Trump to win?

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

To be skeptical about Trump, his proposals, sincerity, etc. I mean to say that I acknowledge that reasonable people of good intent can be skeptical of Trump generally as they would any other politician.

i am not skeptical that trump wants to shake things up, that he thinks he can do a good job as president, and that he thinks he can do a substantially better job than any presidents in living memory. i don't think he's faking. otoh, he says a lot of contradictory things. some, like scott adams, see that as a feature, not a bug, but it makes it hard to know what, if anything, he really believes. that phrase "if anything" is NOT meant as a slam, since it is also conceivable to me that his interest is not in any policy in particular, but in brokering deals among the competing interests circling around each policy.

I think the same intellectual honesty demands that we acknowledge the unreasonable claims made against Trump - that he is insane, a fascist in the image of Mussolini, a neofacist, a racist, an antisemite, an agent of the Russian state, a Putin agent, or that he suborns assassination, violence, or similar extralegal acts. And most especially, intellectual honesty demands that we reject the presumption that his voters represent a monolithic block of bloodthirsty troglodytes with no legitimacy and no virtue.

i don't think he's a fascist but it's hard to be sure given his recent policy shifts. a fascist wishes to join corporate and state power. in this sense, at least, hillary is a fascist. the usual fascist package includes a suppressive, authoritarian state however, and this appears more applicable to trump than clinton. about the latter, though, i'm aware of how the gov't under both dem and republican admins have gone after leaks and leakers, seeking to suppress as much information as possible. i haven't seen either party as an exponent of transparency.

What I reject is the premise that Trump's election would mean a radical, extreme or otherwise revolutionary departure in American life, generally. Politically, it means an upending of the old order and a period of anarchy and this is my aim, yes. But to think a Trump administration represents a wholesale restructuring of our way of life under neofascist lines is preposterous and other than base partisanship and tribalism, I can't fathom folks who believe this as an article of faith.

i think when he says that the solution to community-police problems in places like milwaukee or baltimore rests on having more police without acknowledging excess in police behavior, that's a problem. if i lived in those communities i would expect that a trump justice dept would not be investigating metropolitan police depts in the ways obama's does. whether more suppression and police violence in inner cities would represent a radical departure from current circumstances can be debated, but by my lights it wouldn't be good.


in a similar way, if trump were able to get restrictions on the press by broadening libel laws, as he hopes, the change would be one of degree, since the press is already self-censoring and slanted in various ways, but it wouldn't be good.

these changes are not the same as troops goosestepping down main street, but would be steps in the wrong direction.

Now as surely the lives and careers of the folks running the GOP and Democratic parties are going to change and radically so, ours will barely register it. It's not the existential risk the media and Democrat/Republican alliance - the neoliberal party - intend for us to believe. The fact that with one side of their face, Trump haters say he is a radical departure from all political and social norms, and with the other they criticize him for being the same-old-supply side Republican should inform us sufficiently.

Perhaps this is too much to demand. If that's the case, we can either accept the partisan back and forth and do our best to judge what is legitimate and what is not in the spirit of free speech. Or, we can as a community decide to close this topic and speak of it no more. Or do something else.

there is a really good piece in today's ny times by thomas edsall, examining the suppressed schism within the democratic party- between the urban professional elites and the minorities - especially as centered on issues of affordable housing. both parties are in trouble. it's just that the republicans troubles are on the surface at the moment, while the democratic ones await their moment.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Trump to win? --why

It appears that the Saudis are on the way to reach their real goal - a trump win?

Bye bye democrats.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...mocrats-217855

The atlantic has an article on why people like Trump are gaining ground.

This articles focuses on the fact that the party apparatus is much weaker than it used to be, meaning that discipline and coherence
are much harder to achieve. Gadflies like Trump and Cruz get a lot of votes without accomplishing anything. Formerly, politicians and candidates were dependent on the party to finance campaigns, so they could not afford to piss off the party. But the finance rules
have changed so that the parties do not have much influence. Rather, wealth groups or individuals can fund candidates they like.
Also, the fact that the primaries really do control the choice of candidate has totally backfired---since only 20% of the party members vote in a primary, the primary winner represents only ~ 10% of the total electorate. Hence an election nominated by fringe candidates.

The atlantic has had several articles on US political dysfunction, this is one of the better ones.

It does not treat another fundamental problem ----the two party system. I believe it is largely dissatisfaction with the mainstream parties
that is making Trump possible. Until we get to proportional representation, many of these problems just cannot be solved.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

Woodsman,

Assuming Trump is elected, how likely is the primary goal?
Isn't it likely that the Parties will minimally adapt and survive? Reverting in 4 or 8 years?

