Flouting The Establishment

EPILOGUE 1:

Another word on demagogy is in order.  Frustration and confusion are the optimal conditions in which dogmatism–and thus propaganda–flourishes.  Hence agit-prop tends to gain currency when people are insecure and/or disoriented.  The existentially moribund are especially susceptible to the wiles of a savvy demagogue.

Such people are groping around in the dark–often in a state of desperation–for something to latch onto.  Provide them with something sturdy, and they will grasp it and–having committed themselves, and asserted themselves–not let go.  Anyone who has experienced the disconcerting state of existential vertigo will welcome any source of stability.  So it makes perfect sense that demagogues prey on existential beleaguerment–which is to say: seething resentment and/or protracted apprehension.  If a figurehead can offer a way to effectively channel angst while ameliorating trepidation, he will surely hold sway over the rank and file.

I surveyed the incidence of this phenomenon in my essay on “The History Of Exalted Figures”; where I showed that charismatic figures curry favor with the common-man in ways that are entirely predictable; and almost always perfidious.  They pass off subjugation as a form of emancipation (typically by claiming: “Trust me; it’s for your own good.”)  To put it bluntly: Neurosis renders one a useful idiot.

Those who are lost at sea are–generally speaking–easy to manipulate.  To reiterate: Those who are insecure and/or disoriented are looking for something solid to hold onto.  The first person to offer such something solid-seeming is most likely to win their favor.  This is especially so when fear / anger (two sides of the same coin) govern public sentiment.

And so it goes that a compelling narrative (read: well-crafted propaganda) works like a charm on those for whom critical thinking is a lost art.  Anyone experiencing protracted bouts of existential despondency is especially vulnerable to the formidable powers of suggestion wielded by a highly charismatic leader.

A prerequisite for genuine democracy is a well-informed citizenry (which is to say: an electorate that is more apt to base choices on principle than on flights of fancy).  Alas.  The United States is a far cry from a deliberative democracy.  With the lack of civic engagement and the skein of voter-suppression, the U.S. doesn’t even qualify as a participatory democracy.  It is more accurately described as a plutocracy with quasi-democratic pretensions.

It is, of course, no secret that perspicacity is extremely rare in the American agora.  The vast majority of voters–mercurial and obsequious–do not base their decisions on anything resembling meticulous deliberation.  Rather, they are beholden to vague impressions, emotive outbursts that are ripe for manipulation.

And so it goes: Across the U.S., the electorate is held captive to mis-information campaigns.  Day in and day out, America’s rank and file are snookered by the trappings of effective branding strategies–gimmicks designed to lure them into a charade that benefits the well-positioned few at everyone else’s expense.  In other words, most American voters–being as they are a mentally lethargic herd–are dupes.  The popular sentiment is invariably at the mercy of whatever hype-generation scheme dominates the meme-o-sphere.

Such systematic manipulation is largely a matter of perception-engineering, which is primarily orchestrated by corporate media outlets that serve the interests of those in power.  (As usual, those in power use that power to maintain that power; which is done by persuading everyone else into going along with the program.)  In a social milieu where fatuity trumps perspicacity, this boondoggle is easy to pull off.  For rudimentary–let alone fastidious–critical analysis is inimical to a polity that is governed by fatuity, inauthenticity, and shallow thinking.  Much of American culture–in keeping with the social media zeitgeist–even goes so far as to GLAMORIZE such things.  This explains why we find ourselves contending with public discourse characterized by pettiness and superficiality.

Consequently, many will be easily hoodwinked into believing a entirely specious narrative that is nevertheless compelling to the untutored ear.  That’s how so many Americans are routinely persuaded to vote against their own interests…all the while under the impression that, in doing so, they are being valiant super-patriots standing up for (a comically obtuse conception of) “the American way”.  Even as they engage in paroxysms of flag-waving, they shoot themselves in the foot.

