Unless something very strange happens Donald Trump will win the Republican candidacy to run for President of the USA. It is reasonable to ask how a man with no experience of government, no apparent political sense, and with views that are considered offensive by so many achieved this.
The answer is, of course, money. In fairness, the money in question appears to be Trump's own. Many in the USA are seduced by that fact alone: this is the supposed American Dream. But there is something much deeper than that to be said.
What Trump has done is use money in the way a neoclassical economist might assume appropriate. He has bought favour. He has ignored the externalities of his behaviour. He has maximised his return without consideration for the consequence. He has focussed solely on his own gain and not considered the consequence for anyone else. Trump is then the epitome of that being we thought was a fiction but which turns out to have a personification after all, which is homo economicus. The ultimately rational, frighteningly indifferent subject of the microeconomics text book now has a new form. It is homo politicus, and Donald Trump is its manifestation.
But in that case we should not be surprised at his appeal. He is after all the the living embodiment of the state to which neoclassical economics would have us all aspire. If indifference is the state that economic theory suggests we should aspire to then Trump proves that, at least in the short term, it really can work as a role model for some who have been taught that this is what success requires.
It is frightening (I use the word advisedly) that Trump is in the position he now commands.
But, and I cannot stress this enough, the fact that theory that teaches that his behaviour is not only rational but to be expected and admired is taught in almost all universities as if it is economics is just as, if not more, frightening.
It is said we reap what we sow. It looks as if the USA might.
But if change is to happen then start by sweeping away the assumptions that underpin the callousness of much economic theory. Then we might have a chance of building a better world.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The Trump phenomenon is the logical conclusion of a long process, and the Republican party is in effect reaping its own whirlwind. You may find this article from Mother Jones interesting.
Agreed. GOP’s “southern strategy” has created its ultimate fear of others monster.
I don’t think we can exclude the issue of race with regard to the rise of Trump either, Richard.
Watching Trump inch close to potential power is like having a ring side seat at Armageddon.
The GOP’s Trump problem is one of their own making, partly through their visceral hatred to Obama being president for two terms.
There is a large part of white America that is still reeling from the shock of having had to put up with that ‘uppity’ black man in their Whitehouse. All those white people Tea Party who were muttering that he is a Muslim and not a real American haven’t gone away. Many of them are euphorically cheering at Trump rallies and yee-hawing when they hear him say he will build that wall and make Mexico pay for it! Trump even has the nutters in the KKK backing him!
Trump’s narrative is an updated script of the Southern Strategy utilised to great success by Nixon and Reagan previously, playing on the fears and appealing to the worst of human instincts. The racists are being assured that white supremacy is not under threat and Trump has their backs
But you know what is weird? I reckon that Ted Cruz is the bigger danger.
We all know that Trump is just a conman who will say anything to get the crowd to love him.
If Trump thought that saying climate change is real and we’re going to fix it would get people cheering, then he would say just that.
The difference with Cruz is that he actually fundamentally believes that crazy right wing religious stuff he says. That guy is a bible believing bigot.
Let’s just hope that come November, most Americans choose Hillary or Bernie.
I agree John. The constant complaint underlying the last 8 years of the Obama ascendancy, is “We want our country back” – which I have always interpreted as “We don’t want a black president”.
My fear is that if Hillary becomes the Democratic candidate, that widespread racism will be reflected as misogyny, and many shy male chauvinists (and female ones too) will be quietly voting fo the alpha male Trump. Order will be restored, and all will be right with the world, and America will have its country back.
Trump is at best a clever lying con-man, but the views he espouses, whether genuinely held, or simply as vote getters, are dangerous.
As Piers Morgan said of him yesterday, – I’d love to be a fly on the wall in the first Trump – Putin exchange. How indeed did it come to this?
Good points
Its also an example of media manipulation so the blame also lies there: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/01/on-trump-the-con-man/
and our media is just as useless. When did we hear an interviewer clearly state that the politician has failed to answer the question, and we will move to another question but note that no answer has been given.
@John
I agree that Cruz may be a bigger danger. I’m no economist but rather a scientist and the complete and utter garbage he seems to believe regarding Climate Change beggars belief. One is reminded of 1984 or Kafka. He is supposedly a very formidable lawyer and sadly is very persuasive apparently to scientific illiterate people who would prefer if anthropogenic climate change was not happening.
