Flouting The Establishment

February 18, 2020 Category: Domestic Politics


As I’ve discussed, Trump’s refusal to temporize made his pronouncements seem more sincere; even as his mendacity was unmatched in the annals of American political history.  He was an unabashed plutocrat who, though he’d stridently denounced plutocrats on the campaign trail, staffed his cabinet with the most avaricious of them immediately after being elected.

For anyone paying attention, this was predictable.  Alas, those who were hoodwinked by Trump’s duplicitous rhetoric were convinced that–despite his reputation–he would somehow vanquish plutocracy from Washington…as opposed to putting it into overdrive…which is, of course, exactly what he did.  So how did he pull off this stunt?

People want to feel that they are being heard; so they will often become smitten with any cynosure who’s rhetorical flourishes seem to lend credence to their grievances.  Such a ruse may find purchase no matter how half-baked those grievances might be.  Trump’s audacity appealed to the disenchanted because he seemed to validate their every remonstration.

How was this possible?  Trump is not an intelligent man; but he is a maestro when it comes to reading a room.  He is, after all, a showman more than anything else.  So he was incredibly savvy at (what is known in show-biz as) playing to the audience. {3}

People like being validated by authority figures; and Trump mastered the art of echoing the resentments of the poorly-educated, white, working-class across America.  With every imbecilic ejaculation during his every bumbling oration, he resonated with people who were tired of all the pompous, political insiders who could not relate to them. {4}

Hence the widespread antipathy toward the quintessential Establishment figurehead: the flagrantly-corporatist Hillary Clinton.  Much of that antipathy was based on the disingenuousness emanating from virtually every (scripted) word out of her mouth–replete with choreographed set-pieces and incessant over-acting.  Yet the death knell was the fact that she was uninterested in addressing the grievances of regular folk…let alone able to do so in a manner that they readily understood.

It was obvious to everyone that Clinton was heedless of the plight of the common-man.  Her insufferable phoniness drove many disaffected voters into the arms of a bombastic, narcissistic showman–a man who’s gimmick was an adamant refusal to abide the usual protocols of decorum.  He was COMPLETELY unscripted; and therein lay his charm.

To recapitulate: This was all in spite of the fact that Clinton was approximately as right-wing as the blowhard she was pitted against: hawkish on foreign policy and–with every bribe from Goldman Sachs–completely beholden to financial power.  (See Appendix 1.)  In terms of economic policy and foreign policy, she just wasn’t quite right-wing ENOUGH for those inclined to go full-throttle fascist; so Trump was the de facto victor in right-leaning precincts.  To say she lost because she was “too Progressive” is preposterous.

For the irate-yet-egregiously-misinformed swing-voter, the fact that Trump was just as perfidious as any other plutocrat lurking in the “swamp” of Beltway politics ended up being a non-issue.  For the preening real-estate mogul managed–against all odds–to sell himself as the antithesis of a puppet; and thus as an alternative to the most banal of villains: the “typical politician” (i.e. Clinton).  Marionettes are rarely persuasive.

But politicians don’t succeed by merely being persuasive; they must be RELATABLE in some way…even if they are the tackiest of popinjays.  The ultimate determination of who succeeds in politics is: To whom can the voters best relate?  Coming off as “relatable’ is largely a matter of image-engineering: the craft in which Trump excelled all his life.

In the rough-and-tumble of campaigning, the one who resonates with the most people wins.  Clinton resonated with almost nobody in Middle America.  Thus Trump harnessed the very forces that hamstrung Clinton.  He was able to persuade people that he UNDERSTOOD them (esp. their frustrations), and that he gave a shit.  In other words: He gave voice to their anger, even though he didn’t REALLY give a shit.  Hillary’s cliche pontifications contrasted starkly with Trump’s brash sales-pitch: “Fuck the Establishment; and fuck being politically correct; I’m calling it as I see it; and that’s that!” 

Trump’s no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is schtick was an obvious boondoggle; yet it worked to staggering aplomb because he put on a good show.  Clinton was the opposite of this.  With her smug grin and contrived persona, she was simply not someone to whom the everyman could easily relate.  With his meandering speeches, Trump radiated confidence.  With her canned pronouncements, Hillary came off as stilted and rehearsed. 

