The statement that the president of the country which is powerful enough to exert influence on world politics - is a demagogue - fully applies to all presidents.

Simply an opinionated opportunist.

A book under review in Sunday papers by a temporary insider to President Trump court repeated what I had claimed in an earlier question on Trump. He took a punt on getting the presidency as a form of self-advertising (he has done such things all his life in various ways) as a way of helping his businesses-his main interest. He long ago realised, like Muhammad Ali before him, that public attention had remunerative value of its own. He certainly thought it would help his business interests in Russia (watch this space), North Korea and even China.

This of course does not mean he doesn't believe in his own policies nor his political and social ideas.

Stanley Wilkin

Thanks for your detailed comment, I aggree with your view, Stanley, it's a pity that people isn't interested in the question, but the Hundreds of thousands of employees of the authorities who Trump would have to protect get a meal from cookshops and are called upon to donate for them. I don't understand the indifference of the people who are academic members of RG. They discuss for so long what they did last weekend or whether a scientific work with several authors is more valuable than one author. And nobody is interested in what is happening in the world. The effects of Trump's "Me first! - because by "America" Trump always means only himself and a small circle of other billionaires - will be felt worldwide - and already are. Thank you for contacting us. And let's still try to hope for better times as far as US policy is concerned.

We are responsible for everything that is happening to us and we all deserve our president . I was in the USA in the 80's and I was very surprised how people are ignorant about politics and they believe 200% the TV channels telling the same story that USA is spreading democracy around the world. Fake news were in the USA a long time ago.

Hein, I've found the same so often I don''t bother.

Zin, false news is everywhere. In Britain. It is because truth is difficult. Unless, like me, you journey around it is hard to separate truth from other matter.

I detailed on here my experiences in Pakistan, listening to an Imam on TV telling the most appalling fibs. The Zarathustra religion had as a central virtue truth-telling. That pervaded everything they did, every word, every act. Probably the first people and religion to separate acts into moral ones and those not moral, they defined things with clarity.

Dear Colleagues: I agree that the media in the U.S. is slanted. Frankly I believe most Americans realize it is slanted. I think Donald Trump's declarations of "fake news" is one of the reasons he was elected ... many people would rather believe Donald Trump than believe the media. Personally I only watch the news every once in a while and when I do I click from network to network. The only network on which I have never seen people from both sides brought on to argue an issue is on Fox which is a right-wing network ... go figure.

USA from its original political ideology promotes 'Peace' via 'Human Rights' & founder president of USA reinforced all possible human values in the constitution of 'USA' in addition president 'Franklin Roosevelt' United 51 Nations resulting global peace as unrest before with 'European Countries' and formation of 'United Nation' now president 'Trump' is Strickly following original ideology projected failure shown by media is because of unique executive action of former president except president 'Obama' my belief 'Future' may realise the 'Truth'

Fundamental Rights (Part-III) of constitution of 'India' is borrowed from constitution of 'USA' hence equivalence between 'Human Rights' promoted globally and inherent rights of citizens of 'India'

Jay Klagge

Dear Jay, thanks for you commentary. I have actually always been inclined to take seriously America's role as a role model, which it played for Germany after the Nazi regime in the reconstruction of a liberal democracy. But something in me resisted and did not come to terms with the political course of its presidents - Obama was an exception in several respects. If he had been born and raised in Alabame, he would never have reached the office of US President. You are welcome to contradict me - or confirm the thesis. Rich presidents like Obama think in different categories than normal people. They protect their interests at the expense of the rest of the world, including their own people. I learned that very clearly under Trump. But others may make other experiences, they can contradict me gladly.

Kind regards, Hein

One laughs about finding an honest man in parliament, but should one's preferred party win all is well right? The previous admin oversaw the *loss* of 16 trillion, but claimed to be for the impoverished - no-one said a thing. One candidate's foundation *earned* hundreds of millions selling fissile uranium - no-one said a thing. Now, two years of tantrums and one asks after whether or not another is a "demagogue" because it is fashionable to be against this one at the moment.

No matter who is president, cost versus means continues to divide and everyone is convinced it is someone else's fault.

I am a Philosopher - while Democracy is preferable to most other systems, I agree with some of the old Greeks: the seeds of democracy's destruction are contained in its construction; the contemplative life is difficult and few undertake it - but without it, no one can vote responsibly.

The very act of winning an election, by anyone, anywhere, requires a dishonest and unscrupulous character - call this one a demagogue or the last one a drone-murderer. The next will be just as criminal, and whoever lost will be angry, while whoever won will gloat.

I do think it would be better if Academics would stop throwing a tantrum whenever the latest charlatan says something they don't like - they ignored the last one's deeds, why should they take issue with this one's words?

Pankaj Tomar

Thank you for pointing out, Pankay Tomar, that the articles on human rights in the Indian constitution were taken over by the USA - although the constitution of 1787/1789/1791 is actually more of an organizational definition and human rights appear in the "amendments. I didn't know that India depended so much on the USA for its constitution. With the 10 amendments of 1791 slavery and injustice against the Natives went on, yes it got much sharper forms in the 19th century. But the fact that with Trump now a president governs the people, who questions all the progress in the equal treatment of people of different skin colours, is a new phenomenon. I very much believe that US policy, with or without trump cards, will soon change. Best, Hein Retter

Danke für den Hinweis, Pankay Tomar, dass die in der indischen Verfassung stammenden Artikel über Menschenrechte von den USA übernommen wurde - obwohl die constitution von 1787/1789/1791 eigentlich ja mehr eine organisatorische Festlegung sind und die Menschenrechte in den "amendments auftauchen. Ich wusste nicht, das Indien so stark verfassungsrechtlich von den USA abhing. Mit den 10 amendments 1791 ist ja Sklaverei und das Unrecht gegenüber den Natives weiter gegangen, ja hat noch viel schärere Formen im 19. Jahrhundert erhalten. Aber dass mit Trump nun ein Präsident das Volk regiert, der alle allmähichen Fortschritte in der Gleichbehandlung der Menschen unterschiedlicher Hautfarbe wieder infrage stellt, ist ein neues Phänomen. Ich sehr, dass sich die Politik der USA, mit oder ohne Trump, bald ändert.

