MENU

Trump is the GOP’s Frankenstein. And the Aftermath is Predictable

By Vinay Kolhatkar

October 15, 2016

SUBSCRIBE TO SAVVY STREET (It's Free)

 

The axis of politics has moved. What used to be Centre-Left v Centre-Right-Religious in virtually every developed country has undergone a seismic shift.

Donald Trump is the American demagogue, Pauline Hanson the Australian avatar, Marine Le Pen the French version. It’s a global megatrend. And it’s unstoppable.

Over the years since the late Sixties, the old Left became progressively the New Left—anti-Western civilization, anti-Reason, and pro-multiculturalism. Even the Right absorbed some of this New Left culture and shifted its own economics toward the center.

To get a deeper understanding of the New Left, have a read of Ayn Rand’s classic—The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, one of the most insightful political books ever written. For a quick primer, see the essay “Political Correctness is part of a neo-Marxist Culture War.”

The New Left wants more international trade, and immigration of such magnitude that it stamps out the dominant culture. It couples itself to a nonsensical non-value of multiculturalism. Bereft of protectionism, the working class is stranded. Jobs have been lost. Upset further by political correctness and the cultural shifts which suddenly require their children to compulsorily learn a foreign language in public schools, the abandoned working class yearns for a past that gave them lifelong manufacturing jobs in a predominantly white, largely Christian society that didn’t apologize for its race, language, or religion.

The chasm is being filled. Donald Trump is the American demagogue, Pauline Hanson the Australian avatar, Marine Le Pen the French version. Have a look also at the burgeoning popularity, as reported in the New York Times, of Norbert Hofer in Austria, of Jaroslaw Kaczynski in Poland, of Frauke Petry in Germany, of the Jobbik Party in Hungary, and of Golden Dawn in Greece.

It’s a global megatrend. And it’s unstoppable.

Calling the Trump constituency racist, as Paul Krugman does, is to miss the point entirely.

The abandoned working class yearns for a past that gave them lifelong manufacturing jobs in a predominantly white, largely Christian society that didn’t apologize for its race, language, or religion.

Put yourself in the shoes of a middle-aged man who has lost his job. Perhaps for ever. Or even that he knows the vibrant risks to his livelihood. One party promises to enhance the welfare state but keeps signing new trade deals. The other one threatens to cut down on welfare and keeps signing new trade deals.

Then, the messiah comes along. He says he will retain the welfare state as is and not sign new trade agreements. And, to boot, he will tear up old ones. And kick those illegals out. And build walls to keep them out. And reduce immigration.

It looks like you might get your job back, and the safety net will stay. Easy choice.

Champagne liberals might pretend to get distressed by crude talk when not discussing Fifty Shades of black, blue, and gray in their book club. But when my livelihood is at stake, the crude talk is secondary—I don’t have to like the guy if I think he can get me my job back.

As David Frum said in The Atlantic back in January, “Owners of capital assets, employers of low-skill laborers, and highly compensated professionals tend to benefit economically from the arrival of immigrants. They are better positioned to enjoy the attractive cultural and social results of migration.”

Such disconnected elites were on both sides of the political aisle. The numbers of the disgruntled grew. The political axis had to shift. And in times of serious economic trouble, the easiest shift is toward uber-nationalism and protectionism. Why?

Because, in politics, people fall for promises. Over and over again. If you are going to rob Peter to pay Paul, you can even say so. Paul will vote for you. Peter doesn’t have a negative vote. And there are fewer Peters than Pauls.

If you are going to rob Peter to pay Paul, you can even say so. Paul will vote for you. Peter doesn’t have a negative vote. Peter may not even have been born yet.

Peter may not even have been born yet. You had Ben and Janet at the central bank perpetually pushing the as-yet-unborn Peters’ debt into the future, letting you pay interest on it at 0.05%. Just don’t tell them what Ben and Janet have been doing. Then even the Pauls that do have children are part of your flock. Hell, you are mortgaging their children’s future to pay them a few goodies and they worship you. What’s not to like here unless you have a conscience?

But the populists are ready to expose this game and play another one. America for Americans. Australia for Australians. Germany for Germans—oops, that memory rankles, but even that game is being played. And it will topple Angela Merkel within five years.

But do trade barriers work? If you raise the basketball hoop at your end by four feet, the other side will, too. Both sides will score fewer points—less imports, and less exports. Some gain their jobs back (the Pauls), some lose (the Peters). The Pauls see it. They vote for you. The Peters, who work for the export-oriented industries, don’t know it yet. Once erected, tariffs are notoriously difficult to dislodge—be careful, the Pauls could be funding your re-election campaign. All industries, globally, and all countries, will be far less efficient as a consequence.

Politics is often about pleasing special interests (the identifiable Pauls) while spreading the expense in a diffused manner (the unidentifiable Peters).

Truth is an abstract argument, not understood at large. You can speak truth to power, but that doesn’t land you in power. In the 2012 novel, The Frankenstein Candidate, a billionaire runs as an independent and gives the two-party system a seismic shakeup by speaking truth to power. Frank Stein is not a pastiche of other candidates, but he is happy to remind voters that government, like Frankenstein’s monster, has long escaped its creators, the people, and become an out-of-control monster, unaccountable to its creators.

In that story, the Democratic presidential nominee paints a picture of a new ‘New Deal’, eliciting the memory of FDR. Another Democrat, Senator Olivia Allen, perceives the FDR spirit in her party thus:

“My colleagues are very compassionate with other people’s hard-earned money.”

