portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

government | imperialism & war

Why Trump Is Facing Impeachment

The United States has spent EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS fighting and policing in the Middle East. Thousands of our Great Soldiers have died or been badly wounded. Millions of people have died on the other side. GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE... ..

— Tweet, Donald J. Trump, October 9, 2019.

Defying even the Las Vegas bookies' predictions, Trump became the 45th President of the US. He had kvetched about the plight of US workers and made some noise about ending unending wars, but was he for real? After all, Obama had promised to get out of Gitmo and NAFTA, but ended up doing neither. Obama, the former critic of Bush's Iraq war, continued Bush's wars and started a handful of his own.

To date he has failed to start a new war. The last US president with a similar failing was the one-term Jimmy Carter. And now Trump is showing insufficient enthusiasm for continuing the war in Syria and possibly even a closet aversion to starting World War III with nuclear-armed Russia. These may be impeachable offenses in the estimation of parts of the ruling class.
 http://dissidentvoice.org/2019/10/why-trump-is-facing-impeachment/

Why Trump Is Facing Impeachment

by Roger D. Harris / October 11th, 2019

The United States has spent EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS fighting and policing in the Middle East. Thousands of our Great Soldiers have died or been badly wounded. Millions of people have died on the other side. GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE... ..

— Tweet, Donald J. Trump, October 9, 2019.

Granted Trump may arguably be more corrupt than Biden. But that's splitting hairs over which crook is more crooked. Bullying vassal states and "doing well by doing good" are indicators of finesse in Washington. Inside the beltway, corruption is not a liability for holding high political office, but a requirement. The key to membership in the power elite club is carrying water for the imperial state, and most club members must go through an elaborate vetting process to prove that they are reliable. Some such as Trump slip through.

The sine qua non for membership in this exclusive club is to prove you'll take a hit for the empire. When the results of the 2000 US presidential election were inconclusive, Al Gore took a fall rather than risk instability at the top: "(for) the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession." There are higher callings than merely winning the presidency for good servants of the empire.

But would Trump have been so compliant? Maybe not. So, impeachment is in order to either chasten him to faithful obedience or get rid of him.

The Not Thoroughly Vetted President

The presidential primaries are an audition process to see who can best serve the ruling class while conning the public. If the presidential "debates" demonstrate anything, it is that all the contestants are aspiring reality TV stars. Trump was different only in that he had previous experience.

Whenever one of the contestants shows vacillation on empire, they get slapped on the side of the head. Gabbard got summarily dismissed from the debates for her failure of faith in wars of imperial aggression as the highest expression of humanitarianism. Sanders had to grovel, calling the democratically elected president of Venezuela a "vicious tyrant."

And to qualify for the debates, a contestant must first prove that they are a "serious candidate." In a "democracy" where bribing politicians is considered "free speech" and where corporations are afforded the constitutional rights of "persons," the single overriding measure of seriousness is raising bundles of money from the rich. Of course, the rich did not become rich without expecting a return on their investments. Warren's surge, as it was dutifully reported in the press, came when some of the big money began to shift from Biden to her.

Trump on the other hand had his own billionaire's booty to back him, plus a little help from his wealthy cohorts. As billionaire Ross Perot proved in 1992, if you are filthy rich, you can independently run for president. And, in his case, throw the election from Bush the Elder to Bill Clinton.

To win a presidential election, however, you need more than deep pockets... you need a little help from your friends in getting a major party backing. Why a major party ballot line is so useful has constitutional antecedents.

The revolution of 1776, the last revolution that the US elites liked that was not rigged by the CIA, gave us the Articles of Confederation as the ruling document for the new sovereign. By 1787 the US elites of the time, Hamilton and supporting cast, were chaffing under what they characterized as the "excesses of democracy." A new constitution was drafted and approved with "checks and balances." What needed to be checked and balanced? Democracy, the direct rule of the people, was what was checked in the new document, while slavery was reaffirmed under the highest law of the land.

