In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On September 09 2016 02:00 farvacola wrote: "Trump clearly has a political end in mind."
What is that end, and what makes it so clear that he has it?
Oh he has the best political end in mind let me tell you, he will have the best people working for him. Putin, Putin has a great political end in mind, and trump's will be even bigger and better, just you wait. Many people are saying that Trumps political end is the best and biggest, and they can't all be wrong, they're great people, some of them will even be the new generals after trump fires the current ones.
On September 09 2016 01:34 CannonsNCarriers wrote: I see we have reached the "noble lie" phase of the Trump campaign. When he says "take the oil" that is a noble lie, true believers know he won't do it and he is merely signalling his belief in American resolve. When he says, "they will be different generals", Trump really means his secret plan will be so successful that he won't need to have a Stalinist purge of CENTCOM. When he says "build the wall", real conservatives know it will actually be a more restrictive immigration policy. When the cucks say that his economic policies will put America in the back of the line in OECD growth, blow up the deficit, and manage to raise unemployment, those concerns can be ignored because the losses would havegone to "the government and its rentiers, and the rest to the same four industries and 200 families".
And of course, it is worth noting, that the ridiculous Flight 93 piece relies on wildly false facts. America is only behind 4 oddball Nordic countries in the OECD growth stats. America is at 5% unemployment. The deficit is smaller than ever. Fewer Americans are dying abroad than in 15 years. Even ISIS is on the run and Mosul will fall soon. https://data.oecd.org/gdp/gross-domestic-product-gdp.htm
You are the best spokesperson in this thread for ignoring real politics in favor of "leftist" fascist aesthetic. Why would you put in bold your criticism of a conservative intellectual who articulates a problem with the current wealth (property) distribution in this country?
Because it can't be squared with Trump's stated policies and even the Flight 93 guy doesn't believe them. Just because an alt-Right tough guy adopts 2004 era Dailykos rhetoric doesn't mean that Trump has the policies to achieve these stated ends. Try applying Trump's policies against the goal of downward redistribution.
Trump is running on eliminating the capital gains tax, the inheritance tax, and massive upper income tax cuts. These cuts would go straight towards "the government and its rentiers, and the rest to the same four industries and 200 families". Trump's tossing of trade deals (1) would hurt the lower classes through higher prices and job losses and (2) won't get past a Republican congress (see Paul Ryan). Trump's anti-remittance plan would reek havoc on the most economically vulnerable in this country. Trump's plan to massively tax companies that offshore factories would only hurt American businesses and would never pass congress. Trump claims he will "reopen the mines", but no one is buying the coal.
EDIT: it is not enough to talk of lefty goals. You need to back that talk up with policy to get there. EITC, food stamps, strengthening unions, making courts more available to employee side actions, family leave, shifting taxes towards capital and away from labor, public investment in government jobs to produce public goods (teachers, security forces, construction, postal service, etc.), and the like.
On September 09 2016 02:00 farvacola wrote: "Trump clearly has a political end in mind."
What is that end, and what makes it so clear that he has it?
It's his nationalist agenda, which has been a constant since day 1: secure borders, economic nationalism, and America-first foreign policy.
How do we know that this nationalist agenda is not a political vehicle that Trump is merely using because it most directly attracts his target voting demographic?
On September 09 2016 01:34 CannonsNCarriers wrote: I see we have reached the "noble lie" phase of the Trump campaign. When he says "take the oil" that is a noble lie, true believers know he won't do it and he is merely signalling his belief in American resolve. When he says, "they will be different generals", Trump really means his secret plan will be so successful that he won't need to have a Stalinist purge of CENTCOM. When he says "build the wall", real conservatives know it will actually be a more restrictive immigration policy. When the cucks say that his economic policies will put America in the back of the line in OECD growth, blow up the deficit, and manage to raise unemployment, those concerns can be ignored because the losses would havegone to "the government and its rentiers, and the rest to the same four industries and 200 families".
And of course, it is worth noting, that the ridiculous Flight 93 piece relies on wildly false facts. America is only behind 4 oddball Nordic countries in the OECD growth stats. America is at 5% unemployment. The deficit is smaller than ever. Fewer Americans are dying abroad than in 15 years. Even ISIS is on the run and Mosul will fall soon. https://data.oecd.org/gdp/gross-domestic-product-gdp.htm
You are the best spokesperson in this thread for ignoring real politics in favor of "leftist" fascist aesthetic. Why would you put in bold your criticism of a conservative intellectual who articulates a problem with the current wealth (property) distribution in this country?
Because, given the policies of conservatives in nearly every state, the above quoted articulation of the Problem is window-dressing and nothing more?
And attacking window dressing is a sign that you've devolved into an utterly vacuous reactionary. Sir James Goldsmith may have been his own brand of conservative kook, but he understood the logic of NAFTA. Equating the person who wrote the article that dauntless posted with the braindead idiots who get elected to office in red states is a bit of a stretch anyway. We need a positive politics to move forward, not the negative politics of continued emphasis on self-expression within the current paradigm.
