I think this article demonstrates that despite the rhetoric
and posturing, Trump is not really the outsider he's painted to be. And indeed
much of the protest emanating from Democratic circles is largely false. Yes,
they would like Trump to be gone and yes, they are using the campaign against
him to wage war on several fronts and yet they are not nearly as upset with him
as they pretend to be. His views of immigrants and poor countries are largely
shared with the Establishment but these are things that are not to be said out
loud. Trump's main problem is that he's uneducated, crude and utterly lacking
any kind of finesse or class. He may be a millionaire and grew up with money,
but his mindset resonates more with the blue-collar street. That's why so many
of that class embraced his message. If George W Bush resonated with the
'country boys' and Midwesterners, then Trump resonates with the urban working
class. As one who lives in an area where the Rust Belt and Appalachia overlap,
an area in which Trump has overwhelming support I can tell you that people
voted for him, not because of some Russian plot on Facebook but for one simple
reason... they thought he was going to bring jobs and industry back to America
and restore the communities and values of old. They were utterly deceived and
some of them are starting to realise it. The cynicism is like a cloud choking
the very air we breathe.
And yet, people quickly forget and in 2020 or 2024 people
will fall for a new line. In all honestly apart from jobs and wages, more
people are probably talking about the NFL and the 'take a knee' absurdity than
they are anything else going on in the world.
As Greenwald accurately points out, if the Democrats really
believed Trump was a grave threat or a Russian agent they would not extend
these powers to him. They had a wonderful opportunity to rip the rug out from
under him and severely curtail his powers. But they didn't. They happily handed
the keys of the power console over to him and have empowered him. They know the
Russian plot line is just a ploy, otherwise they have betrayed their country
and its system. They have no defense.
Additionally, as far as I'm concerned every member of
Congress who continues to vote for these powers (regardless of the president)
is not only anti-democratic they are by their own definitions (not mine)
traitors to their nation. They have trampled on the Constitution and the values
it purports to uphold.
But as I believe Constitutionalism is largely a myth, one
shouldn't be surprised.
Some have rightly compared the US political order to Japanese
Kabuki or some other form of stylised over-dramatised theatre. It's largely a
show, but unlike theatre it's one in which the real power is hovering behind
the surface, lurking behind a shadowy mask and sometimes becomes manifest in
the actions of the congress. It's complex and subtle but very deceptive.
There are many things Congress could do to go after Trump.
The angles they've chosen thus far are telling. They're not attacking him from
the Left, but from the Right. Obviously we will have to wait and see what
happens in the fall of 2018. If the DNC regains control of the legislative
branch, will they pursue impeachment and on what grounds? At this point they
could go after him just on his violations of the emoluments clause but the
Russian angle allows them to kill multiple birds with one stone.
This period may end up becoming like the McCarthy years, a period
of witch-hunts and labyrinths of deception, one in which there's truth mixed
with error buried under endless lies. We may be talking about this a generation
or more from now... still trying to figure out what happened. I think a lot of
people sense this is a turning point.
It certainly is for the American church. I hate to always end
on a pessimistic note but I think a bad situation is quickly turning much
worse.
I was just thinking about Ron Paul the other day, and it's funny to think how much evidence there is that both parties function along the same axis. Paul was popular, but utterly demonized by the Republican establishment and right-wing talking heads. Yes, he's a libertarian, but it's clear that his brand of capitalism does not comport with warfare-state capitalism the US depends upon. Without bombs and guns, global companies would be a lot more vulnerable. And without the bombs and guns industry, many wealthy elite lose their ultimate cash cow. Trump has, time and again, shown how most of the Republican establishment is totally indistinct from the Democratic party in all but moral-posture and their brand of dog-whistling. Trump is a wild-bull that the rump of the Neo-Cons have been steering. He is amenable, but then there is the loose twitter-feed which sends all sorts of confusing, and at times contradictory, messages.
ReplyDeleteBut, as you say, all of this will be down the memory hole. The excitement about Nunes and the memo is a sign that people have an incredibly short attention span. There'll be some outrage, but then, back to business as usual. I do think Trump is a bit of a wild-card, and he's a gamble from within a certain faction. They voted him the powers because there's plenty of evidence he can be reined in, even as his crass and boorish behavior is an easy scapegoat. But I still like the fact that Trump, on a whim, has questioned the purpose of NATO, stated that the FBI is a political tool, and even contemplate liquidating any part of the Intelligence-complex. But sadly, there is no true left in this country to even appreciate such remarks.
I had a question about recent post on other blog: you mentioned Germans brought their own heavy-handed state formation to the Mid-West. Are you referring to the Prussian model of education? Was it the rash of Hegel societies, and the idea of the triumph of civilization? I'd like to know more about that story, with whatever details you can provide.
DeleteIn addition, I had a comment: New England has an interesting dual legacy for me. On the one hand, there's what you explained in terms of state involvement in morality, compulsory regulations and policing. On the other, New England was one of the cleaner, more orderly, places within the Anglo-American world. However, to be such a place does not require Christendom, but a willingness to invest in the public good, city-planning, and a functional civil bureaucracy. I'd infinitely prefer 18th/19th c Boston to Philadelphia or New York.
But then, 17th and 18th century Dutch coastal towns also had a better reputation for cleanliness and order, and they were generally managed as secular affairs, despite the power of certain Calvinist clans. So, I guess there's a way to appreciate what New England accomplished, but lamenting the form it took. Rhode Island proved, for quite awhile, that one could have the boon without Puritan-style Babylon.