The new constitution gave us the Electoral College, whereby presidents are selected by "electors" rather than trusting the direct vote of the people and states can vote as a block. This allowed Trump to triumph even when his opponent received some 3 million more votes. Oddly, his Democratic Party opponents have since focused on alleged Russian interference through Facebook ads rather than the need to make the US Constitution an instrument for expression of the popular will.

But we are getting ahead of the story, because Trump still had to become the front runner in a crowded Republican field before he could even take on the other party of capital. Here he had help from friends in unexpected quarters. The Republican establishment hated him, but Clinton and the so-called liberal media became Trump boosters. The corporate media gave the flamboyant Trump a bully platform because it was good for ratings.

Clinton and the Democratic National Committee, as revealed in their leaked emails published by Wikileaks, pulled for Trump because they thought him an easier opponent than, say, the mainstream Republican heir-apparent Jeb Bush. There was precious little difference between the positions of Jeb and Hillary, though the popular images projected by the two major parties superficially diverged. The core of both parties greatly overlap, while the right fringe of the Republicans and the left fringe of the Democrats provide the contrasting colors but not the contending policy directions.

The 2016 electoral contest was a spectacle of insurgencies. Initially, there was Sanders. That he was somehow considered an "outsider" is a symptom of just how terminally ingrown the US polity has become. How could someone who served years in the US Senate and caucused with the Democrats be an outsider? Sanders ran on two premises: supporting the Democratic Party and raising suppressed issues such as income inequality. He succeeded in the first and failed in the second.

Meanwhile after 40 years of neoliberalism, CEO compensation has grown 940% as compared to 12% for typical employees in the US.

Trump in his way also pandered to the genuinely deteriorating condition of US workers. Both the Trump and the Sanders anti-establishment insurgencies, however, were contained within the two-party system and thus were structurally destined not to come to fruition. The establishment won't come down by joining them.

Unfaithful Servant of Imperialism

Defying even the Las Vegas bookies' predictions, Trump became the 45th President of the US. He had kvetched about the plight of US workers and made some noise about ending unending wars, but was he for real? After all, Obama had promised to get out of Gitmo and NAFTA, but ended up doing neither. Obama, the former critic of Bush's Iraq war, continued Bush's wars and started a handful of his own.

Upon occupying the Oval Office, Trump not unexpectedly threw the working class under the bus with his tax cut for the rich and similar actions, which must have won him some brownie points from the owning class. But to date he has failed to start a new war. The last US president with a similar failing was the one-term Jimmy Carter. And now Trump is showing insufficient enthusiasm for continuing the war in Syria and possibly even a closet aversion to starting World War III with nuclear-armed Russia. These may be impeachable offenses in the estimation of parts of the ruling class.

David R. Sanger, writing in the October 7 New York Times, represents "liberal" establishment views in support of US imperialism: "Mr. Trump's sudden abandonment of the Kurds was another example of the independent, parallel foreign policy he has run from the White House, which has largely abandoned the elaborate systems created since President Harry Truman's day to think ahead about the potential costs and benefits of presidential decisions."

There you have it. Trump is accused of having an "independent" foreign policy, emanating out of his office of all places, even though he is the elected President of the US and the one charged with executing foreign policy.

Who is Trump "independent" from? It's not the US citizenry according to the Times. As the article points out: "Mr. Trump sensed that many Americans share his view - and polls show he is right... Mr. Trump has correctly read the American people who, after Iraq and Afghanistan, also have a deep distaste for forever wars."

So, who might Trump have betrayed? According to the article, it's "circumventing the American generals and diplomats who sing the praises of maintaining the traditional American forward presence around the world." This is whom his alleged crime of independence is against. They fear Trump could "abandon" the post-war imperial consensus.

