Trump, however, IS something new, at least within the living memory of most, at least within presidential politics. There is something wearisome about Clinton's candidacy, but there is something that goes beyond worrisome about Trump's candidacy. Conservatives keep Clinton trapped within rather traditional ethical parsing-- e.g. she "lied" about the emails that bore some classification and were passed through her private server, rendering her unfit to handle classified information and consequently unfit to be president. Those same conservatives, however, have placed Trump outside anything that might resemble traditional ethical parsing. Politifact, FactCheck, and even some traditional news sources like the Washington Post have attempted, to little avail, to bring the contest back into a more traditional calculation. The latter, for example, has noted that "Clinton has a bell curve of a typical politician. The number of false claims equals the number of true claims, while her other claims fall mostly somewhere in the middle." On the other hand, "85 percent of Trump’s claims that we vetted were false or mostly false." They go on to say, "The volume of his false claims is extraordinary, especially because he so often repeats them. He continued to say that he saw thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrate the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when that never happened. He repeatedly says he opposed the Iraq war from the start, when that’s false. He constantly says the Islamic State terrorist group controls the oil in Libya, when that’s wrong. He routinely inflates the unemployment rate from 4.9 percent to as high as 42 percent." And yet he opposes "crooked Hillary."
Trump's candidacy represents in many ways the apotheosis of the Nietzchian candidate, the self-proclaimed superman who transcends the traditional ethical categories of good and evil, and so it just doesn't matter whether he tells the truth or lies. Or, perhaps more precisely, it just doesn't matter if he invents an alternative "truth" whole cloth. In an article "Donald Trump's Weaponized Platform," Paul Rosenberg of Salon has a conversation with Bruce Wilson of Talk to Action. On Talk to Action, Wilson publishes a photo of a smiling Trump, with the characteristic thumbs up gesture, standing next to William S. Lind, and suggests that Trump may be more in thrall with (or at the very least aligned with) Lind's thinking than has yet been reported. Nearly all of Trump's policy positions, and his actions, are aligned with the writing of Lind, who believes "the current republican party is intellectually vacuous, and that the current conservatism is 'rubbish' and filled with ‘I’ve got mine’ smugness.'" Of course, Trump begins with the "I've got mine smugness," even adds emphasis to it, but he then immediately undercuts it by announcing the worst suspicion of the most die hard progressive -- that he, as a rich man, has bought and sold the politicians standing next to him on the debate stage. Lind also believes "Republicans (along with Democrats) have aided the deindustrialization of America and the dispossession of the middle class, wasted the national treasure on idiotic wars (such as in Iraq) and enabled the dramatic expansion of repressive federal power" -- all of which could have been drawn from either Sander's or Trump's stump speeches, with the exception of the "repressive federal power," and therein lies the rub. Perhaps the epitome of the "I've got mine" elite, Jeb Bush, cannot continue to editorialize that "we need House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and others to retain this important check on the power of the White House and federal bureaucracy, no matter who wins the presidency," without raising the question of just how federal power is repressive, and without accepting the complicity of his own family in the exercise and expansion of that federal power -- their contribution to the trade agreements that off-shored labor, their eagerness to engage in foreign wars, et cetera.
But wait, as Ron Popeil might say, there's more! Lind's thinking is more subtle than the traditional neo-nationalist, but it is nevertheless closely aligned. As Wilson goes on to characterize Lind:
There is a bit of the "counter-conspiracy conspiracy theory" tone to Wilson's writing, but one wonders how to escape that trap. Scaminaci, referenced above, writes about the "epistemological break with reality" within the christian right. There is nothing surprising in their position that "the christian nationalist leadership believes that liberalism is an attack on christianity," or that "fundamentalist christains must recognize this, remove themselves as best as possible from the institutions and world views of liberalism, and ultimately destroy the liberal state." As Scaminaci goes on to write, the "epistemological break," has three aspects. The first concerns the "biblical worldview," a world view that runs parallel and in opposition to the "secular enlightenment worldview," one that sees the bible as the inerrant truth of god, applicable to all "political, economic, social, and scientific situations." They have created infrastructures that "manufacture their own 'facts' and 'scientific theories' in an effort to provide a veneer of 'scientific legitimacy' buttressing their predetermined theological/ideological positions -- one need only think of creationist/intelligent design and the attempt to place text-books in schools advocating that theological/ideological position. And finally, of course, in order to remove themselves from the perverting influence of the "liberal state," they place themselves in "information bubbles" that continuously hammer home their theological/ideological world view. Of course, this no more represents the world view of all christians than the radical islamists represent the world view of all muslims, but it is a "radicalizing" agenda, and one sees, in both Cruz' and Trump's candidacy, the influence of people like Lind, like Christian Reconstructionism and New Apostolic Reformation, like Seven Mountain Dominionism, as they push "the right wing of the American Political spectrum -- from the Republican party to the hard-right white nationalists."
