Dissecting the Trump:  Part II

Donald Trump's signature behavior has been the flagrant violation of the rules of rhetorical engagement for presidential candidates.  The rules were created to maintain an aura of civility and piety over the nutty and often dirty process of presidential selection.  But they also serve to disguise systemic deception, and Trump's sharp bending of the rules has a way of unmasking these deeper truths.  Instead of, say, timidly advocating denial of drivers licenses to undocumented workers as a "public safety" issue that disguises anti-Mexican or anti-immigrant sentiments behind the cloak of a petty, punitive measure--a proposal gaining ground in several states--Trump doubles or even triples down, flaunting the word "rapists" as an excuse to deport a million undocumented workers.  The shocking use of this terminology causes discomfort in society at large while specifically threatening the interests of entrenched roofing, construction, and meatpacking businesses in Phoenix.  But it's very outrageousness also provides welcome relief for voters of all stripes, weary of the evasive discourse on immigration, distorted beyond all credibility by candidate cowardice and the fear of stepping into politically incorrect terrain.  Trump's insulting language, even as you react angrily, jolts you out of this fear in ways that open up the space previously blocked by political correctness.  This is healthy.

The word "rapists" also created a stir in television newsrooms.  Pundits of all stripes who clucked about Trump's language seemed to be warning him, "we will not take seriously any candidate who violates our rules."  But Trump's refusal to fawn for the approval of overpaid talking heads also created a rush of admiration.  How refreshing to see someone mock this arrogance--even if one totally disagrees with Trump's assertions!   In one stroke, Trump's use of language kicks at the festering mental logjam induced by political correctness.  It hints at the hypocrisy of those who take themselves too seriously as arbiters of political reality while also fulfilling their true corporate function, which is to sell monopolistically priced pharmaceuticals and car insurance for self-interested media moguls.  And it challenges the bipartisan collusion that has prevented any action on a subject most Americans believe needs serious attention, not glib doubletalk.  Wittingly or unwittingly, the Trump campaign did some heavy lifting with the mere use of the loaded word "rapists." Why should we be surprised by The Ban?

So far the Trump campaign has been running on parallel tracks:  On the surface, this is a campaign for the presidency, run by an amateur whose policies can be compared to those of other candidates.   But on a parallel track Trump runs a parody campaign, using forbidden language that, in its earnest naiveté, somehow underscores the sham of contemporary presidential electioneering.  And it is this second track that has generated Trump's poll numbers.  The direction of Trump's policy (the first track) is not the point, at least not yet.  We are so secretly delighted by the refreshing candor of this second track that we are willing to give him a short-term pass on the first. Yes!  Kick those poll numbers up!  Challenge the stuffy rules of presidential politics, insult the pundits telling us what to think, point out the tawdriness at all levels:  this is fun!  And we can sort out who we want for president later. 

Trump, whose trademark hairdo itself suggests a vain or pompous man underneath, has deftly turned the tables and exposed television coverage, mealy-mouthed politicians, and the oppression of political correctness as being far more pompous than the Trump himself, who at least has the grace sometimes to laugh at his own shtick.  This is an amazing accomplishment.

Political parties?  Why, Trump asks, should the servant class of presidential elections, these empty shells no longer serving any observable public good, be allowed to choose the rules of the game for a debate to be watched by millions of potential voters?  Good question.  Fox News?  Why should candidates cow-tow to its self-appointed mission to set the Republican agenda?  The Trump scores again.  ISIS?  Why should voters pay the slightest attention to the carefully worded nonsense of candidates catering to fears within specific sectors of an electorate and vetted through the mirror of public opinion polls?  Trump simply cuts through all of this by saying with a straight face that he has a foolproof way of defeating ISIS quickly and decisively which he will reveal only after he is elected.  Has any other candidate in either party made any more sense of ISIS than this?  Name one.  Terrorism at home?  Ban all Muslims from coming over here.  How's that for starting a more honest discussion about domestic terrorism?  Trump's in-your-face, deliberately incorrect language somehow begs the world to think outside the boundary lines of our log-jammed and disingenuous political discourse.  This is healthy.

