Opposition to Trump and Populism
We are now in the second week of Donald Trump’s presidency
and from a media and opposition standpoint, nothing has changed. The left is angry. The country is divided. Marches and demonstrations against Trump
continue. Claims of “Not my President” abound. Trump seems to govern by rapid fire executive
order. He has a pen, just like Obama did. The democrats arbitrarily delay cabinet
appointments to the detriment of the country and to their own detriment and
threaten to do the same for the SCOTUS appointee Neil Gorsach.
The responses against Trump, for the most part are fueled by
anger at him and his abrasive personality, and particularly at the election
loss. His detractors simply cannot
absorb that the country could vote against their lofty, “better than thou” and “we
know what’s best for you” views for the country. These critiques have high emotional content
and many times contain little logic and reason, and little positive
content. Even pundits at the major news
outlets fall prey to this incessant and empty railing against Trump and his
minions. These criticisms eventually fall
on deaf ears with the American public.
The Trump advisors are certainly aware of this and keep pushing the
envelope. And the liberals/progressives/democrats
continue to act from anger and continue to tear apart their party which is
already in tatters rather that rebuilding it in a positive manner.
Some history - Donald Trump won the presidency within the
only system we have. He defeated sixteen
other vaunted candidates to win the republican primary being completely politically
incorrect. Remember “little Marco”,
“lyin’ Ted”, “low energy Jeb”. He
defeated Hillary Clinton and her $1.4 billion, well-oiled campaign by spending
half a billion dollars less. She
practiced and, and was polished, and had rapid-fire catch phrases for the
debates. He was extemporaneous and
called her names. The voters didn’t
care.
Donald
Trump won the electoral vote by 306 to Hillary Clinton’s 232. Trump won the popular vote in 49 states,
excluding California by 1.4 million votes.
Clinton won the popular vote in California by 4.3 million votes. Clinton indeed won the popular vote in the
whole country, as loudly proclaimed by Trump’s detractors, but the above adds
some perspective to that statement.
A
true wonder is how a candidate like Donald Trump could win the presidency. Not that he is the demonized “prince of
darkness” or devil incarnate defined by the same media that lied about all
other aspects of the election, but because how heavily stacked against his
candidacy were so many aspects of American society. The popular president Obama and his minions,
and virtually the whole Washington political establishment were against him.
Virtually all major newspapers and magazines were against him. Nearly all major
media were against him. Virtually all so
called intelligentsia were against him.
Pretty much 100% of university thinking was against him. All the special interest minority and
lifestyle groups out of identity politics were against him. The above societal elements radicalized
women, blacks and Latinos against him (or tried to). He did not help his own cause by his own
outrageous pronouncements and tweets about women, minorities, trade agreements
and other topics normally not broached in a presidential campaign. His backers cared not a whit for his
peccadillos. He represented the changes
they sought.
The
vaunted polls reflected all of this anti-Trump sentiment. Other than one or two polls, all the
national and state polls showed him to be behind by 4-5 percentage points at
election time. Some predicted a 98%
chance of Hillary winning the election. Some
of us kept saying “this is a movement, not a campaign – you can’t apply the
same principles to a populist movement as to a normal election”. The whole thing smacked of Brexit, five
months earlier, also a populist revolt.
Trump
was indefatigable. He crossed and
re-crossed the country in his “Trump Force One”. And he ranted and raved and inspired massive
crowds wherever he went. 20-30,000
people would stand in line to get into his rallies, and the “experts” said “it
means nothing, look at the polls; the polls don’t lie”.
Hillary
had a well-oiled machine (I guess first conceived by Boss Tweed), that reached
all over the country, down to town and township and household level. Trump had a sporadic organization half
supported by the Republican Party. To
make up for it, everyday normal citizens took it upon themselves to obtain and
place Trump signs in their yards and in their stores. And once one got out into
the outback, the preponderance of Trump signs was overwhelming. The people that constitute the backbone of
this country were not vociferous during the long campaign, as is their
wont. They were not silent during the
election, though. They spoke their minds
with votes, all across the identity politics board. Not only non-degreed people voted for
Trump. Many more blacks, Hispanics,
degreed women, and other groups thought to be pro Clinton voted for Trump than
the polls thought possible. The whole
country demographic said “we’re Americans too.
We see what’s happened in our country.
We can’t have four or eight more years of Hillary and the same”. Union members said, the brass may vote for
Clinton. The rank and file will vote for
Trump – and they did. Many Hispanics in
the I4 corridor in Florida and other locations said “Somos americanos también.
Estamos votando por Trump” (we’re Americans too, we’re going to vote for Trump.
This
was a grass roots movement of dissatisfied average Americans who had had enough
of political correctness and a weak, do-little apologetic government in
Washington. They were sick and tired of
attempts to lay guilt on them for being ethical, moral, religious, hard-working
Americans. Hillary in her smugness
called them a “basket of deplorables”, and that resonated with them just like
Obama’s comment in 2008 about “clinging to guns and religion”. Trump didn’t even have to say anything,
although he surely did at every rally.
The liberal elite’s arrogance, contempt and derision shone through loud
and clear.
I don’t feel that this whole issue is strictly around Trump,
his election win, and the implementation of his agenda. Trump is one feature of a major
socio-economic upheaval taking place in the world. Critics of Trump’s personality and brusque
manner don’t seem to realize this and keep pulling out Trump’s past sayings and
actions in an effort to discredit him.
It did not work when he was a candidate, and it certainly is not working
now that he has the trappings of the presidency behind him. But his detractors just do not learn. Their form of emotional opposition to
anything the Trump administration does harms the country and harms their own
cause. One would think that they would
see this and would learn with time.
Considered intellectual and political opposition is an American
right. Opposing everything from an
emotional platform is self-defeating.
We get hung up on Trump, his cabinet choices and other
nuances of his emerging government, and we concentrate on him and his
personality as an individual. Half the
country loves him. The other half is
dead set against him and cycles and recycles anecdotal reasons for it. Almost neglected is the populism he
represents, its positive features and particularly its dangers.
This is an article from The Manchester (UK) Guardian about
the dangers of populism for democracy.
It looks not only at Trump, but also the other major populist movements
in the world. It highlights Europe,
particularly Orban’s Fidesz in Hungary and the Kaczynski’s PiS in Poland, and
the negative effects of these (in power) populist parties on democracy in those
countries. It also comments on Turkey’s
Erdogan, Russia’s Putin and other active populist movements in the world.
Being The Guardian, the article is slightly left oriented
and critical of Trump, Farage and others.
Co-incidentally, I have read Jan Werner Muller’s book “What
is Populism?” as part of my own study on the emergence of populism in the
world.
(The Guardian - LEFT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal
bias. They often publish factual
information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an
audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal
causes. These sources are generally
trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.
Notes: UK newspaper with straight ahead reporting.)
Jan-Werner Müller is a professor of politics at Princeton
and a fellow at the Institute of Human Sciences in Vienna. His book What Is
Populism? is published this month by the University of Pennsylvania.
Ray Gruszecki
February 1, 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment