I’m back on the bloggers chair after a long hibernation!! Yay! Originally I wanted to update reguarly, but grad school got in the way. I apologize for any mess that this has left and I will try to make up for it....if I can! Below are my thoughts on what has transpired with the victory of Donald Trump.
The Election of 2016: My Thoughts
First of all, the 2016 election. I was not surprised that Donald Trump won. Donald Trump's victory could boil down to two different factors. One factor was of course the racism and misogyny prevalent in America. Trump spoke to the darker elements of American society, the alt-right, the KKK, the white nationalists, the neo-nazis and formed a far-right populist bloc catering to the worst elements of racism, ultranationalism and xenophobia. Trump promised law and order, as well as the most extreme policies perpetuated against illegals and muslim-Americans. He overall took advantage of the xenophobia and wounds, hidden by the myths of post-racialism, within American society and offered the idea that if a certain minority, be it Mexicans or Muslims, be removed completely from America, that things will be better. Trump has dug up hatred, and brought it to the surface.
Yet the narrative that Trump simply galvanized dark and racist forces, while true, is not sufficient to explain everything. Trump also reached out to elements of American society, such as the rust belt, that lost out to neoliberalism and the movement of industries and jobs overseas. He manipulated these elements of rural and working-class America with promises that he will "drain the swamp", that he will preserve America for the working class and get jobs that were lost back.
The Trump vote, as with Brexit, was a battle between a resurgent ultranationalist right vs. the neoliberal right. However while both sides policies will only prove to be detrimental in the long run, the ultranationalist and xenophobic forces have one trump card that the neoliberal right did not: the ability to speak in the common language of the dispossessed. It was all lies combined with racist xenophobia, but they understood that elements of the population urged a break from neoliberalism due to the economic stratification and inequality and deceived that element of the populace with false promises. Trump has, within days of winning the election, betrayed the element of the voter base concerned with the economy and appointed one swamp monster and corporate suit after another. Even while the racist elements of his campaign are continuously entrenched with the appointment of alt-right acolytes, it seems that Trump has already dropped his promise of more populist governance while combining corporate elitism and racist ultranationalism. Nevertheless, for a time, Trump spoke to the disposessed, and manipulated their sentiments with racism and false promises. False promises were somehow better than no promises at all, and the neoliberal establishment failed to offer any tangiable policies to alleviate the sitiation of rural and working-class Americans.
The establishment, rather than offering policies that would support the disadvantaged rural and working populace, chose to instead to solely focus on the elements of the voter base that could rightfully be called out for their racism....and then conflate the alt-rightists and boil Trump's message to solely being about the alt-right, or the deplorables. However, this strategy in turn alienates the aspects of the Trump base that were manipulated by Trump's false hope of economic populism; and what was noteworthy was that Hillary never really called out how Trump's whole promise was a fraud but just attacked the most visible issue. Even if 90% of the Trump supporters were driven by racism and white supremacy and alt-right neo-fascism, it does not mean that the 1%-10% that was driven by economic fears should be totally ignored. And that 10% that did not subscribe to far-rightist ideology, but were manipulated by economic concerns, could have been the turning point. In a sense the economic malaise gave openings for the alt-right, and allowed them to innoculate the populace in their bigotry and hatred.
In fact, the turnout for this election was quite low. Perhaps because much of the population faced the continuation of the neoliberal order OR a campaign that was populist on the surface but had sullied itself with racism and neo-fascism and was in truth a whole bag of lies, they decided to stay home and boycott the whole thing in disgust, being all too familiar with Hillary's perpetuation of a unequal status quo and seeing through the lies and racism promoted by Trump. To progressives, Hillary had nothing to offer, and Trump had the wrong things to offer once his populist rhetoric was deconstructed and analyzed critically. Thus the choice between two evils, ultranationalism and neoliberalism, was enough for people to stop following the election altogether and wait for the apocalypse.
Hillary supporters will now blame Bernie supporters for their loss(it's already happening), they will continue to rant about how third party voters once again gave the election to the right just like how they supposedly did in 2000. But when you look at it, it was Hillary's fault. She ran a completely neoliberal campaign and did nothing to unite the population against the alt-right, she assumed that racism was the only thing driving Trump voters when there was sections of the population that . Had she been more progressive, she would have offered solutions and policies targeting the rust belt or rural areas, and had called out Trump's populism for what it was: a bigotry-laden fraud. Instead her entire argument boiled down to "I'm not racist, but they are" without saying how or why she would do things differently. This all of course, raises the question of if Bernie would have won with a message unifying and linking the struggles of both marginalized identites(POC, women, LGBTQ) and the working class against racism and false populism had he not been stolen from his nomination by the DNC, but alas we can't change the past.
That said, an indictment of the neoliberals in giving rise to this ultranationalist monster called the "alt-right" was the point of my blog. My blog was aptly titled "The Root of the Problem" and it was written to analyze the growth of the alt-right. However, we cannot analyze the problem without understanding it's catalyst. Brexit and Trump were simply symptoms, but the failure of neoliberals to address the economic inequalities perpertuated under their system was the disease, which now seeks to give rise to a new wave of far-right ultra-nationalism.