It was no surprise, then, that many of the rankled working-class were swept up in the thrall of Trump’s brusque tell-it-like-it-is schtick.  His straight-to-the-point, fustian rants came off as the refreshingly straight-forward commentary so many had been waiting for.  Those who didn’t bother looking beneath the surface became quickly infatuated with–even entranced by–Trump’s simple-minded magniloquence.  The more churlish Trump’s oration, the more he seemed to be flouting the Establishment.

But WHAT IS this menacing abstraction known as the “Establishment”?  In their minds: It is home to a nettlesome cadre of uppity, patronizing bureaucrats who always seemed to be fixated on being “politically correct”.  Generally-speaking, the Establishment is a sinister leviathan provincial minds tend to correlate with a meddlesome “big government”.  (Even worst: They associate it with a bogeyman known as “liberal-ism”.)  In reality, they are–unwittingly–the most loyal SUPPORTERS OF the (actual) Establishment.  (See Appendix 5.)

The consequences of that misguided animus were made especially clear with the rise of an obstreperous businessman within the American political arena during the gauntlet of daffy Republican campaigns in the 2016 primary.  The flabbergasting development was a reminder that those who are contemptuous of “politics” will gravitate toward anyone who articulates their scruples in a compelling way; and thereby gives voice to their anger.

The predicament for the Democratic nominee was clear to see for those who cared to look.  Behold a climate of confusion and irritation–populated with people equipped with attention-spans far too short to actually learn anything of substance about, well, anything of import.  In such a climate, where ignorance runs rampant, performance will always trump substance.  For an intellectually beleaguered polis, superior theatrics will prevail every time.  Resonance trumps credence.  Truth is moot when people are captivated by a certain narrative.

Predictably, the more disgruntled of provincial WASPs–mis-informed as many of them were–addressed their frustration in a disastrously dysfunctional way.  Such drastic action is typical of people who are sick-and-tired of “the way things are”…and so end up lashing out indiscriminately.  People in such straits tend to latch on to the next thing that has the appearance of novelty; that seems to offer a stark change from the usual rigamarole…regardless of how preposterous the idea might actually be.  Confidence projects an aura of credence.  So even if it is an unabashed plutocrat promising a departure from plutocracy; they will take the bate.

Trump’s gold-plated demagoguery commanded tremendous appeal for the delusive conservative who harbored fantasies about the fabled “American Dream”…and was intoxicated by the allure of American Exceptionalism.  His speechifying primarily consisted of maudlin jingoism; which was cat-nip for anyone afflicted with the more virulent strains of American Exceptionalism.  By speaking on the level of the aggravated everyman, he managed to tap into a deep-seated frustration of the Established Order.

The benefit of such speechifying was that it did not require his audience to actually have any knowledge about relevant matters (healthcare, macro-economics, national security, foreign policy, structural inequality, separation of church and state, etc.)  In providing a venting mechanism for whatever angst happened to be simmering in America’s hinterlands, the temptation to join the gilded Trumpian bandwagon was hard for many to resist…especially for those disinclined to make use of their prefrontal cortexes. {5}

In true demagogic fashion, Trump branded himself as the magical elixir that would “make America great again” (whatever that means).  As is often the case, simple-minded declarations were construed as indications of forthrightness.  (See Appendix 3.)  Trump held sway with such voters not IN SPITE OF his brashness, but BECAUSE of it.  (He was overtly hubristic; but at least he was up-front about his own hubris.  Clinton’s hubris, on the other hand, was made all the more grating because she offered only a cloyingly fake pantomime of the struggling everywoman who “got it”.)

In a way, enthralling-yet-vacuous verbiage actually ENHANCED the allure of Trump’s stump speeches.  People didn’t have to comprehend the implications of Trump’s grandiloquent rhetorical flourishes in order to be intoxicated by his buzz-word-laden bloviation.  When faced with Hillary Clinton (who symbolized “more of the same ol’ shit”), virtually ANY alternative–no matter how daft–seemed viable to the myopic, provincial voter. {6}

As Hillary seemed to be (condescendingly) PREACHING TO swing voters, Trump seemed to be REFLECTING them.  The former impression was off-putting; the latter was flattering.  Those who were disillusioned–yet had no grasp of policy–were subsequently moved to “shake things up” by endorsing a rogue candidate: an unabashed plutocrat who persuaded them–against all common sense–that he would end plutocracy if given the power.  Fat chance; but he SEEMED mean what he said.

