Showing posts with label republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label republicans. Show all posts
Tuesday, 8 August 2017
Sunday, 8 January 2017
The Elections: Aftermath and Fallout
In general, Bernie Sanders at least initially attempted to hijack the Democratic Party for a given, relatively radical political programme. However, this is complicated by several factors. The Democratic Party is a Party with a long history and which has several complex inter-relations with the Republican Party - especially after Obama's 'bipartisanship' binge - which moderate its action and its running of the state in harmony with these others. In general, in a two-Party state where each Party is fairly stable (and in this case similar), both Parties will eventually come to consider themselves essentially the ruler of the state in harmony - that is, as essentially one harmonised ruling Party. They are both fluid, and the government frequently passes from one to the other, which each attempts to make as easy a transition as possible to ensure the stability of the government - as Americans seemingly change their opinion on the state they would prefer every few years. In general, however, the Democrats are hence not a vehicle that can easily accommodate use by a political programme, or be assimilated into use as a vehicle for a vaguely radical political agenda simpliciter. There are many obstacles to this use, and obligations which the Party has habitually fulfilled and is formed around.
Hence, Bernie Sanders was eventually given trouble by someone who essentially represents a fairly hollow 'establishment' - the Clinton campaign, run mostly based on being a notable 'name' in the Democratic Party. This is dynastic politics, and quite blatant about it. Compared to Sanders, their politics were loosely sketched and have generally not remained constant - they were merely holding ground, as Sanders was so to speak entering their 'house.' It seems absurd that a political Party also forms a 'house, 'in the gambling sense, that others must take on despite a political hollowness - nonetheless this is the case. However, Sanders generally speaking did not seek to combat this directly, and hence was generally speaking unwilling to challenge the agendas of the Democratic Party or agitate for its general renewal. Instead, their campaign opted to merely promote Sanders and opt for more or less generic forms of campaigning with the main difference being the slogans and name - their campaign was in most things not distinguished from the others, and hence could hardly fuel resistance to the others. They needed some distinction to allow them to engage in 'negative,' critical takes on politics as it was and the Democratic Party, and they did not gain this. By the end, the campaign took on a high emphasis on donors - and of course a notable donation requires sufficient money - such that their eventual capitulation to the business-favouring Democratic Party was not that much of a surprise, nor something which Sanders' supporters can merely displace blame over. It eventually, later on, had the general properties of a pessimistic gambling den.
Their continuing promotion of the campaign well after they stood a notable chance of the nomination perhaps suggests that their figures concerning the amount of voluntary promotion done were in part fictionalised. Otherwise, there was little to encourage it, apart from the occasional recreational bout of cold-calling. Such forms of promotion are often treated with scorn in other fields, regardless.
In any case, the Sanders campaign attempted to import a foreign content into the field of major political Parties, without displacing what was already there - hence, they ran into issues in these circumstances. The Democratic Party went stubbornly with a 'conventional,' name-based candidate, Clinton, who was possibly the closest thing to apolitical of most recent politicians. However, Clinton was saddled with several hits to their reputation, which would have been debilitating to most other candidates. They did, however, have some borrowed momentum from a previous campaign in a time when politics was a more major and pressing concern - as opposed to now when official politics is just staffed with celebs and people with familiar names and media ruckus - and, also notably, had significant backing among somewhat tiresomely mild-liberal celebrities and such. They hence at least had the momentum to carry through a campaign which mostly disregarded politics and could try to ignore Sanders' beliefs; identity politics then served to seal this modus operandi and secure indifference to the content of the Sanders campaign.
Identity politics in official politics can be harmful, as people are essentially locked in as soon as they are accused of violating it - to defend themselves from the accusation is counted as yet another violation. In any case, the accusation by itself - in the present-tense - is seen as a notable slight. However, in most circumstances, this has several limitations and this form of aggravated identity politics evaded official politics so far as the political had to be taken seriously. Past a certain point, it is an accusation where the validity and hence content of the accusation is not something which is of interest, and hence on the one hand is generally only possible in an overall situation which is something of a rig, and on the other hand can easily dissolve into nothing without a notable and artificial infrastructure and atmosphere to back it up.
