Pres. Trump's "Conflict of Interests"
The US Department of Defense is considering renting space in Trump Tower in New York City (Washington Post, and many others, February 8, 2017). This is not the first or only "conflict of interest" that has appeared in the news since the election of Donald Trump. Personally, I am not much concerned. If he had a small private home in a suburban neighborhood, how could he not have other agencies of the government over for coffee, or even put a department secretary in the guest room for the night?
But my own lack of concern - in fact, my amusement - did make me stop and question myself on what I would feel if it were President Hillary Clinton filling the coffers of the Clinton Foundation? It is easy to predict that I would be sympathetic to the howling storm of protest that would erupt from the conservatives. But why?
So, I stopped to consider First Principles.
Ayn Rand addressed some of the issues in The "Conflicts" of Men's Interests in The Virtue of Selfishness. Rand analyzed the problems from (a) reality, (b) context, (c) responsibility, and (d) effort.
That one essay did not consider all of the issues involved in President Donald Trump or "President Hillary Clinton" having global financial interests and a family that is deeply engaged with those interests. However, enough of a foundation is laid there to suggest that no such conflicts exist.
The claim of "conflict of interest" is an altruist fallacy. The idea that the President (or anyone) must place "the public good" about their own well-being has no objective reality.
This is not a blank check on the government treasury.
By analogy, an employee in sales is able to secure a valuable special order, but to make the deadline drives the objects to the customer in their own car -- and bills their company back for the expense of the mileage... and of course enjoys the commission earned. Where is the "conflict of interest"?
How is that one small example any different from the engagements of President Donald Trump or those of "President Hillary Clinton"?
Every "public servant" has private property and personal interests. To me, the standard must be whether and to what extent the apparent personal advantage is necessarily a disadvantage to the government treasury. That may well be nothing more complicated than bookkeeping. Was a better deal available?
(And in closing, here in Texas, the state is not required to award contracts to the lowest bidder, but is required to award contracts to the best value.)
But my own lack of concern - in fact, my amusement - did make me stop and question myself on what I would feel if it were President Hillary Clinton filling the coffers of the Clinton Foundation? It is easy to predict that I would be sympathetic to the howling storm of protest that would erupt from the conservatives. But why?
So, I stopped to consider First Principles.
Ayn Rand addressed some of the issues in The "Conflicts" of Men's Interests in The Virtue of Selfishness. Rand analyzed the problems from (a) reality, (b) context, (c) responsibility, and (d) effort.
That one essay did not consider all of the issues involved in President Donald Trump or "President Hillary Clinton" having global financial interests and a family that is deeply engaged with those interests. However, enough of a foundation is laid there to suggest that no such conflicts exist.
The claim of "conflict of interest" is an altruist fallacy. The idea that the President (or anyone) must place "the public good" about their own well-being has no objective reality.
This is not a blank check on the government treasury.
By analogy, an employee in sales is able to secure a valuable special order, but to make the deadline drives the objects to the customer in their own car -- and bills their company back for the expense of the mileage... and of course enjoys the commission earned. Where is the "conflict of interest"?
How is that one small example any different from the engagements of President Donald Trump or those of "President Hillary Clinton"?
Every "public servant" has private property and personal interests. To me, the standard must be whether and to what extent the apparent personal advantage is necessarily a disadvantage to the government treasury. That may well be nothing more complicated than bookkeeping. Was a better deal available?
(And in closing, here in Texas, the state is not required to award contracts to the lowest bidder, but is required to award contracts to the best value.)
It generally takes to to make a conflict of anything. Also as I understand it, there is no tie between the President and Trump tower any longer (except he still maintains a residence there.)
You bring up two tangential issues. #1 is more interesting to me than the rental issue.
1. What's-This-All-About? - You say that supporters of President Trump condone the behavior by Trump but would condemn it if Clinton did the same thing. It's easy to understand why people who in some way get paid by politics (staffers, commentators, executives with ties to particular politicians) would be so blatantly biased. I do not at all understand how they sell it to disinterested people. If one candidate wanted to scale back gov't spending, borrowing, and intrusiveness, something I agree with, I could see being biased and feeling an urge to see sinister motives in the statist and innocent motives in the anti-statist. We do not have that situation. Despite the cries of people getting paid saying that President Obama fundamentally changed the US or President Trump is fundamentally changing the US, I do not see it at all. I count Trump as slightly worse because I think there may be truth to his public persona of a buffoon, and I think he sees state power as a trick to get attention. Amazingly, though, his supporters have an ability to contort themselves basically saying, "If he's willing to do something that looks that asinine, then surly he's willing to confront entrenched powers and [insert speaker's policy initiatives here]." His critics pick up on things like this rental deal that seem like minutia. This leaves me wondering why disinterested people do it? Do they actually have some financial ties? Is it all about gender, identity politics, and so on? Is it just party loyalty? What's this all about?
2. Conflict of Interest - I think you said there's no such thing as a conflict of interest, but I think I misunderstand. Clearly if the someone secretly overpays for something that he said I would buy at the best value, that is stealing, right?