Would Trump's election just be the start of the "destruction"?
How exactly does the "destruction" follow?

While I'm not with you, I find your writing very persuasive. Perhaps finding a larger
audience for it would have more impact than putting up yard signs.

LB

It's already happening to the GOP. It is irreparably split and exists in name only. If Trump prevails, he will determine what the GOP becomes based on the demands of its membership. How that shakes out is anyone's guess at this moment. Neoconservatives were once Democrats and there's nothing preventing them from returning home. Neoliberals share more in common with neoconservatives than they do with the traditional base of the Democratic Party. And both of them totally despise the left, so it would be an easy shift as the "50 necons for Hillz" show us.

The Democratic Party will immediately commence an internal civil war, with the Clinton people fighting for their political lives against the Sanders people. A struggle for the mind and soul of the Democratic Party is at hand even if HRC wins. But should she lose, the powers that be in the party will have to account for the most lopsided, underhanded, undemocratic selection process in its modern history and they will be tossed outside the circle. Most importantly, the period of Clintonism will come to its end. The Democratic Party too may survive in name only, but it will never, ever be the same. What it becomes is open to speculation.

It's kind of you to say, but I have no interest in any larger audience. I like fishing and sailing and surfing and chatting you good folks up, or the folks at the tavern. That's enough.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

i am not sure what you mean by "Trump skepticism."

To be skeptical about Trump, his proposals, sincerity, etc. I mean to say that I acknowledge that reasonable people of good intent can be skeptical of Trump generally as they would any other politician.

I think the same intellectual honesty demands that we acknowledge the unreasonable claims made against Trump - that he is insane, a fascist in the image of Mussolini, a neofacist, a racist, an antisemite, an agent of the Russian state, a Putin agent, or that he suborns assassination, violence, or similar extralegal acts. And most especially, intellectual honesty demands that we reject the presumption that his voters represent a monolithic block of bloodthirsty troglodytes with no legitimacy and no virtue.

What I reject is the premise that Trump's election would mean a radical, extreme or otherwise revolutionary departure in American life, generally. Politically, it means an upending of the old order and a period of anarchy and this is my aim, yes. But to think a Trump administration represents a wholesale restructuring of our way of life under neofascist lines is preposterous and other than base partisanship and tribalism, I can't fathom folks who believe this as an article of faith.

Now as surely the lives and careers of the folks running the GOP and Democratic parties are going to change and radically so, ours will barely register it. It's not the existential risk the media and Democrat/Republican alliance - the neoliberal party - intend for us to believe. The fact that with one side of their face, Trump haters say he is a radical departure from all political and social norms, and with the other they criticize him for being the same-old-supply side Republican should inform us sufficiently.

Perhaps this is too much to demand. If that's the case, we can either accept the partisan back and forth and do our best to judge what is legitimate and what is not in the spirit of free speech. Or, we can as a community decide to close this topic and speak of it no more. Or do something else.

[LazyBoy]

Re: Trump to win?

The primary goal is the destruction of the Democratic and Republican Parties and the upending of the political status quo. The secondary goal is ending the political viability of HRC.

Woodsman,

Assuming Trump is elected, how likely is the primary goal?
Isn't it likely that the Parties will minimally adapt and survive? Reverting in 4 or 8 years?

Would Trump's election just be the start of the "destruction"?
How exactly does the "destruction" follow?

While I'm not with you, I find your writing very persuasive. Perhaps finding a larger
audience for it would have more impact than putting up yard signs.

LB

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

still looking forward to your response to my post #902 [902!] but in the meantime find your questions to santafe quite legitimate and worth addressing.

for myself:

re authoritarianism- i'm concerned with trump's incitement of mob violence - e.g. "in the good old days we'd rough up" someone protesting [not exact quote, i think, but close].

i'm concerned with choosing muslims as hate objects - we've all read stories about violence towards people with turbans, the wrong complexion or dress, etc. i'm not ascribing that to trump, but between his approval of mob violence and his encouragement of suspicions towards muslims i think it's a legitimate concern.

"what the cities need now is MORE police" or words to that effect. i don't think more police is in itself a bad idea, but combined with a lack of recognition of the legitimacy of black complaints about police behavior, it sounds like the object is suppression of a community, not its support.

trump's expressed desire to rein in freedom of the press sounds unconstitutional, but also bespeaks a vision of society with an official "reality" imposed by the state.

these are just the issues that come immediately to mind.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

...Trump followers may be in denial but they cannot choose their facts. Now that Trump has added Steve Bannon to lead his campaign we will more clearly see how angry, fearful and hateful these people are.

