Posted on 07/18/2015 3:31:04 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
It’s not too interesting to say that Donald Trump is a nationalist and aspiring despot who is manipulating bourgeois resentment, nativism, and ignorance to feed his power lust. It’s uninteresting because it is obviously true. It’s so true that stating it sounds more like an observation than a criticism.
I just heard Trump speak live. It was an awesome experience, like an interwar séance of once-powerful dictators who inspired multitudes, drove countries into the ground, and died grim deaths.
His speech at FreedomFest lasted a full hour, and I consider myself fortunate for having heard it. It was a magnificent exposure to an ideology that is very much present in American life, though hardly acknowledged. It lives mostly hidden in dark corners, and we don’t even have a name for it. You bump into it at neighborhood barbecues, at Thanksgiving dinner when Uncle Harry has the floor, at the hardware store when two old friends in line to checkout mutter about the state of the country.
The ideology is a 21st century version of right fascism — one of the most politically successful ideological strains of 20th century politics. Though hardly anyone talks about it today, we really should. It is still real. It exists. It is distinct. It is not going away. Trump has tapped into it, absorbing unto his own political ambitions every conceivable bourgeois resentment: race, class, sex, religion, economic. You would have to be hopelessly ignorant of modern history not to see the outlines and where they end up.
For now, Trump seems more like comedy than reality. I want to laugh about what he said, like reading a comic-book version of Franco, Mussolini, or Hitler. And truly I did laugh, as when he denounced the existence of tech support in India that serves American companies (“how can it be cheaper to call people there than here?” — as if he still thinks that long-distance charges apply).
Let’s hope this laughter doesn’t turn to tears.
As an aside, I mean no criticism of FreedomFest’s organizer Mark Skousen in allowing Trump to speak at this largely libertarian gathering. Mark invited every Republican candidate to address the 2,200-plus crowd. Only two accepted. Moreover, Mark is a very savvy businessman himself, and this conference operates on a for-profit basis. He does not have the luxury of giving the microphone to only people who pass the libertarian litmus test. His goal is to put on display the ideas that matter in our time and assess them by the standards of true liberty.
In my view, it was a brilliant decision to let him speak. Lovers of freedom need to confront the views of a man with views like this. What’s more, of all the speeches I heard at FreedomFest, I learned more from this one than any other. I heard, for the first time in my life, what a modern iteration of a consistently statist but non-leftist outlook on politics sounds and feels like in our own time. And I watched as most of the audience undulated between delight and disgust — with perhaps only 10% actually cheering his descent into vituperative anti-intellectualism. That was gratifying.
As of this writing, Trump is leading in the polls in the Republican field. He is hated by the media, which is a plus for the hoi polloi in the GOP. He says things he should not, which is also a plus for his supporters. He is brilliant at making belligerent noises rather than having worked out policy plans. He knows that real people don’t care about the details; they only want a strongman who shares their values. He makes fun of the intellectuals, of course, as all populists must do. Along with this penchant, Trump encourages a kind of nihilistic throwing out of rationality in favor of a trust in his own genius. And people respond, as we can see.
So, what does Trump actually believe? He does have a philosophy, though it takes a bit of insight and historical understanding to discern it. Of course race baiting is essential to the ideology, and there was plenty of that. When a Hispanic man asked a question, Trump interrupted him and asked if he had been sent by the Mexican government. He took it a step further, dividing blacks from Hispanics by inviting a black man to the microphone to tell how his own son was killed by an illegal immigrant.
Because Trump is the only one who speaks this way, he can count on support from the darkest elements of American life. He doesn’t need to actually advocate racial homogeneity, call for a whites-only sign to be hung at immigration control, or push for expulsion or extermination of undesirables. Because such views are verboten, he has the field alone, and he can count on the support of those who think that way by making the right noises.
Trump also tosses little bones to the Christian Right, enough to allow them to believe that he represents their interests. Yes, it’s implausible and hilarious. But the crowd who looks for this is easily won with winks and nudges, and those he did give. At the speech I heard, he railed against ISIS and its war against Christians, pointing out further than he is a Presbyterian and thus personally affected every time ISIS beheads a Christian. This entire section of his speech was structured to rally the nationalist Christian strain that was the bulwark of support for the last four Republican presidents.
But as much as racialist and religious resentment is part of his rhetorical apparatus, it is not his core. His core is about business, his own business and his acumen thereof. He is living proof that being a successful capitalist is no predictor of one’s appreciation for an actual free market (stealing not trading is more his style). It only implies a love of money and a longing for the power that comes with it. Trump has both.