On September 09 2016 02:00 farvacola wrote: "Trump clearly has a political end in mind."
What is that end, and what makes it so clear that he has it?
It's his nationalist agenda, which has been a constant since day 1: secure borders, economic nationalism, and America-first foreign policy.
How do we know that this nationalist agenda is not a political vehicle that Trump is merely using because it most directly attracts his target voting demographic?
Because he has been fairly consistent on those issues even pre-dating this campaign.
As U.S. officials cast doubt on Donald Trump's claim he read the "body language" of intelligence officials at a recent briefing, NBC News has learned exclusive details of what unfolded in the room — one of Trump's advisers repeatedly interrupted the briefers until Chris Christie intervened, sources said.
The Aug. 17 briefing is attracting fresh scrutiny after Trump said at NBC's Command-in-Chief Forum that he divined that intelligence officials were "not happy" with President Obama.
"What I did learn," Trump said, "is that our leadership, Barack Obama, did not follow ... what our experts said to do ... And I was very, very surprised.
"I could tell — I'm pretty good with body language — I could tell they were not happy."
Timothy Barrett, a spokesman for the Director of National Intelligence, declined to comment Thursday on Trump's characterization.
However, a U.S. official pointed out that intelligence officers don't give policy advice, so it would be inaccurate to say that Obama failed to follow the advice of the intelligence community. A second U.S. official said analysts are trained not to allow their body language to betray their thinking.
Meanwhile, four people with knowledge of the matter told NBC News that one of the advisers Trump brought to the briefing, retired general Mike Flynn, repeatedly interrupted the briefing with pointed questions.
Two sources said Christie, the New Jersey governor and Trump adviser, verbally restrained Flynn -- one saying Christie said, "Shut up," the other reporting he said, "Calm down." Two other sources said Christie touched Flynn's arm in an effort get him to calm down and let the officials continue. Requests for comment from Flynn and Christie were not immediately returned.
In an interview on TODAY, Flynn was asked whether he saw what Trump claims he did at the briefing.
"I sure did...in a very specific way," Flynn said, though he went on to say that his conclusion was based not on body language but on intelligence officials drawing distinctions between the content of their briefing and White House policy.
The intelligence briefing is given to the presidential nominee from each party.
There were fewer than 10 people in the room at Trump's briefing, and all the briefers were career intelligence officials, including both military officers and civilians, U.S. officials told NBC News. The names of the briefers have not been made public.
The briefing was conducted at the "secret" level of classification, and it did not cover sources and methods or covert operations.
Michael Morell, a former acting CIA director who was President George W. Bush's briefer and is now a Hillary Clinton supporter, said Trump's comments about his briefing were extraordinary.
"This is first time that I can remember a candidate for president doing a readout from an intelligence briefing, and it's the first time a candidate has politicized their intelligence briefing. Both of those are highly inappropriate and crossed a long standing red line respected by both parties," he said.
"To me this is just the most recent example that underscores that this guy is unfit to be commander in chief," Morell continued.
"His comments show that he's got no understanding of how intelligence works. Intelligence officers do not make policy recommendations. It's not their job and anyone running for president should know that. The people who briefed him, I'm pretty sure were career analysts — senior intel professionals. There is no way that they would in any way signal displeasure with the policies of the president."
That said, intelligence officials have asserted they warned the administration repeatedly about the rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria well before Obama ordered a bombing campaign. And as NBC News has reported, senior intelligence officials in 2012 proposed a covert operation to oust Bashar Assad in Syria, but Obama decided not to move forward with it.
On September 09 2016 01:34 CannonsNCarriers wrote: I see we have reached the "noble lie" phase of the Trump campaign. When he says "take the oil" that is a noble lie, true believers know he won't do it and he is merely signalling his belief in American resolve. When he says, "they will be different generals", Trump really means his secret plan will be so successful that he won't need to have a Stalinist purge of CENTCOM. When he says "build the wall", real conservatives know it will actually be a more restrictive immigration policy. When the cucks say that his economic policies will put America in the back of the line in OECD growth, blow up the deficit, and manage to raise unemployment, those concerns can be ignored because the losses would havegone to "the government and its rentiers, and the rest to the same four industries and 200 families".
And of course, it is worth noting, that the ridiculous Flight 93 piece relies on wildly false facts. America is only behind 4 oddball Nordic countries in the OECD growth stats. America is at 5% unemployment. The deficit is smaller than ever. Fewer Americans are dying abroad than in 15 years. Even ISIS is on the run and Mosul will fall soon. https://data.oecd.org/gdp/gross-domestic-product-gdp.htm
You are the best spokesperson in this thread for ignoring real politics in favor of "leftist" fascist aesthetic. Why would you put in bold your criticism of a conservative intellectual who articulates a problem with the current wealth (property) distribution in this country?