Best, Hein Retter

Hawa Juma El-Shareif

Thiank you for comment. Your answer has made me think more than I can make clear. I agree that President Trump, with the measures he is announcing that are causing so much protest, at least in the media, is only keeping election promises. Here Trump is consistent. But these promised measures were unacceptable to the majority of Americans. The scandal in Trump's election was that not he, but Hilary Clinton, won the most votes of the electorate, but he won the most votes of the electorate, which is crucial (but not democratic in my view). Democracy of the billionaires - what may be meant by that - certainly not good, I think - at least not good for the people.

Stanley Wilkin

Thanks for yor Pakistan experience, Stanley. For me, this is a confirmation of reports that I have taken note of: That religion is a power, there, that does not tolerate contradiction. But that it depends on those who have the power to pursue deviant behavior in forming opinions or to toil. As a European one exposes oneself to a double suspicion: One belongs to those who have oppressed and exploited us, our people, the faithful, through centuries of colonialism - and now one wants - secondly - by the demand for tolerance also to question our values. Presumably it is very difficult to expect mutual understanding under these reservations.

Following

The USA produced a partial template on democracy, peace, etc. But should be applauded for what it did do. Its concept of individualism within the political setting has been crucial in creating wealth and constructing many elemental modern ideals. Its flaws have been almost as influential. Opposing claims such as Freedom/slavery /peace/with ideologies of violence inherent in its beginnings create the confusions of the present.

One aspect of the USA, especially with regard to its leaders, is the apparent aversion in both the governing bodies and electorate to intellectual or overtly intelligent presidents. Usually, those that are, play that part of themselves down.

Nevertheless, the character that Trump projects is embedded within America's history/found in Davy Crockett, etc, of the blustering but honest outsider cleaning up politics. Trump plays into that. Another intriguing aspect of Trump is the melding now/it has been going on of course for several decades/between celebrity status and governance. The first and perhaps hopefully (but probably the first of many) the last bleached blonde babe in the White House.

Spencer Miles

Dear Spencer, Your answer was - as yourself affected by the policies of the current US President - somewhat more detailed and thoughtful than others - thank you very much. It will take me a little longer to answer. But I am familiar with the way the answer is given, because it corresponds to my own view in everything. Although this does not change the policies of those responsible or their consequences, it is necessary to follow the path which, as a fellow human being who feels responsible, is dictated by a certain attitude, let us call it "philosophical". To be reasonable, to think for others, to be able to explain this to others, and not to lose sight of the common good. It is well known that Aristotle in his "Politics" questioned democracy as a form of government not because it is unjust, but because it is "weak" and demagogues tend to instrumentalize it for their own goals.

In many respects this describes the current situation. In addition, there is today the helplessness of our actions when group interests dominate over the interest in the common good. Skepticism and irony in response to the lack of morality in political action become behavioural patterns of individual problem solving for those who try to maintain an analytical distance. This saves us as individuals from resignation. In my experience, it is better to endure such a situation if you are fortunate enough to have a trusted and beloved person who is at your side in love, so that you are anchored in the family community .Such an attitude does not help much at the moment to participate actively in solving political problems, but to raise one's voice and criticize remains important. Thank you for your contribution.

Hein Retter

Hein, depreciation of America is fine by me, but often it is used as a scapegoat. It has numerous flaws but then so does Britain (a country run by a similar elite for a century, whose members merely change), but let us not allow us to forget many countries are infinitely worse.

I found Pakistan riven with xenophobia, unwilling to learn or change and stuck in rigid religious paradigms that allow a lie or lies, if told by a religious type, to be truth and truth, if told by a non/religious type for example, a lie. Apparently, according to this gentleman the West was overwhelmed by poverty and unemployment due to its atheism. My experience of the world/not all inclusive/suggests that religion creates poverty. Several times there I was in fear of my life because, I suggest, lies were preferred to truth. Compared to that kind of thinking, Trump's exploits are merely comical.

I also saw a meeting run again by an imam who explained to an audience of seemingly uneducated ...how Islam was at the beginning of time, and all other view points were ignorance, he had definite proof. This was prime/time viewing not looney tunes hour.

I wouldn't want to say that the democrats are simply 'noise makers'. In my opinion, I think they have caused a lot of problem in the world. I once predicted before the US presidential election that there would be more chaos in the world should Hillary wins. Many disputed this.

Charity begins at home. No sensible man will be chasing the rat in his house when his house is on fire.

The actions of Trump shows he meant well for his people although some of his foreign policies was ill advised. Withdrawing troops, building a wall, engaging in trade wars to get things right are all for the interest of his people.

Again, I noticed that Trump has exposed the bigotry of the mainstream media. To the extent that nowadays, many goes daily to his Twitter handle just to get raw undiluted facts. If you want to understand this, please visit his twitter feeds and compare with other news sources. You will see the bigotry I am talking about.

The fake news media is truly the enemy of the people - Trump. I agree with this.

It is a human thing, that we speak strongly about things in which we can do very little. Should I listen to a friend having a bad day, and I ask what's wrong - they may reply "Everything!". That's a pretty big subject, and quite difficult to address. I listen to an academic make utterly vague references to "what is happening" as justification for any number of things.

Does a person lose a job for having the "wrong" view?

Was a man beaten in the street for wearing a red hat?

These are things that can be addressed, but are utterly ignored when done by the "right" people.

