The European Court of Justice Slaps Down Hungary: A Defense of Modern Federalism

The European Court of Justice (ECJ), the E.U.’s supreme court, which like the U.S. counterpart can overrule state courts, ordered the E.U. state of Hungary to pay a lump sum of €200 million and €1 million per day of delay from June 12, 2024 because the state government had disregarded “the principle of sincere cooperation” between states in taking in their fair share of foreign asylum-seekers and “deliberately” evaded implementing the federal law that directs the states how to treat those people who enter the E.U. through the state seeking political asylum.[1] The state government had made it “virtually impossible” for asylum seekers to file applications.[2] Similar to the Nullification Acts passed by the state government of South Carolina in the U.S. when that union was between 30 and 40 years old, the decision of Hungary to ignore the ECJ’s ruling on the matter in 2020 could not be tolerated by federal authorities, for a federal system of dual sovereignty (i.e., some held at the federal level and the rest at the state level) cannot survive if state governments can unilaterally decide to nullify, or ignore federal law. That federal directives in the E.U. reply on implementation into law at the state level just makes the E.U. more vulnerable should a state government so easily dismiss federal law. Why even be in a union if its law is deemed not worthy of respect?

In their written opinion, the justices of the ECJ clearly understood that the problem of Hungary’s dismissiveness of the legitimacy of federal law within the state struck at the foundation of the union. “That conduct constitutes a serious threat to the unity of E.U. law, which has an extraordinarily serious impact both on private interests, particularly the interests of asylum seekers, and on the public interest,” the high court declared.[3] The problem being extraordinary for the E.U. as a federal system of public governance, the public interest being impacted certainly includes that of the union itself. It is necessary therefore to separate out the particular issue, that of political asylum and even immigration, and focus on the viability of the E.U. itself.

Any federal system will not long endure if state governments attempt to throw off problems onto other states. In fact, given the cultural heterogeneity that naturally exists in an empire-scale federation such as the E.U. and U.S., cooperation between the states directly as well as through federal institutions of government plays a vital role. Tensions that might tear such gigantic unions apart need to be offset by cooperation; the last thing such a union needs is political infighting between the states and even just one state that presumes not to be subject to federal law. For such a union to lack enforcement power even in regard to its own competencies (E.U.), or enumerated powers (U.S.) is a sure recipe for collapse and the epitome, moreover, of weakness. So, the ECJ justices acted wisely in automatically taking Hungary’s fine out of its share of largess from the E.U. budget.

For its part, the state government of Hungary could have taken the opportunity to definitely decide whether to accept the validity of E.U. law as applicable even for the state governments, or secede from the union as the British did after they finally came to a decision rejecting the dual-sovereignty, which distinguishes (early) modern federalism from what is now called confederalism. A common expression in English comes to mind: that of, “shit or get off the pot.” Translated, this means, “use the toilette or get up, rather than procrastinate on it all day.” Muddling the difference by staying in the Union and yet mislabeling it as a “bloc” or a “network” rather than a federal system of government, and the European Parliament’s political parties (even the EPP!) as mere “groupings,” as if that legislative body were not a real legislature and political parties could only exist at the state level, only puts the E.U.’s self-understanding at odds with what the Union actually is, and such a lack of self-understanding can never be good for anything (or anyone).[4] A fish would not long live if it comes to believe that it is a frog. A house divided is bad enough; a house that comes to be viewed as a mere tool shed is in even worse shape.

Even though some healthy degree of anti-federalism is a good means of forestalling (i.e., by acting as a check politically and even in the basic or constitutional law itself) the kind of federal consolidation that has occurred in the U.S. since 1865 (i.e., the anti-federalists had been right), knowingly pretending with ill-suited words that a federal union of states is something else altogether whose nature, superimposed, weakens the union by denying what it is empirically is needlessly destructive and utterly dishonest intellectually. Engaging in word-games to obfuscate the public’s understanding of the very nature of the E.U. really only demonstrates the cognitively distortive propensity of ideology (i.e., its susceptibility to delusion from pride and resentment). Journalists and their editors generally have been easy, unthinking tools in that political game of perpetuating an illusion as if it were empirically extant and a fact of reason. What then of the perpetual peace, which old Kant saw as only possible rather than probable if there were a world federation, if a federal system just in Europe cannot even be consistently recognized as federal government rather than as something else entirely that is weaker in providing for public governance?  