None of this means the Trump will be, or should be, President of the United States.  Trump has spent so much time fighting the windmills of the second track of his campaign that we know almost nothing about the first track; and judging from what appears to be his support base, that might take us into dangerous territory indeed.  But Trump's use of outrageous language in the past few months has unmasked the poverty of ideas inside most presidential campaigns, and the self-serving vapidity of most of what passes as news and commentary.  It might even lead to a more honest public discussion about the serious problems that lie ahead.

Part III will discuss the role of Bernie Sanders in shaping the Republican presidential campaign

Trump and the New 2016 Republican Game of Musical Chairs:  What is this, really, all about?  Part I

The Conservative movement in the United States consists of distinct, overlapping social groups, once politely comfortable with one another's presence under the tent of the Republican Party, but today engaged in a nasty power struggle to define an agenda of  "true" Conservative action, or inaction, for the future. The Trump phenomenon has highlighted the most important fault lines emerging inside the Republican Party (there is very little meaningful difference between the terms Republican and Conservative in US politics today), threatening the election chances of the GOP in 2016.  This is the first in a series of articles about what the Trump phenomenon means for American politics today.  First, let's make sure we understand just what we are talking about when we say "Republican" or "Conservative."  While the list below is not definitive, it is a rough approximation of what US Conservatism/Republicanism consists of on the ground.

1.  The "Old Guard." This faction consists of moneyed interests identifying with the Republican Party since 1890.  Members of this group used to be called "Rockefeller Republicans," including well-heeled elites from traditional sectors of "Wall Street."  Less operationally influential in the past two decades, this faction nevertheless is a heavy lifter in the all-important funding sweepstakes of presidential politics.

2.  Main Street:  a large portion of small business owners, small town bankers, franchise owners, small-scale entrepreneurs, who enjoy folkloric status as the attractive backbone of the party.  It is an America composed of these stalwart, well-intentioned citizens that Republicans point to when seeking presidential votes.  Since Ronald Reagan, however, the "city on the hill" image he evoked to sell Conservatism has grown stale, and new groups of Republicans, less comfortable in the world, have been banging on the Republican door for attention.

3.  Regional Elites, in places like Arizona and the Midwest, who never accepted the Roosevelt welfare state, and who would like to reduce its scale.  These groups have become more rhetorically active on such subjects as gun control and immigration, abortion, and have formed powerful alliances with largely Protestant church-goers in what has come to be known as The Religious Right.

4.  Southern Whites:  these are formerly Democrats, attracted to traditional family values, law and order, state's rights, patriotism, and the like, but whose underlying appeal is (a) to negate government efforts to address the legacies of inequality and poverty and (b) reject some of the postulates of Neoliberalism.  The Republican Party has become a national party in great part because of the success of Republican operatives in creating a mass migration of Southern Whites to the Republican Party.  On the other hand, neoliberal national policies (see below), implemented by both parties, have eliminated many high paying jobs in the South, leaving Southern Whites politically stranded, competing in Republican circles with other newly emerging voices, and ever more prone to joining up with the Religious Right and other angry elements in the population.

5.  Neoliberals: a dominant, bipartisan faction in Congress during the 80s and 90s, stressing free trade, shifting resources to help what is called the New Economy based on technology rather than industrial strength. Little operational strength, but influential among Conservative policy think tanks

6.  Neoconservatives:  A small faction, powerful during the Post-Cold War period, emphasizing an aggressive, sometimes openly imperial, foreign policy.  Structurally, neoconservatives played an important role in channeling anger among Southern Whites and Regional elites into an aggressive anti-terrorist national policy, particularly under George Bush.

7.  Libertarians, who hope to unify the various component elements of the Republican Party behind a well developed purist ideology of small government with an added component of reversing the centralization of power through oppressive institutions infringing on civil liberties, and the bipartisan failures of and activist American Foreign policy since the Gulf War.  Almost the polar opposite of Neoconservatism.

8.  The failure of Republican leaders during moments they held power, to satisfy the inclinations of Southern Whites, regional elites, and libertarians, has given rise to an anti-establishment backlash within the Republican Party, known as the Tea Party, bent on lowering taxes cutting government spending, often in a style emphasizing highly authoritarian outlooks on life.

