For what i see, there's a lot of members that are interested in politics and who like to discuss it. So i think we can have good conversations about american politics, which in the next years will go around Trump's name.
First question i make you: how do you explain Trump's victory, since he was (he still is) a political outcast?
Donald Trump is an opportunist who observed the mounting discontent among workers and played his Trump card. This is widespread over the globe as people clamour for more and fear anyone who may take their share of cake. The result is a move to the right everywhere in politics.
I have no vote in America so feel at a disadvantage in this topic. I agree with Magnocrat, though that he is part of the general move to the right in politics. A bit worrying as there is the re-emergence of far-right, by which I mean fascism, still few, but we are starting to see sieg-heil salutes again. Very unpleasant...
I think he road a wave of negative social mood because he had the resources and the personality to resonate with it. I am not worried about Trump (or Clinton). I am worried about a coming depression that neither of them would be able to stop.
It's been said often but I think being a "political outcast" helped him win the election. He was radically different from any other politician and so attracted Americans who felt left behind by previous regimes (Clinton especially is reminiscent of her husband and thus represents the old political elite; it certainly felt like she had a sense of entitlement about her). It also helped that he has an alpha male personality strong enough to bluster through anything; none of the conventional rules of politics applied because he simply didn't care about pandering to political correctness or being consistent and so his opponents didn't really know what to do.
(Of course technically he didn't win the popular vote so all this was not enough to get most Americans to vote for him but it attracted enough.)
I'm not an American and so I might be very wrong about some of this, but these are my observations from a distance.
The road for Trump's victory begins with the total lack of credibility of both the Democrat Party and the Republican Party. In a political system with only two parties with a governance past, and after years and years of corruption scandals, bad management of the country politics and resources, a clear cultural of political corruption and promiscuous ties to the corporate world, there was clear way for a person outside the political mainstream system to show up and gather the votes of a considerable majority who is sick and tired of the politicians, the usual politicians of both parties.
Plus, either because of ideology or interests (political, economical, personal, whatever) the two main parties were just unable to give the right answers to the right problems that many americans felt it was necessary to handle. Just like what's happening in Europe, the traditional political system was incompetent when facing an outsider, who was considered a rich fool who was just having fun running for President. What the Democrats and the Republicans during the primaries didn't understand and didn't see was that Trump was actually targeting the main problems and what worries the most the average american citizen: lack of employment, globalization effects like factories and companies closing, the lack of opportunities for those who are not part of the millennial generation and don't have some skills that are today essential (like handling modern technological methods and equipment), the violent crimes, the illegal immigration that has reached incredible numbers in some states. For weeks and weeks politicians didn't even care about Trump's run for the White House, Hillary even laughed about the idea of Trump winning when she was hosted at Jimmy Fallon's show.
But the fact is that Trump spoke directly for the american who was left behind with globalization, who was left behind with the changing of times, and for those americans, from the South or from the North, with college degrees or not that were just worried about the american position in the global economy (in which China is just getting more and more powerful), the threats that the US faces worldwide (specially the islamic terrorism) and some more older issues that in a crisis context gain another relevance, like illegal immigration and illegal immigration related crimes. And, as i said, none of the traditional parties gave answers to most of these problems. Democrats believe that the more globalized, the better. Like Bill Maher said many times, Democrats weren't even capable of using the expression "islamic terrorism". Not to mention the traditional themes that split the nation, like legalizing some drugs or abortion.
But i have to say that what some of you said, that the anti-globalization feeling that is spreading threw out the world is a phenomenon linked to the far-right, is not entirely true. Yes, we see some far-right movements and parties getting more votes and more relevant in their countries. There's examples, such as the National Front in France, UKIP in the United Kingdom and the FPO in Austria. But the anti-globalization phenomenon has also benefit many left-extremist parties and movements, like PODEMOS in Spain, the Left Block in Portugal, Syriza in Greece and the Worker's Party in Belgium.
Last edited by Lendo; 02-24-2017 at 08:30 PM.
Yes indeed you are correct some countries did move to the left but the human motives were very similar. Things aren't looking good who can help us to more cake and less austerity. Greece was in a parlous condition and many blamed Europe for it.
You will always find voters think largely of their own lifestyles; left, right or centre they don't care as long as improvement is promised.
Politics was never summed up better than in George Owell's Animal Farm.