Nonetheless, there were positive aspects to the Sanders campaign. For one thing, as much as their attempt to smuggle a foreign content into the Democratic Party while letting it be was problematic, it was at the same time a manifestation of a certain level of indifference to official politics. They merely tried to drift their politics into the Democratic Party, as if it was insubstantial or they did not care to consider it. While they were not as a movement 'negative' enough, there was a certain sense of being liberated from this realm as well. Further, among both the Trump and Clinton campaigns based on 'name,' dynastic politics, reality TV and shallow controversy, the Sanders campaign was one of the few identified with the political and hence which was strictly speaking in place in the area. We have discussed this previously. This is a notable divergence from the others, and although hemmed in is quite impressive.
However, Trump by contrast frequently attempted to distract attention from domestic politics by raising issues like immgration almost to the exclusion of such politics. In lieu of a particular political direction, they substituted generic slogans like 'Make America Great Again,' and relied on the media to make something out of this. However, we may ask: why does Trump, who is not usually held responsible for many problems of domestic politics, feel such a pressing need to constantly distract attention elsewhere? Before dealing with this question, we must note that Trump essentially started the wave which Clinton rode of essentially apolitical or media-based candidacy, and hence that in riding this to nomination Clinton was essentially benefitting Trump.
In any case, it must be noted that so far as his politics do turn up, he is often much closer to the usual Democrat than to Republicans. His views on major social issues are generally highly liberal, and would disenfranchise many traditional conservatives of the Bush-era and similar. In an era where traditional conservatives would usually want urgent support, the Republican choice of Donald Trump is a capitulation. The Republican Party no longer represents its previous political core, it has no real political importance any more. However, apart from being close to the Democrats in terms of politics, he is also trying hard to distract attention from domestic politics and hence cover the tracks - of the Democrats. What candidate would need to hesitate to make specious promises, and then mostly idle when in office, if they had someone like Donald Trump to distract all attention from these misdemeanours and the nation generally? Hence, considering the state as a whole, Donald Trump is often serving the Democrats and working in their interests - which is highly useful in such a two-Party context. He has also accompanied a crippling of the opposition to the Democrats. To reprise some of the low-brow humour prominent around the time of the 2008 election, if Obama isn't a Republi-can, Trump can certainly seem like a Democ-rat.
In general, the Democrats might seem slightly polite this election, content to elect a candidate who effectively rides off their place in the Party rather than adding much to it - unlike their campaign behind Obama, where they ran a fairly pronounced political campaign. However, if on the one hand they are settling for minimalism rather than focussing on a general story, this is compensated for by their focus on the other side of things - by the Democratic turn of the Republicans. Clinton's 'story' is merely that they were established, and breezed through into the candidacy (sort of), essentially because they were favourites: this betrays a lack of focus here. Democratic liberalism is spread too thinly in this election, and cannot conjure the same focussed and pseudo-partisan campaign. Hence, in another sense, Clinton was one of the recent candidates most open to threat: they were faced with continual interrogations and attacks, although their status was mobilised to get around this. While they might do decently, their campaign was unlikely to disqualify their opponent completely because they did not have that that level of trust. Hence, despite a few slips, Trump was ultimately able to return to a challenging position and eventually get past Clinton, who did not have the cleanliness or sense of immunity that would maintain their advantages. Bernie Sanders, who was generally viewed as somewhat trust-worthy, and even praised by such as Trump for it, might have avoided this obstacle. However, they would have had to rely on a Democratic infrastructure quite unsuited to promoting their half-radical cause, which is just as much an obstacle. They eventually did not get that far. This is in some ways unfortunate, but in some ways the suggestion that they wouldn't have done worse at the elections might spur further movements in this direction.
Recent times have also seen some slightly strange political commentary, such as Obama being compared to the villain of the 'Hunger Games' because they use 'hope' followed by 'fear' or threat. Peculiar. One always figured that the villain of the Hunger Games must be Slenderman. In any case, this slightly vague designation of using 'hope' followed by 'fear' could characterise the state or political movements generally, or indeed any body that enforces nation-wide law (ie. generally the primary characteristic of the state.) First they promote a cause or hope for it, then they enforce it. In general, being the villain of the Hunger Games and indeed most Russia-invoking dystopian novels is an honour only fit for socialists, and while Obama is occasionally confused with one this is not enough for them to claim the title.
