2016 U.S. Presidential election

756 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tyrion's picture
Tyrion
Offline
Joined: 12-04-13
Mar 14 2016 22:09

An interesting situation has arisen in which Trump is almost certain to head to the convention with more delegates than anyone else but with a good chance of only having a plurality rather than a majority. It's not at all clear how this would work out. Politicos have been very into the idea of a "brokered convention" of the sort that hasn't happened in many decades in which the nominee is chosen at the convention because no one candidate gains a majority on the first ballot. It's not at all clear how this would work out, as a) it hasn't happened in many decades and b) there's not really party bosses who are in a position to broker a convention in the first place. There's been a fair bit of chatter about how a contested GOP convention could lead to Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan as the nominee, but I think this is absolute fantasy and would be interested to hear what other American libcommers think. A very substantial majority of delegates are going to come to the convention bound to Trump or Ted Cruz and I don't think it's very conceivable that they would flock to a Republican centrist (within the context of the GOP) candidate. I think the most likely outcome is that Trump ends up with the nomination anyway, since the primary calendar has already passed over the states more favorable to Cruz without him managing to gain a leading position and so Trump will likely have a heavy lead in delegates come the convention. Not giving the nomination to Trump despite him winning more delegates and states than anyone else also carries the risk of Trump guaranteeing a GOP defeat by running third party. I have a hard time seeing Trump running a third party campaign, since it's next to impossible to imagine a third party candidate actually winning the presidency and my impression of Trump is that he's not the type to waste the time and money that would be necessary for a gesture that would clearly be futile from the start in terms of scoring victory.

Also interesting about this is that since the Republican primary process is remaining competitive much longer than usual, a number of states that have their primaries past the point as which a nominee has typically effectively been decided on will have the opportunity to exercise much more meaningful influence on the race. Who knows what that will look like.

It's been quite popular among the mainstream American punditry to call Trump a fascist as of late. This is dubious on a lot of grounds, and Trump's campaign appears to me more akin to the UKIP or perhaps the EDL from what I know of them rather than a fascist in the traditional sense. However, I don't think the danger posed by his candidacy should be understated. Given that the guy is able to play wink-and-nod with the KKK on TV while remaining the fontrunner for the nomination of one a major political party, it seems likely that more Trump-esque candidates will appear in the future to capitalize on this big chunk of the electorate that he's turned into a winning base.

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Mar 15 2016 02:41

According to RT, there was a Twitter account started of Trump supporters about creating a "militia" to protect against "far-left agitators". Someone made a threat against the kid of whoever created the account, and it seems to have been deleted.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Mar 15 2016 18:42

I think it's quite difficult to run as a third party candidate in the US, but obviously the fact that he could do it would be a pretty big bargaining chip. Maybe they'll try to talk him into a face-saving vice presidency but that seems unlikely.
There's something similar to this brokered candidacy in House of cards, athough that's Democratic, looks pretty dull.

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Mar 17 2016 01:44

Trump and Hillary won most of the contests last night. Rubio dropped out of the race after losing his home state, Florida, badly. Kascich won Ohio, his homestate, but probably won't win another in the race.

Sanders had to win Illinois and Ohio, but couldn't pull it off. Most article I've seen are saying it is statistically almost impossible for him to catch up now. Vox says Sanders has to win by at least 58%-42% in the remaining races, which is, I gather, unlikely. Clinton is now turning her attention to Trump, while the Sanders campaign thinks there's still a path to the nomination.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Mar 19 2016 00:31

Next week there will be a series of primaries and caucuses in western states that in theory should be more favorable for Sanders (Idaho, Utah, Alaska, Hawaii, Washington). He has been leading by large margins in polls in Alaska and some other western states, but the polls for Arizona Democrat primary currently have him 20 points behind Hillary. So it's looking increasingly unlikely for him.

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Mar 19 2016 22:22

The previously mentioned 'Lion's Guard' pro-Trump "militia" now has a website. This is their statement:

On March 11, 2016, five decades of radical left coddling reached its newest and most disgusting low as members of the free stuff cult, by deception and violence, attacked the Trump 2016 rally in Chicago, Illinois. In his magnanimity and concern for public safety, Donald Trump responded by canceling the rally. The Spartacists posers crowed they had canceled the rally, chanting they “Stumped Trump.” As a single event, it was minor and unsurprising, Chicago was the scene of the 1968 Democrat Convention Riot and, in the current year, the city is teeming with anti-American agitators and a skyrocketing murder rate. But this was not an isolated incident, this was part of a long train of abuses imposed upon the American public by treasonous horde.

