The world is still in quite reasonable shock as a consequence of Trump's attempted coup. It will take a while for the recovery from a US President seeking to overturn his election result with violence to take place.
And maybe it will not. Maybe the legacy of that event will be more violence in politics. After all, that has always been the fall back tool of fascism, and fascism is now out in the open. Maybe a new era has arrived.
If it has, there is only one way to defeat it. That is by delivering what people need to feel safe. It's an observable fact, after all, that most people are not violent. It's very obviously true that most people will, most of the time, live peacefully, if not happily. So the real question is, what tips the balance? Knowing that provides the answer to the question, how do we deal with this?
I have three answers unless I am heading off into the realms of writing a book, which I do not have time to do this morning. The first is ‘be fair'. The second is ‘be honest'. The third is ‘deliver hope'. I will address each in turn.
Be fair
I suspect there are very few people in the world who believe that fairness means sharing available resources equally. It is obvious that this is neither practical, or even, because of differing needs, desirable.
However, deep inside all of us (even if hard to spot in some cases) there is a sense of fairness. It is a natural human condition to care. It is another normal human trait to want to relieve suffering in others. Those concerns are what drive our sense of fairness. We label those who apparently lack these apparent concerns precisely because that is so abnormal.
What we know is that the world we live in is unfair. Real wages increase very slowly. Under Trump the S&P 500 has increased by more than 65% in value. Few resent a person who has worked hard reaping a fair reward, subject to their paying all taxes due on it within the spirit of the law. But unearned gains of that order, ‘earned' by simple reason of having wealth at the start of the period are bound to irritate. When it is apparent that policy in the form of tax cuts drove these gains they should do more than that.
We live in an unfair world. As awareness of that grows, so too does disquiet.
Be honest
Of course, it can be said that Trump secured his support amongst middle and working class Americans despite his pursuit of policy that so obviously suited the interests of his class and not theirs. Which then brings me to my second theme.
Trump has lied about what he has done. There should be no surprise in that. Trump has always lied. But what Trump has done elevates political lying to a new order. Literally anything can be lied about. Regard for the truth is non-existent. So his claim is that increasing on-paper wealth is good for America. It is, in fact, the American dream (when it isn't). But he ignores the reality that millions are automatically excluded from that dream, by his choice. So he lies about that too.
The result is a deeply confused and angry electorate. They know their lived reality does not accord with the claims. And within that conflict the seeds of doubt that fuel conflict grow.
We see it here too, of course. In the UK the second most obvious flaw in the Johnson government, ranking only after its love of cronyism, is its dedication to lying whenever possible. The history of claims that never could, and so have not been, met, is growing by the day. And that too sows doubt, just when confidence is required. Hence my third theme.
Deliver hope
Politics is in a dark place right now. Injustice and dishonesty have created the opportunity for populism to flourish. I would suggest that this has not happened by chance. But what that means is that something very different has to be delivered by politicians wanting to deliver an alternative. That alternative is hope.
Hope has an unusual quality. It is only forward looking. It is the promise that things will get better. Blair, of course, mined this theme with the help of D.ream in 1997. The only problem was that he did not have the vision to match it. He just wanted to deliver more of the same with a bit (but not much) more social justice thrown in. He looked back, and that's not where hope is to be found.
So, hope requires a plan that meets the mood of the moment. I, unsurprisingly, suggest that the Green New Deal is that plan. And the plan has to have three qualities.
It must meet existential need, in this case for survival.
It must meet individual need, in this case for work opportunity within a fair community.
And it must be believed to be possible in terms of delivery.
I may be wrong, but I think the first two are deliverable. Is the third? MMT clearly explains the possibility. But so far the vested interests continue to lie like fury about that delivery option. Meanwhile, QE goes on, but with the problem attached that it increases inequality, which is one of the issues to be addressed and not exacerbated. Honesty about how to address this issue has to be added in that case; without it the rest is not possible.
Summary
Where are we? Reasonably scared, is my suggestion. And yet alternatives are possible. But communicating honestly about the fairness they can delivered is possible, despite the lies of those who oppose change, and the honest recognition that flaws In current delivery mechanisms need to be addressed.
There is an alternative if these issues can be dealt with. It just takes time, and we have to pray that we have it.
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:
Great post. Fingers crossed.
I see Trump as the terminus of the ‘business is best’ continuum in public life. This is what Neo-liberalism has been about from day one. Modern business likes to dominate and wipe out competitors.
Many Trump supporters hate politics without really realising that it is market values in politics that has made politics less effective for them, not politics per se.
Politics is in crisis until it realises that ‘win/win’ is what it is about and that its job is not to create losers.
