Flouting The Establishment

ASSESSMENT OF RELEVANT SOCIAL EXIGENCIES:

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.

CONCLUSION:

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.