The daffy dramaturgy of American electoral politics played itself out thus.  Trump’s contrived authenticity was an enticing novelty next to Hillary’s glaring inauthenticity.  (It’s hard to discern which kind of posturing is more invidious.)  The crowds that rallied around this “captain of industry” had anger to vent, and he provided them with a ready-made outlet (“Fuck the system!”)  As it happened, the face of “the system” was his political adversary (the only other viable alternative); even as he himself was the QUINTESSENCE OF the very system he derided.

As it turned out, most people–rightly–recognized that Clinton was completely in the pockets of moneyed interests (read: the “Establishment”), as her chummy relationship with proto-fascists like Goldman Sachs’ Lloyd Blankfein made loud and clear.  (See Appendix 1.)  The idea was to eschew that…in favor of something else.  Trump made himself APPEAR to be that something else.

In performing a post-mortem on the 2016 Democratic race, the point can’t be emphasized enough: Hillary was the consummate insider in a political habitat where people were looking in desperation for an outsider. {9}  So, predictably, they went with the ostentatious renegade rather than with a glib, careerist politician.  Those on the so-called “Left” failed to recognize that the effete Democratic nominee was the prototypical crony: a not-so-smooth operator who was coy about the fact that she was bosom-buddies with some of the most notorious of New York’s avaricious investment bankers.  In effect: Provincial ignoramuses could see what the DNC would not.

This spectacle laid bare the dereliction of the DNC for all to behold.  And so it went that the Democratic Party was hoisted by its own petard.


To fully understand the social context of the 2016 debacle, we must recognize the orgy of charlatanry that is the social media domain–from the Twitter-sphere to the blog-o-sphere.  This cesspool of (mostly) cockamamie drivel is a symptom the intellectual destitution presently characterizing American culture.  Social media is a dogma-factory as much as it is anything.  Gossip has always been a thing; but the internet is like a super-charged grape-vine, giving voice to the most harebrained pontifications.  Rather than mere hearsay, social-media technology enables hearsay on steroids.

Once social media becomes most people’s primary source of information, all bets are off.  A well-informed citizenry becomes untenable.  Participatory democracy is predicated on an informed citizenry.  Critical deliberation is inimical to social-media activity.  Hence this woefully dysfunctional social media environment precludes the possibility of a genuinely democratic system.

There is a lesson to be learned from such discombobulation.  Bombast is not a sign of sagacity.  Affluence is not a measure of merit.  Vanity is not a sign of character.

YET…in 2016, a self-absorbed, avaricious businessman appealed to the widespread anti-Establishment animus of an aggrieved, uber-provincial rank-and-file.  Of course, this irony was lost on Trump’s riled-up followers.  In reality, the New York tycoon represented MORE of the very policies that were to blame for the very problems that had been causing their abiding woes.  All of those policies were RIGHT-WING policies: hyper-privatization, supply-side economics, underfunded public services / public infrastructure, highly-concentrated wealth/power, drastic structural inequalities.  {8}

So what of that elusive panacea called “democracy”?  Did it not malfunction?  No; as it happened, it was the NON-democratic part of the American political system that had taken over.  It was no more democracy that brought Donald Trump to power in Washington than it was democracy that brought, say, Morsi–then Sisi–to power in Cairo a few years previously.  When a nation “democratically” elects a despotic (theocratic and/or plutocratic) regime, the result is anything but democratic.  For democracy is about far more than just voting for a plenipotentiary-of-choice once every few years.

Participatory democracy is a complex societal condition; not just the ability to mark a ballot.  A country voting for theocracy / plutocracy does not magically make it a democracy–as Morsi’s theocratic regime demonstrated in Egypt; and as Erdogan’s theocratic regime is now demonstrating in Turkey; and as Duterte’s regime is now demonstrating in Philippines; and has Bolsonaro’s regime is now demonstrating in Brasil.  Authoritarianism is authoritarianism–and oligarchy is oligarchy–regardless of the means by which it is established.  As Germany demonstrated in 1932, fascists have an uncanny knack for coming to power in quasi-democratic ways.  Right-wing populism (i.e. faux populism) is the handmaiden of fascism of all stripes.  (See Appendix 3.)

In the stultifying 2016 presidential election, it was not democracy PER SE that malfunctioned.  Rather, it was the patently anti-democratic facets of the American political machine that–in a perverse twist of irony–ended up working all-too-effectively.  This was a reminder that the U.S. is only partially democratic.  Washington’s severely dysfunctional political system is plutocratic in the extreme–a problem that neither Hillary nor Trump were even remotely interested in solving.

