Flouting The Establishment

APPENDIX 1:

In 2016, as each G.O.P. candidate dropped out of the Republican primary, many of their odious patrons switched their support to none other than…Hillary Clinton.  This should have surprised nobody.  The list of Clinton’s right-wing positions is far too long to enumerate in this brief Appendix.  In terms of economic policy, she is a neoliberal through and through–consistently (and unapologetically) backing corporate-friendly legislation.  This was done while paying lip-service to liberal ideals (“economic / social justice”) such as equal access to quality education; healthcare as a universal right; the need to reign in Wall Street; etc.  In Reality, she did little to support any of these things.

Clinton was a shill for corporate power–paid for, bought and sold by oil companies, the pharmaceutical industry (PhRMA), the for-profit sickness treatment industry (AHIP and AMA), the military-industrial complex, and–most of all–the big investment banks.  She is close friends with the most odious plutocrats–including Lloyd Blankfein, Thomas Nides, Jacob Lew, Timothy Geithner, Jamie Dimon, et. al.  These are relationships that should set off alarms for any level-headed person.  (Also recall her taking bribes from Goldman Sachs, under the auspices of speaking engagements.)  A proponent of Neoliberalism (free market fundamentalism with a wink and a nudge); Clinton touted supply-side bromides–paving the way for corporate-friendly policies. 

An illustration that her interests and those of Wall Street were consummate is the position of her dear friend, Lloyd Blankfein in the 2020 election.  After enthusiastically gunning for Clinton four years earlier, Lloyd declared that he would gladly vote for Donald Trump over Bernie Sanders.  Translation: He considers Trump and a corporatist Democrat more comparable than a Progressive and a corporatist Democrat.

Add to that the fact that Clinton was certainly no friend of organized labor; and was hardly willing to challenge the will of her corporate paymasters.

In terms of foreign policy, Clinton was a tempered Neocon.  Never mind that she made the horrible decision to endorse the military incursion into Iraq under the Bush-Cheney regime.  To this day, she openly reveres Henry Kissinger–one of the most despicable people on the planet–and arguably the biggest war-criminal of the post-War era.  That fact alone is a very bright, red flag.

Clinton routinely plays along with the right wing’s jingoistic posturing against Russia; and endorses continued support for the House of Saud.  She supported the 2009 coup in Honduras, which overthrew a democratically-elected leader.  And–most despicably–she is an ardent supporter of Revisionist Zionism.  She eagerly supports Israel’s Judeo-fascist regime, including its on-going crimes against humanity (in a craven pander to AIPAC), and has held Benjamin Netanyahu (an unabashed Judeo-supremacist, guilty of significant war crimes) in high esteem.  To add insult to injury, Clinton participates in the ultra-right’s insidious vilification of the global Palestinian solidarity movement.  (She has denounced the BDS movement–something every decent person supports.) 

It is also plain to see that Clinton was never a Progressive on tax policy, on oversight / regulation of the financial services industry, or on mitigating money in politics (e.g. the revolving door between the public and private sectors).  During her campaign, her lofty perorations about investment in public infrastructure were less than sincere, given her dismaying recitation of supply-side pieties.  Pace her advocacy of spurious 2nd-Amendment apologetics (a pander to America’s abiding gun fetishism), she is somewhat moderate on domestic social policy–hitting the right notes on such touchstones as reproductive rights, gay rights, feminism, and a few other token gestures…so as to keep Progressives placated.  Yet her quasi-Progressive lip-service is so obviously scripted, it has always been difficult to take her seriously on much of what she says.