The wicked deeds of this horde are not merely historical events; as many witnessed this weekend, an American hating brigand attempted to take the life of Donald Trump. He did not get there as part of some grand conspiracy, no one dare implies the Secret Service or Trump’s own security knowingly allowed this marauder into the rally. How did this son of a Democrat establishment cog get so close to Donald Trump? The same way as the scores of hooligans infiltrated the Trump rally in Chicago: lies.

Numerous tweets discovered after the leftist hate-nanny in Chicago revealed, these agents of chaos posed as Trump supporters to get tickets and to get access to the event. Amazingly, these people were gloating before the event started. Posting to social media their plans and appearances in a desperate attempt for social approval of their Maoist tactics. When seeing these egotistical tweets, there were two choices: endure the outrage of this conceit or stand up to it. To “Make America Great Again” there could only be one choice: stand up to it.

The foes arrayed against the movement to Make America Great Again are not invincible. If there is one word to describe them, they are vain. They act not out of a sense of patriotism but a compulsive need for affirmation that they are morally superior. With the advent of social media, this quest for recognition has taken new directions. In the past, these rabble would find much needed approval at their turncoat gatherings, seeing fellow cultists recite the same slogans and pantomime the same charades. Today, these malcontents can get their approval before they even engage in their pretentious farces by merely broadcasting their plans. They are not hesitant to announce their depravity because they think there are no consequences for their conduct. They gloat while under the hallucination they are above the law.

In the current year, it is very difficult to disabuse them of such a fantasy. Within 24 hours, the man who attempted to assassinate Mr. Trump in Dayton, Ohio, was released from jail and being interviewed on CNN. Within 24 hours an avowed anti-American bigot that tried to kill a presidential candidate was being interviewed by a major US news network like a national hero. Today in the United States, hating America and attacking American patriots is celebrated, while loving the USA and defending patriots is ridiculed as “extremism” or other sophistries. With the establishment, both left and right, against any effort to Make America Great Again, we cannot expect traditional channels of influence to stem this perfidious tide. Make America Great Again cannot be a mere slogan, it has to become a life choice in the face of force that wants to make America cinders forever.

At his Kansas City rally Sunday night, Donald Trump correctly identified the cultists attacking his rallies as the same forces trying to destroy America. As patriotic Americans, we must stand up to them. How to stand up to them is the issue. One suggestion is creating a paramilitary organization to patrol future Trump rallies and stop any violence by the America-hating fiends. While not a bad idea, it calls on fellow Trump supporters to engage in the sort of brawling the mainstream media wants to use against the Trump campaign. It also seems redundant, Mr. Trump already had secret service protecting his life and well paid security protecting his events from gate crashers. Mr. Trump’s problem is not the barbarians at the gate, it’s the sappers within them!

Another suggestion is to scour social media for all threats against Mr. Trump and his rallies and to report them to the secret service. While this can be useful with blatant threats against the life of Mr. Trump and his supporters, it is unreasonable to expect the Secret Service to use its limited resources to screen out reprobates trying to cause another Chicago. Trump’s security may have more resources for screening, but it is doubtful they have the necessary resources to gather intelligence and identify infiltrators before they can act. This creates a gap in Mr. Trump’s security, where those who wish to intimidate Trump’s supporters can sow discord at Trump rallies. While reporting would-be assassins to the Secret Service and Trump’s security helps, it is not enough to stop another Chicago or Dayton.

The Lion Guard is a call to put the words “Make America Great Again” into action and aid Trump’s security and show our adversaries we are disciplined, perceptive, and watching. Everyone who identifies with the idea of Lion Guard is called to search out for any Anti-M.A.G.A. social media account that is planning to infiltrate, disrupt, attack, or otherwise do harm to Mr. Trump, any Trump rally, or any Trump supporter. Archive any post or other broadcast plotting these assaults and the identity of the plotter(s) and share it on your own social media account, with the Trump Campaign, with the Secret Service and/or with Lion Guard. Fellow Trump supporters at the rally, will see these exposed plots find the plotters in the rally crowd and report them to Trump’s security for prompt expulsion because they breached the terms of their ticket. If you want to make sure there are Trump supporters on watch at every rally, start a Lion Guard chapter in your town TODAY. But remember, Lion Guard is principally to observe and report these vandals to the proper authorities, not confront them with force; we will not give the media more fodder against Mr. Trump and his plans to Make America Great Again.