In general, it was not necessarily a surprise that Sanders was not Democratic candidate, although they are the least empty candidate. Meanwhile, the two-Party rule continues, with people assuming that there is a more significant division while the Parties themselves are aware that they have near-completely ruled the state. Hence, after the appearance of a division, as a sort of minor pittance, things generally settle into a sort of uniformity punctuated by occasional 'issues' that quickly dissipate. Conservatives could not, as it now appears, trust the Republicans to put forward their political qualms. In trusting the Republicans over time, they have increasingly accepted capitulation on social issues. The Christian religion is increasingly reducing to the hatred of Islam, and both candidates' Christianity is taken for granted and no longer needs the notable displays of the Bush era. It is still pernicious, but no longer concerned about political agendas or social change - it is hence neutralised in this realm. Contemporary Christianity has as its spiritual home only the funeral, where religious praise is heaped on various people for little reason other than their celebrity. People's affection is so much for the dead, that the living who wish for such praise would do better to join the dead. The Trump-Clinton division was always likely to be uncertain, but Trump had sufficient lee-way due to Clinton's uncertain reputation. Eventually that was enough in this case. Nonetheless, there is a notable level at which this election involves a promotion of status and media promotion over politics, to the point that the latter becomes irrelevant. This problem would subsist regardless of which candidate won, and this indifference to political actors gives them some freedom to push through their apparent agenda.
Hence, Bernie Sanders was eventually given trouble by someone who essentially represents a fairly hollow 'establishment' - the Clinton campaign, run mostly based on being a notable 'name' in the Democratic Party. This is dynastic politics, and quite blatant about it. Compared to Sanders, their politics were loosely sketched and have generally not remained constant - they were merely holding ground, as Sanders was so to speak entering their 'house.' It seems absurd that a political Party also forms a 'house, 'in the gambling sense, that others must take on despite a political hollowness - nonetheless this is the case. However, Sanders generally speaking did not seek to combat this directly, and hence was generally speaking unwilling to challenge the agendas of the Democratic Party or agitate for its general renewal. Instead, their campaign opted to merely promote Sanders and opt for more or less generic forms of campaigning with the main difference being the slogans and name - their campaign was in most things not distinguished from the others, and hence could hardly fuel resistance to the others. They needed some distinction to allow them to engage in 'negative,' critical takes on politics as it was and the Democratic Party, and they did not gain this. By the end, the campaign took on a high emphasis on donors - and of course a notable donation requires sufficient money - such that their eventual capitulation to the business-favouring Democratic Party was not that much of a surprise, nor something which Sanders' supporters can merely displace blame over. It eventually, later on, had the general properties of a pessimistic gambling den.
Their continuing promotion of the campaign well after they stood a notable chance of the nomination perhaps suggests that their figures concerning the amount of voluntary promotion done were in part fictionalised. Otherwise, there was little to encourage it, apart from the occasional recreational bout of cold-calling. Such forms of promotion are often treated with scorn in other fields, regardless.
In any case, the Sanders campaign attempted to import a foreign content into the field of major political Parties, without displacing what was already there - hence, they ran into issues in these circumstances. The Democratic Party went stubbornly with a 'conventional,' name-based candidate, Clinton, who was possibly the closest thing to apolitical of most recent politicians. However, Clinton was saddled with several hits to their reputation, which would have been debilitating to most other candidates. They did, however, have some borrowed momentum from a previous campaign in a time when politics was a more major and pressing concern - as opposed to now when official politics is just staffed with celebs and people with familiar names and media ruckus - and, also notably, had significant backing among somewhat tiresomely mild-liberal celebrities and such. They hence at least had the momentum to carry through a campaign which mostly disregarded politics and could try to ignore Sanders' beliefs; identity politics then served to seal this modus operandi and secure indifference to the content of the Sanders campaign.