Because, given the policies of conservatives in nearly every state, the above quoted articulation of the Problem is window-dressing and nothing more?
And attacking window dressing is a sign that you've devolved into an utterly vacuous reactionary. Sir James Goldsmith may have been his own brand of conservative kook, but he understood the logic of NAFTA. Equating the person who wrote the article that dauntless posted with the braindead idiots who get elected to office in red states is a bit of a stretch anyway. We need a positive politics to move forward, not the negative politics of continued emphasis on self-expression within the current paradigm.
Yes, positive politics are the way forward; that doesn't render criticism of window-dressing utterly vacuous, at least no more than standard politics tend to be. This is especially the case given that Republicans have nominated a non-Republican for President who does nothing but dress windows.
On September 08 2016 12:03 IgnE wrote: Whence also Trump and the aesthetics of the cult. As Benjamin says, "All efforts to render politics aesthetic culminate in one thing: war." Trump isn't alone of course. The leftist consensus indulges in the same aesthetics, for, "Only war makes it possible to mobilize all of today's technical resources while maintaining the property system." But those who subscribe to Trumpism seem to me to be totally in thrall to Trump's aesthetic mastery. Electing Trump is to enshrine this aesthetics, and to take literally the phrase, "Fiat ars–pereat mundus," which Trump should have emblazoned on all of his buildings. Just as modern media art forms like reality tv make every audience member a critic by virtue of being expert on "living" per se, it makes Trump the iconic modern artist, making art for art's sake. Those are his credentials for the highest office in the land: an expert on the one-dimensional, monomaniacal, self-delusional, peculiarly American form of "living", or of self-extension.
The underlined above strikes me as being rather harsh. And it's not like Trump would be the first president that we've had who took advantage of a tremendous cult of personality. Both Roosevelts, Kennedy, Reagan, and Obama all fit the bill in the modern era. And in the cases of Kennedy and Obama, very strong arguments can be made that they lacked any sort of real "credentials" to be president at the time of their respective elections.
Edit: And the other thing that bears mentioning is that Trump isn't unique among the previously mentioned presidents in his use of cutting edge media manipulation to boost his popularity.
Reagan for sure, but at least he had the End of History story to buttress the emptiness that was his politics. The End of History tapped into primordial myths of good vs. evil and obscured the Reagan aesthetic. He kind of prefigured the Real World by about a decade as an actor who played himself on the stage of the White House. But imagine Obama on reality tv. He would be terrible at it. He (perhaps reluctantly) represented the aesthetics of the leftist consensus.
Compare for example the titanic struggle between the USA and the USSR with Trump's story about building a wall. One has resemblances to the political; the other is Warhol.
Kennedy was the last real politician we had. The world might end with a whimper but American politics ended with a bang in Dallas.
Are you sure that you're not this guy?
But back to Trump. I very much disagree with the proposition that he's a vacuous candidate. As much as I enjoy his aesthetic (most of the time, anyway), what I really like about him are his policies. And I'm not alone in this regard. The reason Trump wiped the floor with the republican field during the nomination was because of his stated policies -- immigration above all.
There's an article that was authored by an anonymous conservative intellectual that is a hot topic in conservative circles right now. It more eloquently describes many of the things that I have articulated about the present state of conservatism and the republican party over the past couple of years. The article essentially is a massive and damning indictment of the conservative movement -- and particularly anyone who is part of the #nevertrump crowd. But the author also talks about the Trump's substance on the critical issues of immigration, trade, and war/foreign policy, while shitting on Trump's aesthetic. Here's some excerpts:
More to the point, what has conservatism achieved lately? In the last 20 years? The answer—which appears to be “nothing”—might seem to lend credence to the plea that “our ideas haven’t been tried.” Except that the same conservatives who generate those ideas are in charge of selling them to the broader public. If their ideas “haven’t been tried,” who is ultimately at fault? The whole enterprise of Conservatism, Inc., reeks of failure. Its sole recent and ongoing success is its own self-preservation. Conservative intellectuals never tire of praising “entrepreneurs” and “creative destruction.” Dare to fail! they exhort businessmen. Let the market decide! Except, um, not with respect to us. Or is their true market not the political arena, but the fundraising circuit?
....
Yes, Trump is worse than imperfect. So what? We can lament until we choke the lack of a great statesman to address the fundamental issues of our time—or, more importantly, to connect them. Since Pat Buchanan’s three failures, occasionally a candidate arose who saw one piece: Dick Gephardt on trade, Ron Paul on war, Tom Tancredo on immigration. Yet, among recent political figures—great statesmen, dangerous demagogues, and mewling gnats alike—only Trump-the-alleged-buffoon not merely saw all three and their essential connectivity, but was able to win on them. The alleged buffoon is thus more prudent—more practically wise—than all of our wise-and-good who so bitterly oppose him. This should embarrass them. That their failures instead embolden them is only further proof of their foolishness and hubris.