I lived in the US at the end of the Carter era and saw the “Southern Strategy” being used by Regan. Pretty much all my American friends at the time thought the Regan victory was a cataclysmic disaster and some refuse to even mention his name till this day!
Sean it is acceptted that there is climate change and damage to the environment which has anthropogenic causes.
A few quick examples are:-
Fukishima and other leaking nuclear power stations.
Deforestation around the world.
Fracking damaging the water table – which hopefully has been completely killed off by the crash in the oil price.
The dumping of untreated waste in the rivers lakes and seas
To introduce a Carbon tax as the antidote would be the most ridiculous thing in world history if it were not for the thoroughly pernicious purveyors perpetrating this out right scam!
If you think a “carbon tax ” is the answer then I recommend that you do far more research on this issue.
Trump is an odd mixture of things trying to soak up bits of everything:
1) Feel good factor -‘let’s make America Great again’
2) Yet-anti foreign wars-so that soaks up the anti-war brigade on the right
3) He stands for the American Dream and rugged ‘individualism’ bullshit.
4) Yet degenerately sounds brashly anti-establishment whilst being the establishment.
Gross opportunist like a Boris Johnson cross bread with red-neck traits (Dr. Perkins would be proud!).
What worries me more than Trump is the African American vote going to Clinton -barely believable despite prominent figure endorsing Bernie -these results are hitting like a replay of last May when we had our ‘Turkeys Voting For Christmas’.
Sanders has achieved a lot, we must remember that in the space of a few months and with a mainstream media operating a virtual blackout on him for most of the time-so there is hope there but little sign it will translate into real power change -ah well back to the protest movements – things will have to get worse before the light bulbs go on in frazzled zombified heads! (Sorry, letting off steam a bit!)
We all need to do that sometimes
Indeed we are reaping what we sow, Richard. And as another example, here in the UK super Tuesday was also the day that the snoopers’ charter started its passage into law and thus signaled the end of every citizen of this country’s right to privacy (a basic human right).
This policy and how it has come about also stands as yet another example of this government’s utter contempt for democracy and any form of check and balance or restraint on the use of state (Tory) power. If that weren’t worrying enough, we aren’t even one year into this government. What the list of its abuses will be by 2020 is anyone’s guess as it’s already exceeded even my worst nightmares of how extreme a government with an overall majority in a parliamentary dictatorship of the type we have in the UK (or at least in England and Wales) is prepared to go. On both sides of the Atlantic there are reasons to be very, very afraid.
Agreed
Donald Trump has found the defining political insight of 21st-Century American politics: the Presidential primaries are in equal parts a beauty contest and a reality TV show.
He is, of course, a successful businessman in both of those.
It helps that Trump knows his audience: the party base, and whatever disaffected dupes he can bring on board by demagoguery to swamp the regulars. Not that the regulars – the local activists – are reflective of the general electorate: many of them hold extreme views that are a caricature if right-wing white American politics. Demagoguery *works* on them.
And the money?
The serious money is hanging back, uncommitted; and rightly so, for the remaining candidates are useless to serious donors – none of them has demonstrated an ability to get things done. They are, quite simply, terrible at politics and utterly, laughably awful at government.
Ted Cruz, the candidate with the second-fastest clown car in the circus, is Mr budget deadlock: dangerous and damaging to all rational financial interests. No super-PAC for him!
So Trump, and the trivial tens if millions that he’s prepared to spend, are leading: but his consumnate media skills, his ability to grab the headlines and hold them, would need hundreds of millions of dollars *and* a charismatic candidate, to counteract or reproduce the Trump momentum.
It also needs one candidate to step forward, and the others to retire: Trump can win the nomination, just by polling 35% consistently in a four- or five-horse race. But the other candidates are egotists, no-compromise confrontationists – House Republicans! – and they won’t give anything up for the common good.
Take that analysis as a reflection ob latter-day American conservatism, and despair.
Meanwhile, Google for Matt Taibbi’s essays on “The Clown Car Race”: all the explanations you are looking for are there.
