June 29, 2016

On June 24, Andy Borowitz "reported," on NewYorker.com, that "across the United Kingdom on Friday, Britons mourned their long-cherished right to claim that Americans were significantly dumber than they are." That is to say, they caught up to us by voting to leave the EU. David Cameron must be included among the not-so-bright, having promised the referendum to silence EU critics, thinking that his fellow Brits would be smarter than he turned out to be. Also include the English who, while promoting or celebrating the vote to leave, proudly waved the Union Jack; their vote increases the chance that the union will not survive.

Borowitz detected a ray of hope among the Brits. "This is a dark day," his imaginary correspondent said, "but I hold out hope that, come November, Americans could become dumber than us once more."

Speaking of Trump, what is he up to, if anything? Instead of campaigning, he went to Scotland to look at his resorts, finding a little time to speak as inanely as usual. He hasn’t raised much money and shows little interest in acting like a candidate. The theory that he never was serious about winning the nomination sounds ever more plausible, and even the speculation that he is trying to tank his candidacy begins to sound less far-fetched.

Trump gives the impression of not being all there, or at least not very bright, or never having grown up. His behavior isn’t just strange for a candidate; it’s strange for anyone. His inability to answer questions goes beyond lack of preparation or interest in details: he simply doesn’t know much and seems at times not to comprehend. However one recent poll shows him only two points behind, within the margin of error. We could regain the title.

June 25, 2016

Facing an unappealing choice of major-party candidates, some voters will be tempted to look to a third party. A letter published in Thursday’s Seattle Times illustrates this temptation for Democrats.

The writer was a supporter of Bernie Sanders, as was I. His response to a plea to get behind Hillary Clinton probably reflects the views of many: "We have had it with the Clinton-Bush-Obama contingency [sic] that pushes the same old neoliberal nonsense onto Americans: endless war to support the military industrialists and global trade laws that anyone with half a brain knows benefit only mega-corporations and hurt working people and the environment." He reluctantly voted for Obama in 2008, hoping "that he might be different this time," but found otherwise. Apart from the reluctance, I can sympathize; Obama has been a disappointment. This year the writer plans to vote for Jill Stein, the presumptive Green Party nominee, believing that "she is the most qualified to be president." Leaving aside her qualifications, she won’t win, and then what? Our writer’s conclusion: "if that means Donald Trump is our next president, oh well!" Cast a protest vote and never mind the consequences.

I am, as these notes probably make clear, no fan of Mrs. Clinton. However, in the real world, choices must be made between real alternatives; the choice between Clinton and Trump is clear, and important. Save abstract principle for a time when the alternatives don’t matter.

June 12, 2016

One needn’t read much of War and Peace — I confess that I didn’t — to come across the author’s description of a character "who, like a wound-up clock, by force of habit said things he did not even wish to be believed." Tolstoy might have been thinking of Donald Trump. His campaign has been an act, one designed to stir up the audience: unhappy people who think that the system is rigged against them, and that conditions only will get worse unless something drastic is done. What Trump says, often retracted (sort of), is less important than the impression of anti-establishment power.

In his recent book, Mike Lofgren, in describing "the characters who run the Deep State," also has inadvertently captured the Trump persona: "Actual competence is often less important than boundless self-confidence and a startling lack of reflectiveness about what one is actually doing" - or proposing to do. "An overweening sense of self-importance and a capacity for self-satisfied assertion seem to be all that are required." This has been described as "hubristic incompetence," or "the narcissistic habit of seeing the world as an arena for achieving power and glory rather than as a place for pragmatic problem solving."[42]  If those are the inhabitants of the deep state, how much worse would it be if the man in charge were of the same type?

That such a person probably will become a nominee for the presidency and might be elected, is depressing, to say the least. If the country were in better shape, fewer people would have bought the snake oil, and if the Republican Party were in better shape, it might have started out with a more impressive and appealing group of alternative choices and could, now, produce one to rally around.

The GOP may yet realize that it must do the latter, and may have an opportunity to. Trump is dropping in polls, which may be due to his attack on a "Mexican" judge; that episode certainly has made him even more toxic to the Republican elite. However, fear of alienating the base, too many of whom follow Trump, makes dumping him difficult and risky, and also underscores what that base has become.