Memo to self-proclaimed “Progressives”: Voting for someone with a vagina does not make you a feminist.  Token gestures mean nothing.  It is policy that matters most; not the anatomical features of the person who happens to be promoting the policy.  And in terms of policy, Bernie Sanders–replete with penis–was far more of a feminist than Hillary Clinton ever was.  One might ask avid Hillary-supporters who fashioned themselves as “feminists” in 2016: Where were you when Carol Moseley Braun was running for president in 2004 (before it was en vogue for Democrats to support females OR African Americans aspiring to the Oval Office)?  When a woman–a black woman, nevertheless–actually was the best candidate (pace vestiges of the corrupt Chicago political machine), these stalwarts of female empowerment were nowhere to be found.

Once a cause becomes fashionable, it takes no courage to be an advocate.  The prototypical opportunist, Hillary only signed on to the gay-rights cause once it had become a politically-safe bandwagon to ride.  She never stuck her neck out for ANY marginalized community; as such a bold maneuver would have jeopardized her standing with the power-brokers who sustained her.

Of course, Hillary only ever rode bandwagons.  As her record showed, she was averse to going out on a limb, or doing anything that may have compromised her career prospects.  As for compromising on principle whenever it suited her: that defined much of her career.

To suggest that it was difficult for GENUINE Progressives to get excited about candidate Hillary would be an understatement.  The lack of enthusiasm for the ONLY viable alternative to Trump could be attributed, then, to a repudiation of the ersatz Progressivism of the checkered legacy of corporatist Democrats.  That…and, well, it was clear to everyone with sober eyes that Hillary Clinton was clearly not a good person (and almost as narcissistic as Donald Trump).

APPENDIX 2:

As usual, the queer calculus of the Electoral College hinged on voter turn-out in the swing-states.  This primarily being a function of enthusiasm, Trump prevailed in what was little more than a hype-generation contest.

The indictment that bigotry–whether in the form of sexism or racism–undergirded much of Trump’s support was factually correct; yet voicing this (eminently valid) concern did nothing in the way of enlightening his nativist supporters.  The misogynist tends not to care that he is–in fact–a misogynist; and is usually unswayed when his male chauvinism is pointed out to him.  (He will likely respond to the assault on his character by doubling down–thereby further ingratiating him with the good ol’ boys club that he so covets.)

The well-founded stigma of Hillary Clinton as the quintessential “establishment figure” was only the beginning.  Her espousal of p.c. protocols (especially her tendentious resort to “identity politics”) was especially off-putting to the rank and file (especially white workers who felt short-changed).  Telling someone who is disenfranchised that they will not receive sympathy due to being born into the wrong demographic is NOT a winning strategy.

In Appalachia and the Rust Belt, votes for Trump over Clinton by provincial, blue-collar WASPs were more out of antipathy toward the latter than an affinity for the former.  Such antipathy may have been in part attributable to nascent misogynistic tendencies; yet the majority of it was due to Clinton’s obvious phoniness, and incessant condescension.  In such cases, a vote for Trump was a defiant “fuck you” to an Establishment of which the christened Democratic nominee was a maudlin personification.

The numbers bear this out.

It is well-documented that Bernie Sanders would have won the Democratic primary had it been fairly conducted (i.e. not rigged by the DNC); and that he indubitably would have prevailed over Trump in the general election.  This is made clear by the fact that during the primaries, Sanders fared far better than Clinton in the key swing states (the “rust-belt” states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin that clinched Trump’s victory).  Trump’s victory was narrower than many realize.  He eked out wins in rust-belt states by the tiniest of margins:

• 0.7% in Pennsylvania (44,292 votes)
• 0.7% in Wisconsin (22,748 votes)
• And only 0.3% in Michigan (10,704 votes)

Those three states cumulatively accounted for enough electoral votes to determine the election.  Tellingly, in each of these states, Clinton won far fewer votes than the Democratic contender (Obama) had in the previous election. (!)  In fact, in Wisconsin, she received roughly 240,000 fewer votes than Obama had just four years earlier.  In Milwaukee alone, a Democratic strong-hold, voter turn-out declined by over 41,000 from the previous election.  In the state of Michigan, over 98,000 Democratic voters selected a candidate on every down-ticket position, leaving the option for U.S. president BLANK.  (Again, Clinton’s final tally was only 10,704 below that of Trump’s; meaning that Trump didn’t win because of a surfeit of support, but because so many Democrats couldn’t stomach Hillary.  Meanwhile, numbers make clear that had Sanders been on the ballot, he would have won the crucial swing-state state IN A LANDSLIDE.)

