Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[billw55]

I think so, too, although the longevity of his candidacy scares me.

 

I'm hoping that when people actually go into the voting booths they'll come to their senses. It's easy to say you'll vote for him in a poll, because he's charismatic and makes all the headlines. But when it really matters, maybe people will be more rational.

Agree.

 

I am not normally a conspiracy buff, but Trump-as-Clinton-plant is one of the more believable ones. Basically, a strategy to out early R supporters as ignorant bigots, thus staining the party in the minds of the swing voters. OK, it probably isn't true by Occam's Razor - but I wouldn't be shocked.

[cherdano]

Doesn't the same rationale apply to the Dems?

No.

[y66]

Guest post from Joschka Fischer, German Foreign Minister and Vice Chancellor from 1998-2005

 

BERLIN – There is an alarming political shift to the right occurring on both sides of the Atlantic, linked to the growing force of openly chauvinist political parties and figures: Donald Trump in the United States, Marine Le Pen in France. Other names could be added to the list: Hungary’s prime minister, Victor Orbán, who advocates “illiberal democracy,” or Jarosław Kaczyński and his quasi-authoritarian Law and Justice party, which now rules Poland.

 

Nationalistic, xenophobic political parties had been on the rise in many European Union member states long before Syrian refugees first arrived in appreciable numbers. There has been Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, the Vlaams Blok (succeeded by today’s Vlaams Belang) in Belgium, the Freedom Party of Austria, the Sweden Democrats, the Finns Party, and the Danish People’s Party, to name just a few.

 

The reasons for such parties’ rise and success vary greatly at the national level. But their basic positions are similar. All of them are raging against the “system,” the “political establishment,” and the EU. Worse, they are not just xenophobic (and, in particular, Islamophobic); they also more or less unashamedly embrace an ethnic definition of the nation. The political community is not a product of its citizens’ commitment to a common constitutional and legal order; instead, as in the 1930s, membership in the nation is derived from common descent and religion.

 

Like any extreme nationalism, the current one relies heavily on identity politics – the realm of fundamentalism, not reasoned debate. As a result, its discourse takes an obsessive turn – usually sooner rather than later – in the direction of ethno-nationalism, racism, and religious war.

 

The rise of extreme nationalism and fascism in the 1930s is usually explained in terms of the outcome of World War I, which killed millions of people and filled the heads of millions more with militaristic notions. The war also ruined Europe’s economy, leading to a global economic crisis and mass unemployment. Destitution, poverty, and misery primed publics for toxic politics.

 

But conditions today in the West, in the US and Europe alike, are rather different, to say the least. Given these countries’ affluence, what accounts for their citizens’ attraction to the politics of frustration?

 

First and foremost, there is fear – and apparently a great deal of it. It is a fear based on the instinctive realization that the “White Man’s World” – a lived reality assumed by its beneficiaries as a matter of course – is in terminal decline, both globally and in the societies of the West. And migration is the issue that brings that prognosis home (not just metaphorically) to today’s angst-inspired nationalists.

 

Until recently, globalization was largely viewed as favoring the West. But now – in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and with the rise of China (now turning into this century’s leading power before our eyes) – it has become increasingly clear that globalization is a two-way street, with the West losing much of its power and wealth to the East. Likewise, the world’s problems can no longer be suppressed and excluded, at least not in Europe, where they are now quite literally knocking on the door.

 

Meanwhile, at home, the White Man’s World is threatened by immigration, globalization of labor markets, gender parity, and the legal and social emancipation of sexual minorities. In short, these societies are undergoing a fundamental shock to traditional roles and patterns of behavior.

 

From all these profound changes has arisen a yearning for simple solutions – to build fences and walls, for example, whether in the US South or in southern Hungary – and strong leaders. It is no accident that Europe’s new nationalists view Russian President Vladimir Putin as a beacon of hope.

 

Of course, Putin has no appeal in the US (the world’s greatest power won’t turn away from itself), or in Poland and the Baltic states (where Russia is regarded as a threat to national independence). Elsewhere in Europe, however, the new nationalists have made common cause with Putin’s anti-Western posturing and pursuit of Great Russia.

 

With the new nationalism threatening the European integration process, France holds the key. Without France, Europe is neither conceivable nor practicable, and a President Le Pen would certainly sound the death knell for the EU (as well as bringing disaster for her country and the continent as a whole). Europe would then withdraw from twenty-first-century world politics. This would lead inexorably to the end of the West in geopolitical terms: The US would have to reorient itself for good (toward the Pacific), while Europe would become Eurasia’s appendix.

