide any evidence for his definition. In reality, comhrogha (older spelling comroga) means alternative or rival.
Government officials are particularly susceptible to accusations of cronyism, as they spend taxpayers money. Many democratic governments are encouraged to practice administrative transparency in accounting and contracting, however, there often is no clear delineation of when an appointment to government office is “cronyism”.
It is not unusual for a politician to surround him- or herself with highly qualified subordinates, and to develop social, business, or political friendships leading to the appointment to office of friends, likewise in granting government contracts. In fact, the counsel of such friends is why the officeholder successfully obtained his or her powerful position; therefore, cronyism usually is easier to perceive than to demonstrate and prove. Politicians with representatives of business, other special interests, as unions and professional organizations get “crony-business” done in political agreements, especially by “reasonable” and lucrative honorariums to the politician for making speeches, or by legal donations to ones election campaign or to ones political party, etc.
Moreover, cronyism describes relationships existing among mutual acquaintances in private organizations where business, business information, and social interaction are exchanged among influential personnel. This is termed crony capitalism, and is an ethical breach of the principles of the market economy; in advanced economies, crony capitalism is a breach of market regulations.
Given crony capitalism’s nature, these dishonest business practices are frequently (yet not exclusively) found in societies with ineffective legal systems. Consequently, there is an impetus upon the legislative branch of a government to ensure enforcement of the legal code capable of addressing and redressing private party manipulation of the economy by the involved businessmen and their government cronies.
The economic and social costs of cronyism are paid by society. Those costs are in the form of reduced business opportunity for the majority of the population, reduced competition in the market place, inflated consumer goods prices, decreased economic performance, inefficient business investment cycles, reduced motivation in affected organizations, and the diminution of economically productive activity. A practical cost of cronyism manifests in the poor workmanship of public and private community projects. Cronyism is self-perpetuating; cronyism then begets a culture of cronyism. This can only be apprehended by a comprehensive, effective, and enforced legal code, with empowered government agencies which can effect prosecutions in the courts.
All appointments that are suspected of being cronyism are controversial. The appointed party may choose to either suppress disquiet or ignore it, depending upon the society’s level of freedom of expression and individual personal liberty.
Some instances of cronyism are readily transparent. As to others, it is only in hindsight that the qualifications of the alleged “crony” must be evaluated.
The Russian president Vladimir Putin is alleged to be the “head of the clan”, whose assets are estimated at $200 billion. A list of Russian and Ukrainian politicians associated with “kleptocractic style” has been published by the Kleptocracy Archives project.
Oligarchy meaning ‘few’, and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning ‘to rule or to command’) is a form of power structure in which power rests with a small number of people. These people might be distinguished by nobility, wealth, family ties, education or corporate, religious or military control. Such states are often controlled by a few prominent families who typically pass their influence from one generation to the next, but inheritance is not a necessary condition for the application of this term.
Throughout history, oligarchies have often been tyrannical, relying on public obedience or oppression to exist. Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as a synonym for rule by the rich, for which another term commonly used today is plutocracy.
Especially during the fourth century BC, after the restoration of democracy from oligarchical coups, the Athenians used the drawing of lots for selecting government officers in order to counteract what the Athenians saw as a tendency toward oligarchy in government if a professional governing class were allowed to use their skills for their own benefit.[page needed] They drew lots from large groups of adult volunteers that pick selection technique for civil servants performing judicial, executive, and administrative functions (archai, boulē, and hēliastai). They even used lots for posts, such as judges and jurors in the political courts (nomothetai), which had the power to overrule the Assembly.
Kleptocracy, from Proto-Indo-European *klep- (“to steal”); and from the Ancient Greek suffix -κρατία (-kratía), from κράτος (krátos, “power, rule”; klépto– thieves + –kratos rule, literally “rule by thieves”) is a government with corrupt rulers (kleptocrats) that use their power to exploit the people and natural resources of their own territory in order to extend their personal wealth and political power. Typically this system involves the embezzlement of state funds at the expense of the wider population, sometimes without even the pretense of honest service.
Kleptocracies are generally associated with dictatorships, oligarchies, military juntas, or other forms of autocratic and nepotist governments in which external oversight is impossible or does not exist. This lack of oversight can be caused or exacerbated by the ability of the kleptocratic officials to control both the supply of public funds and the means of disbursal for those funds. Kleptocratic rulers often treat their country’s treasury as a source of personal wealth, spending funds on luxury goods and extravagances as they see fit. Many kleptocratic rulers secretly transfer public funds into hidden personal numbered bank accounts in foreign countries to provide for themselves if removed from power.
