Sky Views: For all his flaws, Trump makes some powerful points

Ed Conway wrote:He has a point that politics has become too dominated by vested interests, by lobbyists, by cynical, professional politicians.

eddie wrote:Quill the point is, enough people have listened to get him this far.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Quill the point is, enough people have listened to get him this far.

Of course.  Parse the numbers.  The old white men are having their last gasp.

Lord Foul wrote:???????

so what you are saying is that the govt should be unduly influenced by lobbyists and vested interests and that that is a GOOD thing?????

Original Quill wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:???????

so what you are saying is that the govt should be unduly influenced by lobbyists and vested interests and that that is a GOOD thing?????

Donald Trump is one of the worst offenders among those he criticizes.  He's nothing new or refreshing...he's more familiar with smoke filled back rooms that any politician.  Plezzze...don't try to sell Trump as an angel.

We fight corruption, just like we fight Donald Trump.  Lies and corruption come from the right.  Iraq war?  Lower taxes = another depression, comes from the right!  We keep policing the edges, and watching the RW'rs.  Look at the magnificent job done by Obama.  We continue at it.

Lord Foul wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Donald Trump is one of the worst offenders among those he criticizes.  He's nothing new or refreshing...he's more familiar with smoke filled back rooms that any politician.  Plezzze...don't try to sell Trump as an angel.

We fight corruption, just like we fight Donald Trump.  Lies and corruption come from the right.  Iraq war?  Lower taxes = another depression, comes from the right!  We keep policing the edges, and watching the RW'rs.  Look at the magnificent job done by Obama.  We continue at it.

Oh quill...fgs...read the article as a WHOLE , not merely some "tiny bit" of it that you see relevant....
the point is...regardless of WHAT trump is ...and I think thats abundantly clear.....his "words" resonate"

they could however have been said by any one of a number of people of almost any political persuasion....and still be a damning condemnation of the "political world" in general

The Nation wrote: Inverted Totalitarianism
How the Bush regime is effecting the transformation to a fascist-like state.
By Sheldon Wolin

 The war on Iraq has so monopolized public attention as to obscure the regime change taking place in the Homeland. We may have invaded Iraq to bring in democracy and bring down a totalitarian regime, but in the process our own system may be moving closer to the latter and further weakening the former. The change has been intimated by the sudden popularity of two political terms rarely applied earlier to the American political system. “Empire” and “superpower” both suggest that a new system of power, concentrated and expansive, has come into existence and supplanted the old terms. “Empire” and “superpower” accurately symbolize the projection of American power abroad, but for that reason they obscure the internal consequences. Consider how odd it would sound if we were to refer to “the Constitution of the American Empire” or “superpower democracy.” The reason they ring false is that “constitution” signifies limitations on power, while “democracy” commonly refers to the active involvement of citizens with their government and the responsiveness of government to its citizens. For their part, “empire” and “superpower” stand for the surpassing of limits and the dwarfing of the citizenry.

The increasing power of the state and the declining power of institutions intended to control it has been in the making for some time. The party system is a notorious example. The Republicans have emerged as a unique phenomenon in American history of a fervently doctrinal party, zealous, ruthless, antidemocratic and boasting a near majority. As Republicans have become more ideologically intolerant, the Democrats have shrugged off the liberal label and their critical reform-minded constituencies to embrace centrism and footnote the end of ideology. In ceasing to be a genuine opposition party the Democrats have smoothed the road to power of a party more than eager to use it to promote empire abroad and corporate power at home. Bear in mind that a ruthless, ideologically driven party with a mass base was a crucial element in all of the twentieth-century regimes seeking total power.

 Representative institutions no longer represent voters. Instead, they have been short-circuited, steadily corrupted by an institutionalized system of bribery that renders them responsive to powerful interest groups whose constituencies are the major corporations and wealthiest Americans. The courts, in turn, when they are not increasingly handmaidens of corporate power, are consistently deferential to the claims of national security. Elections have become heavily subsidized non-events that typically attract at best merely half of an electorate whose information about foreign and domestic politics is filtered through corporate-dominated media. Citizens are manipulated into a nervous state by the media’s reports of rampant crime and terrorist networks, by thinly veiled threats of the Attorney General and by their own fears about unemployment. What is crucially important here is not only the expansion of governmental power but the inevitable discrediting of constitutional limitations and institutional processes that discourages the citizenry and leaves them politically apathetic.

No doubt these remarks will be dismissed by some as alarmist, but I want to go further and name the emergent political system “inverted totalitarianism.” By inverted I mean that while the current system and its operatives share with Nazism the aspiration toward unlimited power and aggressive expansionism, their methods and actions seem upside down. For example, in Weimar Germany, before the Nazis took power, the “streets” were dominated by totalitarian-oriented gangs of toughs, and whatever there was of democracy was confined to the government. In the United States, however, it is the streets where democracy is most alive–while the real danger lies with an increasingly unbridled government.