The Lion Guard needs partner in Mr. Trump’s quest to Make America Great Again to stand up and really want to do something to make every Trump rally a safe and positive environment for American patriots. Every plot we expose and stop is one less incident for the mainstream media to use. Every plot we expose and stop is one more blow to the morale of the America-hating horde. Every plot we expose and stop is another accomplishment to Make America Great Again.

I've been adding articles revolving around the 'Is Trump a fascist?' debate that has been going on in left and mainstream media for months now.

Alexander Reid Ross has been writing a series of short articles about this. I find some of what he says convincing, but, as libcom readers will probably remember from the Michael Schmidt stuff, his writing style is often scattered, unclear and sometimes contains distractions. He needs a heavy editorial hand.

I've also added a couple of articles by Matthew Lyons from the excellent blog Three Way Fight. Both 'On Trump, fascism, and stale social science' and 'Trump: “anti-political” or right wing?' either partially respond to ARR's articles or are responded to by ARR.

boozemonarchy's picture
boozemonarchy
Offline
Joined: 28-12-06
Mar 20 2016 03:51

Real quick on the Lions Guard - if you dig deep in the site you end up finding some absolutely batshit blog posts about how Trump is the 'anti-Chemtrails' candidate amongst other gems.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Mar 20 2016 17:42

I thought this was an interesting article about the Trump phenomenon, basically arguing that his support is not just down to racism, but also because, other than Sanders, he's the only one who has criticised "free trade" agreements: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/07/donald-trump-why-americans-support

What do American posters think about this? It seems reasonable enough. Especially as Cruz is a nutty racist himself, so you would think that would split the racist vote somewhat…

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Mar 20 2016 18:41

I mean, sure, but racism/xenophobia and the economy are sort of inseparable here. The stuff Trump says about Mexicans gets play because white working class Americans largely view them as a foreign "Other" that is taking jobs and depressing wages. The anti-free trade stuff gets play because China, Latin America, etc. are getting what were formerly American jobs. The companies that moved are basically traitors to their own country, etc. So I don't think you can separate "trade" from "racism/xenophobia" neatly here.

Switching back to GOP turmoil over Trump, the New York Times today has an article about the anti-Trump factions. It seems the prevailing strategy is to figure out some way to make sure he only gets a plurality, not a majority of delegates. Then go to the Republican National Convention in Cleveland as a brokered/contested/open convention and get behind a Trump alternative. Or, if he does get a majority of delegates, possibly run a third party candidate through the Libertarian Party or independently. In all these efforts, the anti-Trump factions continue to be split in roughly two camps: the Tea Party-esque "purists" and the establishment "moderates". They are both anti-Trump but the former because of the economic and social blasphemy Trump has spouted and the latter because of Trump's repelling of minority voters, who the "moderates" were aiming to make inroads to this election.

EDIT: Thought it would be worth quoting a part of a NYTimes article today about the closure of a factory in Indiana, because it ties in with the article that Steven posted.

INDIANAPOLIS — The fuzzy video, shot by a worker on the floor of a Carrier factory here in the American heartland last month, captured the raging national debate over trade and the future of the working class in 3 minutes 32 seconds.

“This is strictly a business decision,” a Carrier executive tells employees, describing how their 1,400 jobs making furnaces and heating equipment will be sent to Mexico. Workers there typically earn about $19 a day — less than what many on the assembly line here make in an hour. As boos and curses erupt from the crowd, the executive says, “Please quiet down.”

What came next was nothing of the kind.

Within hours of being posted on Facebook, the video went viral. Three days after Carrier’s Feb. 10 announcement, Donald J. Trump seized on the video in a Republican presidential debate and made Carrier’s move to Mexico a centerpiece of his stump speeches attacking free trade.