Apologies PSR, I feel it unlikely Trump is the terminus, but rather that he was the taste of what is to come after Biden, as Biden is promising more of the same that got us Trump in the first place, otherwise agree with yoru post.
And yes, this is my daily staging post whereby I am able to hear voices other than my own expressing incredulity at the shenanigans taking palce around us – so a big thank you to Richard, PSR and the vast majority of contributions to this blog.
That’s not what I meant TAAB.
What I meant was that what happened in Washington was the terminus of not just Trump but Neo-liberal over-marketised thinking as a philosophy – this is how it will end in all cases, not just Washington – but elsewhere in the world too.
The philosophy is undemocratic, anti-social and based on illusory short term versions of happiness and fulfillment.
I agree with you that the Democrats had better be brave and innovative – the results in Georgia must be capitalised on otherwise their term will be short and they will basically end up exactly where they started.
Which brings us to the other terminus of Neo-liberal populism – the inability of a state to help its people in good times and the bad.
“The world is still in quite reasonable shock as a consequence of Trump’s attempted coup.”
Stop being such a drama queen. It wasn’t an attempted coup.
With respect, insurrections are attempted coups and that is what it was
I agree with you Richard.
This was a protest with difference due to its proximity to sovereign power and the way in which it invaded sovereign space. And given that there has been a fair election and those who ‘protested’ were on the losing side claiming there had be skullduggery when there hasn’t?
What has actually happened is that Trump has defecated on his office and turned loads of people off as well as by the company he keeps (‘The Proud Boys’ – my arse).
If the Remain vote had done something like this in the UK, the BREXIT Right would have been calling for blood – and I mean blood.
I have to say though that had I seen something like this going on for something that I felt strongly about such as a policy that I felt was manifestly wrong and harmful to the people of this nation, I would have wanted to join in and stop it. With what we know about the BREXIT referendumb now and its emerging catastrophic consequences , I would find an invasion of Parliament quite reasonable, – desirable even!!!
Sorry.
It would take a very great deal to persuade me that you are right on the last
If it wasn’t an attempted coup, albeit a shambolically organised one by a deluded rabble, what was it? Armed men and women forcing their way in to the heart of the Congress to try and overturn the confirming of Biden as president at the behest of a man who won’t admit he lost the election sounds like one to me.
Me too
OK SOTD – I get that, but the reaction of his supporters to rally to him is based on their own issues and where they see Trump in addressing them.
The simple fact is that Trump needs to be replaced in these peoples’ minds with someone and something more palatable and genuinely positive.
Over to the opposition I think………….. and I’m all ears!
There’s one thing I hope you can help me on with MMT.
You say that if inflation were to start to rise, tax rates would go up to curb spending. You also say that the wealthy save a lot. The wealthy spend what they want and save the rest. Lucky them. Less wealthy people have to spend everything they earn.
So if tax rates went up on the wealthy, they’d almost inevitably carry on spending on what they want and saving less. That would have no impact on inflation.
So it would only be by increasing taxes on the less wealthy that spending would be curbed and inflation brought under control.
Is that correct?
I have just recorded a video to answer this
It will be out this week
“I suspect there are very few people in the world who believe that fairness means sharing available resources equally”.
What makes you so sure of this? I believe that is what fairness means, and I think deep down a lot of other people believe that too.
Also, how is the sharing of available resources in any way not desirable?
It’s definitely practical – the only thing stopping it is the political will to do so. Politicians don’t want it, naturally, because if resources were shared equally they would lose power and privilege
You do realise people have different needs, don’t you?
Yes Richard, I do realise that people have different needs. For what it’s worth I have done a Politics degree and I work in the charity sector (currently at a poverty charity in Manchester).
People may have different needs but some needs are true to us all – like food, water, a home etc. These resources should (and could) be distributed equally, but there is not a political will to do so. Politicians are the problem. They tell us to respect law and order, but only do so because it benefits their wealth, status and privilege
David
But the need for a home varies, for example. That is most especially true over life. But a home has much more significance attached to it than a mere temporary abode. So is what you are saying wholly reaonabke?
I want baselines – and security for all – of course – but does that mean equal outcomes?
I am not convinced
Richard
Care is a resource that it would be wrong to share equally. Most people need none. Some people need 24 hour care. If we shared it out equally I’d have an annoying person coming round to make me a cup of tea and see if I’m all right while a person who really needed it would die.
It seems that our greatest concern now is our very survival as a species and all other life on Earth that we depend upon. The measures required to tackle Covid in the immediate then climate change and social and economic inequality are huge. What is necessary to be done will be drastic and unpopular (if attempted). Therefore the hopes and solutions must be presented in such a way as to show these difficulties and not beat about the bush in thinking that the future will be easy. Lets hope that truth will prevail and eventually the world will see through the lies and move forward in a positive direction even if this will be very uncomfortable (which it undoubtedly will be).