The United States Constitution does not "secure rights" - it enacts prohibitions on authority - the rights are already had. One of those prohibitions is on the tyranny of the majority. Presidential elections have always been by the electoral college - always - because "democracy" becomes demagoguery - always.

Those electors were selected by legislators - those legislators were elected by vote. This is the safe-guard of a republic against what inevitably becomes of a democracy.

Eight years of a presidency means nothing compared to sixty years as a legislator - but they who are angered by the other candidate having won the "popular vote" say nothing that the electors were appointed by legislators - and think nothing of the EXTREME corruption in the Congress.

Compared to the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch means very little - that was by design.

The promise of free stuff always gets votes - and always destroys a people.

"Vote for me and I will keep you safe and fed."

THIS is the most dangerous possible proposition by anyone seeking power. "I will solve your problems, if only you give me power."

None stop to realize who it was who made the problem - it is the same who asks more power that they might solve it.

Is Trump a "demagogue"? Is he a "tyrant"? Maybe - but the rumblings of one tyrant or demagogue mean nothing in light of two houses of bought-and-paid sociopaths - who's continued power only requires that we all spend are energy arguing about the wrong things.

Made wealthy by public office - speaking of "ending poverty" - but made wealthy enough to live in a "gated community" - then opposing "borders".

They all are "demagogues" - campaigns don't even try anymore: "vote for me because the other guy is bad."

Dear Chukwuebuka Egbuna, thank you for both comments. I find your contributions very helpful for a discussion and I am glad for that. Let's assume that the majority of academic intellectuals who might be interested in the question of this thread are critics rather than advocates of Trump's actions as US President. I always think it is good to contradict in a discussion and to defend minority positions.

If my guess is correct as far as Trump's assessment is concerned, then I am more likely - exceptionally - with this majority. Several of your arguments are understandable for me: Trump has broken with many traditions, he has completely "new" forms of political interaction, which are neither based on empathy nor at all show that other ways of thinking and acting in a democracy are permitted, even desired.

Trump has found a language that constantly praises himself, and he has publicly promised a whole arsenal of threats to those he declares his opponents because they do not accept his actions.

For me, America is by no means a model of democracy; here, no matter who the president is, corruption, Mafia structures in the big cities, racism and everyday violence can always be expected. There are better examples of democratic societies such as the Scandinavian countries or Switzerland.

Trump had become president more by chance and ultimately unexpectedly for himself, and in the initial weeks he was visibly trying to find his way into his political role. This role is now clear: it is that of a billionaire who deals with power in the same way as an insurance agent who turns on a milking machine to the poor farmer whose only cow was cremating.

The New York Herald Tribune has always been a serious newspaper. If you can prove to Trump how often he has lied - and if you can understand such situations in interviews with serious media as a layman - I see Trump in a role that often takes on untruthful traits. The difference to Obama seems to me to be huge.

Hein Retter

Stanley Wilkin

Thank you, Stanley, for the extended report on your Pakistan experience. I would like to comment briefly on two remarks. When we talk here about problematic aspects of politics and life in Europe, including North America, it is good that you stress that there are much worse political conditions in many other countries in the world. We had the hope in the decades following the Second World War that humanity had learned to produce fewer conflicts from the time of dictatorships and the Holocaust, we now seem to be at a point in world history that apparently we have to give up that hope. A world war can happen more quickly than one thinks - that is my impression.

And the second remark that concerns your experience with your encounter with Islam in a religious lesson for a young generation of believers: I do indeed see the problem that religious or political indoctrination is one of the greatest barriers to creating peace and political security under certain constellations. What I learn sometimes from comments of Newspapers and TV confirms that there it is difficult of people of other faiths or even "strangers" to feel safe.

Dear Hein Retter,

The most-correct and succinct answer to your question is: Yes! Indubitably! Trump is what I would characterize as a "wannabe" demagogue, that is, he wants to be a tyrant, but (fortunately for we Americans and the rest-of-the-world which he might destroy) I believe he lacks the mental capacity (competence) to pull-it-off. My impression is that former Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson (a "no bullshit" Texan like me) described Trump most aptly when he (is reported to have) said about his boss: "What a fucking moron!"

But, we must remember he does have possession of the nuclear codes (although likely/hopefully too stupid to figure-out the protocol to use them and destroy us all) and (the dirty compromat from his sordid past, and venal pursuits in Russia, quite recently revealed, means) he is "owned" by Putin as his puppet.

The statement that the president of the country which is powerful enough to exert influence on world politics - is a demagogue - fully applies to all presidents.

Indocrination can be seen, Hein, in many societies and in many ways. I have dealt with Islam and states largely made up of its believers for almost twenty years, I have created colleges in these states and for Moslem friends in London. I certainly saw three year olds being told the Qur''an was the greatest ever book, written by god, and you must adhere only to it. I viewed this as no more than abuse, especially as they were never informed of other books or ways of thinking. It begins very young I''m afraid.

But this is done in middle America. It is done in Russia. It is done in China. It really shouldn''t be done anywhere.

Spencer Miles

Thank you, Spencer, for your detailed contribution.

My impression is that your portrayal of everyday life and structural background (Constitution) of the most important democracy in the world - as it was read in Europe until recently - reveals more scepticism about democracy than approval. I have been very involved with John Dewey and have written essays and treatises about him. What remains to me - and to many visitors to America when they visited the USA from Europe after 1900 - is the racial problem, especially among those who - as Dewey did - emphasized their anti-racist stance. But that is only one problem, another is - from my humble point of view - the problem of violence. This has perhaps nothing to do with your scepticism, it is a different perspective. And for a German with political consciousness from the older generation, this is a rather astounding, ambivalent view.

The Germans, at least in West Germany, owed a great deal to democratic values, cultural influences and positive views of US - and on the other hand there are so many contradictions.