 

 

 

Meanwhile, the Republican nominee says:

“Desperate times call for desperate measures. It’s time to end the political correctness that has brought this once mighty nation down. It’s time to call the Chinese bluff. It is time to slap a tariff of 50 percent on all Chinese goods exported to the U.S. because they cheat, my friends, they cheat. They have little by way of environmental laws, their currency has been artificially cheap for a long time, and they exploit their labor.

“We have to make sure that American jobs stay in America. Starting in the first week of my presidency, I will reduce all immigration to zero for two years.”

Published four years ago, this narrative is about a fictional future set in 2020. But that ‘Republican’ voice doesn’t sound like a fictional voice from four years ago. It’s only 2016, and the parallels are ominous. The silhouette of FDR’s ghost, which never left the stage, is visible all over Hillary Clinton.

And what does Donald Trump represent? Is the whole of Trump just a need? A need for power over others, borne of emptiness—an extremely low self-esteem?

Says this novel’s character who represents that emptiness—“There is no religion. No science. No principles. We are all just here to play. Play the game of life till we die.”

“Business, religion, relationships, crime, power, politics, career, fame, fortune, prestige, love…you name it. It’s all a game. First, you need to figure out the rules. Remember, some of the rules are unstated. Then you play the game to win. You always play to win, otherwise you don’t play. Do you see that?”

Yes, we see it. See this report from May 2016—”Look, anything I say right now — I’m not the president, everything is a suggestion. No matter what you say, it is a suggestion,” Trump said Friday on NBC’s “Today,” Really? Everything?

Trump is playing the game. With little prior record in politics to test consistency against, he played the winning hand. Sixteen other candidates had thrown their hat in the ring. 14 million people voted for Trump in the primaries. The next best was Ted Cruz, with less than 8 million. How did Cruz’s free enterprise message get him second spot? Because he was against immigration … well, technically, only illegal immigration (but would he ever have admitted that legal immigration is far too low?) and he flipped against a trade agreement (the TPP) by citing technicalities. Did Cruz pay homage to where the votes were after he saw where the winning hand lay? Let’s patrol Muslim neighborhoods more, shall we? Rand Paul didn’t wiggle, and he lost quite early.

Trump’s outright populism was more powerful in the open primaries. You know, the abandoned class—it was on either side of the aisle.

I realize some of you have a more sanguine view of Trump compared to mine. And some of you have a far more sinister view of Trump.

But, whatever you think of the man, the constituency Trump represents is not deplorable. And, win or lose in 2016, they are convinced that there exists this nationalistic, protectionist, anti-immigration platform which will solve their problems.

To be fair to Trump, his policy platform does attack the New Left too. It attacks corporate taxes, regulation, and the climate fraud.

By 2019, the Republican Party will have split in two—the ideological and the populist, or even into three parties—with the New-Left-appeasers clinging to the name.

The New-Left-appeasing establishment of Jeb Bush and Chris Christie is now more lifeless than a dead beetle buried fifteen meters underground. The Tea Party ideology, if converted into a new registered party platform, with Ted Cruz and Rand Paul as defectors, might win some Electoral College votes in 2020, provided someone like the Koch brothers finance such a nationwide registration. But the GOP right at this moment is the party of populism, hijacked by Frankenstein’s monster, let loose because the elites just kept ignoring where the voters were.

What if Trump loses big, come November?

The GOP could come back on the same populist platform in 2020, led by a genuine working class man (or woman) with no skeletons in the cupboard, and win.

If they stay establishment, unable to viciously attack central banking, the climate scare, Islam, or even political correctness, both the Tea Party and the populist factions will abandon them, leaving behind more Congressmen than voters. The Tea Party faithful could register as a political party, and Trump could form his own, too—America First or something like that. Become its Chairman. Let younger men and women contest a 2020 candidacy.

The only thing honest voters can do is choose the lesser evil. Astonishingly, it’s populism. Because the New Left—the idea of foisting identity wars, the idea that man cannot adapt nature, the idea that free enterprise is preordained to be at fault, is so egregiously harmful, and its proponents so ruthlessly fascist, that Western Civilization is absolutely at stake.

Alternately, easing your conscience this November with a vote for the Libertarian or the Constitution Party is not harmful either, because each exposes some grievous faults of the New Left.

Let’s hope that the split between the ideologists and the populists does occur in 2017. Then, with all clear conscience, voters could back the ideological, knowing that having a few of them in Congress could exert some influence over the course of history.

The world of politics is in unstoppable locomotion. Finally, it looks like the charge of the New Left, incessant since the Sixties, will be reversed. Not by anything ideal. But at this stage, any medicine that staves off death will do.

Donald Trump has merely exposed the fault line. The earthquakes are due after November 2016. By 2019, the Republican Party will have split in two—the ideological and the populist, or even into three parties—with the New-Left-appeasers clinging to the name.

The good news is that enough people have awakened to the ills of the New Left, even though many are taking a suboptimal medicine. And the not-so-good news? The populists will win the presidency in 2020 in a sweep of magnitude 8.0 on the Richter scale.

Unless they prove the pollsters wrong and do it in 2016.

 

 

This essay benefited from comments made by Kurt Keefner, Kaila Halling, and Walter Donway on an earlier draft.

 

(Visited 398 times, 1 visits today)