So there you have it.  As you might imagine, tensions have been increasing between these groups, as newer groups of Conservatives have gained more adherents within the Republican Party.   But as the pre-presidential election year of 2015 began,  the stage was set for what appeared to be an interesting, but predictable pre-primary season.  The Tea Party, flaunting its electoral gains in the past five years, would enforce rhetorical compliance among establishment candidates for a deeply anti-government doctrine.  The mood of the Republican electorate would determine whether immigration, law and order, foreign policy, or other themes would gain traction, but in the end Jeb Bush, with access to most of the above factions, and with tons of money, would prevail to take on Hillary and probably win the election.  Three unexpected things upset this apple cart:  The dramatic increase in systemic violence in the Middle East and at home; the improbable candidacy of Donald Trump, and, to a lesser extent, the popularity of Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders.  Part II will focus on these issues.

Links for December 11, 2015

• Forbes:  ABQ the worst city to own a home:  NM Political Report
• ABQ Home Sales Ahead of 2014:  Harold Morgan, Capital ReportNM
• Empowering Ugliness:  Krugman, NYTimes 
• Preliminary December Consumer Sentiment  increases to 91.8%, Calculated Risk

Links for December 2, 2015

• Following the Money Becomes Even More Difficult:  NMPolitics.Net

• New Mexico is One of the Nation's High Crime States:  how's that for helping the economy?  Mark Bentley's Inside Politics

• Forget Wall Street:  Here's an idea to help U.S. Banks:  CBS News 
• The False Promise of Meritocracy:  Marianne Cooper, The Atlantic
• Carbon and Inequality:  from Kyoto to Paris:  Lucas Chancel and Thomas Piketty, Vox
• An Introduction to the Geography of Student Debt:  Marshall Steinbaum and Kavya Vaghul, Equitable Growth

Coming Up on this Site Later This Month:

The State of the State at the end of 2015

Links for December 1 2015:

• The Spaceport's Dismal 2015:  Errors of Enchantment
• Lawmakers Hear About Alternative to incarceration for opiate addicts:  NM Political Report 
•  Why Pass new anti-corruption laws when the problem isn't the law but the culture?  Mark Bentley
• Beyond Mistrust:  how Americans view their government:  Pew Research Center
•  Changing labor laws may hurt public employees' clout in presidential election:  EurekAlert
• Age Discrimination in the job market may hurt women more:  Andrew Flowers, FiveThirtyEightEconomics

Links for November 23, 2014

• 
  

Links for November 21, 2015:

• Former Speaker Martinez Will Retire:  NM Politics.Net

• The Political Aftermath of Financial Crises:  Going to Extremes:  Manuel Funke, Moritz Schularick, Christoph Trebesch:  Vox
•  Aspen Summit on Inequality and Opportunity (video) - Equitable Growth

Links for November 14, 2015

• Monopolies Are Crushing U.S. Workers and Consumers:  David Dayen, The Fiscal Times

• Republicans' Lust for Gold:  Paul Krugman, NY Times

Links for November 13, 2015

• Review of the NM Economic Scene:  Mark Bentley
• Voluntary Disclosure of Offshore Tax Evasion:  Vox EU.Org
• Black Names:  Past, Present, and Future:  Vox EU.Org
• Blinkered Economics of the 2016 GOP presidential candidates:  Washington Post

Links for November 12 2015:

• Six Problems with GOP Debate on Financial Reform
• The GOP Debate on Tax Reform:  NY Times 
• Comparing Tax Proposals:  Tax Foundation

The Republican Debate:  My Take

The fault lines cracking through the national Republican coalition of interests bundled together with rusty bailing wire are beginning to show.  The R presidential debates have made this abundantly clear:  candidate A is courting the White Male, candidate B is drilling down to the Angry Unemployed White Southern Male, another is seeking to reassure the Religious Right, another is catering to the hopes of working women while others are relying on the warmed-over appeals to the whole haystack of interests such as the ancient mantra against big gummint and high taxes or the glorification (violins, please) of The Private Sector and the Small Businesses of America. But the testiness of the candidates with one another is a powerful sign that some sectors of the GOP no longer believe their interests are compatible with one another, while others no longer believe the Republican Party is addressing their needs adequately.  These cracks in the coalition are also behind the nastiness of the fight over the Speakership of the House of Representatives, so it runs deeper than merely playful pre-primary presidential politics

