The
2016 election taught many lessons, few of which have penetrated the
talking heads of the mainstream media. Most of what we could learn
has been lost in the frenzy of the most outrageous political
maneuvering witnessed in decades.
One
of the more notable lessons is the diminished role of campaign money
in determining this Presidential election outcome. Trump spent a
third less than Clinton in this election (Washington
Post: $932
million versus $1.4 billion). Some have made much of this
discrepancy, along with the fact that Trump largely ignored the
advice of his hired consultants and advisors. Of course, Clinton’s
money actually bought over 3 million more votes in the nationwide
count. And the mass media enthusiastically provided Trump with
uncountable dollars’ worth of free coverage (Remember CBS CEO Les
Moonves’s comment on Trump’s loud mouth, Berlusconi-like antics
during the primaries: “I've never seen anything like this, and this
is going to be a very good year for us… Man, who would have
expected the ride we're all having right now? ...Who would have
thought that this circus would have come to town?”)
Nonetheless,
the Trump election undeniably showed that it is possible to mount an
impactful campaign outside of the conventional rules of the game,
especially when a substantial portion of the electorate has soured on
the rules of the game.
It
was this fact-- the fact that there was a new mood emerging,
especially among those most devastated by the continuing economic
crisis -- that was underestimated or missed by the punditry and is
still largely ignored.
While
the Trump election was a surprise, something new is clearly in the
air. I wrote nearly a year ago:
The
Sanders and Trump successes suggest that voters are not appeased by
the thin gruel offered by the party elites this go-round. But
something more profound is occurring—a refusal to settle for the
usual charade. Moreover, party loyalty is unusually thin this time,
challenging party leaders’ ability to count on a transfer from one
candidate to another. What the pundits call “unpredictability” is
actually the exercise of a new level of political maturity and
independence. A recent Pew Research Center poll (December 8-13,
2015) bears out the mood of voter alienation: 62% of all respondents
maintain that “the federal government does not do enough for
middle-class people.” Thus, the notion that anti-government
sentiment runs deep in the populace is a media-inspired illusion.
Instead, people want better
government. (A
Moment Charged with Possibility
2-11-16)
We
now know, thanks to Wikileaks, that the Democrats had no intention of
allowing an insurgent like Sanders to address the “new mood” of
the electorate. Instead, they chose to covertly ensure the nomination
of the candidate of more-of-the-same-- Hillary Clinton. In
undermining Sanders, Democratic Party elites guaranteed that Trump
would be perceived as the only authentic “outsider” candidate.
I
wrote
last year, in April, that the failures of the traditional support
system for the “working class and poor people-- unions, religious
institutions, the Democratic Party, ethnic organizations, etc.--
explains, in no small part, the desperate turn to Trump. Tepid, aloof
liberalism breeds desperate options, like the outlandish Trump, when
conditions deteriorate sharply and no radical options appear
available.”
Thus,
a careful assessment of the Trump victory should ascribe a role to
working class disaffection with business-as-usual politics, but
without a simplistic blanket condemnation of the working class,
without a calloused dismissal of white workers as wholly racist,
misogynist, or xenophobic.
But
careful assessment is not popular after the recent election. Liberal
pundit and darling of the “responsible” left, Paul Krugman,
penned a harsh attack on the white working class:
...the
fact is that Democrats have been pursuing policies that are much
better for the white working class than anything the other party has
to offer. Yet this has brought no political reward… The only way to
make sense of what happened is to see the vote as an expression of,
well, identity politics-- some combination of white resentment at
what voters see as favoritism toward non-whites (even though it
isn’t) and anger on the part of the less educated at liberal elites
whom they imagine look down on them. The
Populist Perplex,
Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette,
11-26-2016.