Whilst I broadly agree with you Richard in what needs to be done in political terms, I think fascism isn’t just defeated by putting forward policies that will benefit society as a whole.
If things have now got this bad, progressives have to face the fact that force may be necessary to defend democracy. Taking what happened in Washington as an example, if you have this many deluded, violent people prepared to use force to further their aims, they have to faced down by a government prepared to use all the tools of law enforcement at their disposal. And that may go all the way up to lethal force.
As The Guardian noted, the reason these people were able to get as far as they did was that right wing extremism has been indulged by law enforcement agencies in the US in a way that other protest movements have not. Compare the police’s feeble response on Wednesday to the way they treated BLM protesters last year.
In the States at least, they haven’t taken the threat of domestic right wing terrorists seriously until now, and this is the result. We seem to be better at it here in that the British police have clamped down on organisations like National Action (i.e they’re illegal now) and are monitoring the far right. Unfortunately we now have a Home Secretary who is both extreme and incompetent in her policies. So the CPS are attempting to prosecute 1000 XR activists in one of the largest exercises in UK history against a protest group. Despite the fact that these people have been resolutely practising non-violent protest.
The bias against the left in political monitoring is staggering
It has to be corrected as the threat very clearly comes from the right
XR has 1,000 people die for prosecution for sitting in the street, peacefully
Covid deniers threaten doctors daily outside their workplaces and nothing happens
Precisely Richard. But then, since we now have probably (against stiff competition), the worst Home Secretary in British history, to accompany the worst PM in said history, neither of us is surprised. Get off your useless, prejudiced backside Patel, and start prosecuting Covid deniers, not XR activists.
I honestly can’t think of how to say anything non- provocative about the perceptions and narratives being tsunamied across the controlled mass media, except that they are! One has to SEE what is actually happening and not what the hypnotists say that we are seeing… (to misquote Rick Mayall I think).
So here is a simple, logical and scientific real life experiment to help us see.
Given that the Dems have control of both Houses and can appoint whole new ‘board of directors’ along with their leadership. We should then expect the following actions and outcomes (amongst others) in very short order after inauguration. Literally in hours.
1. The reversal of the Artic exploration licences granted in just the last weeks.
2. The reversal of all the Educational policies.
3. The closure of Guantanamo Bay extra judicial torture chamber.
4. The instant withdrawal of any charges against Assange.
5. The prosecution of the leaders and minions involved in the criminal and murderous activities revealed by wikileaks.
6. A instant turnaround on the Climate Change activities.
7. A rapprochement with the EU on the energy security of Nordstream2 and future projects which will mean an end to the Fracking industry and dangerous shipping.
8. An equal rapprochement with Iran, Syria and Venezuela and a final end of
Sanctions which kill children and civilians through failure to supply basic medical supplies.
I’m sure that the list can be ably added to.
What I want to know is – if and when none of the above happens – would that be a convincing result to prove the theory incorrect ? Or will people just carry on not seeing?
The Americans in fear of undemocratic authoritarianism (namely the British) in the 18th century have tied themselves up in procedural knots (two thirds majority of both houses for implementing the 25th Amendment and two thirds majority in the Senate for Impeachment) in their ability to defeat a right-wing party (the current Republican Party) that puts power before the Rule of Law. (Some issues never go away. We are after all descended from pack leader apes.) About the only thing that can be said at the moment is to remember Winston Churchill’s quote (his mother was American) “You can always rely on the Americans to do the right thing, eventually!” That “eventually” as I see it may well end up with Biden having to pack the Supreme Court in order to further amend the 25th Amendment to make it more expedient.
It is worth remembering that part of the enduring wisdom of the American Constitution is founded precisely in the “procedural knots” through which it is executed, and which were quite deliberately placed there by its drafters (Madison etc). It wan’t an accident. What were they concerned to prevent? Something Quinton Hogg centuries later labelled ‘elective dictatorship’ in the British Parliament; the capacity for a majority in Parliament not merely to rule, but exercise absolute power, and destroy liberty.
The early Americans were trying to forestall the weaknesses of British constitutional representative government that they had studied, feared its consequences; and sought to overcome in their democracy by placing ‘checks and balances’ that created tripwires against tyrants. Nothing, however is foolproof; especially against dangerous, populist fools. Hannah Arendt long ago reminded us, lest we forget, that malign purposes are not less dangerous because they may appear dressed in the clothes of banality.
Interesting you mention Hannah Arendt. Right from the start of Donald Trump’s sally into politics he lied by declaring he was here to “Drain the Swamp” meaning Congress. In reality the Republican Party had turned into a breeding ground for fascists and he was one of its leaders! Ironically the ham-fisted attempt of their supporters (Congress politicians included) to reverse the democratic vote, which has been labelled the “Beer-Belly and Selfie Putsch,” has back-fired by raising national awareness of where this true swamp lies and a national draining and cleansing process is now under-way!