Identity politics in official politics can be harmful, as people are essentially locked in as soon as they are accused of violating it - to defend themselves from the accusation is counted as yet another violation. In any case, the accusation by itself - in the present-tense - is seen as a notable slight. However, in most circumstances, this has several limitations and this form of aggravated identity politics evaded official politics so far as the political had to be taken seriously. Past a certain point, it is an accusation where the validity and hence content of the accusation is not something which is of interest, and hence on the one hand is generally only possible in an overall situation which is something of a rig, and on the other hand can easily dissolve into nothing without a notable and artificial infrastructure and atmosphere to back it up.
Nonetheless, there were positive aspects to the Sanders campaign. For one thing, as much as their attempt to smuggle a foreign content into the Democratic Party while letting it be was problematic, it was at the same time a manifestation of a certain level of indifference to official politics. They merely tried to drift their politics into the Democratic Party, as if it was insubstantial or they did not care to consider it. While they were not as a movement 'negative' enough, there was a certain sense of being liberated from this realm as well. Further, among both the Trump and Clinton campaigns based on 'name,' dynastic politics, reality TV and shallow controversy, the Sanders campaign was one of the few identified with the political and hence which was strictly speaking in place in the area. We have discussed this previously. This is a notable divergence from the others, and although hemmed in is quite impressive.
However, Trump by contrast frequently attempted to distract attention from domestic politics by raising issues like immgration almost to the exclusion of such politics. In lieu of a particular political direction, they substituted generic slogans like 'Make America Great Again,' and relied on the media to make something out of this. However, we may ask: why does Trump, who is not usually held responsible for many problems of domestic politics, feel such a pressing need to constantly distract attention elsewhere? Before dealing with this question, we must note that Trump essentially started the wave which Clinton rode of essentially apolitical or media-based candidacy, and hence that in riding this to nomination Clinton was essentially benefitting Trump.
In any case, it must be noted that so far as his politics do turn up, he is often much closer to the usual Democrat than to Republicans. His views on major social issues are generally highly liberal, and would disenfranchise many traditional conservatives of the Bush-era and similar. In an era where traditional conservatives would usually want urgent support, the Republican choice of Donald Trump is a capitulation. The Republican Party no longer represents its previous political core, it has no real political importance any more. However, apart from being close to the Democrats in terms of politics, he is also trying hard to distract attention from domestic politics and hence cover the tracks - of the Democrats. What candidate would need to hesitate to make specious promises, and then mostly idle when in office, if they had someone like Donald Trump to distract all attention from these misdemeanours and the nation generally? Hence, considering the state as a whole, Donald Trump is often serving the Democrats and working in their interests - which is highly useful in such a two-Party context. He has also accompanied a crippling of the opposition to the Democrats. To reprise some of the low-brow humour prominent around the time of the 2008 election, if Obama isn't a Republi-can, Trump can certainly seem like a Democ-rat.
In general, the Democrats might seem slightly polite this election, content to elect a candidate who effectively rides off their place in the Party rather than adding much to it - unlike their campaign behind Obama, where they ran a fairly pronounced political campaign. However, if on the one hand they are settling for minimalism rather than focussing on a general story, this is compensated for by their focus on the other side of things - by the Democratic turn of the Republicans. Clinton's 'story' is merely that they were established, and breezed through into the candidacy (sort of), essentially because they were favourites: this betrays a lack of focus here. Democratic liberalism is spread too thinly in this election, and cannot conjure the same focussed and pseudo-partisan campaign. Hence, in another sense, Clinton was one of the recent candidates most open to threat: they were faced with continual interrogations and attacks, although their status was mobilised to get around this. While they might do decently, their campaign was unlikely to disqualify their opponent completely because they did not have that that level of trust. Hence, despite a few slips, Trump was ultimately able to return to a challenging position and eventually get past Clinton, who did not have the cleanliness or sense of immunity that would maintain their advantages. Bernie Sanders, who was generally viewed as somewhat trust-worthy, and even praised by such as Trump for it, might have avoided this obstacle. However, they would have had to rely on a Democratic infrastructure quite unsuited to promoting their half-radical cause, which is just as much an obstacle. They eventually did not get that far. This is in some ways unfortunate, but in some ways the suggestion that they wouldn't have done worse at the elections might spur further movements in this direction.