A brief recap.  Trump won in 2016 not because he offered the best ideas (or really meant it when he occasionally paid lip-service to estimable policies).  After all, most voters do not make decisions based on a meticulous process of critical deliberation; and so rarely base their vote on the adduced merit of candidates’ proposals.  (Policy analysis is anathema in an era of market-tested platitudes.)  Rather, Trump won because his hyper-jingoistic sales-pitch resonated with most of America’s disaffected working class.  (In other words, BRAND Trump won more than PERSON Trump.)  A bumbling buffoon with prodigious star-power ended up serving as an avatar for people’s anger / frustration because he pushed all the right buttons.  He SEEMED to be a great way to rebuke “business as usual”…even as he was an amplification of all the dysfunction he stridently derided.

The one who most effectively woos disaffected swing-voter prevails.  And so it came to pass that Trump was the victor in a race that is won not by merit but by hype-generation.  To reiterate: In 2016, a vote for Trump was–more than anything else–a giant “fuck you” to the despised “Establishment”.  This was the case even though he was, in reality, PART OF the very socio-economic elite his fans–understandably–held in contempt.

The remarkable sway that Trump held over the wayward voter would have been–and in 2020, still would be–completely neutralized if he were up against someone who ACTUALLY WAS anti-Establishment.  (REAL populism trumps fake populism for those seeking a populist message.)  By the same token, Trump is assured another victory if he is–once again–pitted against an Establishment alternative who augers only a slightly more palatable version of business-as-usual.

More to the point: Clinton didn’t lose in 2016 because she was a woman; she lost because she’s a horrible person–a corporatist who was patronizing and–let’s not kid ourselves–cloyingly phony.  Her loyalties lay in the boardroom of Goldman Saks, not in the humble homes of the struggling working class–no matter how much hot-sauce she purportedly carried in her designer pocketbook.

And, lest we forget, a surefire way to TURN OFF a crucial segment of the electorate (wayward swing-voters in America’s hinterland) is to be obdurately “woke”–engaging in virtue-signaling shenanigans when it comes to identity politics and other boneheaded ideas culled from the p.c. catechism.

Bewilderingly, there are some who still contend that Hillary was defeated in 2016 because of “sexism”.  Such people are deliberately missing the point.  In spite of all the evidence that this obsequious consigliere of Goldman Sachs lost due to her glaring phoniness, a slew of awful policy positions, and the fact that she was a complete sell-out to the Establishment, sycophants in the corporate wing of the Democratic Party–especially those bewitched by “identity politics”–persist in their delusion about her VAGINA being the problem (with respect to those who were off-put by her).

Such wanton heedlessness is enough to take one’s breath away.

Had we waved a magic wand and physically transformed Hillary “Kissinger is my friend” Clinton into a dashing young man, she would not have gained a single vote from swing voters.  For her electoral deficit lay not with sexists; it lay with all those who found her character flaws intolerable.  This is made plain by the fact that so many life-long, highly-dedicated feminists–the author of this essay included–were so repulsed by her.  If anything, her being a woman was a BOON for those of us dreaming of a Progressive in the Oval Office.  Many were reticent to support her IN SPITE of the fact that she was female.

One can be certain that Clinton’s gender had absolutely nothing to do with her manifest delinquencies.  The fact is: Anyone who was sexist enough to not support a woman for public office (that is: FOR BEING a woman) was never going to vote for a non-Republican anyway.  The high priestess of corporate Democrats did not lose because of misogyny; she lost because of her opprobrious nature.  It wasn’t about here genitalia; it was about her scoffing at those fighting against corporate power and the military-industrial complex…even as she castigated anyone who was fighting for universal public healthcare and Palestinian rights.  Her POSITIONS made Progressives cringe.  And her flagrant establishmentarianism made swing-voters recoil.

The numbers show those who were “none of the above” broke overwhelmingly for Trump; which means that Trump’s victory was more due to enmity toward Hillary than affinity for Donald; and that if there had been a viable alternative to a buffoonish Reality TV star, then that alternative would have been elected.  In other words, just as with 2020, a potted plant would have triumphed over Trump.  Hillary’s failure was that she had less appeal than a potted plant (which, after all, would not have castigated proponents of BDS for being “anti-Semitic” while claiming to carry around hot-sauce so as to pander to African Americans).

