Listen to the Donald Trump voters: It has taken an ignorant demagogue to tell truth about GOP, humil

[bemildred]

For the last several decades, the Republican party has been selling a simple economic message to its base: what is good for rich people is good for you too. And, until this election, the base was buying it. The astonishing rise of Donald Trump is an almost apocalyptic sign that they’re not buying it any more.

The GOP establishment has seen all of its candidates not merely beaten, but utterly humiliated, by an aggressively ignorant demagogue, whose rhetoric makes him sound like a cheap knockoff of Benito Mussolini and George Wallace.

Why? A look at the facts of American economic life suggests that the rubes have decided they’re tired of being played for marks, which explains why the GOP establishment’s siren song about the Land of Opportunity is no longer doing the trick.

The basic myth the right wing of The Money Party has sold to Republican voters over the past 40 years (the left wing of the party is called the Democrats) goes like this: the economy boomed in the decades immediately after World War II, and standards of living rose rapidly. But since then, too much government regulation, too many taxes, and an overly generous welfare system that has made Those People even lazier than they were before have combined to kill the American dream.

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/02/listen_to_the_donald_trump_voters_it_has_taken_an_ignorant_demagogue_to_tell_truth_about_gop_humiliate_party_establishment/

[malthaussen]

1. Of course, they're buying in to just as big a con...

... which demonstrates to my satisfaction that there are a lot of people who are into "voting against" rather than "voting for," probably because they have no choice to inspire the latter. Much the same could be said about the Democrats, whose front-runner is running on the "I'm better than the other evil" theme.

It's always hard for those on the inside of a revolutionary period to recognize it over the generalized background noise of day-to-day hysteria, but I think the waves of enthusiasm being generated by Mr Trump and Mr Sanders suggest that the natives are restless. What remains to be seen is how that will affect things, if (as would seem likely), Mrs Clinton and the ruling class come out on top anyway. These are not people who learn from mistakes, and anyway they can judge success or failure only by "winning" and "losing." I'm not satisfied that the Revolution is strong enough yet to overcome the inertia of generations, but we live in interesting times, for sure.

-- Mal

[bemildred]

2. Agreed.

I'm willing to hazard a guess at this point that there will be plenty of civil unrest. If I'm right I expect to be paid handsomely for the prescient warning.

Voting against sounds right. The sheep look up, finally. They don't know what is wrong, but they know it's not right. So that's clear.

You may find this conversation interesting if you had not seen it yet:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113316058

[malthaussen]

3. I added a little bit.

This whole domestic cluster-fuck is a great distraction from what's going on in the rest of the world, isn't it?

I think, though, that "voting against" is nothing new for Joe Sixpack. It's just that intellectuals and liberals, god love 'em, don't quite seem to comprehend that man does not live by bread alone. Mr Sanders is actually rubbing up a little against this truth, and it does appear to be a small blind spot (or a vision-impaired spot). Ask him a question about social justice, and he will almost always talk about economic injustice. Yes, the two are inseparable. But they are not the same, and social justice will not magically follow from a reduction in economic injustice, in some strange corollary of the "trickle-down" theory. But what Mr Sanders proposes is bound to get us farther on the path than private prisons and the War On Crime (read: War On Minorities), which is why I am a bit puzzled that Mr Sanders is not succeeding as well with minorities as he is with millennials.

As for Joe, my belief is that he almost never votes about economic matters, except the simplistic one of "no taxes" and the corollary "free stuff is bad." But he does vote, and loudly, when it comes to punishing, injuring, restricting, and humiliating others. It's really simple, to my view: Joe deferentially pulls his forelock and kneels to his betters (blacks are not the only ones called "boy" in the South, after all, so are white trash), and supports whatever allows him to put off the feeling of shame for this onto others in even worse case than he. Meanwhile, the ruling class would just as happily eat him alive as anyone else. Of course, the shit continues to flow, usually towards women, because everybody has to have somebody to whom they can feel superior.

-- Mal

[bemildred]

4. Pretty close.

Someone to dump on, the one luxury everybody must have.