You forget Nile Trunp doesn’t have the support of Neo Cons or RINOs, who intend to trip him up by hook or crook…..
I think its a case of the lesser of a few evils!
I certainly wouldn’t want to side with the Koch Brothers or the Big Banks!
The Berne is out of it regrettably because of the scam of the Democrats super delegates vote.
If you think Clinton would make a better president than Trump then you really ought to start looking into her background ..you need to go on the tour from Whitewater to Benghazi!
Spot the difference:
– Lies
– Refusal to answer questions
– Defence of wealth and privilege
– Ad hominem attacks
– Huge advertising budgets
– Obfuscation
– Use of prejudice and fear
Trump or Conservative party?
You couldn’t get a cigarette paper between either.
It is because Trump is “a man with no experience of government” that he has greatly increased appeal – he is untarnished. Also as he is using his own money (in fact I think much of it was his father’s!) he is not tarnished by the banks either. Which is probably why some Sanders supporters in Colorado have been reported as intending to support Trump if Sanders is not the democratic candidate. (Hilary has been VERY well paid for speaking by her banking friends.)
I wonder if the Presidency might just be won by whoever is the anti-banks candidate?
If so, that is one thing I actually wouldn’t mind importing from America.
US Presidential campaigns have increasingly become very expensive pantomines, they come round every few years for the entertainment of the American people in a vain attempt to find a worthy elected head of state from a very odd bunch of candidates.
Putting the current candidates aside for a moment, it says more about the sad state of what remains of any slight semblance of political democracy in the US.
The American people have very good reason to feel let down by their previous political leaders, but they should really be questioning the whole structure of their political and economic system which now means that whoever they vote for is unlikely to be anything but a puppet for the oligarchs and financial institutions that control everything that happens in the US now.
In some ways, having a clown like Trump chosen as the Republican candidate may just remind enough Americans who can remember what the equally clown like Reagan (or rather the financial stooges who were pulling his strings) did to their country that at least whoever is the Democratic candidate (most likely the safe conservative Clinton) is more likely to retain the Presidency.
Clinton won’t be much better in terms of looking after her financial backers, but at least has some real world experience to temper too many knee jerk reactions to world events.
Keith,
Who exactly would you say are Hillary’s political backers? Would it surprise you that she has more Republican money than the Republican candidates?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-22/hillary-clinton-backed-major-republican-donors
As for Hillary and knee jerk reactions, think Libya, for it was she who coined the phrase “We came, we saw, he died”. In my humble opinion she is the biggest hawk in the running for GOP.
It doesn’t surprise me at all Duchie, I’m under no illusion that Hillary is not just as corrupt as old Bill was and will blow whichever way the big money takes her.
I would much rather see Sanders win the nominations and try to take the US in an entirely new direction, but reality is he is a relatively unknown figure to much of the American public and is fighting a massive battle against vested financial interests while having to crowdsource money from small private donors to try to get his message across and compete. He’s not out completely but it will take a minor miracle (or Clinton to implode which is not impossible) for him to win against these sort of odds.
But that is the sad reality of US politics, the big financial backers will be placing each way bets on their preferred candidates from either the red or blue team to ensure they keep control of the rudder no matter who gets elected.
That’s the mess the US has got itself in, even worse now that Citizen’s United legal decision that corporations are people and they can throw as much money as they want into the ring. The US judiciary is now about as corrupt as the politicians are in my opinion!
Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz were his opposition. If anyone had been following the US GOP presidency campaign, Trump sounds no less wacko than the other two – he just has a personality and hairdo to match. In truth, none of the candidates except for Sanders (and he is Russophobic)have any conscience whatsoever, are corrupt and border on white straight jacket assylum candidates. As a consequence, Trump was just the lucky lesser of several evils.
It isn’t just money it’s voters with a low level of understanding how anything works. Go to Trump’s website and look under the section marked “Issues” he roundly declares that a $19 trillion dollar National Debt (which is simply money in the private sector that hasn’t been retracted by taxes) has to be got rid of which if you understand money as being at root “relational information” (that enables us to contract with each other) would result in the American and global economies crashing and none of Trump’s objectives achieved. Same with Hilary Clinton who’s husband was in large measure responsible for the global recession by running a government surplus.