Kleptocracy is most common in developing countries whose economies are based on the export of natural resources. Such export incomes constitute a form of economic rent and are easier to siphon off without causing the income to decrease.
A specific case of kleptocracy is Raubwirtschaft, German for “plunder economy” or “rapine economy”, where the whole economy of the state is based on robbery, looting and plundering the conquered territories. Such states are either in continuous warfare with their neighbours or they simply milk their subjects as long as they have any taxable assets. Such rapine-based economies were commonplace in the past before the rise of Capitalism. Arnold Toynbee has claimed the Roman Empire was basically a Raubwirtschaft.
The effects of a kleptocratic regime or government on a nation are typically adverse in regards to the welfare of the state’s economy, political affairs and civil rights. Kleptocratic governance typically ruins prospects of foreign investment and drastically weakens the domestic market and cross-border trade. As kleptocracies often embezzle money from their citizens by misusing funds derived from tax payments, or engage heavily in money laundering schemes, they tend to heavily degrade quality of life for citizens.
In addition, the money that kleptocrats steal is diverted from funds earmarked for public amenities such as the building of hospitals, schools, roads, parks – having further adverse effects on the quality of life of citizens. The informal oligarchy that results from a kleptocratic elite subverts democracy (or any other political format).
Corporatocracy is a recent term used to refer to an economic and political system controlled by corporations or corporate interests. It is most often used today as a term to describe the current economic situation in a particular country, especially the United States. This is different from corporatism, which is the organisation of society into groups with common interests. Corporatocracy as a term is often used by observers across the political spectrum.
Economist Jeffrey Sachs described the United States as a corporatocracy in The Price of Civilization (2011). He suggested that it arose from four trends: weak national parties and strong political representation of individual districts, the large U.S. military establishment after World War II, big corporate money financing election campaigns, and globalization tilting the balance away from workers.
This collective is what author C Wright Mills in 1956 called the ‘power elite‘, wealthy individuals who hold prominent positions in corporatocracies. They control the process of determining a society’s economic and political policies.
The concept has been used in explanations of bank bailouts, excessive pay for CEOs, as well as complaints such as the exploitation of national treasuries, people, and natural resources. It has been used by critics of globalization,sometimes in conjunction with criticism of the World Bank or unfair lending practices, as well as criticism of “free trade agreements“.
Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before it spread to other European countries. Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.
Fascists saw World War I as a revolution that brought massive changes to the nature of war, society, the state, and technology. The advent of total war and the total mass mobilization of society had broken down the distinction between civilians and combatants. A “military citizenship” arose in which all citizens were involved with the military in some manner during the war. The war had resulted in the rise of a powerful state capable of mobilizing millions of people to serve on the front lines and providing economic production and logistics to support them, as well as having unprecedented authority to intervene in the lives of citizens.
Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.
Since the end of World War II in 1945, few parties have openly described themselves as fascist, and the term is instead now usually used pejoratively by political opponents. The descriptions neo-fascist or post-fascist are sometimes applied more formally to describe parties of the far right with ideologies similar to, or rooted in, 20th century fascist movements.
The Italian term fascismo is derived from fascio meaning a bundle of rods, ultimately from the Latin word fasces. This was the name given to political organizations in Italy known as fasci, groups similar to guilds or syndicates. According to Mussolini‘s own account, the Fascist Revolutionary Party (Partito Fascista Rivoluzionario or PFR) was founded in Italy in 1915. In 1919, Mussolini founded the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento in Milan, which became the Partito Nazionale Fascista (National Fascist Party) two years later. The Fascists came to associate the term with the ancient Roman fasces or fascio littorio—a bundle of rods tied around an axe, an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of the civic magistrate carried by his lictors, which could be used for corporal and capital punishment at his command.
The symbolism of the fasces suggested strength through unity: a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is difficult to break. Similar symbols were developed by different fascist movements; for example, the Falange symbol is five arrows joined together by a yoke.
Historians, political scientists, and other scholars have long debated the exact nature of fascism. Each interpretation of fascism is distinct, leaving many definitions too wide or narrow.