---

1. Jorge Liboreiro, “ECJ Finds Hungary with €200 Million over ‘Extremely Serious’ Breach of E.U. Asylum Law,” Euronews.com, June 12, 2024 (accessed June 13, 2024).
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid, italics added for emphasis.
4. I am in the midst of translating a 17^th century text from French, and I think the tiresomely long sentences are rubbing off on me. At least I’m not compounding the problem by inserting colons and semicolons throughout such a train of thought. Regarding the EPP, the European People’s Party, which is a political party in the European Parliament, a journalist at the time even parroted (not quoting) a Euroskeptic by dutifully writing, “the European People’s Party group” in an article published online by Euronews. Stating the obvious, I feel the instinctual need nonetheless to point out that “party” is in the very name of the party and thus it is, and understands itself as, a political party. Perhaps “group” should be used to designate the smaller parties at the state level, as more than one of such groups can feed into one of the larger federal parties by means of the elected representatives in the federal parliament—such groups themselves not being recognized there. Such a reversal would doubtless not be tolerated for long! Even so, by engaging in such a reversal, the hypocrisy of the status quo may be better known.

The E.U.: Pulled in Two Directions

European integration has proceeded in fits and starts since Robert Shuman proposed the European Coal and Steel Cooperative in 1950 so Europe could keep an eye on Germany’s military in the wake of World War II. Euroatom and the European Economic Community came in 1957, and the EC, which consisted of the three organizations, existed until 1993. Since then, the European Union too has progressed step-wise, with some steps backwards, such as when Britain seceded from the Union. Whereas the U.S. made the leap from a supranational alliance, the Articles of Confederation, to a federal government all at once in 1789, the way of the E.U. in terms of dual sovereignty and adding states has been incremental. Perhaps throughout its 31 year history, as of its federal election in 2024, the E.U. was being pulled in two directions. Some forces have led the E.U. to gain competencies over time, whereas other forces could be described as “states’ rights,” anti-federalist, or Euroskeptic tendencies. If dominant, those forces would ultimately lead to the dissolution of the federal union, whereas the former forces would lead to its consolidation. After thirty years, the U.S. too was more subject to the centripetal forces than those for ever closer union. From the subsequent history of the U.S., it is perfectly legitimate to ask whether the E.U. too will lean so close too to political (and economic) consolidation too by the time that union is over 200 years old. Like Europeans today, the Americans of the 1820s would never have dreamed that the federal level would be so dominate over the states, which were still regarded as countries.  

That more sovereignty to go to the E.U. on defense was being debated in the weeks before the E.U. election in 2024, with the E.U.’s People’s Party, a proponent of the E.U. defense being expanded to include air defense, being projected to win in the European Parliament, and Russia’s Putin still invading Ukraine and making threats against Europe, even the governments of the largest E.U. states were supporting the additional transfer of governmental sovereignty to the federal government in order to protect the E.U. from its eastern menace. It is significant that whereas the U.S. began as a military alliance of thirteen sovereign countries, the E.U.’s antecedents were economic in nature (even though the E.U.’s pillars extended beyond the economic domain). Even so, it could have been predicted in 1993 that the E.U. would eventually handle both defense and interstate commerce, as those are typically handled at the empire-level in empire-scale unions. This was so in the British Empire, for example, and the U.S. federal government inherited the imperial-level powers of the British king.

It is important to resist the easy conclusion that the E.U. was poised in 2024 to take a step towards ever closer union, for the E.U. was also subject to forces to the contrary. According to the Euronews Super Polls, one thing looked certain a week before the E.U. election: “after the 6-9 June elections, the European Parliament will have a clear right-wing majority.”[1] That majority would be keener on having the state governments get back some of the governmental functions (i.e., governmental sovereignty) that had been delegated to the federal government incrementally since 1993.

It is important to take account of the role of international forces on the two contending political forces in the E.U. that bear on its degree of integration. I have already alluded to Putin’s Russia as prompting concern by E.U. citizens for more federal competencies in defense (e.g., an air defense). The American government’s support of Israel as it continued to ignore and violate the “cease and desist” rulings of the UN’s top court, the International Court of Justice, was undoubtedly causing Europeans to question a global order in which the U.S. would continue to be relied on as the global “police.” European values in favor of international law would not be protected by relying on the Americans. The possibility of the former U.S. president, Don Trump, returning to office meant that an American administration could actually enable and even strengthen the positions of Putin of Russia and Netanyahu of Israel was not lost on E.U. citizens as they prepared to vote in early June, 2024. The E.U. not only being able to defend itself militarily but also have military sway in the global order could naturally result from these forces from abroad.