Leaving aside the presumption that we have the means of peering into the minds and hearts of Trump supporters, individually or as a cohort, let's establish the facts by answering the following questions:

• What is neofascism?
• What are the elements of the neofascist ideology?
• What is authoritarianism?
• Are authoritarianism and neofascism synonymous?
• Which persons and organizations represent neofascism in America?
• How much influence do these neofascist organizations and personalities have on the American national discourse?
• For the sake of argument, if we were to accept the assertion that Trump is a neofascist, which of his proposals or policies represent neofascist ideology and policy?
• Of those policies and proposals, what makes them neofascist?
• What specific evidence exists that confirms Steve Bannon is a racist and operates from racial animus?
• Do Trump supporters have any legitimate grievances, or is the entire movement motivated by white racism?
• Does Trump offer any proposals intended to address legitimate grievances, or are they prima facie illegitimate fronts for white racial animus organized on neofascist lines?
• Are black folks attending Trump rallies as supporters racist neofascists?
• Are black folks working in the Trump campaign racist neofascists?
• Recognizing the overwhelming majority of black affiliation with the Democratic Party, is this the only legitimate viewpoint Black people can maintain?

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

Would you and Santa mind going first? It would serve as a confidence building measure, don't you think? We might start by acknowledging the legitimacy of Trump skepticism,

i can't speak for santa, who i think is more positive than i about clinton. as i've said before, there is a running joke in my family about how much i despise her and her hypocrisy.

i am not sure what you mean by "Trump skepticism." if you mean skepticism of the legitimacy of the current bought-and-paid-for republicrat system and its ever increasing tilt towards enriching the rich, immiserating the poor, comforting the comfortable and afflicting the afflicted, then i am in total agreement. if you mean something different, please clarify.

the absurdity of the apocalyptic view of Trump (or equating a strategic desire for a Trump victory as a wish to "destroy the world")

i think trump would take this country in a bad, authoritarian direction, and would not in fact remedy the issues i listed above as "skepticism" of the current system. so i would hope he would be just a step in a bad direction. i worry about how far it could go, but i don't think he would "destroy the world." sorry i was being "poetic" in referring to the famous quote from the vietnam war. but nonetheless, the mentality of "we destroyed the village in order to save it" does express what worries me about your position. you referred to yourself as now a political anarchist, and i fear you are engaged in traditional anarchic bomb throwing.

and the reality of a massive and ongoing propaganda and psychological operation run on the American electorate for the benefit of the neoliberal/neoconservative alliance?

absolutely agree. e.g. i have ever diminishing trust and respect for the ny times. i have trouble finding any outlet to be trusted, so i read from the conservative media as well as from the liberal. that's how i know about the issues re hillary's health being bruited about on the right. there is not a murmur from the hillary-leaning press. i am skeptical as to the legitimacy of those issues, but have no way to know the truth. frankly, these days i'm skeptical about everything

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

the joke was implying - but never asserting- that i was rendering a professional opinion as opposed to merely the observations of a fellow human being. if that wasn't obvious, i apologize for the implication.

can we try to interact as fellow human beings, woodsman? not archetypes or symbols but as individuals each seeking his own way forward? individuals using this community not as a soapbox but as a platform to examine and clarify what is happening in the world?

Sure, doctor. Happy to do that. Apology accepted.

Would you and Santa mind going first? It would serve as a confidence building measure, don't you think? We might start by acknowledging the legitimacy of Trump skepticism, the absurdity of the apocalyptic view of Trump (or equating a strategic desire for a Trump victory as a wish to "destroy the world") and the reality of a massive and ongoing propaganda and psychological operation run on the American electorate for the benefit of the neoliberal/neoconservative alliance?

I think that would be a great starting point for us to examine and clarify the actualities of the day, don't you?

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

i think you are conflating what is easy with what is not. as i said, i agree with your analysis of our political economy, but what i - at least - am scared of is not the upsetting of that system, but the means and messenger in this particular instance. my worry is not for that corrupt system, but for what this particular candidate will construct in its stead.

This is my concern. It appears nearly half the electorate is willing to trade neo-liberalism for neo-fascism while ignoring that neo-fascism is a more abusive neo-liberal fast track. Trump will not assist the US in moving away from neo-liberalism, he will provide an authoritarian mandate to widen state sponsored police abuse along with continued economic abuse.

I take one of my cues from the African American community who have always been on the front lines of both types of abuse. A Wall Street Journal poll published earlier this week shows the following level of support for the two main candidates:
Clinton: 91%
Trump: 1%

I think black folks understand that authoritarian rule will impact their community first and with more force. I agree and I think that authoritarian attitude will spread to all communities who do not comprise the top economic and social tier.