I suggest that Trump, however, is more Nietzschian than Christian, more Zarathustra than a worshipper of Jesus, or for that matter a worshipper of anything but Trump. Though he is perfectly willing, as the Cheeto Jesus, to wink at the hard-right christian nationalists, and Trump will use them as they in turn use Trump. So, what if this self-proclaimed "superman" is elected to the presidency of the US? What then? Well, in one sense, nothing. Despite all his winking in rather obvious ways at various white supremacist groups, electing Trump to the presidency will not change the demographic composition of this country. The black population will still be approximately 38.9 million or about 13% of the population. The hispanic population will still be approximately 50.5 million or about 16% of the population. Building a wall on the border and deporting "illegals" might stem the growth of the hispanic population, some, but it will also stem the growth of the population period. According to the census bureau, "The rise in the Hispanic population accounted for more than half of the 27.3 million increase in the total U.S. population." In the meantime, you have the Washington Post headlining that the "Majority of Americans Think Race Relations are Getting Worse." There seems to be broad consensus that they are bad, and getting worse, but as they go on to report, "the common ground ends there, according to follow-up interviews with those who took part in the survey. There is no gathering consensus on how to solve the issue or who is to blame." The racial divide will continue to exist, and will likely continue to grow worse.
But wait, as Ron Popeil might say, there's more! Lind's thinking is more subtle than the traditional neo-nationalist, but it is nevertheless closely aligned. As Wilson goes on to characterize Lind:
In early Spring 2016, Donald Trump appears to have met a man whose 2009 book anticipated most of Donald Trump's key campaign positions. That man has disseminated over the Internet "extremist information" that inspired an even deadlier massacre than the 2016 Orlando, Florida mass shooting -- a meticulously planned 2011 neo-Nazi terrorist attack which killed 77, wounded 319, and shook Europe, an attack intended as a "marketing method" to promote that man's conspiracy theory concerning an alleged plot behind "political correctness", said to have been launched nearly a century ago by Jewish Marxists, to destroy America and Western Christian civilization.
That man has suggested his ideas on non-traditional "Fourth Generation" warfare (4GW) may have inspired the strategy behind al-Qaeda's 2001 terrorist attacks on America.
He has also provided, according to sociologist and authority on the Tea Party and the American militia movement Dr. James Scaminaci, the "blueprint for the development of the patriot militia movement" which hopes to one day overthrow federal authority; and in a key 1989 article that may have inspired al-Qaeda, he forecast that "The next real war we fight is likely to be on American soil." In 2014, he published a novel depicting such a war, that starts in 2020, in which white Christian militias overthrow the federal government and carry out the ethnic cleansing of American cities.
There is a bit of the "counter-conspiracy conspiracy theory" tone to Wilson's writing, but one wonders how to escape that trap. Scaminaci, referenced above, writes about the "epistemological break with reality" within the christian right. There is nothing surprising in their position that "the christian nationalist leadership believes that liberalism is an attack on christianity," or that "fundamentalist christains must recognize this, remove themselves as best as possible from the institutions and world views of liberalism, and ultimately destroy the liberal state." As Scaminaci goes on to write, the "epistemological break," has three aspects. The first concerns the "biblical worldview," a world view that runs parallel and in opposition to the "secular enlightenment worldview," one that sees the bible as the inerrant truth of god, applicable to all "political, economic, social, and scientific situations." They have created infrastructures that "manufacture their own 'facts' and 'scientific theories' in an effort to provide a veneer of 'scientific legitimacy' buttressing their predetermined theological/ideological positions -- one need only think of creationist/intelligent design and the attempt to place text-books in schools advocating that theological/ideological position. And finally, of course, in order to remove themselves from the perverting influence of the "liberal state," they place themselves in "information bubbles" that continuously hammer home their theological/ideological world view. Of course, this no more represents the world view of all christians than the radical islamists represent the world view of all muslims, but it is a "radicalizing" agenda, and one sees, in both Cruz' and Trump's candidacy, the influence of people like Lind, like Christian Reconstructionism and New Apostolic Reformation, like Seven Mountain Dominionism, as they push "the right wing of the American Political spectrum -- from the Republican party to the hard-right white nationalists."