Note that the Times, as reflective of current ruling class ideology, no longer bothers to justify the dictates of the world's sole hegemon as a crusade against the current evil, be it communism or terrorism. Simply, the imperial state must be supported. Hence, Trump's view that "acting as the world's policeman was too expensive" or his tweet, "time for us to get out," have become grounds for impeachment.

The article favorably cites Republican majority leader Senator Mitch McConnell, who called on Trump "to exercise American leadership" by capitulating to the dictates of the imperial state, while contrasting it to that glory day "not even three months after his inauguration, [when] he ordered the first military strike of his presidency."

The Times article continues: "That system is badly broken today. Mr. Trump is so suspicious of the professional staff - many drawn from the State Department and the C.I.A. - and so dismissive of the 'deep state' foreign policy establishment, that he usually announces decisions first, and forces the staff to deal with them later."

"That system," cited above, is the post-WWII permanent state. Trump is chastised in the Times for being "so dismissive of the 'deep state' foreign policy establishment." Trump instead, according to the article, has the temerity to make his own decisions and then he expects the agencies of government to follow his instructions. For some, having the elected representative formulate policy and the unelected state apparatus follow it would be democratic. But not so for the cheerleaders of US imperialism.

The Dark Knight Rises

Trump's habitual corruption and bullying has now been outed by a whistleblower. Unlike Ellsberg, Manning, and Snowden, who sought to correct US imperial policy, this whistleblower comes from the very gatekeeper of imperialism, the CIA. According to his lawyers, there is not a lone whistleblower but a whole cabal of well-placed spooks in the secret US security apparatus. The deep state (I would prefer the term "permanent" state) is more than a conspiracy theory.

The impeachment imbroglio is bigger than Trump. That the outing of Trump was done by a current employee of a US agency shrouded in secrecy, who is unaccountable and unknown, should be a subject of enormous concern for all small-d democrats and not just anti-imperialists. The CIA has the means and mission to overthrow regimes, and now ours may be one of them, however undesirable the current president may be.

We, the people, should take no solace that Trump, in his careening about, may stumble in the direction of anti-imperialism. Trump is just as much an imperialist as the rest. Only he is not as reliably consistent and that is what has gotten leading segments of the ruling class into a hissy fit. The ruling class is not always unified on policy. Here we are witness to an intra-class struggle. But we needn't take sides, because the ruling class is always unified in serving their class interests, which are not ours.

A policy conflict, some have speculated, is raging within the ruling class between Trump's "isolationist" and a more "globalist" imperialism. Rest assured the ruling class has institutions to adjudicate these disputes such as the Council on Foreign Relations. For the neocons and the "liberal" right-to-protect "humanitarian imperialists," Trump's lurches in the direction of non-intervention and rapprochement are only venial sins. The mortal sin would be if the erratic Trump fails to listen to what the Times delicately calls the "professionals."

A corollary fear is if the "populist" (note how the ruling class thinks of this as a pejorative) Trump listens to the people's desire for peace. Unlike the first fear, the latter is unwarranted. That is, unwarranted unless and until the people rebuild an independent peace movement to check the rising tide of US militarism.

homepage: homepage: http://dissidentvoice.org/2019/10/why-trump-is-facing-impeachment/
address: address: Dissident Voice


Because liberal media doesn’t like his personality 18.Nov.2019 17:08

Adin

Powerful media in concert with Democrats simply don't like his personality - that's it! No other reason.

its not that simple 19.Nov.2019 08:54

tons of stuff

its a lot more than his personality, its tons of stuff

The Empire, Trump and Intra-Ruling Class Conflict 19.Nov.2019 17:55

by Gary Olson

Over the past few months President Trump has unilaterally by Tweet and telephone begun to dismantle the U.S. military's involvement in the Middle East. The irony is amazing, because in a general overarching narrative sense, this is what the marginalized antiwar movement has been trying to do for decades.