At it's core, the Trump movement is a white racist neo-Southern strategy. It is built on anger and hate for the other. Trump followers may be in denial but they cannot choose their facts. Now that Trump has added Steve Bannon to lead his campaign we will more clearly see how angry, fearful and hateful these people are.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

As for not getting the joke, I fail to see the humor in yielding one's professional credentials as a not-so-subtle rhetorical club to put the poors in their place. That joke isn't funny anymore.

the joke was implying - but never asserting- that i was rendering a professional opinion as opposed to merely the observations of a fellow human being. if that wasn't obvious, i apologize for the implication.

can we try to interact as fellow human beings, woodsman? not archetypes or symbols but as individuals each seeking his own way forward? individuals using this community not as a soapbox but as a platform to examine and clarify what is happening in the world?

[spinoza]

Re: Trump to win?

Hello, everyone, I've been a long time lurker in these forums since 2009. This thread, in particular, has had my interest since it began.

Woodsy, I also supported Bernie as an antidote to the rampant corruption in our system, despite misgivings about some of his policy particulars. But the Trump train is very different. The actual policy proposals and SCOTUS list sound very much for the interest of the elite at the expense of the blue collar American. He seems to me to be a fake populist. The rhetoric doesn't match the policy.

Not that I'm a fan of Clinton. I won't and can't vote for her.

Honestly, though Gary Johnson is as exciting as warm oatmeal, he has a chance to get a third voice on the stage. Isn't third party support the realistic way to start breaking up the political oligarchy?

Thanks for your insightful posts, and especially you, jk. You both always have insightful contributions.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

that all you got, woodsman? unwilling to address the issues i raise? i am trying to engage in discussion. you prefer harangue? again, imo you're better than that.

Clearly, much better. And for reasons that are likely becoming increasingly clear to iTulipers as you and Santa persist in digging yourselves deeper.

But on to the meat of your retort, doctor.

although i have no love for bill kristol, i am nonetheless concerned that breitbart headlined him as a "renegade jew" as if that was perhaps the most important thing about it, and what their readers would be most stirred up about. do you not consider that a telling detail?

Telling? Oh, absolutely. The details, however, it seems you missed.

It tells us that tribal instincts dominate your thinking and short circuits your higher mental and moral faculties. It tells us that as a one of the tribe, you default to simple, cultural rubrics that are largely unconscious and generally inadequate to describe extant reality, but perfectly Hillarious when deployed so carelessly by a man of science dedicated to reason and inquiry.

Oh, if I had a dollar every time I saw this at work in the office!

i am nonetheless concerned that breitbart headlined him as a "renegade jew" as if that was perhaps the most important thing about it

What does it mean one Jew calls another Jew a renegade? If I say "renegade Jew" does it mean I hate Jews? If a news organization with an decidedly pro-Israel bias quotes a Jew calling another Jew a renegade, does it mean it is the modern incarnation of Der Stürmer? And if antisemitism can be implied in such a transparently obvious attempt to shut down debate, what does that tell you about the seriousness of the commitment to resisting antisemitism or encouraging civil debate?

Just posing rhetorical questions, doctor. No need to answer in detail, as you've already told us with elegant brevity.

Horowitz: Bill Kristol ‘Renegade Jew’

by DAVID HOROWITZ
18 May 2016

I have been accused of being a provocateur all my life – when I was a leftist in the ’60s proclaiming (God help me) that Vietnam was the fulfillment of the American dream; when I left the left declaring that, “the beginning of political morality is anti-Communism;” when I said that identity politics “owed more to Mussolini than to Marx;” when I opposed reparations for slavery 137 years after the fact because it was “bad for blacks and racist too;” and when I organized “Islamo-fascism Awareness Weeks” on a hundred college campuses across the country. Now I have provoked a firestorm on the Internet through a Breitbart article that called Bill Kristol a “renegade Jew.”

According to the Internet, Webster synonyms for renegade are “defector” and “deserter.” I applied the term to Kristol because of his efforts to launch a third-party campaign to block the nominee of his party, split the conservative vote, and ensure the election of a Democrat whose party had provided a path to nuclear weapons to the Jews’ mortal enemy (and America’s as well). I picked the emotional term “renegade” because I wanted to shock Kristol and his co-conspirators into realizing the gravity of their actions.