So who did I support and why?
Of course I supported Jill Stein in the elections(through as a Canadian, I could not vote), as I said I would, she managed to get 1% of the vote. I could not bring myself to support Hillary, and Trump's disgusting racist rhetoric offers little room for a non-white like myself to support; not to mention I saw through his false populist lies quite easily. The argument from Hillary supporters is that more minorities and people of color will suffer if Trump is president. While this is true, to what extent has the Clintons and Obama been a boon for minorities. It should not be overlooked that Bill Clinton sponsored the crime bill that disenfranchised black communities and grew the prison industrial complex, which Hillary also supported(through the support of Bernie Sanders, through for more altruistic reasons, should not be overlooked). It should also be noted that Obama expanded the war on terror with Drone Programs that have disproportionately killed innocent civilians, which causes a cycle of revenge that turns bystanders in the Middle East to terrorists in fear or retribution; he has also created laws that puts Muslim-Americans, and civil liberties for the populace as a whole, into even more precarious situation under the pretext of fighting terrorism. Obama himself has also deported the most illegals in contrast to other administrations, and his failure to truly address the systemic racism in America is one of the causes of the rise of Black Lives Matter against police brutality and the racism within American society.
Thus, while Trump heralds a new and frightening chapter in the history of America, I do not have much faith in the democratic establishment and the government that came before Trump, and in fact it can be argued that they gave Trump the perfect instruments to do as he desires to anything he considers a threat--be it Muslims or perceived illegal immigrants.
Another major reason I did not support either of them was that I feel both candidates were equally hawkish. Trump supporters tend to have this claim that Hillary is the really hawkish one, that Hillary would start a war with Russia, that it was Trump or WW3. For the most part, Hillary's rhetoric towards Russia is quite scary, and the neocons support of her puts pay to any idea she would be a dove compared to Trump's inflammatory rhetoric. However, looking at Trump, is he any better? Just because he wants diplomacy with Russia on the issue of fighting the greater evil of ISIS dosen't mean it could be fruitful. It could easily be "we team up to take down the common enemy rather than saber rattle", and the rest is yet to be determined. We could have a situation where the neocons are pragmatic enough to wait until the war against ISIS with Russia cooperation is won, only to worm their way back in once the immediate threat is dealt with.
And looking at Trump's cabinet picks, it looks like the neocons haven't gone away, which gives validity to my points regarding the legitimacy of Trump's so-called diplomacy. The most infamous neocon to be appointed to Trump's cabinet is John Bolton. Bolton was one of the perpetrators of the false rhetoric of WMDs that got America into the Iraq war. He is also one of the biggest voices calling for regime change in Iran. In November, he said that only overthrowing Iran’s government, regardless of any consequences, is the only way tensions with Iran could decrease, and expressed hope Trump will walk out on the Iranian nuclear deal.
Trump has also sought cooperation with Dick Cheney in order to push for Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson as secretary of state, especially against dissidents within the GOP to Tillerson's ascenson such as Marco Rubio, which Cheney hopes to convince. So despite condemning the invasion of Iraq, perpertuated by the neocons, as a mistake, it seems Trump wasn't totally sincere about his anti-neocon stance.
While Trump is more open to cooperating with Russia, his rhetoric on China is equally belligerent as Hillary's rhetoric torwards Russia. Trump has claimed global warming was a hoax created by the Chinese to out compete the US in manufacturing. Trump's promises of massive tariffs on Chinese products raises the specter of trade wars with China. Trump has also gave the governments of Japan and South Korea the right to militarize against China and North Korea and seek to build nuclear weapons to counter the Chinese threat. Trump has also sought to end relations with China in favor of Taiwan, this in turn has led to saber rattling on the part of the Chinese government themselves. So much for Trump as a peacemaker.
So let us assume that the choice is between peace or war. I personally think that if both candidates actions facilitate a war of some sort, than neither has a high ground. The rhetoric of Hillary towards Russia and Trump towards China border on the most belligerent sorts of saber rattling. It was not about preventing a major war or a second Cold War from breaking out but supposedly closing the door to one war and opening the door to another one. And who knows, the globalized nature of the world means that conflict with Russia or with China will drag the other in, which means assuming that Trump's saber-rattling towards China brings us to the brink, don't expect some sort of limited war where Russia stays out.
Real vs. Fake News
With Trump having won, there has been concerns within the media that he won due to the proliferation of fake news on the internet, perpetuated by the alt-right and troll websites to legitimatize the opposition. This has led to concerns by social media websites such as Facebook to stop the spread of fake news, which may have led to the election being swayed to the favor of Trump.
While there is a need to confront the racist propaganda apparatus of the alt-right, the way the fake news debate is conducted raises fears of censorship. While alt-right appratus can be rightfully cracked down on, what about progressive or even libertarian sources? The entire debate is framed in a way that basically frames all fake news as those critical of the neoliberal hegemony. This can turn legitimate responses against neo-fascism into a broader campaign of censorship against "anything we don't like", even left-wing sources that would speak out against the alt-right.