Which they self-laud as “consistency”—adherence to “conservative principle,” defined by the 1980 campaign and the household gods of reigning conservative think-tanks. A higher consistency in the service of the national interest apparently eludes them. When America possessed a vast, empty continent and explosively growing industry, high immigration was arguably good policy. (Arguably: Ben Franklin would disagree.) It hasn’t made sense since World War I. Free trade was unquestionably a great boon to the American worker in the decades after World War II. We long ago passed the point of diminishing returns. The Gulf War of 1991 was a strategic victory for American interests. No conflict since then has been. Conservatives either can’t see this—or, worse, those who can nonetheless treat the only political leader to mount a serious challenge to the status quo (more immigration, more trade, more war) as a unique evil.
Trump’s vulgarity is in fact a godsend to the conservatives. It allows them to hang their public opposition on his obvious shortcomings and to ignore or downplay his far greater strengths, which should be even more obvious but in corrupt times can be deliberately obscured by constant references to his faults. That the Left would make the campaign all about the latter is to be expected. Why would the Right? Some—a few—are no doubt sincere in their belief that the man is simply unfit for high office. David Frum, who has always been an immigration skeptic and is a convert to the less-war position, is sincere when he says that, even though he agrees with much of Trump’s agenda, he cannot stomach Trump. But for most of the other #NeverTrumpers, is it just a coincidence that they also happen to favor Invade the World, Invite the World?
Another question JAG raised without provoking any serious attempt at refutation was whether, in corrupt times, it took a … let’s say ... “loudmouth” to rise above the din of The Megaphone. We, or I, speculated: “yes.” Suppose there had arisen some statesman of high character—dignified, articulate, experienced, knowledgeable—the exact opposite of everything the conservatives claim to hate about Trump. Could this hypothetical paragon have won on Trump’s same issues? Would the conservatives have supported him? I would have—even had he been a Democrat.
Back on planet earth, that flight of fancy at least addresses what to do now. The answer to the subsidiary question—will it work?—is much less clear. By “it” I mean Trumpism, broadly defined as secure borders, economic nationalism, and America-first foreign policy. We Americans have chosen, in our foolishness, to disunite the country through stupid immigration, economic, and foreign policies. The level of unity America enjoyed before the bipartisan junta took over can never be restored.
But we can probably do better than we are doing now. First, stop digging. No more importing poverty, crime, and alien cultures. We have made institutions, by leftist design, not merely abysmal at assimilation but abhorrent of the concept. We should try to fix that, but given the Left’s iron grip on every school and cultural center, that’s like trying to bring democracy to Russia. A worthy goal, perhaps, but temper your hopes—and don’t invest time and resources unrealistically.
By contrast, simply building a wall and enforcing immigration law will help enormously, by cutting off the flood of newcomers that perpetuates ethnic separatism and by incentivizing the English language and American norms in the workplace. These policies will have the added benefit of aligning the economic interests of, and (we may hope) fostering solidarity among, the working, lower middle, and middle classes of all races and ethnicities. The same can be said for Trumpian trade policies and anti-globalization instincts. Who cares if productivity numbers tick down, or if our already somnambulant GDP sinks a bit further into its pillow? Nearly all the gains of the last 20 years have accrued to the junta anyway. It would, at this point, be better for the nation to divide up more equitably a slightly smaller pie than to add one extra slice—only to ensure that it and eight of the other nine go first to the government and its rentiers, and the rest to the same four industries and 200 families.
Will this work? Ask a pessimist, get a pessimistic answer. So don’t ask. Ask instead: is it worth trying? Is it better than the alternative? If you can’t say, forthrightly, “yes,” you are either part of the junta, a fool, or a conservative intellectual.
Perhaps if Trump was some dignified statesman of high character you would have a point.
Now, now. I don't think anyone can say that only "dignified statesmen" have substantive policies. The uncouth can certainly have them, too.
There is definitely something of the political in the article you've posted here, unlike the misdirecting emptiness of the Third Way, devoid of politics by virtue of overwhelming consensus. So Trump is maybe tapping into the same populist urge to "change the property relations" as Benjamin would put it.
Comparing Trump and Clinton, it should be pretty clear that Trump is the one proposing the more radical changes to the current "property relations." Now there's no doubt that he isn't going as far as our socialist/Marxist brethren (or others) would like, but his proposals are definitely more upsetting to the current world order than Hillary's.
But how is he doing it? By bringing l'art pour l'art in the vein of the Kardashians to the Presidential election. I'm not convinced he even fully understands it himself. He's entirely within the domain of habit. That's why he needed new handlers. That's why to even write the article you've posted you have to grant Trump, the image, a solidity that it doesn't possess. The only constant is the Trump aesthetic itself, and it is that which makes belief in all things Trump possible.