Going in the other direction, away from increasing E.U. competencies, or enumerated powers in Ameri-speak, the failure of the E.U. to handle the mass immigration from Africa was feeding into the increasing popularity of the “right-wing” European parties in the Parliament. How could the E.U. handle more exclusive competencies if it could not handle its existing functions? More to the point, stubborn anti-federalist, or “nationalist,” resistance to doing away with the veto in the European Council ironically fed the E.U.’s functional difficulties with its extant competencies. Just as the veto in the U.S.’s Articles of Confederation stymied the American Continental Army against the British Empire, so too the refusal of E.U. state governments to agree that more E.U. competencies must be decided by qualified-majority voting rather than unanimity has resulted in a less-than-functional federal government. In the wake of Israel’s refusal to abide by the verdicts of the International Court of Justice (even though the UN founded Israel!) for an immediate cessation of the invasion of Gaza, that the E.U. had to rely on state governments on whether to recognize Palestine is a real testament to the inutility of the veto at the federal level (e.g. in the Council of Ministers, as well as the European Council).[2] In words used for American basketball, the federal recognition of Palestine should have been “a slam dunk.” That it was not signals that something is very wrong with the E.U.’s federal system, and in particular with how decisions are taken at its federal level.

So, heading into their federal election in June, 2024, E.U. citizens were subject to conflicting forces, and thus to opposing political movements, some for and others against ever closer union. My point is that contending forces and questions of federal-level functionality have existed throughout the post-World War II period of European integration. Fits and starts, rather than all at once.  Even in the U.S., the shift from a system in which the state governments held most of the sovereignty to one in which the federal institutions do has been gradual. The difference is perhaps that Europeans do it piecemeal formally in terms of basic law, whereas the progression has been more by case law in the U.S. Essentially, this means that Europeans have had to decide on what Americans call constitutional amendments more often—amendments (i.e., changes to basic law) that are more significant for the federal system as a whole than the American amendments (after the Bill of Rights) have been. This is why the impact of contemporary international forces is so relevant to the E.U. as a still-changing federal system of dual sovereignty (i.e., not confederal, as in the Articles and the EC).

---

1. Sergio Cantone, “Super Poll Q&A: Is EU-Wide Conservative Coalition Losing Momentum?” Euronews.com, June 6, 2024.
2. Skip Worden, “Euroskeptic Federalism Obstructing the E.U.’s Recognition of Palestine,” The Worden Report: International Relations, May 27, 2024.

Euroskeptic Federalism: Obstructing the E.U.'s Recognition of Palestine

Just because U.S. federalism deposits foreign policy exclusively with governmental institutions at the federal level does not mean that that domain cannot be shared between state and federal governments in a federal system. This was precisely the case in the E.U. as it struggled to come up with a unified response to Israel having ignored the verdict of the World Court—the UN’s court—ordering Israel to cease and decease from invading Rafah from May 24, 2024 onward. Meanwhile, two of the E.U.’s states were poised to recognize Palestine. Such emphasis on the state governments playing the leading role is fraught with difficulties even though in theory there is on reason why foreign policy cannot be a competency, or domain, that is shared at the state and federal “levels.” In federalism, the federal and state governmental systems are on par, rather than one of the governmental systems being above the other, so “levels” is misleading. Even so, a lot can be said for delegating foreign policy to the federal level. This can be seen from the state and federal reactions in the E.U. as Israel continued its invasion of Rafah just after the World Court had ruled that Israel would be violating international law and the UN’s charter in continuing the offensive.

The full essay is at "The E.U. on Israel."

An E.U. Political Party Mischaracterizes the Union as an Alliance: Suicide by Mis-Identity

Two weeks before the E.U. election in 2024, far-right parties were projected to do well and thus have more seats in the E.U.’s lower legislative chamber, the European Parliament. Immigration was a key issue in the rising popularity of those parties. Although immigration in both the E.U. and U.S. was in dire need of governmental fixes, the rise of the right in the E.U. came at the expense of the union itself due to an underlying category mistake evinced at least in the European Conservatives and Reformists party. 

Even though it was at the time a political party in the Parliament, the European Conservatives and Reformists party denied its obvious identity as a political party in referring to itself vaguely as a group instead. No doubt according to that party, and other Euroskeptic parties on the right, a mere alliance of countries cannot have political parties, so linguistic gymnastics were resorted to, such that the parties in the European Parliament would be known as “groups,” any of which could be composed of member parties. 

A legislative body, including the E.U.'s parliament,  has political parties even if some call themselves or are called groups whose members are state-level parties. Such "members" are not recognized as such in the Parliament because it does not represent the states; the European Council does that. Even if a party is only in one state, it is a federal party if it exists in and is recognized by the European Parliament because one or more representatives, or Members of Parliament, claim to be of such a party, which in turn is thereby federalized. 

All of such mental twisting was being done of course for ideological purposes so the nobody would dare liken the E.U. to the U.S., or any other empire-scale federal union, such as the former U.S.S.R. Such equivalencies of reason pale next to puffed up egocentricity that wants to claim that a state in one such union is equivalent to an entire union elsewhere in the world. 