However, I had no idea that this would provoke the reaction it did. A veritable tsunami of attacks were directed at Breitbart and myself from Kristol’s supporters on the “neo-conservative” right and from die-hard enemies of the Republican nominee in all political quarters. Even the Anti-Defamation League (which had once attacked me over my anti-reparations campaign) chimed in, calling the title of my piece “inappropriate and offensive.” This was actually pretty mild, considering others were denouncing it as “disgraceful” and “an anti-Semitic slur.”

How, by the way, is the characterization “anti-Semitic slur” even possible? Are Jews immune to defecting from causes? When I publicly repudiated the radical cause, thirty years ago, the first attack on me appeared in the Village Voice under the title, “The Intellectual Life and the Renegade Horowitz.” It was written by Paul Berman, who years later became a somewhat chastened radical himself.

Berman’s attack stung me – as I hoped my charge would sting Kristol and cause him to reconsider his course. But the epithet didn’t bother anybody but me. My current critics would stigmatize me not only as a defector from the conservative cause but as a double agent who never really left the left. After my Breitbart article appeared, Commentary editor (and Kristol relative) John Podhoretz sent me a one-line email: “Once a Stalinist always a Stalinist,” while Commentary writer Jonathan Tobin in a piece titled “Breitbart’s ‘Renegade Jew’ Disgrace,” suggested: “You can take the boy out of the Bolsheviks but you can’t take the Bolshevik out of the boy.”

Like many of the attacks on Trump, these squalid responses with their flimsy intellectual content call to mind a famous remark of Lionel Trilling’s, made more than 60 years ago. Conservatives, he wrote, did not “express themselves in ideas but only in action or in irritable mental gestures that seek to resemble ideas.” It is not that Kristol or his defender Tobin haven’t had worthy and defensible ideas. They have. But this makes it even sadder to see the flimsy arguments they trot out to discredit Trump and to defend Kristol’s indefensible campaign. Criticisms of Trump’s personal attacks on his Republican rivals are reasonable. But not when they fail to take into account the 60,000 political ads that were aired by those same rivals whose purpose was to destroy him (the ads were not, should anybody have missed them, about policies and issues).

I have no quarrel with people who have doubts about what Trump would do if elected. It is the task of the candidate to allay those doubts. For reasonable critics, Trump’s announcement of his prospective Supreme Court nominees should be an important step along the way. These names are not Trump cronies and would therefore provide an independent check on a crucial governmental function.

My quarrel is not with Trump skeptics, but with the effort to nullify the vote of the Republican electorate – a politically active and informed, and conservative segment of that electorate. Kristol’s third-party effort exudes an elitist contempt for the will of the people, which is particularly unbecoming in a crowd that prides itself on being “constitutional conservatives.”

Finally, I am disturbed by the failure of the nullifiers to consider the perils of the choices our country now faces. For the life of me, I cannot understand how my friends in the conservative movement can not have qualms about derailing the candidacy of the Republican Party’s pro-Israel, pro-military, pro-American nominee, and electing the candidate of a party that has built its foreign policy around making Islamist Iran the number one power in the Middle East, providing its jihadists with a path to nuclear weapons, putting $150 billion into their terrorist war chest, and turning a blind eye to their circumvention of international restrictions so that they can build ballistic missiles capable of destroying the Jewish state and causing incalculable damage to the United States.

As for not getting the joke, I fail to see the humor in yielding one's professional credentials as a not-so-subtle rhetorical club to put the poors in their place. That joke isn't funny anymore.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

Cute how you jettison professional and medical ethics just for the pleasure of a kick down. Thesis proven.

Your tribal instincts remain firm, Doctor. I guess you haven't noticed your profession is at long last taking baby steps towards self-awareness. Your good colleague almost reaches it, but craps out when the call of the tribe beckons.

that all you got, woodsman? taking what was obviously a joke seriously? seriously?

unwilling to address the issues i raise? i am trying to engage in discussion. you prefer harangue? again, imo you're better than that.

we engaged in a similar exchange once before, in which i ultimately got you to actually engage with me by asking whether whatever-it-was was, in your opinion, worse than slavery. i am trying to do the same thing now, to reason together or at least exchange opinions in a respectful way.

i've always respected your knowledge and judgement, if not always agreeing with the latter. i take what you say seriously, and i assume it is offered with good intent, except when it seems magnified by anger, as in the "worse than slavery?" discussion. and even then i do my best to respond calmly and respectfully, hoping you will do the same.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

usually not cheap. ;-)
but for you, free!

Cute how you jettison professional and medical ethics just for the pleasure of a kick down. Thesis proven.

Your tribal instincts remain firm, Doctor. I guess you haven't noticed your profession is at long last taking baby steps towards self-awareness. Your good colleague almost reaches it, but craps out when the call of the tribe beckons.