Trump

President Oprah?

Oprah 2020?  In America, yes, it is conceivable.  When a belligerent and dubiously successful businessman and reality TV celebrity can become President of the United States, there is no reason to suppose that a narcissistic billionaire TV talk show host can’t potentially run for the office as well, and plausibly win.

The US presidency has largely become like a short-term version of the British monarchy; a figurehead whom people either love or hate based on entirely subjective and emotional reasons.  Style has not only triumphed over substance, substance is no longer part of the equation.

The Democratic Party continues to miss the point and to disappoint.  All of the same reasons they felt Trump was unqualified to be president apply to Oprah Winfrey, yet, after Trump’s victory, they are rushing to embrace his model.  She is almost an archetypically perfect point-by-point anti-Trump.  Again, it is not because they are opposites, but because they are twins.  She is his liberal incarnation; a Black, female, Democrat version of Donald Trump.

Both are obscenely wealthy, Oprah more so; both have willed themselves into popular culture; both are celebrity icons; both are endlessly enamored with their own names and shameless about self-promotion; both inhabit the highest echelons of elite power in business and the media; both are (in real life) utterly disconnected from the daily struggles of average people; and (since his campaign and election) both Trump and Winfrey can lay claim to broad popular support.  Both, also, have absolutely no political expertise or experience; though by 2020 Trump will have 4 years of experience tweeting about the brilliance of his non-accomplishments.

As a rags-to-riches Black woman, daughter of a single mother, with a record of advocating liberal causes, and connections with high level potential donors; Winfrey ticks all the right boxes for the Democratic National Committee.  She is technically an outsider in Washington, as Trump was, and can appropriate the “maverick” persona that worked in his favor in 2016.  But, all of these calculations fail to factor in the underlying reasons for Trump’s election win; namely, that there are real economic and political issues that genuinely matter to the population, which have been entirely ignored by both political parties for generations.

We can perhaps best begin on this topic by mentioning the issues that matter very little to most people, but which are at the heart of the liberal agenda and about which Oprah Winfrey has been outspoken; namely, gay rights; the definition of gender and transgender rights; gender equality; hate speech; police brutality; diversity in institutions of power; sexual harassment in Hollywood (and in the business world generally); and gun control.

While none of these issues is trivial, they are dwarfed in their significance by the fundamental economic grievances of Americans who have seen their real wages remain stagnant since the 1970s, while actual productivity has risen by around 75%.  Income inequality has grown radically over the past 3 decades; the last two generations in the US (Generateion X and the Millennials) are the first generations in American history that are worse off than their predecessors in terms of opportunity and financial stability.  Outsourcing of jobs, relocating factories outside the US, and so on, have obviously hurt workers, and this was one of the core themes of the Trump campaign that engaged with voters.  Blue collar workers, the middle class, and rural communities gambled on Trump; voters who were taken for granted as Democratic Party mainstays, precisely because the Democrats had all but abandoned them since (at least) the early 1970s.

Embracing Oprah Winfrey does not in any way represent a reversal of that abandonment.  As pointed out above, the issues she is associated with are issues of marginal importance to the traditionally Democrat voters who flocked to Trump.

Personally, I doubt Winfrey will run; but ultimately that isn’t the point.  The point is that the Democratic Party does not get the point, and nothing demonstrates that more clearly than their excitement over the possibility of an Oprah candidacy.

Advertisements

A revolution of apathy


(To be published in Arabic for Arabi21)

 

Ever since both sides of my family came to the United States they were farmers; which means, almost by definition, they were Democrats. My grandparents loved Roosevelt, and my parents loved Kennedy.

I was, myself, active in the Democratic Party.  I was a precinct coordinator for the 1988 Presidential Election before I was old enough to vote.  On my eighteenth birthday I registered to vote, and increased my party involvement as much as I could.

I saw very quickly, however, that the Democratic Party was no longer the party of Roosevelt, nor even the party of Kennedy.  It was a party that took it as a given that they would receive the electoral support of the poor and minorities, but that it had very little actual concern for them.  I saw, even on the local level, that it was a party of upper class, wealthy conservatives; or anyway,, they seemed wealthy and conservative to me.  They were homeowners with two-car garages filled to capacity, living in palatial suburbs.  They were basically Republicans, as far as I could tell.

And this is pretty much the direction the Democratic Party continued to move for next 20 years.  They could still take it as a given that they would get the votes of the poor and minorities simply because everyone believed that the Republicans would be even worse.  By 2016, very few people believed that anymore. The closest thing we had to a Democrat was Bernie Sanders, and the Democratic Party treated him like a leper. If either Roosevelt or Kennedy ran today, the Democratic Party would consider them radical Leftists, even though they would be expressing the things most of the population still believes in.

So, yes, huge swathes of the electorate just refused to participate.