Yes, Trump is using his image as a means to an end. But I think that the important breakthrough that we're having is that Trump clearly has a political end in mind. So to use your terminology, Trump is not strictly a case of "art for art's sake."
I guess the difference between you and me is that I think if Trump were elected he'd essentially be an ineffectual twat. I don't think there is anything deep inside Trump beyond art for art's sake. An elected Trump is a Trump who goes on publicity tours for four years until he's thrown out of office while the "junta" runs the country.
On September 09 2016 01:34 CannonsNCarriers wrote: I see we have reached the "noble lie" phase of the Trump campaign. When he says "take the oil" that is a noble lie, true believers know he won't do it and he is merely signalling his belief in American resolve. When he says, "they will be different generals", Trump really means his secret plan will be so successful that he won't need to have a Stalinist purge of CENTCOM. When he says "build the wall", real conservatives know it will actually be a more restrictive immigration policy. When the cucks say that his economic policies will put America in the back of the line in OECD growth, blow up the deficit, and manage to raise unemployment, those concerns can be ignored because the losses would havegone to "the government and its rentiers, and the rest to the same four industries and 200 families".
And of course, it is worth noting, that the ridiculous Flight 93 piece relies on wildly false facts. America is only behind 4 oddball Nordic countries in the OECD growth stats. America is at 5% unemployment. The deficit is smaller than ever. Fewer Americans are dying abroad than in 15 years. Even ISIS is on the run and Mosul will fall soon. https://data.oecd.org/gdp/gross-domestic-product-gdp.htm
You are the best spokesperson in this thread for ignoring real politics in favor of "leftist" fascist aesthetic. Why would you put in bold your criticism of a conservative intellectual who articulates a problem with the current wealth (property) distribution in this country?
Because, given the policies of conservatives in nearly every state, the above quoted articulation of the Problem is window-dressing and nothing more?
And attacking window dressing is a sign that you've devolved into an utterly vacuous reactionary. Sir James Goldsmith may have been his own brand of conservative kook, but he understood the logic of NAFTA. Equating the person who wrote the article that dauntless posted with the braindead idiots who get elected to office in red states is a bit of a stretch anyway. We need a positive politics to move forward, not the negative politics of continued emphasis on self-expression within the current paradigm.
Yes, positive politics are the way forward; that doesn't render criticism of window-dressing utterly vacuous, at least no more than standard politics tend to be. This is especially the case given that Republicans have nominated a non-Republican for President who does nothing but dress windows.
What I think probably is even worse is that Trump would give the reigns to Pence and just be like a spokesman type roll while Pence is calling the shots....and that does not inspire any kind of confidence. Trump seems good at the shallow bits of being the face of his business but not with actually getting down and doing the work and that will probably be his style of presidency.
On September 09 2016 01:34 CannonsNCarriers wrote: I see we have reached the "noble lie" phase of the Trump campaign. When he says "take the oil" that is a noble lie, true believers know he won't do it and he is merely signalling his belief in American resolve. When he says, "they will be different generals", Trump really means his secret plan will be so successful that he won't need to have a Stalinist purge of CENTCOM. When he says "build the wall", real conservatives know it will actually be a more restrictive immigration policy. When the cucks say that his economic policies will put America in the back of the line in OECD growth, blow up the deficit, and manage to raise unemployment, those concerns can be ignored because the losses would havegone to "the government and its rentiers, and the rest to the same four industries and 200 families".
And of course, it is worth noting, that the ridiculous Flight 93 piece relies on wildly false facts. America is only behind 4 oddball Nordic countries in the OECD growth stats. America is at 5% unemployment. The deficit is smaller than ever. Fewer Americans are dying abroad than in 15 years. Even ISIS is on the run and Mosul will fall soon. https://data.oecd.org/gdp/gross-domestic-product-gdp.htm
You are the best spokesperson in this thread for ignoring real politics in favor of "leftist" fascist aesthetic. Why would you put in bold your criticism of a conservative intellectual who articulates a problem with the current wealth (property) distribution in this country?
Because, given the policies of conservatives in nearly every state, the above quoted articulation of the Problem is window-dressing and nothing more?
And attacking window dressing is a sign that you've devolved into an utterly vacuous reactionary. Sir James Goldsmith may have been his own brand of conservative kook, but he understood the logic of NAFTA. Equating the person who wrote the article that dauntless posted with the braindead idiots who get elected to office in red states is a bit of a stretch anyway. We need a positive politics to move forward, not the negative politics of continued emphasis on self-expression within the current paradigm.
Yes, positive politics are the way forward; that doesn't render criticism of window-dressing utterly vacuous, at least no more than standard politics tend to be. This is especially the case given that Republicans have nominated a non-Republican for President who does nothing but dress windows.
When Donald Trump received his classified intelligence briefing last month, one of his foreign policy advisers repeatedly interrupted the session, NBC News reported Thursday.