 

The end of the West is a dim prospect, to be sure, but we aren’t there yet. What is clear is that more depends on the future of Europe than even the most vociferous advocates of European unification had previously believed.

Nur sagen.

[Winstonm]

Guest post from Joschka Fischer, German Foreign Minister and Vice Chancellor from 1998-2005

 

 

Nur sagen.

 

Remarkable.

 

In 2014, while on a Rick Steves' tour of Southern Italy, our local guide in Rome bemoaned the resurgence of fascist sentiments within the young of Italy and wondered aloud how the horrors of having lived with fascism might be explained to a new generation. No one had any answers. But with an unemployment rate of near 25%, it is understandable that the youth of Italy are searching for answers.

 

How much further back are we in the U.S.?

[kenberg]

From the cited article:

 

First and foremost, there is fear – and apparently a great deal of it. It is a fear based on the instinctive realization that the “White Man’s World” – a lived reality assumed by its beneficiaries as a matter of course – is in terminal decline, both globally and in the societies of the West. And migration is the issue that brings that prognosis home (not just metaphorically) to today’s angst-inspired nationalists.

 

I note that he does not describe this fear as misplaced or irrational, indeed he describes it as an instinctive realization.

 

I am not quite ready yet to see myself as doomed. I have always had a somewhat naive outlook.

 

But even I see trouble ahead.

[Al_U_Card]

"Le style est l'homme meme." (The style is the man.) certainly seems to apply to The Donald. As for substance, perhaps his (or lack of same) appeals to voters of a conservative nature because it seems genuine and not scripted or forced.

My favorite geo-political gadfly, Mark Steyn, has an interesting piece on Trump's appearance in Vermont (Bernie, where art thou?). Worth the read, if only to understand how his appeal underpins his growing support as candidate for the Prez.

 

Trumping his opponent's aces...

 

"It's assumed by the GOP establishment that once the field narrows Trump will bump up against his natural ceiling. I think the opposite is true. Trump has essentially sat out these stupid ten-man TV debates and then resumed his rise once they're over. If it came down to a four- or three- or two-man race, the man I saw on Thursday night would be a formidable debate opponent. And I don't doubt he could hold his own against Hillary."

[kenberg]

"Le style est l'homme meme." (The style is the man.) certainly seems to apply to The Donald. As for substance, perhaps his (or lack of same) appeals to voters of a conservative nature because it seems genuine and not scripted or forced.

My favorite geo-political gadfly, Mark Steyn, has an interesting piece on Trump's appearance in Vermont (Bernie, where art thou?). Worth the read, if only to understand how his appeal underpins his growing support as candidate for the Prez.

 

Trumping his opponent's aces...

 

"It's assumed by the GOP establishment that once the field narrows Trump will bump up against his natural ceiling. I think the opposite is true. Trump has essentially sat out these stupid ten-man TV debates and then resumed his rise once they're over. If it came down to a four- or three- or two-man race, the man I saw on Thursday night would be a formidable debate opponent. And I don't doubt he could hold his own against Hillary."

 

 

From the article:

Somewhere in there is the germ of a stump speech, but it would bore him to do the same poll-tested focus-grouped thing night after night, so he basically riffs on whatever's on his mind.

 

It brought to mind Billie Holiday explaining that she never does a song in the same way twice. "It would be like marching, like close order drill, it wouldn't be music". Maybe a Trump rally should be thought of as a blues concert. I'll stick with Lady Day.

[kenberg]

Just a word or two more about the guest post from Fischer.

 

He speaks of "White Man's World". The scorn is dripping from his pen. It invites responses of various sorts. For example, a million or so refugees have risked their lives to get to "White Man's World" and many more hope to come. Could we just back off a little on the contempt? Trump says the problem is the Mexicans, Fischer says it is White Men (not himself of course, but presumably me). Jerry Falwell thinks Satan is the problem. I don't think it is the Mexicans and I don't think it is Satan. I also don't think it is me.

[Al_U_Card]

Just a word or two more about the guest post from Fischer.

 

He speaks of "White Man's World". The scorn is dripping from his pen. It invites responses of various sorts. For example, a million or so refugees have risked their lives to get to "White Man's World" and many more hope to come. Could we just back off a little on the contempt? Trump says the problem is the Mexicans, Fischer says it is White Men (not himself of course, but presumably me). Jerry Falwell thinks Satan is the problem. I don't think it is the Mexicans and I don't think it is Satan. I also don't think it is me.

The words "manifest destiny" come to mind as far as disparities in the world go. Being on top brings great responsibility that often finds itself shunted aside for the vagaries of power and control. Like all (previous) empires in decline, they refuse to see the writing on the wall and the barbarians at the gate. (Or wall, if the Mexican thing is a propos...)

