Flouting The Establishment

Footnotes:

{1  As to the viability of Bernie Sanders as a Presidential candidate, the jury is no longer out.  It is now incontrovertible that Sanders would have triumphed in the general election–by a landslide–had the DNC not engaged in its shenanigans.  As revealed in the Panama Papers and many other revelations since 2016, we now know that the Democratic primary was rigged by Hillary’s surrogates (spec. by her plutocratic cronies in the DNC and the cadre of unabashed corporatists that operate the DLC).  Such duplicity should come as little surprise; as it was done to ensure the Party Establishment–beholden as it was to moneyed interests–remained fully intact (that is: un-thwarted by Progressives).  The fact that Hillary did not campaign sufficiently in the Rust Belt was a key factor in her loss; as that is where most of the pivotal (disenchanted) swing voters were located–all of whom were fed up with the Establishment.  (See Appendix 2.)  That Clinton embodied the Establishment did not bode well for her prospects in Middle America.  It was NOT the case the the Green Party candidate was a “spoiler”.  Even though Jill Stein received more votes in some of the swing states than the margin of victory for Trump, the alternate RIGHT-wing candidate (i.e. the Republican “spoiler”: the “Libertarian” candidate) received EVEN MORE votes–thereby siphoning more votes from Trump than Stein did from Clinton.  It might also be noted that had the DNC not rigged the Democratic primary against Bernie Sanders, he would have gotten the nomination; and–it has been conclusively proven–would have won the general election; possibly in a landslide.  So the blame for Trump’s election also lay at the feet of the (incredibly corrupt, unabashedly anti-Progressive) DNC and its (pathologically sycophantic) surrogates.}

{2  Want to further incense a Reactionary?  Simply insist that he be politically correct when articulating his grievances.  The lesson every p.c. aficionado must learn: One needn’t be patronizing to be Progressive.  The Reactionary’s problem is not that he is being impolite; it’s that his views are demonstrably errant.  Demands for p.c. can only succeed in distracting from the crux of the matter.}

{3  Of course, Hillary routinely played to her target audience as well–in her own self-serving ways.  More accurately, she played to VARIOUS target audiences, revamping her sales-pitch depending on which way the wind was blowing.  (Note her shameless appearances at AIPAC, for example.)  The situation was quite different for Hillary than it was for Trump.  Progressives–by nature–tend to be far more discerning than Reactionaries; so most of Hillary’s base didn’t fall for her artificially-flavored masquerade.  It wasn’t difficult to ascertain the true fealties of a woman who spent far more time at Goldman Sachs than in soup kitchens.}

{4  Imagine: Not once during her long, impeccably stage-managed campaign did Clinton make an honest effort to acknowledge people’s concerns about her cronyism, or about her glaring disingenuousness…let alone make a concerted attempt to address those concerns.  When confronted with people’s doubts about her (purportedly) noble intentions, not once did she say anything to the effect: “I hear you.  I understand what you’re saying about my record (of cronyism).  Here is my response: …”  Instead of addressing these (eminently valid) concerns, she–and her fawning supporters–simply scoffed at those who wondered how genuine she was being, and summarily accused them of misogyny.  (See footnote 12 below.)  Unsurprisingly, non-Hillary fans found this tac infuriating.  While Trump’s puerile ramblings resonated with the most credulous members of the electorate, Hillary treated the electorate as if they were all suckers.  It’s hard to say which scenario is worse.  (See footnote 3 above.)}

{5  This appeal existed independently of the incipient bigotry / nativism that Trump was able to exploit.  That he managed to tap into–and stoke–both incipient sexism and incipient racism simply bolstered the quasi-fascistic surge he rode to victory.  Another point: Anti-Muslim bigotry is not racism; it is a hostility toward those who hold beliefs that are seen as incompatible with (what is seen as) “American” culture.  That is to say: Pace ethnic stereotyping, anti-Muslim bigotry directs antipathy for a creed against an entire (multi-ethnic) community of people.  For more on this point, see Appendix 2.}