We have ongoing conversations about international politics down there, it's less noisy and more informative.

[malthaussen]

5. This time next year, it will all be forgotten.

Mrs Clinton will be in the White House, no lessons will have been learned, and four more years of deadlock will be in the cards. Any legislation that does pass will be to favor the power structure. One thing that worries me is the situation with Iran. I believe Mrs Clinton is slavering for the opportunity to destroy them, which is sad considering how they are trying to accommodate our desires and reforming within. I've been amazed all century that we haven't invaded them already. I was quite sure they were next on the list. (Of course, Nigeria is also a possibility, as B.H. is starting to seriously disrupt things there)

-- Mal

[bemildred]

6. It appears to me that Iran is safe for the moment.

What might come with a new President and Congress, who can say? However we haven't really the means to invade Iran, or to do much when there. It's 3 times as big as Iraq, where we failed dismally. With mountains. What we can do is bomb the shit out of it, but that will have consequences. And that is why we haven't done it yet, and have resorted to all sorts of ineffective underhanded methods instead (I know the reasoning is lacking, but that is what it is). And Iran, of course, has carried its weight in that regard too, just as ineffectively, for much the same reason of impotence to do otherwise.

I rely on Mr. Trump's self-interest to protect us, he will not do anything to harm himself ever. No stupid stuff. This is why the War Party is having conniptions. He will disobey.

It is worth remembering in this context that what finally brought down the USSR was Russian nationalism, they got tired of paying for the empire. Sound familiar? Could Trump be our Yeltsin?

[Jefferson23]

7. I read Mal's post and I share that worry too. It is true though that Trump is about Trump

and agree with you there. The neocons are not happy with Trump and worried
he'll be soft on the ME. lol


All that American exceptionalism, they hate seeing it go to waste.

[bemildred]

9. I'm not saying he's not dangerous.

But he's dangerous to them too. The first thing he will do in office is try to clean house, put his own people in

As long as they are after each other we are safe. Once one of them wins, Trump or the Establishment, then we better look out.

The best times for citizens in this country were precisely those years when we were most worried about competing with the commies, and so felt we had to put on a good show of government serving the public. Once the USSR collapsed, all that went out the window and they set to work to dismantle as much of it as they could.

[malthaussen]

11. Couldn't agree more about the Commies.

I believe 20th-century history is best illuminated by being viewed through the lens of our fear of Communism. I did not, as it happens, rejoice when the Berlin Wall came down. I pretty much figured the people were SOL from that point (although certain demographic and social realities were already demonstrating that tough times were ahead. The Fall of Communism (tm) made them worse).

-- Mal

[Jefferson23]

12. I saw that in your meaning, but what I was referring to and I believe Mal was, unless

I misunderstood..my worries are about Clinton too and what may be her actions
on Iran. I get who she is courting presently with her language about Iran when she
attempted to go after Bernie about it. But her world view and judgment is not a
confidence builder for me.

I do agree with your assessment of a Trump administration, that's why the
neocons don't like him.

[bemildred]

14. Yeah, I get you, I just don't like to think about it.

Schadenfreude is not that comforting.

In that sense, well, the door is open, let's see what walks through.

My working model for it is the collapse of the USSR or the British Empire, but the fit is bad, so prediction is a mugs game. Chaos looms.

In my more optimistic moments I think we will become too obsessed with our domestic struggles to get in much more trouble overseas, those big oceans protect the people on the other side too, or they can.

[Jefferson23]

17. Yep, uncertainty will do that.

We'll have a clearer idea soon enough.

[bemildred]

18. Yes, we will.

I have long thought that it is something of a privilege to be present to watch this moment in our history. The shit is going down now. (Edit: Mal alludes to that too.)

I have been waiting since about 1981 for it, that was when I realized that the War Party had no intention of stopping its overseas meddling or respecting the laws in any other ways it was not forced to do.

It may well not be a recipe for a long pleasant life with a peaceful demise at the end. But I'm 70. And I've been waiting a long time. "Man does not live by bread alone."