Had Bill Clinton not set about:
a) dismantling America’s already poor welfare system
b) colluded with the corporations to outsource millions of jobs
c) gave corporate America tens of millions of migrant labourers to compete with an American working class already reeling from 12 years of Reagan and Bush
and had George Bush II not continued those policies then Trump would not exist.
American culture is about material prosperity. There is no point denying that or wagging the finger. Many cultures around the world prize money. In the US, millions upon millions of people have seen their standard of living slide and slide and slide for decades. Many live with huge insecurity and crippling debts. Homelessness is rife. They are scared and they are angry.
At the same time, the Democrats, who were supposed to be on the side of the ordinary guy have indulged themselves in a culture war over highly sensitive issues and have led the world in pursuing the poison that is identity politics. As such they have alienated millions of white American voters – the historic majority who will be a minority in just a few decades and who are now committing suicide in record numbers http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22391293.
The Republicans meanwhile have spent years pursuing heartless attacks on the poor and ignoring those middle class Americans who feel they are living on the edge of a precipis.
Trump then represents the primal scream of the historic majority of the United States* which knows it is literally dying. I think one has to live in America before one can understand what an angry fear filled place it is. Given the history of mankind and given basic human psychology, is it realky surprising that so many of those people see Trump as a kind of saviour? Someone who offers to give them back their material dreams and who will not make them feel guilty for being WASPs? If it is understandable that Obama should give so much hope to African Americans, I find it hard to understand why Trump should not offer hope to another ethnicity.
This doesn’t make it a good thing but it is hardly irrational. And given that the European left, in bizarre cahoots with the corporations and banks which have demanded ever more immigration since the 1990s, one wonders if such a state of affairs will come to pass here. Don’t believe me? Look at what David Goodhart is writing about now: http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/arts-and-books/citizenship-tests-european-politics-orgad-cultural-defence-of-nations-review
And the look at the exultant comments from Labour party activists like Lee Jasper at this news: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/sep/03/race.world
The best the left seems to offer is continual exhortations to believe that ‘diversity is strength’. This is despite all the empirical evidence from around the world that it isn’t: http://www.edwest.co.uk/uncategorized/does-diversity-makes-us-unhappy/#content
Or indeed that opposition to, or conflict over, such profound changes are not actually very common:
– http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21485729
– http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-32372501
– http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/396058.stm
– http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24514345
One is left wanting to go and hide in a cave. Forever.
*usually at this point someone brings up the collapse of the Native American civilization as if this makes the replacement of an entire ethnic group somehow acceptable, desirable or justifiable. Which kind of illustrates how low morality and understanding has fallen among many on the left.
One article you site has the following in it:
“The extent to which this is learned is still not known, but studies of children aged 3 show that racial stereotypes and preferences are ubiquitous by that age, and in all races; the only children who display no racial prejudice are those suffering from Williams syndrome, a brain disorder caused by the deletion of 26 genes from chromosome 7. Evolutionary psychologists such as E O Wilson have found much evidence showing that tribal feeling is innate, and that this leads people from an early age to express a preference for those like them in language and appearance”
I find this sort of cheap ‘scientism’ utterly repulsive. The notion of tribal feeling being innate is highly questionable – why would early Christianity have developed which was an attempt to overcome ethnic identity? Why would Buddhism have stressed non-identification as a guiding principle. This is just more lowest-common-denominator evolutionary psychology.
Agreed Simon
I agree too – it is in all probability junk. And indeed they could have more honestly left it as just:
“The extent to which this is learned is still not known”
In order to answer much of this question then I recommend that you find the time to read Guy Standing’s ‘The Precariat’: The New Dangerous Class (2011).
This book articulates well the reason why Fart (and other people unfit for leadership) is a major contender. This also seems to be a genuine problem in most Western countries.
Great talk by Standing about book here:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OraivQ45ME
He is unrelentingly scathing about neo-liberalism!
I’m sorry to to have to disagree with a lot of the points raised here, but the support for Trump has nothing to do with race “Obama” or gender “Clinton”.
