The system of government of which he is President is grossly defective. I could title this “why I am a Tory” and not a market libertarian. Nor am I a fan of the US constitution, in many senses.
In the United States, it is illegitimate for there to be a position, on any conceivable issue, which stands at variance with the interests of American business. This is true whether you are a Democrat or a Republican. The entire game was established to keep legislators detached from the State, by means of the separation of powers, and closely allied with the immediate interests of those who pay for their electoral campaigns. Sometimes the weirdness of this is manifest to foreign eyes.
The case in point this week was a ludicrous opposition to breastfeeding launched by the United States in a conclave of the World Health Assembly, which is some sort of quango associated with the United Nations.
I want all you conservatives out there to hold your wrath for a moment and consider: what interest is served by opposing breast feeding? Women are equipped with two of them, and in spite of their great role in giving sexual pleasure, they actually serve to feed infants. I know this may sound strange to the childless, but it is true. They are not called milkers for nothing.
So when the World Health Assembly chose to promote the health and utility of breast feeding, the USA chose to oppose this as contrary to the interest of milk formula suppliers.
Based on decades of research, the resolution says that mother’s milk is healthiest for children and countries should strive to limit the inaccurate or misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes.
Then the U.S. delegation, embracing the interests of infant formula manufacturers, upended the deliberations.
American officials sought to water down the resolution by removing language that called on governments to “protect, promote and support breast-feeding” and another passage that called on policymakers to restrict the promotion of food products that many experts say can have deleterious effects on young children.
I encourage you to read the whole article to verify what I said above. I am fully aware that every act of the US administration will be portrayed as the result of a system gone mad under God-Emperor Trump, and that the timing and appearance of the article will feed anti-Trump bias. That is its purpose.
Yet having seen US diplomatic activity up close, I do not doubt that the US opposed the promotion of breast feeding and threatened dire sanctions on weak states at the conference, as the article said. I have no doubts at all.
Why? Because the collective default position of US government institutions is to promote business, whether plant genetics, artificial milk, optical fibers, contraceptives, cars, or machine tools. That is what it does, and there is no understanding of or appreciation for a state which acts independently of private interests, in the interest of a state, or the people, or of an ideal.
Is it good for business? That is the question, and the only question, that US diplomats and trade negotiators are allowed to ask. By constitutional law it is Congress, not the President, which controls trade negotiations. Think on that for a moment.