One common definition of the term focuses on three concepts: the fascist negations (anti-liberalism, anti-communism and anti-conservatism); nationalist authoritarian goals of creating a regulated economic structure to transform social relations within a modern, self-determined culture; and a political aesthetic of romantic symbolism, mass mobilization, a positive view of violence, and promotion of masculinity, youth and charismatic leadership. According to many scholars, fascism—especially once in power—has historically attacked communism, conservatism and parliamentary liberalism, attracting support primarily from the far right.
Roger Griffin describes fascism as “a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultranationalism”. Griffin describes the ideology as having three core components: “(i) the rebirth myth, (ii) populist ultra-nationalism and (iii) the myth of decadence”. Fascism is “a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism” built on a complex range of theoretical and cultural influences. He distinguishes an inter-war period in which it manifested itself in elite-led but populist “armed party” politics opposing socialism and liberalism and promising radical politics to rescue the nation from decadence.
Robert Paxton says that fascism is “a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”
Umberto Eco, Kevin Passmore, John Weiss, Ian Adams, and Moyra Grant, mention racism (including anti-semitism) as a characteristic component of fascism; e.g. how the fascistic dictator Hitler idealized German society as a racially unified and hierarchically organized Volksgemeinschaft construct. Fascist Philosophies vary by application, but remain distinct by one theoretic commonality. All traditionally fall into the far-right sector of any political spectrum, catalyzed by afflicted class identities over conventional social inequities.
John Lukacs, Hungarian-American historian and Holocaust survivor, argues that there is no such thing as generic fascism. He claims that National Socialism and Communism are essentially manifestations of populism and that states such as National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy are more different than similar.
Fascism was influenced by both left and right, conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational. A number of historians regard fascism as either a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine that mixes philosophies of the left and the right, or as both of those things. Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who drew upon left-wing and right-wing political views.
Some scholars consider fascism to be right-wing because of its social conservatism and its authoritarian means of opposing egalitarianism. Roderick Stackelberg places fascism—including Nazism, which he says is “a radical variant of fascism”—on the political right, explaining that, “The more a person deems absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition, the further left he or she will be on the ideological spectrum. The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right he or she will be.”
Italian Fascism gravitated to the right in the early 1920s. A major element of fascist ideology that has been deemed to be far-right is its stated goal to promote the right of a supposedly superior people to dominate, while purging society of supposedly inferior elements.
In 1919 Benito Mussolini described fascism as a movement that would strike “against the backwardness of the right and the destructiveness of the left”. Later, the Italian Fascists described their ideology as right-wing in the political program The Doctrine of Fascism, stating: “We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the ‘right,’ a fascist century.” Mussolini stated that fascism’s position on the political spectrum was not a serious issue for fascists: “Fascism, sitting on the right, could also have sat on the mountain of the center … These words in any case do not have a fixed and unchanged meaning: they do have a variable subject to location, time and spirit. We don’t give a damn about these empty terminologies and we despise those who are terrorized by these words.”
The accommodation of the political right into the Italian Fascist movement in the early 1920s created internal factions within the movement. The “Fascist left” included Michele Bianchi, Giuseppe Bottai, Angelo Oliviero Olivetti, Sergio Panunzio, and Edmondo Rossoni, who were committed to advancing national syndicalism as a replacement for parliamentary liberalism in order to modernize the economy and advance the interests of workers and common people. The “Fascist right” included members of the paramilitary Squadristi and former members of the Italian Nationalist Association (ANI). The Squadristi wanted to establish Fascism as a complete dictatorship, while the former ANI members, including Alfredo Rocco, sought to institute an authoritarian corporatist state to replace the liberal state in Italy, while retaining the existing elites. Upon accommodating the political right, there arose a group of monarchist fascists who sought to use fascism to create an absolute monarchy under King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy.
After King Victor Emmanuel III forced Mussolini to resign as head of government and placed him under arrest in 1943, Mussolini was rescued by German forces. While continuing to rely on Germany for support, Mussolini and the remaining loyal Fascists founded the Italian Social Republic with Mussolini as head of state. Mussolini sought to re-radicalize Italian Fascism, declaring that the Fascist state had been overthrown because Italian Fascism had been subverted by Italian conservatives and the bourgeoisie. Then the new Fascist government proposed the creation of workers’ councils and profit-sharing in industry, although the German authorities, who effectively controlled northern Italy at this point, ignored these measures and did not seek to enforce them.