Krugman
is hardly out of step with mainstream liberals with his barely
concealed contempt for the motives of white workers. But compare this
statement with what he said eight years earlier when he was shilling
for Hillary Clinton against Barack Obama in the midst of their
primary competition:
[Princeton
colleague Frank] Bartels cited data showing that small-town, working
class Americans are actually less likely than affluent metropolitan
residents to vote on the basis of religion and social values… Does
it matter that Mr. Obama has embraced an incorrect theory about what
motivates working-class voters? His campaign certainly hasn’t been
based on Mr. Frank’s book [What’s
the Matter with Kansas?],
which calls for a renewed focus on economic issues as a way to win
back the working class. Indeed, the book concludes with a blistering
attack on Democrats who cater to “affluent, white collar
professionals who are liberal on social issues” while dropping the
class language that once distinguished them sharply from
Republicans.”... Anyway, the important point is that working-class
Americans do vote on economic issues-- and can be swayed by a
politician who offers real answers to their problems. Clinging
to a Stereotype,
Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette,
4-19-2008.
Apart
from the blatant hypocrisy exhibited by the marked reversal of
Krugman’s views in only eight years, the earlier Krugman gets it
right. Economic issues have been decisive in working class vote
patterns, especially since the deindustrialization of the 1970s and
1980s and the economic catastrophe of 2007-8. And the earlier
Krugman’s judgement that “working-class Americans… can be
swayed by a politician who offers real answers to their problems”
proved accurate with the campaign of Bernie Sanders. But with the
Democratic Party actively burying that option, many workers
misguidedly turned to the only other candidate promising to address
their interests.
Contrary
to the widespread impressions disseminated by media elites, the
working-class vote was not overwhelmingly for Trump, nor was the
working class vote the backbone of his success. The Electoral College
totals swung his way thanks to narrow victories in a few key
rust-belt states. Many factors contributed to the Trump victory, but
two stand out, especially for a left analysis.
First,
there was a discernable shift among many voters in working class
strongholds previously giving majorities to Obama to turn in the
direction of Trump in 2016. As Krugman noted in his 2008 alert and
warning to the Democrats, addressing relevant economic issues is
decisive in winning the working class vote. With the Sanders economic
program strangled in the cradle, desperate voters saw nowhere to turn
but to the false, demagogic hope of putting the industrial toothpaste
back into the tube, of creating jobs out of Trump’s magic.
Democratic
Party operatives and their media lapdogs have done their most to
evade blame for the Party’s abandonment of working people’s
interests. Instead, they have painted workers as pathologically
bigoted and ignorant, a handy theme reinforced by elite media since
the era of TV stereotype, Archie Bunker. Today’s archetypes for the
socially dysfunctional (white) worker is found in the best-selling
tell-all from a working class “escapee” (Hillbilly
Elegy, J. D.
Vance). By diverting the spotlight to working class dysfunction, the
third-way, New Democrats who dominate the party can escape blame for
their willful neglect of the multiracial working class’s
increasingly desperate plight.
Second,
Trump was a magnet for every backward, reactionary, racist element in
the US. They, too, saw the arrogant, abrasive, loud-mouth as someone
in whom they could place their hopes. Trump’s aggressive break with
the typical politician’s syrupy civility was taken as a sign of
contempt for the alien, the different, those perceived as threatening
(Ironically, these same hates and fears were, in the past, invested
in soft-spoken religious leaders and smooth-tongued conservative
gentlemen). Trump engages in the Old South tactic of drawing
attention by surpassing all others in race baiting and fear
mongering, but it’s important to note that this simplistic tactic
only works where an atmosphere of racial friction and fear already
exists. It’s just that Trump opportunistically says it the loudest.
The
contradiction between Trump’s appeal to workers and his courtship
of the extreme right is unresolvable. Nevertheless, it is a common
feature of right-wing populism, a political phenomenon emerging
strongly in Europe and the US. It takes root where both objective and
subjective conditions are ripe for radical change, but a weak or
discredited left offers little hope. The extreme right reaches to
fill the void with vague populism.
While
it is not yet possible to entirely discern how Trump will attempt to resolve
this contradiction, it is becoming increasingly clear that he is
surrounded by advisors, confidents, and attendants fully committed to
a pro-corporate, pro-capitalist domestic agenda, an agenda that,
apart from theatrical moments, will leave little for workers.
Trump’s
foreign policy is, however, a different kettle of fish. Domestic
policy is crafted by many hands. Congress, which is 100% bipartisan
for the interests of capitalism over any other interest, will have a
big say over where Trump takes it. Moreover, there is space for
debating divergent interpretations of the best interests of capital.