Recent times have also seen some slightly strange political commentary, such as Obama being compared to the villain of the 'Hunger Games' because they use 'hope' followed by 'fear' or threat. Peculiar. One always figured that the villain of the Hunger Games must be Slenderman. In any case, this slightly vague designation of using 'hope' followed by 'fear' could characterise the state or political movements generally, or indeed any body that enforces nation-wide law (ie. generally the primary characteristic of the state.) First they promote a cause or hope for it, then they enforce it. In general, being the villain of the Hunger Games and indeed most Russia-invoking dystopian novels is an honour only fit for socialists, and while Obama is occasionally confused with one this is not enough for them to claim the title.
In general, it was not necessarily a surprise that Sanders was not Democratic candidate, although they are the least empty candidate. Meanwhile, the two-Party rule continues, with people assuming that there is a more significant division while the Parties themselves are aware that they have near-completely ruled the state. Hence, after the appearance of a division, as a sort of minor pittance, things generally settle into a sort of uniformity punctuated by occasional 'issues' that quickly dissipate. Conservatives could not, as it now appears, trust the Republicans to put forward their political qualms. In trusting the Republicans over time, they have increasingly accepted capitulation on social issues. The Christian religion is increasingly reducing to the hatred of Islam, and both candidates' Christianity is taken for granted and no longer needs the notable displays of the Bush era. It is still pernicious, but no longer concerned about political agendas or social change - it is hence neutralised in this realm. Contemporary Christianity has as its spiritual home only the funeral, where religious praise is heaped on various people for little reason other than their celebrity. People's affection is so much for the dead, that the living who wish for such praise would do better to join the dead. The Trump-Clinton division was always likely to be uncertain, but Trump had sufficient lee-way due to Clinton's uncertain reputation. Eventually that was enough in this case. Nonetheless, there is a notable level at which this election involves a promotion of status and media promotion over politics, to the point that the latter becomes irrelevant. This problem would subsist regardless of which candidate won, and this indifference to political actors gives them some freedom to push through their apparent agenda.
Sunday, 13 November 2016
The Trump Presidency
So apparently the USA has entered a Trump Presidency. Is it that important? Not really. Even the left seem to have bought into the US election line quite thoroughly. Certain leftists object to socialist Parties using the elections (and perhaps also the monetary system), but are now panicking and railing because Clinton didn't win. For them, socialist Parties are going too far, but Heaven help us if people don't vote for - Clinton. We must, of course, dissent from this line.
The Democrats wished to promote their campaign based on name, identity politics, and celebrity, with Clinton as favourite and eventual candidate. However, Trump is obviously a more interesting campaigner than Clinton was, and the Democrats' reliance on celebrity and name instead of politics fell foul to a Trump campaign that out-did them easily on this field of battle.
The Democrats have by this point become merely a shill of identity politics, humorously the same fate as that of modern Marxism, with no political meaning. The Republicans were hence forced to take a negative stand against this, as should be understandable. Why not take on your enemy where they try to derive strength? However, Trump was forced to do this in quite uncertain ways, with occasional forays, rather than an overall approach. Trump caused offence, but only in partial ways. There was a sense of widespread and fundamental political corruption, but this was limited, vague, and had an even more vague relation to the rest of the nation and the economy. Hence, they did not totally paralyse the Democrats, merely trouble them and then ride their luck. Still, they did at least attempt to keep the campaign directed in that manner and allow for hostility towards the Democrats' shallow recent nominations.
Claims that Trump is a fascist are laughable, and should be treated so. 'Trump is a fascist,' 'Obama is a communist,' and so on are merely dramatic slogans. In this case, they did not hinder Trump nearly as much as the Democrats would like. They merely raised the question, 'Then what exactly is Hillary Clinton?' 'Uninteresting' would be the most likely answer. The Democrats attempted a campaign on shallow premises, then Trump forced them to try characterizing things as some sort of epic political struggle, which they quite simply could not support and which undermined their own campaign. This hence played into the hands of the Republicans. As much as Trump's fairly mild stance might have limited this, it was enough to give them a chance at things. When we talk of 'election controversy,' this controversy wasn't two-sided, Clinton had little to do with it, and was hardly mentioned - Trump was all that both sides were talking about, not Clinton, and it was the Republican side's to win or lose.