Once we consider that under 39,000 votes (due to a less-than 78,000-vote margin) ended up determining the election (cumulative, between the three aforementioned swing-states), we see that it was a drastic waning of galvanization amongst Progressively-inclined voters that accounted for the dreadful outcome.

Even more tellingly, Trump–who WON the state–received even fewer votes in Wisconsin than had Romney–who LOST the state four years earlier. (!)  In that pivotal swing state, Clinton lost numerous counties that Democrats had been winning for decades…even as down-ticket Democrats there were victorious that same day.  Nationwide, there were roughly 3 million people who’d voted for Obama four years earlier that did not even bother to vote in 2016.  This drastic diminution of participation is telling.  This was NOT because Clinton was too PROGRESSIVE.  Not only was a key part of the electorate not galvanized, many were turned off.  Astonishingly, roughly 9% of voters who had backed Obama four years earlier voted for Trump.  Another 7% of (former) Obama voters simply opted not to vote at all.  3% opted for a third alternative, as they just couldn’t stomach a corporatist like Clinton.

Most Progressives who DID opt to hold their nose and vote for Clinton did so begrudgingly; and primarily due to being terrified by the alternative.  Another indication that Clinton turned off a substantial segment of Progressively-inclined voters: In Kentucky’s (historically Democratic) Elliott County, Clinton lost by a staggering 45 points…even as (openly gay) Senate candidate Jim Gray EASILY won. 

All this shows that the outcome could be attributed to a severe dearth of mobilization on the “Left” (the Progressively-inclined) and the “center” (read: crucial swing-voters) around Clinton.  In other words: Trump was victorious not because he was so appealing; but because the alternative was so unpalatable.

The DNC (effectively working for Clinton’s campaign, as it was overtly scornful of Progressivism) had shifted drastically rightward (especially toward Neoliberal economic policy and Neocon foreign policy) while countenancing the toxic creed of “political correctness”.  And it all backfired spectacularly.  Meanwhile, it is clear that (the far more Progressive) Bernie Sanders, who eschewed the off-putting shenanigans of “identity politics”, would have swept ALL of the crucial swing states in the general election.  (In 2020, the DNC continues to show unmitigated contempt for Progressivism in general, and absolute disdain for Bernie Sanders in particular.)

To reiterate: In 2016, the Democratic nominee was far from Progressive, out of touch with the common-man, and–to top it all off–blatantly phony.  Trump, on the other hand, pretended to be against the corporate-friendly NAFTA (which had the Clinton brand all over it): a compunction that resonated with the working-class of middle America.  It is no wonder, then, that there was such a drastic paucity of excitement from the segments of the electorate with a (nascent) proclivity for Progressive thinking.  (It is also telling that votes for the Green Party candidate more than made up for the margin in each of the aforesaid swing states.)

Couple THAT problem (the failure to galvanize Progressive sectors) with the aggressive voter-suppression hijinks perpetrated by the G.O.P., and it is clear how Trump won THEN, and how he would win AGAIN.

In focusing on misogyny, racism, Christian fundamentalism, and other accoutrements of ultra-right-wing ideology to explain the outcome of America’s 2016 presidential election, we are only accounting for those who were never going to vote for a non-Republican anyway.  Rather, the explanation lay with the NON-far-right-wing base: swing-voters (esp. those in the “rust belt”) who were turned off by Clinton’s obvious pandering, her glaring inauthenticity, and her countenancing of officious p.c. ordinances.

APPENDIX 3:

The list of tyrants who came to power promising to “make X great again” (where X is the nation) is very long.  It was literally the campaign slogan of Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines.