It is absolutely true that Trump won the election because the population is disillusioned with the political process, and they are fed up with the status quo. It is not true, however, that this profound dissatisfaction translated to support for Trump; it didn’t.  It translated to disgust, apathy, and lack of participation.  There is no “Trump Movement”.  On almost every issue, he is out of step with the views of the population.

Over half of the  eligible voters  didn’t vote at all, and if you subtract from Trump’s votes those who simply supported him because they hated Hillary Clinton, his actual core of supporters probably only represents somewhere between 10-15% of the electorate. And, frankly, if Hillary Clinton had won (and she did win the popular vote), the same basic calculation would apply.  She probably had an even smaller core of genuine supporters; Democrats voted for her because of party loyalty, and to vote against Trump.  So no matter how it had turned out, the US president would be elected by basically a fringe minority

So there is a movement taking place in America, but it is manifesting itself, not in political participation, but in rejection. The majority is turning away from the political process for the redress of their grievances.

I hoped that Hillary would win, not because I still feel any loyalty to the Democratic Party, but because I believed that the…shall we call it the “Rejectionist Revolution”?…opposition would manifest itself in policy criticisms and a genuine political critique; whereas I believe that under Trump, opposition is more likely to be expressed in personal loathing for the man himself.

If that is the case, politics will not change.  Indeed, “status quo” politics will likely make resurgence in the next election cycle.  The Democrats are not going to have to change, because they are not going to be the party that faces the criticism, and, insofar as they are now the opposition party, they will keep their complaints on a petty and irrelevant level, as they did throughout the campaign, and in the days leading u to the inauguration.  They will not have to be rehabilitated; and they desperately need to be rehabilitated.

The deterioration of Islamism


(to be published in Arabic for Arabi21)

The election of Donald Trump to the American presidency takes place within the context of a global trend towards Right-wing nationalism.  This trend takes place within the context of global discontent with a status quo that has been managed for decades by center-Left political parties.

In France, which will hold elections next year, Francois Hollande has a lower approval rating than George W. Bush at the nadir of his popularity.  The National Front (the anti-Europe, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, overtly racist far-Right party) is the most popular political party in France; it is expected to win at least 40% of the votes in the upcoming election, which will see Neo-Fascists take the government.

In Italy, there is to be a constitutional referendum on December 4th which most Italians view as a vote for or against the authority of Brussels.  Prime Minister Matteo Renzi has said that he will resign if the referendum’s proposal is rejected, and it will be rejected; thus Italy will be forced to hold elections. In all likelihood, this will result in a Right-wing coalition taking power.

The administration of Angela Merkel in Germany is also vulnerable, and will most likely fall next year, again, being replaced by a far-Right, nationalist government.

Left-wing parties are less able to harvest the fruits of popular discontent primarily because they are relentlessly attacked by the center-Left.  Bernie Sanders in the US was sabotaged by his own party, and the major European Left parties have been the prime opponents of Syriza in Greece and Podemos in Spain, and so on.

How will this shift to the Right impact the Musllims?

The obvious answer to this question is that it will make life considerably more difficult.  And, frankly, I expect that we are beginning a new era within our Ummah of, for lack of a better term, secularization.  Advocating Political Islam is going to become entirely too dangerous, and more and more people will feel it is wiser to compromise and capitulate with a power structure that will be increasingly vicious.

But the real blame for this, in my opinion, cannot be laid at the feet of the ultra-Right, but rather Islamists themselves are responsible.  Whether we are talking about the Muslim Brotherhood at one end of the spectrum, or Da’esh at the other end; the voices of Political Islam have miserably failed to offer a clear, constructive, and responsive program.  In the absence of any articulate policies and comprehensive plans, it is not realistic to expect people to stand up and face the very real risks involved with advocating Political Islam.

Da’esh as a territorial project is essentially over. They will continue to struggle through small scale terrorist attacks and setting up franchises around the world, no doubt, but this will only push more people away from the concepts they champion; quite simply because 1.) people will have to distance themselves from such ideas for their own safety, and 2.) because, at the end of the day, not only do terrorist attacks do nothing useful to advance the ideas advocated by the perpetrators, but they also do nothing helpful in terms of the real issues affecting people’s lives.

We are entering an era in which people will no longer tolerate empty slogans, but it is also an era in which people are entirely open to radical change.  This should be a marvelous opportunity for Islamism, but unfortunately, Islamism’s proponents have failed to do the serious intellectual work that would make it a viable alternative to either the status quo or to the ultra-Right wing.  Therefore, I expect, the relevance of the Islamist project will be diminished year after year, and our people will turn elsewhere for solutions.  We have no one to blame for this but ourselves.

 

Candidate Trump vs President Trump

Screenshot_2016-11-12-12-24-04-01.jpeg

(To be published in Arabic for Arabi21)

Throughout his campaign, I always assumed that Candidate Trump was a fictional character; a role scripted according to careful market research of the most disgruntled and potentially active segments of the American electorate.  Just prior to the election, this was more or less confirmed by something Trump said in an interview when he stated that, if he didn’t win, he would regard the past 18 months as a “big waste”, because everything he has been doing, he has been doing in order to win.