I was thinking more of just the general influence of the 48ers and the different social tradition they brought to bear on the Mid-West, in cities like Cincinnati, Milwaukee etc.... They were progressives, anti-nativist... thus many eagerly joined the Union during the Civil War, pro-labour and such.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet that doesn't mean they were Leftists in the modern sense. They were in many ways the genesis of the working class industrial pro-labour Democrats who for decades were the northern backbone of the party. They were not Libertarians and though many have (from 1968-present) gone over to the GOP, they do not embrace that ideology nor are they (for the most part) very keen on racial integration. They are/were conservative democrats... a notion that no longer fits within our spectrum.
I understand what you're saying about New England. It's funny, you can go deeper on that and talk about shabbiness and litter (like outside Philadelphia) vs. clean streets but filthy public spaces, restaurants, restrooms, not to mention hygiene etc...
There's a dynamic at work and it plays out in a lot of different ways. I remember Missouri was run down and filthy, and crossing into Arkansas everything was tidy and clean by comparison. Why? I don't know.
Culturally it makes no sense. If anything I would have argued the reverse. Richmond VA struck me as a dump, while SW Virginia, the Appalachia part is actually quite tidy.... at least prima facie.
I've not been to Boston. It's never been very high on my list. I didn't like what I experienced of Massachusetts. Vermont was beautiful but something was a bit off.... it was a rural but didn't feel particularly wild. It was like rich people playing at being farmers. A very superficial analysis.
I actually prefer the run-down and dilapidated. I like Italy, not Germany.
I think I'd rather live in Pittsburgh than Boston. It's all trade-offs.
As of late I've been driving into Southern Tier New York for work. Pennsylvania roads are narrow, potholed and poorly plowed. New York roads are wide and clear of snow... and they get more of it. New York has better services but they pay for it in restrictive laws and taxes. Sometimes I want to move there, sometimes I want to move farther away.
I don't mind the run down and dilapidated either, aesthetically speaking. I was referring mostly to the harder realities of city-life: water, sewage, food supplies, housing. So when I'm talking about clean I'm thinking mostly in terms of disease, food/water contamination, human waste. Boston had a reputation for cleanliness, whereas London was absolute filth. I have to look at God's grace in the technological innovations for better water distribution, sewage and trash removal, etc. I'm glad cholera, yellow fever, small pox have been wiped out or are now manageable. So I appreciate the form of local order that was possible in at least New England cities, but of course, this was not only possible among non-Christian peoples, but they did all of this in such a way to create Babylon.
DeleteOkay, I understand where you're coming from now. Yes, there are advantages to order and planning. Sometimes when I'm working at a job where the Amish are involved... one is reminded of how streets used to be... smells and all. Additionally there's not a lot of coal burning around here, but some. You will catch it in the wind sometimes especially when driving through certain areas. It's not a real nice smell. Every time I catch it I think of Victorian London (oh and maybe old Pittsburgh) and how unpleasant and oppressive that would have been....
ReplyDeleteI enjoy visiting the city but as I think about things like water.... I really appreciate living out in the middle of nowhere. Sadly though a lot of our water has been contaminated by fracking. It's not heavy in our area but I know people affected by it. Out water is most excellent but sadly they're cracking down on septic tanks and my 140yr old house.... and probably 80yr old tank.... ain't gonna pass the inspection.
How is Boston today? Like I said I haven't been there. Of all the East Coast cities I've visited Philly struck me as the dirtiest...maybe Baltimore.
I haven't been out west in about 25 years but last I recall the freeways in California were dirty and the water... toilet water is more like it. I drank a lot of soda in high school because the water was so awful and that was back when bottled water wasn't very common... and soda wasn't all that cheap. People still thought it was nuts to 'buy' water and wouldn't do it. I remember on hot days to cool down I would drink milk. Blech, that doesn't sound too appealing now.
I've never been to Boston either, I was mostly going by historical records and accounts in centuries past. I think it still has a reputation for cleanliness, but I think that all depends where you live. Even if the Southside is rough (which I've heard), it still functions under a city government that uses its energies for proper city order and efficiency.
DeleteWhich raises another question: Boston was pretty clean throughout the 18th and 19th century, but certainly part of that was its selectivity of immigrants. While the city has strong Irish and Jewish presence, it was not the hub for immigrants the way many other major cities were. It was a Republican stronghold for the longest time, when such meant nativism and strong social conformity. Which is to say that if you're anti-nativism, which means today pro-immigrant and pro-DACA, you have to reckon that it was Boston that was clean and New York which was politically corrupt, civilly inept, and extremely dirty. It's easy to think of the charms of immigrant neighborhoods when you don't have to live through lack of clean running water, lack of ventilation, lack of effective sewage and garbage removal, etc. I'm not trying to argue for nativism, but there's a reason that many of the people who don't live with the effects of immigration usually support it the most. Of course, there's a difference between the people who gain from it and the people who repeat the talking-points, following an ideal they hardly comprehend.
Which leads me to look at the immigration crisis in Europe, among both the new Syrian population, but also the longer-standing immigration from North Africa and West Africa to places like the Netherlands, France, and Italy. I don't much care for the "Western canon" or the new Right's emphasis on the West's cultural patrimony (social democracy, feminism, homosexuals, etc.) and the need for nationalist defense of it. But, for the purposes of social order, failing to integrate these people results in places like the Parisian suburbs, where ghetto mentality flourishes. I don't really care what language we speak or what secular-civil standards I need to abide, but a shared set is the only way people will keep the peace without the need for forced, outward, conformity (i.e. militant police shakedowns, curfews, censorship). My thought that it is only in such a standstill of hostility, where all rival sacralisms are held in check by fear of another, that the Church can flourish, but such moments seem far and few between!
By the way I was referring to the Amish horses and their mess, not (necessarily) the Amish-men themselves. I could say more but I won't.
ReplyDelete