Perhaps the recent story, in The New York Times, about the failure of Trump’s Atlantic City projects, will make the faithful wonder about his "success." However, they may buy his line that he was a winner because he milked the ventures for millions. Who cares about casinos or Atlantic City? His followers may not care about the government, either, but what about the country? There has to be a limit to the attraction of this con job, even to the randomly angry. His appeal supposedly is that he would make their lives better, but if he has never thought of anyone but The Donald, what are the odds?

_________________________

42. Lofgren, The Deep State (2016), pp. 179-81.  

June 6, 2016

Donald Trump is an enigma. Given his strange behavior, including boasting about his wealth, making accusations, claiming to be the answer to every problem — but showing no understanding of government, or much of anything else — combined with a less than appealing personality, what explains his success in the primaries?

His followers are drawn from the Republican base, but that doesn’t explain why they supported Trump rather than one of the numerous other candidates. It seems that, for some of his followers, the primaries have been a sort of reality show, an extended Apprentice, with Trump in his usual presiding role. He is, or claims to be, immensely rich and successful in business, so of course he can run the country. He is his own man, supposedly self-funded until now, and therefore free of the influence of donors. Like many of his followers, he toys with conspiracy theories, about Obama, about the Clintons.

There is a widespread sense that the country is on the wrong track. Some of this is misdirected into resentment against immigrants or a desire to win a war for a change. Trump feeds on that. He isn’t politically correct; he will say out loud that we need to keep Mexicans and Muslims out. He’ll bomb the bad guys. More than the others, Trump has promised to make everything right, to make America great again. (Aren’t we already exceptional? Never mind.)

Some of his fans are on the far-right fringe, as illustrated by his endorsement by present and former KKK leaders. There is an echo of the Nixon campaigns in the pandering to racist attitudes and the law-and-order theme. The protests, especially the violent ones, at Trump rallies have fed this mood.[38]

It will be interesting to see how much the Trump University scandal eats into his support. Paul Ryan’s belated statement of support may have been timed to push that off the front pages.

There have been accusations that Trump is a fascist. Carl Bernstein summed up Trump’s campaign: "it's a fascinating intersection of celebrity and Neo Fascism."[39]  Leaving aside the loaded and imprecise term "fascism," is Trump an authoritarian and would he impose some sort of authoritarian rule? I think that the answer to the first is yes, and to the second probably no. He is capable of starting a war out of a combination of arrogance and sheer stupidity, and could take any number of less dangerous but harmful actions but, if we were lucky, the system would prevent most of that. According to theories of authoritarianism, there are two sides to the phenomenon, leaders and followers. Authoritarian followers would respond to Trump.

Will Trump, if he is defeated soundly, bring about the end of far-right control of the GOP? Rush Limbaugh, like Trump an ignorant blowhard, is in decline, and it would be nice to think that this is a straw in the wind.

Why would someone of such limited understanding of the job, of the world, put himself forward as a candidate for the presidency? Trump can’t be entirely without self-understanding and, despite his high opinion of himself, it seems unlikely that he expected such success in the primaries. One possible explanation comes from a former public relations representative of Trump’s PAC: "the goal was to get The Donald to poll in double digits and come in second in delegate count. . . . The Trump camp would have been satisfied to see him polling at 12% and taking second place to a candidate who might hold 50%. His candidacy was a protest candidacy."[40]  ("Protest" might be equivalent here to ego-stroking). The new variation on that theme is that he realizes that he’s in over his head and is trying to sink his candidacy.[41]  That could be so, but the theory rests on his saying seemingly self-defeating things, and he’s been doing that all along.

______________________

38.  http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/watch-out-for-trump-becoming-law-and-order-candidate

39. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1603/14/cnr.06.html 

40. http://www.xojane.com/issues/stephanie-cegielski-donald-trump-campaign- defector

41. http://www.salon.com/2016/04/01/donald_trump_truthers_theories_spread_hes_trying_ to_sabotage_campaign_after_his_disastrous_week_from_hell/?utm_source= zergnet.com&utm_medium 

May 29, 2016

The expected nomination of Donald Trump has prompted numerous inquiries or predictions, including this: Is the Republican Party about to collapse or, more generally, will there be a realignment? The imminent demise of the GOP has been predicted periodically for some years, even within the Party. However, Republicans have continued to win elections to Congress, governorships and legislatures. Through gerrymandering and voting restrictions, they have solidified their position. Only the presidency has escaped Republican dominance, and even there they have won five terms out of nine since 1980 (four, if you go by the popular vote). Perhaps major change will occur now. If Trump is nominated, there may be significant desertions — in numbers and prestige — in November, and the split between Trump’s followers and the GOP elite will persist in some degree whether or not he is elected. However, that split, between elite and base, may be no greater now than before; one comment offered this description of Trump’s followers: "Their top worries are terrorism, national security, the economy and the ballooning national debt. . . . In other words: These aren’t just Trump voters, these are today’s Republicans."[34]