Both in terms of scale and the type of federalism, category mistakes have been conveniently promoted by politicians and a willing media in the E.U. and unknowingly parrotted by purblind journalists in the U.S. Because the U.S. began as a military alliance of sovereign counties under the Articles of Confederation and then invented and adopted modern federalism in 1789. those automated journalists should have known at the very least that the E.U. fits modern rather than confederal federalism.

That a union with dual-sovereignty is distinct from a mere alliance is supposedly “unthinkable,” at least it was to Nicola Procaccini, a co-president of the European Conservatives and Reformists party. “It is unthinkable that anyone would argue that the European Union was born as the ECSC and as the European Community, as a federalist state, as a United States of Europe,” he said.[1] However, the E.U. is distinct from the previous European Coal and Steel Cooperative (ECSC) and the European Community. The E.U. began after those two single-issue groups, neither of which included a government—complete with executive, legislative, and judicial governmental bodies, or “arms”/branches. In contrast, the E.U. has not only the European Council, which represents the state governments, but also a parliament, which represents E.U. citizens, the European Court of Justice, and the Commission. Furthermore, governmental sovereignty is divided in the E.U. between the federal and state governments; qualified-majority voting alone involves some sovereignty being at the federal level. So as it turns out, it is not unthinkable, undenkbar, to think of the E.U. as a federal system because it is precisely that—unlike what the ECSC and the EC were.

Procaccini’s nationalist ideology blocked his mind from grasping the fundamental difference that renders the E.U. as a federal system rather than as a mere alliance wherein sovereignty resides with the states. “We want to go back to the original idea of the European Union,” he said, “which is an alliance of nations doing a few things together, doing those things that nation-states alone wouldn’t be able to do in the best way.”[2] Although the latter refers to the principle of subsidiarity, which, like its counterpart in the basic law of the U.S., is valid, it is incorrect that the E.U. was founded in 1993 as an alliance of still-sovereign countries. Instead, the governmental atom of sovereignty was split, just as I was in 1789 in the United States. In other words, Procaccini was conflating the original idea of the ECSC and the EC with that of the European Union. Going back to Althusius’ Politica (1603), the politician was confusing plena (full) with nonplena (not full) federalism.

The distortive cognitive effect of a fervently held ideology had just a week earlier been referred to by Pope Francis in an interview with the American television show, 60 Minutes. Referring to the socially ideological Roman Catholic bishops, the pope said, “conservative is one who clings to something and does not want to see beyond that. It is a suicidal attitude. Because one thing is to take tradition into account, to consider situations from the past, but quite another is to be closed up inside a dogmatic box.”[3] In fact, the pope said that ideology itself is bad. In falsely claiming that the E.U. was an alliance of sovereign nation-states, Procaccini was trapped in an antiquated dogmatic box at odds with the social reality of the E.U.; his view was thus inherently suicidal to that federal system in denying its very existence.

To be clear, sole E.U. competencies, or enumerated domains of political authority, or law, and the union’s voting mechanism of qualified (by E.U. population and by numbers of states) majority instantiate governmental sovereignty that no longer resides with the state governments. The E.U. is thus not an alliance because in an alliance, all governmental sovereignty is retained by the countries. The splitting up of governmental sovereignty between a federal government and state governments is also not confederal; instead, it evinces what scholars of federalism call modern federalism. Both the U.S. and E.U. are cases of that kind of federalism.

Therefore, just as characterizing the U.S. as an alliance is unthinkable, so too should such a characterization of the E.U., so it is ironic that Procaccini’s dogmatic box contains the unthinkable. If allowed to be imposed on the E.U., Genovese’s distorted ideology would place that union in an impossible position—namely, of being contrary to what it is. Hence that ideology can indeed be characterized as suicidal. Now that truly makes the sordid ideology unthinkable, or at least it should be so.

---

1. Vincenzo Genovese, “Nicola Procaccini: Reformist Group Seeking Balance of Power Shift in E.U. Parliament,” Euronews, May 24, 2024.
2. Ibid.
3. Norah O’Donnell, “Pope Francis Tells 60 Minutes in Rare Interview: ‘The Globalization of Indifference Is a Very Ugly Disease,” CBSNews.com, May 19, 2024 (accessed May 25, 2024).

Prospects for Civil War in an E.U. State: The Case of Slovakia

As the E.U. was heading toward legislative elections in 2024, the shooting of Slovenia’s prime minister could have served as a wake-up call concerning the silent benefits of having a union that is political, and thus governmental, rather than merely an economic “bloc.” Were civil war likely in Slovakia, given the aggressive political division there, being a semi-sovereign state rather than a fully independent country meant that explicit and implicit buffers existed that could stave off such war. Considering that an assassination had been the trigger for World War I, having a federal system that could quell aggression within a state is no small benefit.