A factional dispute among U.S. foreign policy elites is ensuing over how to maintain the U.S. empire. This is a high stakes intra-ruling class struggle and neither side cares a fig about what's best for the American people or those beyond our borders. On the one hand are the neoliberal global capitalists who favor military intervention, covert operations, regime change, strengthening NATO, thrusting China into the enemy vacuum and re-igniting the Cold War with Russia. All of this is concealed behind lofty rhetoric about humanitarianism, protecting human rights, promoting democracy, fighting terrorism and American exceptionalism. Their mantra is Madeleine Albright's description of the United States as the world's "one indispensable nation."

Foremost is the fact that Trump's intra-elite enemies despise him not for being a neo-fascistic demagogue, a despicable human being devoid of a conscience, or for the brouhaha over Ukraine. Their animus is rooted in the conviction that Trump has been a foot dragging imperialist, an equivocal caretaker of empire, unreliable pull-the-trigger Commander-in-chief (e.g.Iran) and transparent truth-teller about the real motives behind U.S. foreign policy. These are his unforgivable sins and if he's impeached or denied the Oval Office by some other means, they will be real reasons.

One of Trump's most traitorous acts is that he's been consistent, at least rhetorically, in being opposed to U.S. troops being killed in "endless wars." One need not agree with his reasons to find merit in this worthy objective.


call the cavalry 19.Nov.2019 20:51

.

dissidentvoice and counterpunch will start churning out articles en masse to defend trump

RE: "defend trump" — so says a pickled-in-formaldehyde TDS leftist brain 20.Nov.2019 15:37

_

Trump doesn't need "defending"

also if Trump wasn't in office precisely who (as though it mattered) would be "defended" ?

Hillary Clinton.


Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) : it's a thing.

also a thing:
Total 100% Lack of comprehension about _WHAT ACTUALLY DID OCCUR_ on November 8th 2016 i.e. the people who believed Mueller's report.

Trump defeated the establishment candidate (supported by Military Industrial Complex, Wall Street banks-insurance, GOP elites <--which simultaneously also spent millions to prevent DT even being that party's nominee, U.S. corporate mass media etc.) that spent 2.5× as much funding on their campaign AND STILL LOST

RE: "counterpunch" — Lol. 20.Nov.2019 16:36

_

"Impeachment [L-o-***King-L] is a kitchen table issue"  https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/19/impeachment-is-a-kitchen-table-issue/
( ^ written by a D.C. think tank economist.............. uh huh )


unfortunately and sadly it does appear that the great Ralph Nader has succumbed to Trump Derangement Syndrome :
he's jumped on the sand-castle fool's errand "impeach Trump" bandwagon.


p.s. Counterpunch has long been (since the days when A. Cockburn was still alive) an anti-9/11 skeptic publication i.e. a pro-United States government-story-about-events-of-11-September-2001 and, for that reason, since circa the year 2002 has been utterly irrelevant.

most 'worthwhile' columnists who still happen to periodically appear on the Counterpunch page, also have their articles published at many other venues.

thank you for showing up, underscore 20.Nov.2019 22:08

.

to do your part to make sure nobody on indymedia ever gets away with criticism of trump.

please post a series of 20 links to other posts youve written which are also defending trump. we cant wait to continue ignoring your inane bullshit

RE: " criticism of trump" / "defending trump" / "inane bullshit " — 21.Nov.2019 01:32

_

Blah, blah-blah, blah-blah, blah-blah, blah-blah.

Never any substantive or point-addressed input, merely chicken***t coward hit-n-run triburst sputter ad hominem.


Refute any of the specific points I have made ( FOR THREE STRAIGHT YEARS ) while your pickled-in-Identity-Politics-formaldehyde brain continues to be inserted deeply in the Sand.


Your "." reading comprehension problems concerning the considerable quantity of documented evidence published and linked here for years (esp. since November 2016) — not to mention deliberate ignorance and avoidance of my postings and comments of the past 48 hours — are emphatically _not_, my problem.