Former Defense Intelligence Agency director and retired general Mike Flynn reportedly peppered the briefers with questions during the Aug. 17 meeting, according to three sources. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, another Trump adviser, touched Flynn’s arm to get him to stop interrupting the briefing.
Trump, the GOP presidential nominee, said during an NBC candidate forum Wednesday night that he could tell, based on their body language, that the briefing officials did not like President Obama’s handling of foreign policy.
Michael Morell, a former acting director of the CIA who supports Hillary Clinton's presidential bid, blasted Trump for discussing the classified briefing in public.
"This is first time that I can remember a candidate for president doing a readout from an intelligence briefing, and it's the first time a candidate has politicized their intelligence briefing. Both of those are highly inappropriate and crossed a long-standing red line respected by both parties," Morell told NBC.
On September 09 2016 02:21 Slaughter wrote: What I think probably is even worse is that Trump would give the reigns to Pence and just be like a spokesman type roll while Pence is calling the shots....and that does not inspire any kind of confidence. Trump seems good at the shallow bits of being the face of his business but not with actually getting down and doing the work and that will probably be his style of presidency.
This is one of the major reasons I feel a vote for Trump is ultimately just a vote for the Republican Party, and unfortunately that party is so bad that I have to vote party-line against them (even if it means voting for Hillary).
On September 08 2016 12:03 IgnE wrote: Whence also Trump and the aesthetics of the cult. As Benjamin says, "All efforts to render politics aesthetic culminate in one thing: war." Trump isn't alone of course. The leftist consensus indulges in the same aesthetics, for, "Only war makes it possible to mobilize all of today's technical resources while maintaining the property system." But those who subscribe to Trumpism seem to me to be totally in thrall to Trump's aesthetic mastery. Electing Trump is to enshrine this aesthetics, and to take literally the phrase, "Fiat ars–pereat mundus," which Trump should have emblazoned on all of his buildings. Just as modern media art forms like reality tv make every audience member a critic by virtue of being expert on "living" per se, it makes Trump the iconic modern artist, making art for art's sake. Those are his credentials for the highest office in the land: an expert on the one-dimensional, monomaniacal, self-delusional, peculiarly American form of "living", or of self-extension.
The underlined above strikes me as being rather harsh. And it's not like Trump would be the first president that we've had who took advantage of a tremendous cult of personality. Both Roosevelts, Kennedy, Reagan, and Obama all fit the bill in the modern era. And in the cases of Kennedy and Obama, very strong arguments can be made that they lacked any sort of real "credentials" to be president at the time of their respective elections.
Edit: And the other thing that bears mentioning is that Trump isn't unique among the previously mentioned presidents in his use of cutting edge media manipulation to boost his popularity.
Reagan for sure, but at least he had the End of History story to buttress the emptiness that was his politics. The End of History tapped into primordial myths of good vs. evil and obscured the Reagan aesthetic. He kind of prefigured the Real World by about a decade as an actor who played himself on the stage of the White House. But imagine Obama on reality tv. He would be terrible at it. He (perhaps reluctantly) represented the aesthetics of the leftist consensus.
Compare for example the titanic struggle between the USA and the USSR with Trump's story about building a wall. One has resemblances to the political; the other is Warhol.
Kennedy was the last real politician we had. The world might end with a whimper but American politics ended with a bang in Dallas.
But back to Trump. I very much disagree with the proposition that he's a vacuous candidate. As much as I enjoy his aesthetic (most of the time, anyway), what I really like about him are his policies. And I'm not alone in this regard. The reason Trump wiped the floor with the republican field during the nomination was because of his stated policies -- immigration above all.
There's an article that was authored by an anonymous conservative intellectual that is a hot topic in conservative circles right now. It more eloquently describes many of the things that I have articulated about the present state of conservatism and the republican party over the past couple of years. The article essentially is a massive and damning indictment of the conservative movement -- and particularly anyone who is part of the #nevertrump crowd. But the author also talks about the Trump's substance on the critical issues of immigration, trade, and war/foreign policy, while shitting on Trump's aesthetic. Here's some excerpts:
More to the point, what has conservatism achieved lately? In the last 20 years? The answer—which appears to be “nothing”—might seem to lend credence to the plea that “our ideas haven’t been tried.” Except that the same conservatives who generate those ideas are in charge of selling them to the broader public. If their ideas “haven’t been tried,” who is ultimately at fault? The whole enterprise of Conservatism, Inc., reeks of failure. Its sole recent and ongoing success is its own self-preservation. Conservative intellectuals never tire of praising “entrepreneurs” and “creative destruction.” Dare to fail! they exhort businessmen. Let the market decide! Except, um, not with respect to us. Or is their true market not the political arena, but the fundraising circuit?
....