Of course, in the last two decades I have also had to deal a lot with democratic theories from a comparative and historical perspective. I am perhaps not as sceptical as you are: I think - generally speaking - that liberal democracy is the most desirable form of government in modern times, for reasons of justice, but also for reasons of the duty to fullifil obligations for the common good. Historically, however, the pre-forms of democracy in America's theocraties from 1620 onwards have undergone very different developments from those in Europe. Even when we talk about democracy today, the images we think of do not fully coincide, for example between American and German ideas, I think.

Regarding the Constitution and preceding documents - like the Virginia Bill and three weeks later the Declaration of 1776 - it was and is a document by whites for whites (natives were enemies and negroes were property). The second Amendment on, which became the "Constitution" of the arms lobby, is - in my view - formulated as "people's right", but was of course later deliberately completely misunderstood for justification interests of the arms lobby, detached from its sense of origin. But it seems there is in addition an ideological moment, The Frontier-Thesis from Jack Turner 1893, as part of this view the man with the rifle in his hand ifront of his home is the best guarantee for peace. We know, reality shows the opposite.

Even more interesting for me is the question of how in two decades good colonists of the English Crown suddenly became American Democrats - but only because the "people" were united, in resistance; however, there were quite a lot of people who did not support the protest, stood by England, and became opponents.

Formally, with the first 10 Amendments of the Constitution in 1791, the citizens - in my view - had also been granted or confirmed rights. But the process of national identity formation under the concept of democracy in the USA has for me rather mythical traits, which hardly applied to whole groups of society.

The formation of national identitiy (which had not existed in the USA for a long time) takes time. The further solution of England, 1812/14, the Monroe Doctrine and the millions of migrants certainly did not advance the democratic process faster, but it took on dynamic traits.

Modern democracy can only exist if people are willing to believe in it (Dewey conveyed the faith, I think it is his historical achievement), but they must be ripe for it. Liberal democracy can only live with its dilemmas if they are accepted. The basic dilemma is the contradiction between the liberal principle "freedom of the individuum" (which generates competing group interests) and "equality for all people" (the democratic principle) . Because people are different, can this only be established by legal coercion. Ultimately, however, it is also necessary for political leaders to commit themselves to a moral law so that democracy does not succumb to corruption.

President Trump tramples underfoot the moral law to which he must submit: he behaves in such a way that he himself is the law and represents the will of the people. Many despots before him have done the same. So it is nothing new - it is only sad.

Hein Retter

Bob Skiles

Dear Bob, thank you for your short judgment. I am also inclined to that view. But as a non-American, I do not want to be cheeky and interfere in other matters. Unfortunately, in Germany, too, much depends on how the US President acts. It's a pity that his speech and his acting has not been very encouraging.

Thank you for your contribution.

Hein Retter

Frau Retter,

The Bill of Rights does not in any way or form grant anything to the people of the United States - its every clause is a prohibition on the powers of authority: "Congress shall make no law..." "Shall not be infringed..." "No Soldier shall..." "... shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue..." This is overtly declared in the Declaration of Independence: "That they are endowed by their Creator..." Rights that come from a Creator are irrevocable, rights that come from a government are taken on a whim - as was done by George III of England. The highest power in American Law is God - however such a God is revealed is irrelevant, God is the source of rights, not government. It can neither grant nor revoke. This is the axiom upon which the abolition of racial slavery is based - as was always argued by the "rich whites" who fought for such abolition, but now are demonized for having been white or rich.

Equality of all people can by no means be coerced - as such would require the superiority of the one who coerces. Equality cannot be dictated, as the one who dictates presumes superiority. Equivalent value of human beings is not that easy. Who is qualified to coerce such "equality"? Who is it? What is their definition of "equality"? Am I equal enough to question them? Why not? Such "coercion" is the necessary and sufficient cause of a tyrannical nightmare - this is by definition an Oligarchy. Antifa beating a man in the street for wearing a red hat is the means of "coerced equality". Rather than be sad about what Trump may or may not have done - address why Antifa is ignored or encouraged.

The right to keep and bear arms is not a product of an arms lobby - it is the means by which the balance of power between people and government is supposed to be preserved. The security of the free state is a product of groups of armed citizens - this is the only safeguard against the inevitability that the "protector" becomes the very one from whom protection is needed - unless one protects one's self. Tyrants cannot govern armed citizens. Why does an antelope have horns? It is for this reason that men have weapons. Police become tyrants where citizens are disarmed. Disarmed citizens = Gestapo.

The concept of the United States Republic the limitation of authority - this is overtly declared in the Declaration of Independence: "...deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." This is why the Bill of Rights is a list of what Government MUST or MUST NOT do - it is not a list of what citizens can do. Clinton claims to have won the "popular vote" (she did not - several million dead people voted for her.) A "popular vote" that is a nicety and nothing more - it has no constitutional basis. There is not and never has been a "popular presidential vote". Period. Does not exist in the Constitution - and that is by design.

The republican form of Government is an imperative declared in the United States Constitution - it is specifically declared as republican and not democratic, and is presented as an order to the authorities in the US. It is an order, not a suggestion.

Claims regarding some "moral law" that the current admin has allegedly failed to submit have no rational basis of fact - vague appeals to some morality or democratic identity do not approach the written documentation that in fact declares that government is ordered to function as a republic (not a democracy) and is subject to more limitations than is the people under it.

If Trump has commit some crime, or exercised some authority that was not specifically granted to him (in compliance with the 10th amendment) cite those crimes, and present evidence of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (Or rather, address whether or not the Bundestag has commit some crime, as one must clean one's own house before venturing to clean one's neighbors). The attempt to bypass procedure in favor of "public opinion" is how "democracies" rule - and this is why the US is not, and has never been a "democracy". We are a Republic - as written in Article IV section 4. We. Are. Not. A. Democracy. Democracy is mob-rule. Democracy ignores due process and tries to get crowds angry to do the bidding of some new tyrant. Democracy is easily beguiled - like Alcibiades did Athens. A Republic is supposed to be a written law that balances transient passions, democracies are always the unstable emotions of huge groups of people. Lynch mobs are democratic, due process is republican.