Not all is happy among Democrats, either. Their failure to maintain — and deserve — wide support among people of modest income has been a key factor in the Republican rise; compare the period 1932-1976, when Democrats won eight of twelve presidential elections. Thanks to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, some Democrats are returning to the party’s liberal roots. That will not be reflected in this year’s presidential election, assuming Clinton to be the nominee, nor would things change in the short run even if Sanders were elected. As Rick Perlstein puts it, " If, by some miracle, Bernie Sanders entered the White House in January, he would do so naked and alone—in command of a party apparatus less prepared ideologically, institutionally, and legislatively to do great things than at any other time in its history."[35]  The liberalizing trend might continue, but a Clinton win in November might reenforce the belief that centrism is the route to victory.  

We have the odd phenomenon of two candidates who are widely disliked and mistrusted, but in a sense their nomination should not be a surprise: Trump is what has happened to the Republican Party; Clinton is what has happened to the Democrats.

There is talk, probably aimless, of a third party, which could shake out as left-center-right, with moderate Republicans and centrist Democrats forming the middle group. An existing third party could be a rallying point: a leader of the Green Party has made a somewhat condescending pitch to Senator Sanders to join its campaign or, failing that, for his supporters to do so.[36]  However, third parties or other protest movements usually aid the opposition. On the same page as the article about the Green Party was one urging Sanders to run as an independent,[37] but that likely would have the same result, and do these people want Trump? The 2000 election wasn’t that long ago. It would be better if the Greens and others on the left were to join and revitalize the Democrats. Probably we will just muddle/stagger along.

________________________

34.https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/heres-who-supports-donald-trump--and-why/2016/03/03/7674b578-e088-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html

35. http://www.thenation.com/article/is-the-party-system-about-to-crack-up/

36. http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/36148-green-party-s-jill-stein-shares-her-plan-b-for-bernie-sanders-supporters-a-green-new-deal  

37. http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/36160-read-between-the-lines-the-case-for-bernie-sanders-running-as-an-independent

May 4, 2016

This is a most peculiar primary election season. The establishment candidate on the Democratic side has a big lead. On the GOP side, the supposed establishment candidates are out of the race, and the only remaining hopeful who might claim that status is far behind.* The Democrat/liberal(?) promises more of the same, the Republican/ conservative(?) promises radical change. Trump is a surprise to everyone; Clinton is wrapped in the mantle of inevitability. Democratic voters are playing it safe; Republicans are rolling the dice. Trump has no experience in government and, apparently, little understanding of how it works. Clinton runs on her experience, although that is largely a matter of holding various posts, rather than achievement. Neither is exactly a candidate of the people, but the wealthy Republican has made a better show of being for them than the wealthy Democrat.

In some ways Clinton and Trump are similar. Each has self-confidence to the point of arrogance (or in Trump’s case, beyond). Trump strikes a pose of invincibility; Clinton exudes a sense of entitlement. Each demonstrates the power of money. Neither is a natural campaigner; each has personal (or in Hillary’s case, familial) baggage; each is mistrusted by many. Clinton gives the impression of being willing to say anything to be elected; Trump is just willing to say anything. Each represents his or her party’s move to the right; the difference is that, at least for the campaign, Sanders has created a leftward pull on Clinton. Each has dominated media attention, Trump by being a clown, Clinton partly because of the media’s centrist bias and refusal to take Sanders seriously.

A final election between these two could be dismal; as one observer put it, voters "will vote for Clinton out of fear, not hope."[33]

* 5/5/16: Now there is no one, as John Kasich suspended his campaign yesterday.

_______________________ 


33. http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/35697-democrats-march-toward-cliff

April 14, 2016

In thinking about the state of Democratic politics, the phrase "a choice, not an echo" came to mind. Fifty years ago, it was the slogan of conservative Republicans who thought that the party had become too much like the opposition. When Barry Goldwater announced his candidacy for the presidency on January 3, 1964, he said "I will offer a choice, not an echo," and added, "This will not be an engagement of personalities. It will be in engagement of principles." The phrase also became the title of a book by Phyllis Schlafly published on May 1 of that year. My thought was that it now could be used to describe a needed reaction against the centrist-neoliberal-faux conservative form of the party once known as "the Democracy."

