World
Bruna Frascolla
July 8, 2024
© Photo: SCF

The only way to surpass Joe Biden’s excellency is creating a presidential avatar whose speeches are programmed by ChatGPT.

❗️Join us on TelegramTwitter , and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

After USA’s presidential debate, every person who is interested in politics, except for Jill Biden, was wondering how is it possible that the most powerful country in the world can be ruled by an incapable. However, a two minutes reflection may cure such a perplexity. Since the most powerful country in the world is a liberal technocratic regime, Joe Biden is the best of all possible presidents. After all, he doesn’t upset the market, neither attacks the institutions. A president who has sane intellectual faculties tends to deliver disruptive speeches; disruptive speeches tend to upset the market, or to be an attack on the democratic rule of law.

Normal presidents don’t do such things because they are stupid or because they have disruptive ideas. They do it because they need to look like they have the ideas and the impetus for making changes, and they need to maintain such an image because they need votes (for themselves or their allies). It may be the case that the politician actually has disruptive ideas and the impetus for making changes (if he can actually make, it’s another issue), but it can never be the case that a politician will deliberately behave as a dead fish for his voters. However, the market demands precisely a president who stays quiet, but, if he is going to talk, he is better to exalt the virtues of free market. This is an electoral formula that worked in only one place in the world, up till now: Argentina; more precisely, Argentina after a mad Covid lockdown.

In the end of the day, liberalism and democracy are mutually exclusive, because the people are populist and have a conservative temperament. Without bribery or blackmail, it is unlikely that politicians would pass the austerity politics supported by the science of liberal economists. Precisely for this reason, the remaining option for liberalism, that wats to retain its resemblance of democracy, is delegating important choices to Judiciary power. In Brazil, the name of Justice Alexandre de Moraes is the favorite example of those who want to claim that this country lives under a judiciary dictatorship. However, the European Union has the practical politics of open borders because of a kind of Supreme Court, the European Court of Human Rights, which, in 2012, by means of the Hirsi decision, concluded that Italy (and therefore every country of EU) cannot expel illegal immigrants. Well, the explosion of immigration is unpopular and could never be attained by votes. On the other hand, illegal immigration is notoriously sought by liberal economists, who watch over public accounts and private profits, and see workers without rights as a source of wealth.

The most notorious case of judicial activism in the USA is Roe v. Wade, which considered abortion a constitutional right and so prohibited its prohibition. This is the most notorious case because it fits right in the narratives of both progressive Left and fusionist Right, that leave the labor issue and focuses on sexual morality. Actually, judicial activism is more deep and more comprehensive in the USA. Let us see: how would be possible that a democratic industrialized country in the 19th century did not transform itself in a labor paradise, if there are more workers than patrons voting, and even a firm tradition of labor unions? The answer is the same as ever: the Supreme Court. With the Lochner Era (1987 – 1937), the Supreme Court sought to transform USA into an economic liberal country despite the voters’ will, ruling any labor regulation as unconstitutional. To put an end to it, only with Franklin Delano Roosevelt packing the Supreme Court – a thing that, nowadays, is an abominable heresy against democratic rule of law, according to every “expert”. On the other hand, liberalism allows a thousand and one regulations – as long as they are made by technocrats, whether from the State (see the FDA and its analogues around the world) or from the financial market (such as the ESG ranking).

For a long time, liberalism was appeased with solid technocratic institutions: whoever won, he could not take unconstitutional or anti-scientific measures. Now, for some reason, liberalism is hysterical with statements. Well, Joe Biden will not disrespect any institution, nor will he make any credible statement. The only way to surpass Joe Biden’s excellency is creating a presidential avatar whose speeches are programmed by ChatGPT.

Why Biden is the best of all possible liberal presidents

The only way to surpass Joe Biden’s excellency is creating a presidential avatar whose speeches are programmed by ChatGPT.

❗️Join us on TelegramTwitter , and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

After USA’s presidential debate, every person who is interested in politics, except for Jill Biden, was wondering how is it possible that the most powerful country in the world can be ruled by an incapable. However, a two minutes reflection may cure such a perplexity. Since the most powerful country in the world is a liberal technocratic regime, Joe Biden is the best of all possible presidents. After all, he doesn’t upset the market, neither attacks the institutions. A president who has sane intellectual faculties tends to deliver disruptive speeches; disruptive speeches tend to upset the market, or to be an attack on the democratic rule of law.

Normal presidents don’t do such things because they are stupid or because they have disruptive ideas. They do it because they need to look like they have the ideas and the impetus for making changes, and they need to maintain such an image because they need votes (for themselves or their allies). It may be the case that the politician actually has disruptive ideas and the impetus for making changes (if he can actually make, it’s another issue), but it can never be the case that a politician will deliberately behave as a dead fish for his voters. However, the market demands precisely a president who stays quiet, but, if he is going to talk, he is better to exalt the virtues of free market. This is an electoral formula that worked in only one place in the world, up till now: Argentina; more precisely, Argentina after a mad Covid lockdown.

In the end of the day, liberalism and democracy are mutually exclusive, because the people are populist and have a conservative temperament. Without bribery or blackmail, it is unlikely that politicians would pass the austerity politics supported by the science of liberal economists. Precisely for this reason, the remaining option for liberalism, that wats to retain its resemblance of democracy, is delegating important choices to Judiciary power. In Brazil, the name of Justice Alexandre de Moraes is the favorite example of those who want to claim that this country lives under a judiciary dictatorship. However, the European Union has the practical politics of open borders because of a kind of Supreme Court, the European Court of Human Rights, which, in 2012, by means of the Hirsi decision, concluded that Italy (and therefore every country of EU) cannot expel illegal immigrants. Well, the explosion of immigration is unpopular and could never be attained by votes. On the other hand, illegal immigration is notoriously sought by liberal economists, who watch over public accounts and private profits, and see workers without rights as a source of wealth.