What do capitalists on his level do? They beat the competition. What does he believe he should do as president? Beat the competition, which means other countries, which means wage a trade war. If you listen to him, you would suppose that the U.S. is in some sort of massive, epochal struggle for supremacy with China, India, Malaysia, and, pretty much everyone else in the world.
It takes a bit to figure out what the heck he could mean. He speaks of the United States as if it were one thing, one single firm. A business. “We” are in competition with “them,” as if the U.S. were IBM competing against Samsung, Apple, or Dell. “We” are not 300 million people pursuing unique dreams and ideas, with special tastes or interests, cooperating with people around the world to build prosperity. “We” are doing one thing, and that is being part of one business.
In effect, he believes that he is running to be the CEO of the country — not just of the government (as Ross Perot once believed) but of the entire country. In this capacity, he believes that he will make deals with other countries that cause the U.S. to come out on top, whatever that could mean. He conjures up visions of himself or one of his associates sitting across the table from some Indian or Chinese leader and making wild demands that they will buy such and such amount of product else “we” won’t buy their product.
Yes, it’s bizarre. As Nick Gillespie said, he has a tenuous grasp on reality. Trade theory from hundreds of years plays no role in his thinking at all. To him, America is a homogenous unit, no different from his own business enterprise. With his run for president, he is really making a takeover bid, not just for another company to own but for an entire country to manage from the top down, under his proven and brilliant record of business negotiation, acquisition, and management.
You see why the whole speech came across as bizarre? It was. And yet, maybe it was not. In the 18th century, there is a trade theory called mercantilism that posited something similar: ship the goods out and keep the money in. It builds up industrial cartels that live at the expense of the consumer. In the 19th century, this penchant for industrial protectionism and mercantilism became guild socialism, which mutated later into fascism and then into Nazism. You can read Mises to find out more on how this works.
What’s distinct about Trumpism, and the tradition of thought it represents, is that it is non-leftist in its cultural and political outlook and yet still totalitarian in the sense that it seeks total control of society and economy and places no limits on state power. The left has long waged war on bourgeois institutions like family, church, and property. In contrast, right fascism has made its peace with all three. It (very wisely) seeks political strategies that call on the organic matter of the social structure and inspire masses of people to rally around the nation as a personified ideal in history, under the leadership of a great and highly accomplished man.
Trump believes himself to be that man.
He sounds fresh, exciting, even thrilling, like a man with a plan and a complete disregard for the existing establishment and all its weakness and corruption. This is how strongmen take over countries. They say some true things, boldly, and conjure up visions of national greatness under their leadership. They’ve got the flags, the music, the hype, the hysteria, the resources, and they work to extract that thing in many people that seeks heroes and momentous struggles in which they can prove their greatness.
Think of Commodus (161-192 AD) in his war against the corrupt Roman senate. His ascension to power came with the promise of renewed Rome. What he brought was inflation, stagnation, and suffering. Historians have usually dated the fall of Rome from his leadership. Or, if you prefer pop culture, think of Bane, the would-be dictator of Gotham in Batman, who promises an end to democratic corruption, weakness, and loss of civic pride. He sought a revolution against the prevailing elites in order to gain total power unto himself.
These people are all the same. They are populists. Oh how they love the people, and how they hate the establishment. They defy all civic conventions. Their ideology is somewhat organic to the nation, not a wacky import like socialism. They promise greatness. They have an obsession with the problem of trade and mercantilist belligerence as the only solution. They have zero conception of the social order as a complex and extended ordering of individual plans, one that functions through freedom and individual rights.
This is a dark history and I seriously doubt that Trump himself is aware of it. Instead, he just makes it up as he goes along, speaking from his gut. This penchant has always served him well. It cannot serve a whole nation well. Indeed, the very prospect is terrifying, and not just for the immigrant groups and imports he has chosen to scapegoat for all the country’s problems. It’s a disaster in waiting for everyone.
Excellent post, and I would agree....and add that there’s no logic behind the idea that certain jobs are more sacrosanct than others. Why is manufacturing a low tech low skill item more of a deserving job than all of the jobs in import/export trades....which includes the very blue collar and very (over) well paid longshoremen. There is no logic there.
Really? You agree with this?
“Of course race baiting is essential to the ideology, and there was plenty of that.”
Have I ever called you any of those things?
Good comment, let me try to break it down so you understand where I'm coming from.
First: Yes, I do believe there are "evil ones", some here, mostly abroad, who desire some form of global political authority. They are not, mostly, businessmen.
Second, I am aware that some, perhaps most, of global economic integration has arisen spontaneously in response to the unprecedented long pause in global war and to innovative communication technologies.
