King George III:
The world was in an interesting state entering the turn of the 18th Century. Well, the “western” world was. Becoming enlightened as a result of the musings of the works and workings of the philosophes? In spirit and philosophy, yes. Did the practical application of the spirit and philosophy enlightenment lead to the rise of enlightened liberal constitutional states? Yes…kind of, for the age.
England was a liberal constitutional state, relatively speaking, when the American War for Independence was fought and won. That’s correct – it was a war for independence not a revolution; however, many still claim. It was revolutionary at best. There were many causes of the colonial assertion of “self determination” and sovereignty that carried the colonies down the road of going down of not firing until “the whites of their eyes” were seen.
The clash of empires, England and France, referred to as The Seven Years War in the “old world” and the French-Indian War in the “new world”, was a very expensive endeavour for Britain. and of course, the colonies were a great source of revenue for the crown. King George knew it and so did parliament.
What’s an empire to do? Pass a series of tax acts on the colonies to pay for the war. The colonies were already under the control of the mother country in terms of economic production via the Trade and Navigation Acts. What could and couldn’t be produced, whose ships could goods travel on, who could make up the crew of the ships, and who could be traded with were some of the main restrictions placed on the colonies. Before the Sugar Act, Stamp Act, Townshend Acts, and the Tea Act were imposed, the colonists didn’t mind the Trade and Navigation Acts, including the Enumerated Articles because money was being made hand over fist. It was quite like a symbiotic economic relationship.
However, the taxes helped transform the relationship into a parasitic one. Of course, the colonists organized and strategized regarding tactical responses. The Stamp Act Congress was formed as well as The Sons and Daughters of Liberty and a Tea Party was held in Boston Harbor. The mantra of “no taxation without representation” came to a crescendo and echoed across the Atlantic. King George and parliament not understanding what that meant because after all, they were merely colonists in the colonies – they weren’t English and they weren’t living in England. Oh yes, “Rue Brittania” rue – colonists know your place and mind your Ps and Qs.
Throw in the Declaratory Act and the Intolerable Acts and what did King George and England think was going to happen; what did they think the colonists were going to do? Did he expect them to bend the knee, kiss the ring and say, “Yes, of course sire – we don’t know what we were thinking. We are here to serve you. We shall now fall into line and give up our desire for freedom and sovereignty.” Of course not – “Common Sense” dictated they shouldn’t do that. “Common Sense” dictated that
2 + 2 should have equalled 5 but arrogance and the madness may have blinded George to what was going to happen and did happen.
Oh…the pomposity and hubris of hegemonic empire! Pride cometh before a fall. The fall was England’s surrender at Yorktown in 1781 and the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783. The great prolific empire had fallen to colonists. That’s a lot of humble pie to eat.
The “madness” of King George III began to show itself in the 1780s. Did it effect his decision making? Did it render his decision making arbitrary and unpredictable – did he irrationally lead the empire toward war with the colonies? George was the king of the most powerful empire in the world which had commercial interests across the globe. Did the empire need to maintain autocratic “taxation without representation” control over the colonies to maintain its commercial benefits and advantages? Possibly but probably not. Was there another empire or state in Europe to supplant and replace the role of England in the triangular network of trade that existed between Europe, the West Coast of Africa, the West Indies, and the American colonies? Not very likely.
The empire was the empire and by the outbreak of WW I, it controlled about 25% of the world’s land mass and had dominion just over 20% of the world’s population. His “madness” aside, George’s decisions and those of England’s parliament didn’t do anything significant to jeopardize the size and scope of the empire. Were his decisions arbitrary, sensible, rational, logical? Within the context of trying to maintain the whole of the empire, the English ruling class, powerbrokers, and rising industrialists would consider them to be sensible, rational, and logical. Would they have been considered arbitrary – perhaps. The colonists who supported independence would certainly consider them to be unreasonable, irrational, illogical, and without representation – wholeheartedly arbitrary. However, the failure of maintaining control over the colonies may or may not been the result of his madness but it didn’t represent his desire to destroy the empire and trying to rebuild it anew.
“King” Donald:
After the War for Independence was fought and won and the United States of America was founded and it eventually passed its “liberal” constitution, the newly independent nation state was born of the ideals of the Enlightenment. The caveat is that the passage of the constitution was realized based on a series of compromises between slave & free states as well as federalists & anti-federalists. Free states conceding terms and conditions to slave states in order to have a new nation.
The great United States of America, “the land of the free, the home of the brave” in which “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” was born, offering incredible promise and hope – for some, not all. Based on the experience with King George III and England the words:
“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; … and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Would this passage as well as the whole of Declaration be seen as Arbitrary? Sensible? Rational? Logical? Foundational? Liberally and constitutionally enlightened? Absolutely. In fact, Thomas Paine may have called the passage “Common Sense”.
Fast forward to November 2024. The mercurial nature of Trump 2.0’s administration is something to behold. It’s frustrating, infuriating, horrific, perilous and sadly pathetic. Most importantly, it’s dangerous. As in exceptionally dangerous on a global scale.
143 executive orders were signed during the first 100 days of his 2.0 administration – 26 were signed on day one. Many were not within his jurisdiction to order. Many were in contravention of the constitution. Does the appointment of DOGE, pardoning people involved in the January 6th insurrection, leaving the WHO, shutting down USAID, the implementation and removal of tariffs as well as changing the percentages charged, declaring he may not listen to or follow court rulings, arresting and deporting people, using the national guard to circumvent the mayor of Los Angeles and the governor of California represent Trump 2.0 being arbitrary, sensible, rational, logical? For the MAGA movement, of course it’s all sensible, rational, and logical and absolutely had to be arbitrary because that’s how it had to be done.
Although Trump 2.0 represents chaotic unpredictable disruptive decision making, does it represent “madness”? What if there is a method to the “madness” of “King” Donald? What if the method is to create chaotic volatile unpredictable disruptive conditions so he can transform the system of government and the economy? What if the method is to do so on a global level not just a domestic one?
On the question of ordering of American war planes to strike Iran’s nuclear sites, Trump 2.0 said, “I have ideas as to what to do but I haven’t made it final. I like to make the final decision one second before it’s due. You know. Because things change, I mean especially with war. Things change with war, it can go from one extreme to the other. War is, war is very bad. We’ll see what happens. I have not, I have not – I’ve been asked about it by everybody but I haven’t made a decision.”
Will his decision be arbitrary – maybe…probably? Will it be sensible, rational, and logical? Time will tell based on what the U.S. does or doesn’t end up doing. One thing for certain, when Marjorie Taylor Greene claims an attack on Iran will split the MAGA movement because it violates “America First” as well as, “"Americans want cheap gas, groceries, bills, and housing. They want affordable insurance, safe communities, and a good education for their children. ... Not going into another foreign war” as reported on X – shouldn’t that be a proverbial “canary in the coalmine” situation?
Taylor Greene is never to be considered with anything or anybody “enlightened” or “liberal” but she just might be more sensible, rational, and logical than the Leslie Grahams and Ted Cruzs of the world.
In his song “It’s Good to Be King”, Tom Petty sings that “It’s good to be the king, if just for a while”…”It’s good to be king and have your own way”…”It’s good to be kind and have your own world”.
At the end of the song, Petty qualifies the goodness of being king with, “Excuse me if I have place in my mind where I go from time to time”.
The problem with “King” Donald is his place is the material world in which we live, not just his mind. And if there is a method to his “madness”, the important questions remain the same…
Who benefits? Is it a good thing?