US Politics - the 'New' New Right (or Alt-Right for those of you looking at 'murica)...
Okay, so given this blog's history, I do sometimes delve into news and politics and ideologies. And given the absolute cluster-f*ck going on south of the border right now, I decided it was finally time to wade in. Funnily enough, it wasn't THE DONALD who got me here, (in the interests of full disclosure, I consider myself fairly liberal in the social and fiscal sense). I consider him, and my opinion is based on what he's said and done over the last decade or so, an absolute train-wreck of a politician and
an all around terrible person. The criteria I used in forming that opinion largely rest on the following: How he carries himself, how he treats people (including people he's supposed to pay), how he reacts to conflict, how he panders to his crowd, how he refuses to condemn openly racist and violent acts committed in his name, and his many years living large in the tabloids - publicity he largely got for bad relationships, bad business decisions and bad behavior.
But it wasn't him who got me here, as I said. That dubious honor rests with a nouveau-con hipster-bearded, slicked haired, horn-rimmed glasses wearing Youtuber who shall remain nameless. Why, do you ask? Because unlike Trump, he's capable of looking at objective information in a fairly balanced way. Unfortunately, the lens with which he looks at that information is tinted a very distinct shade of racist. As in white, male and utterly in love with that fact. In other words, who cares about the historical context of sexism or racism or privilege? His argument seems to be that he should be able to do and say whatever he wants, if only because people used to be able to say the same things without getting into trouble. As if the world was somehow better when that was the case...
Anyhow, let's go back to The Donald himself. There's been plenty of analysis of where he stands on most issues. Do a google search and you'll find hundreds of articles dedicated ripping him up or praising his bravery. Similarly, there's been plenty of hand-wringing on both sides of the political aisle in the US, since what he's saying is pretty embarrassing, not to mention anathema to realistically winning an election.
I'd say it's fairly clear he doesn't like anyone who's demonstrably different than him (ie. white, male and rich) unless he can manipulate and/or control them (he loves the uneducated) and they feed his ego (crying babies undercutting his speeches be damned). He likes control. He likes money. He likes anyone who reinforces his world view. And he's not afraid to step on anyone who gets in his way.
That's it. That's him. And that's pretty much why most of his supporters like him. 'Merica, Fuck Yeah!
How he plans on accomplishing anything if he becomes president, I don't know. He doesn't say anything substantial about that when questioned on his positions. Hell, he tends to change his positions frequently. He also likes to distance himself from responsibility (blaming subordinates) and, if he can't, tends to fall back on the old ad hominem attacks. How many times has he blamed his detractors for all the social/economic/racial/religious/military ills in America, questioning their right to criticize him and trying to undercut their points by calling them 'emotional' or 'biased' or 'cheaters' or 'nobodies'? Once he's laid that groundwork, he follows up by trumpeting (pardon the pun) how he's so great at business and will make America great again.
These are not the marks of a good negotiator. Or a good leader. Or a balanced person.
But what makes this all so horribly fascinating to me is how he represents this 'rise in populism'. In other words, that he somehow represents this new aspect of conservatism, the same way the tea party did when Obama first won the presidency. Frankly the only difference I see is that Trump openly says what the Tea Party candidates only quietly parroted. In short, the idea that white America is under siege and has to overcome all this PC, progressive nonsense in order to return to the good ol' Christian days of Jim Crow and overt discrimination. Basically, they want a return to the times when white people could say and do whatever they wanted, without having to answer for it. As if that time's ever really ended.
Anyway, my point is this: Trump and the Tea Party before him, this 'new populism' as it's called - it's not new. It's just the same old sexist, racist crap that's been floating around since before the American Civil War. What's the saying? Old prejudices die hard? Here's another one - those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Maybe the problems the US has with education, and particularly how quite a few states seem to be mixing conservative politics and evangelicalism into their secular systems, is part of the reason this is such a problem. Nothing like a good Whitewashing to destroy entire generations of people's ability to critically examine fact vs. fiction vs. propaganda.
How do I know this has happened? Because Trump is a candidate. And he's still a candidate.
Well, that's all for now.
Thanks for reading.
an all around terrible person. The criteria I used in forming that opinion largely rest on the following: How he carries himself, how he treats people (including people he's supposed to pay), how he reacts to conflict, how he panders to his crowd, how he refuses to condemn openly racist and violent acts committed in his name, and his many years living large in the tabloids - publicity he largely got for bad relationships, bad business decisions and bad behavior.
But it wasn't him who got me here, as I said. That dubious honor rests with a nouveau-con hipster-bearded, slicked haired, horn-rimmed glasses wearing Youtuber who shall remain nameless. Why, do you ask? Because unlike Trump, he's capable of looking at objective information in a fairly balanced way. Unfortunately, the lens with which he looks at that information is tinted a very distinct shade of racist. As in white, male and utterly in love with that fact. In other words, who cares about the historical context of sexism or racism or privilege? His argument seems to be that he should be able to do and say whatever he wants, if only because people used to be able to say the same things without getting into trouble. As if the world was somehow better when that was the case...
Anyhow, let's go back to The Donald himself. There's been plenty of analysis of where he stands on most issues. Do a google search and you'll find hundreds of articles dedicated ripping him up or praising his bravery. Similarly, there's been plenty of hand-wringing on both sides of the political aisle in the US, since what he's saying is pretty embarrassing, not to mention anathema to realistically winning an election.
I'd say it's fairly clear he doesn't like anyone who's demonstrably different than him (ie. white, male and rich) unless he can manipulate and/or control them (he loves the uneducated) and they feed his ego (crying babies undercutting his speeches be damned). He likes control. He likes money. He likes anyone who reinforces his world view. And he's not afraid to step on anyone who gets in his way.
That's it. That's him. And that's pretty much why most of his supporters like him. 'Merica, Fuck Yeah!
How he plans on accomplishing anything if he becomes president, I don't know. He doesn't say anything substantial about that when questioned on his positions. Hell, he tends to change his positions frequently. He also likes to distance himself from responsibility (blaming subordinates) and, if he can't, tends to fall back on the old ad hominem attacks. How many times has he blamed his detractors for all the social/economic/racial/religious/military ills in America, questioning their right to criticize him and trying to undercut their points by calling them 'emotional' or 'biased' or 'cheaters' or 'nobodies'? Once he's laid that groundwork, he follows up by trumpeting (pardon the pun) how he's so great at business and will make America great again.
These are not the marks of a good negotiator. Or a good leader. Or a balanced person.
But what makes this all so horribly fascinating to me is how he represents this 'rise in populism'. In other words, that he somehow represents this new aspect of conservatism, the same way the tea party did when Obama first won the presidency. Frankly the only difference I see is that Trump openly says what the Tea Party candidates only quietly parroted. In short, the idea that white America is under siege and has to overcome all this PC, progressive nonsense in order to return to the good ol' Christian days of Jim Crow and overt discrimination. Basically, they want a return to the times when white people could say and do whatever they wanted, without having to answer for it. As if that time's ever really ended.
Anyway, my point is this: Trump and the Tea Party before him, this 'new populism' as it's called - it's not new. It's just the same old sexist, racist crap that's been floating around since before the American Civil War. What's the saying? Old prejudices die hard? Here's another one - those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Maybe the problems the US has with education, and particularly how quite a few states seem to be mixing conservative politics and evangelicalism into their secular systems, is part of the reason this is such a problem. Nothing like a good Whitewashing to destroy entire generations of people's ability to critically examine fact vs. fiction vs. propaganda.
How do I know this has happened? Because Trump is a candidate. And he's still a candidate.
Well, that's all for now.
Thanks for reading.
Comments