Jennifer Shanklin-Hawkins is one of those Carrier workers who listened to the announcement on the factory floor. After 14 years on the assembly line, she earns $21.22 an hour, enough to put her oldest son through college while raising two other children with her husband, a truck driver.

And when she saw Mr. Trump talking about Carrier on the news, all she could do was shout “Yessss!” at the TV. “I loved it,” she said. “I was so happy Trump noticed us.”

In living rooms and barrooms across Indianapolis, conversations with Carrier workers like Ms. Shanklin-Hawkins crystallize what has become an extraordinary moment in the American political and economic debate. As both political parties belatedly recognize the anxiety and deep-seated anger of blue-collar workers nationwide, the more-trade-is-good bipartisan consensus that has long held sway in Washington is being sundered.

What isn’t evident in the video — or in the furious debate it has spawned — is that both the company and its soon-to-be former employees are reacting to the same transformative quarter-century of American economic policy aimed at lowering trade barriers and staying globally competitive.

[...]

Consider the case of Ms. Shanklin-Hawkins. While she says she won’t be voting for Mr. Trump and considers him a racist, she applauds his message on trade. She says she plans to vote for Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who similarly blasts free trade, but from the left. The two populist candidates may be political opposites, but when it comes to the downside of globalization, Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump are speaking to her with one voice.

In fact, many Carrier workers here say that it was not so much Mr. Trump’s nativist talk on illegal immigrants or his anti-Muslim statements that has fired them up. Instead, it was hearing a leading presidential candidate acknowledging just how much economic ground they’ve lost — and promising to do something about it.

Mr. Trump has repudiated decades of G.O.P. support for free trade, calling for heavy tariffs on Mexican-made goods from the likes of Carrier. This has helped put him within arm’s reach of the Republican nomination.

Opposition to trade deals has also galvanized supporters of Mr. Sanders, helping him unexpectedly win the Michigan Democratic primary this month. At the same time, it has forced his rival Hillary Clinton to distance herself from trade agreements she once supported, like the proposed 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership and the North American Free Trade Agreement, the 1994 deal with Mexico that is an important part of President Bill Clinton’s political legacy.

Exit polls after the Michigan primary , for example, showed that a clear majority of both Republican and Democratic voters believe international trade costs the American economy more jobs than it creates.

Nicole Hargrove, a 14-year Carrier worker, said she was an undecided voter and was uncomfortable with Mr. Trump’s attacks on immigrants, particularly Mexicans. “But I’d like to turn him loose on the financial world,” she said. “Maybe if Carrier had to pay more to bring stuff in, they’d think twice about moving jobs out.”

Mark Weddle, 55, started work at Carrier 24 years ago and earns $21 an hour running a machine that makes heat exchangers. “I have two brothers-in-law from Mexico,” he said, explaining why he disagrees with Mr. Trump’s anti-immigrant stance.

But when it comes to Carrier, “we’ve all worked our butts off,” he said. “And now they’re going to throw us under the bus? If Trump will kick Carrier’s ass, then I’ll vote for him.”

That’s pretty much what Mr. Trump has threatened to do. At rally after rally, to rapturous crowds, he vows to impose a 35 percent tax on Carrier products from Mexico. Then, the laugh line: “I want to do this myself, but it is so unpresidential to call up Carrier.”

Continue reading the main story
And Mr. Trump vows not to take Carrier’s calls until it agrees to change course. “As sure as you’re here, they will call me up within 24 hours,” he promises, and say to him, “‘Sir, we’ve decided to stay in the United States.’”

It is powerful talk.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jul 15 2017 04:39

Removed in protest of Libcom policies allowing posting of texts by racists

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Mar 20 2016 22:03

Yeah, if it was only the economic and trade stuff, you'd see black voters jumping on the Trump train. Black Americans have been the hardest hit by deindustrialization and "off-shoring". But polls are showing between 4-12% of black Americans would vote for Trump over Hillary, which is pretty much the average GOP share of the black vote in the last 35 years.

I mean, I'm sure not every white, working class Trump supporter is motivated by the racism from his campaign, but just the mere fact of ignoring it, or disagreeing with it, but still supporting him, says something.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Mar 21 2016 01:16
Quote:
Yeah, if it was only the economic and trade stuff, you'd see black voters jumping on the Trump train. Black Americans have been the hardest hit by deindustrialization and "off-shoring". But polls are showing between 4-12% of black Americans would vote for Trump over Hillary, which is pretty much the average GOP share of the black vote in the last 35 years.

