owlsbooks Chapter 2182
Chapter 2182
Chapter 2182
As the most powerful president of the United States since Roosevelt, Benjamin was actually very reluctant to put the future of the country in the hands of others!
This actually has little to do with personal morality, but is the instinct of being a rights holder!
He couldn't allow, nor did he want, someone to stand over his head!
You know, the emperor and the retired emperor are real father and son, they can't pee in the same pot, let alone other people!
What is the core essence of power? Exclusiveness, or exclusivity. Any person or family who holds power, the purpose of using power or operating power is to ultimately maintain their own power and prevent power from falling into the hands of others. The core of power is to possess it alone. Power, like human nature, is extremely selfish and greedy. Once a person has it, he is unwilling to let it go. Even if he has become incompetent, he will still hold on to power, even if he has to pay a heavy price for it, he will not care, all he wants is to hold power in his hands. Of course, there are very few people in this world who do not cling to power, and give up power at a certain time or in compliance with an agreement. Such people are worthy of admiration, but few people can be so open-minded, let go of the temptation of power, and return to an ordinary life or a life away from the spotlight. The benefits of power are obvious. It can be said that having power means having the power to decide the fate of others. Power can be control over others, or it can form restrictions on others, and having power itself can get more opportunities and resources than others. Simply put, those who have power are often noble, that is, they are more noble than ordinary people and look down on others. Whether it is the chieftain in the tribal period or the leader in the form of a country, the holder of power is always a unique existence, the distributor of resources and the executor of rules and order. There are always all kinds of people in society. Whether it is the system or resources, it is impossible to achieve complete fairness, which gives the executors of power bias. Certain resources can be given to this or that, and can be given in part or all at once. The decision is in the hands of the person in power. People's bias always leans towards people they like or people who are beneficial to them. Once a person has power, the allocation of resources becomes a guarantee for maintaining the interests of him and those related to him. Therefore, the holder of power will maximize his own interests and even benefit himself for life.
To achieve this goal, power must be made into one's own private tool, that is, to hold power permanently, or to pass it on, that is, to transfer it privately. Only in this way can one maximize one's own interests. This is the fundamental reason why people do not want to give up power after they have it. The goal of power is to satisfy selfish desires, which is also the nature of human beings. Human selfishness is interest. Interests make people different, and therefore drive people to break rules or hurt others for their own sake, with the purpose of maximizing their own interests and encroaching on the interests of others. The simplest, most direct and crude way to maintain the interests under power is to make power private, so that others have no chance to get involved in power. This forms the exclusivity of power, that is, the power model of self-centeredness. With one family's opinion, power is naturally arbitrary. Therefore, after the formation of the private social form, power has formed a family-centered inheritance model. When a person obtains power, the subsequent power holders are his descendants or blood relatives. When he is corrupt, others will seize power in the same way and pass it on to future generations. Even in a civilized society, the holders of power do not want their power to leak out, so they form an alliance with some "like-minded" people to pass power between each other to maintain common interests. If there are no "like-minded" people, they will choose people who they think can protect their interests. Therefore, we can see that even among a group of "like-minded" people, everyone will form their own team. When it is necessary to subdivide power, they will pull out the people in their team and let them stand alone, hold their ground, and protect their own interests.
Therefore, people who are registered in a certain place or work in a certain place will stand out and become extraordinary people in the spotlight. The main reason for this is that these people follow the right person. The power holder regards them as his own people and believes that they will complete the task according to his own wishes, making the power as stable as a mountain. Because once the power is transferred or falls into the hands of others, the original power and interest relationship will change, and everything that you have worked hard for may come to nothing. This is what all power holders do not want to see. Therefore, they refuse to let people other than themselves hold power and let the power be exclusive to me. The service object of power is ultimately interest, but this interest is often the power holder. It is precisely because of the relationship between power and interest that the power holder is unwilling to let power fall into the hands of others, and then infinitely magnify the selfishness of human nature, making power exclusive, private, and exclusive to me.
The higher Kay's reputation became, the more Benjamin wanted to prevent Kay from having too much contact with Washington.
There was no way, Benjamin put too much pressure on the other party.
To be honest, the differences between the two parties in the United States are not that big, and there is no fundamental difference in their ideologies. When talking about American politics, we naturally cannot avoid the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. There are differences in the political propositions of the two parties, but upon closer inspection, there are also many similarities.
First, in terms of origin, it is generally believed that Republicans are mainly big capitalists, while Democrats are mainly political elites. However, looking at the list of new senior government officials nominated by Trump, there are indeed some big capitalists, but more are "elites" from "grassroots" backgrounds. In the final analysis, both parties are bourgeois parties, representing the interests of the bourgeoisie, and their social class affiliation is essentially the same.
Of course, factors such as race and region do affect people's political choices, resulting in different personnel compositions and interests between the two parties, which in turn leads to certain differences in the specific economic policies of the two parties. Specifically, the Republican Party generally advocates tax cuts for the rich, while the Democratic Party tends to cut taxes for small business owners. This is the most common difference between the two parties in economic policies. There are many other differences, which will not be expanded here. At the same time, the two parties also have great similarities in some economic policies, such as relaxing financial regulation, which is basically a policy that has continued since the Reagan era and has been adhered to by successive US presidents, even though the lack of financial regulation was one of the important causes of the 2008 financial crisis.
Second, in terms of foreign trade policy, the Democratic Party seems to be more inclined to free trade, while the Republican Party is more inclined to implement protective tariffs. However, we need to make it clear that the reason why the Democratic Party supports free trade or moderate protectionism is more to oppose the Republican Party's trade protectionism policy and to show the difference between themselves and the Republican Party. Once the Democrats are in power and have the final decision-making power, their firm free trade stance will immediately undergo major adjustments.