Third, I believe that it is ahistorical and therefore unlikely for the global economic activity to continue at its present level without an attempt by a state or group of states to "capture" increasing advantage. In historical terms, this usually means battle fleets and large armies, but technology may have changed this, to some degree.
Fourth, I believe that other nations, especially China and Russia, but also the lesser ones like Brazil and India are raising their young with acute national consciousness while we are not. Most of the world will never be Singapore, or Hong Kong.
Fifth, I believe that as a result of 1-4 the standard of living and future prospects of many of our people is in decline, and that measures to reverse the decline are warranted.
While I do not regard America as a single celled organism, like an amoeba, I do not accept the view that we are an arbitrarily defined herd of 300 million unrelated individuals who for historical reasons live within certain GPS coordinates of no particular significance, and whose future prospects are rightly determined by competition from foreigners - no matter how much wealth is thereby generated.
Probably not....and that’s why I didn’t accuse you of it specifically....I was giving you the background on why I might react with a tad of passion on this particular issue. I don’t pay that much attention to screen names frankly, tho good for you for using your real name....
I agree with a lot of what you said, but I do not agree that points 1+2+3+4= point 5. It’s not that linear, but thanks for thoughtful response.
What you say is primarily about business, but also “Globalization”. Politics and economy work in tandem.
Broadly, there are 4 elements I can think of right now in relation to aspects of your post:
1. Capability/Production/Operation
2. Cost (then, Price)
3. Opportunity
4. Dependency
In business terms, the U.S. is a huge market within itself.
But the U.S. is also very much dependent on opportunities outside the USA. Otherwise, the U.S. today, on the world stage, would be what it was pre-WW2 — politically, economically and socially.
>>>”Fourth, I believe that other nations, especially China and Russia, but also the lesser ones like Brazil and India are raising their young with acute national consciousness while we are not. Most of the world will never be Singapore, or Hong Kong.”<<<
The U.S. has already had a head-start decades ago, and penetrated many markets; whether it was due to nationalistic sentiments I don’t know.
Though the U.S. will increasingly get competition, in the business arena at least - the countries you’ve cited have learned from the U.S.
Regarding your last paragraph:
The U.S. is not “a single celled organism” .. or, “an arbitrarily defined herd of 300 million unrelated individuals who for historical reasons live within certain GPS coordinates of no particular significance, and whose future prospects are rightly determined by competition from foreigners.”
But, the U.S. is dependent on foreign, hence, a Global ‘network’ to be able to do business outside USA. Politics is an inherent part of that process.
“otherwise, the U.S. today, on the world stage, would be what it was pre-WW2 — politically, economically and socially.”
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
I say that as a fact.
Yes, of course it's a fact. There are lots of facts.
The question is, would the US be better off, or worse off, if the nation were more like we were in 1940 than like we are today.
Which of those is correct cannot be reduced to fact.
Overkill, gratuitous nastiness, and self-satisfied stylistic flourishes are only going to increase Trump’s appeal.
"The question is, would the US be better off, or worse off, if the nation were more like we were in 1940 than like we are today."
Indeed. I look forward to seeing Trump's views & practical contributions; the latter as it may come to fruition!
“How do you like being called hoi polloi?”
I wonder if that makes Jeffrey Tucker something of a libertarian elitist?
I’ve been wondering the same thing.
..it looks to me like maybe Jim Noble has read more Adam Smith than you...
The love of our own country seems not to be derived from the love of mankind. The former sentiment is altogether independent of the latter, and seems sometimes even to dispose us to act inconsistently with it. France may contain, perhaps, near three times the number of inhabitants which Great Britain contains.
In the great society of mankind, therefore, the prosperity of France should appear to be an object of much greater importance than that of Great Britain. The British subject, however, who upon that account, should prefer upon all occasions the prosperity of the former to that of the latter country, would not be thought a good citizen of Great Britain.
We do not love our country merely as part of the great society of mankind: we love it for its own sake, and independently of any such consideration.
That wisdom which contrived the system of human affections, as well as that of every other part of nature, seems to have judged that the interest of the great society of mankind would be best promoted by directing the principle attention of each individual to that particular portion of it, which was most within the sphere both of his abilities and his understanding."
Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments, pg 231
not at all......not even close.....not even a nice try....and not in context.
If you asked Adam Smith if it was a good idea for American manufacturing companies to close down their factories give/lease their machinery to a Communist Country and have their coolies build their companies product and have it shipped back into the American market with no tariffs he would have thought you daffy at the least and a traitor at the most.
Adam Smith was a believer in the invisible hand of everyone acting in liberty and in their own self interests, not in central Virginia’s man love of this magical wizard who could make it all right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.