Both individuals are deeply corrupt and puppets of Big Finance – I’m sorry I simply don’t have time here to list all the references to this. I suggest any contributor that wishes to start venturing down the “rabbit hole” type in the words “Clinton” and “Benghazi”, “IRS” and “political weapon”, “Clinton” and “Goldman Sachs” “Justice Scalia” plus “Obama”, “Seymour Hersh” and “Osama Bin Laden” and “Obama” plus “Wall Street”. There is of course much much more…
Trump in common with Sanders is anti-establishment and upsetting the oligarchy to the extent that you even have an NY Times journalist joking about Trumps’s campaign being brought to an end with his assassination!
A growing number of US citizens are fed up with their “corporatist” government whom they realise are not resolving issues but simply causing more problems. Try “Al Sharpton” and “Obama” plus “race baiting”
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/David-Clarke-sheriff-Barack-Obama-Eric-Holder/2014/12/04/id/611185/
Try searching “Obama”, “Soros” and “Clinton” you can link this to the “Black Lives Matter” which has turned into a racist organization in the same way that ” La Raza” and the “KKK” are racist organisation.
After doing this research and considering Trump’s promises you will start to see why he has growing support and the establishment are starting to resort to dirty tricks to derail him.
Of course there is the worry that we have another dictator, but a lot of ordinary Americans feel it is a risk worth taking and I can’t say I blame them!
I’ll end with this link:-
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-02/jesse-ventura-says-he-might-run-president-if-bernie-sanders-isnt-nominated
“Trump in common with Sanders is anti-establishment”
That was an argument I recall hearing about Reagan and Georgi W. Seems some people like to be fooled all the time. If Trump was not part of the establishment he would not have got anywhere near this far becsuse if you are not part of the establishment you don’t even get to first base. He is, like his predecessors above, merely pretending to be anti establishment and, sadly, suckers continue to fall for this bollox.
I am prepared to agree with you that both Clinton and Trump are involved with the ‘Big Finance’ which they regard as the natural order and to be worked for their own desired ends. But the other issues are very strong. I keep up with family through facebook and see a number of the American posts and read the comments on the links. Many in the USA seem to believe that Obama is not only a socialist (!) but also a Muslim. There are many posts and sites which, frankly, are just invitations to hate. Two de-contextualised pieces of information set alongside each other and an invitation to make a shallow moral choice. Obama has used his office to challenge the continuing treatment and attitudes towards minorities. Yet the racist language of many of those posts is often justified by appeals to the First amendment (free speech). Obama’s intervention is disparaged as racist or reverse racism -the point made in your last link.
The formally dominant groups who liked to think of themselves as the real Americans are losing their position and confidence and one of the consequences of this is the scapegoating of the minorities. I am not saying that their declining power is their fault or that it is deserved. The middle class did not outsource jobs or create financial scams. But there is a danger that they will attack targets set up by clever manipulators to avoid challenge to the real villiens.
Can I recommend that you watch a very thoughtful documentary on Vimeo:
Lifting the Veil: Obama and the Failure of Capitalist Democracy.
https://duckduckgo.com/l/?kh=-1&uddg=https%3A%2F%2Fvimeo.com%2F20355767
I think it explains very well what is going on in American politics post 2008.
Hmmmmm – that link is a bit of a dog’s breakfast and does not work. Try this instead:
vimeo.com%2F20355767
https://vimeo.com/20355767
A good find PSR, quite distressing in places but it pretty much sums up the completely dysfunctional nature of most US domestic and foreign policy.
One of the contributors to Lifting the Veil is US economist Michael Hudson. Not come across him before but after reading the first few posts on his blog I am finding he has very interesting views on current macro economics/politics and the planned return to a global form of neo-feudal rentier-ism….
http://michael-hudson.com/
Thanks Keith.
The most heartening thing about the documentary is that it seems to be made in America – which along with Inside Job, The Flaw and Inequality for All shows me at least that America is not solely inhabited by gung-ho, Ayn Rand worshipping market fundamentalists.
In other words – there is hope!
There is some hope for the US and plenty of good American people who know exactly what is wrong with their system and the crooks that run it. Sanders would not have even considered running for Presidential candidate if he didn’t feel there was enough support from those disillusioned with the current set of financial robber barons and their political puppets who run the country.