A number of post-World War II fascist movements described themselves as a “third position” outside the traditional political spectrum. Spanish Falangist leader José Antonio Primo de Rivera said: “basically the Right stands for the maintenance of an economic structure, albeit an unjust one, while the Left stands for the attempt to subvert that economic structure, even though the subversion thereof would entail the destruction of much that was worthwhile”.
Following the defeat of the Axis Powers in World War II, the term fascist has been used as a pejorative, often referring to widely varying movements across the political spectrum. George Orwell wrote in 1944 that “the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless … almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’”.
Contrary to the popular use of the term, Communist states have sometimes been referred to as “fascist”, typically as an insult. Marxist interpretations of the term have, for example, been applied in relation to Cuba under Fidel Castro and Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh.
Chinese Marxists used the term to denounce the Soviet Union during the Sino-Soviet Split, and likewise, the Soviets used the term to denounce Chinese Marxists and social democracy (coining a new term social fascism).
In the United States, Herbert Matthews of the New York Times asked in 1946, “Should we now place Stalinist Russia in the same category as Hitlerite Germany? Should we say that she is Fascist?” J. Edgar Hoover, longtime FBI director and ardent anti-communist, wrote extensively of “Red Fascism”.
Professor Richard Griffiths of the University of Wales wrote in 2005 that “fascism” is the “most misused, and over-used word, of our times”. “Fascist” is sometimes applied to post-World War II organizations and ways of thinking that academics more commonly term “neo-fascist“.
1984 is a dystopian novel published in 1949 by English author George Orwell. The novel is set in Airstrip One (formerly known as Great Britain), a province of the superstate Oceania in a world of perpetual war, omnipresent government surveillance, and public manipulation. The superstate and its residents are dictated to by a political regime euphemistically named English Socialism, shortened to “Ingsoc” in Newspeak, the government’s invented language. The superstate is under the control of the privileged elite of the Inner Party, a party and government that persecutes individualism and independent thinking as “thoughtcrime“, which is enforced by the “Thought Police“.
The tyranny is ostensibly overseen by Big Brother, the Party leader who enjoys an intense cult of personality, but who may not even exist. The Party “seeks power entirely for its own sake. It is not interested in the good of others; it is interested solely in power.” The protagonist of the novel, Winston Smith, is a member of the Outer Party, who works for the Ministry of Truth (or Minitrue in Newspeak), which is responsible for propaganda and historical revisionism. His job is to rewrite past newspaper articles, so that the historical record always supports the party line. The instructions that the workers receive portray the corrections as fixing misquotations and never as what they really are: forgeries and falsifications. A large part of the Ministry also actively destroys all documents that have not been edited and do not contain the revisions; in this way, no proof exists that the government is lying. Smith is a diligent and skillful worker but secretly hates the Party and dreams of rebellion against Big Brother. The heroine of the novel, Julia, is based on Orwell’s second wife, Sonia Orwell.
As literary political fiction and dystopian science-fiction, Nineteen Eighty-Four is a classic novel in content, plot and style. Many of its terms and concepts, such as Big Brother, doublethink, thoughtcrime, Newspeak, Room 101, telescreen, 2 + 2 = 5, and memory hole, have entered into common use since its publication in 1949. Nineteen Eighty-Four popularised the adjective Orwellian, which describes official deception, secret surveillance, and manipulation of recorded history by a totalitarian or authoritarian state. In 2005, the novel was chosen by Time magazine as one of the 100 best English-language novels from 1923 to 2005. It was awarded a place on both lists of Modern Library 100 Best Novels, reaching number 13 on the editor’s list, and 6 on the readers’ list. In 2003, the novel was listed at number 8 on the BBC‘s survey The Big Read.
Nineteen Eighty-Four is set in Oceania, one of three inter-continental superstates that divided the world after a global war. Most of the plot takes place in London, the “chief city of Airstrip One,” the Oceanic province that “had once been called England or Britain.” Posters of the Party leader, Big Brother, bearing the caption “BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU,” dominate the city, while the ubiquitous telescreen (transceiving television set) monitors the private and public lives of the populace. The class hierarchy of Oceania has three levels:
- (I) the upper-class Inner Party, the elite ruling minority, who make up 2% of the population.
- (II) the middle-class Outer Party, who make up 13% of the population.