The most notorious case of judicial activism in the USA is Roe v. Wade, which considered abortion a constitutional right and so prohibited its prohibition. This is the most notorious case because it fits right in the narratives of both progressive Left and fusionist Right, that leave the labor issue and focuses on sexual morality. Actually, judicial activism is more deep and more comprehensive in the USA. Let us see: how would be possible that a democratic industrialized country in the 19th century did not transform itself in a labor paradise, if there are more workers than patrons voting, and even a firm tradition of labor unions? The answer is the same as ever: the Supreme Court. With the Lochner Era (1987 – 1937), the Supreme Court sought to transform USA into an economic liberal country despite the voters’ will, ruling any labor regulation as unconstitutional. To put an end to it, only with Franklin Delano Roosevelt packing the Supreme Court – a thing that, nowadays, is an abominable heresy against democratic rule of law, according to every “expert”. On the other hand, liberalism allows a thousand and one regulations – as long as they are made by technocrats, whether from the State (see the FDA and its analogues around the world) or from the financial market (such as the ESG ranking).

For a long time, liberalism was appeased with solid technocratic institutions: whoever won, he could not take unconstitutional or anti-scientific measures. Now, for some reason, liberalism is hysterical with statements. Well, Joe Biden will not disrespect any institution, nor will he make any credible statement. The only way to surpass Joe Biden’s excellency is creating a presidential avatar whose speeches are programmed by ChatGPT.

The only way to surpass Joe Biden’s excellency is creating a presidential avatar whose speeches are programmed by ChatGPT.

❗️Join us on TelegramTwitter , and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

After USA’s presidential debate, every person who is interested in politics, except for Jill Biden, was wondering how is it possible that the most powerful country in the world can be ruled by an incapable. However, a two minutes reflection may cure such a perplexity. Since the most powerful country in the world is a liberal technocratic regime, Joe Biden is the best of all possible presidents. After all, he doesn’t upset the market, neither attacks the institutions. A president who has sane intellectual faculties tends to deliver disruptive speeches; disruptive speeches tend to upset the market, or to be an attack on the democratic rule of law.

Normal presidents don’t do such things because they are stupid or because they have disruptive ideas. They do it because they need to look like they have the ideas and the impetus for making changes, and they need to maintain such an image because they need votes (for themselves or their allies). It may be the case that the politician actually has disruptive ideas and the impetus for making changes (if he can actually make, it’s another issue), but it can never be the case that a politician will deliberately behave as a dead fish for his voters. However, the market demands precisely a president who stays quiet, but, if he is going to talk, he is better to exalt the virtues of free market. This is an electoral formula that worked in only one place in the world, up till now: Argentina; more precisely, Argentina after a mad Covid lockdown.

In the end of the day, liberalism and democracy are mutually exclusive, because the people are populist and have a conservative temperament. Without bribery or blackmail, it is unlikely that politicians would pass the austerity politics supported by the science of liberal economists. Precisely for this reason, the remaining option for liberalism, that wats to retain its resemblance of democracy, is delegating important choices to Judiciary power. In Brazil, the name of Justice Alexandre de Moraes is the favorite example of those who want to claim that this country lives under a judiciary dictatorship. However, the European Union has the practical politics of open borders because of a kind of Supreme Court, the European Court of Human Rights, which, in 2012, by means of the Hirsi decision, concluded that Italy (and therefore every country of EU) cannot expel illegal immigrants. Well, the explosion of immigration is unpopular and could never be attained by votes. On the other hand, illegal immigration is notoriously sought by liberal economists, who watch over public accounts and private profits, and see workers without rights as a source of wealth.

The most notorious case of judicial activism in the USA is Roe v. Wade, which considered abortion a constitutional right and so prohibited its prohibition. This is the most notorious case because it fits right in the narratives of both progressive Left and fusionist Right, that leave the labor issue and focuses on sexual morality. Actually, judicial activism is more deep and more comprehensive in the USA. Let us see: how would be possible that a democratic industrialized country in the 19th century did not transform itself in a labor paradise, if there are more workers than patrons voting, and even a firm tradition of labor unions? The answer is the same as ever: the Supreme Court. With the Lochner Era (1987 – 1937), the Supreme Court sought to transform USA into an economic liberal country despite the voters’ will, ruling any labor regulation as unconstitutional. To put an end to it, only with Franklin Delano Roosevelt packing the Supreme Court – a thing that, nowadays, is an abominable heresy against democratic rule of law, according to every “expert”. On the other hand, liberalism allows a thousand and one regulations – as long as they are made by technocrats, whether from the State (see the FDA and its analogues around the world) or from the financial market (such as the ESG ranking).

For a long time, liberalism was appeased with solid technocratic institutions: whoever won, he could not take unconstitutional or anti-scientific measures. Now, for some reason, liberalism is hysterical with statements. Well, Joe Biden will not disrespect any institution, nor will he make any credible statement. The only way to surpass Joe Biden’s excellency is creating a presidential avatar whose speeches are programmed by ChatGPT.

The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.

See also

The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.