Interesting.
Michael Moore attributes the electoral college as being a weakness in the U.S. constitution in one of his recent documentaries. The issue I believe (and I’m thinking off the top of my head here) is to do with the senate seats allocated by winning certain smaller states, where smaller states get more seats to make representation ‘fairer’. Apparently (according to Moore) this was bequeathed to the U.S. constitution by the troublesome Southern states who saw themselves as a minority and whose economies were based on slave labour.
Every year apparently there is a protest at this college ceremony advocating ‘ 1 person, 1 vote’ but this is ignored and the system is tolerated by Democrats and Republicans alike. Some like Moore and others think that the electoral college is nothing but a form of legalised gerrymandering and should be abolished.
The suggestion is that in 2016, Trump’s campaign paid particular attention (through Cambridge Analytica involvement) to undecided voters in districts in these states that were allocated more seats in the senate. And that is how he seems to have won and outflanked Clinton.
Reading John Bew’s account in ‘Citizen Clem’ over in the UK, Attlee would have had a second term as he won most of the ‘popular vote’ in the ’51 election but boundary commission changes and seat allocations robbed him of that opportunity and the rest is history. Hmmm…………
So there is the issue at the heart of our democracy (and the U.S.) about how single votes are turned into ‘democratic legitimacy’ in the legislature to make a system work and run a country fairly. Things are far from perfect in my view and open to abuse and ‘rule playing’ by all sides – particularly those that are well funded and in power.
There is a potential for such banality in these arrangements and it seems that the unwritten rule is that the inconsistencies and potential for abuses are accepted by both sides which is an error in my view and is too dependent on one side keeping to what can be called ‘gentleman’s agreements’ where it only takes one side to up the ante (say) and accept foreign funding of your party or get access to voter data to target your potential vote take to win.
BTW – my comment about seeing something positive in how Trump supporters invaded the Senate is based basically on dialectics.
What made this action reprehensible? That they were Trump supporters? Or that people were killed (more important to me to be honest and very sad)?
What if these had been the actions of a group we approved of? What if it had been the U.S. gun control lobby doing this whose leaders got sick to death of not being listened to instead?
The Trump supporters got off their arses and tried to do something even though it was for reasons that I find reprehensible and reject. But the direct means they and Trump took made a point.
The Americans got off their arses before and kicked us Brits out once. Very direct and very effective!
I ask these questions as a genuine progressive. Trump and his whole corrupt regime and a large amount of supporters were prepared to go down fighting and flaunt democracy (flawed democracy that has helped to create support for him in the first place).
This asks deep questions about the nature of our politics. To what extent is our political system in the UK and U.S. a haven for anti-democratic forces of the monied elite? To what extent is our polity just a laundering exercise for vested interests that intend to prevail despite an election system? To what extent is our political system just a thin veneer of respectability – a mirage – enabling empowerment to those whose only responsibility is to themselves ?
These are the questions that the events in Washington got me thinking of – why my reaction was one of repulsion but also fascination.
And there have to be some answers. Otherwise the Democrats (and a potential Labour government in the UK) will be out after one term.
What I saw in Washington in my view is a bunch of people who are simply fed up with life – they’ve had enough to the extent that they can be abused and misled and manipulated by the same vested interests that have created their misery.
And then countenance this: that those who have voted for Biden and the Democratic party voted for a party who lied to its own members and the country about its presidential candidate for the 2016 election (it was Bernie whom I have read was the actual nominee – not Clinton) and then ask yourself to what extent have those Democrat voters been misled too? Who will be disappointed come 2024?
And so, what politics is now?
A merry go round of the same old ‘same old’?
If so, how do you break that hold? That static version of society that ‘conserves’ the status quo (in fact it conserves it by making ordinary people poorer, whilst transferring more of their potential money to the elite – making the gap wider, so it is only static in one sense). it’s a political system that pretends to listen but does not.
Again this is purely dialectical – pushing together opposites, contrasts, acceptable things to do with unacceptable things in order to try to synthesize an approach we can feel comfortable with or justify in order to achieve real change.
That is what I was getting at. For it is this that we must do because without real change in political thinking, inequality, the environment , the future – are all at stake.
As an addition to my previous comment Trump and the Republican Party are now in serious “perception management” trouble at least amongst those voters with an ability to engage in “joined-up thinking.” A Capitol police force officer has now died of his injuries “defending democracy” because the current Republican Party put holding power above the Rule of Law.
