Flouting The Establishment

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DEMAGOGY; AND THE APPEAL OF TRUMP:

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.