RE: Trump (said it multiple times before and here it is again ---> ) — doesn't matter who occupies the White House. Trump himself doesn't give a ***K about being president, he's a billionaire in case you never noticed, doesn't take income from the position of president (not being a career politician like previous WH occupants) nor does he GIVE A FLYING MOTHER ***K about such paltry crumb-droppings, being a billionaire, and will go on to continue managing his global real estate empire long after he's left 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
What about ^ that do you not comprehend? It isn't about your 'opinion' of Trump or his apparent relational configuration to 'politics' (your idea of <--it or how it is conducted more broadly) at this point in the timespace continuum.


The failing economy itself, currently propped up (starting apace in July-August 2019) by hundreds of billions of dollars per week of Federal Reserve quantitative easing, will be the final arbiter of the Trump presidency. DT himself, as he has since early 2017, keeps pointing to 'The Stock Market, Look How Great It's Doing' when in fact the debt market is in a tailspin, manufacturing and jobs have dropped through not just the floor, but the sub-basement itself and the bubbles from real estate to currency markets to bank lending to bonds are far beyond bursting magnitude. House of cards is about to come down, globally as well as in America - only a question of precisely when.

United States of America (whatever that name actually means...) is run by Federal Reserve banks and corporations, not politicians or 'the people'. Once you get that through your Identity-Politics-formaldehyde-pickled brain some 'progressive' change might ? begin to occur, but not before <--that. TMI though for "." and the BLM rah rah for BernieSocialistJusticeIHateTrumpSoOO-OO-MuchWeShallOvercomeElijahCummingsWasAGoodDudeNotADoucheBag rose-colored virtual'reality'-dwelling crowd.

Late 2019 Economics: Never seen anything like this. Trump Outspending Obama 21.Nov.2019 02:14

_

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2019/10/437849.shtml

Late 2019 Economics: We've never seen anything like this. Not even under Obama

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iLtsg6DAL8

Peter Schiff discusses how the Federal Reserve plays an integral role in the economic recessions of the past. Peter covers cause and effect, and how different functions of the markets, politics, national debt, and central banks influence and shape the future of the world economy. He also gives insight on where he sees the economy heading, and how his prediction is likely to pass in the near future.


________________



Trump is outspending Obama by exponents in a shorter period of time. 22.Oct.2019 19:58
>  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2019/10/437849.shtml#464137

We have a debt-based economic model. It demands that more cash be borrowed into existence, in greater and greater amounts, every day. Once this debt-based model stops, we have a credit freeze and then a meltdown.

Federal Reserve is in overdrive buying up every part of the debt and bond market. Hundreds of billions being poured in to this debt market to keep interest rates artificially suppressed.

The only way this is going to end, is when all this liquidity / ability to acquire capital, the ability to transact comes to a screeching halt. They require us to transact in their central bank fiat currency.

"he's a billionaire" 21.Nov.2019 14:33

.

he sure says he is. weird that hes going to the supreme court to prevent his tax returns being public. almost as if his wealth, like the rest of his presidency, is complete and utter bullshit

"Refute any of the specific points I have made ( FOR THREE STRAIGHT YEARS ) while your pickled-in-Identity-Politics-formaldehyde brain continues to be inserted deeply in the Sand. "

the fact that you think critique of trump has anything to do with identity politics is further evidence that you are either sipping trump koolaid or you are hopelessly braindead. get a new hobby. spamming portland indymedia with walls of links to your own stupid posts isnt going to bring you any solace. i hope you find help. maybe you can get a job with counterpunch shilling for pence when he finally takes office.

RE: "critique of trump has anything to do with identity politics " 22.Nov.2019 18:27

Lol

'identity politics'

HAS NOTHING WHAT SO EVER TO DO WITH ANYTHING. IT'S AN IMAGINARY CONSTRUCT OF ROMPER ROOM MORONS.


--> "walls of links to your own stupid posts"

yeah whatever. You never address any of the topics at all within the information discussed or presented so, why expect anything except ad hominem.