Suffice to say: Nobody who routinely schemes to accumulate such a ridiculous amount of cash from dubious sources–in order to fill their own coffers–is losing sleep at night worrying about the little guy.  Trump and Hillary had more in common than many wanted to admit.

When a citizenry is so systemically–and systematically–misinformed, genuine democracy becomes untenable.  Deliberative democracy can only work with a well-informed citizenry–something the U.S. is far from having.  How many Americans still doubt that investment in clean energy is imperative?  How many Americans still think that an economy is stimulated from the supply side rather than the demand side?  How many Americans are still waiting for the country’s highly-concentrated wealth to eventually, someday “trickle down” to them?  How many people are bamboozled into supporting an even more obscenely-bloated military-industrial complex?  How many people still think that, rather than public goods, public education and public health should be privatized–and thus relegated to the whims of market forces?

As long as pablum about farcical trickle-down effects continues to proliferate…and as long as people fail to recognize the importance of universal (public) healthcare and universal access to quality education as civil rights…and as long as legislation is bought and sold to the highest bidder…and as long as money is deemed a form of speech…and as long as corporations are treated as citizens…America’s severe political dysfunction will persist.

In 2016, what we witnessed was an electorate fleeing dysfunction only to run headlong into catastrophe-in-waiting.  Trump’s cabinet (nothing more than a claque of bankers, avaricious corporate executives, and die-hard theocrats) ended up being FAR MORE corrupt than anything that had ever existed before.  During Trump’s transition to the Oval Office, the world witnessed the first installation of oligarchs–invidious oligarchs at that–into the Executive branch of the U.S. in the nation’s history.  Note that Trump’s original cabinet was the richest in the nation’s history.  Its members had more combined wealth than a third of the American population; and not a single one was qualified to perform the job for which the position was designed.

As usual, in eschewing intellectual elites (scorned by the pejorative, “elites”), the G.O.P. exalted socio-economic elites (a.k.a. “job-creators”).  How did they get away with this?

At no point did Hillary even try to explain how her chumminess with execrable corporatists would NOT translate to a continuation of “business as usual”.  When people are looking for someone who “tells it like it is”, such dissimulation was a fatal flaw.  Consequently, Democratic strong-holds like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania (i.e. the “Blue Dog” Democrats of the Rust Belt) were lost to a galvanized anti-Establishment tsunami.  As voting patterns in the Democratic primary clearly showed, those crucial areas would have almost certainly gone to Bernie Sanders (who actually DID tell it like it is), had HE been the alternative to Trump. {10}

Alas, the DNC contrived to have things its own way; which was anything but the Progressive way.  Sanders’ campaign was thwarted by a litany of subterfuge and machinations on the part of DNC operatives (read: Clinton surrogates), who–as the Panama Papers confirmed–rigged the Democratic Primary to ensure Clinton would prevail.  It has now been conclusively proven that had the primary be conducted fairly, Sanders would have prevailed. {1}

And in the general election, he would have ALSO prevailed.  Trump WON several key areas that Romney had lost four years earlier WITH MORE VOTES.  Given all that we have learned SINCE November 2016, it is now indisputable that Sanders would have garnered more votes than Trump in key areas…many of them in a landslide.  (See Appendix 2.)

That’s what the DNC gets for anointing an overtly Establishmentarian candidate.  It is a lesson we pray the electorate will learn in 2020. {16}

Much of this dysfunction can be blamed on the eco-system within which it occurs.  Cheap emotive satisfaction (be it a calming flood of serotonin or a tantalizing dopamine rush) is the only thing that the current social-media-environment offers.  This brings us to something Trump and political correct-ness have in common.  Both have offered cheep stimulation in spades.  And both have flourished in the milieu of social-media mania.  Too many smart phones; not enough smart people.

Most Americans now think in Tweets; and so THAT (quick, brief snippets of over-simplified, titillating information) is the only mode of communication an aspiring demagogue need employ; and–as it happens–it is the ONLY mode of communication to which any countervailing speech has recourse.  Nobody has ever procured erudition via social media devices; as erudition requires long-form disquisition and substantive exchanges (deep conversation.)  In a world where nobody reads serious books anymore, it is little wonder that a man who’s never read a book in his life is seated in the Oval Office.

