One of the goals of this project is to work out some ideas about what’s really going on. Why Donald Trump, and why now? Is he what his detractors say: a demagogue, a buffoon, a charlatan, a con man? Or does he reflect a massive rejection by voters, many of them reasonably intelligent, of Establishment business-as-usual, top-down, from-the-center-outward crony politics? Would he destroy the credibility of the Republican Party, and of conservatism? Or is he a sign that it has already destroyed its own credibility among its grassroots, and that for those of us who know the difference between a conservative and a neoconservative, or between a conservative and a globalist, real conservatives have had no actual voice in the corridors of power possibly since the first Bush presidency?
Is Trump reflective of all the residual racism, sexism, etc., etc.? Or is he a sign of significant pushback on the part of those who not only see globalism and “free trade” agreements as having worked against their best interests, but are fed up with how political correctness has pushed the culture leftward for a quarter of a century now? A recent study does show, after all, that working class white males are the one group whose fortunes are declining, as their members suffer from a surprising excess of treatable illnesses (brought on by stress?), substance abuse (especially alcohol), and suicide.
This group has been maligned for decades as uneducated and backward. Now, of course, they have the Internet same as everyone else, can gain the same perspective as everyone else, and it has become clear that the declarations that they are now at a systemic disadvantage are rooted not in paranoia but in solid first-hand experience.
Did the elites and academic-lefty types, or media-lefty types, really believe they could continue their campaigns of dominance and demonization forever, without eventually inviting pushback? Until now, of course, the pushback has been limited to talk radio, Internet alternative news sites and blogs, Tea Party groups who met in the back rooms of the local Denny’s with the Libertarians, none of which had any chance of changing anything. The Establishment remained firmly in control, using PC types because they were good at distracting and dividing. There is no reason to believe those in the Establishment have any interest in whether black lives matter, or whether homosexuals ought to have the right to marry, or even whether women ought to have a right to have abortions. But these issues are good at focusing the attention of gullible sectors of the public away from the real campaigns of domination, waged from within Wall Street via corporations such as Goldman Sachs, from within the Federal Reserve, from within Monsanto, from within Halliburton, and so on.
The challenge to Hillary from the Sanders movement suggests that anti-elitism is hardly limited to the Republican grassroots, moreover. It is widespread, “bipartisan,” and probably still growing. It may develop into an effective repudiation of the familiar “two-party” system where both parties are furthering essentially the same agendas.
Anti-elitism has become a force to be reckoned with, and for conservatives, the current voice of that force is Donald Trump — who may be a billionaire from New York City but doesn’t talk like one. Whatever one says, he’s not a globalist but an America-Firster. He’s not going to treat the Megyn Kellys of elite media like fragile flowers, and he’s not going to pander to Black Lives Matter and other PC-era pressure groups. Is he for real? I don’t know. What I am reasonably sure of is that he wouldn’t be at the center of attention did he not have the people’s attention (and if he had not greatly increased ratings even for elite media). The thought behind this attention isn’t going anywhere. It will still be around even if at the end Trump is denied the GOP nomination. I don’t know if he can beat Hillary or not. It’s far too soon to be making such predictions. I am sure that if the GOP wing of the Establishment denies him the nomination in favor of, say, Rubio, those who supported him with either vote “third party” or stay home on Election Day. Hillary will then win in a landslide, it will be back to business-as-usual for the elites, and both the real economy and the culture will continue to worsen. How long, under those circumstances, working class white males will continue to put up with an economy that offers them only precarity or underemployment and a culture that demonizes them is something else I do not want to predict, at least not right now.
Ron Paul has refused to endorse Donald Trump. That’s worth noting. Disclosure: I supported Dr. Paul in both 2008 and 2012. He failed to catch on with those outside the libertarian-leaning, intellectual wing of the GOP. My sense is that he and his movement were too intellectual for the average public-schooled voter; this distinguishes them from Trump who speaks the language of the common people. At the moment I know longer know if this is good, or bad.
Only a few paragraphs of this article discuss Dr. Paul on Trump. The final nine are about other candidates (although in fairness, one is about his son Rand who also failed to catch on). Typical.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/24/ron-paul-i-wouldnt-support-trump-as-gop-nominee.html
I had to seek for Ron Paul’s own remarks, unedited, and found them on one of his own sites:
http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/trump-wants-to-become-the-government
As Dr. Paul is not part of the Establishment, his thoughts merit consideration. His complaint is that Trump has channeled the anger of those we’ve identified but “offers no solutions whatever,” and “in some respects he’s worse than the Establishment” especially when it comes to foreign policy. And: “He has nothing new when it comes to serious ideas.”
What, presently, is the alternative, however? If you’re supporting him, that’s what you’re probably thinking. Part of what I am thinking is that Libertarianism has several variants (including Anarcho-Capitalism) which are now withering on the vine, confined to think tanks and blogs but otherwise unable to affect the national conversation. Trump has definitely affected the national conversation. Would mass immigration (which is presently destroying Europe) and the effects of “free trade” agreements (which are partly responsible for destroying a large portion of the U.S. manufacturing base) even be on the radar were it not for The Donald?
One reason Trump is winning with the masses is their perception, even if not shared by the pundit class and those who identify with that, that he is honest and straightforward, even about how he’s worked the system in the past:
“[Trump] brazenly declared that he gave money to lots of politicians because he was a businessman.
“"I give to everybody. When they call, I give."
“And why did he do so?
“"When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them, they are there for me."
“For many viewers, that may have been the most honest and authentic line they'd ever heard in a political debate. Think about the contrast with Hillary Clinton, who seemed shocked that people wonder why an investment banking firm paid her $675,000 for a speech.”
http://www.newsmax.com/scottrasmussen/campaign-finance-reform-washington/2016/02/26/id/716330/
One of my favorite online writers, Charles Hugh Smith, offers this explanation why pundits of whichever stripe fail to understand Donald Trump and his appeal.
Three great paragraphs:
"Trump doesn't fit into any stereotype of recent campaigns, and so the perplexed pundits have attempted to label him a demagogue or Id-fueled populist without a "real" agenda--that is, a candidate that should have burned out in the first week ot two of the campaign.
"They don't get it, and the reason why they don't get it is because they are rooted in the petit bourgeois technocrat class that aspires to insider status within corrupt cliques of centralized power. The pundit burnishes their credentials with the usual petit bourgeois baubles -- advanced degrees from "respected" universities, books published by "respected" New York publishing houses, and fellowships from "respected" poverty-pimp foundations funded by guilt-ridden plunderers and their dilettante offspring.
"The media punditry's relationship with the working class is akin to their relationship with China: they visited Shanghai once and stayed in a luxe hotel and were entertained by bigshots in the glitzy bars and cafes. Satisfied with their shiny new profound knowledge of China, they return home filled with insights into a nation they've never actually visited -- what they visited was the Hollywood tour version of China, not the actual nation."
In other words, credentialed though they may be, the pundit class knows little or nothing about the real world of (often struggling) working people.
Read the whole piece here.
See you (Lord permitting) on Monday.
No comments:
Post a Comment