If there's anything more amazing,
startling, and amusing than the Trump candidacy it's the reactions of
all the usual suspects. It was said of a politician of an earlier
era (I forget which one) that everyone hated him except the people –
and it seems that Trump is in the same category. What's ironic is
that, in our time, everyone pretends to be a populist but only Trump
and Sanders are the real thing – populism, by definition, being a
movement against the establishment – whatever that happens to be.
So we, as I've commented previously, are seeing bimodal (bipolar?)
populism – a pull from both the right and the left, as personified
by The Donald and The Bern. And the establishment is fit to be tied
– and I include in that both liberal and conservative, the
near-left and the near-right (assuming there is no functioning
middle, which is a pretty safe bet these days). The MSM pour hot
coals on his coiffed head on a daily basis, as does Fox News and any
and all neocons (which includes all other Republican candidates) –
the worst invective coming from people who, one would think, would
resonate, or at least understand, what Trump is all about, and at
least empathize a bit. George Will, for example, whom I respect for
his usual wisdom and sterling prose, is absolutely over the top in
his hostility... my local paper, neocon-dominated although they do
make space for libertarians now and then, is aghast at The Donald,
right down to, and including, the house editorial cartoonist. The
“argumentum ad Hitlerum” has been brought out in full force –
and, let's admit, der Adolf was a populist of sorts, much to the
dismay of the establishment of his time.
I'll tell you who isn't afraid of Trump
– the libertarians and the paleocons (including Pat Buchanan).
They “get it” -- not that they necessarily agree with Trump on
all, or even most, issues, but they understand his appeal and don't
attempt to blame it on sheer demagoguery (or racism, xenophobia, not
being nice, etc.). They realize that a large portion of Americans,
of every shape and size, feel threatened, oppressed, ignored,
ridiculed, left out, and exploited – and they sympathize. And who
is consistently speaking to them in language they understand? Nobody
but the Trumpster. They might wish it otherwise – that, for
example, the mainstream Republicans would “man up” for once and
stop all the pathetic me-too-ism that has been their meme for so many
years and election cycles. Any time a libertarian stands up in the
midst of a Republican gathering he is booed, hissed, and firmly
ushered out the door – as witness Ron Paul & son. Any time our
delusional, fanatical, bloodthirsty foreign policy is questioned or
criticized, whoever dares to speak up is immediately plastered with
the usual labels, starting with “isolationist”, “abandoning our
allies” (by which they mean Israel, and none other) – the term
“peacenik” having gone out of fashion, apparently.
A current American Conservative
(paleocon, note) article gives Trump, along with Kasich, a C in
foreign policy – which is their best rating other than a B for
Bernie... but I imagine they would give Bernie a triple-F for
domestic policy, so we can consider Trump a winner overall. Here is
the article:
But – let's face it – the American
voter is motivated primarily by domestic policy issues, which is your
doctor's word for “pocketbook”. We don't think a whole lot about
foreign policy until someone we know is sent to some craphole
overseas and comes back in a body bag or with missing limbs, and then
cognitive dissonance forces us to allow that, well, it must have been
worthwhile, considering the price that was paid. Military spending,
most of which can be marked down to empire building rather than true
defense of the homeland, doesn't seem to enter anyone's mind as a
real expense, in competition with domestic spending – as if our
infrastructure doesn't suffer when we spend more rebuilding countries
that we've destroyed than we spend on our own highways, sewer and water
systems, power grid, etc. It's as if those funds are not
fungible – or are, but only under the most extreme circumstances.
The fact is, any and all military spending imposes opportunity costs
on any and all domestic spending. But apparently we'd rather live in
squalor and have a mighty military than enjoy the wealth we have
created here at home.
And granted, Trump is very gung-ho when
it comes to our military activities overseas, but at the same time
seems more hesitant than most candidates when it comes to taking on
new burdens in that arena. As the article notes, he “can't seem
to make up his mind. He supported regime change in Libya in
2011, but wants to withdraw completely from Syria. He would review
the Iran deal and has made comments that could indicate he supports a
smaller defense budget, but offers no concrete stance.” But he
doesn't have blood in his eye (or anywhere else, ahem) about Russia,
and is not itching to go into Syria with the same doomed-to-failure
approach we took in Afghanistan and Iraq. He actually comes off as
something of a pragmatist (vs. dogmatist or Cold War revivalist) when
it comes to foreign policy – and this is sure to enrage all the
mainstream “conservatives”.
So, basically, the
Trump Test comes down to this. If whoever, or whatever, it is
displays nothing but hysteria and seeing Hitler under every bed, you
can confidently ignore them, because what it means is that (1) they
are sold out to the idea of empire; and (2) they don't really
understand, or care, about the plight, grievances, and attitudes of a
good portion of Americans (who, admittedly, don't live less than an hour's drive from either coast, so their opinions can't
possibly be of any value, and those people don't count in any case);
and (3) they have no sense of humor (or, aren't cynical enough, which
is probably the same thing when it comes to politics).
Trump
is, in short, a symptom – but hey, isn't all of politics
symptomatic in some way? Isn't it all about not liking the way
things are and wanting them to change? The only question is, for any
given candidate, does one agree with their assessment, and with their
notions as to what has to change, and how? It's a political issue –
grist for dialogue, discussion, and debate... and not for running
around with one's hair on fire. We should know by now that any
candidate will seem like gift from on high to some, and a lunatic to
others. Clearly, the people who react most hysterically are the ones with the most to lose -- and yet, one wonders, in many cases, precisely what they are so terrified of losing? What is George Will afraid of? What is my local paper afraid of? Are they really so sold out to the establishment that any threat to it is seen as an existential threat to themselves? In which case, shouldn't we, perhaps, be a bit more skeptical when we read what they have to say?