In a way, it was the novelty of Trump’s bullshit that was refreshing–especially to those unable to discern hokum from sapient disquisition.  In an age of ultra-short attention-spans, in which everyone is addicted to transient amusements, the former wins every time.  It’s almost as of Trump had been custom-made for a world defined by mental lethargy (that is: epidemic ADD and the constant expectation of immediate gratification).  In such a climate, Trump’s bumper-sticker imprecations were taken as the soaring oratory of a no-nonsense, stalwart Randian hero–a bold leader “telling it like it is” and “sticking it to the man”.

Social media’s role in the degeneration of the public discourse is already well-established.  Its addictive accoutrements provide immediate–though fleeting–gratification, not edification.  This medium of interaction fosters a chronic mercurialism while glamorizing superficiality.  The virtual eco-system in which many now spend their time effectively DEMANDS inauthenticity as a means of survival.  (Are we using Facebook, or is Facebook using us?)

This riveting new virtual world is comprised of customized information silos–each designed to validate pre-established views.  Consequently, those who are addicted to social-media-technology find themselves shopping in a marketplace of echo-chambers–a dogma-shopping-spree mediated by an incessant stream of ephemeral, superficial communication.  Within this flashy virtual bazaar, political views are treated as consumer products rather than what they need to be: sincere attempts to apprehend Reality. {11}

Invariably, all the gratification it offers is confused for edification.

The vast majority of the echo-chambers are specially-designed to accommodate mentally-lethargy–thereby replacing patient, critical reflection with fleeting bouts of instant gratification as the most coveted premium.  Just like p.c., social media provides a short-term “fix”…at the expense of long-term learning.  It affords us a chance to exhibit goodness without actually needing to be good.  Meanwhile, it satiates our craving for validation; thereby affording us an opportunity to show everyone else how “with it” we are…even if it’s all just a put-on.  Putting on airs is the name of the game.

Here, two behaviors are salient:

  • Installing oneself in one’s echo-chamber-of-choice, thereby receiving validation without needing to be concerned with credibility.
  • Demanding that everyone else be politically correct (e.g. dutifully recite the prescribed pieties du jour), thereby virtue-signaling to one’s brethren that one is with the program.

These behaviors end up having the exact same effect.  Both enable denizens of the agora to remain comfortably cloistered within their own memetic cocoon; exposed only to dogmas that sit well with their incumbent sensibilities.

In this milieu, everyone expects Reality to be tailored to suit their own dispositions; to hell with anyone else.  All of us are enjoined to adopt opinions in what is effectively an epistemic free-for-all.  Our own personal “truths” are all that end up mattering; to heck with Truth.  One party’s subjective state can thus be wielded to mandate obligations for (and/or restrictions on) everyone else.  In a world where people cannot discern the difference between Reality TV and Reality, we should expect all that has happened–including the preposterous ascension of a Reality TV star to the Oval Office.

There are lessons to learn here.  The last thing the world needs is a cognitive soporific–applied simply to ensure that nobody gets jolted out of their comfort zones.  There is no CIVIL RIGHT to be eternally quarantined from discomfiting encounters.

In the midst of all this Tom-foolery, it’s hard to tell who had more of a sense of entitlement–Clinton or Trump.  What made Trump slightly less abhorrent on this score was that he was so open about his contempt for propriety.  He was UNABASHEDLY into himself; in a way that almost seemed honest.  As an unapologetic panjandrum, rather than mask his avarice, he flaunted it.  Trump basked in his megalomania as if it were conclusive verification of his unimpeachable greatness.

At the end of the day, faux populism (i.e. right-wing populism) is about stirring up mass-mania (when concerning the nation: super-patriotism) whilst stoking mass hysteria (collective neuroses).  Over and over and over again, the world has learned that this invidious methodology is stupendously effective.

In the intellectually barren landscape that is the American agora, Trump’s proudly dumbed-down worldview worked to his advantage.  To a polis afflicted with discursive sclerosis, even the most sophomoric of blather can come off as awe-inspiring straight-forward-ness…so long as it is snappy and delivered with confidence.

And so it went that the audaciously unscripted Trump tapped into frustrations that had reached a boiling point in America’s dejected heartland.  Meanwhile, Clinton’s obviously stage-managed performances only stoked the flames of resentment.  When the audience is hankering for a straight-shooter, the APPEARANCE OF a straight-shooter is often all that matters.  While Hillary was fake in a way that exuded carefully-choreographed equivocation and maudlin phoniness, Trump was fake in a way that exuded brute candor and resolute conviction.