- (III) the lower-class Proles (from proletariat), who make up 85% of the population and represent the uneducated working class.
As the government, the Party controls the population with four ministries:
- the Ministry of Peace deals with war and defence.
- the Ministry of Plenty deals with economic affairs (rationing and starvation).
- the Ministry of Love deals with law and order (torture and brainwashing).
- the Ministry of Truth deals with news, entertainment, education and art (propaganda).
The protagonist Winston Smith, a member of the Outer Party, works in the Records Department of the Ministry of Truth as an editor, revising historical records, to make the past conform to the ever-changing party line and deleting references to unpersons, people who have been “vaporised,” i.e., not only killed by the state but denied existence even in history or memory.
The story of Winston Smith begins on 4 April 1984: “It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen.” Yet he is uncertain of the true date, given the regime’s continual rewriting and manipulation of history.Smith’s memories and his reading of the proscribed book, The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism by Emmanuel Goldstein, reveal that after the Second World War, the United Kingdom fell to civil war and then was absorbed into Oceania. Simultaneously, the USSR conquered mainland Europe and established the second superstate of Eurasia. The third superstate, Eastasia, comprises the regions of Eastern/Southeastern Asia. The three superstates wage perpetual war for the remaining unconquered lands of the world, forming and breaking alliances as is convenient. From his childhood (1949–53), Winston remembers the Atomic Wars fought in Europe, western Russia and North America. It is unclear to him what occurred first: the Party’s victory in the civil war, the US annexation of the British Empire or the war in which Colchester was bombed. Smith’s strengthening memories, and the story of his family’s dissolution, suggest that the atomic bombings occurred first (the Smiths took refuge in a tube station), followed by civil war featuring “confused street fighting in London itself” and the societal postwar reorganisation, which the Party retrospectively calls “the Revolution.”
A confidence trick (synonyms include confidence game, confidence scheme, ripoff, scam and stratagem) is an attempt to defraud a person or group after first gaining their confidence, used in the classical sense of trust. Confidence tricks exploit characteristics of the human psyche such as dishonesty, vanity, compassion, credulity, irresponsibility, naïveté and greed.
The perpetrator of a confidence trick (or “con trick”) is often referred to as a confidence (or “con”) man, con-artist, or a “grifter“. Samuel Thompson (1821–1856) was the original “confidence man.” Thompson was a clumsy swindler who asked his victims to express confidence in him by giving him money or their watch rather than gaining their confidence in a more nuanced way. A few people trusted Thompson with their money and watches. Thompson was arrested in July 1849. Reporting about this arrest, Dr. James Houston, a reporter of the New York Herald, publicized Thompson by naming him the “Confidence Man”. Although Thompson was an unsuccessful scammer, he gained reputation as a genius operator mostly because Houston’s satirical writing wasn’t understood. The National Police Gazette coined the term “confidence game” a few weeks after Houston first used the name, the “confidence man.” A confidence trick is also known as a con game, a con, a scam, a grift, a hustle, a bunko (or bunco), a swindle, a flimflam, a gaffle or a bamboozle. The intended victims are known as “marks”, “suckers”, or “gulls” (i.e., gullible). When accomplices are employed, they are known as shills.
A short con or small con is a fast swindle which takes just minutes. It typically aims to rob the victim of everything in his or her wallet.
A long con or big con (also, chiefly British English: long game) is a scam that unfolds over several days or weeks and involves a team of swindlers, as well as props, sets, extras, costumes, and scripted lines. It aims to rob the victim of huge sums of money or valuable things, often by getting him or her to empty out banking accounts and borrow from family members.In Confessions of a Confidence Man, Edward H. Smith lists the “six definite steps or stages of growth” of a confidence game. He notes that some steps may be omitted.
Preparations are made in advance of the game, including the hiring of any assistants required.
The victim is contacted.
The victim is given an opportunity to profit from a scheme. The victim’s greed is encouraged, such that their rational judgment of the situation might be impaired.
Pay-off or Convincer
The victim receives a small payout as a demonstration of the scheme’s effectiveness. This may be a real amount of money, or faked in some way. In a gambling con, the victim is allowed to win several small bets. In a stock market con, the victim is given fake dividends.
A sudden crisis or change of events forces the victim to act immediately. This is the point at which the con succeeds or fails.