As much as Trump, like Obama, outdid Clinton with a campaign taking on radical trappings, there might be a lesson of sorts for Sanders supporters. Sanders often tended to down-play any radicalism, and was reluctant to go on the offence against establishment politicians in spite of Sanders' pretence of being 'revolutionary' or 'radical.' Their campaign was keen to present its views as placid and non-confrontational. In general, then, a time when few things are anathema in politics - as we saw with Trump's election - is good for socialists and has seen a rise in anti-capitalist agitation from figures like Corbyn, but the socialists and leftists will probably expend too much energy trying to re-institute these 'anathemas,' and only later realise that they are still as much the victims. Trump hence leaves official socialism in something of a bind, chasing their own tail if you like. Organisations like SPUSA or the Greens have responded in turn by a far less radical or offensive campaign than Trump's, in spite of often claiming to be 'socialist' and 'revolutionary,' which might lead you to conclude that Trump being elected instead of them is fair.
Anyway, more pressing matters.
Sadly, unlike previous elections, the candidates were not as clearly named after a $$$$$nake. While Nader of course resembles 'nadder' (or 'naedre'), a word for snakes later amended to the now popular 'adder,' this election was sadly less prominent in its representation of the United $$$nakes of America, such that despite Trump's claims to making America Great Again he might as well be President of Canada.
People should do something about this.
The common adder is also known as viperus berus, and hence Barack Obama and perhaps Bush may be given a pass here. Trump is hardly going to make a black forest racer, or Drymobius melanotropis, by building a wall across the borders. While there is some effort, it isn't really sufficient. Snakes don't even build walls.
Not that they need walls, which they are known to get past in order to victimise homeowners. In this, snakes - like the black forest racer - resemble Odysseus.
In any case, Trump is probably less alarming in the recent history of the USA than, say, Lyndon B. Johnson. When the overall dynamics of the American government system are taken into account, the space for Trump to influence would be negligible. The USA stays the same between most Presidencies, or it wouldn't seem like the same country. Donald Trump's portrayal of corruption is a stark and positive improvement on Obama's struggle for 'change' - while Obama's portrayal avoided taking issue with much, and so seemed inoffensive, Trump draws on a negative portrayal which draws on a wider criticism of society as rigged and problematic. If anything, Rev. Wright should have run in Trump's stead. Obama's Presidency was always likely to be inert, as the 'positivity' of the campaign came to nothing, such that Obama was in a way reduced to just a performance. In a way, Obama's campaign drew on a sense of cynicism or criticism that they were increasingly forced to avoid, due to PR issues as with Rev. Wright, and hence this movement was limited slightly artificially.
In any case, the elections are over, and hence that periodic drama is over. Most things that happen in official politics between election cycles, apart from wars, will be dwarfed by the prospect of further elections. If the American socialist movement remains - as it now is - a wing of liberal activism, shilling for Clinton, a vocal but comfortable part of the liberal movement, then it is unlikely to lead to anything positive. What is needed, then, is a movement suited to this American political climate that can draw on revolutionary and radical politics while remaining outside of the socialist movement.
The Democrats wished to promote their campaign based on name, identity politics, and celebrity, with Clinton as favourite and eventual candidate. However, Trump is obviously a more interesting campaigner than Clinton was, and the Democrats' reliance on celebrity and name instead of politics fell foul to a Trump campaign that out-did them easily on this field of battle.
The Democrats have by this point become merely a shill of identity politics, humorously the same fate as that of modern Marxism, with no political meaning. The Republicans were hence forced to take a negative stand against this, as should be understandable. Why not take on your enemy where they try to derive strength? However, Trump was forced to do this in quite uncertain ways, with occasional forays, rather than an overall approach. Trump caused offence, but only in partial ways. There was a sense of widespread and fundamental political corruption, but this was limited, vague, and had an even more vague relation to the rest of the nation and the economy. Hence, they did not totally paralyse the Democrats, merely trouble them and then ride their luck. Still, they did at least attempt to keep the campaign directed in that manner and allow for hostility towards the Democrats' shallow recent nominations.