See, any other candidate would say something like, “if I don’t win, it was all worth it, because I contributed to the political discourse, I raised issues, I gave a voice to people who were not being heard otherwise,” and so on and so forth.  But no, Trump’s campaign had nothing to do with any of that.  His campaign was a no-holds-barred, aggressive, do-what-you-have-to-do, say-what-you-have-to-say, hard sell to get the top job.  It was a one-man show dramatization of his book “the Art of the Deal”.  And we have to give it to him, it was a brilliant campaign;  unprincipled, unethical, immoral, indecent; but brilliant.

His campaign cost less than $1 million; that is unheard of.  But he knew how to get massive, indeed, endless, free media coverage.  And the more he was ridiculed by the mainstream press, the more his core constituency’s support solidified, because they distrust the mainstream media, and Trump’s team surely knew that.

I don’t think that Trump hates Muslims, or illegal immigrants, or even Hillary Clinton.  I don’t think he is racist.  I think he is just a sociopath who was willing to promote hate to garner votes; he has an equal degree of disdain for everyone who is not a billionaire.

The stark contrast between Trump the Candidate and Trump the President-Elect began to emerge immediately.  During his acceptance speech he said that Hilary Clinton deserves the nation’s respect and gratitude for her service to the country, as opposed to her deserving to be put in jail, as he had previously said.  The plan to ban Muslims from the US was removed from his website.  And I am sure plenty of his other campaign postures will change drastically, because they were all ploys and bluffs and just part of his strategy to win the White House with the support of people he would probably never want to be seen in public with in real life.  There are people who hate Trump because he is a fascist buffoon, and there are people who love him because he is a fascist buffoon; and they have both been tricked.  He is not a fascist buffoon.

Of course, because he acted like a fascist buffoon in order to win, he has hurt the society.  Anti-Muslim attacks rose 80%  and racist and anti-Muslim attacks have spiked since his election, and the actual fascist buffoon population in the US has gotten bolder.  He may, or he may not try to quell this, depending on whether or not he thinks it is useful to him to do so. But, I think it is a mistake for Democrats and Liberals to completely close the door on the possibility that his presidency may achieve some positive changes.

He is the first president in decades who is not beholden to corporate financiers; so many decades that no one alive can remember any president who wasn’t.  He was able to break the political establishment’s iron-grip on the democratic process in the United States, with only 25% of the electorate supporting him (roughly half of the citizenry didn’t vote).  By running an incredibly negative and ugly campaign, all of the people who could have prevented him from winning just opted out of the process because they were so disgusted; this amplified the voting power of his core constituency, and yes, he was able to win almost entirely against the wishes of the power structure. Even if he did that through diabolically manipulative tactics, it is still remarkable, and there actually is something hopeful about that. It is possible to elect someone who is not part of the political establishment.

No one knows what he will do.  That is kind of scary, but it is also kind of exhilarating, because, let’s be honest, whether it was Bill Clinton, Bush, or Obama, we all pretty much knew exactly what to expect, just as we knew what to expect from Hilary: more of the same.  America has its first independent president in generations,  this is, quite frankly, a turning point in history.

If Trump actually follows through on protectionist economic policies, and a more isolationist foreign policy, I think it will be very good for the US, and indeed, for the world.  If he implements Reagan-esque policies like deregulation and more corporate tax cuts and tax cuts for the wealthy, of course, that will be quite damaging.  But I think the point is, we genuinely do not know, because whatever he said during his campaign cannot really be taken as an indication of his real position.   We simply have to wait and see, and it is important that we do that…wait and see…rather than automatically, or preemptively attack his presidency based on the nature of his campaign.

فلتحبها أو تتركها                                 Love it or leave it

اتصل بي أخ مؤخرا ليخبرني أن أحد معارفه من غير المسلمين قال له:

“لا يمكنني الذهاب إلى بلد مسلم  لأني لن أتمكن من شرب البيرة أو النبيذ، أو أكل لحم الخنزير المقدد أو المشوي، ولن يسمح لصديقتي أن تتجول بالشورت القصير والتيشيرت في البلاد التي يسيطر عليها المسلمون.

فلماذا يعتقد المسلمون أنه في إمكانهم أي يخبروننا أنه واجب علينا أن نغير قوانيننا وعاداتنا في أمريكا لاستيعابهم؟

ولماذا يقول الديمقراطيون للأميريكيون أنه يجب أن علينا أن نفعل ذلك؟”

حسنا، دعونا نترك جانبا حقيقة أن هذا الشخص لم يسمي البلد المسلم الذي يتحدث عنه والمكان الذي لا يمكنه أن يأكل فيه لحم الخنزير أو يشرب الخمر مع صديقته ذات الـ”شورت القصير” والـ”تي شيرت”(وأعتقد أن الكثير منا يود أن يعرف أين هو هذا المكان، حتى يتمكن من الهجرة إليه)، ودعونا نترك جانبا حقيقة أنه لا يذكر بالضبط ما هي القوانين والأعراف التي يمارس المسلمين الضغط لتغييرها في أمريكا، لأنه على حد علمي المسلمون بشكل عام يطالبون أمريكا بأن تلتزم بقوانينها المنصوص عليها في دستورها بشأن حرية العبادة وحرية التعبير.