A conspirator (in on the con, but assumes the role of an interested bystander) puts an amount of money into the same scheme as the victim, to add an appearance of legitimacy to the scheme. This can reassure the victim, and give the con man greater control when the deal has been completed. In addition, some games require a “corroboration” step, particularly those involving a “rare item”. This usually includes the use of an accomplice who plays the part of an uninvolved (initially skeptical) third party, who later confirms the claims made by the con man.
Confidence tricks exploit typical human characteristics such as greed, dishonesty, vanity, opportunism, lust, compassion, credulity, irresponsibility, desperation, and naïvety. As such, there is no consistent profile of a confidence trick victim; the common factor is simply that the victim relies on the good faith of the con artist. Victims of investment scams tend to show an incautious level of greed and gullibility, and many con artists target the elderly, but even alert and educated people may be taken in by other forms of a confidence trick.
Accomplices, also known as shills, help manipulate the mark into accepting the perpetrator’s plan. In a traditional confidence trick, the mark is led to believe that he will be able to win money or some other prize by doing some task. The accomplices may pretend to be strangers who have benefited from performing the task in the past.
9/ The Rule of Law
The rule of law is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by arbitrary decisions of individual government officials. It primarily refers to the influence and authority of law within society, particularly as a constraint upon behaviour, including behaviour of government officials. The phrase can be traced back to 16th century Britain, and in the following century the Scottish theologian Samuel Rutherford used the phrase in his argument against the divine right of kings. John Locke defined freedom under the rule of law as follows:
“Freedom is constrained by laws in both the state of nature and political society. Freedom of nature is to be under no other restraint but the law of nature. Freedom of people under government is to be under no restraint apart from standing rules to live by that are common to everyone in the society and made by the lawmaking power established in it. Persons have a right or liberty to (1) follow their own will in all things that the law has not prohibited and (2) not be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, and arbitrary wills of others.”
The rule of law was further popularized in the 19th century by British jurist A. V. Dicey. The concept, if not the phrase, was familiar to ancient philosophers such as Aristotle, who wrote “Law should govern”.
Rule of law implies that every citizen is subject to the law, including lawmakers themselves. In this sense, it stands in contrast to an autocracy, dictatorship, or oligarchy where the rulers are held above the law. Lack of the rule of law can be found in both democracies and dictatorships, for example because of neglect or ignorance of the law, and the rule of law is more apt to decay if a government has insufficient corrective mechanisms for restoring it. Government based upon the rule of law is called nomocracy.
All government officers of the United States, including the President, the Justices of the Supreme Court, state judges and legislators, and all members of Congress, pledge first and foremost to uphold the Constitution. These oaths affirm that the rule of law is superior to the rule of any human leader. At the same time, the federal government has considerable discretion: the legislative branch is free to decide what statutes it will write, as long as it stays within its enumerated powers and respects the constitutionally protected rights of individuals. Likewise, the judicial branch has a degree of judicial discretion, and the executive branch also has various discretionary powers including prosecutorial discretion.
Scholars continue to debate whether the U.S. Constitution adopted a particular interpretation of the “rule of law,” and if so, which one. For example, John Harrison asserts that the word “law” in the Constitution is simply defined as that which is legally binding, rather than being “defined by formal or substantive criteria,” and therefore judges do not have discretion to decide that laws fail to satisfy such unwritten and vague criteria. Law Professor Frederick Mark Gedicks disagrees, writing that Cicero, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and the framers of the U.S. Constitution believed that an unjust law was not really a law at all.
Some modern scholars contend that the rule of law has been corroded during the past century by the instrumental view of law promoted by legal realists such as Oliver Wendell Holmes and Roscoe Pound. For example, Brian Tamanaha asserts: “The rule of law is a centuries-old ideal, but the notion that law is a means to an end became entrenched only in the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.”
Others argue that the rule of law has survived but was transformed to allow for the exercise of discretion by administrators. For much of American history, the dominant notion of the rule of law, in this setting, has been some version of A. V. Dicey’s: “no man is punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary Courts of the land.” That is, individuals should be able to challenge an administrative order by bringing suit in a court of general jurisdiction. As the dockets of worker compensation commissions, public utility commissions and other agencies burgeoned, it soon became apparent that letting judges decide for themselves all the facts in a dispute (such as the extent of an injury in a worker’s compensation case) would overwhelm the courts and destroy the advantages of specialization that led to the creation of administrative agencies in the first place. Even Charles Evans Hughes, a Chief Justice of the United States, believed “you must have administration, and you must have administration by administrative officers.” By 1941, a compromise had emerged. If administrators adopted procedures that more-or-less tracked “the ordinary legal manner” of the courts, further review of the facts by “the ordinary Courts of the land” was unnecessary. That is, if you had your “day in commission,” the rule of law did not require a further “day in court.” Thus Dicey’s rule of law was recast into a purely procedural form.
