EPTOn September 09 2016 02:25 IgnE wrote:
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
Show nested quote +
On September 09 2016 02:18 IgnE wrote:
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 01:59 xDaunt wrote:
Now, now. I don't think anyone can say that only "dignified statesmen" have substantive policies. The uncouth can certainly have them, too.
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.
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."
On September 09 2016 01:44 IgnE wrote:
Perhaps if Trump was some dignified statesman of high character you would have a point.
On September 09 2016 00:54 xDaunt wrote:
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:
On September 08 2016 14:18 IgnE wrote:
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.
On September 08 2016 13:31 xDaunt wrote:
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.
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.
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.
....
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
You could be right. I have freely admitted that a vote for Trump is a roll of the dice.