In sum: Had Hillary been more Progressive (and more genuine), she would almost certainly have prevailed over the bumbling nincompoop that she was running against.

Fast-forward to 2020.  The overly conciliatory Sanders was no match for the DNC’s machinations.  Nor was he any match for the Establishment’s perfidious lackeys, who were hell-bent on undermining Progressivism–and thus democracy–at every turn.

Interesting fact: Never-Trump Republicans are cheering on corporate Democrats (e.g. Biden).  Why?  Because they despise Progressives (e.g. Sanders), and know that the corporate core of the Democratic party is simply Republican-lite.  This should tell us everything we need to know about the Overton Window…and how party politics breaks down.

Corporatist Democrats depend on Progressives continuing to cower on the fringes of the agora, apologizing for their rectitude each step of the way (so as not to incur the wrath of Establishment impresarios).  The fact that a free-market fundamentalist (a former CNBC drone named Michelle Caruso-Cabrera) is challenging Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the next primary tells us everything we need to know.  (Yes: One can be a free-market fundamentalist and be a “Democrat”.)  It’s bewildering how far right-wing one can be and still be in the Democratic party.  (But then again, in a country where companies like Goldman Sachs and Halliburton are still allowed to exist, anything’s possible.)

In 2020, the world contended with a highly-contagious biological pathogen (SARS corona-virus-2, cause of “CoViD-[20]19”).  Even before that, it was dealing with another kind of pandemic: the memetic pathogen known as idiocy.  It’s worth noting that, in the long term, corporatism is more deleterious to the commonweal than even the most severe of acute respiratory syndromes; for it has consequences that plague society long after a pestilence has been subdued.

Lately, elections have been plebiscites on this or that FIGURE (whichever one happened to represent the incumbent power structures; first Hillary, then Trump).  In many ways, 2020 is 2016 redux (a matter of begrudgingly selecting the less repulsive of two unpalatable options).  Whereby 2016 was Hillary vs. not-Hillary (a vote for Trump was a repudiation of the Establishment), 2020 is Trump vs. not-Trump (after the Obama and the DNC once more ousted the dreaded Bernie Sanders, a vote for Biden became the only viable way to oust Trump).  In other words, few vote based on the merit of policy positions.  Choices are primarily about who to repudiate.  So brand endorsement is the name of the game.

Just as was the case in 2016, outside of his core constituency, Trump garners support BY DEFAULT–that is: by swing-voters (esp. rural, working-class people) being repelled by the absurdities of p.c.-run-amok (read: condescending claptrap that regular people find repellent).  In this sense, the election will–once again–be a referendum on “woke” ding-bats caviling about breaches of etiquette, claiming to be “offended” by frivolous transgressions, and castigating any bystander who fails to sufficiently hew to the latest pieties.  We are reminded every decree by the impresarios of p.c. culture is extremely off-putting to level-headed people who are looking for actual virtue, not for virtue-signaling.

The lesson in 2020 is the same as it was four years earlier: p.c.-mongers shoot an otherwise noble cause in the foot by peddling their derisive nonsense instead of offering real solutions to real problems.

As it happened, the universe has a sense of irony.  The pandemic was a DEAFENING reminder of why the U.S.–or ANY country–needs universal healthcare (that is: universal access to quality, dependable medical services).  Alas, due to the terrible messaging of corporate media outlets (including MSNBC, CNN, and the New York Times), most people remain oblivious to the merits of a robust, publicly-funded healthcare system.  So at a time when it was most obvious that Bernie Sanders offered the (objectively) best policies; the credulous masses were herded–once again–into the arms of the the Establishment’s anointed plenipotentiary.

Amidst the outbreak, lessons could be learned.  Predictably, countries with the best healthcare systems (Scandinavia, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Taiwan, South Korea, New Zealand, etc.) handled the corona-virus outbreak the best; and the reasons for this are obvious to anyone who is paying attention.  (Italy’s faltered for other reasons–notably: an elderly population of smokers caught off-guard.)