James Wilson said during the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 that, “Laws may be unjust, may be unwise, may be dangerous, may be destructive; and yet not be so unconstitutional as to justify the Judges in refusing to give them effect.” George Mason agreed that judges “could declare an unconstitutional law void. But with regard to every law, however unjust, oppressive or pernicious, which did not come plainly under this description, they would be under the necessity as judges to give it a free course.” Chief Justice John Marshall (joined by Justice Joseph Story) took a similar position in 1827: “When its existence as law is denied, that existence cannot be proved by showing what are the qualities of a law.”
The following are some articles:
Factor 2 measures the absence of corruption in a number of government agencies. … The WJP Rule of Law Index relies on over 100,000 household and expert …
Nowadays, the World Bank considers rule of law one important dimension of governance in the control of corruption. In brief, the idea is that in the countries with a high rule of law ensure that no one is above the law and thus the corruption may decrease.
http://www.americanbar.org › … › What We Do › Anti-Corruption & Public Integrity
The ABA Rule of Law Initiative’s (ABA ROLI’s) anti-corruption and public integrity programs contribute toward host countries’ efforts to develop effective legal frameworks, to bolster institutions’ capacity to prevent and sanction corruption, to encourage public integrity, and to foster accountability, transparency and …
Sep 24, 2012 – “Where corruption exists, the rule of law cannot flourish. Too many people fail to understand the impact of corruption on development and on …
Dec 14, 2015 – Corruption’s Impact on the Rule of Law & Security: Moving from the Vicious to the Virtuous. Today’s guest post is from James Cohen. James is a …
Feb 2, 2016 – Corruption versus Rule of Law. Image of Magna Carta Magna Carta. Libya is one of the ten most corrupt countries in the world. So said a report …
http://www.chemonics.com › Home › Our Work › Our Projects
To increase transparency, improve accountability, and prevent corruption in Ukraine, the Combating Corruption and Strengthening Rule of Law project promoted …
Oct 10, 2002 – This paper looks at the importance of upholding the rule of law and … definitions of corruption, the realities of the developing world and the …
May 12, 2014 – I wondered about how a semi-retired financial guy like me is equipped to keynote an expert panel on corruption and the rule of law, but then, …
Rule of law and democracy precluded by political corruption, a study of new democracies Abstract We are puzzled by the large number of democratizing …
May 27, 2013 – The Parliamentary Assembly recognises that corruption remains a major problem in Europe, which poses a serious threat to the rule of law. 2.
United Nations Global Compact works actively to support stronger rule of law around … It also helps lower levels of corruption and instances of violent conflict.
… Violence/Terrorism; Government Effectiveness; Regulatory Quality; Rule of Law; Control of Corruption. , Governance effectiveness, Control of corruption, Rule …
Religion, Corruption, and the Rule of Law. In a 207-country sample, we find that rule of law and corruption are both associated with a country’s religious heritage, …
Corruption and Rule of Law. TIMOTHY FRYE. Of all the modernization challenges facing Russia, perhaps none is more complex than reducing corruption and …
sistent decisions.3 But after over a decade of rule of law reform, Central. Asia is now … institutions will have the corollary effect of reducing corruption and.
Mar 10, 2016 – GAB is delighted to welcome back Mat Tromme, Project Lead & Senior Research Fellow at the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, who (along …
Eric M. Uslaner – 2008 – Political Science
The story for the United States supports the cross-national findings: Corruption is sticky. A proxy measure for corruption in the 1920s – the state-level Presidential …
ir.lawnet.fordham.edu › ILJ › Vol. 39 › Iss. 3 (2016)
by M Szto – 2016 – Related articles
This Article addresses the question of whether virtuous giftgiving in China can be used in the fight against corruption. Giftgiving, ubiquitous in Chinese familial, …
budapestbeacon.com › Civil Society
Feb 13, 2017 – To illustrate how corruption undermines the rule of law, Rebegea wonders what would happen if an average person decided not to pay …