One problem is that the old rhetorical formulas that worked so well for Rs in the Reagan Era (which has lasted until now) are losing their appeal among those groups whose boats have not been lifted by the tide of new money.  This is particularly true of the Angry White Male, a loser in the net-worth sweepstakes, who is losing his faith the Rs will protect him in a crunch even if they do approve of his family values.  And to make matters worse, Bernie Sanders is gathering steam on the other side by telling Angry White Males the problem is the Failure to Trickle Down, stupid, a very bipartisan failure that still has not fully registered in mainstream Democratic Party circles where slurping liquor with corporate lobbyists at fundraisers is part of the political game. But it is also true of other sectors of the G.O.P., such as the blue-collar or service worker everywhere, who has seen the good jobs disappear into the whirlwind of corporate flight to China, Mexico, and the Cayman Islands, only to see them replaced by part-time jobs with no benefits.

That this unease in the Republican base is dangerous, requiring more drastic language than the comfortable slogans of the past, is most scandalously, shockingly, outrageously slapped in our faces by the most famous billionaire of our times, Donald Trump.  Trump's persistent appeal to one in four Republicans, in spite of, no, because of, his embrace of politically taboo subjects, has shaken up the other candidates, as well as Fox News and other crusty arbiters of political wisdom, and our own rhetorical comfort zones as well.  We are asked by Trump to imagine, yes, a real wall, not the hypocritical rickety virtual fence of current border enforcement policy, with real deportations.  We are asked to imagine the forcing of US corporations to return to the US and pay taxes--true blasphemy after two decades of bipartisan clucking about the inevitability of globalization.  We are asked to imagine legalizing drugs, not for the Libertarian purity of pointy-headed intellectuals like Rand Paul, but to give the government  a piece of the action, too.  Trump imagines a powerful government to do all of this; and he imagines presiding under a larger tent than the one currently housing the GOP.  Only now do we begin to see a glimmer of the kind of rhetoric the GOP will cobble together in the 2016 presidential election.  Public pay heed.  Trump is telling us the Golden Age of Ronald Reagan is over:  get ready for the next stage of political combat between the people and the bipartisan coalition of interests that have seized control of our institutions of governance in recent decade.

The 2016 presidential election is the first serious test of the strength of that bipartisan coalition.  By hook and by crook it presided over the most massive distribution of wealth and income to the wealthy in over a century, with barely a peep of resistance from any quarter. That there are cracks in the partisan coalitions that comprise each major political party is the first sign resistance may be brewing.  Barack Obama became President in part because he suggested strongly he could change the tide.  His failure to even try to deliver, coupled with the impotence of a dysfunctional Congress drunk with the flow of big money, is what underlies the strength of Bernie Sanders and the nastiness of the GOP presidential campaign so far.

 Nothing can be more fundamental about the role of government in our lives than the distribution of about six trillion taxed dollars, and the effect taxation has on different sectors of society.  Increasingly over the past third of a century national tax policy has closed loopholes on the middle class while opening up large holes for the famous One Percent.  Now that Bernie has placed this hitherto taboo subject front and center on the political agenda, and Trump's candidacy appears more and more to be a New York City billionaire's response to Bernie, it will be interesting to see whether Trump's vision has made a difference in the way the GOP deals with bread and butter issues like taxation.  From the looks of it, very little has changed.  Ted Cruz hopes to win over the One Percent Super Pacs by giving them more tax breaks than the other candidates.  Trump is kinder to the middle class than the rest, but still manages to shovel a lot more up the ladder.  This, at least, is the view of Kevin Drum (click here) and Mother Jones:  Drum summarizes his take on the proposals as follows:

THIS BLOG'S DESIGN IS UNDERGOING SOME CHANGES

BLOGGING ABOUT NEW MEXICO WILL RESUME SHORTLY