Alas, the Democratic party is an establishmentarian party, and so continues to be dedicated to the maintenance of incumbent power structures (that is: beholden to corporate interests).  As with Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden offers nothing more than business-as-usual.  Both are corporate lackeys who pay lip service to quasi-Progressive ideals.  Both are entirely about keeping up appearances without pushing for substantial structural reform.  Biden, we might recall, unabashedly supports the military industrial complex and health insurance companies (while deriding proposals for universal public healthcare).  The only prospects Biden offers is more of the same.

Epilogue  2:

[November 2020]  In the advent of the 2020 election, it is time to take stock.

As I—and most of the rest of the civilized world—breathe a long-awaited, collective sigh of relief, it is worth bearing in mind that the mentally-stunted, bigoted nincompoop that has been ousted from the White House is about to be replaced by a corporatist Democrat who is at the mercy of bankers and the military-industrial complex. While Biden is lightyears better than the alternative, let’s not forget that he does not support the Green New Deal or Universal Public Healthcare or getting money out of politics. And he will likely be reticent to rescind the egregious tax-cuts for the ultra-affluent (and the odious array of deregulations) that were enacted three years ago. In other words, we still have our work cut out for us.  

We are right to celebrate the end to an administration that is about to be relegated to an ignominious chapter in America’s history books. What is disconcerting is that, but for the pandemic, Trump would have likely cruised to victory against the (ill-considered) Democratic nominee.  Most of those who opted to pull the lever for Biden did so with middling enthusiasm.  The fact of the matter was: Any sane person would have voted for a potted plant over the incumbent.  And so they did.

We need to ask ourselves: How in heaven’s name is it that over 74 million Americans thought it was a good idea to continue to Donald Trump?  Groupthink undoubtedly played a role–especially for the ill-informed, provincial segment of the polis.  Here’s the thing: Many of those in rural communities have been raised to believe that they are obligated to think in concert with their local brethren.  To do otherwise would be to risk ostracism.  We find the same phenomenon in any other community wherein a super-charged parochialism is operative (see Hassidim / Haredim).

The delusive, tribalistic mindset that played a role in Trump’s support was on full display after the 2020 election had been decided.  The insistence—by both the demagogue himself and his most ardent followers—was that he could not have really lost.  This was because Trump’s brand was WINNING.  There was no way that the battalions of bumbling sycophants who went along with Trump’s movement could eat crow; as they’d have to admit they’d mis-characterized their loadstar.  In being defeated, the very BRAND ITSELF was being brought into question.

Like any cult movement, when their ideology was shown to be spurious, they had no choice but to double down.  (Think of apocalyptic cults who’s premonitions of the End Days don’t come to pass.  They often become MORE zealous in the face of disconfirmation.)  Trump HAD to have won the election, lest they concede they’d been wrong ALL ALONG, and their entire cosmogony implode.  For Trump himself, the obdurate refusal to concede the results of the 2020 election was about saving face.  But for his followers it was about more than just that: It was about keeping the ideological fulcrum for their “make America great again” mantra fully in tact.

Rationalizations were needed if the false pride that buoyed their movement was to be sustained.  Ergo: The election results needed to be seen as fraudulent.  No matter how unfounded, such farce was the only thing that made sense in light of the fact that Trump was BY DEFINITION a winner.

And so it went.  The election results couldn’t NOT be denied, lest the illusion be exposed.

It is worth emphasizing: The remarkable thing is not that Biden (barely) won; it’s that he almost LOST.  But for the fallout from CoViD-19, he certainly WOULD have lost.  The fact that Sanders (who would have prevailed in the Democratic primary but for the interventions of Barack Obama, James Clyburn, and the gilded pantheon of corporate Democrats) would have won in a landslide (as also would have been the case four years earlier) was—predictably—elided by the corporate media.