I suggest that Trump, however, is more Nietzschian than Christian, more Zarathustra than a worshipper of Jesus, or for that matter a worshipper of anything but Trump. Though he is perfectly willing, as the Cheeto Jesus, to wink at the hard-right christian nationalists, and Trump will use them as they in turn use Trump. So, what if this self-proclaimed "superman" is elected to the presidency of the US? What then? Well, in one sense, nothing. Despite all his winking in rather obvious ways at various white supremacist groups, electing Trump to the presidency will not change the demographic composition of this country. The black population will still be approximately 38.9 million or about 13% of the population. The hispanic population will still be approximately 50.5 million or about 16% of the population. Building a wall on the border and deporting "illegals" might stem the growth of the hispanic population, some, but it will also stem the growth of the population period. According to the census bureau, "The rise in the Hispanic population accounted for more than half of the 27.3 million increase in the total U.S. population." In the meantime, you have the Washington Post headlining that the "Majority of Americans Think Race Relations are Getting Worse." There seems to be broad consensus that they are bad, and getting worse, but as they go on to report, "the common ground ends there, according to follow-up interviews with those who took part in the survey. There is no gathering consensus on how to solve the issue or who is to blame." The racial divide will continue to exist, and will likely continue to grow worse.
Despite Trump's pandering to the dispossessed white voter -- those who feel their privileged status within the middle class slipping away -- dispensing with NAFTA and the TPP are unlikely to change broad economic trends. Manufacturing, and the broad spectrum of union wage jobs it supported, will never return. On the demise of the trade agreements that made it "cost-effective" to off-shore labor, manufacturing itself might return, but it will be a manufacturing dominated, not by labor, which is increasingly unnecessary in a world of CNC and 3D printers, but by more managerial "engineers" and "technocrats." These jobs will be "middle" and "upper-middle" class, but almost by definition, there will be fewer of them. All will require substantive up-front investments in education. Although tepid job growth for the under-educated may continue in the service sectors, one can expect the "quality" of those jobs will continue to diminish. Fewer will "support" a family much beyond the poverty level and few will provide "benefits" of any substance. In the meantime, the neo-liberal or conservative economic agenda, which Trump broadly supports, calls for a deregulation of finance and cuts to taxes, particularly taxes on the rich. This will inevitably come at the cost of social services that many Americans have come to rely on. Salon, for example, reports that "sociologists Mark Robert Rank, Thomas Hirschl and Kirk Foster [in Chasing the American Dream] argue that the American experience is more fluid than both liberals and conservatives believe." They show that many Americans have temporary bouts of affluence, but they also have temporary bouts of poverty, unemployment and welfare use." They conclude that the majority of Americans do not exclusively fall into the categories of "makers" nor "takers." Most are both, and for those "makers" that experience temporary bouts of poverty, "the social safety net catches them, and they get back on their feet." As the experiment in Kansas has also demonstrated, the neo-liberal tax agenda also degrades tax sponsorship of both primary, secondary and higher education, the very thing needed to prepare workers for those new "information age" jobs. Unless there are major structural changes to the economic status quo -- unless that is there is a major re-distribution of wealth either through wages or through the social safety net or both, the erosion of the middle-class will continue, the economic divide will grow wider, and will likely grow even worse.
Despite too Trump's bellicose pandering to the xenophobia of his base, his election will not change world politics. As one example, the problem of terrorism escalates despite military success, some will say because of military success. ISIS is all but defeated on the battlefield, and yet, within the last couple of days, yet another terror attack in Paris. As it was the mass shooting in the Pulse nightclub, so it is with the mass killing in Nice, the perpetrator seemed to be acting alone, motivated by his own set of demons, without the direct sponsorship of a nation state or even a "rebel group" contending against a nation state. It is, in other words, not an act of war, if we understand war to be state sponsored violence, but rather a criminal act that seems impossible to predict. On the Orlando shooting, the Washington Post reports, that he at least was "radicalized" to the extent that he sanctified his killing spree by claiming allegiance to ISIS, but as reported by the Washington Post, "a month later, though, a complete picture of what motivated Mateen remains murky and may never be known since he was killed in a shootout with police and did not leave a manifesto." On the Nice killing, although the Islamic-State-connected Amaq news agency cited an 'insider source' saying that Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, 31, 'was a soldier of the Islamic State,'” but it "remained unclear whether the Islamic State had directed the attack, whether they were taking responsibility for an attack that they may have inspired, or whether they were simply seeking publicity from an attack entirely disconnected from them." It would seem that, to prevent such attacks, one would need to take action against an entire religious group, action of the sort advocated by Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who upped the ante on Trump's ban on entering Muslims and "responded to Thursday night’s truck attack in France by arguing for the expulsion from the U.S. of any Muslim who believes in Sharia law." It is unclear, however, what "belief" might mean, and as Obama rightly suggested, that the "suggestion of a religious test "repugnant and an affront to everything we stand for as Americans." Nevertheless, the present course of action is ineffectual, and unless we do something "different," the problem of terrorism will persist, and will likely grow worse.