وإذا قبلنا فكرة أن المسلمين في حقيقة الأمر يحاولون تغيير القوانين الأمريكية،  فهذا يحدث لكونهم مواطنين أمريكيين ولهم الحق في تقديم التماسات، ولهم الحق في أن يتوقعوا استجابة الحكومة لمطلبهم، لأنها دولة ديمقراطية ولو على الورق فقط، وبما أننا لا نتحدث عن واقعة سياح سعوديين يرجمون النساء اللاتي يرتدين البيكيني على شاطئ ميامي بالحجارة، فأعتقد أن هذا هو السبب في أن”الديمقراطيين” يقولون  لكم أنه يجب عليكم أن تكونوا “ديمقراطيين”.

فكأنه بهذا يقول: “أنا لا أستطيع أن شرب الكحول في المملكة العربية السعودية (وهذا غير صحيح على أي حال)، وبالتالي لا ينبغي أن يسمح للمسلمات بارتداء الحجاب، أو لا ينبغي أن يسمح للمسلمين بالذهاب إلى المساجد أو ممارسة شعائرهم الدينية في أميركا.

ولو قبلنا بهذا المنطق العجيب لقلنا أنه لا يجب أن يسمح للأمريكي الزائر لأمستردام أن يأكل “تشيز برجر” لماكدونالدز لأن أمريكا لا تسمح للسياح الهولنديين بتدخين الحشيش عندما يكونون في نيويورك.  فليس من المفترض أن تفرض على بلد آخر قوانين وعادات وتقاليد بلدك، فهذا الأمر متعلق بمبدأ صغير يطلق عليه “السيادة الوطنية”.

قوانين بلدك تخضع لموافقة المحكومين، وهم “المواطنين”، فإذا كانت هذه الشكوى بخصوص المطالبة بحكومة ديمقراطية، فقد يلزمه هذا أن يطبق النصيحته المعتادة التي يكررها الآخرين من أمثاله “هذه هي أمريكا .. فلتحبها أو تتركها”.

13444177_1247928765241409_1140943030_n

A brother contacted me recently about something a non-Muslim acquaintance had told him:

“I can’t go to a Muslim country and drink beer or wine, or eat bacon or pork BBQ; and my girlfriend isn’t allowed to walk around in shorts and a t-shirt in a Muslim-controlled country.

So why in the hell do Muslims think they should be allowed to tell us that we should change our laws and customs in America to accommodate them?

And why are Democrats telling Americans that we must do that?”

OK, let’s leave aside the fact that this person is not naming which Muslim country he is talking about where he can’t eat pork and drink alcohol with his girlfriend in shorts and a t-shirt (I think many of us would like to know where it is, so we can make hijrah to it).  And let’s leave aside the fact that he doesn’t mention exactly which laws and customs Muslims are lobbying to change in America; because as far as I know, Muslims generally are asking for America to comply with the existing laws of its own Constitution regarding freedom of worship and freedom of expression.

If we accept the notion that Muslims are in fact trying to change the laws in America, well, that would be because they are American citizens, and have the right to petition, and have a right to expect the government to be responsive, since it is, on paper, a representative democracy.  We are not talking about Saudi tourists in Miami Beach throwing rocks at women in bikinis. Presumably, that would be why “Democrats” are telling you that you should be “democratic”.

‘I can’t drink alcohol in Saudi Arabia (which isn’t true anyway), so Muslims should not be allowed to wear hijab, or go to the mosque, or practice their religion in America’

By this logic, an American visiting Amsterdam should not be allowed to eat McDonalds cheeseburgers because America does not allow Dutch tourists to smoke hashish when they are in New York.  The laws and customs of your country are not supposed to be imposed on another country; that has to do with a little concept called “national sovereignty”.

The laws of your country are subject to the consent of the governed, which means “the citizens”.  If his complaint is with democratic government, well, he might want to apply the standard advice often repeated by others of his ilk, “America, love it or leave it.”