Reading this post reminds me of the advice Kipling’s Baron gave his son (in Norman and Saxon). Plus ca change…
Trump has harnessed a deep sense of mistrust of the establishment, by his supporters.
Conspiracy theories abound, but is it a conspiracy theory to say that elites, the 1%, are totally out of touch with the rest of society?
That for the vast majority of the population, things are going in the wrong direction?
The State is no longer seen as being there to benefit “the people” and is actively helping the 1% to the detriment of everyone else. Hence “drain the swamp”.
Biden needs to make people believe in the power of the State to improve people’s lives again, and quick. Otherwise the “Next Trump” may be less of a buffoon and far more dangerous.
Good place to start would be Universal Health Care free at the point of use.
Shocked here too.
Trump is now a cop killer. I wonder if this will influence the affection that cops have for this maniac.
Even Trump no longer approves the actions of the people who stormed the Capitol although it looks like the thing that turned him round was being banned from Twitter.
Few reasonable people would disagree with your fair – honest – hope recipe but where will it come from in British politics? I did like Corbyn, for all his faults he probably was closest to a fair honest hopebringing politician. Clearly it wasn’t enough. Johnson obviously isn’t such a man. Is there a Tory successor who could bring that to the Tory party? Could the Tory party become again a supporter of a basically fair progressive society? It seems against their instincts. Even when Macmillan did it it seems that they were going along with it because anything else would have been electoral suicide.
Can the Labour party offer fairness, honesty and hope? It feels like Starmer is a long way from the ten socialist pledges he “committed” to in the leadership contest to win over some of the Lefties. And his policy of not commenting, abstaining, or grudgingly supporting the government on the issues of the day may be tactically astute, holding his cards close to his chest, but it doesn’t feel honest because it’s hard to know what he stands for.
Hope. Well here in Scotland we have one big hope but it doesn’t help the UK, quite the opposite.
The big thing – ridiculous in some ways as it is – the big project of hope for many people was Brexit. People thought they were taking back control. People thought that instead of spending £350m a week on bureaucrats having nice dinners in Brussels restaurants it would be spent on the NHS. People still feel ” we got our country back.”
Clearly it’s going to be hope frustrated. What does that mean for the next bold promise?
This situation throws up so many interesting problems and possibilities.
However, speaking as a former Yank, I don’t think all the problems that created Trumpism stem from the unequal distribution of wealth …although that is a factor in some instances. But the fact is, many Trump supporters are middle or upper class people doing reasonably well for themselves. Two cars in the drive, etc. I know this, because of the feedback I get from friends who life in relatively affluent neighbourhoods …and are passing Trump signs on every other well-kept lawn. These aren’t the turkeys voting for Christmas, in an economic sense. These folk have another agenda entirely. And it’s a very scary one.
What Trump has done is ignite and encourage false righteousness, based more on racism, worldview and social issues than anything financial. His supporters are folk who want to believe in the cowboy vs Indian mythology, the notion that black people were enslaved because they were an inferior race, that Mexicans are ‘greasers’ up to no good. In short, that northern Europeans–especially those whose ancestors spoke English–are the master race. And where have we heard that before?
There are also social issues, like abortion and women’s rights, that factor into this hateful malaise that Trump has encouraged. And fellow Republicans (starting with the sainted John McCain who introduced Sarah Palin as his running mate) are happy to go along with this crap, because it gets people to vote Republican …which of course is also the one that’s underpinning all the other, more ‘boring’ things on the agenda …like tax issues, corporate greed, etc.
Kinda like the Tories encouraging Nigel Farage to ignite racist/xenophobic people into supporting Brexit which, in turn, led to increased support for the Tory party at home–which certainly promoted a different agenda entirely. And here we are.
Thanks
Scary
I think Jan that it is your observations AND the other stuff like loss of jobs, wealth and a shrinking middle class, the cost of health care – the plight of the so-called ‘fly-over states’ (as written about by Sarah Kendzior, where the seaboard cities seem to dominate political discourse and policy over the prairies) and the ‘rust belt’ too.
The USA is in a form of socio-economic crisis and you are right to point out the Republican’s willingness to embrace extreme views to keep themselves in power – a very risky enterprise with which they seem to have taken more risks since 2008 and the ‘Great Epiphany’ (that wasn’t).
Critiques I have seen in the UK – made in the U.S. BTW – point to the way in which the American political system is funded which means that it is most likely to perform in line with the funders’ requirements – not society’s. And that applies to both principal political parties. This needs to be addressed otherwise this republic will fail.
I have to say that anyone who believes in democracy must also be concerned about what happens in America as it is a melting pot of competing political visions that is more in your face than places like England. Is American democracy working? No. Is it working in the UK? Definitely not but in some way I would expect that from our rather quaint old, feudal system which has its weaknesses mercilessly reified by BREXIT (and there’s more to come it seems).