As they had with Hillary in the previous election, Progressives begrudgingly helped the establishment favorite (Biden, anointed by default) prevail over the horrifying alternative.  Indeed, any sane person would have voted for a potted plant instead of Trump.  That an old man exhibiting clear signs of cognitive deterioration prevailed is testament to this fact.

So the question is now: How shall Progressives challenge Biden—and the entrenched corporate Democratic establishment—now that Trump has been successfully vanquished?

The problem, of course, is that the p.c. arm of the so-called “Left” persists, thus continuing to taint the primary alternative to a Republican nominee.  The skein of political correct-ness and identity politics will continue to hamstring—nay, sabotage—any Progressive efforts.  The knuckle-headed shenanigans of the legion of p.c. aficionados will be held against genuine Progressives by the vast majority of America’s rank and file.  Of course, the corporatists are perfectly fine with this, as it provides fodder to assail Progressivism wholesale.

There are many dead giveaways when it comes to the true nature of corporatists in the Democratic Party.  Many of their largest supporters threatened to support Trump if Bernie Sanders had been the Democratic nominee; which tells us everything we need to know about their true fealties; and the ACTUAL ideology undergirding the corporate Democrats.  (They’d rather have the corporate-friendly buffoon than a genuine Progressive in the Oval Office, thank you very much.)

Glenn Greenwald drew an apt parallel to what enabled the fascistic J. Bolsonaro to be elected president in Brasil and what enabled the fascistic D. Trump to be elected president in the U.S.:  “As happened in [the U.S.], the failure of [the nation’s] Establishment—and particularly its prevailing Neoliberal [corporatist] ideology—had left so many people so angry with the political system that they were willing to gamble on anyone who could successfully pose as an enemy of the political class that the population (rightly) blamed for so much of its suffering and deprivation.”  Like Bolsonaro, Trump was a pompous blowhard who’s tough-guy bluster was seen as a kind of courage; who militancy was seen as intrepidity.  Both men used demagogy to exploit the seething resentments of the ill-educated rank and file, who were justifiably aggrieved by the socio-economic injustices plaguing their respective countries.  “People confronting such deprivation [are] highly susceptible to scapegoating and easy solutions,” Greenwald noted.  He also observed, correctly, that the venting of frustrations typically includes calls for “law and order” and the prosecution of outsiders.

An Austrian megalomaniac used the same schtick in Germany in the 1930’s.

So the thinking went: Anyone whom the despised MACHINE holds in contempt (and who promises to burn it down) “must be on OUR side.”  It should come as no surprise that Bolsonaro touted his “Chicago Boys” affiliations, and pledged to follow the Pinochet model of pulverizing civil rights—invoking fundamentalist religion (thanks, Roman Catholic Church), offering militarism on steroids, and privatizing everything under the sun (while slashing social benefits to the poor).  In other words: The Republican Party’s platform since Nixon.

Greenwald added that “Bolsonaro’s ascension to power was driven not so much by agreement with his [fascistic] ideology, but rather by a pervasive and justified disgust with ruling institutions and their prevailing orthodoxies.  That Bolsonaro had been [rejected by] the mainstream precincts of ‘decency’, and that he was so clearly feared and despised by mainstream institutions, became one of his most powerful political assets.”  Greenwald concluded that Bolsonaro was “a gifted demagogue”. *

All this should sound eerily familiar to the political landscape of the U.S. since the economic crash of 2008.  Corporatists in BOTH the Democrat and Republican parties understand that being a shill for corporate interests.

This also brings up the distinction between genuine populism (which is “Left-ist”) and faux populism (i.e. right-wing “populism”).  ALL populism—both authentic and ersatz—appeals to the rank and file.  The crucial difference is that genuine populism ACTUALLY IS good for the rank and file; whereas faux populism is only superficially appealing, yet utterly fraudulent.  Put another way, the former is PROGRESSIVE; as it is for civil rights and socio-economic justice (esp. labor rights; see Thomas Frank’s “The People, No”).  By stark contrast, the latter is simply Neo-liberalism with pseudo-populist branding—thereby hoodwinking those who may not know any better into supporting policies that contribute to their own marginalization / disenfranchisement.