 

Even though the Syrian emigrees should be entitled to go where they would, trying to control masses of humanity only tends to work on subliminal levels. Once herded into pens, they tend to break out and seek vengeance. It seems reasonable that it is likely all of us. Each in their own way, intolerance, subjectivity and tribalism. You may not hate your brother because he is family. Nor your neighbor because he is close. But the immigrant/stranger at a distance is an easy target for our foibles.

[y66]

Just a word or two more about the guest post from Fischer.

 

He speaks of "White Man's World". The scorn is dripping from his pen. It invites responses of various sorts. For example, a million or so refugees have risked their lives to get to "White Man's World" and many more hope to come. Could we just back off a little on the contempt? Trump says the problem is the Mexicans, Fischer says it is White Men (not himself of course, but presumably me). Jerry Falwell thinks Satan is the problem. I don't think it is the Mexicans and I don't think it is Satan. I also don't think it is me.

Fischer is not saying the problem is white men. He's saying the problem is people who "more or less unashamedly embrace an ethnic definition of the nation" and who reject "the political community as a product of its citizens’ commitment to a common constitutional and legal order."

 

I'm pretty sure he would not put you in that group in a million years.

[kenberg]

OK, and I was hesitant about posting my comments. But I think that I have a point.

 

Imagine that I wrote an article in which I spoke of "Black Man's World", saying among other things that it is in terminal decline and generally implying that it was a total disaster. No one would care what I meant, and really I cannot think of much of a good interpretation of what I could have meant. I would be banished from society and rightly so. I probably wouldn't be served at a Burger King.

 

I found his argument to be all over the map. One minute he is speaking of refugees as a threat to White Man's World, the next he is speaking of gender parity and sexual minorities. Quite different issues I think.

 

As far as "ethnic definition of a nation", that's a bit tricky, depending on what is meant by "ethnic". I claim to have given up religion long ago, but what I really gave up was the theology. I have no interest in whether Mary was or was not a virgin, it's not my business, but I am fine with "faith, hope and charity, but the greatest of these is charity". I take "charity" in the sense of keeping a charitable view of another person rather than as giving them money. I believe this was the original meaning. So if ethnicity involves some common belief on fundamentals, I would see that as useful to building a nation.

 

Anyway, I looked up a bit more about Fischer and found another article. He is an idealist, with all that means, both good and bad.

[akwoo]

I think you're just arguing over a bad translation from the German (even if the translation was by the author), Ken.

[y66]

From For Republicans, Mounting Fears of Lasting Split

 

The Republican Party is facing a historic split over its fundamental principles and identity, as its once powerful establishment grapples with an eruption of class tensions, ethnic resentments and mistrust among working-class conservatives who are demanding a presidential nominee who represents their interests.

 

At family dinners and New Year’s parties, in conference calls and at private lunches, longtime Republicans are expressing a growing fear that the coming election could be shattering for the party, or reshape it in ways that leave it unrecognizable.

 

While warring party factions usually reconcile after brutal nomination fights, this race feels different, according to interviews with more than 50 Republican leaders, activists, donors and voters, from both elite circles and the grass roots.

 

Never have so many voters been attracted to Republican candidates like Donald J. Trump and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who are challenging core party beliefs on the economy and national security and new goals like winning over Hispanics through immigration reform.

 

Rank-and-file conservatives, after decades of deferring to party elites, are trying to stage what is effectively a people’s coup by selecting a standard-bearer who is not the preferred candidate of wealthy donors and elected officials.

 

And many of those traditional power brokers, in turn, are deeply uncomfortable and even hostile to Mr. Trump and Mr. Cruz: Between them, the leading candidates do not have the backing of a single senator or governor.

 

“I haven’t seen this large of a division in my career,” said Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican first elected to Congress in 1982. “You probably have to go back to Ford versus Reagan in 1976. But that was only two people.”

 

The issues animating grass-roots voters — opposition to immigration, worries about wages and discomfort with America’s fast-changing demographics — are diverging from and at times colliding with the Republican establishment’s interests in free trade, lower taxes, less regulation and openness to immigration.

 

The fractures could help a Democrat win the White House if Republicans do not ultimately find ways to unite, as one candidate, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, warned last week.

 

The divide was evident at a recent Greenville, S.C., gathering of bankers and lawyers, reliable Republicans who shared tea and pastries and their growing anxieties about where their party is going. In a meeting room near the wooded shore of Furman Lake, the group of mostly older white men expressed concern that their party was fracturing over free trade, immigration and Wall Street. And they worried that their candidates — mainstream conservatives like Jeb Bush — were losing.