There is also America’s global reputation.
I’m still angry with the U.S. Government (not the American people – but the Government) because I see them as giving birth to the 2008 crash by not regulating their real estate sector and financial sectors (or de-regulating it – for example under the Democrat Clinton of all people when he repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of all things).
If there had been a war, the U.S would have been liable for reparations to the countries it and its financial sector damaged. U.S. domination of post war entities like the United Nations and Word Bank has not helped the world at all (except that making WB and IMF loans in dollars has helped the U.S. by maintaining the high value of the dollar) . We’ve not even had an apology from the U.S Government for letting its financial sector blow up the world economy let alone any compensation. The attitude seems to be straight from RAND and John Nash’s ‘Fuck you buddy’ mathematical games.
Professor Michael Hudson has charted aggressive trade policies back to the late 1800’s in the U.S. as America has sought to look after itself – it’s ALWAYS been ‘America First’ – this is not just a Trumpian trope and as you said Jan, many of these issues have long gestations.
This has led to books being written called ‘Why Do People Hate America’ (2002) and I will always remember an edition I think of Question Time and watching it – fascinated again – where the American Ambassador was reduced to tears as members of a British audience suggested that the attack on the Twin Towers was inevitable and the U.S. was widely deplored. The poor Ambassador just didn’t get it all – he was genuinely shocked because he probably still believed in the ‘shining city on the hill’ story and the force for good the U.S. thinks itself to be without realising that that America died during the Vietnam war under Johnson and Nixon – if not Kennedy before both of them. Indeed, looking at U.S. Government conduct during the Indian wars in its own territory previously and racial segregation policies so long after the abolition of slavery – did that America actually ever exist? Has U.S. politics ever got over its society’s problem with ethnic Indians (whose place names so evocatively bring America its identity even to today) and other ethnic groups?
After 9/11 did we get a period of reflection, self awareness from the U.S? A change of tack? No – we got Iraq instead. And Afghanistan. It was and is still ‘America First’. Why?
A key point you make for me Jan is when you mention the concept of ‘righteousness’ – a lot of this behaviour seems based on this concept – is this a hangover from the Pilgrim Fathers? There is a certain religiosity about it.
Creating a false morality seems to have a a long tradition in the U.S. whether stealing land from indigenous Indians, 401K’s from American workers, the right to buy military grade guns on your high street or Lloyd Blankfein claiming that Goldman Sachs do ‘God’s work’. All this righteousness ended up being refined in the University of Chicago (Milton Friedmann) and James Buchanan at George Mason University in Virginia (where else?).
And a certain Russian émigré called Ayn Rand had a part to play too with popular books called ‘Atlas Shrugged’ where the underlying message was that ‘(mans) highest moral purpose is the achievement of his own happiness……and rational self interest’. A deliberate intent therefore not to think of anything or anyone (the planet or other people) but yourself it seems. And Americans lapped it up (but not all)!
America’s power and its influence (formal and informal) make it potentially a rogue state as long as it hangs on to it’s sense of this ‘righteousness’ as you call it. And that is why we need to watch what happens next and hope for the best.
BTW – I want to make it clear that the attack on the Twin Towers in New York was totally abhorrent to me and will never be justifiable. For there are kinder means to ensure that such a thing never happens again.
I Am not an American and claim no special insight, therefore I look for thinkers who may be expected to have the appropriate insight, and whose approach to issues are sufficiently published to allow me to assess. On these grounds I believe the best insight to Trump (which is more than Trump, and more than ‘social media’ and its ills alone can expalin) is provided by Timothy Snyder, a brilliant historian, perhaps best known for ‘Bloodlands’ (2010), an account of the desperate nightmare killing-field of WWII Ukraine.
I provide here a link to an October, 2018 article by Snyder in the ‘Guardian’ titled “Donald Trump borrows from the old tricks of fascism”.
Sorry, forgot the link: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/30/trump-borrows-tricks-of-fascism-pittsburgh
I really do fail hopelessly as an editor. I could not run a Blog like this, Richard!
We all make mistakes
I follow him on Twitter for the reasons you give
What I think is happening behind the scenes is an investigation of the role played by Trump’s acting Secretary of Defense, Christopher C. Miller, who authorises deployment of the National Guard. It would appear he not only refused requests to deploy the National Guard before the Electoral Votes Ratification at the Capitol on Wednesday but delayed their response to the riot taking place there. Miller’s background is that of a Special Forces Officer but prior to his promotion as acting Defense Secretary he was the Director of Counter-Terrorism. If anybody should have been able to assess the possibility of serious trouble at the Ratification event it should have been him. The Capitol riot is all starting to look orchestrated by Trump in a ham-fisted way aided and abetted by politicians in the Republican Party who were continuing to refuse the validity of the presidential election vote despite unanimous judicial rulings even by Republican Party elected judges that the vote was valid!