In 2004, Slovakia became an E.U. state, which means that some of its governmental sovereignty went to a federal level. Slovakia’s velvet reputation for having split peacefully from the Czech Republic in the dissolution of Czechoslovakia in 1993 may have masked the ensuing stark political reality under Prime Minister Vladimir Merciar, when Slovakia “found itself at a crossroads, stuck between becoming an autocratic regime with close ties to organized crime or a state based on the rule of law.”[1] In 1995, the country’s secret service kidnapped the president’s son. In 2004, Robert Fico’s political career as a “social democrat fighting corruption and unbridled neoliberalism” was just beginning.[2] Yet after becoming prime minister for the first time in 2006, he was accused “of graft and involvement in the Penta Gorilla affair, Slovakia’s biggest post-communist corruption scandal.”[3] In his second stint as prime minister, he and his government “mainly focused on influencing the judiciary, . . . stopping corruption trials and silencing independent media.”[4] He spoke against the E.U. and Ukraine in the midst of the Russian invasion. With all of the press that Viktor Orban of Hungary was receiving for taking the same positions, it was easy to miss Fico’s stances in the E.U.

Together, Fico and Orban can be viewed as a minority stance in E.U. foreign policy in favor of Russia. With such policy requiring unanimity at the federal level, this minority had the potential of hamstringing any foreign policy at the federal level regarding Russia’s aggression. E.U. states would be free to work at cross purposes, and the power of a united front would be missed. This is an argument for applying qualified majority voting to E.U. foreign policy. Such a stance is more evident than another benefit that the E.U. provides to the states—a benefit highlighted by Slovakia.

The shooting of Fico in May, 2024 stemmed from a climate of hateful political polarization in the state. In the wake of the shooting, some fear of a resulting civil war was voiced in the media. Even though the European Steel and Coal Cooperative had been formed to stave off war between states (most notably involving Germany), the less obvious benefit of the E.U. in being able to step in to stave off war within a state has received little attention. The potential benefit for Europe as a whole resonates with the suggestion made by France’s Macron that the defense capability of the E.U. itself be strengthened. For it to be any good, its deployment would have to be decided by qualified majority vote rather than unanimity. Otherwise, Hungary could use its veto to enable Fico’s party to put away its opposition militarily.

A related benefit of the E.U. with respect to Slovakia does not depend on any additional governmental sovereignty being shifted to the federal level. The fact that some sovereignty had already been delegated to the E.U. by its states means that the likelihood of a civil war in a state is buffered, and thus reduced, simply by being in a federal union that has a legislature, executive branch, and a supreme court. Any one of these governmental branches could take action against Slovakia were civil war to break out. Financial levers alone could do the trick, but so too could informal conversations in the European Council, in which the states themselves, through their respective governors, are the members. As nervous as the E.U. officials are about a war just outside the E.U. is, the prospect of war within the E.U. would surely be galvanizing.

Furthermore, within Slovenia, simply viewing itself as a state rather than a sovereign country could work against forces that would otherwise provoke a civil war. In other words, being a state in a political and economic union is itself a moderating force with respect to political polarization getting out of control. In the early U.S., Shay’s Rebellion in Massachusetts and the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania were doubtless on the minds of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention in making sure that the U.S. president would be able to call the armies of the then-sovereign states into action to put down rebellions in the future semi-sovereign states. So, there is precedent for the E.U. calling on state militias to quell any rebellions in any of its semi-sovereign states, and even for bolstering a federal military force. As E.U. citizens and residents headed to the polls in 2024, it would be a shame were they to take the E.U. for granted. Going even further, it would be a shame were they to miss an opportunity to voice support for an ever more perfect, and thus strengthened rather than hamstrung, union.

---

1, Keno Verseck, “Robert Fico Shooting Highlights Slovakia’s Deep Polarization,” Deutsche Welle, May 17, 2024.
2, Ibid.
3, Ibid.
4, Ibid.

Eurovision Song Contest 2024: On the role of Political Ideology in Inconsistencies

Political preferences can be salient in organizing bodies of entertainment events that are billed as non-political in nature. This broad inconsistency can in turn allow for others—some of which may not be obvious. My objective here is to render such inconsistencies transparent so that other “hidden” inconsistencies can be more easily detected in the future. As a prime case study, I have in mind the European Broadcast Union (EBU), and more particularly its approach to the 2024 Eurovision Song Contest.