Polished and scripted vs. raw and unscripted.  Predictably, many swarmed toward the latter like moths to a flame. {9}  For the disaffected voter, a choice between having no place to channel vexation and a fiery conduit designed ESPECIALLY FOR the channeling of vexation, the choice was a no-brainer.

In the current social-media environs, we are incessantly inundated with imbecilic-yet-beguiling spectacle…designed to capture our attention while ensuring we remain intellectually inert.  By participating in this Carnival of Distractions, we are constantly encouraged to be amusement-junkies; and relentlessly coaxed into having ever-shorter attention spans.  It is no wonder that intellectual curiosity has become anathema.  Consequently, the American polis is afflicted with a inexorable craving for mindless titillation.  This is a habitat in which charlatans thrive. 

An environment so inhospitable to critical thinking can’t possibly foster a well-informed citizenry.  In other words: It is an environment that precludes the possibility of deliberative democracy.  Mired in such intellectual impoverishment (and in the midst of such fascination with celebrity), we should have been EXPECTING a hyper-sensationalized, illiterate nincompoop to eventually triumph in America’s intellectually-bankrupt political arena.

And so it went: The stage was set for a Trump-like figure to rise to prominence.  If anything, it’s surprising that it took as long as it did.


Progressives neglect rural voters at their own peril.  Worse than simply dismissing them, there are surefire ways to alienate voters who are “on the fence”.  Chief among them is p.c. and being the face of the dreaded Establishment. 

Rural voters tend Republican not because Republican politicians ACTUALLY help them, but because Democrats often DISREGARD them.  There is a nascent Progressivism in provincial America–especially as it pertains to healthcare.  Blue collar workers know the value of organized labor; and are against corporate power then the malfeasance of the investment banks.  Farmers are well aware of the problems of climate change.  They are not looking for “moderate” solutions to serious problems.  People are not impressed with half-measures and hollow congeniality; they admire BOLD-ness.

Upon adopting a p.c. mindset, one can’t help but enter into an exchange with a chip on one’s shoulder.  Nobody likes people who put on airs.  Want to stop turning away swing-voters?  Get off the high horse and just speak like a regular person.  People want to be noticed; to feel as though they’re being heard; not have to contend with condescending interlocutors who are busy patting themselves on the back for being “woke”.

Recognizing how off-putting p.c. can be is just as important as recognizing how off-putting corporatist (“Establishment”) Democrats are to both Progressives and well-meaning conservatives.  Only through such recognition can we understand what drove crucial swing-voters toward Trump in 2016; and what would do it again in 2020.  Such voters–all of them impelled by spite–were a stern rebuke of both p.c. and the corporate wing (that is: the right wing) of the Democratic party.

Moral of the story number one: Supporting the incumbent power structure was NOT the way to go in 2016; yet that’s exactly what Democrats did in selecting Hillary Clinton as the party’s standard bearer.  It wasn’t the way to go then; it isn’t the way to go now.  As should now be clear, corporatist Democrats represent no worthwhile alternative to the G.O.P.

Moral of the story number two: Political correctness is a turn-off.  It was off-putting four years ago; and it STILL IS off-putting.

All this becomes plain to see once we recognize that a vote for Donald Trump in 2016–just as it would be in 2020–was an act of defiance: a giant “fuck you” to the Establishment and to risible shenanigans of p.c.

Meanwhile, those who base their vote explicitly on support for right-wing policy are not the crucial swing-voters that determine elections; as they were never going to vote for anyone but the G.O.P. nominee anyway.

The conclusion is straight-forward.  If one wants to guarantee the (re-)election of someone like Donald Trump, simply put forth–as the only alternative–an Establishmentarian who can be linked to the unscrupulous actors mandating p.c.

To reiterate: Eschewing the contrived protocols of p.c. is not enough.  Just as any idiot can be politically correct, any idiot can be politically incorrect (as Donald Trump has reminded us).  Probity, not propriety, is what matters; meaning that p.c. plays no more a role in Progressivism than does supporting corporate interests.  After seeing the repercussions of not advocating for a genuinely Progressive candidate, hopefully now–at long last–American Progressives have finally learned their lesson.

Pages: 1 2 3 4

CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 - 2010-2019 - masonscott.org
Developed by Malagueta/Br
Note to readers: Those reading these long-form essays will be much better-off using a larger screen (not a hand-held device) for displaying the text. Due to the length of most pieces on our site, a lap-top, desk-top, or large tablet is strongly recommended.


Download as PDF