My original argument stands: Two years of a tantrum about the latest admin, while simultaneously ignoring the clinical megalomania by legislators is not a rational act. One who ignores unlawful acts of Congress has no basis upon which to attack whoever happens to inhabit the White House. I take it as granted that they are all corrupted by weight of evidence - but I have no power.

One party or politician's crimes are not absolved by throwing fits about the others - and the attempt is dangerous as it is juvenalia combined with power.

Incidentally, lynch-mobs historically were literally democratic - as in it was literally members of the democratic party who would lynch a black man for a crime, without due process. The US acting as a "democracy" has allowed amnesia regarding which party it was that encouraged racial insanity - and it is still that party that uses such despicable tactics just, now, it is used to inflame people against the "evil white man" instead of what it was - THAT is specifically why the US is NOT a democracy: it is so very easy to use transient passions such as anger and outrage to make dangerous decisions. Case in point: The burning of the Reichstag.

"Democracy" is using the fickle tantrums of the fearful. "Democracy" is evil. If the nine vote to kill the tenth, is it any less murder? "Democracy" says yes. A Republic says no.

I am afraid it is a true observation. He seems to have this knack of creating local and international crises, on the fly. Of course, the concern has to be that if unchecked, it could lead to miscalculation and conflagration.

Spencer Miles

Dear Spencer, thank you for your detailed answer.

With the religious background of the Constitution, your are right, of course; this was not only the continuation of the the theocratic spirit of the colonists' communities - very intolerant against each other - but also common in absolutistic rule in Europe at that time. (See also, Harris/Kidd: The Founding Fathers and the Debate over Religion in Revolutionary America; Oxford Univ. Press, 2012)

Your interpretation of the 10 Amendments of the Constitution I don't follow, but it is an interesting factor for arguing. If one compares how civil rights, also known as human rights, are formulated in the various constitutions of the EU countries, it is very different, at any rate I do not see any significant differences from the first 10 Amendments of the Amercan Constitution.

I think, if the text does not explicitly mention the legislators and authorities -. Congress etc. - and in the majority of amendments they are not mentioned, then your interpretation is not mandatory, but possible - and interesting, since it contradicts common interpretations.

Hein Retter

PS: male

Chinweike Agbachi

I think your answer is very good for this discussion. I agree with you. I think it's good how you argue - not excited or accusing, but calm, factual, considering problems. Thanks!

Hein Retter

Herr Retter,

Entshuldigung bitte.

The tenth amendment is the Reserved and delegated Powers - specifically it states that those powers not delegated, nor prohibited are reserved to the States or the people - specifically not the "United States" The interpretation is not obscure: What the Constitution does not specifically grant to the three bodies (including Congress) is verboten. Only the States (provided they are not prohibited) and the People (upon whom no prohibitions are written) are able to exercise authority that is not explicitly granted. That is the whole of the meaning in "Limited Government". As far as the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial are concerned, the Constitution explicitly states: This far, and no further.

That this has been utterly ignored does not change it.

As for the "theocratic" argument - that does not attain. The Declaration of Independence has been consistently upheld as the rational basis for authority in the US - it is the operative premise built upon the basic axiom that one human being is not qualified or empowered to circumscribe the rights of another - without exception.

If the nine vote to kill the tenth, it is still murder precisely because the right to life was granted by Creator and not by the nine. This is not "religious" it is deliberately calculated to crumble any future usurpations of value - and this is why it was not objectionable to the "deists" or "agnostics" who participated in its writing.

A theocracy would require the application of a divine will in particular instances of law - the US does not allow for that for the simple reason that such a will cannot be rationally discerned to a sufficient degree. It is not a matter of theocracy, it is a matter of rational bases upon which to execute law - the reasonable exercise of force.

The purpose in citing Creator is to eradicate the argument that a committee or a despot has the power to determine the rights of another human being. It is an unapproachable power that cannot be altered by passion or fashion of time. It is not "theocratic" as there is no "-cratic" element to it. It is a declaration of equality without possibility of argument.

A declaration of equality from birth - such that no kings or despots or tyrannical legislators might presume to have the authority to dictate a right. As Creator grants rights, only Creator may take them. That is the whole and complete basis of the United States.

Disagreement or disregard for that axiom is irrelevant - it remains the operative axiom of US authority.

Also, "civil-rights" are not in any way equivalent to "human-rights". Civil rights are little better than the privileges of participation in a geo-political entity. I have no civil-rights in Germany or Kazakhstan, as you have none in the United States or Zambia. Human rights however are universal (allegedly). I have no demand to vote in Nigeria, or work in Japan, and neither do you - those are civil rights. We both however have the reasonable expectation to work for a livelihood, and to expect that we will not be murdered - whether in Mongolia, Brazil, or Antarctica - these are human rights. They are by no means equivalent.

It is quite simple really: who grants may rescind. The Declaration is deliberately written to declare to George III, and any subsequent tyrants, that no human being has such authority. While the "civil-right" to a job may be rescinded, the human-right to a livelihood may not. They seem similar only as a result of unexamined assumptions (namely, that a wage is the only possible livelihood).

Finally, in regard to "different interpretations" - therein lies the root of despotism. The 6th amendment unequivocally declares "In all criminal prosecutions... public trial, by an impartial jury..." yet SCOTUS has decreed (as in, dictated) that "all" does not include "minor offenses" - even should they be stacked to a possible sentence of life in prison.

That is a definitive act of tyranny.