Firstly, that contest was impacted by the pro-Palestine protests because Israel was allowed to compete. More basic than the issue of Israel’s military incursion into famine-ravished Gaza at the time is that of why a country in the Middle East was part of a European contest. Consider the blatant contradiction evinced in a statement from Deutsche Welle: “The European Broadcasting Union (EBU), which organizes the pan-continental pop competition, ruled that Israel is allowed to compete.”[1] Clearly, the contest went beyond Europe. Once the proverbial cat is out of the bag, why not allow other non-European countries to compete? I submit, with a nod back to Kant, that the logical inconsistency itself is sordid.

Secondly, although the EBU subsequently claimed that it did not bar the E.U. flag, attendees were refused entry into the venue if they had the flag. The European Commission had protested the flag being signaled out—I would even say being discriminated against. “Ahead of the final, a spokesperson for the European Broadcasting Union said ticket holders would only be allowed to bring and display flags representing participating countries, as well as the rainbow-colored flag, which symbolizes LGBTQ+ communities.”[2] Besides the decision to include the gay flag being political even though the EBU had claimed to be non-political, the choice discredits the argument that the E.U. flag could not be shown because the E.U. is not a country, for an LGBT “community” is a social group rather than being anything close to a country.

Put another way, a pro-LGBT attendee could show the flag of a social issue, whereas a citizen of the E.U. could not show the flag representing the federal citizenship. E.U. citizens even have an E.U. passport! I suspect that the very notion of E.U. citizenship was ideologically repugnant to whomever in the EBU blocked the flag of the federal union. In other words, singling out the E.U. flag fits with a state’s rights, or Euroskeptic ideology that denies that the E.U. is anything more than a trading “bloc.”

As Euroskeptics would have it, the E.U. would be a confederation, meaning that all of the governmental sovereignty remains with the state governments. Historically, confederations have been used for military alliances, such as those of ancient Athens and Sparta. In contrast, the E.U., like the U.S., includes governmental sovereignty at both the federal and state levels. The qualified majority voting mechanism at the federal level of the E.U. alone involves a delegation of sovereignty from the states because any given state can be bound by federal law even though the state voted against it in the European Council, which, like the U.S. Senate, represents the states. Therefore, E.U. competencies, or enumerated powers, subject to qualified majority voting have been delegated by the states to the federal government. By the way, Euroskeptics are also in denial concerning the fact that a legislature, supreme court, and executive branch at a federal level together constitute a government. Essentially, The EBU fundamentally lacked understanding on the difference between confederalism and modern federalism, and federalism itself, and thus misunderstood the basic nature of the E.U.

That the anti-E.U. ideology is warped relative to the reality of the E.U. resulted in the inconsistencies in allowing in a social issues flag and even the flag of a state in the Middle East yet barring the flag of a government (i.e., a legislature, supreme court, and executive branch) in Europe. To be a citizen thereof and yet be reproved for waving the E.U. flag evinced a basic lack of understanding of what the E.U. is. Ideology can indeed impede and even block understanding. That the EBU would claim to be nonpolitical even as it makes the geo-political assessment to exclude the political flag takes us back to the basic inconsistency.  My main point is that the inconsistencies all stem from political ideology because it tends to warp knowledge and empirical facts to its own ends, confusing an ideal with the way things actually are. Put another way, the self-centered gravity of an ideology can warp knowledge and empirical facts much like black holes warp space and time. This may seem rather profound for a piece on a song contest, but the refusal to allow the federal flag while allowing state flags was not mere entertainment.

1. “Thousands Protest Israel’s Eurovision Participation,” Deutsche Welle, May 10, 2024.
2. “E.U. Slams Eurovision for Banning its Flag from Song Contest,” Deutsche Welle, May 15, 2024.

Chinese President Xi Exploits a Vulnerability of the E.U.

Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Europe in May, 2024 “amid concerns in Europe over Chinese support for Russia’s war in Ukraine and European markets being flooded with cheap Chinese electric vehicles.”[1] Although these matters were at the time properly matters for the E.U. rather than its states, Xi oriented his visit to the state level, and in particular to states including France and Hungary that had “special bilateral relationships” with China.[2] In other words, the Chinese leader sought to exploit the E.U.’s vulnerability wherein state governments have sufficient sovereignty to undermine the federal level. I contend that the state leaders should have refused to meet with Xi, redirecting him to meet with federal officials.

The full essay is at "China Exploits a Vulnerability of the E.U."

---

1. Yuchen Li and Wesley Rahn, “Did China’s Xi Jinping Expose Disunity in Europe?” Deutsch Welle (DW.de), May 10, 2024.
2. Ibid.