I'm not sure this argument works tho because by this logic you should see a higher black vote share for Sanders who is also attacking the free trade pacts. It's true that Sanders has gotten higher proportions of black voters in midwest...around 30 percent and about half of younger black voters. So the populist anti-neo-liberal message has some resonance there.

There was a piece today about how AFL-CIO leaders are very worried about Trump's appeal to their base. They've been doing listening sessions with focus groups via Working America. Trying to figure out how to blunt Trump's appeal. Mainly the argument is that he's just full of bluster & has no real program, which is true.

I think it would be a mistake to simply attribute Trump's appeal to racism as if he's another George Wallace. why would there be a particular racist backlash right now? The Wallace campaign was in 1968 at height of the black freedom struggle, shetto rebellions etc.

I was reading a piece in Spanish on Kaosenlared (Catalonian left web zine & online radio) where it is pointed out that Europeans tend to see Trump as not a fascist but another Berlusconi, who also had the clown car aspect.

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Mar 22 2016 03:06
syndicalistcat wrote:
I'm not sure this argument works tho because by this logic you should see a higher black vote share for Sanders who is also attacking the free trade pacts.

Bernie Sanders is getting anywhere from 2-8 times the black vote against Hillary as polls say Trump would get against Hillary

Quote:
I think it would be a mistake to simply attribute Trump's appeal to racism as if he's another George Wallace. why would there be a particular racist backlash right now? The Wallace campaign was in 1968 at height of the black freedom struggle, shetto rebellions etc.

Well, there's this movement called Black Lives Matter that has been around for a little while now. I think it has polarized white America and the Trump campaign is partially an implicit backlash against BLM. Plus there's a massive refugee crisis, which hasn't really hit the U.S. like Europe, but I think most Americans are quite aware of it and it has been the topic of news, even at the local level. Many state-level politicians have taken some public stance on whether they would accept refugees, and from where and from where not. There's also the base level of Islamophobia that has been building since 9/11 that spikes and falls, depending on what's happening.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Mar 22 2016 23:17
Quote:
Bernie Sanders is getting anywhere from 2-8 times the black vote against Hillary as polls say Trump would get against Hillary

But Hillary is crushing Sanders in the black vote despite her having fingerprints all over the trade pacts.

Black Agenda Report's analysis of this is that the black voting population tends to take a "defeat the racist Republicans at all cost" approach. Democrats can usually count on getting around 90 percent of the black vote.

On the other hand, in the northern cities thus far Sanders is getting half the black youth vote & about 30 percent of the black vote overall, which suggests his message is making inroads. He also generally has the backing of a lot of the intellectual black left.

I think Trump is drawing on a combination of the racist segment & the less well off conservatives who have a basically class or economic beef.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Mar 23 2016 20:46

Sanders crushed Clinton in the vote in Idaho and Utah, winning basically 80 percent to 20 percent. A maintenance man in Utah in his 50s explaining his vote for Sanders said "I'm totally a democratic socialist." In San Juan County (southeast segment of Utah) Sanders won 2 to 1. This is a county where Native Americans are the majority. Meanwhile, the vote in Arizona is under a cloud because of five hour lines to vote & disputes about whether someone was on the voter list...huge numbers of "provisional ballots" were cast, and it's unclear how that mess will be resolved. In the official count Clinton won by about 18 percentage points. Arizona has many retirees and older voters tend to support Clinton.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Mar 23 2016 23:36
syndicalistcat wrote:
Sanders crushed Clinton in the vote in Idaho and Utah, winning basically 80 percent to 20 percent.

I mentioned just this on another forum today. NYT and WaPo were trying as hard as possible to hedge and belitte it.

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
Mar 24 2016 00:41

Yeah I'm trying to wrap my head around that, especially in Utah...