The mission should not be to “make America GREAT again” (technically, a meaningless slogan).  Rather, the mission should be to make America SMART again.  (By “smart”, it is simply meant: honest, discerning, intellectually curious, and well-informed.)  Making a nation “great” is little more than a jingoistic cliche.  (Guess who said that he would make Germany great again c. 1930.  Hint: The same guy who promised to put Germany first; to hell with everyone else.  Every demagogue is inclined to fetishize whoever he sees as THE VOLK, which is his target audience.)  It should come as little surprise that an Austrian psychopath employed the same rhetoric during the waning days of the beleaguered Weimar Republic.

To this day, a sinking feeling of existential despondency–a sense of lost greatness–is responsible for many Americans blaming all their woes on such perennial hobgoblins as “big government”, a waning military, a paucity of “law and order”, new ethnic incursions, the super-rich being over-taxed, and corporate centers having insufficient power…none of which makes any sense.  It is tempting to harken back to a mythical “golden age” that never really existed; and to scapegoat a chimerical nemesis to account for all of one’s woes.

In a state of what Durkheim called “anomie”, people are susceptible to demagogy.  But rather than nihilism, this kind of anomie” drives fanaticism.  It is not based on resignation, but on indignation.  So instead of engendering melancholy, it engenders zealotry.

Make our country “great” like it used to be?  Ridiculous as it is, the idea seems to be that IF ONLY we were more “patriotic” (whatever that means)…and we privatized everything under the sun…and we stopped protecting the environment…and the military-industrial complex was even further bloated…and Big Business was allowed to have free reign…and the financial services industry was unencumbered by pesky regulations…and healthcare were treated as a consumer product rather than as a public service…and corporations were treated as citizens…and police were afforded more license…and people had more guns stockpiled in their homes…and there were fewer brown people taking “our” jobs…then America could somehow be “great again”.

Here, “great” is undefined.  (What are the metrics for “greatness” that Trump was using?  How did he propose those measurements be increased?)  Meanwhile, “again” insinuates a LOST greatness.  Trump’s slogan conjures visions of an imagined halcyon era before civil rights: bygone days when the country was a free-market utopia unperturbed by a meddling Federal government.  Zany as it may be, this candy-coated delusion holds tremendous appeal for an astonishing number of Americans.

Faux (right-wing) populism is what Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson dubbed “plutocratic populism”: duping the masses into endorsing their own subjugation.  This is done by giving oligarchic designs the illusion of mass appeal–passing off corporate interests as conducive to the commonweal, for example.  (Note that Ivan T. Berend did a survey of “Populist Demagogues” around the world.)

Those hoodwinked into playing along with right-wing populism fail to realize that the meritocracy they exalt is a mirage.  For it escapes them that we live not only in a plutocracy (government by moneyed power), but in a KAKISTOCRACY (government by society’s least competent; least worthy).  Since the U.S. is ruled by financial interests, it is CONSTITUTIONALLY plutocratic; and since the U.S. is an inverse meritocracy, it is–for the time being–kakistocratic.  To not understand this is to not have even a rudimentary grasp of American politics…or of the flagrant socio-economic inequities that addle our pseudo-democracy.

What is often overlooked is the obsequiousness of Progressive meliorism (a.k.a. “incrementalism”, “realism”, “moderation”, “bi-partisanship”, and various other Orwellian euphemisms).  Corporatist Democrats scoff at any prospect for structural transformation as if any call for bold change was–by its very nature, quixotic.  They proceed as if the only practical way of making things better were deferring to the status quo.  Such self-imposed limitation brings about the very conditions they blame for said limitation.  After all, what is and isn’t realistic is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

These apologists for incumbent power structures dismiss rectitude as “purity”, as if being principled was the same as being bull-headed or ideological.  For them, compromising on principle (and pandering) is being “conciliatory” and “pragmatic”.

