Flouting The Establishment

ANTI-ESTABLISHMENTARIANISM:

A repudiation of p.c. was only part of the story; the defiance fueling  Trump’s support was more a matter of lashing out at menacing abstractions than it was a matter of standing up to real insiders.  Only by understanding this misguided vitriol can the reasons for the 2016 outcome be adduced.

For the agitated masses, Trump SEEMED to be an “outsider” who finally–at long last–was going to stick it to “the man”.  In actuality, he represented an even more insidious kind of politician than the Establishment–of which Clinton was an icon.  The fraudulence of Trump’s schtick proved to be entirely beside the point.  For he captured Middle America’s anti-Establishment acrimony in an enticingly straight-forward manner; and did so without requiring anyone to actually know anything about policy details.  If the curtain is dazzling enough, nobody bothers to look behind it.

Trump struck a chord with those who were sick and tired of “business as usual”, yet had no apprehension of what that business might actually be.  As it happened, his only viable challenger in the main election personified the loathed Washington elites: the cadre of self-important lackeys with which many–conservatives and liberals alike–had grown disenchanted, even disgusted.  Accurately or not, Clinton was stigmatized by tens of millions of voters as the epitome of all that ailed them (that is: just another vehicle for the same ol’ Beltway rigamarole).  As it turned out, the putative maverick, Trump, was the singular alternative to this unpalatable option.

Clinton’s corporatist version of “at least it’s not as bad as the Republicans” taught us that one does not prevail over fascism by offering “fascism-lite”.  (After all, corporatist Democrats support the military-industrial complex, Wall Street, and right-wing Zionism just as much as Republicans.)  If X is held to be opprobrious; then hawking a diluted version of X holds very little appeal.  A genuinely Progressive candidate would have offered a worthwhile alternative to the corporatism of BOTH Trump and Clinton.  Alas.

Meanwhile, Trump taught us that, when people are convinced the ship might be sinking, they are liable–in the midst of their flailing–to grasp onto anything to stay afloat; and cling to it once they find it.  Milquetoast asseverations are futile; and the lesser-of-two-evils dilemma is pathetically un-inspiring.  People wanted pizzaz, not sagacity.

The question remains: What begat this simmering stew of disenchantment and frustration?  The nagging feeling that the regular Joe had been short-changed, disrespected, by condescending popinjays who always seemed to talk down to them (read: corporate Democrats).  The real blame, of course, was a rigged system–which made the super-rich even more obscenely wealthy; and did so at the expense of everyone else.  Yet instead of blame the ACTUAL culprits (the plutocrats), the ire was channeled toward a nebulous bogeyman: the Establishment.  The more Democrats espoused p.c. the more they seemed to be completely out of touch with the VERY REAL concerns of the hoi polloi.

Instead of eschewing the plutocracy, support amongst this disaffected segment of the electorate mobilized behind a man who–though the EPITOME OF that very plutocracy–had branded himself the ultimate anti-Establishment crusader. 

The everyman rightly saw the egregious inequalities (and mass disenfranchisement); and so recognized that he was not getting a fair shake.  But he saw the beguilingly irascible Trump as his savior because he didn’t come off as heedless.  The fact that Trump was a man who was completely out of touch with the everyman was entirely beside the point.  He CREATED THE PERCEPTION that he was on the same side as the “regular Joe”.  While Clinton’s scripted perorations came off as patronizing, Trump–by speaking their language–successfully posed as the everyman’s dauntless hero.  So–on an inspired whim–many swing-voters backed a plutocrat just to thumb their nose at the “the system”.

Across Middle America, support for Trump soared irrespective of the fact that he embodied everything that was wrong with that very system.  As had happened under Reagan, the working class in the Rust Belt swallowed the “morning in America” gimmick (replete with promised “trickle-down” effects) hook, line, and sinker…because there was no plausible alternative being offered.  That Trump would support the very (right-wing) policies that had CAUSED their woe was immaterial.  He was the fuck-the-system poster-boy.

It did not occur to these flailing voters that this bogus paladin was every bit as much a shill for the plutocracy as was Clinton; perhaps even more-so.  In the end, BOTH candidates were as pro-Wall Street as Wall Street could have dreamed.  So, as far as corporate power was concerned, EITHER candidate would have been acceptable.

A sweet-heart of the Establishment, Clinton promised some superficial change.  Well-informed Progressives AND Know-Nothings alike were–understandably–not buying it.  The former had hoped for the genuine Progressive, Sanders.  The latter, opted for the bombastic TV star who knew how to kick ass and take names.  In other words, the wayward swing-voter rejected the embodiment of the USUAL bullshit (Clinton) in favor of a mouth-breathing demagogue who peddled a NEW KIND of bullshit.  They were attracted to a sales-pitch that seemed–if nothing else–bold.

Juxtaposed against Hillary’s blatant artificiality, Trump’s brand of fulminating blather seemed to be positively rectitudinous.  Put another way: Though utterly fatuous, Trump’s off-the-cuff bloviation projected strength.  By embodying indignation in star-spangled splendor, the dashing, New York real-estate mogul captured the seething resentments of the disaffected hard-working-men who fashioned themselves as the vanguard of American patriotism.