انتخابات مثل برميل البارود                 Election Powder keg

image

لو عَقلنا الأمر قليلًا سنجد أن ترشح ترامب من المنطقي أن يؤدي إلى رئاسة كلينتون! فالأعمال والتجارة تكاد بلا ذرة شك أن تفضل هيلاري كلينتون، بقدر ما أنها تمثل الوضع الراهن للسياسة الاقتصادية، وأنها مرتبطة بعمق بوول ستريت. أما الخطاب الحمائي لترامب فهو ليس جذابًا للأعمال الكبيرة، فحملته تقريبًا بالكامل كان تمويلها ذاتيًا، وهذا ليس له صدى جيد على الإطلاق مع سلطة الشركات، فالحملات السياسية هي في الأساس مزادات تتيح للشركات فرصة أن تستثمر في المرشحين لشراء السلطة السياسية التي ستمارس في نهاية المطاف بمجرد وصول هذا المرشح إلى سدة الحكم، وبما أنه لا أحد اشترى ترامب، فهذا يجعله غير جدير بالثقة في نظر سلطة الشركات.

ليس هناك شك في أن كل شيء تقريبًا يقوله ترامب لأنصاره لهو من قبيل الكذب، فخطابه ما هو إلا خدعة لحشد كل السخط الشعبي في صالحه.

وبمجرد أن يصل إلى سدة الحكم، فمن غير المحتمل أن يواصل تنفيذ أي من التغيرات السياسية الجذرية التي يدعو إليها الان، ولكن مجرد الدعوة إليها في حملته الانتخابية بالتأكيد يجعل أصحاب الأعمال غير مرتاحين بالمرة، فسوق الأسهم طبيعي أن ينخفض في كل مرة تظهر فيها استطلاعات الأرقام أن ترامب في صعود، لأن المستثمرين يكرهون عدم وضوح الرؤية، لهذا فالأموال التي ستصب في حملة كلينتون ربما تكون غير مسبوقة.

ترامب ليس الملياردير الأول الذي يقوم بتمويل حملته الرئاسية، ففي عام 1992 ترشح هـ. روس بيرو، ملياردير تكساس، ضد بيل كلينتون كمرشح مستقل، وكانت رسالته متطابقة تقريبًا مع ما يستخدمه ترامب اليوم، بل أنه في مرحلة ما تفوق عليه في استطلاعات الرأي، وكان يتمتع بدعم شعبي كبير، كما حمل بشدة على التبرعات السياسية للشركات ودعا إلى السياسات الاقتصادية الانعزالية، ولهذا فقد تم إسكاته تمامًا.  وعلى الرغم من الركود في هذا الوقت، إلا أن الديمقراطيين كانوا قادرين على جمع تمويل قياسي هذا العام، متجاوزين المبالغ المحصلة في السباق الرئاسي لسنة 1988 بنسبة 20٪.

ولكن النقطة هي أن السخط الذي يتلاعب به ترامب حقيقي، فالسياسات الاقتصادية في العقدين أو الثلاث عقود الماضية خلقت هذا التفاوت وهذا التدهور في نوعية الحياة، وهذا التوتر وعدم الرضا الواسع والعميق، مما جعل الأوضاع في الولايات المتحدة قابلة للاشتعال بشكل لا يصدق، وقد وصل ترامب إلى هذه النقطة من خلال تأجيج الجذوة المشتعلة لهذا السخط، وهذه النار سيكون من الصعب جدا إخمادها.

فوز كلينتون، والذي كما قلت، سيأتي عن طريق دعم الشركات والأعمال الكبرى، والذي سيترجم إلى التزام أكثر صرامة بالسياسات التي تسببت في استياء دائرة ترامب (وساندرز) سيكون قادرًا على تفجير معارضة واسعة النطاق، وبلا شك فإن ترامب وأنصاره سيطعنون بشكل موسع في النتائج وسيتهمون حملة كلينتون بتزوير الانتخابات، وأنا بصراحة أعتقد أنه من غير المرجح أن تكون كلينتون قادرة على البقاء في منصبها لفترة ولايتها كاملة، في مواجهة ما قد يصبح اضطرابات اجتماعية وسياسية ذات أبعاد ثورية.

أما بالنسبة لفوز ترامب!! حسنا… هذا يمكن أن يكون أسوأ بكثير، فستتم معارضة ترامب من قبل الكونجرس المملوك للشركات في كل منعطف، وحتى لو التزم في الواقع بتعهداته السياسية، فهذا من شأنه أن يضعه في صورة الرئيس الصادق الذي يحاول الوفاء بوعوده، ولهذا سيصبح في إمكانه أن يحشد أنصاره ضد المؤسسة السياسية، ومع طبيعة “البلطجة” التي تغلب على أسلوبه في الحشد، فهذه المعارضة من الممكن جدا أن تتحول إلى أشبه ما يكون بالمافيا.

أيضا، فإن ترامب بارع بشكل ملحوظ في فن التلاعب المشين والإلهاء، سيكون قادرًا على خلق صراعات وقضايا وهمية لإدارة محور السخط الشعبي تجنبًا للمواجهة عندما تصبح الظروف في ظل رئاسته أسواء، وهو الشيء المتوقع أن يحدث في حال رئاسته.