The grave misconceptions proliferating amongst Trumpian crowds are familiar ones; as they are misconceptions that are common in right-wing precincts.

APPENDIX 4:

The reason ostensive “Left-ism” has proven as ineffectual as it has is because it is not genuine Progressivism; it is merely a mitigation of how far-right the prevailing policy ends up being.  (Another hint: If one is a p.c. aficionado, one is not a Progressive.  Puritanism and authoritarianism are hallmarks of Reactionary thinking.)

Recall that the U.S. has a right-wing political party: the corporate wing of the Democratic party.  The only MAJOR alternative is a proto-fascist party, which is even farther to the right: the G.O.P.  This is illustrated by the fact that corporate media outlets like MSNBC and CNN despise Progressivism and Progressive figures; yet they are–preposterously–considered left-of-center.

This enables right-wing ideologues to routinely complain about problems for which right-wing policy is to blame.  It’s like the arsonist blaming the fire-department for not putting out the conflagration fast enough…after the arsonist himself erected road blocks in between the station and the burning building.

In mainstream discourse, the “Left” simply means on the left side of the Overton Window.  Since the late 70’s, the Overton Window has been shifting to the right of the center of (what might be considered) the absolute political spectrum.  Today, even the left side of that window is slightly right-of-center on that spectrum.  So a panoply of euphemisms have emerged to describe positions.  In a kind of Orwellian Doublespeak, corporate-friendly Democrats are called “moderates”.  Thus corporatist Democrats (along with corporate media outlets) are often referred to as “centrist” Democrats; and they fashion themselves as “liberal” due to rather timid stances on a few social issues (women’s rights, gay rights, and civil rights for racial minorities)…often more token gestures than serious efforts to ameliorate structural inequality.  And when it comes to economic matters, they are patently anti-Progressive.

Over the past four decades, the rightward phase-shift of the Overton Window is impossible to miss; yet it has drastically skewed perceptions of “left” vis a vis “right” (and thus the definition of “centrist”) on the political spectrum.  If one party claims that 2+2 equals 4, another that it equals 7, and yet another that it equals 16, that doesn’t make the “2+2=10” position a prudent compromise.  That’s not how objective Truth works; and–as much as many would like to think otherwise–the most important political issues are a matter of objective Truth.

It is sheer folly to ascertain Truth via plebiscite (call it “Reality by referendum”).  There are dire consequences to this myopic thinking (treating the Overton Window as a gauge for the limits of viable political positions; and thus the bounds of acceptable political discourse).  We find ourselves assaying right- and ultra-right positions and simply splitting the difference…then calling the result “centrist”.  (The middle of kinda wrong and extremely wrong is still wrong.)  Yet this is the kind of obtuse thinking that now informs the farcical categories of “left” and “right” in the U.S.

The right continues to move farther to the right, and the corporate Democrats are more than happy to always meet them “halfway”. Consequently, in the argot of American politics, insufficiently right-wing is now dubbed “Left-ist”; which is why corporatist Democrats are not recognized–by themselves OR by the ultra-right–as a right-wing phenomenon.  It’s also why corporatist Democrats consider Progressives “too far left”…even though Progressives are the ones pointing out that 2+2 does, indeed, equal 4.  Meanwhile, self-styled “centrists” will stick with the “equals 7 or 8 or thereabouts” position…while congratulating themselves for castigating the “equals 16” lobby for being too far to the right.

This is analogous to 10 being considered the “moderate” answer to 2+2; putting the “equals 7” lobby left-of-center…even though it is still way off-base. Case in point:  In the advent of the 2008 economic crash, the infusion of public funds into the economy (the “stimulus”) would have been much more effective had it been much larger.  The ploy, though, was to blame the stimulus’ shortcomings on it having been done at all.  To the degree that policy is insufficiently to the right, the thinking goes, the fault must lie with the antithesis of right-wing policy: that dreaded bogeyman known as Progressivism. So take wherever the corporate Democrats are, take however far to the right the G.O.P. happens to be, and simply split the difference…then call that “centrist”.