It has also a lot to do with the political traditions of the countries and with their History. It's not a coincidence that far-right parties or movements are not growing in Portugal and Spain. Both countries have a semi-recent past of far-right dictatorships, Salazar in Portugal and Franco in Spain. So there's still a lot of stigma thorwards anything that has a connection with the traditional ideological issues of the far-right. Any party that talk's about immigration, about national values, about getting out of the EU to promote national industry and economy is automatically labeled as fascist and a reappearing of the ancient regimes ideas. There's still that language/political covered opression of the right speech in Portugal and Spain.Originally Posted by Magnocrat
In Greece it happened the same for years, since they had the "Coronels regime", also from the authoritarian right. But the refugee crisis and the profound problem with the illegal imigrants from Africa and Eastern Europe allowed the far-right to reappear and grow, with the Golden Dawn party (which more than a far-right party, is almost a neo-nazi party).
Parties cannot grow without votes and we must look at the motives of the voters. To often the politicians are centre stage but they and the media manipulate voters.
This is why David Cameron tried to get the editor of the Daily Mail sacked and why Rupert Murdock is so powerful. At the moment Donald Trump is trying to enlist friendly media. Its not what actually happens that matters but how we perceive it.
Trump is a symptom, I think, rather than a cause - as is Brexit and the Italian 'No' vote. They are borne out of the frustration of the silent majority of ordinary people who feel that politics is dominated by an elite class whose interests and ideals are far removed from working people. Trump tapped a well of deep anger, people who go through the daily grind of life with a sense of irritation and hardship, and when it comes to vote look to the Democrats and see a party that has spent far more time debating trans-gender toilet rights than trying to improve working conditions in mid-America. A party in which a parade of multi-millionaire celebs took to their microphones to tell the poor, the unfortunate, the grifters, that the status quo and their own hardship is something they should support because it is morally right. Is it any surprise that people voted against that?
Voting for Trump became a tool to express that frustration for a great many people, and I suspect that was why he won - moreso than the voters actually being married to his agenda. Des[ite being a billionaire, he is in America's eyes not one of the elite. Mrs May in the UK, too, is consistently appealing to the population in opinion poll after opinion poll because of her middle-class background.
For what it's worth, while I'm wearing my fortuneteller hat, this is also why Marine Le Pen will eventually be President of France (though, I suspect, in 2022 rathe than 2017), why the Five Star Movement will gain enough clout in Italy to take it out of the Euro, why Geert Wilders will soon dominate nearly half the Dutch Parliament (held in check by a grand opposing coalition, but possibly with enough clout to trigger a Dutch referendum on EU membership), and why a whole host of other populist parties throughout Europe will make stunning gains.
America will survive Trump, although it will be a bumply few years, but I suspect the EU will not survive the Trump-ing of European politics.
"I should only believe in a God that would know how to dance. And when I saw my devil, I found him serious, thorough, profound, solemn: he was the spirit of gravity- through him all things fall. Not by wrath, but by laughter, do we slay. Come, let us slay the spirit of gravity!" - Nietzsche
The power of the media is immense, indeed. That's why today, more than ever, political parties try to control the media and influence directly it's content. And they try to transmiti their message in multiple ways, like presenting propaganda in the form of entertainment. For example, does anyone still see's the Tonight Show with Stephen Colbert as an entertainment show, like it was with Jay Leno or David Letterman? No. Because it became a completely anti-Trump propaganda show. It's now clear that the Tonight Show shifted completey from the entertaining side to the political side, with a very clear agenda. And show's like the one Jon Stewart had were always presented as entertainment, when the political goal was clear.
I think that by considering that Trump's win was essentialy an anti-party phenomenon, and disconsidering what he proposed and what he promised threw out the entire campaign you are doing the same mistake that Democrats and Republicans did. Trump didn't win only because he was an outcast of the political traditional system. He also won because of his agenda. He adressed the issues that most americans are concerned about. Not the trans-gender rights, not the legalization of marijuana, but the daily basis issues: unemployment, job criation, re-industrialization of America, illegal immigration, etc. Anti-system candidates show up everywhere. The reason why Trump is the only one so far who was elected is that to the anti-system card he added a speech that reached a big number of people and presented a solution for the day-by-day life of the working class.