3. In terms of diplomacy, the two parties are almost identical in this regard. The only difference is in the way they say things. In essence, there is actually no difference.
The fundamental difference between the two parties that is currently recognized is their attitudes towards illegal immigration and the gender liberation movement.
However, claims are claims, and reality is reality. After all, except for those policies that fundamentally touch the interests of their own class, the two parties generally decide their views in this way: how much support will be increased by taking one view instead of another. This is especially true during elections. As for when they actually take power, many of the promises made at the beginning cannot and will not be truly realized. In short, the two parties in the United States do have differences in some specific policies, but they are essentially no different.
The real conflict between the two parties is actually very simple. It is a pure power struggle, not a struggle based on ideology.
This kind of power struggle is actually not that bad. After all, there is no room for easing in the ideological struggle. It is possible that one side will die or the other will die. As for the pure power struggle, that is, the east wind prevails over the west wind. You have the upper hand today, and I will prevail tomorrow.
There is nothing that is insurmountable.
However, Benjamin's extremely high approval rating and the established fact of collective responsibility have, to a certain extent, already constituted a de facto suppression of other groups, resulting in their reduced power.
This thing can be big or small.
If there is no opportunity, they naturally won't say much. Political strongmen will often crush the opposition to survive.
But if there is an opportunity, it will be a different scene.
Kay's reputation is undoubtedly comparable to Benjamin's, but Kay has always been distant from Washington and has not had much contact with various political forces. He seems to be aloof from the world.
But will this really reassure Benjamin?
You know, power struggles are always cruel.
From ancient times to the present, many times, rulers killed the people below them, not because the other party really wanted to rebel, but because they had the ability to rebel!
There is no doubt that Kai has the ability to rebel, so it doesn’t matter whether he wants to rebel or not.
Similarly, although Benjamin seems to value Kai, he is actually quite cautious towards Kai. Why were the X-Team, the Avengers and other organizations successfully established and strongly supported by the US government?
On the one hand, of course, it is a practical need.
There's nothing to say.
On the other hand, isn’t it also a check and balance?
Make Kai no longer unique.
But sometimes, things just don't go as we wish. Once the emergency really comes, Benjamin still thinks of this old friend first.
Faced with the president's questioning, a group of people looked at each other.
No one stepped forward.
There is no way. Kai's position is not in the federal government, and he does not even receive a salary from the federal government, so in a sense the federal government cannot command Kai. The U.S. Constitution sets out the principle of separation of powers between the federal and state governments. According to this principle, the federal government enjoys the "enumerated powers" of the Constitution, which include but are not limited to diplomacy, national defense, coinage, immigration and naturalization, etc. State governments have "reserved powers", which are mainly to deal with affairs within the state, such as education, transportation, public safety, etc.
Under the federal system, the relationship between the federal government and the states is not strictly central-local. They enjoy the highest power within their respective prescribed scope of authority and have direct jurisdiction over the people. This means that the federal government has direct jurisdiction over the people of each state within its scope of authority, such as diplomacy and national defense. But at the same time, the state governments also have direct jurisdiction over their people within their scope of authority, such as education and transportation within the state. This jurisdiction does not conflict with each other, but runs parallel in their respective fields.
The federal government cannot appoint state government officials, nor can it supervise or evaluate the state government's administrative behavior. Similarly, state governments cannot interfere in federal affairs. This independent and interdependent relationship ensures the flexibility and stability of the federal system. In summary, the federal government has direct jurisdiction over the people of each state within its authority, but this jurisdiction does not exclude or weaken the jurisdiction of the state government within its authority.
The simplest example is the relationship between the FBI and local police.
The Federal Police, or FBI, is not in a superior-subordinate relationship with the state police. However, in terms of jurisdiction, the FBI has higher power than the state police. The state police are limited to managing the affairs of their own state, while the Federal Police can govern the entire United States. For example, when a criminal crosses the state border to commit a crime, the state police's right to pursue will end, and the case will be handed over to the FBI. For serious crimes such as serial murders, interstate robbery, or endangering territorial security, the FBI will bear the main responsibility for investigation. In daily work, if the state police encounter an incident beyond their ability to handle, they usually seek the assistance of the FBI. Since the FBI has more experience and resources, the state police must cooperate with their work unconditionally. Of course, if the state police do not send a signal for help, the FBI shall not interfere in their affairs at will. The American police system is complicated, including state police, county police, city police, town police, village police, park police, school police and many other types of police, the specific number may reach dozens. This detailed division of labor may be related to the vast geography and diverse social environment of the United States, which is very different from the model where one police station solves all problems here. Due to the variety of police forces and different laws in different states, FBl often encounters conflicts in cooperation with local police. At present, they have not yet formed a unified police law, which may lead to different understandings and actions when handling cases. In short, the role of FBl in the United States is similar to that of our ancient imperial envoys. They usually do not show up easily, but in times of crisis, they will stand up, show their credentials, and make decisive decisions.
But the FBI does not have direct jurisdiction over local police departments!
The same is true for the federal government. Although they can use their power to circumvent the issue, they do not have direct jurisdiction in legal terms.
Kai is a local policeman. There is no connection between the federal agency and Kai. Kai does not need to make any explanation to the federal government for his actions. Of course, power is exercised by people. There are many roundabout ways, but they are of little use to Kai.
This results in the Federation's actual control over Kai being quite weak.