I am merely suggesting that we will not magically awake to a new, problem free world if Trump is elected. What exactly will Trump do to address these problems? At the moment, Trump has one clear advantage over Obama and Clinton -- that is to say, Obama IS in power and Clinton HAS BEEN in power. They have been in positions to actually DO something, but because they have done something, their actions are open to scrutiny and critique. As one witness to the attack in Nice said, “'We now realize that there was no protection for us,'" and of course he is correct, almost by definition, "there was no protection" against the attack that was committed. The key, however, is the "we now realize." Hindsight is 20/20, and one can apply the formulation "we now realize" to almost any situation. We now realize more should have been done with airport security to prevent an attack like 9/11. We now realize more should have been done with embassy security to prevent an attack like that at Benghazi. We now realize that the FBI investigations into the Orlando shooter failed to pick up on his real threat. We now realize ... I would probably suggest that the problems listed above are intractable, and there are other intractable problems that have not been listed. None will lend themselves to simplistic or immediate solutions. All attempts to address them will be inadequate and because inadequate, always "arguable." Once he acts, however, there will be winners and losers, and the losers will protest. On international relations, it doesn't take a "big brain" to suggest that there will be another terror attack. Just as Bush's repose was inadequate and open to criticism, just as Obama's response was inadequate and open to criticism, Trump's actions will be inadequate and will lend itself to "we now realize" second guessing.
So long as we have free speech, so long as we have a free press, such "we now realize" second guessing is a part of a free society. Indeed, one might even go so far as to say that it is the bedrock on which a free society is built, because, however imperfectly, it holds leadership at least somewhat accountable to the people they ostensibly serve. One thing, however, does set Trump apart -- his adversity to criticism. There are, of course, the bans on the Huffington Post and the Washington Post, his attack on the judge hearing his Trump University case, but even more recently, there is the law suit against a former staffer. As reported by Talking Points Memo, "Donald Trump is seeking $10 million from a former aide he accused of leaking confidential information about a public spat between two senior campaign staffers, the Associated Press reported Wednesday. Trump claimed that fired campaign consultant Sam Nunberg went to the press with confidential information in violation of a nondisclosure agreement, which the real estate mogul requires nearly all staffers for his campaign and businesses to sign." What makes us believe that a president Donald Trump will be any less averse to criticism, that he will not take steps to silence it, that those steps will not be an "abuse of power" and subversive of the constitution that he will swear to defend? Writing about his vacillation over his vice presidential pick -- a vacillation that, by the way, works against the narrative of his being a strong, decisive leader -- Josh Marshall writes that "coming into the orbit of Mr Trump, taking his yoke as it were, requires not only total submission, a total relaxation of every muscle and defense but a farewell to all independence and dignity." He cites as evidence the submission and humiliation of Gingrich, but especially that of Chris Christie, who has suffered a long list of indignities. What makes us believe he will not treat the people of the US in much the same way, particularly those who do not "fit" his "brand" of conservatism, those who do not see him as the representative man, those he labels "haters?" His behavior at the rallies suggests that he would gleefully "punch them in the face," and a presidential punch is likely to have some real impact.
Jeb Bush is correct in one important respect. The "checks on the power of the White House" will be important if Clinton is elected. They will be even more important if Trump is elected, but they will be more difficult to sustain. Many of his policy "attitudes" show him to be at the very least cavalier with the inherent constitutional checks on power, on his power. Worse though, he has not only cynically adopted the traditional republican small-government antipathy to federal power, but has adopted the antipathy that many feel toward "elites," particularly the "economic elites." His winking at various hard-right extremist groups, his adoption of Lind's policy positions on "political correctness," his virulent anti-immigration rhetoric, all lend some credence to the alarmism implicit in counter-conspiracy conspiracy theories. Like many who have stepped to the right of the republican party -- or at least that party represented by Jeb Bush -- there is much to lend some credence to the notion that he wants to overthrow existing party structures of authority, even existing ("rigged" or "corrupt") federal structures of authority, and replace it with what? His authority.