The whole concept of "Limited Government" is completely and totally destroyed should such a government usurp the ability to dictate the "meaning" of their own limitations.

The concept of "Judicial Review" in the US is supposed to mean that SCOTUS has the power to measure the acts of the other two branches - according to the Constitution. It does not mean that SCOTUS is given the authority to dictate the meaning of the word "all" - yet this is what has been done.

This my friend is the entirety of despotism: that the one with power usurps the very meaning of the words that legitimise that power.

This is the inevitable result of deciding that "rights" are the product of an election, committee, incident of time, or whim of an oligarch - as opposed to irreproachable gifts given by virtue of creation.

It is not a matter of how that Creator might be understood, it is not a matter of how that Creator might be "obeyed", it is not even a matter of whether or not that Creator exists. It is precisely and deliberately stated to be a product of the Creator because such things cannot be argued.

Again, and please weigh this heavily: If the nine vote to kill the tenth, it is no less murder because the right to life is not subject to a vote - it is a gift of creation.

THAT is the operative axiom and premise of limited government as constructed in the US, and departure therefrom is equivalent to mathematics without a concept of quantity - it is irrational and, due to the reality of POWER - it is wholly dangerous.

"Democracy" claims no superior other than the whim of the masses. The Republic of These United States is wholly and completely subject to the Origin of Rights.

"Democracy" has no limit to evil - so long as it was voted. Republic is rule of law, democracy is rule of mob.

Religion and theocracy don't enter into it - even for an atheist, it is simply stating "no human being has this power."

Thank you for your elaborated thoughts. Indeed, I learn something with your arguments. Basically I tend to contradict, if possible. Let me reflect some time.

Greetings Christophe: Correctly stated history records that Hitler was not democratically elected. Hitler was a maniacal despot who came to power through acts of violence before the 1933 election, during the voting process, and certainly thereafter. Even with his attempts to violate a free election process, he only got less than 44% of the votes cast. One of his first moves after being "elected" was to abolish democracy and replace it with a totalitarian state run by himself as the dictator. Those who opposed him were exterminated. Therefore, your use of the term “democratically elected” belies reality. Having said that, there have been throughout history really poor leaders elected through a truly open and democratic process. Normally they are removed in the next election cycle.

Cheers.

Mr. Klagge,

Having gained a sufficient majority in the Reichstag, the National Socialist Workers Party was able to install Adolf, operating on his use of "crisis", in addition to exploiting the concept of the Quorum in the Weimar procedures. They were all democratically elected.

As to your second point, horrid leaders are rarely removed in the next election - they've ensured their incumbency by buying votes with the treasury. "Good" leaders are measured centuries after their death - if their country is still functioning anyway, as this is the mark of a "good" leader.

Never seen a man who tosses about trillions from the treasury fail to gain re-election. Works better than intimidation. Also kills countries.

Not much different from parents in that regard. The candy will silence the tantrum for a moment, but will create decades of pain should it become the answer to every fit.

Following

Christophe Jouis

Yeas Christophe, you are rigth. And he did not promise the voters the Holocaust in his election speeches (as Trump promised "America first" and now tries to enforce this promise with political force in his own way). I know very well that comparisons with the Holocaust can never be appropriate, but the "final solution" for those who were to be expelled from the "racial blood community" was only the initial measures in 1933, the final scenario being developed just before 1942.

The last "free election" to the Reichstag, on March 5, 1933 was in some places affected by SA hordes, but Hitler had not gained points in the time of the election campaign by anti-Semitism in a population afflicted by the economic crisis. He presented himself as the great prince of peace and reconciler of the people, who would lead Germany out of the crisis. And yet in this election, in which NSDAP used modern technology (radio, Hitler's flights) more than any other party, the Nazis were unable to persuade even half the German population to vote for Hitler. It was not until the end of 1933, when Hitler was quite successful in foreign policy, beginning with the Concordat, and unemployment declined, that he had greater approval. But that is another issue.

التالية

Jay Klagge

Dear Jay, thanks for your comment. I only read your article after my answer to Christophe, and I see now, we said the same thing in part. But I would like to say something about your evaluation of the Reichstag elections on 5.3.1933.

If we compare this election with the elections later in the GDR under socialist terror-rule on the one hand (here one had to make one's cross for the SED), on the other hand compare with the US elections until the ban of the poll-taxes in five US southern states until 1966, then the elections in the German Reich on 5.3.1933 were more democratic.

The systematic discrimination of the poor white and especially black population by the fact that the elections were associated with a small fee made them even less attractive than they already were for the poor African Americans. They always remained politically disadvantaged in a democracy that in principle created whites for whites. (But that's only by the way).

To speak about the German situation.

After the US stock market crash of 1929, the economic and political situation in the Weimar Republic quickly developed into a disaster. Politically, the Nazis had a huge electoral success in the 1930 elections, they became the second strongest party in the Reichstag (after the SPD), before a splinter party under 2% with now over 18% of the votes, in some state parliaments such as Thuringia they even came to the government.

I will say: It was not the Nazis or they alone who led to the Third Reich, but with the beginning thirties in regular democratic elections the population lost more and more confidence in the first German democracy because of political and econimcal weakness. The political centre dwindled in favour of the extreme right-wing and left-wing parties, the right-wing spectrum being stronger overall, but many conservatives did not immediately become Hitler supporters either.

The KPD also had a significant increase in votes; in the total number of votes they were less than the Nazis. But these two right-wing and left-wing extremist parties increasingly fought each other on the streets with violence after 1930. The state and the police reacted only weakly because the democratic parties (DDP, SPD, Zentrum), which carried the Weimar Republic and implemented the Weimar Constitution in the summer of 1919, lost votes. The Catholic Centre Party had fought against Hitler on the election posters until the very end, and even after Hilter's transfer of power as Chancellor of the Reich on 30.1.33 this was still possible.