كما قلت من قبل، عندما يقول ترامب شيء من قبيل، “شركة أبل ستبدأ في تصنيع منتجاتها في أمريكا بدلًا من الصين”، فما يعنيه هو أنه سيفرض نفس أجور وظروف عمل الصين في الولايات المتحدة، فهو لا يقصد خلق وظائف في أمريكا على حساب أرباح الشركات متعددة الجنسيات، ولكنه يقصد تطبيق منطق العولمة في أميركا، مما سيجعل القوى العاملة في أمريكا منافسة للقوى العاملة في العالم النامي… وبخفض الأجور، يمكن لترامب بسهولة أن يضع كل اللوم على المهاجرين، على سبيل المثال.  إذًا من المرجح أن تتسم رئاسته بنشر الصراع الداخلي بين الطوائف المختلفة داخل الولايات المتحدة، مع التدهور المتسارع للاقتصاد المحلي.

الأزمة الاجتماعية والسياسية تتعاظم ككرة الثلج في الولايات المتحدة، والانتخابات لن توقف هذا التعاظم ولكنها من المتوقع أن تؤدي إلى تفاقم الأزمة.

Conventional wisdom would be that a Trump nomination means a Clinton presidency. Business will almost certainly prefer Hillary Clinton, insofar as she represents the status quo of economic policy, and is deeply connected to Wall Street.  Trump’s protectionist rhetoric is not appealing to big business.  His campaign was almost entirely self-financed, which cannot sit well with corporate power.  Political campaigns are essentially auctions in which corporations invest in candidates to purchase the political power they will eventually wield once in office.  No one has purchased Trump, and that makes him untrustworthy in the view of corporate power.

There is little doubt that almost everything Trump says to his supporters is a lie.  His rhetoric is a cynical ploy to mobilize popular discontent in his favor.

Once in office, he is unlikely to follow through on any of the radical policy changes he advocates now; but his mere advocacy of them on the campaign trail certainly makes business uncomfortable.  The Stock Market is likely to dip every time Trump’s poll numbers go up, because investors loathe uncertainty. The money that will pour into the Clinton campaign will probably be unprecedented.

Trump is not the first billionaire to finance his own presidential campaign.  In 1992 H. Ross Perot, a Texas tycoon ran against Bill Clinton as an independent candidate, with an almost identical message as Trump uses today.  At one point, he led in the polls, enjoyed great popular support, railed against corporate political donations, and advocated isolationist economic policies.  He was shut down. Despite a recession, the Democrats were able to collect record-breaking financing that year, exceeding the money collected in the 1988 presidential race by 20%.

But the thing is, the discontent Trump is manipulating is real.  The economic policies of the last two or three decades have created such disparity, such deterioration in the quality of life, such tension and such deep and widespread dissatisfaction, that conditions in the United States are incredibly volatile. Trump has reached this point by inflaming the smoldering embers of this discontent, and that fire will be very hard to put out.

A Clinton victory, which, as I have said, will come by means of support from big business, and which will mean even stricter adherence to the very policies that have caused the discontent of Trump’s (and Sanders’) constituency; has the potential to set off massive opposition.  Trump, and his supporters, may well challenge the results and accuse the Clinton campaign of rigging the election.  I honestly think that it is unlikely that she will be able to remain in office for her full term, in the face of what may become social and political turmoil of revolutionary proportions.

A Trump victory…well…this could be even worse.  Trump will be opposed by the corporate-owned congress at every turn, even if he actually does attempt to follow through on his policy promises.  This would allow him to portray himself as sincere in those promises, and to mobilize his supporters against the political establishment; and, given the decidedly thuggish nature of his style of mobilization, this opposition could become mafia-esque.

Also, Trump is remarkably adept in the art of cynical manipulation and diversion, and he will be able to create conflicts and fake issues to manage the focus of popular discontent to avoid scrutiny when conditions under his presidency only get worse, which they will.

As I have said before, when Trump says something like “Apple is going to start manufacturing their products in America instead of China”, what he means is that he will impose China-level wages and working conditions in the US.  He does not mean bringing jobs back to America at the expense of multinational corporate  profits, he means applying the logic of globalization to America; making the US workforce competitive with workforces in the developing world. Driving down wages, Trump can easily blame on immigrants, for example. His presidency is likely to be characterized by spreading internal conflict between different communities within the States, with accelerated deterioration of the domestic economy.