Mz Schofield,
I trust (and have some confidence) that the new administration will not fail to pursue with assiduous rigour why the Capitol was so easily penetrated by an ill-assorted, shambling mob; why wouldn’t they? Joining up the threads of responsibility should not be difficult, because it is reasonable to surmise that it may be found close to home in the intersection, the meeting-point and dividing line between legislators and executive; a traditional weak spot in democracies.
The problem here is that Trump may look like a banal, almost comic figure in the tradition of Charlie Chaplin’s ‘Great Dictator’, but the fact that he isn’t, but represents something politcally significant, something decades in the making, representative of America’s sometimes nightmare past; something requiring very careful, measured and still difficult handling, is demonstrated by the fact that if he wasn’t, if he isn’t – he would already surely be out of office and out of public life. This already tells us the scale of the political problem.
Interesting Guardian article that goes inside the mind of the woman Ashli Babbitt shot by a Capitol policeman in the storming of the Capital building on Wednesday. She claimed to be a Libertarian but this was a front it’s fairly obvious she was fascist.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/09/ashli-babbitt-capitol-mob-trump-qanon-conspiracy-theory
Joe Biden gave a speech on Friday in which he made reference to the far-right anti-semitic mind-set in the United States. He talked about Capitol rioters wearing T-shirts saying “6MWE.”
“6MWE” is an anti-Semitic phrase that stands for “Six million wasn’t enough,” referring to the six million Jewish people who were murdered during the Holocaust.
According to the Jerusalem Post these T-shirts weren’t really in evidence at the Capitol riot but at previous far-right rallies. Even so it’s hard to believe human beings can think like this. Hannah Ahrendt was criticised at the Eichmann trial for coming up with the phrase “the banality of evil” in regard to Eichmann who claimed he’d sworn an oath of loyalty to support the Nazi Party and therefore had to follow orders. She was told that this was an act on Eichmann’s part to pretend he was merely a “dutiful bureaucrat.” Personally I think fascists ( or communists like Stalin) are the products of abusive child-rearing. It may not have been physical or sexual abuse although at bottom the cumulative effect of this type of abuse is mental abuse.
https://www.jpost.com/american-politics/biden-capitol-rioters-are-thugs-antisemites-who-should-be-prosecuted-654800
https://www.naturalchild.org/articles/alice_miller/adolf_hitler.html
@ John S Warren
The “scale of the political problem” is not only over there but over here with a Tory government increasingly confident it can ride rough-shod over vulnerable people and ignore Rule of Law processes on very important issues when they feel like it:-
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eviction-ban-loophole-substantial-arrears-six-months-b1784836.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-committee-jacob-rees-mogg-eu-trade-deal-b1784512.html
I believe the US, because of and not despite of its past, stands the better chance ironically of getting its act together over Rule of Law processes than the UK because of historical economic migration. Example – Biden referencing his Irish ancestry during the presidential election campaign and in regard to Brexit.
“I believe the US, because of and not despite of its past, stands the better chance ironically of getting its act together over Rule of Law processes than the UK”.
I do not demur, but as my posts perhaps suggest I already hold that position. I do not advocate Scottish independence lightly. In the US (as suggested in a thoughtful discussion on BBC Scotland Radio news this morning), perhaps 25% of the US electorate no longer believe in US democracy (in my view, for the deeper reasons for that – see Snyder). At the same time, the electorally rise to significance of the black and ‘new’ American vote also threatens the Republicans with permanent exclusion from the White House, little chance of controlling Congress and the thinnest remaining grip on the Senate (because of the nature of the Constitution), while it does not threaten neoliberalism’s survival may yet restrain it.
In the UK, however ‘red in tooth and claw’ neoliberal ideology’s grip on the Conservative Party is supported by sufficient of the electorate, at least under FPTP, always to ensure Conservative control of Parliament (by definition he/she who controls Parliament controls the state – there are no checks and balances); and with this important emphasis – this ‘controlling’ electorate believes in Conservative sponsored neoliberal ideology, No Matter What: as Covid-19 and Brexit sufficiently demonstrate.
Agreed
Important to add that in the US the big change is in who is alienated
Blacks were and did nit vote
Now they do vote
So Republicans are alienated
That is the deepest irony. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican President; who ended slavery. It was the Democratic Party that, before President Johnson was often associated with Southern State racism. That changed with Johnson, and the rest is history; a history that turned American history upside down.
“this ‘controlling’ electorate believes in Conservative sponsored neoliberal ideology”.