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Mar 24 2016 01:09

Cruz crushed Trump in Utah. Cruz is really a highly ideological right wing extremist...even more dangerous than Trump. This suggests the population in Utah are rather politically polarized.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jul 15 2017 13:50

X

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Mar 24 2016 04:22
S. Artesian wrote:
Calling Cruz more dangerous than Trump is like calling typhoid fever more dangerous than cholera, you know what I mean?
syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Mar 24 2016 23:40
Quote:
Calling Cruz more dangerous than Trump is like calling typhoid fever more dangerous than cholera, you know what I mean?

well that made me laugh. I'm sometimes tempted to say that Clinton is more dangerous than Trump or Cruz. maybe S Artesian will say that I'd be comparing the plague to typhoid and cholera. That may be appropriate, given the vast murderous dangers...endless war, accumulating eco devastation, vast systems of exploitation...that American mainstream electoral politics is cover for.

The Pigeon's picture
The Pigeon
Offline
Joined: 16-06-15
Mar 25 2016 00:31

Vote for Sanders: Pneumonia 2016

drakeberkman
Offline
Joined: 16-01-15
Mar 25 2016 04:29

I for one will be voting for Jill Stein.

Gangrene is the least of all evils available.

Tarwater's picture
Tarwater
Offline
Joined: 29-12-08
Mar 25 2016 04:50
Quote:
Calling Cruz more dangerous than Trump is like calling typhoid fever more dangerous than cholera, you know what I mean?

I have to (also?) disagree with this statement. I think that having someone as ideologically driven as Ted Cruz is far more dangerous than having a loose-cannon reality show star in the White House. I could go into it but since it's so far outside of my political interests and also seemingly impossible for either to get elected, I'll leave it at that. I guess I just want to give some context to posters from outside the U.S.

On second thought, I'll flesh it out a very small bit. Though I think that Trumps megalomania is troublesome, the thought that he could get anything accomplished in office is ridiculous. I think that he would appoint a more palatable replacement for Scalia to the Supreme Court and would cause a backlash during congressional elections. Cruz, on the other hand, is a vocal and shameless proponent of the last 30 years of Republican political strategy that is only repugnant to conservatives because he is crassly self-serving and lacking in subtlety. One could make the argument that he would also be a lame duck president though, and would (also) most likely also damage the party enough to hamstring them in the midterms.

Not trying to start a flame war with anyone, I just think that Cruz is demonstrably worse in the same way that an organized, ideological racist is worse than a teenager saying provocative things in order to get attention. I know I may be wrong.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Mar 25 2016 05:34

I tend to agree with Tarwater's analysis here. But who knows what they would actually do?

I will probably vote for Sanders as lesser evil in California primary but I am anticipating voting for Jill Stein in November. For what it's worth. I don't put much stock in electoral politics. Liberation comes through a different means.

rooieravotr
Offline
Joined: 28-10-09
Mar 25 2016 05:50

I think Cruz and Trump - and Clinton, most likely the next president, I still think - are extremely dangerous, but in different ways. It does not make sense to call one more and the other less dangerous, as if it is a quantitative thing. They are different in kind, not in degree.

Cruz is an ideological rightwinger, operating within a Republican framework. He is the heir of Ronald Reagan and George Bush the second, probably even more openly religiously framed. In terms of policy, this is bad.

Trump is less ideologicaly driven, less beholden to the favourite themes of the Republican right. The danger he represents does not come primarily from his (proposed) policies, though these are quite horrendous. The danger he represents comes from the way he is gaining power, his mass base and the way that is operating. His followers do not merely cheer him on. His followers shout, insult, beat up people.

There is more than a whiff of street violence in his campaign. White supremacists operate openly within the Trump crowds, racism is expressed in an aggressive way. And Trump cheers them on, promising to pay the legal fees is followers beat up opponents. The whole thing reminds me of Dutch racist right winger Geert Wilders and his street armies - on steroids.

The thing is not that Trump, as a person, is a fascist. The thing is that his campaign expresses a fascist-like dynamic. If he gains the nomination through (the threat of) street violence - and even more so if he gains the presidency that way - this will influence the way he governs. He may not get much done through ordinary channels, Congress, Supreme Court, etcetera. But he may not respect these channels when he has a street army to lean upon, a street army that helped him gain power by beating up people who stood in the way. There lies another kind of danger than in an 'ordinary' Republican right administration, which is what Cruz threatens.