Social and political crisis is snowballing in the US.  The election will not stop this; rather, I expect the election to exacerbate the crisis

مخالفات نيويورك الانتخابية نذير سوء لما قد يحدث في نوفمبر                                 New York irregularities bode ill for November

image

ها قد بدأ الأمر!   كتبت مؤخرًا عن إمكانية حدوث اضطرابات في أعقاب الانتخابات الرئاسية الأمريكية في نوفمبر المقبل، إذا حدثت حالات من التجاوزات الانتخابية تجعل أي من مؤيدي الحزب الديمقراطي أو الجمهوري يرفضون نتائج الانتخابات!  حسنا، في الانتخابات التمهيدية لنيويورك يوم الثلاثاء، تم منع أكثر من مائة ألف ناخب من المشاركة، وبشكل أكثر تحديدًا تم منع 125،000 ناخب من منطقة محل بيرني ساندرز في بروكلين، وتمت إزالة أسمائهم من قوائم التصويت ومنعوا من الإدلاء بأصواتهم، وعلى خلفية هذه المخالفات، فازت هيلاري كلينتون في الانتخابات التمهيدية في نيويورك، وانتقلت خطوة أقرب إلى تأمين ترشح الحزب الديمقراطي للرئاسة.

وكانت كلينتون سابقا عضوًا بمجلس الشيوخ عن نيويورك، وهي على علاقة وثيقة بالآلة السياسية للحزب الديمقراطي هناك، ومسؤولو الحزب هناك يفضلون كثيرا أن يرون كلينتون كمرشحتهم بدلا من ساندرز، فكلينتون تملك نفوذًا أكثر بكثير ولديها أموالًا أكثر بكثير من سناتور ولاية فيرمونت، فهي تجني من الأموال مقابل محاضرة واحدة تلقيها في القطاع الخاص أكثر مما يجنيه ساندرز في عام كامل، بالتالي فهناك مخاوف حقيقية أنه قد تم التلاعب بنتيجة الانتخابات التمهيدية في نيويورك لصالح كلينتون.

وها نحن نرى الأن احتمالية حدوث نزاعات حول نتائج انتخابات نوفمبر اذا فازت كلينتون، في هذه الحالة فإن ترامب وأنصاره (والأمر مفروغ منه انه سيكون مرشح الحزب الجمهوري)، سيكون في مقدورهم اتهام معسكر كلينتون بالتلاعب بنتيجة الانتخابات، كما يبدو أنه قد حدث بالفعل في نيويورك؛ ولهذا سيرفضون النتائج، ومع طبيعة أتباع ترامب من المتوقع لهذا الرفض أن يأخذ شكل التمرد ضد رئاسة كلينتون، هذا على أفضل التقديرات.  علاوة على ذلك، إذا شعر أنصار ساندرز، وهم في الغالب من الناشطين الشباب، بأن مرشحهم قد تعرض للغش ومنع من الترشيح للحزب الديمقراطي ظلما، فمن المحتمل أن تكون لديهم قلاقل في جانبهم هم أيضا.

It has started already.  Recently I wrote about the possibility of turmoil following the US presidential election in November if there were incidences of voting irregularities which would cause either the Democratic or Republican supporters to reject election results; well, in the New York primary elections on Tuesday, over one-hundred-thousand voters were barred from participation.  More specifically, 125,000 voters in Bernie Sanders’ home district, Brooklyn, were purged from voting  lists and banned from casting their votes. On the back of these irregularities, Hillary Clinton won the New York primary, and moved a step closer to securing the Democratic Party nomination for the presidency.

Clinton was  formerly a senator for New York, and intimately connected to the Democratic Party’s political machine there.  Party officials would much rather see Clinton as their candidate than Sanders, and Clinton herself wields far more clout and has much more money than the Vermont senator.  She makes more money  giving one speech in the private sector than Sanders makes annually. So, there is a genuine concern that the New York primary was sabotaged in Clinton’s favor.

Thus, we see already the potential for disputes about the outcome in November if Clinton wins.  Trump and his supporters (it is a foregone conclusion that he will be the Republican candidate), will be able to accuse the Clinton camp of sabotaging the elections, as it appears they may have done in New York; they will reject the results, and, given the nature of Trump’s followers, this rejection could take the form of violent, if low-level, insurrection against a Clinton presidency. Furthermore, if Sander’s supporters, who are mostly young activists, feel that their candidate has been cheated and unfairly blocked from the Democratic Party nomination, there could potentially be disruption from their side as well.

 

 

Rebels in waiting

image

(To e published in Arabic for Arabi21)

If Donald Trump does indeed win the Republican party’s nomination for the presidency, it is entirely possible that America is on the brink of a political meltdown and widespread social unrest.  Given the nature of Trump’s campaign rhetoric, his own personal character, and the thuggish quality of his supporters, I don’t think it is unrealistic to expect election day strife which could potentially stir violent division in its aftermath.

If, for instance, Trump supporters, either by direction or on their own initiative, choose to threaten key polling stations to dissuade Democratic party voters from showing up…which is quite conceivable, in my opinion…the results of the election will undoubtedly be contested if Trump wins. And, if this does or does not happen,  and he is and Trump loses, I think we can assume that his followers will reject a Hillary Clinton win.  Trump does not strike me as a gracious-concession-speech kind of guy, and I think it is safe to expect that he will encourage his supporters to oppose the election results.  I doubt that losing the election will transform him from an irresponsible demagogue into a rational citizen; rather, he seems more likely to intensify his hate-mongering and incitement.