But
foreign policy is largely crafted through the executive (even war
powers have been commandeered by the executive branch). And there is
little tolerance for dissidence from the policies of the foreign
policy establishment. The tight reign over policy fixed by
generations of rabid Cold Warriors continues to be a feature of
governing. Many of Trump’s comments on prospective foreign
relations challenge both the current consensus and those who police
that consensus.
Trump’s
deviance from that consensus on relations with Russia, NATO, and
other matters explains the brazen intervention of US security
services in post-election politics. A massive media campaign was
mounted to distract the people from the Democratic Party fiasco and
construct a reliable straw man, Russia, to take the blame for the
embarrassing loss. The mainstream media shamelessly and nearly
uniformly spread the speculative story that Russia had intervened
profoundly in the US election. With skepticism rising, the joint US
security agencies released an amateurish report, allegedly confirming
Russian intervention. Many private security experts remained
skeptical. Trump challenged the report.
Within
days, government insiders released a second document-- an addendum--
reputedly based on a UK private investigation, alleging outrageous
misconduct on Trump’s part and an extensive Russian disinformation
campaign. The security agencies admitted sharing the report with
Obama and Trump, denied leaking it, and refused
to attest to its accuracy.
In a recent interview, CIA Director Brennan was said “to give it no
particular credence.” He said, instead: “I would have no interest
in trying to give that dossier any additional airtime.” That, he
says, “...would make no sense at all.”
So,
if the report had no credence, if it made “no sense” to give it
“more airtime,” why was it shared with the President and
President-elect and leaked to the press in the first place?
The
answer should be obvious to all but the gullible and kept corporate
press: The memorandum was meant, on the part of the security
agencies, as a threat to Donald Trump, a reminder that wandering off
the establishment reservation is not tolerated.
The
media’s failure to challenge this “memorandum,” its veracity,
its timing, its source, and its leak is a new low in groveling before
power. To think that the head of the CIA, the most formidable
intelligence apparatus in the world, had a hand in confronting Trump
with a document that Brennan claimed “he had no way to assess the
allegations contained in the dossier of political opposition
research…” (Wall
Street Journal,
1-19-17) is outrageous (Brennan even claimed that he hadn’t read
it). That the CIA held no interest or lacked the ability to confirm a
dossier written by a former member of the close-knit intelligence
community is preposterous. That the security agencies promoted a
dossier that bore “no credence” and that they released it for any
other reason than to intimidate Trump is unbelievable.
Of
course, this would not be the first time that security agencies
scared the hell out of politicians challenging establishment
shibboleths. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover famously kept extensive
files on virtually all political players and would frequently leak
embarrassing information to media friends whenever he felt it was
necessary to bring dissenters back into the fold. Among many other
political maneuvers, the CIA notoriously overstated Soviet
capabilities in order to influence US Cold War policies, elections,
and funding. And beyond any dispute, the intelligence and foreign
policy communities constructed an argument of lies to support the
2003 invasion of Iraq. We are asked to trust them today? And the
too-often uncritical, gullible media believes them today?
In
the wake of contemporary revelations of torture protocols and
comprehensive spying on everyone, apparently witting opinion makers
have now found the intelligence community to be wholly reliable and
trustworthy. They surrender their critical faculties to the
professional liars and plotters. Even George Orwell would be aghast!
We
assuredly have every reason to fear the policies of President Trump
and his supporters.
But
based on recent events, we equally have every reason to fear the
brazen power and intrusion of clandestine security agencies and the
unreliability of the fawning, supine corporate media.
Zoltan
Zigedy
zoltanzigedy@gmail.com
2 comments:
this makes me think of JFK turning against the CIA after the Bay of Pigs. Trump doesn't strike me as a wimp. will he prevail where JFK was shafted?
>this makes me think of JFK turning against the CIA after the Bay of Pigs. Trump doesn't strike me as a wimp. will he prevail where JFK was shafted?
It won't happen. Trump has a lot of enemies in high places and if he doesn't play ball, he will be impeached if (Most likely when) the Democrats re-take the House and Senate.
Post a Comment