Genuine populism is not against scholarship (intellectual elitism); it is against ivory tower-ism (socio-economic elitism).  Faux populism, on the other hand, is vehemently anti-intellectual; and serves the interest of the moneyed class (esp. corporate power).  It is a way of duping the credulous part of the electorate into voting against their own best interests (that is: against the common good).  This is done by couching the corporatist agenda in a populist veneer.

Thus faux populism is the opposite of genuine populism, even as it employs similar rhetoric.

There are two forms that such deceptive branding takes—both of which are designed to distract from what is really being promoted: corporatism / plutocracy.

Trojan Horse ONE (perpetrated by Republicans): Using wedge issues (super-patriotism and nativism; as well as an obsession with religion, abortion, and guns) to bamboozle working class voters who have right-wing social views into supporting right-wing economic policy (policy that they would otherwise be against).  This faux populism is what got Donald Trump instead of “establishment” Republicans the nomination in 2016; and what enabled Trumpian fervor to persist even after his defeat in 2020.  A Progressive candidate (read: Bernie Sanders) would have trounced Trump in both elections; so it came as no surprise that the alternative (a corporate Democrat in both cases) first lost then ALMOST lost (but for an unexpected factor: the corona-virus pandemic).

Trojan Horse TWO (perpetrated by corporatist Democrats): Using political correctness—replete with identity politics and a flurry of virtue signaling—to bamboozle otherwise Progressive voters into supporting right-wing economic policy (that is: doing the bidding of corporate power), thinking that they are somehow doing something to combat socio-economic injustice.  This is what got Hillary Clinton instead of Bernie Sanders the nomination in 2016; and then Joe Biden instead of Bernie Sanders the nomination in 2020.  But the rot goes back to Bill Clinton, and on through Barack Obama (whom Cornell West accurately referred to as “the black mascot of Wall Street”).   It came as no surprise, then, that professed “Democrat” Lloyd Blankfein admitted that if Bernie Sanders was the Democratic nominee, he’d vote for Trump.

Trump’s economic policies were every plutocrat’s dream.  He may have been a mentally-stunted prima donna, but his economic policies were INDISTINGUISHABLE from the policies of any other Republican since Reagan; and—in the midst of his buffoonery—he did nothing to alienate his corporatist base (other than perhaps tarnish their sterling image with his crass antics).

Either way, corporatism wins.  Subsequently, hose who were hoodwinked pat themselves on the back for upholding what they suppose is a noble cause.  Both are driven by resentments (that is: misdirected ire).  Ironically, they feel vindicated for opposite reasons: the former for having successfully staved off the (actual) absurdities of political correctness; the latter for having successfully staved off the (actual) iniquities of conservative social policy.  All the while, socio-economic injustices continue, legalized graft persists, and the military industrial complex becomes even more bloated.  The rank and file get screwed, and the oligarchs laugh all the way to the bank.

The solution to both hoodwinks is the same: REAL populism, shorn of right-wing ideology.  In other words: What is needed is a populism from which social conservatism and political correctness have been expunged.

If the left does not offer decent solutions, the right will (rightly) point out the shortcomings of their proposals; and then offer indecent alternatives…as if those were the ONLY alternatives.  Since p.c. is NOT a decent solution to society’s woes, the right prevails.  The more the so-called “Left” wastes time on silly games like identity politics, the more fodder then provide for right-wing commentators.

Under such circumstances, it comes as no surprise that people who are confidently proposing a  bold, quasi-plausible vision end up coming out on top.  Juxtaposed against silliness, they are able to seem almost reasonable to the untutored ear.  Consequently, they end up commanding appeal amongst the disenchanted / frustrated; especially when the vision-on-offer plays on the false hopes, the resentments, and the insecurities of the target audience.