If he wins, and I don’t think he can win except by intimidation, it will represent really an assault by the most simple-minded, extremist elements in the society against the rest of the population…which is fundamentally a recipe for unrest and radicalization.  If he loses, the smoldering anger and ugliness he has stoked is unlikely to subside quietly.

Either way, the months and years following November 2016 appear to promise a significant convulsion in American society.

It is important to remember, I think, that revolution is woven into the American character.  This is a constant problem for social management.  The US exists as a country because of rebellion.  We learn about revolution before we learn math.  We are taught fundamental rules of guerrilla warfare as adopted by the American rebels against the British, before we are taught grammar. Our heroes are revolutionaries, cowboys, outlaws; and yes, we are confrontational and violent people, with an equal  capacity for tremendous compassion and extreme ruthlessness.

We are programmed to be materialists, to be frivolous, to be addicted to entertainment and self-indulgence, precisely to pacify us politically; but when economic conditions do not allow the people to afford such diversions, frankly, the revolutionary nature of Americans makes us very dangerous.

I would not be surprised to see the Open Source Revolution strategy I write about being activated against corporate targets and the interests of the global owners of capital within the United States by factions from both ends of the political spectrum in the next few years.

It seems to me that the drastic wealth inequality and predatory economic policies of corporate power, the “Third Worldization” of the United States, is fomenting popular rebellion.  Trump is both a symptom and a driver of unrest in the country that must eventually erupt.

We are entering an age of riots and mayhem, and I think that the global elite will come to regret antagonizing the latent rebelliousness of the American people.

 

اضطرابات أمريكية                         American unrest

image

يشير ساندرز، وهو اشتراكي كما أعلن، إلى حملته الانتخابية باعتبارها ثورة، ولكن الحقيقة هي أن رئاسة ساندرز للولايات المتحدة ربما تكون السبيل الوحيد أمام الولايات المتحدة لتفادي انتفاضة شعبية ضد النظام الاقتصادي المفترس الذي أخضع الحكومة، وحرم وأفقر المواطنين، وأفلس ولايات ومدن بأكملها.

تدعي وسائل الإعلام أن ترامب أصبح مرشح الطبقة العاملة من الأميركيين البيض الذين يشعرون بالغضب والإحباط من الهبوط المستمر في نوعية الحياة وآفاق المستقبل، ولكن هذا يعكس ازدراء وسائل الإعلام للطبقة العاملة أكثر من أي شيء آخر، فمن وجهة نظرهم الفقراء العاملين هم الغوغاء الجهلة، الذين يمكن إثارة جنونهم بسهولة من خلال خطاب ترامب الانفعالي المليء بالبغض والكراهية، إلا أن الواقع والحقيقة أثبتا أن عدد من صوتوا لساندرز من الفقراء البيض أكثر بكثير ممن صوتوا لترامب، هذا لأنهم بالفعل يفهمون حالهم والسبب فيم وصلوا إليه، ويعرفون أنواع السياسات التي من المحتمل أن تزيل بؤسهم.

ليس هناك ثمة شك في أن رئاسة كلينتون ستعني استمرار السياسات التي تطيل أمد الأزمات الاقتصادية، وليس هناك ثمة شك في أن رئاسة ترامب ستعني تكثيف تلك السياسات.

وحقيقة أن ساندرز حصل على مثل هذه الشعبية واسعة النطاق تشير في الواقع إلى شوق عميق لإحداث تغيير جذري في أمريكا، والطريقة التي سيعبر بها هذا الشوق عن نفسه على مدى السنوات الأربع المقبلة تحت رئاسة كلينتون، أو بخاصة تحت رئاسة ترامب، من المرجح أنها ستكون طريقة جذرية مع فرصة عالية للانفجار.

Sanders, a self-declared Socialist, has referred to his campaign as a revolution, but the truth is, a Sanders presidency would be perhaps the only way the United States could circumvent a popular uprising against a predatory economic system that has subordinated government, dispossessed and impoverished its citizens, and  bankrupted entire states and cities.

The media claims that Trump has become the candidate of working class White Americans who are angry and frustrated over their ever-declining quality of life and prospects for the future.  But this reflects the media’s disdain for the working class more than anything else.  In their view, the working poor are an ignorant mob, easily whipped into a frenzy by Trump’s hateful, polemic rhetoric.  The reality is, however, that far more poor Whites have voted for Sanders than for Trump, because, yes, they do actually understand their condition and what is causing it, and they know what sorts of policies could potentially remedy their misery.

There is no doubt that a Clinton presidency will mean a continuation of the policies that perpetuate economic crises; and there is no doubt that a Trump presidency will mean an intensification of those policies.

The fact that Sanders earned such widespread grassroots support indeed signals a deep longing for drastic change in America; the way this longing will express itself over the next four years under a Clinton, or especially under a Trump presidency, will likely become radical and potentially explosive.