Not that I care (about you and your pathetic existence). Fine with me for you to go on living in your own oblivious 'solace'.


Here's the Luciana Bohne piece ( also see the work of Thomas Frank ) :

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/11/433787.shtml

Trump Triumph, Thanks To Liberal Brains Pickled In The Formaldehyde Of Identity Politics

author: Luciana Bohne

A "grab them by the pussy," racist, sexist white man has grabbed the White House, and the polite class is twirling in outrage like dervishes approaching oblivion.

This insult to the "dignity of the office" and the "nation" is more shocking than the action of the black man who took the Nobel Peace Prize and then proceeded to bomb seven countries.

Liberal brains pickled in the formaldehyde of identity politics are unwilling to recognize in the politically incorrect catastrophe of Donald Trump's victory the blowback to the ferocious economic plunder by the neoliberal order, backed by decades of wanton and unchecked military aggressions.

 http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/14/panic-in-america-people-in-revolt/

November 14, 2016

Panic in America: People in Revolt

by Luciana Bohne

---
Photo by Nathaniel St. Clair
---

A "grab them by the pussy," racist, sexist white man has grabbed the White House, and the polite class is twirling in outrage like dervishes approaching oblivion.

This insult to the "dignity of the office" and the "nation" is more shocking than the action of the black man who took the Nobel Peace Prize and then proceeded to bomb seven countries.

Hillary Clinton's victory was projected as the sole possible outcome of a reasonable, civilized, and progressive society, as the elite see it, which only eight years earlier had voted for the first African American president in its history. Instead—vanity, vanity, all is vanity—the troglodytes won.

Not so simple. Liberal brains pickled in the formaldehyde of identity politics are unwilling to recognize in the politically incorrect catastrophe of Donald Trump's victory the blowback to the ferocious economic plunder by the neoliberal order, backed by decades of wanton and unchecked military aggressions.

The neoliberals' vaunted "internationalism" (more realistically, American neocolonialism) has created a weak domestic economy which to a degree justifies the nationalist call to look homeward and entrench behind the borders of sovereignty—one of Trump's rallying cries.

A Chinese observer, Qiao Liang, author of Unrestricted Warfare (1999), abused in English translation with the inaccurate subtitle, "China's Master Plan to Destroy America," recently identified the germ of the country's general economic disease in the neoliberal shift from productive to financial investment:

"This financial economy (using money to make money) is much easier than the real (industry-based) economy. Why will it bother with manufacturing industries that have only low value-adding capabilities? Since August 15, 1971, the U.S. has gradually stopped its real economy and moved into a virtual economy. It has become an 'empty' economy state. Today's U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has reached US$18 trillion, but only $5 trillion is from the real economy."

People in revolt against the neoliberal order

For forty-five years, the neoliberal elite ruled the US by the "free hand of the market." In plain terms, among other abuses of the social contract, they have launched a class war to maximize profits by depressing wages." The mystical "hand" has been slapping around American workers by moving industry to places where labor is cheaper and unions weak. In turn, the exploited foreign workers have sought relief from desperate wage conditions in their countries by immigrating to the US, embittering the native workforce.

Nearly 50 million Americans, nearly twenty percent out of 325 million, are poor. The unemployment rate, officially around five percent, is closer to ten percent.

Twenty years ago Patrick Buchanan's "pitchfork populism" appealed to only twenty percent of Republicans. After the crash of 2008 and the recession, which rescued the "banksters" and immiserated masses of Americans, public attitudes against the neoliberal global order ("internationalism" in the Establishment's lingo) solidified and hardened, crossing party lines.

Buchanan's political heir, Trump gathered the motley disaffected masses into a surge of revolt against the neoliberal status quo, winning the White House. As a tiny minority of sober voters had predicted in 2008, Obama's presidency disappointed and enraged the masses of people whose material conditions his administration worsened by continuing and even accelerating the policies that his voters had expected him to reverse. In this sense, Obama's blithe indifference to domestic poverty is responsible for Trump's victory. The liberals have no one to blame but themselves.