Furthermore, if the need to counteract hate propaganda evolves into a broader campaign of censorship, it will only determine the sort of fake news that exists. After all, it was fake news that led us to the war in Iraq wasn't it? Also note that most of the media in America is controlled by six corporations, and thus even if the fake news of the alt-right is defeated, the use of media as propaganda will still exit, twisted to the whims of the corporate elite; and this same corporate control has been propping up Hillary and Trump, and the divisive rhetoric of both candidates in regards to ratings and brand loyalty at the expense of Sanders left-progressive message.
So overall, while there is a need to crack down on far-right and conspiracy-laden news sources that distort the truth and twist it to justify a agenda of ultranationalism and hatred, this campaign to stop fake news could easily develop into one that targets progressive and leftist news sources that were critical of both Trump and Clinton(ie: Democracy Now, TheRealnews, Counterpunch), or even calling for deescalation with Russia or a more sensible policy in the middle east. Ultimately, unless it is directed carefully, the campaign against fake news could
easily turn from a legitimatate need to fight hate propaganda to a more
darker and, Orwellian turn; in that the fake news of the corporate elite
pits itself against the fake news of the far-right to see who would be the first to censor and suppress the opposition.
What is the task of progressives?
There is so much more to talk about the events that transpired such as the recounts that Jill Stein wanted to push fourth, as well as tomorrow's electoral college vote(which I do not think will really amount to much). Those will be covered in due time, there is just too much to discuss. But a bigger question can be raised: what is the task of progressives?
A task for progressives, particularly the Bernie-or-Bust crowd is to ensure that they take the lead in resistance to Trump's policies. The left has been wrongfully scapegoated by liberals and lesser evilists and the neoliberal establishment as the catalyst to Trump's victory, the establishment has tried their best to paint the Bernie supporters as solely white and male, supposedly being driven only by how their white privilege will allow them to weather the storm; this invisibilizes women, LGBTQ and PoC that supported Sanders and/or Stein, or any other party on the left, and it also exonerates the establishment of how their failings gave rise to Trump. I feel, with the unpopularity of Trump's policies, it is important for progressives to take the lead in resisting them, otherwise any resistance movement will be co-opted by establishment democrats, who will subsequently distance them from genuine progressives, and perpetuate the myth that Trump won because of progressives.
It is not enough to simply take the lead, but also to educate the populace on how the establishment's failures have led to the rise of Trump, and how only a truly progressive vision benefiting all of society can fight racism and xenophobia. We need to ensure that the narrative in which the failure of the establishment to reach out to the populace gave rise to Trump, whom responded with his own hateful, but deceptively populist rhetoric.
At the same time, we need to stand up as allies to marginalized communities that will feel the brunt of the alt-right's racism and sexism. It is we who need to be out there and raising awareness of the racism and social inequalities present in our societies. It is up to us to embrace the marginalized and let them know that they are not alone, and that it is up to all of us to confront racism that has been brought to the surface, and perhaps push for more important policies to address systemic racial and gender issues that have been ignored for years, if not decades or centuries, something that establishment democrats and neoliberals, in co-opting and watering down the discussion of identity politics, have only provided lip-service towards.
At this point, there is a debate of if progressives should try to take back the democratic party, or should they leave altogether and form a new left movement. I believe the anwser is, at this point, both. There are still ways for the democratic party to change, Berniecrats could be supported at the local level for the midterms, and there is a chance to form a platform for progressive politics if Keith Ellison, an ally of Bernie Sanders, wrests control of the DNC from the establishment forces that denied Sanders a fair chance.
But we cannot place our eggs in one basket. What if Keith Ellison reveals himself to be an establishment insider, and his victory ended up co-opting progressives? I feel that the Green Party should start to field their own candidates at local and downballot levels, especially in cases where it is just an establishment democrat or an alt-rightist, establishing themselves at the local level can provide alternatives to those displeased with choosing between neo-fascists and neoliberals. If the greens are pushed by the grassroots to run local campaigns, and amass grassroots support in turn, it could allow for the birth of a new political movement to counterbalance any attempts to co-opt the anti-Trump groups by establishment forces if attempts to change the democrats fail.
In that regard, it is up to progressives to fight, and bring awareness to any laws or measures discriminating or disenfranchising third parties. As third parties are both shunned by society, but the importance of building such a movement is important, especially in lieu of failing to change the democrats from within. Thus efforts to push laws reversing Republican voter disenfranchisement, and make the local playing field more equitable for third parties are an important priority.
In concluding this post. I feel that Trumps' victory, driven both by populism and xenophobia, has raised dark clouds over our society. But it has also given us the opportunity to push forth more progressive ideals and policies where before there was none. It thereby falls to the task of progressives to challenge Trump and provide policies reaching out to all segments of society, rather than ignoring elements of society.
No comments:
Post a Comment