Claims that Trump is a fascist are laughable, and should be treated so. 'Trump is a fascist,' 'Obama is a communist,' and so on are merely dramatic slogans. In this case, they did not hinder Trump nearly as much as the Democrats would like. They merely raised the question, 'Then what exactly is Hillary Clinton?' 'Uninteresting' would be the most likely answer. The Democrats attempted a campaign on shallow premises, then Trump forced them to try characterizing things as some sort of epic political struggle, which they quite simply could not support and which undermined their own campaign. This hence played into the hands of the Republicans. As much as Trump's fairly mild stance might have limited this, it was enough to give them a chance at things. When we talk of 'election controversy,' this controversy wasn't two-sided, Clinton had little to do with it, and was hardly mentioned - Trump was all that both sides were talking about, not Clinton, and it was the Republican side's to win or lose.
As much as Trump, like Obama, outdid Clinton with a campaign taking on radical trappings, there might be a lesson of sorts for Sanders supporters. Sanders often tended to down-play any radicalism, and was reluctant to go on the offence against establishment politicians in spite of Sanders' pretence of being 'revolutionary' or 'radical.' Their campaign was keen to present its views as placid and non-confrontational. In general, then, a time when few things are anathema in politics - as we saw with Trump's election - is good for socialists and has seen a rise in anti-capitalist agitation from figures like Corbyn, but the socialists and leftists will probably expend too much energy trying to re-institute these 'anathemas,' and only later realise that they are still as much the victims. Trump hence leaves official socialism in something of a bind, chasing their own tail if you like. Organisations like SPUSA or the Greens have responded in turn by a far less radical or offensive campaign than Trump's, in spite of often claiming to be 'socialist' and 'revolutionary,' which might lead you to conclude that Trump being elected instead of them is fair.
Anyway, more pressing matters.
Sadly, unlike previous elections, the candidates were not as clearly named after a $$$$$nake. While Nader of course resembles 'nadder' (or 'naedre'), a word for snakes later amended to the now popular 'adder,' this election was sadly less prominent in its representation of the United $$$nakes of America, such that despite Trump's claims to making America Great Again he might as well be President of Canada.
People should do something about this.
The common adder is also known as viperus berus, and hence Barack Obama and perhaps Bush may be given a pass here. Trump is hardly going to make a black forest racer, or Drymobius melanotropis, by building a wall across the borders. While there is some effort, it isn't really sufficient. Snakes don't even build walls.
Not that they need walls, which they are known to get past in order to victimise homeowners. In this, snakes - like the black forest racer - resemble Odysseus.
In any case, Trump is probably less alarming in the recent history of the USA than, say, Lyndon B. Johnson. When the overall dynamics of the American government system are taken into account, the space for Trump to influence would be negligible. The USA stays the same between most Presidencies, or it wouldn't seem like the same country. Donald Trump's portrayal of corruption is a stark and positive improvement on Obama's struggle for 'change' - while Obama's portrayal avoided taking issue with much, and so seemed inoffensive, Trump draws on a negative portrayal which draws on a wider criticism of society as rigged and problematic. If anything, Rev. Wright should have run in Trump's stead. Obama's Presidency was always likely to be inert, as the 'positivity' of the campaign came to nothing, such that Obama was in a way reduced to just a performance. In a way, Obama's campaign drew on a sense of cynicism or criticism that they were increasingly forced to avoid, due to PR issues as with Rev. Wright, and hence this movement was limited slightly artificially.
In any case, the elections are over, and hence that periodic drama is over. Most things that happen in official politics between election cycles, apart from wars, will be dwarfed by the prospect of further elections. If the American socialist movement remains - as it now is - a wing of liberal activism, shilling for Clinton, a vocal but comfortable part of the liberal movement, then it is unlikely to lead to anything positive. What is needed, then, is a movement suited to this American political climate that can draw on revolutionary and radical politics while remaining outside of the socialist movement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)