And what's happening in France not only precedes the Trump phenomenon (Le Pen was already gaining votes and relevance before Trump was even a candidate) but what's happening in France is actually very different from what's happened in the US. And it's very different from what's happening in Greece or Spain, for example. What you have in France is a social system that gave proof of it's unsustainability, for economical, political and social reasons. You have an economy in a deep crisis because of the bad judgement of a completely pro-european government. And you have this perception that the EU is nowadays more a problem creator than a problem solver. But, essentialy, what the french are rejecting is the social system i talked about, that allow's for hundred of thousands of people to get in every year in the country and to impose their culture, instead of adapting to the french society, even if keeping their cultural differences and beliefs. You have today getto's in french cities, parts of cities in which french aren't even welcome, in which the cultural and religious values of immigrants are imposed to french people. There's cities in France in which they are planning to creat public swimming pool with gender segregation, to satisfy muslim immigrants. There's neighborhoods in which the butchers may be forbidden of selling pork in order not to insult muslims.
Obviously, this insane way that the Left set for France and that the moderate right wasn't able or interested to contest, created the normal and correct insatisfaction in the french people. A country does not have to abandone it's beliefs and values and to succumb to other ones because of an immigrant community, that wants to impose a considerable less tolerant and free way of life that the one the french have in their own country. And that's the speech of Le Pen.
So, the ideological aspect is much more relevant that the anti-system one in Le Pen's rising. Because, in fact, the National Front is part of the system for many, many years. Trump's phenomenon can be related to the anti-system movement, but Le Pen is essentialy a political and ideological phenomenon, the voters she will have will not vote for her because of an anti-system logic, but because of what she proposes for the country and because of what is the day-by-day reality of France.
Last edited by Lendo; 02-25-2017 at 08:37 AM.
Last November I thought Trump (or someone like him) would be elected president in 2020, not 2016, and the polls seemed to agree until the evening of the vote count.
I agree with you to the extent that I think Trump's message resonated in broad terms with middle America, though I'm not sure that's quite the same thing as wholesale support for some of his more... er... esoteric policies: how many people who voted for Trump actually thought the Wall would be built? Or that the immigration ban would actually be enacted? And, while we're at it, how many voted for him simply on the basis that he was not Mrs Clinton?
I agree that Le Pen predates Trump (hence why I called Trump a symptom, rather than a cause) - indeed, in the context of France things really begin with Jean-Marie Le Pen rather than his daughter. But in a sense they do represent something similar, if not actually identical, to Trump: the rage against a self-selecting, autocratic, pan-national global elite. And that's a label that applies as much to the EU as it does to the Democrats. You are quite correct that in France the issue has been to do with the management of the economy and a disasterous social policy, coupled with a growing distrust of the EU: these issues have become inexorably tied in French voters' eyes to main parties. With Fillon having tanked for corruption (unsurprising, the French will think, for a career politician) and with the socialists having selected the helpless, Corbyn-esque Hamon, France finds itself with the alternative of two different outcasts: Le Pen and Macron. You're right that the FN has been part of the 'system', but it has never been tainted by actual power - that, in a sense, legitimises it in the eyes of voters. The same is true of groups like the 5 Star Movement, PVV, AFD and the Sweden Democrats - the fact that they are all no-platformed by the 'traditional' parties means they're never quite part of the system.
As an example of what I mean, look to the SNP in Scotland, a party not unlike some of those mentioned above. They've been in power for a decade there, and have made a generally awful job of running the place. But to their legion of supporters, they are not the 'establishment' and never will be: that will always be the 'traditional' UK parties, no matter how long Scotland continues to be a de facto one-party state.
"I should only believe in a God that would know how to dance. And when I saw my devil, I found him serious, thorough, profound, solemn: he was the spirit of gravity- through him all things fall. Not by wrath, but by laughter, do we slay. Come, let us slay the spirit of gravity!" - Nietzsche
I called a Labour majority in 2015, Andy Burnham for Labour leader in 2015, 'no' to Brexit and 'yes' to Clinton, so my political antenna have been off recently.
That said, I called Thursday's by-elections in Copeland and Stoke correctly, so maybe I'm getting better...
"I should only believe in a God that would know how to dance. And when I saw my devil, I found him serious, thorough, profound, solemn: he was the spirit of gravity- through him all things fall. Not by wrath, but by laughter, do we slay. Come, let us slay the spirit of gravity!" - Nietzsche
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