Why is this wrong? Reality is not established via plebiscite.

Reality is as follows: The financial services industry hadn’t been regulated nearly enough; and it continues to cause systemic problems to the present day–including spiraling socio-economic inequality and ever-more-highly-concentrated wealth / power.  Absurdly, the contention–by Republican AND corporatist Democrats–is that regulation PER SE must be to blame for all economic woes; so what the economy needed was more of a (unaccountable, unhindered) “free market”…as if, upon being poisoned by diluted arsenic, one were to contend that it was the paucity of arsenic that accounted for the sickness.  Once the nausea set in, the misguided inclination was to blame the water in the elixir rather than the toxin.  (“If only the arsenic weren’t so watered down, you’d now be much healthier!”)

Such is the contorted reasoning of kleptocratic malefactors like Gary Cohn, Steve Schwarzman, Carl Icahn, Paul Singer, the Mercers, the Koch brothers, and–yes–corporatist Democrats like Jamie Dimon.  These figures, who consistently vote for right-wing economic policies, are far more reprehensible–and do far more harm to society–than even the most virulent racists / sexists with whom most of us are justifiably concerned.

A party where one can find the likes of Chuck Schumer, Lloyd Blankfein, Thomas Nides, Jacob Lew, Joe Manchin, Steny Hoyer, Timothy Geithner, Rahm Emanuel, and Michael Bloomberg is not a party that any Progressive could ever call home.  (Emanuel, we might recall, openly referred to Progressives as “fucking idiots”.  The irony is deafening.)  To suggest that someone who supports such opprobrious figures could be characterized as remotely “Progressive” is a sick joke.

The Democratic Party’s strategy vis a vis Progressives is to co-opt their popularity (and thus their segment of the electorate) without having to co-opt their IDEAS.  This is done by paying oodles of lip-service to Progressive ideals without actually having to implement Progressive policies.  It’s about placating, not about heeding.  Listening without really hearing.  We might bear in mind that the smoothest of tongues are also often forked tongues.

Being against Trump (or against the ultra-right wing in general) isn’t enough.  One has to be FOR something inspiring.  (“Well, hey!  At least he/she isn’t TRUMP” is not an inspiring rallying cry.  A potted plant isn’t Trump either.)  Slightly-less-awful-than-Trump is a very low bar to clear; and is hardly a Progressive aspiration.  Too many corporate Democrats congratulate themselves for being anti-Trump–as if refusing to support a sociopathic buffoon were somehow a monumental accomplishment.

Such a shoddy criterion for endorsement bodes ill for Progressivism.

Another case in point: In one of the 2020 congressional races, the Democratic Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi is backing a Koch-backed Texan named Henry Cuellar (a shill for investment bankers and other corporate interests, who votes with Trump 70% of the time) over his Progressive challenger (a Mexicana human rights attorney named Jessica Cisneros).  Cuellar is anti-choice AND vociferously pro-NRA.  Referring to someone so flagrantly right wing as anything other than “right wing” is a twisted joke.

If our political taxonomy were not so skewed, the ostensibly “Left” political party would not honor Potemkin Progressives like Dianne Feinstein, Chris Coons, Joe Manchin, Josh Gottheimer, and Neera Tanden: figures who have nothing but contempt for ACTUAL Progressives.  Such politicians are corporatists who operate within the Democratic Party.  They are less overtly fascistic as Republicans, so they are able to pass as viable alternatives.

The kicker is that even the most flagrant of the corporate Democrats are referred to as “moderates” in the argot of the corporate media—a contorted taxonomy that makes genuine Progressives wince; but which dupes just about everyone else.  (During her heyday, one might have considered Hillary Clinton the high priestess of Potemkin Progressivism.)  This misnomer is due to the fact that a corporatism is considered “centrist”.  This skewing of the Overton Window shifts public perceptions—and thus public discourse—to the right.  Anyone who is NON-corporatist, then, is seen as a “radical Leftist”.