But the US electoral system, even more than the UK’s, is rigged for only the reds or the blues to compete (i.e. no real competition at all) and only the candidates backed by the big money are likely to win.
So the Americans have got to find a way to break the system if there is any way for real change (hence why 300 million guns is perhaps the bigger threat to US politicians and its been a while since the last assassination!)
Trump’s success apes that of Jeremy Corbyn when he won the Labour leadership.
Both elections involved multiple candidates, comprising several clones and one maverick. When the opposition vote is divided the maverick triumps. The Republican party have failed to endorse a credible candidate early enough hampered by the arrogance of some candidates who have chosen not to give up when it’s clear they don’t stand a chance.
I presume you mean self employed, but given my error rate I assure you that is not a criticism
Interesting comparison on the BBC today of Trump’s position on some key issues versus past Republican presidents and fellow candidates.
Ted Cruz’s position on tax is notable for all the wrong reasons!
Ted Cruz’s plan is the outlier in the group. He’s the only Republican candidate left who is pitching a major change to the existing tax structure, including a 10% flat tax for individuals and a 16% tax on corporations that replaces the existing corporate income and payroll taxes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35703300
The one thing you can say about all their tax plans is they will trash the US economy
Arguably the most convincing piece of research can be found here:
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism
Where researches have correlated the support for Trump with those individuals and groups most inclined towards authoritarianism.
It is a fairly long article but the research is far more convincing than the argument about diversity offered up by the poster Tryto – which when I read it seemed, like economics, too eager to deduce what it had already assumed, which is the antithesis of the scientific method.
Some of this is worth quoting, particularly the standard definition of tendancy towards authoritatianism:
“Feldman developed what has since become widely accepted as the definitive measurement of authoritarianism: four simple questions that appear to ask about parenting but are in fact designed to reveal how highly the respondent values hierarchy, order, and conformity over other values.
Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: independence or respect for elders?
Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: obedience or self-reliance?
Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: to be considerate or to be well-behaved?
Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: curiosity or good manners?”
and
“The social threat theory helps explain why authoritarians seem so prone to reject not just one specific kind of outsider or social change, such as Muslims or same-sex couples or Hispanic migrants, but rather to reject all of them”
This activation could come from feeling threatened by social changes such as evolving social norms or increasing diversity, or any other change that they believe will profoundly alter the social order they want to protect. In response, previously more moderate individuals would come to support leaders and policies we might now call Trump-esque.”……
Assessing the level of fear of social change this research found:
“The first thing that jumped out from the data on authoritarians is just how many there are. Our results found that 44 percent of white respondents nationwide scored as “high” or “very high” authoritarians, with 19 percent as “very high.” That’s actually not unusual, and lines up with previous national surveys that found that the authoritarian disposition is far from rare1.”
“Today, according to our survey, authoritarians skew heavily Republican. More than 65 percent of people who scored highest on the authoritarianism questions were GOP voters. More than 55 percent of surveyed Republicans scored as “high” or “very high” authoritarians.
And at the other end of the scale, that pattern reversed. People whose scores were most non-authoritarian – meaning they always chose the non-authoritarian parenting answer – were almost 75 percent Democrats.”
The charts presented in parts VI, VII, & VIII of the paper/article are revealing of the mindset of a sizable number of our fellow human beings not just in the USA but also in the UK.
Unfortunately, what this paper does not tell us is what non authoritarians might do about the threat posed to them in particular and society in general from the puerile mindset that is authoritarianism.
thanks a very interesting study. I was wondering why Mussolini dis so well. Also I never understood why Thatcher was so admired – this might explain the mindset. What is worrying is that I thought these authoritarianism people were only about 25% of the population. My father was in Nazi Germany from 1937 to July 1939 doing his PhD; his observations were that it could happen anywhere.
Here is another interesting article from the Atlantic:
theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/the-violence-to-come/471924/
And the New Yorker:
newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/the-problem-with-the-never-trump-movement
Probably the best, most holistic article that I’ve read on Trump’s rise. I couldn’t find the original Herald link so I’m copying and pasting.