I know what you are getting at John especially at this moment in time, but does the electorate REALLY ‘believe’ in Neo-liberal ideology?
To believe in something surely means that you have been able to consider the alternatives and as suggested elsewhere on this blog, there is a distinct lack of ‘opposing’ view. In the absence of an opposing view do people really believe anything in the way in which you suggest? Or just accept it?
Here are some of the things I think the British (and Scottish for that matter) electorate REALLY believes in:
Fairness.
The opportunity to work and progress if they want – build careers etc.
Somewhere decent to live that is affordable.
The opportunity to be paid decently, save a little, spend a little, service debts.
For the health service to meet their needs when they need it and for people not to profit from their maladies.
To pay a fair price for everything and not be ripped off.
For the State to help them out properly when they fall on hard times if they should need it or ask.
Stability – economic, political and geo-political (no wars please).
To have dreams.
Which political party in this country has paid honest lip service to these needs recently? My answer: None. Which markets have paid honest lip service to these? Very few.
I’m going to get all Marxist now and invoke Freire and mention the term ‘false-consciousness’ because our politicians and markets have created a huge one in the voting public. Here’s a couple of examples of what they’ve told to falsely believe:
Apparently our health service is failing because of immigrants – not because it is underfunded.
The European Union holds the UK back as a world power – well, we know how that’s turning out now don’t we?
The Government cannot help during Covid because it will end up with debts it can never pay back – even though effectively it owns the currency it could issue that money/help in. Go figure.
The State cannot afford to run pension systems because of the aging population (ooh – the Government never saw this age spike coming apparently).
Adverts for cars still lie and tell us that we can be free when we know the roads are rammed and that diesel fumes are killing people.
Adverts for holidays that never mentioned carbo footprint issues – flying is great!
Some of these above are just the State reneging on its past commitments. Others are just plain lies. Lies!
It is our politicians and markets (with a few exceptions) that believe in Neo-liberalism John – not the electorate who are misinformed and manipulated 24/7.
You are absolutely right John that the mechanism of the vote based on these ‘false consciousnesses is what keeps the Tories in.
But it is nothing more than that.
But think again about what you think people ‘believe’ in. Particularly when there has been no real choice (even from 2017 under Ed Miliband, Labour’s offering did not really set the world on fire did it because it was still confined by Neo-lib thinking?).
My view is that the voter is offered a poor choice of things to believe in John – despite Neo-liberals always ranting on about ‘choice’. But that’s modern politics by politicians – saying one thing and doing the other.
But I know EXACTLY whose beliefs are accountable – not my neighbour or co-worker or that bloke I bump into every morning on the train (socially distanced now of course). The clue is that they all used to gather together at a place called ‘Westminster’ at a meeting called ‘a Parliament’. And their REAL supporters work on Fleet Street (what’s left of it) The City of London and live in huge houses – some all around the world.
Politicians – that’s who I blame – and their shady backers in the media and high finance. They’re the real Neo-liberal believers John.
I’ve exercised my choice because of who I am.
The progressive goal is to widen that choice.
And voters will get it – I’m sure.
“…. does the electorate REALLY ‘believe’ in Neo-liberal ideology? To believe in something surely means that you have been able to consider the alternatives and as suggested elsewhere on this blog, there is a distinct lack of ‘opposing’ view.”
Actually, no it doesn’t. It means only that the explanation you believe in provides an answer to the questions you ask, and are more persuasive that the alternatives you have considered or selected (if any at all), in the form you have considered them (whether complete or not).
I think you are confusing ‘belief’ with the high-falutin’ aspirations of science (and I say ‘aspiration’, because even science often has had difficulties with noticing, addressing or even understanding the alternatives). I do not wish to wander too far into the philosophy of science, or we will never emerge; but think of the concept of ‘faith’ and its justification in the history of theology here, because in politics it will – I suspect -produce as much illumination of the problems at stake here, as the analogy of the aspirations of science (which I think underpins your assumption); because in the end this is a matter of psychology, not of facts.
Hmmm – I’m not so sure Helen.
There is a lot of money at play there in the States – goodness what has been promised on the basis of Democratic donations and what favours will be called in afterwards?
I hope that you right though – seriously. Biden has to make the Trump supporters and other Republicans a lot happier in this term very quickly by reversing the decline in incomes and proving that Obama care can actually work effectively. Creating more jobs through green initiatives (discussed here at length) is a must.
The Supreme Court is going to be interesting, especially if Republican states want to start reversing Roe v Wade and abortion practice as Jan Foley has pointed out.
And then there is America’s reputation abroad to contend with which I think requires a lot of mending and less mendacity – indeed more co-operation has got to be on the cards. But how many times have such positive moves that call for reflection have instead just led to the flexing of American muscle?
We can only watch and observe now.