It is telling that, by the end of Obama’s tenure, anti-Establishment fervor was at such a fever pitch that some of the most blinkered voters had difficulty choosing between an unabashed plutocrat (Trump) and the democratic socialist running on the other major party’s ticket (Bernie Sanders); as if–preposterously–these men were roughly two versions of the same thing.  For the most aggrieved denizens of the American agora, that these two candidates represented opposite ends of the political spectrum was–astonishingly–irrelevant.  After all, both figures were seen as anti-Establishment (each in his own distinct fashion); and THAT–irrespective of the nuts-and-bolds of drastically divergent specific policy proposals–was the bottom line.

It became clear just how duplicitous Trump’s promise to “drain the swamp” was when he began appointing his cabinet-members shortly after the election.  Predictably, he assembled a cadre of plutocrats (unsurprisingly, largely from Goldman Sachs), corporate shills, and fanatical anti-government ideologues.  (To be fair: It was already quite noxious: Obama appointments were ALSO a roster of Goldman Sachs execs.)  In other words, Trump made the swamp EVEN MORE toxic than it already was.  Nobody who noticed this was surprised by it; and most who didn’t notice would not have cared.

In any case, Hillary was–in reality–much farther to the right than she was pretending to be; whereas Trump was perfectly content to ACTUALLY BE as far to the right as he needed to be.  Hence: The ultra-right was (unsurprisingly) galvanized whilst Progressives were (unsurprisingly) tepid.  The numbers bear this out (see Appendix 2).

The point can’t be emphasized enough: That Trump, with his raucous theatrics, served as a prime anger-channeling-conduit made him especially appealing to those with lots of pent-up frustration.  This was the case even as said mechanism directed enmity away from the ACTUAL culprits (plutocrats masquerading as stalwarts of entrepreneurial zest) and toward chimerical menaces (those darned spineless Progressives wining about being politically correct and begging for a nanny-state to coddle them).

Ill-informed, disaffected, rural voters (esp. parochial-minded, white men) sought to effect a reckoning via an ornery, superficially successful–yet oft-bankrupted–casino magnate.  Disoriented as so many were, brand-Trump was specially-designed to proffer a longed-for savior-figure.  (It helps to bear in mind that “Trump” is more a brand than a person.)  For such voters, Trump was the incarnation of the fantastical American Dream…waiting for each of us, just over a perpetually-receding horizon.

And so it went that Trump posed as the quintessential anti-Establishment option; and thus an answer to an unacceptable status quo.  This is a bait-and-switch that works because it appeals to our baser instincts.  Demagogy is the oldest trick on the book: Rally people around a dubious cause by stirring up mass-mania and/or mass-hysteria.  (People are more prone to groupthink and militancy when they’re riled up.)  In the modern era, this often leads to veiled oligarchy–what Sheldon Wolin called, “inverted totalitarianism”.

The populist rhetoric employed by right-wing movements is invariably a sham.  What passes as “populist” in a right-wing context is–invariably–anti-democratic.  Another name for “right-wing populism” is “authoritarian populism”; for it thrives off of the sort of populist fervor that can’t help but lead to fascism…as has been amply demonstrated so many times in the past; and in recent years by Trump-ism.  (See Appendix 3.)

When well-packaged, ersatz populism appeals to the everyman; as it includes oblique paeans to the common good.  Yet it only ends up serving centers of highly-concentrated power.  Rather than abetting the commonweal by CHALLENGING centers of power, it is an excuse to FURTHER AGGREGATE power; and–here’s the nutty part–to do so with everyone’s tacit consent.  (This alluring pretext is what Chomsky called “manufactured consent”.)

The moral of the story should be loud and clear: Right-wing populism is faux populism.  This point is further illustrated by the converging policies of right-wing “libertarians” (who purport to be out for the individual, and so ostensibly have the interests of the everyman at heart) and unreconstructed corporatists (shills for corporate power, who strive to maximize corporate socialism).  For both of these ideologies–superficially different yet fundamentally the same–make use of the alluring “it’s for your own good” bromide…even as they are will to undermine democracy at the bat of an eyelash.  Such ideologues cajole the rabble into going along with policies that only SEEM to benefit them, but in reality benefit only the well-positioned few.

Thus right-wing populism is a political swindle–an “every man for himself” approach that defies everything we know about macro-economics; and a “devil take the hindmost” attitude that defies even the most fundamental moral principles.  Yet the proposition SOUNDS good if one imagines coming out on top at the end of the day.  (Never mind the fact that it should matter to me whether or not the family down the street has quality healthcare; and we are all affected by whether or not the kid from the other side of town is being educated well.)

This is the boondoggle known as supply-side economics–geared as it is for a dog-eat-dog world in which material “success” is conceptualized as the primarily economic phenomenon.  The policy is nothing more than an excuse for the well-positioned few to further consolidate wealth and power…at everyone else’s expense.  Consequently, the misguided “regular Joe” is hoodwinked into eagerly fucking himself.