Or another example of the inversion: Under Nazi rule there was never any doubt about “big business” being subordinated to the political regime. In the United States, however, it has been apparent for decades that corporate power has become so predominant in the political establishment, particularly in the Republican Party, and so dominant in its influence over policy, as to suggest a role inversion the exact opposite of the Nazis’. At the same time, it is corporate power, as the representative of the dynamic of capitalism and of the ever-expanding power made available by the integration of science and technology with the structure of capitalism, that produces the totalizing drive that, under the Nazis, was supplied by ideological notions such as Lebensraum.

In rebuttal it will be said that there is no domestic equivalent to the Nazi regime of torture, concentration camps or other instruments of terror. But we should remember that for the most part, Nazi terror was not applied to the population generally; rather, the aim was to promote a certain type of shadowy fear–rumors of torture–that would aid in managing and manipulating the populace. Stated positively, the Nazis wanted a mobilized society eager to support endless warfare, expansion and sacrifice for the nation.

While the Nazi totalitarianism strove to give the masses a sense of collective power and strength, Kraft durch Freude (“Strength through joy”), inverted totalitarianism promotes a sense of weakness, of collective futility. While the Nazis wanted a continuously mobilized society that would not only support the regime without complaint and enthusiastically vote “yes” at the periodic plebiscites, inverted totalitarianism wants a politically demobilized society that hardly votes at all. Recall the President’s words immediately after the horrendous events of September 11: “Unite, consume and fly,” he told the anxious citizenry. Having assimilated terrorism to a “war,” he avoided doing what democratic leaders customarily do during wartime: mobilize the citizenry, warn it of impending sacrifices and exhort all citizens to join the “war effort.” Instead, inverted totalitarianism has its own means of promoting generalized fear; not only by sudden “alerts” and periodic announcements about recently discovered terrorist cells or the arrest of shadowy figures or the publicized heavy-handed treatment of aliens and the Devil’s Island that is Guantánamo Bay or the sudden fascination with interrogation methods that employ or border on torture, but by a pervasive atmosphere of fear abetted by a corporate economy of ruthless downsizing, withdrawal or reduction of pension and health benefits; a corporate political system that relentlessly threatens to privatize Social Security and the modest health benefits available, especially to the poor. With such instrumentalities for promoting uncertainty and dependence, it is almost overkill for inverted totalitarianism to employ a system of criminal justice that is punitive in the extreme, relishes the death penalty and is consistently biased against the powerless.

Thus the elements are in place: a weak legislative body, a legal system that is both compliant and repressive, a party system in which one party, whether in opposition or in the majority, is bent upon reconstituting the existing system so as to permanently favor a ruling class of the wealthy, the well-connected and the corporate, while leaving the poorer citizens with a sense of helplessness and political despair, and, at the same time, keeping the middle classes dangling between fear of unemployment and expectations of fantastic rewards once the new economy recovers. That scheme is abetted by a sycophantic and increasingly concentrated media; by the integration of universities with their corporate benefactors; by a propaganda machine institutionalized in well-funded think tanks and conservative foundations; by the increasingly closer cooperation between local police and national law enforcement agencies aimed at identifying terrorists, suspicious aliens and domestic dissidents.

What is at stake, then, is nothing less than the attempted transformation of a tolerably free society into a variant of the extreme regimes of the past century. In that context, the national elections of 2004 represent a crisis in its original meaning, a turning point. The question for citizens is: Which way?

SHELDON WOLIN Sheldon Wolin is the author, most recently, of Alexis de Tocqueville: Man Between Two Worlds (Princeton). A new edition of his book Politics and Vision is forthcoming. He is professor emeritus of politics at Princeton University.

eddie wrote:
Quill the point is, enough people have listened to get him this far.

Ben Reilly wrote:Here's what I want to know, though -- are they listening for the reasons listed in the OP, or are they listening because of the bigoted stuff he says?

Conway wrote:He has a point that politics has become too dominated by vested interests, by lobbyists, by cynical, professional politicians.

Conway wrote:He has a point that, for years, the spoils of economic growth have been shared too narrowly.

Conway wrote:He has a point that many blue-collar workers have been treated unfairly; that they lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

Conway wrote:He has a point that low interest rates and quantitative easing, or for that matter free trade, have benefited too few.

Conway wrote:In many ways - his misogyny, his deceit, his bullying, his racism - Mr Trump is the most repulsive White House candidate in living memory.

But that rather underlines my point: he was nominated in spite of his well-established faults, in spite of the distaste so many Republicans have for him.

It emphasises how powerful some of the points he is making are.

Conway wrote:Over the course of decades, politicians - on both sides of the Atlantic - have forgotten who they are supposed to represent. In truth this was more cock-up than conspiracy, more down to ignorance than intent."

eddie wrote:I think they're simply listening to someone who speaks differently.
Or perhaps, it's someone who is speaking differently.