the Trump show in American government

---

My title here might serve to label a long story to come: Trump playing president within the estate of USAmerican government that overwhelms him, profoundly preceding him, and destined to contain him, if not cause his disappearance from his stage.

That could be a great story of how government successfully constrains tendencies toward authoritarianism.

note to the EU President—and some philosophical context

---

Earlier this week, I sent a message to the President of the European Union—seriously. I did it seriously. Of course, it’s comical to think that I reached anyone beyond a clerical screener. But the act will be useful for later discussion online.

I responded to a letter to EU heads of state by Donald Tusk that was posted for public purusal on the EU Council home page (link upcoming). The EU President was expressing very well the spirit of need for EU solidarity in facing immanent challenges. But he was invalidly equating (1) the travesty of Trump playing autocrat and (2) a general threat to U.S.-E.U. relations, as if The Donald has general public support. So, why not share my view of the matter, as a student of European affairs who can speak for the American situation validly?

entertaining the Don daze: the U.S. presidency as “reality” TV

---

The point of this is just to summarize my attitude toward the upcoming Trump presidency, if you want my opinion. Then, I want to leave this behind and write online this year about what interests me, which I’m not quite ready to do, but I’m close; another couple of weeks at the most.

To me, the emerging reality of the Trump presidency is more insulting by the day. Trump was not legitimately elected, as I'll detail later here. But I’m reassured by the lucidity of leading journalism about what’s happening (e.g., the NYTimes Editorial Board yesterday).

philosopher acting as public intellectual

---

Habermas: A Biography
by Stefan Muller-Doohm
Polity Press, 2016

This is now available (Sept. 29), but I’ve received it only today. I’ve read the author’s “Epilogue: Habermas’s Inner Compass” carefully. I want to comment relative to that notion and my own decades of experience with Habermas’s work, but I’m not yet directly addressing the author’s misled sense of “inner compass.”

the Brexit vote is not legally binding

---

updated June 25, then at the very end July 2.

Britain has a chance to undo its self-defeating Brexit decision. All of this does not have to actually lead to Britain leaving the EU.

Everything I’ve read about the chaos now of the Brexit vote pertains to coping with the result. I’ve seen nothing in the leading press that indicates that anyone has good reason to believe that the Brexit vote is good for Britain. The Remain vote prevailed in major cities, among highly educated voters, and younger voters—along with all of Scotland. The Leave vote prevailed in English provinces, among the underemployed in metro suburbs, among lower educated voters, and among older voters.

The Bexit vote is not legally binding. If Parliament decided against invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, they would not be ignoring populist will, if such a decision is part of leadership that realistically addresses public needs. To decide differently is not the same as deciding against the populist will. Not invoking Article 50 would be contrary to only 3.6% more of the British population than voted to Remain (and would be congruent with the more-astute plurality of the public).

What makes one argument better than another?

---

care of (and for) the other (to be convinced) by flexible perspectivity
through an event of appropriation

---

For a given decision (whether or not I vote for issue “I”), one looks at the arguments for each case and may argue for choosing acceptance (“Yes”) or rejection. I’ll say I do that, but this is not about a choice I have to make. One says or thinks “I look at the arguments...”

race of the river: a preface

---

I’m going to quote Heidegger from his 1931-38 Notebooks at length, but let me begin this way: What’s more interesting: where a river is going or where it’s been?

It’s going somewhere because it’s drawn to do so—by gravity, of course—not because it’s coming from somewhere.

Likewise with lives: Actualization of potential goes where it can, in its best interest. It doesn’t unfold a destiny. The human interest isn’t Given. It’s not primordially about its past, rather about its futurity, because interests, too, develop with the life. One is transformed along the way, and the character of interest in going further is transformed too—if potential and futurity orient the way, rather than attachment to notions of inevitability of a given past—or lost past to be regained.