{6  Each candidate (qua candidate) was more a calibrated persona than a genuine person.  While Trump believed his own bullshit; Hillary knew her bullshit to be bullshit.  While Trump sold his fatuous talking-points with swagger, Hillary’s phoniness was obvious to everyone but her most delusive acolytes.  After having gone through the looking glass, this disparity enabled Trump to come off as the more authentic of the two.}

{7  We might also bear in mind that 2016 was the SECOND time that Trump ran for the U.S. presidency.  When he opted to declare his candidacy on the G.O.P. ticket, his high opinion of himself was nothing new.  His short-lived candidacy in the 2000 election fizzled simply because the time was not yet ripe for his brash brand of demagogy.  We were not yet a Reality-TV nation; and social media did not yet dictate the terms of discourse.}

{8  The political version of Stockholm Syndrome was addressed in Thomas Frank’s “What’s the Matter With Kansas?”  A sad irony was that Trump was just as ignorant (and anti-intellectual) as many of his most ardent fans.  As usual, this syndrome is at the root of right-wing populism.  (It had been right-wing policy that was responsible for the country’s ills; yet the solution touted by the G.O.P. was to legislate even FARTHER to the right.)  The syndrome persists because large swaths of the electorate are STILL fed up with “business as usual”.  The trick is to persuade people that the reason right-wing policy doesn’t work (as promised) is because the policies haven’t been FAR ENOUGH to the right. (See Appendix 3.)  The promised “trickle-down” effects of tax-breaks for the super-affluent and large corporations will someday, somehow, magically materialize.  Of course, it is never the case that such mythical benefits eventually trickle down to the rabble.  And a steeply progressive marginal tax-rate does NOT stymie entrepreneurial zeal or deter innovation.  Severe socio-economic inequality hurts everybody.}

{9  By “insiders”, it is meant: Those who seemed to serve a menacing abstraction known as the “Establishment”.  While Trump’s more truculent version of proto-fascism was slightly more jarring than the usual G.O.P. version, he was technically no more fascistic than most Republican icons since Reagan’s ascendency in 1980.  Hyper-nationalism is hyper-nationalism–and corporatism is corporatism–regardless of the packaging. (See Appendix 3.)  Be that as it may, Trump’s ersatz authenticity appeared positively genuine next to Hillary’s glaring inauthenticity. (See footnote 3 above.)  It’s tough to say which kind of posturing is more mendacious.  Both candidates were craven opportunists: One flaunted it; the other pretended to be something other than who she really was.  One tapped into the irritation of the electorate; the other came off as condescending.  As it turned out: pomposity triumphed over disingenuousness.  (In politics, the latter is far more of a turn-off than the former.  And there is nothing so preachy and sanctimonious as p.c.)  Moreover, sentiment tends to trump critical thinking whenever dialogue becomes over-heated.  In the uber-sensationalized media climate of the U.S., where info-tainment defines mainstream (corporate) media’s business model, political commentary is all heat, no light.}

{10  This fact was demonstrated in the Democrat party’s primaries, where such regions actively opposed Hillary FROM THE LEFT (and went for Bernie).  Just prior to the main election, almost 4 in 10 young voters (ages 18-29) said they were planning on voting for a third-party candidate (in other words: never-Trumpers who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Clinton).  Within a demographic that was typically overwhelmingly liberal, many were turned off by Clinton’s stagecraft as much as by the glaring fact that she was far from genuinely Progressive.  See Appendix 1.}

{11  Pursuant to the augmenting obsession with these handy communication prosthetics, Americans’ communicative acuity has drastically deteriorated.  With severely stunted attention spans, gross mental lethargy, as well as a glib inability (and unwillingness) to engage in prolonged discourse, it is no wonder so few people know much about anything.  The Trumpian echo-chamber was very much like a lobster trap: It had tasty bait for those hungering for SOMETHING; and once (obtuse) people staggered into that trap, they were not apt to come back out (even after Trump was exposed as a con-man over and over and over again).  All that those in the trap could hear from the outside were grumblings that everyone inside it was irredeemably “deplorable”.  Suffice to say: Such a harangue was not an incentive for anyone to clamber out.  The p.c.-monger’s message to Trump supporters: “Don’t emerge from your redoubts lest you be pilloried for bigotry!”  So instead of engaging in open conversation, they circled the wagons and stood their ground.  As usual, p.c. exacerbated the incipient problem.}