On the Reputational Capital of a Business Leader on a Societal Stage

Is it better that companies be publicly or privately held? Such a question is of such magnitude that glossy, simplistic answers should be eschewed. This is not to say that the answer is situational in nature. Rather, it is more likely that each comes with pluses and minuses from the perspective of an economic system as a whole. As business “leaders” give their advice, it is important to keep in mind whether any personal or institutional conflicts of interest exist and thus could warp the space itself of the advice. Yes, I am intimating Einstein’s theory of general relativity here. Rather than provide an answer without having studied the matter sufficiently, I will provide a way to look at the advice given by Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase.

The full essay is at "Reputational Capital of a Business Leader."

On the Role of Agribusiness in Global Warming

Agriculture is a major source of carbon and methane emissions, which in turn are responsible for the general trend of the warming of the planet’s atmosphere and oceans. In fact, agriculture emits more than all of the cars on the roads. 10 percent of the emissions carbon dioxide and methane in the U.S. come from the agricultural sector. Livestock is the biggest source of methane. Cows, for example, emit methane. Methane from a number or sources, including the thawing permafrost, accounted for 30 percent of global warming in 2023. As global population has grown exponentially since the early 1900s, herds of livestock at farms have expanded, at least in the U.S., due to the increasing demand.[1] We are biological animals, and we too must eat. More people means that more food is needed, and the agricultural lobby in the U.S. is not about to let the governments require every resident to become a vegetarian. Indeed, the economic and political power of the large agribusinesses in the U.S. have effectively staved off federal and state regulations regarding emissions. It comes down to population, capitalism, and plutocracy warping democracy.

The full essay is at "On the Role of Agribusiness in Global Warming."

---

1. Georgina Gustin, “Climate Change and Agriculture,” Yale University, February 22, 2024.

Exfoliating a Hero: On Lincoln's Unconstitutional Overreaching

Lest we get carried away and inadvertantly enshrine our leaders with mythic laurals, it is worthwhile to peel back our societal "remembering" of past figures, such as Abraham Lincoln, who have become larger than life.

Lincoln was a moderate, promising merely not to spread slavery. In his address after being sworn in, he promised not to go after slavery where it existed. Accordingly, radical abolitionists complained. Even so, the 1860 campaign had been viewed, at least in the south, as a referendum on the southern way of life. Lincoln received only 40% of the vote; he was not even on the ballot in ten states.  There were just 33 states in the union at the time. Lincoln's victory suffered from a deficit of legitimacy in some quarters. In fact,he was burned in effigy at a state capitol in the south. With free Kansas becoming a state, the slave states felt that their respective abilities to defend their way of life in the general councils of the union would become even more truncated or dilute. Berift of a sense of influence on general matters that concerned themselves, the confederating republics felt they had no alternative other than secession.

On Feb 18, 1861, Jefferson Davis became President of the Confederate States of America. At his swearing in, Dixie, which had been composed by a northerner, was played. The two sides in the continental dispute were closer than they perhaps realized. Both Lincoln and Davis, for example, were from Kentucky originally.  According to the Confederate constitution, Davis had a line item veto and would have had a six year term had the confederacy lasted that long. Astonishingly, international slave trading was outlawed. Even so, there were fundamental differences involved in the dispute. Ironically, had the southern states freed the slaves before firing on Fort Sumpter--depriving Lincoln of his motivational tactic midway through the way--perhaps something resembling the southern way of life in a loose confederacy would have prevailed. The United States would have been left to consolidate to its heart's content.

On the way to his inauguration, Lincoln declared that he would rather be assassinated than to see even one star removed from the flag. Such a stance reflects the "all or none" mentality that accompanies political consolidation. In spite of Lincoln's line in the sand, the War between the Confederated States and the United States began at 4:30am on April 12, 1861.  Technically, it was a war between a federated alliance and a federal government. The opening act was bloodless, even as the war to come was the bloodiest in American history. Siloh alone matched the casualties at Waterloo, and there would be 27 more to come. 51,000 men lost their lives in the three days at Gettysburg alone. The contest between the old and new federal forms exacted a heavy toll in human loss and suffering. Who would have thought that contending distinctions in political theory could be so bloody. Of course, might does not in itself make right, although the passion of the unjustly oppressed can bring about victories disproportionate to the relative lack in number. Furthermore, in this particular case, the respective populations in the federations and the industrialization of several of the union's states gave the forces of modern federalism an advantage not necessarily sourced in the nature of the type.