 

“It’s all really hard to believe that decades of Republican ideas are at risk,” said Barry Wynn, a prominent Bush donor at the meeting.

Hard to believe anyone thinks this is really hard to believe.

[kenberg]

McCain mentions Ford-Reagan. I agree, although I mainly recall the marginalizing of "Rockefeller Republicans". Roughly the same era.

We may be seeing the logical conclusion of that split.

Very unfortunate.

[Winstonm]

McCain mentions Ford-Reagan. I agree, although I mainly recall the marginalizing of "Rockefeller Republicans". Roughly the same era.

We may be seeing the logical conclusion of that split.

Very unfortunate.

 

I see an eventual break in the party as a positive, as the crazies have gained some kind of legitimacy on the coattails of mainstream Republicans.

[kenberg]

I see an eventual break in the party as a positive, as the crazies have gained some kind of legitimacy on the coattails of mainstream Republicans.

 

Yes. My "very unfortunate" was meant to apply to the fact that we have come to such a state of affairs. Some sort of upheaval could produce positive results. It is in the nature of an upheaval that the conclusion is uncertain, but there must be many people who are not all that comfortable with Democrats bur abhor Trump. If some strong leadership emerges from this area, it could be very interesting.

[Winstonm]

Yes. My "very unfortunate" was meant to apply to the fact that we have come to such a state of affairs. Some sort of upheaval could produce positive results. It is in the nature of an upheaval that the conclusion is uncertain, but there must be many people who are not all that comfortable with Democrats bur abhor Trump. If some strong leadership emerges from this area, it could be very interesting.

 

Many years ago, I thought who you express would turn out to be John Kasich - but now I don't know. Perhaps he has been forced to act much more firmly right in order to survive politically.

[barmar]

Just a word or two more about the guest post from Fischer.

 

He speaks of "White Man's World". The scorn is dripping from his pen. It invites responses of various sorts. For example, a million or so refugees have risked their lives to get to "White Man's World" and many more hope to come. Could we just back off a little on the contempt? Trump says the problem is the Mexicans, Fischer says it is White Men (not himself of course, but presumably me). Jerry Falwell thinks Satan is the problem. I don't think it is the Mexicans and I don't think it is Satan. I also don't think it is me.

The way I read it, "White Man' World" referred to the old status quo -- in the West, white men really were in charge. These people are reacting to all the extreme changes taking place in society, many of which have reduced their status.

 

What I question about that article is the suggestion that this is something really new. Society has always been changing radically -- the shift from agriculture to industry in the 19th century due to the Industrial Revolution, the rise of democracy in various parts of the world at different times, women's suffrage, all the different social movements of the 60's (women's lib, African-American civil rights, hippies), the list goes on. As the saying goes, the only thing constant is change.

 

What's happening this time that makes The Donald more palatable?

[Al_U_Card]

The way I read it, "White Man' World" referred to the old status quo -- in the West, white men really were in charge. These people are reacting to all the extreme changes taking place in society, many of which have reduced their status.

 

What I question about that article is the suggestion that this is something really new. Society has always been changing radically -- the shift from agriculture to industry in the 19th century due to the Industrial Revolution, the rise of democracy in various parts of the world at different times, women's suffrage, all the different social movements of the 60's (women's lib, African-American civil rights, hippies), the list goes on. As the saying goes, the only thing constant is change.

 

What's happening this time that makes The Donald more palatable?

Read the Steyn article above to see that paternalism is still viable as long as the head honcho is seen as a rugged individual and independant of the influence of the PTB.

[kenberg]

The way I read it, "White Man' World" referred to the old status quo -- in the West, white men really were in charge. These people are reacting to all the extreme changes taking place in society, many of which have reduced their status.

 

What I question about that article is the suggestion that this is something really new. Society has always been changing radically -- the shift from agriculture to industry in the 19th century due to the Industrial Revolution, the rise of democracy in various parts of the world at different times, women's suffrage, all the different social movements of the 60's (women's lib, African-American civil rights, hippies), the list goes on. As the saying goes, the only thing constant is change.

 

What's happening this time that makes The Donald more palatable?

 

I will get to my thoughts on your last sentence, but Fischer is a European and naturally he is particularly addressing issues involving refugees. I quote part of an article this morning in the Washington Post

 

But four months after European leaders agreed to the plan following long and bitter negotiations, the program has been crippled by a lack of cooperation — from countries and the refugees themselves. Out of an intended total of 160,000 asylum seekers, the E.U. has relocated a paltry 272.

 

Things are not going as planned. If nothing else is clear, that seems to be clear.

 

Now let's turn to how this applies to Trump and compare him to Fischer.