“When I joined the Catholic Herald in September 2007, the American media were starting to talk up a junior senator from Illinois with a confusingly foreign name. This Barack Obama was going to heal America’s wounds and bring us a post-racial future, or at least that’s what I recall Radio 4 telling me.
Now, in 2016, no one talks of hope and change any more. This year’s US presidential election is dominated by a candidate offering fear and hopelessness, Donald Trump stunning the Republican establishment by running on a platform similar to Pat Buchanan’s in 1992 — and winning hands down.
The key to Trump’s success is not just that he’s an aggressive alpha male at a time when it feels like America needs a strongman; it is that he has also fought a successful class war against the Republican establishment. If you look at the polls, the one concern that agitates Trump supporters more than anything else is welfare, and whether there will be any state entitlements to help them when hard times fall. This prompts them to ask a further question: where are the leaders who will stand up for them?
Trump’s politics aren’t actually that conservative on either social or economic issues. He isn’t especially pro-life and is fairly warm towards socialised medicine. He is almost as critical of Wall Street as the Democrats and he condemns the Iraq War and other foreign adventures. He is, in fact, a European-style nationalist.
Nationalism is not just about tribalism or other irrational feelings of aggression and hostility; a strong nation state entails a more generous social security net, which is why welfare systems developed most extensively in small, homogenous countries like Denmark. By restricting immigration from poor countries, nationalism protects wages for the unskilled, but perhaps more importantly, it helps to provide the social solidarity that so many Americans (and Europeans) feel is vanishing in a churning world.
The root cause of Trumpism was foreseen by political philosopher Christopher Lasch in his 1994 book The Revolt of the Elites, in which he explained how the new ruling class had become radical and international, and was drifting away from the more parochial lumpen middle class. The new elite, unlike the old, despises any notion of patriotism. In contrast, Lasch writes, multiculturalism “suits them to perfection, conjuring up the agreeable image of a global bazaar in which exotic cuisines, exotic styles of dress, exotic music, exotic tribal customs can be savoured indiscriminately, with no questions asked and no commitments required”.
What Lasch saw in 1994, but which has only now reached its apogee, is how social revolution would be pushed forward by the radical rich and resisted by the masses. As he wrote: “It is not just that the masses have lost interest in revolution; their political instincts are demonstrably more conservative than those of their self-appointed spokesmen and would-be liberators. It is the working and lower middle classes, after all, that favour limits on abortion, cling to the two-parent family as a source of stability in a turbulent world, resist experiments with ‘alternative lifestyles’, and harbour deep reservation about affirmative action and other adventures in large-scale social engineering.”
Classic Marxist theory always held that nationalism was created by the bourgeoisie to keep the proletariat down. But today’s elite eschew nationalism in favour of an internationalism that is both more profitable and also a status symbol. The anger driving Trump’s supporters is that both America’s leading parties represent this new elite.
In Britain we have a similar phenomenon with Ukip, a heavily lower middle-class party that represents hostility to both multiculturalism and the European Union — two interconnected globalist ideas championed by those at the top. When actress Emma Thompson said last week that we should stay in the European Union because Britain is “a tiny little cloud-bolted, rainy corner of sort-of Europe, a cake-filled, misery-laden grey old island”, her comments were as much a class signifier as saying “napkin”, “lavatory” or “drawing room” would have been a century ago. No one wishing to show their membership of the new high-status, ethical, globalised eco-aristocracy would think anything else.
What makes the new elite insufferable, as Lasch saw, was that their identity politics has become a replacement for religion — “or at least for the feeling of self-righteousness that is so commonly confused with religion”.
We’ll see lots more of this in the run-up to the Brexit referendum. Aside from the technical and rational arguments for leaving or remaining, the debate produces a class-based emotional response. On one side, patriotism and parochialism. On the other, internationalism and “oikophobia” — which Roger Scruton defines as “the repudiation of inheritance and home”.
After eight and a half happy years at the Herald, I’m departing for pastures new. The world has become a scarier and more unstable place, but the newspaper, now a magazine, goes from strength to strength, a clear voice in a changing world. I would never have guessed in 2007 that when I left Donald Trump would be close to the White House, Jeremy Corbyn leader of the Labour Party and Leicester City top of the premiership.”