It is easier to communicate a simple lie (with easily digestible platitudes) than explain a complicated truth (with drawn-out disquisition).  The anti-intellectualism of ALL right-wing movements is based on simplistic theories for simple-minded people; often invoking populist vernacular to “sell” the rank and file on policies that will—in reality—only benefit the well-positioned few at the expense of everyone else.  Power is consolidated, cultic thinking is engendered, and the result is often some cult of personality (groupthink, a Reactionary mindset, mass mania, collective neuroses, etc.) with palpably authoritarian features.

Right-wing “populism” is an ersatz populism (as it is effectively authoritarian populism: an oxymoron).  Indeed, any purported “populism” that serves the interests of the socio-economic elite is paradoxical.  Right-wing “populism” is effectively plutocratic populism–which is, likewise, an oxymoron.  It is compelling to credulous segments of the rabble because of its enticing rhetoric–consisting in relentless (though empty) assaults on the “elite”…those with a sleight of hand: transplanting the socio-economic elite (against which it was ostensibly inveighing) with the intellectual elite (the scholars and journalists against whom right-wing impresarios were REALLY against).  Thus: railing against those in the halls of power whilst enacting policy that abetted them…whilst screwing over the rank and file.

Biden will not turn the Trumpian tide; he will merely keep it at bay–staving off an EVEN FURTHER rightward surge for the time being.  The problem is that he may further taint the Democratic Party by failing to be Progressive, thereby leaving a bad taste in the mouths of the rank and file, and paving they way for Trump redux, even if that not be in the form of Trump himself.

The more the Democratic establishment espouses privatization, deregulation, Wall Street, Big Agri, Big Pharma, for-profit medicine, and the military-industrial complex, the fewer legs they will have to stand on when it comes to combating the far right; and the more the beguiling demagogy of faux populism will gain traction amongst the hoi polloi.

The Democrats lost in 2016 because they failed to offer a genuine political alternative to corporatism (while espousing p.c.); but for the coronavirus pandemic, they would have ALSO lost in 2020 for roughly the same reason; and they will likely lose in 2024 for the same reason…lest the alleged party of the working class get their act together, and stop hating Progressivism.

As things now stand, the U.S. will be going from a (mentally-stunted) proto-fascist nincompoop to a (cognitively addled) shill for corporate power, so all civic-minded people must persist in their frank critique of what will be a less-right-wing government…which will still be in bed with Likud in Israel and the House of Saud in Arabia; and will presumably be willing to capitulate, at every turn, to the G.O.P.—as the corporate Democrats have been doing since the 1970’s.

The incoming administration will likely devote the next four years un-doing some of the damage wrought by the outgoing administration.  God willing, Trump will eventually be behind bars; but our endeavor to foster civil society carries on.

{*  Demagogues are characterized by their fanfaronade.  Some charismatic leaders are very calculating; but some are dunces with a knack for manipulating crowds (that is: riffing off of the audience and “playing the room”).  Generally speaking, this consists of mindless bluster, empty catch-phrases, buzz-terms, platitudes, etc.  Such bombastic imbeciles are savvy when it comes to stagecraft.  The idea is simply to appeal to the masses in superficial (read: disingenuous) ways.  When it comes to right-wing (read: faux) populism, such figures are commonplace.  Donald Trump (the U.S.) and Jair Bolsonaro (Brasil) are not anomalies.  Consider Alexander Lukashenko (Belarus), Recep Ergdogan (Turkey), Kim Jong-Il / -Un (Korea), and Rodrigo Duterte (Philippines).  These despots are ALL uneducated thugs who managed to make various strains of fascism (Eastern Orthodox, Islamic, Juche, and Catholic respectively) seem appealing to the rank and file.  (The epitome of this phenomenon is Mao Tse-Tung: history’s most malignant moron.)  All of these men are bullies; all of them speak to the lowest common denominator; and all of them succeed not IN SPITE OF, but BECAUSE OF their lack of intelligence.  (Boris Johnson of the U.K. is a milder version of this phenomenon.)  Of course, not all fascistic leaders are idiots (Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel is of moderate intelligence); but most demagogues appeal to the masses because they are relatable, not because they are smart.  If there is any doubt that this works, look no further than Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov of Turkmenistan.}