Yes, Trump is worse than imperfect. So what? We can lament until we choke the lack of a great statesman to address the fundamental issues of our time—or, more importantly, to connect them. Since Pat Buchanan’s three failures, occasionally a candidate arose who saw one piece: Dick Gephardt on trade, Ron Paul on war, Tom Tancredo on immigration. Yet, among recent political figures—great statesmen, dangerous demagogues, and mewling gnats alike—only Trump-the-alleged-buffoon not merely saw all three and their essential connectivity, but was able to win on them. The alleged buffoon is thus more prudent—more practically wise—than all of our wise-and-good who so bitterly oppose him. This should embarrass them. That their failures instead embolden them is only further proof of their foolishness and hubris.
Which they self-laud as “consistency”—adherence to “conservative principle,” defined by the 1980 campaign and the household gods of reigning conservative think-tanks. A higher consistency in the service of the national interest apparently eludes them. When America possessed a vast, empty continent and explosively growing industry, high immigration was arguably good policy. (Arguably: Ben Franklin would disagree.) It hasn’t made sense since World War I. Free trade was unquestionably a great boon to the American worker in the decades after World War II. We long ago passed the point of diminishing returns. The Gulf War of 1991 was a strategic victory for American interests. No conflict since then has been. Conservatives either can’t see this—or, worse, those who can nonetheless treat the only political leader to mount a serious challenge to the status quo (more immigration, more trade, more war) as a unique evil.
Trump’s vulgarity is in fact a godsend to the conservatives. It allows them to hang their public opposition on his obvious shortcomings and to ignore or downplay his far greater strengths, which should be even more obvious but in corrupt times can be deliberately obscured by constant references to his faults. That the Left would make the campaign all about the latter is to be expected. Why would the Right? Some—a few—are no doubt sincere in their belief that the man is simply unfit for high office. David Frum, who has always been an immigration skeptic and is a convert to the less-war position, is sincere when he says that, even though he agrees with much of Trump’s agenda, he cannot stomach Trump. But for most of the other #NeverTrumpers, is it just a coincidence that they also happen to favor Invade the World, Invite the World?
Another question JAG raised without provoking any serious attempt at refutation was whether, in corrupt times, it took a … let’s say ... “loudmouth” to rise above the din of The Megaphone. We, or I, speculated: “yes.” Suppose there had arisen some statesman of high character—dignified, articulate, experienced, knowledgeable—the exact opposite of everything the conservatives claim to hate about Trump. Could this hypothetical paragon have won on Trump’s same issues? Would the conservatives have supported him? I would have—even had he been a Democrat.
Back on planet earth, that flight of fancy at least addresses what to do now. The answer to the subsidiary question—will it work?—is much less clear. By “it” I mean Trumpism, broadly defined as secure borders, economic nationalism, and America-first foreign policy. We Americans have chosen, in our foolishness, to disunite the country through stupid immigration, economic, and foreign policies. The level of unity America enjoyed before the bipartisan junta took over can never be restored.
But we can probably do better than we are doing now. First, stop digging. No more importing poverty, crime, and alien cultures. We have made institutions, by leftist design, not merely abysmal at assimilation but abhorrent of the concept. We should try to fix that, but given the Left’s iron grip on every school and cultural center, that’s like trying to bring democracy to Russia. A worthy goal, perhaps, but temper your hopes—and don’t invest time and resources unrealistically.
By contrast, simply building a wall and enforcing immigration law will help enormously, by cutting off the flood of newcomers that perpetuates ethnic separatism and by incentivizing the English language and American norms in the workplace. These policies will have the added benefit of aligning the economic interests of, and (we may hope) fostering solidarity among, the working, lower middle, and middle classes of all races and ethnicities. The same can be said for Trumpian trade policies and anti-globalization instincts. Who cares if productivity numbers tick down, or if our already somnambulant GDP sinks a bit further into its pillow? Nearly all the gains of the last 20 years have accrued to the junta anyway. It would, at this point, be better for the nation to divide up more equitably a slightly smaller pie than to add one extra slice—only to ensure that it and eight of the other nine go first to the government and its rentiers, and the rest to the same four industries and 200 families.
Will this work? Ask a pessimist, get a pessimistic answer. So don’t ask. Ask instead: is it worth trying? Is it better than the alternative? If you can’t say, forthrightly, “yes,” you are either part of the junta, a fool, or a conservative intellectual.
Perhaps if Trump was some dignified statesman of high character you would have a point.
Now, now. I don't think anyone can say that only "dignified statesmen" have substantive policies. The uncouth can certainly have them, too.
There is definitely something of the political in the article you've posted here, unlike the misdirecting emptiness of the Third Way, devoid of politics by virtue of overwhelming consensus. So Trump is maybe tapping into the same populist urge to "change the property relations" as Benjamin would put it.
Comparing Trump and Clinton, it should be pretty clear that Trump is the one proposing the more radical changes to the current "property relations." Now there's no doubt that he isn't going as far as our socialist/Marxist brethren (or others) would like, but his proposals are definitely more upsetting to the current world order than Hillary's.