{12  The obnoxiously misandrist epithet, “Bernie Bros” was a redux of Clinton-surrogates’ pejorative for Obama supporters eight years earlier: “Obama Boys”.  Such tropes are invidious…not to mention erroneous.  In 2020, young women make up more of Sanders’ base than men; and account for most of his financial contributions.  In terms of race: Sanders polls especially high with Latino voters–far MORE so than with white voters.  Latinos also donated more money to Sanders than to any other candidate.  Polls consistently show that non-white voters prefer Sanders.  In fact, the demographic that likes Sanders the LEAST is white men.  The fact that unscrupulous–nay, perfidious–actors perpetuate the patently-false “Bernie Bro” narrative is endlessly galling not just because it is sexist and statistically inaccurate, it erases THE MOST PROGRESSIVE women from the electorate.}

{13  In a climate such as the one p.c. has fostered, it is no wonder that Trump’s brashness was construed as an indication of courageous truth-telling.  Those cajoled into supporting Trump were almost all suckers; as what he REALLY planned on doing was putting together the sort of ultra-right-wing cadre found in ANY past Republican administration–entailing economic policies that were HORRIFIC for the rank and file.  After railing against plutocrats throughout the campaign, Trump promptly created a cabinet of uber-plutocrats.  Trump’s economic policy is indistinguishable from the policy of the any G.O.P. politician since 1980.  (See footnote 9 above.)  The difference is that he SEEMS like something new; and in politics, perception is everything.}

{14  As a point of comparison: Try pointing out to a Revisionist Zionist that he is supporting a racist agenda, and see how far it gets you.  One does not expurgate a racist’s racism by notifying him that he’s a racist.  Doing so only causes him to dig in his heels (as with, say, the obdurate Judeo-Supremacy that is endemic to non-Christian strains of Revisionist Zionism).  Telling a racist that he is a racist is almost always pointless.  For either one of two scenarios will ensue–depending on the verity of the charge.  Either A: He is a racist, yet doesn’t admit–to others, or even to himself–that he is racist.  In that case, he will deny your indictment applies to him; and resent you for the accusation.  Or B: He is aware–on some level–that he is, indeed, a racist; and obviously doesn’t see it as problematic.  In that case, he won’t care that you’ve called him out on it.  Never in history has an unabashed racist been called a racist, and responded: “Well, gee-wiz, now that you mention it, I guess I am.  Now that it’s been brought to my attention, I shall change my ways!”  In either case, the accusation backfires.  What many fail to appreciate is that both sexism and racism are symptoms of underlying psychical and/or social problems (e.g. deep-seated insecurity; ignorance; etc.)  Therefore it is the underlying (psychological / sociological) issues that must be addressed.  Attacking the symptom head-on will only elicit defiance.}

{15  Some people simply vote for the most economically right-wing person who runs.  Others simply vote for whoever is anti-abortion or anti-immigrant.  Some don’t want their ability to carry firearms to be curtailed.  And some wealthy people just don’t want to pay any taxes.  When it comes to single-issue voters, all other considerations are immaterial.  There’s no getting through to them.  There’s no arguing with someone who is convinced that a zygote is a full-fledged human being; but EVERYONE wants clean air and clean water…and a good education for their kids…and not to go bankrupt trying to pay bloated medical bills.  And THAT is where swing-voters can be won.}

{16  Bear in mind, party conventions are more coronations than serious processes for selecting a nominee.  They are part week-long info-mercials, part week-long pep-rallies, and entirely about back-room horse-trading.}