Brexit, Trump, Le Pen, Corbyn, Sanders, and even Syriza and Podemos, in a discordant, confused, and unfocused cacophony of warning bells, are ringing the changes of public revolt. With any luck, the deafness of the international elite may in good time force a global social revolution. This is why the left should keep an open mind both about the limitations of these disgruntled popular forces and their potential for radicalization as a result of repeated frustration to effect change.

The elite are shaken

As the one percent of ruling elite well understands, Trump's victory signals the rejection of their policies. This week's issue of The Economist is devoted to Trump's "stunning victory" and to what it means for the world economy and corporate America, "now that the old certainties are gone" (emphasis mine).

Trump's election reveals, in the first place, the extent of the public's animosity toward globalization. Though they may not yet understand it as the re-colonization of the world, the people certainly feel its material effects and resent being its losers. The trade pacts, which Trump so cleverly and justifiably denounced, have benefitted no one but the corporations and the [indebted] consumers.

In the second place, Trump's election has tapped into the public weariness of the endless wars, though not in the spirit of international solidarity or appeals to pacifism. He is definitely not a socialist. His appeal is nationalist, in the "isolationist" tradition—not an innovative perspective.

Instead of denouncing militarism (he expressed support for the galactic size of the defense budget), Trump has fueled resentment of allies in military alliances (NATO, specifically) as "free-loaders," ignoring the fact that these military alliances do not serve any other interests than the interests of the US.

Nevertheless, to the elite this change of course from intervention to retrenchment presents an unwelcome shake-up, especially since it bodes a foreign policy of detachment, including relinquishing the aggressive face-off with Russia and China.

In the third place, Trump's invidious stance on immigration—not different de facto from Obama's—drives Trump to emphasize "sovereignty" ("got to have a country, people"), a most unwelcome word to the architects of invasions and regime change. It is understood by them that there is only one sovereignty, the sovereignty of international capital in a borderless world. That Trump advocates pulling back from wars and regime change and making the US an isolated national fortress goes against everything they have sought to achieve.

In sum, Trump's presidency bodes a return to tariffs and protectionism, a more restrained military posture, and a curb on the movement of labor. Less a political "revolution" than a change of course back to the 1840s' populism of the unpleasant Andrew Jackson, who was hardly a man of peace or of social justice. Not much in it for left hopefuls except for the significant factor that popular rage has driven the change. Undeniably, Trump's election is the working class' payback for the elite's betrayal and damage during over four decades of undeclared but effective class war.

It is doubtful that Trump will achieve much of his isolationist agenda, though he will have to make some concessions to the popular expectations of attenuating and even reversing neoliberal choices, as the conservative government of Theresa May is having to do in Britain.

In the US, as in Europe, the social structure has come under pressure, and the neoliberal regime feels threatened and insecure.

Regime change and its terrors

In the first hours and days after Trump's election, the Western media—just as it did with Brexit—was disguising the elites' terror at the looming regime change and their horror at the prospect of seeing the "free hand" in handcuffs as a moral revulsion at the arrival in the White House of a tribe of primitive white-trash rude-necks, straight out of the racist "populism" of the 1920s' Ku Klux Klan, fueling public hysteria with hyperbole and sensationalism.

The headlines in The Guardian on Thursday morning after the US election read like tabloids from the gutter press.

"Mourning in America: Will Trump Destroy the Country?'

"I think he's a damaged person"

"A night of shattered dreams"

"Transgender Americans fear for safety after Trump win: 'We are traumatized.'"

"The first black American president will now be succeeded by a man endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan. This, according to Trump and his supporters, male and female, is what the American dream actually looks like."

"Misogyny won the US election - let's stop indulging angry white men."

"Forget angry white men - white women pushed Trump to victory"

Gloria Steinem's article in the same Guardian blames it all on "white-lash and man-lash," even though fifty-three percent of white women voted for Trump, but some of these women have no college degree, so they probably don't count.