So in the formal sense this was really the last democratic election, because in the weeks after the polls SPD and KPD members were already arrested and all parties from NSDAP were banned, if they did not dissolve in July 1933 themselves.

I would like to mention one great tragedy. The two left-wing parties, SPD and KPD (the letter had only existed as a party since the beginning of 1920), were in a political extermination struggle among themselves, which started with the KPD. It insults the SPD members as social fascists. The Nazis would not have had a chance, if KPD and SPD had been united. Together they had much more votes.

The Weimar Constitution had some weaknesses, but is today more and more appreciated by historians in the year of its 100th anniversary. This constitution was never banned in the Nazi state, but was completely undermined by Nazi legislation.

This is a side view. We have many own problems, so the problems of the United States do not look particularly entertaining, but anyway ...

Trump's election is a consequence of a certain crisis in the American system (they spoke with great conviction about democracy and human rights, but suddenly realized that it was time to take care about themselves). In a sense, this is a lesson. But what conclusions will be made, only future will tell.

Yes, I almost forgot, the question was asked! Of course he is a demagogue, but no more than other politicians.

Vadim S. Gorshkov

Thank you, that's a good comment, because it's sensitive, and because it comes from Russia, it's from special relevance that your contribution comes from there, your home country, because Trump is indeed assessed quite differently from country to country, but I suppose more in the direction "differently problematic" than "differently hopeful".

Following

Following

Mr. Miles:

Do not think this is an hypothetical or "tongue in cheek" question as it is neither. To what place should one flee to find the Republic you cherish?

"To what place should one flee to find the Republic you cherish?"

This question of Jay Klagge is also interesting for other participants in the discussion.

As a member of the older generation I like to stay in my home country. Compared to many other countries and compared to political developments in our country, which I don't think are all good, I find it here as a whole okay. This also applies to some European countries that are easy to reach from Germany. But RG members from other countries and cultural areas certainly have different preferences.

Today I am beginning to see America no longer as a model for democracy and human values. From my point of view, Barack Obama as President would have meant a new beginning, I could have followed that. But unfortunately now the situation has changed, and it doesn't look like it will change again so quickly, despite all the surprises that Trump's political incursions (or perhaps failures) probably still have to offer.

Very simple ''Yes,

Not only that, hardly we find any positive by him for the people of the USA.

Md Zafar Alam Bhuiyan

You answer the starting question with a simple YES! - I also think that very often when I hear about Trump's political activities and decisions. On the other hand, the media show enthusiastic supporters when Trump travels to those areas of the USA for election campaign purposes that apparently still support him - and that's quite a lot.

The presidential election system is relatively complicated. It does not prescribe a direct election, it is done by electors. And it can happen - as was the case with Trump's election to Hilary Clinton - that the total number of American citizens supporting Clinton was greater than the number of Trump supporters. By direct election, Trump would have lost. Now we can only wait and see what comes next.

Previously, I could not understand why Western people do not like Trump. Well, Trump: demagogue and all that ...

But today I read that he is the first president of the United States during last 120 years who does not have a dog! If this is true (not dirty slander about an honest man) now I understand what the problem is and this person does not exist for me !!!

Yes, I think that Donald Trump is a demagogue. Unfortunately he is not alone. Most of politicians all over the world are also demagogue. I wonder why we often vote for leaders who are demagogue. Till when, Catilina, is this going to be the case, if I can borrow from the ancient Roman episode?

Besr regards,

Orando

Vadim S. Gorshkov To have or not to have a dog - that is the question that moves us all. I have a dog, but I can spare it very well, but my wife has wanted a dog since her youth. - I don't know how it is with Trump, dear Vadim. Probably he needs a dog to be a merciful person, not just an America First politician; at the moment he needs a wall and declares the lack of a wall as a national emergency in America. It is probably his own state of emergency that is conjured up here. We can only hope for all those directly involved that the problem will be solved with the least possible damage.

Dear all,

If Donad Trump were not a demagogue, he would not habe been elected as the current president of the USA. This was a sad reality for most American and is a sad reality for many countries all over the world.

KInd regards,

Oralndo

Orlando M Lourenço

thanks, Orlando, I think similar. It's tragic that our expectation, here in Europe, has been disappointed: after Obama's presidency all people hoped that a morally strong America furhtermore could lead the free world as model In my own view Trump has already gambled away this opportunity in half of his reign.

Yes, dear Hein,

When Barack Obama was elected, all that are, say, citizens of the world become to think of a better world both for Americans and most people all over the world. Now, we have Trump's administration and all of its dramatic consequences.

Kind regards.

Orlando

Dear all,

Dear Hein Retter,

thank you for posing this question...

Frankly speaking: yes he clearly is a demagogue and he is anti-establishment in many ways...

Best wishes,

Carsten

Trump is very much different from all US presidents I new in my lifetime (the first I remember was J. Carter)...

I cannot talk about all former US presidents since 1776 though...

Trump is by far the weakest president of my lifetime far before GW Bush and R Reagen ( in my view that is ... :)

[it read R Tragen; I later corrected the auto-correction-error of my mobile system...]

Carsten Weerth

Yes, that's exactly how I feel - and probably many others. But it is very disturbing. Because the risks of Trump's policy are enormous.

Ach auto-correction...

R. Reagan...

Dear Orlando,

there is a 'normal' way of politcal speech and the anti-establishment Trump way...

Trump is creating his news (fake-news), he is ommiting facts or simply states his viw AS correct...

Other despots and populists are doing the same thing. New to the western world is that the US president is acting as populist and despotic leader...

http://spon.de/afqvf

Former German Minister Joschka Fischer in Trump and the EU-US relationship...

Dear all,

mind you! I am denounced as a person which is doing Trump-bashing...