But how is he doing it? By bringing l'art pour l'art in the vein of the Kardashians to the Presidential election. I'm not convinced he even fully understands it himself. He's entirely within the domain of habit. That's why he needed new handlers. That's why to even write the article you've posted you have to grant Trump, the image, a solidity that it doesn't possess. The only constant is the Trump aesthetic itself, and it is that which makes belief in all things Trump possible.
Yes, Trump is using his image as a means to an end. But I think that the important breakthrough that we're having is that Trump clearly has a political end in mind. So to use your terminology, Trump is not strictly a case of "art for art's sake."
I guess the difference between you and me is that I think if Trump were elected he'd essentially be an ineffectual twat. I don't think there is anything deep inside Trump beyond art for art's sake. An elected Trump is a Trump who goes on publicity tours for four years until he's thrown out of office while the "junta" runs the country.
and to quote myself in a double sense, that is why i think you might have had a point if trump were a person of "high character", someone with a contemplative air. someone who could at least be a self-conscious warhol instead of the perfectly habitual product and producer of the self-aggrandizing american aesthetic
On September 09 2016 01:34 CannonsNCarriers wrote: I see we have reached the "noble lie" phase of the Trump campaign. When he says "take the oil" that is a noble lie, true believers know he won't do it and he is merely signalling his belief in American resolve. When he says, "they will be different generals", Trump really means his secret plan will be so successful that he won't need to have a Stalinist purge of CENTCOM. When he says "build the wall", real conservatives know it will actually be a more restrictive immigration policy. When the cucks say that his economic policies will put America in the back of the line in OECD growth, blow up the deficit, and manage to raise unemployment, those concerns can be ignored because the losses would havegone to "the government and its rentiers, and the rest to the same four industries and 200 families".
And of course, it is worth noting, that the ridiculous Flight 93 piece relies on wildly false facts. America is only behind 4 oddball Nordic countries in the OECD growth stats. America is at 5% unemployment. The deficit is smaller than ever. Fewer Americans are dying abroad than in 15 years. Even ISIS is on the run and Mosul will fall soon. https://data.oecd.org/gdp/gross-domestic-product-gdp.htm
You are the best spokesperson in this thread for ignoring real politics in favor of "leftist" fascist aesthetic. Why would you put in bold your criticism of a conservative intellectual who articulates a problem with the current wealth (property) distribution in this country?
Because, given the policies of conservatives in nearly every state, the above quoted articulation of the Problem is window-dressing and nothing more?
And attacking window dressing is a sign that you've devolved into an utterly vacuous reactionary. Sir James Goldsmith may have been his own brand of conservative kook, but he understood the logic of NAFTA. Equating the person who wrote the article that dauntless posted with the braindead idiots who get elected to office in red states is a bit of a stretch anyway. We need a positive politics to move forward, not the negative politics of continued emphasis on self-expression within the current paradigm.
Yes, positive politics are the way forward; that doesn't render criticism of window-dressing utterly vacuous, at least no more than standard politics tend to be. This is especially the case given that Republicans have nominated a non-Republican for President who does nothing but dress windows.
maybe standard politics is utterly vacuous
The author of the article that I posted certainly thinks so. He actually expounded on this point at length in his article (the whole thing is too long to post). Here's the beginning and end of the pertinent section:
But let us back up. One of the paradoxes—there are so many—of conservative thought over the last decade at least is the unwillingness even to entertain the possibility that America and the West are on a trajectory toward something very bad. On the one hand, conservatives routinely present a litany of ills plaguing the body politic. Illegitimacy. Crime. Massive, expensive, intrusive, out-of-control government. Politically correct McCarthyism. Ever-higher taxes and ever-deteriorating services and infrastructure. Inability to win wars against tribal, sub-Third-World foes. A disastrously awful educational system that churns out kids who don’t know anything and, at the primary and secondary levels, can’t (or won’t) discipline disruptive punks, and at the higher levels saddles students with six figure debts for the privilege. And so on and drearily on. Like that portion of the mass where the priest asks for your private intentions, fill in any dismal fact about American decline that you want and I’ll stipulate it.
Conservatives spend at least several hundred million dollars a year on think-tanks, magazines, conferences, fellowships, and such, complaining about this, that, the other, and everything. And yet these same conservatives are, at root, keepers of the status quo. Oh, sure, they want some things to change. They want their pet ideas adopted—tax deductions for having more babies and the like. Many of them are even good ideas. But are any of them truly fundamental? Do they get to the heart of our problems?
....
All of Trump’s 16 Republican competitors would have ensured more of the same—as will the election of Hillary Clinton. That would be bad enough. But at least Republicans are merely reactive when it comes to wholesale cultural and political change. Their “opposition” may be in all cases ineffectual and often indistinguishable from support. But they don’t dream up inanities like 32 “genders,” elective bathrooms, single-payer, Iran sycophancy, “Islamophobia,” and Black Lives Matter. They merely help ratify them.
EPT