Short version:

Fischer: "Meanwhile, at home, the White Man's World is threatened by immigration, globalization of labor markets, gender parity, and the legal and social emancipation of sexual minorities. In short, these societies are undergoing a fundamental shock to traditional roles and patterns of behavior."

Trump: "I can do something about that"

 

So Mr. White Man sits there and hears one person tell him that he is doomed and hears another person say that he can do something about that. He has to decide whom to follow. Tough choice!

 

Of course this is not exact. Most White Men (in the U.S.) have never heard of Mr. Fischer. I had not, until his guest post here. Nonetheless, I think the above contrast of views is a pretty good starting explanation of Trump support. In fact, this seems to be Mr. Fischer's point.

 

Back to refugees for a moment. Back when this first became a topic on the WC, I was of the general opinion that this would overwhelm Europe. I recall looking up the population of Syria and wondering where they could all go. Being on my side of the Atlantic I went easy on advice giving, but it seemed headed for trouble. Fischer's views come across, to me at least, as blaming everything on the White Men. Not all white men, of course. He himself is a Good White Man, very wise and very very high minded. The problem lies with the Bad White Men who simply have not accepted that their time has passed and they should follow the elephants to a suitable graveyard and die.

 

Bottom line: I regard both Trump and Fischer as simplistic and insulting. They differ in whom they choose to insult. I can just hear Fischer saying, about White Men, "and some of them might be good people, I suppose". My hope is that we can move forward without demonizing either Mexicans or white males.

[barmar]

I will get to my thoughts on your last sentence, but Fischer is a European and naturally he is particularly addressing issues involving refugees.

I guess this is a relatively new phenomenon for Europeans. But we've seen it before in the US: Irish coming from the potato famine, Jews escaping the Nazis.

 

They encountered discrimination when they arrived, but eventually they assimilated.

[Winstonm]

I think this is the most important takeaway from the Fischer quote: (emphasis added)

The rise of extreme nationalism and fascism in the 1930s is usually explained in terms of the outcome of World War I, which killed millions of people and filled the heads of millions more with militaristic notions. The war also ruined Europe’s economy, leading to a global economic crisis and mass unemployment. Destitution, poverty, and misery primed publics for toxic politics.

 

 

In areas like I live in, Oklahoma, a severely red state, even the McDonald's and WalMart employees tune in to Fox News and vote GOP. There are a great number of lower middle class and working poor who support the GOP candidates - and these people are still feeling the effects of Reaganomics and the Great Recession and globalization but are not sophisticated enough or educated enough to realize the harm done to them by the very people and policies they support but who are struggling as if still in deep recession, while in the upper middle class, there is a genuine fear of loss of a way of life in which they sit near the top of the food chain. The poorer are fearful that there is no hope; the better off are fearful that there will be change. Both groups want more.

 

With a population that has dismissed the benefits of delayed gratification, simplistic answers are bought because they are "now" answers.

[cherdano]

I guess this is a relatively new phenomenon for Europeans.

LOL.

Seriously, I am not sure I have ever seen a statement as wrong as this one in the WC.

[helene_t]

I guess this is a relatively new phenomenon for Europeans.

Not so new. The Hun and Mongol invasions pushed large numbers of refugees into Western Europe, to the extent that it changed the demographics and the political landscapes significantly, to say the least.

 

After the reformation, lots of French Huguenots came to the Netherlands and elsewhere.

 

The Russian revolution and civil war, WW I, holocaust, WWII and the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe also caused large numbers of refugees.

 

It may be new in the sense that we haven't often had many refugees comming from outside Europe. But we have the Molucans in the Netherlands, and in Denmark we received many refugees from Vietnam in the 1970's.

[hrothgar]

I guess this is a relatively new phenomenon for Europeans. But we've seen it before in the US: Irish coming from the potato famine, Jews escaping the Nazis.

 

They encountered discrimination when they arrived, but eventually they assimilated.

 

Assimilation and discrimination are done by different groups of people.

 

Minorities are discriminated against

Minorities assimilate

 

The way in which you are framing things suggests that minorities need to assimilate in order to avoid discrimination.

I'm not sure if this is true, nor that you intended to say this.

 

BTW, as Cherdano points out, your first sentence is ludicrous. (We'll ignore the fact that centuries of European history were referred to as the "Migration Period". After all, that happened ages ago)

 

Over the years, Europe has seen any number of wars that devastated the continent. Many of these wars (notably The 30 Years War, the expansion and collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the Napoleonic Wars, and World War II / the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe) resulted in massive population shifts. I'm somewhat surprised that something as significant as the Second World War could slip your mind...