Though I tend to say that I am sharing my observations...

Here I am resharing some of my observations on Trump on RG:

[...]. Who is polemic? Are you serious about a SYMBLiC wall? Maybe you try to read things into Trumps bold approach. This is brute force. Simple. And Direct. Try to See his actions in int. Summits... It is obvious. Open your eyes...

Dear all, we are describing national attitudes that are still among the people and politicians (elected by such) people, or why do you think Garry Adams and the political wing of the IRA are having a six seats at Westminster and the DUP has ten seats... The Scotish National Party has even more than 30 seats... Facts should be valued as such. Even in Trump times. Even in Pennsylvania... Best, Carsten

You have to Pose the right and correct questions! Is he [Trump] really in for the poor people?

Is he doing the best possible politics for them?

Is he investing in health care, housing, education??? No, no, no...

Here I am resharing another contribution: Just a thought about liars in Politics - have you seen the analysis of President Trumps speech to the nation and on the border issue... Here is a critical analysis by Germany's SPON (Der Spiegel Online) and the Washington Post, NYT, etc. see URL: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/usa-donald-trump-macht-in-rede-zur-lage-der-nation-keine-zugestaendnisse-a-1251785.html So its about liars, alternative facts, not correct assumptions, etc. Best, Carsten

PS: I still am having nightmares imagining him [Trump] having the red phone and the red button for the nuclear arsenal of the US...

So to conclude:

Trump is anti-establishment.

He is actively and willingly destroying the US-role in many instituitions (UN, UNESCO, G20, G8, WTO, NATO, APEC, etc.).

This is an anti-establishment rookie-behavior of an adolecent unworthy of a nation leader...

But what shall I say.

Every nation gets the president it deserves....

Good luck to all of us...

[Is American Politics all about Free Trade?]

It is not all about free-trade!

1. Trump wants autarkie which means the effdctive closure of US markets...

2. Trump wants to leave geopolitical interests as the US president (we are no longer a world policing force),

3. Trump simply denies the importance and singnificance of international treaties and intends to leave many of them...

Did I mention that I am tired of anti-establishment-movements, -protests and left-wing or right-wing populists?!

Dear Carsten,

Please calm down ... else you might give yourself a stroke ... if Trump's behavior enrages you so much, just imagine how we true-blue Americans feel having a president that is "owned" by Vladimir Putin ... who is more concerned to do what Vlad wants, than serving the interests of the citizenry of America?

Regards,

Bob Skiles

Thank you Bob,

I am, we are all concerned and it is not just about US internal affairs it is about World politics...

But of course your are much more affected in the USA directly...

Again, now I am over and out for tonight, I have to care for my little daugthers whishing to protect them in a world as it is...

Carsten

Carsten Weerth

thanks for many answers. I have little to add. Trump makes us tired, apart from destroying any trust that we used to be prepared to give.

Bob Skiles From my point of view, the problem is not that there is Trump, in the position of US President, but that there were people who elected him. Even if that wasn't the majority, there was still a lot of it. I am pessimistic, because that is the direction America is moving in. Your president is just the figurehead with the inscription "Trump First!" It swings in the wind of world politics, which Trump himself produces. A sad and risky situation at the moment.

The understanding of Trump given here is that he represents the long line of isolationist tendencies in USA politics that includes a number of ex/Presidents before Roosevelt and also once central figures such as Lindburgh. Withdrawing from involvement with the world and placing the economic health and rights of the USA economy formost was surely one of their desired aims?

Dear alll,

I also created two entries to the Gabler Wirtschaftslexikon concerning Trump and his policies:

Twitter-Politik: https://wirtschaftslexikon.gabler.de/definition/twitter-politik-100608

and...

America-First-Politik, see URL:

https://wirtschaftslexikon.gabler.de/definition/america-first-politik-100609

Beware: this is going to be a long one again ... bear with it!

We might first have to assess the meaning oft he term. What is a demagogue? It roots in the meaning of „leader of the people“, in that respect a demagogue has been something like a tribune, one who speaks for and leads the people. In case of the tribune it meant leading the plebs. I refer to the ancient interpretation of the term demagogue here, as can be found in ancient Greece and Rome. (I do dare to simplify a bit, to keep it short, but the general interpretation should suffice at this point.)

However, already in ancient Greece the term came with a negative connotation, with the underlying notion of somebody who leads the people astray. So we do find a charismatic figure who is leading the people and claims to rightfully do so and to speak for the people, it might be a gifted speaker who achieves all that, but there is also the doubt of whether that person actually does speak for the people as he claims and also the suspicion of leading people astray and rather using the people for his own interest.

Now what is Donald Trump? If Robert Reich considers him to be a demagogue, I believe him (because he is Robert Reich!), but on a more serious note: I believe we can easily agree to that. After all those who consider Trump a positive leader with the best interest of his people in mind could find positive aspects in „demagogue“ just as well as those who despise him deeply.

I see Donald Trump as a communicator with a certain degree of skill. It is not rhethoric skill I am talking about. The speeches of Barack Obama were brilliant, those of Abraham Lincoln to the point and gripping, those of John F. Kennedy convincing and moving. They had all thought through speeches, with great content, taking the audience on a trip, showing them a bright future or motivate them for tasks in front of them. You don’t find any of that with Donald Trump.

Speechwriters would find a lot to complain about with his speeches and their presentation. I do not want to get too much into detail here. But one thing is for sure: he has an audience and he delivers just what that audience is looking for. When he is unprecise and vague, they read between the lines to find exactly what they are looking for. In that respect he is a gifted speaker and for that certain share of US society I too believe he is a demagogue in the sense of leading the people and speaking for the people.

But demagogues are also seeding hatred, „us against them“ is their favourite trope. So yes, in that respect too I consider Trump a demagogue.