By characterizing corporatists as “moderates”, the message is that corporatism is the norm—nay: the IDEAL.  Let’s be clear: If one abides corporate influence (i.e. MONEY) in politics, if one does not support universal healthcare, if one is a lackey for Big Business (from the financial sector to the military-industrial complex), if one does not consistently champion human rights around the world, and if one routinely countenances unabashed disdain for genuine Progressives, then one is decidedly not a Progressive.  It should go without saying, but let’s say it anyway: If one is for highly-concentrated (socio-economic) power, if one is for top-down control, if one serves corporate interests over the public interest, then one is the opposite of a Progressive; and—more to the point—is against democracy.

For corporate Democrats, this isn’t merely a matter of being feckless; it is a matter of perfidy.  Even as they pretend to be quasi-Progressive, there is nothing remotely Progressive about them.

The strategy of corporatist Democrats is to support candidates that resemble Republicans when it comes to economic and foreign policy.  Meanwhile, a flurry of virtue signaling makes them feel less bad about being corporatists…and plays well to an easily hoodwinked electorate.

For anyone other than a right-wing hack, choosing Cisneros would be a no-brainer.  In a saner world, she–like Bernie Sanders, Nina Turner, Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Talib, et. al.–would be considered middle-of-the-road; as their policy positions actually reflect the interests of the vast majority of the general populace.  Meanwhile, the likes of Chuck Schumer et. al. would be so far to the right, they’d almost be off the chart.

The execrable roster of corporatist Democrats is disturbingly long; and–tragically–dictates how power is allocated.  Only with the Overton Window shifted so far rightward can such perfidious actors call themselves “Democrats” with a straight face.  In a saner world, this would be inconceivable.  That so many “Democrats” go along with this charade demonstrates how deranged the political taxonomy has become.

The fact remains: A fake populist can only be beat by a REAL populist.  Why?  Because both are based on comparable appeal…even as their actual policies are diametrically opposed.  The former is utterly disastrous for the commonweal; the latter is based entirely on the commonweal.  Yet BOTH resonate with pedestrian sensibilities; as they “speak to” the common-man.  Demagogues have understood this since time immemorial.

And this brings us back to the 2016 election.  Had the DNC really wanted to defeat Trump, it would have allowed the genuinely Progressive candidate (Bernie Sanders) to be elected the party’s nominee…as he would have been if the Democratic primaries had been conducted on the level.  Alas, being a right-of-center (corporatist) operation, the DNC was not about to let an ACTUAL Progressive secure the Democratic nomination.

Meanwhile, being a proto-fascist party, the majority of the G.O.P. was fine with having a proto-fascist as their nominee.  So the choice was between ultra-right-wing yet INTRIGUINGLY DIFFERENT vs. kinda-right-wing yet business-as-usual.

Tellingly, once Trump secured the nomination, the only right-wing outlets to call foul (notably: “The National Review” and the “Weekly Standard”) were run by career G.O.P. insiders who didn’t appreciate having an “outsider” (i.e. someone they suspected they may not be able to control) crash their party.  The joke, it seems, was on both the DNC and RNC.

Of Trump, Clinton, and Sanders, only Sanders REALLY WAS anti-Establishment.  This fact was lost on legions of misinformed voters–who’s choices were guided more by the amygdala than by the prefrontal cortex.  (Alas, when parlayed into drastic action, anger rarely leads to prudent choices.)  There are, of course, different ways that one can be “anti-Establishment”–some right-wing, some left-wing.  The “catch” is that right-wing populism is an oxymoron.  In other words: It’s an excuse to implement fascist policies by passing them off as good for the common-man.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Alas, the intellectually moribund American polis continues to be afflicted by the political version of Stockholm Syndrome–whereby the working class becomes the architect of its own subjugation.