Oddly, Republicans and conservatives don’t seem to realize that they have dominated political discourse for some time. Mrs. Schlafly’s A Choice, Not an Echo was republished in 2014. That this reflected an ongoing angst on the right was demonstrated by a review on The New American: "In her 2014 update to the book, Schlafly demonstrates that not much has changed, as Republican candidates for president have remained nothing but an "echo" of the New Deal Democrats, rather than offering a meaningful alternative."[27] Surely that must be an aberrant view; well, no, here’s the title of a February article on Brietbart: "Sen. Ted Cruz Offers a Choice, Not an Echo."[28]  The choice was, in that case, pandering to the Tea Party.

Whatever the delusions among Republicans, Democratic politics, especially on economic issues, has drifted rightward over the past forty years. Hillary Clinton is the favorite of the Democratic establishment, which consists of those favored by such policies and those continuing to support them. Bernie Sanders’ campaign has offered an alternative, but it has not been embraced by those in the mainstream, either in terms of the Party or the media; he still is regarded by them as a fringe candidate. On Friday, April 8, The New York Times opinion page was in aggressive center-right mode. Paul Krugman dismissed Sanders, as he had done before, and a guest editorial criticized the government for interfering with the Pfizer "inversion," its attempt to avoid taxes. The author’s solution: lower taxes.

There are, however, signs that many people, including Sanders’ enthusiastic supporters, have taken notice of the Democrats’ rightward shift.

Thomas Frank’s latest book is Listen, Liberal, or What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? Referring to a supposed liberal state, he points out that the "kind of liberalism that has dominated Massachusetts for the last few decades isn’t the stuff of Franklin Roosevelt or the United Auto Workers . . . Professional-class liberals aren’t really alarmed by oversized rewards for society’s winners. On the contrary, this seems natural to them — because they are society’s winners. The liberalism of professionals just does not extend to matters of inequality; this is the area where soft hearts abruptly turn hard."[29]  That may be too strong, but the attitude he describes would justify the conservative rant about liberal elites, or would if one ignored conservative elites.

Robert Reich, in his recent book Saving Capitalism: for the Many, Not the Few, noted that, "[w]hile nonbusiness causes, such as the rights of minorities and women, continue to have better odds of success under Democratic administrations and Democratic Congresses than under Republican ones, business interests have done well under both." He has harsh words for the Clinton administration. Bill Clinton "pushed for enactment of the North American Free Trade Agreement, followed by the establishment of the World Trade Organization—two items of central importance to big business." More generally, "While the Democratic Party of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal devised financial regulations to constrain Wall Street, Clinton and his allies in Congress eliminated many of those same restraints."[30] That included repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which had separated commercial from investment banking.

Will the new awareness translate into progressive victories in November? Senator Sanders draws large crowds, and has won a string of primaries, but the betting still is on Hillary Clinton. John Nichols, writing in The Nation refers to a "new crop of progressive populists . . . winning primaries across the nation and challenging Clintonian orthodoxy."[31]  The Nation’s editor and publisher, Katrina vanden Heuvel, sees the progressive ("Warren") wing as "an ascendant force within the party, so much so that during her campaign, Clinton has moved to the left on many issues, including trade."[32]  That Clinton has moderated her views, at least for the purposes of the campaign, is clear, but whether the progressives are about to take control is less so.

Let’s hope that it works out that way. Given the stagnation in wages, growing inequality, environmental degradation, collapsing infrastructure, and loss of industry and jobs, it’s time for a genuinely liberal government.

__________________________

27. http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/books/item/19728-a-choice-not-an-echo-fifty-years-later

28. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/02/03/sen-ted-cruz-offers-a-choice-not-an-echo/

29. Quotes are from an excerpt from the book, "How Dems Created a ‘Liberalism of the Rich’ " at http://billmoyers.com/story/the-blue-state-model/

30. Saving Capitalism, pp. 174-75.

31. https://www.thenation.com/article/meet-elizabeth-warren-wing-democratic-party/

32. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-welcome-rebellion-in-the-democratic-party/2016/04/12/ab6089d6-0010-11e6-9d36-33d198ea26c5_ story.html>