I am merely suggesting that we will not magically awake to a new, problem free world if Trump is elected. What exactly will Trump do to address these problems? At the moment, Trump has one clear advantage over Obama and Clinton -- that is to say, Obama IS in power and Clinton HAS BEEN in power. They have been in positions to actually DO something, but because they have done something, their actions are open to scrutiny and critique. As one witness to the attack in Nice said, “'We now realize that there was no protection for us,'" and of course he is correct, almost by definition, "there was no protection" against the attack that was committed. The key, however, is the "we now realize." Hindsight is 20/20, and one can apply the formulation "we now realize" to almost any situation. We now realize more should have been done with airport security to prevent an attack like 9/11. We now realize more should have been done with embassy security to prevent an attack like that at Benghazi. We now realize that the FBI investigations into the Orlando shooter failed to pick up on his real threat. We now realize ... I would probably suggest that the problems listed above are intractable, and there are other intractable problems that have not been listed. None will lend themselves to simplistic or immediate solutions. All attempts to address them will be inadequate and because inadequate, always "arguable." Once he acts, however, there will be winners and losers, and the losers will protest. On international relations, it doesn't take a "big brain" to suggest that there will be another terror attack. Just as Bush's repose was inadequate and open to criticism, just as Obama's response was inadequate and open to criticism, Trump's actions will be inadequate and will lend itself to "we now realize" second guessing.
So long as we have free speech, so long as we have a free press, such "we now realize" second guessing is a part of a free society. Indeed, one might even go so far as to say that it is the bedrock on which a free society is built, because, however imperfectly, it holds leadership at least somewhat accountable to the people they ostensibly serve. One thing, however, does set Trump apart -- his adversity to criticism. There are, of course, the bans on the Huffington Post and the Washington Post, his attack on the judge hearing his Trump University case, but even more recently, there is the law suit against a former staffer. As reported by Talking Points Memo, "Donald Trump is seeking $10 million from a former aide he accused of leaking confidential information about a public spat between two senior campaign staffers, the Associated Press reported Wednesday. Trump claimed that fired campaign consultant Sam Nunberg went to the press with confidential information in violation of a nondisclosure agreement, which the real estate mogul requires nearly all staffers for his campaign and businesses to sign." What makes us believe that a president Donald Trump will be any less averse to criticism, that he will not take steps to silence it, that those steps will not be an "abuse of power" and subversive of the constitution that he will swear to defend? Writing about his vacillation over his vice presidential pick -- a vacillation that, by the way, works against the narrative of his being a strong, decisive leader -- Josh Marshall writes that "coming into the orbit of Mr Trump, taking his yoke as it were, requires not only total submission, a total relaxation of every muscle and defense but a farewell to all independence and dignity." He cites as evidence the submission and humiliation of Gingrich, but especially that of Chris Christie, who has suffered a long list of indignities. What makes us believe he will not treat the people of the US in much the same way, particularly those who do not "fit" his "brand" of conservatism, those who do not see him as the representative man, those he labels "haters?" His behavior at the rallies suggests that he would gleefully "punch them in the face," and a presidential punch is likely to have some real impact.
Jeb Bush is correct in one important respect. The "checks on the power of the White House" will be important if Clinton is elected. They will be even more important if Trump is elected, but they will be more difficult to sustain. Many of his policy "attitudes" show him to be at the very least cavalier with the inherent constitutional checks on power, on his power. Worse though, he has not only cynically adopted the traditional republican small-government antipathy to federal power, but has adopted the antipathy that many feel toward "elites," particularly the "economic elites." His winking at various hard-right extremist groups, his adoption of Lind's policy positions on "political correctness," his virulent anti-immigration rhetoric, all lend some credence to the alarmism implicit in counter-conspiracy conspiracy theories. Like many who have stepped to the right of the republican party -- or at least that party represented by Jeb Bush -- there is much to lend some credence to the notion that he wants to overthrow existing party structures of authority, even existing ("rigged" or "corrupt") federal structures of authority, and replace it with what? His authority.
No comments:
Post a Comment