This, by the way, is why I think many mainstream Republicans would - for the moment - much prefer Clinton above Trump. Clinton is politics-as-usual, with policies they may like a bit less than they would like Cruz policies. Trump is NOT politics-as-usual. Trump is politics with one leg within the ordinary Republican right, and another leg in right wing streeet politics with fascist dynamics, a form of politics the mainstream of the capitalist class does not prefer or need at the moment. Whether they can rein in the beast remains to be seen. Whether this preference remains or changes in the near future - with Republicans jumping on the Trump bandwagon as a Trump victory seems sloser - remains to be seen as well.

No, this is not an argument for any 'lesser evil' preference for Clinton or Cruz against the great evil of Trump. It is merely to say that right wing evils take different forms, each form to be ferociously opposed by radicals/ libertarian communists/ pro-revolutionaries/ anarchists.The pro-fascism of the Trump campaign is not necessarily 'worse' or 'less bad' than the mainstream arrogance of Clinton or the right wing policies of Cruz. They simply are different kinds of dangers, to be opposed in different ways, but to be opposed, all of them, with equal determination and venom.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Mar 25 2016 16:51

Good post, Roo.

kingzog
Offline
Joined: 28-10-09
Mar 25 2016 17:56
Quote:
He may not get much done through ordinary channels, Congress, Supreme Court, etcetera. But he may not respect these channels when he has a street army to lean upon, a street army that helped him gain power by beating up people who stood in the way.

This is an exaggeration. I'm sorry, but it is. The protestors at trump rallies, God bless em', are actually very aggressive and inciting. I've heard reports of them spitting at people, calling people racists(nothing makes white ppl more angry than that!) and so on. I'm really surprised there haven't been more fights.

At the Tuscon rally, which was a private event, when one protestors was booted for disrupting, he tried to fight security, and he got stomped. It's not surprising. I have little doubt the other fights were not one sided affairs leftists make it out to be.

I'm not here to defend trump(Jesus no) ,but we need to be real, he's not leading some "Street army" like the brownshirts. I feel a lot of leftists want that to be true, so badly, so so desperately, so they can reinact(or have power fantasies of reinacting) the 1930's, it's a little odd, perhaps disturbing and makes us look like moonbats- which is marginalizing. Sorry, not sorry.

Battlescarred
Offline
Joined: 27-02-06
Mar 25 2016 19:32

Do we have to engage wwith bourgeois politics here on libcom? the poisoned chalice

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Mar 26 2016 03:51
kingzog wrote:

This is an exaggeration. I'm sorry, but it is. The protestors at trump rallies, God bless em', are actually very aggressive and inciting. I've heard reports of them spitting at people, calling people racists(nothing makes white ppl more angry than that!) and so on. I'm really surprised there haven't been more fights.

At the Tuscon rally, which was a private event, when one protestors was booted for disrupting, he tried to fight security, and he got stomped. It's not surprising. I have little doubt the other fights were not one sided affairs leftists make it out to be.

I'm not here to defend trump(Jesus no) ,but we need to be real, he's not leading some "Street army" like the brownshirts. I feel a lot of leftists want that to be true, so badly, so so desperately, so they can reinact(or have power fantasies of reinacting) the 1930's, it's a little odd, perhaps disturbing and makes us look like moonbats- which is marginalizing. Sorry, not sorry.

Yes, it's an exaggeration. But there is no doubt that Trump appeals to such acts of vigilante violence, and endorses it.

I don't know what your sources are for your claim that "protestors at trump rallies...are actually very aggressive and inciting." I know of norallies prior to Chicago where protestors acted in an aggressive manner. Most of the violence was perpetrated against protestors who were attacked as they stood silently, simply holding signs or wearing t-shirts.

You've "heard reports of protestors spitting at people"? No shit. And we've heard reports that Planned Parenthood was conducting lotteries on baby parts. And before that that millions of immigrants were claiming welfare payments, and sneaking across the border to have "anchor babies," and before that that "voter fraud" was rampant, hence the need for draconian ID laws which just so happen to conveniently target black voters, students, etc., and before that we all heard the reports about how GIs returning from Vietnam were spat upon. Turns out none of that bullshit is true. So why give it credence?

The protestors in Chicago did not disrupt the Trump rally. They showed up with signs and posters and banners, and when they were attacked, they refused to back down. They fought back.

And how is a political rally a "private event"-- and why is that supposed to have any significance to the struggle against this or that goon eager to represent goon capitalism at its best/worst?

Topic locked