At the time, the union states had a combined population of 21 million while the confederacy had only 9 million, 4 million of which were slaves and thus not in the fight. In spite of the fact that so many southerners volunteered to enlist that a third of them had to be sent back home, the confederacy was perhaps destined to lose the bellum given the tremendous disadvantage in terms of population. That the conflict lasted until 1865 may point to the extent of resentment that had been allowed to build up throughout the slave states against what was viewed there as an “intrusive” federal government. For example, the devisive tarriff that had nearly caused South Carolina to secede in 1832 was reimposed by the U.S. Government in 1858. As in 1832, the tax was to finance northern industrialization. The states producing cotton and/or rice were left not being able to defend their interests in Washington. Accordingly, that distant government was viewed as encroaching and increasingly foreign. The root of the festering dispute went far beyond the issue of slavery.

To the confederate citizens, the cause involved the rights of their republics as well as their property rights. Slaves, being viewed as property by their "masters"--a decadent conception of slavery unknown to ancient understandings--were thus in play as part of the wider and deeper southern concern with self-determination, which the southerners identified with their respective countries and associated ways of life. Even Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, which took effect on January 1, 1863 (almost two years into the war), applied only to slaves in the states that had already left the union (rather than to the five slave states that had remained).

The confederate states were not subject to U.S. law as long as they were part of the confederacy rather than the union. Lincoln's proclamation was thus extra-constitutional, and thus without immediate effect other than to motivate an increasingly weary northern citizenry and armed forces. To be sure, Sherman freed slaves as he blazed a trail to the sea. However, even without the proclamation, he would have deprived the confederates of their "property" along with their other means until they surrendered. Slavery was not outlawed in the United States until 1865, when the thirteenth amendment was ratified by the states (the former confederate states excluded even though they had been re-afixed to the union).  There was some duplicity involved in, "Welcome back to the union! But unfortunately your vote doesn't count yet because you don't agree."

Fundamentally, the "north" and "south" interpreted the United States differently. This is what the war was really about, and the issue went all the way back to the contentious debates in the constitutional convention in 1787. The delegates had hotly debated whether the proposed General Government would consolidate power via "general welfare" spending and the potentially unlimited taxation, irrespective of the question of slavery. The people who wanted to secede viewed the U.S. as more like a confederation than a modern federal government. That is, confederates viewed their states as countries and the U.S. more as an alliance having only strictly defined enumerated powers that a national government. Robert E. Lee, for example, was offered command of the union army. He refused and went with Virginia. He could not draw his sword, he said, against his native country. Virginia had to come first; there was never any question about that. Such a view of Virginia and the other republics was to fade even as they still retained residual sovereignty at least into the twenty-first century.

In general, the southerners feared that the federal government would usurp more and more power from their countries; as things turned out, the fear was not without foundation. Even then, Lincoln declared war against the confederated states even though the U.S. constitution clearly stipulates that Congress is the governmental body in the U.S. Government that declares war.  As the president is the commander in chief, there is a conflict of interest in that office also declaring war. So technically speaking, the war was not constitutional, and thus legal.  Lincoln also suspended habeus corpus, though the constitution allows for this in time of rebellion.  To keep the Maryland from seceding, he locked up thirteen of the state's legislators without trial. 

Chief Justice Taney, who had four years earlier concurred with the Dred Scott decision, said that Lincoln had gone too far beyond the constitution in the powers he was exercising. Taney was on firm ground on the declaration of war. Even so, astonishingly, the president simply ignored the chief justice. From the standpoint of an independent judiciary with teeth, Lincoln was laying a precedent very dangerous to the republic.

Because the judiciary has no means of enforcing its decisions by force, the branch depends on the other branches, and, indeed, the people, resisting the temptation to contravene a judicial decision. The basis of the resisted temptation rests on the court's legitimacy, for the judiciary has no troops of its own. In fact, Bickel refers to the court as the “least dangerous branch” for this reason. Lincoln’s precedent in simply ignoring the court put at risk the system of checks and balances that resides in the separation of powers in the federal government. Fortunately for us, Lincoln’s treatment of the Chief Justice's effort to hold the executive branch within its proper constitutional sphere, as though Taney were a mere bystander, has largely been forgotten.  Yet the expediency of an imperial presidency has indeed been on display since Lincoln as Congress has gradually lost power to the commander in chief. The danger is real, and Lincoln's precedent could yet be used by an ambitious commander in chief who has his or her eye on another country to invade. 

Ironically, Lincoln’s unconstitutional actions at the beginning of the war ironically to save the union could be viewed as confirming the charges made by the confederates against the encroaching nature of the federal government.  Lest we miss the lesson as we remember the bloody war 150 years later in 2011-2015 from the standpoint of the victors, we might take note of the susceptibility of power itself to consolidate, ultimately in one person—indeed, even in a hero. The consolidating proclivity is as much a danger in the modern American empire today as it was in ancient Rome.  

Source: Ken Burns’ The Civil War (PBS)