The grotesque right-wing instantiation of “libertarianism”, then, if FAUX libertarianism; in contrast to GENUINE libertarianism–in the tradition of, say, Thomas Jefferson and John Stuart Mill.  For it is a (veiled) prescription for authoritarianism (in the form of plutocracy).  It effectively eschews STATE tyranny in favor of PRIVATE tyranny…then calls that liberty.  It justifies systems of domination / exploitation in the name of freedom…then tells everyone: “If you’re not living the dream, you have no one to blame but yourself.”  Here, affluence is a function of merit–in keeping with the so-called “Prosperity Gospel”.

Trump played his feckless supporters for fools by invoking the usual shibboleths of right-wing populism.  This scam (be it in “conservative” or in right-wing “libertarian” garb) is perpetrated by fostering what might be called “political Stockholm Syndrome”–whereby the electorate is duped into supporting its own oppressors, thinking they are somehow empowering themselves.  This is typical; as cult activity of ANY kind is animated by a quasi-populist credo.  It makes suckers of a credulous audience just as has any cult movement in history. {8}

The story has been the same for thousands of years; and has played itself out in every society on the planet.  Using agit-prop, impresarios of the Establishment play off the quotidian insecurities of common-folk.  They accomplish this task by stoking fear.  Neuroses are engendered in such way that the impresarios of the illusion can then claim to offer PROTECTION FROM the (imagined) nemesis.  Create the terms of the predicament, then offer a way out of it.  The magical “fix” is proffered as the ultimate solution to everyone’s woes.  The gimmick is as old as time: Create the (perception of) sickness, then offer the (alleged) cure.  This is how demand is drummed up for certain cockamamy consumer products–from alternative medicine and car alarms to religious creeds and semi-automatic rifles.

Whether it is Faith or firearms being peddled, the swindle is enabled by a mass appeal that has been strategically engineered.  Right-wing populism works only insofar as artificial demand for its nostrums can be drummed up.  It’s an analogue of the opioid epidemic.

For many who felt aggrieved, Trump’s haughty put-on was–though extremely crass–rather refreshing.  It was plain to see that Hillary–the quintessential insider–was a shill for the disdained power-brokers on the Potomac.  And so, the thinking went, her political adversary must (ipso facto) represent the panacea of integrity that they were so ardently seeking.

That Trump was HIMSELF a power-elite ended up being entirely beside the point.  His brand of avarice was seen as the mark of unbridled American entrepreneurship.  Rather than an out-of-touch plutocrat, Trump sold himself as the embodiment of the American Dream.  He may have been a modern-day Caligula, but–as a celebrity–he represented what his fawning constituents all longed to be: a super-star business tycoon.  They were convinced that he would soon pave the way for them realizing their highest aspirations…if only he was let loose to work his made-for-TV magic.

The willingness of right-wing sycophants to accept Trump’s truculence is dismaying…until we realize that, for his fans, his bombast is part of his APPEAL.  He flouts the dreaded “Establishment”…even though, as a sham, he is an integral PART OF that very Establishment…both personally and in terms of policy positions.

Trump gives his followers permission to never feel shame; and invites them to be proud of their ignorance.  White Christian nationalists are encouraged to be unabashedly Reactionary, thereby validating their conceit.  Trump is an engine of affirmation—a godsend for fawning crowds who really, really, really don’t want their picture of “America” to ever change.

Trump-ism provides his adoring fans with license for their depravity; and is himself proof that one can be depraved AND a superstar.  He is a dunce that is SUCCESSFUL; so dunces can feel better about themselves.  Not only has he never engaged in a moment of self-reflection, he tells everyone that it’s okay that they don’t either.  It’s OKAY to be oblivious and self-absorbed.  It’s OKAY to not understand anything…yet pretend that you’re “in the know”.  It’s OKAY to be illiterate, so long as you salute the flag with sufficient fervor.

Trump makes provincialism cool.  The man isn’t a dignified public servant, he’s a walking pep rally.  He is a showman, not a statesman.  The message to disaffected Americans strewn across the American countryside is straight-forward: “If I’M cool, then YOU must be cool too.”  Thus (false) pride by association.

In sum: Trump’s simple-minded asseverations come off as candor; his bombast comes off as strength.  His flag-waving bluster is the “We’re number one!” chant that appeals to those who simply want to be part of something “GREAT”.  He doesn’t tsk-tsk-tsk his target audience; he fluffs their feathers.  “You’re fine just the way you are.  Don’t be ashamed.”  No apologies; just an endless exhibition of contrived swagger…coupled with complete, unwavering certainty…and indefatigable bombast.

And to top it all off: NO NEED TO THINK.

Now, here we are in 2020.  Once again, the Progressive candidate is the GENUINELY populist candidate; and has grass-roots–instead of corporate–support.  Bernie Sanders continues to promote Progressive policies…with the Establishment scoffing at him every step of the way.

It is imperative that we realize: The results of the 2016 election were no aberration; they were a confirmation of what has already been shown time and time again.  We needn’t be dumfounded by Trump’s victory four years ago; for in then end, the paradox that is right-wing populism prevailed.  The good news is that we know how to prevent that from happening again.