[Jefferson23]

19. Despite my discouragement from last nights results

the spark is alive enough. We see people around the world and think, you have to
do it..no one else will. Easier said than done, and we are never certain where
or in what form that spark will come from..often catastrophe. In this case
it is from the lack of resolve over many years, I think..coupled with a voice
from another older guy who has been sounding the alarm for most of his career.

Although it is not best to look to a top down approach, he gave people relief,
that someone within government could say on the world stage that we
do not have a functioning democracy and here is why. He may not ever
see the presidency but I do not see us going away, more in line with
a continuation and likely to remain well organized. After all, the establishment
on both sides are doing their part, they're not listening. I hear rationalizations
and mocking of all kinds from the political pundit bobbleheads. The motto, I am
not as bad as the other guy/other side so vote for me is not sustainable to
keep a political party together...I just don't see how this will work much
longer.

What people do with it is ultimately up to us, and I expect there to be
set backs as with development/movements of any kind, it does not take
place in a straight line.

[bemildred]

20. +1.

That is what Trump is doing, he tromping on the established taboos and shibboleths, the things which must not be mentioned. "The emperor has no clothes".

And that is what Bernie is doing too.

And that becomes a winning election strategy at a certain point, when the accumulated denial piles high enough to be impossible to ignore. I remember it from the 60s and 70s. We were incoherent, but for a while we had it figured out who our real enemy was, some of us. I never forgot.

You would think the DC types would get it, since they are so fond of it themselves, personal attacks, but they are used to being immune and will have to learn discipline again.

Bernie has possibilities. And no, we aren't going away, we never went away. That was all bullshit.

[malthaussen]

8. For the moment, yes.

Mr Obama was able to resist temptation and pressure.

I have few fears with Mr Trump as regards the nuclear button. I'd much rather have him in charge of it than Mr Huckabee or Mr Cruz, who might very well decide it is time to immanentize the Eschaton. (Although I remain unconvinced that Mr Cruz is a True Believer. His father, yeah, but he seems too smart and cynical to me to actually believe the crap he sells) And Iran might well be too big a meal to digest, in Mr Trump's opinion, though I'm sure he'd love a Grenada to demonstrate what a tough guy he is. Mr Trump is just a good enough con man that I'm a little uncertain about what he would do if Mrs Clinton does go down in flames (hard to believe she would, but the ineptitude of that campaign is awe-inspiring). I think 90% of what he says is just chum in the waters, and that he won't seriously consider walls and concentration camps. But I'm sure quite a few people thought the same thing about Mr Hitler. I've said before I don't think he really wants the job, but he might take it if offered anyway, as it would make him a man before his mother. What he proceeds to do then, domestically or internationally, is a total crap shoot, although I am pretty confident that most of us won't like it.

-- Mal

[bemildred]

10. Yeah, that's about right.

People forget what a dumb fucker Hitler was. Trump is neither particularly intelligent nor well-informed, but he is quick and he knows the score and nobody is going to feed him simple-minded bullshit.

[bemildred]

13. Cruz strkes me as an amazingly dishonest person, I agree about him.

I don't think he knows what he really thinks. Trump-like but without the grasp of monkey politics that Trump has. And a dogmatist, and that is bad, very bad.

[malthaussen]

15. Interesting flavors of contempt emerging in this election.

Mrs Clinton is contemptuous because she's an aristocrat, and knows down to her fingernails that the people are scum and she is better than they. Mr Trump is contemptuous because he is a con man, and knows down to his fingernails that he is smarter than everyone else. And Mr Cruz? I think he is genuinely an evil little man, and is contemptuous because he hates everything and everyone.

Of the three, I think I'd actually prefer, if forced, to have a beer with Mr Trump. At least he is a jolly buffoon. And the essence of a con working on someone who knows it is a con, is that the latter wants to see how far the former will take it. Not the smartest reaction, and I'd rather drown all three of them than have a beer with any of them.

-- Mal

[bemildred]

16. Well said.

Like puppies.