For Steinem, it was the exceptional quality of Clinton's character that lost her her chance. She was too good, too full of integrity, too devoted to women's rights, too un-conniving to break through the highest of the glass ceilings.

She hoped but never expected her to win:

"If a first female president were someone like, say, Margaret Thatcher, Sarah Palin, or another woman who knew how to play the game and win, I wouldn't have been surprised. But Hillary Clinton didn't just play the game; she changed the rules. She insisted that women's rights are human rights, that women can decide the fate of our own bodies, that workers of all races should get paid the same as white men for the same work."

Steinem's plaintive hagiographic obituary of Clinton's defeat omits mentioning that Clinton opposed raising the minimum wage of Haitian workers to 62 cents per hour because it would have lowered the profits of American corporations, exploiting the poorest of the poor there.

It must be difficult for a feminist Democrat to mention Haiti and Clinton Foundation in the same breath, for the racist and sexist profiteering of Bill and Hillary is most nakedly documented there. Its account can be read here.

As to evaluating character, it's been a long time apparently since Steinem read Virginia Woolf's idea of a feminist: "One's life has value so long as one attributes value to the life of others, by means of love, friendship, indignation and compassion." (A Room of One's Own).

These are not the virtues usually associated with the bellicose, corrupt, and ruthlessly ambitious Clinton, even if one refrains from calling her the Butcher of Libya and the Wrath of Honduras, her legacy as Secretary of State.

Clinton incarnates the most ferocious interests of international financial capital and of the high-tech industries that feed the military-industrial complex and the global surveillance system.

So, Gloria, yours is stupid stuff. If feminism is not about the pursuit of peace, it is simply the female version of patriarchal exploitation and opportunism. Weep not that she lost; weep that feminism has sunk so low as to celebrate in her person anti-feminist qualities such as ambition, careerism, competition, imperialism, and warmongering.

Such feminism has lost the moral ground to accuse anyone of sexism, let alone the people who voted for Trump.

It is now evident that identity politics, the mantra of race and gender, has been cultivated by the neoliberal order to obscure the category of class, while actually waging class war, and to relegate the working poor to the realm of the unmentionable.

Under worsening economic conditions, masses of the alienated have perceived their alienation. This is happening all over the neoliberally ravaged world. To side with the elite against the rage of the people is madness. Worse, it is to alienate the people further to the right in a classic social dynamic that, under severe conditions, delivers full-blown fascism.


____________




See Also —


It's Class, Stupid, Not Race
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/11/433786.shtml


On Rhetoric And Strategy In Social Justice And Leftist Spaces
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/07/432730.shtml


The Progressive Movement Is A PR Front For Rich Democrats
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/11/433691.shtml


Why The Trump Protests, Like The Wisconsin Uprising, Will Fail
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/11/433785.shtml


Trump/Clinton Ticket Dividing Us Along Lines of Race?
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/09/433217.shtml


Protesters didn't stop Trump in Chicago. They helped him.
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/03/431818.shtml


Democrat Party: Alliance of Wealthy Whites + Low Income Ethnic Minorities
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/09/433219.shtml


1960s Icon Of Civil Rights Leads House Democrats In 'Sit Down' To Have Them Taken Away
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/06/432580.shtml


House Democrats Sing Civil Rights Anthem In Support Of Taking Away Our Civil Rights
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/06/432581.shtml


Malcolm X 1964: Black Voters "Chumps" For Voting Democrat
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/10/433265.shtml


Dangerous Idiots: How The Liberal Media Elite Failed Working-Class Americans
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2016/10/433427.shtml


RE: "his wealth Blah Blah is complete and utter bullshit " 22.Nov.2019 18:31

_

^ There's that classic Trump Derangement Syndrome again.

what happens after he's out of the White House? Who will you become deranged about, then?

sure Trump may be utter B.S. but get him rent-free outta yer head