As all would-be authoritarians do
People with more determination to look straight at unpleasant things than I have watched Trump’s acceptance speech last night, and reported that it was pure fascism, which by that time surprised no one.
In the most consequential speech of his life, delivered 401 days into his improbable run for the White House, Mr. Trump sounded much like the unreflective man who had started it with an escalator ride in the lobby of Trump Tower: He conjured up chaos and promised overnight solutions.
To an electorate that remains anxious about his demeanor, his honesty and his character, Mr. Trump offered no acknowledgment, no rebuttal, no explanation.
His demeanor, his honesty, his character and his politics. Let’s not leave that part out, Times. He has a form of politics, and we remain “anxious” about it, which is the understatement of the decade. He has the politics of conjuring up chaos and promising overnight solutions – the politics of racism and hatred and fear, the politics of macho contempt for women and macho love of violent rhetoric.
Inside the Quicken Loans Arena, a thicket of American flags behind him, he portrayed himself, over and over, as an almost messianic figure prepared to rescue the country from the ills of urban crime, illegal immigration and global terrorism.
“I alone,” he said, “can fix it.”
The “Quicken Loans Arena” is a nice touch. Profit is everything, human needs are for losers.
“I alone,” he said, “can fix it.”
But Mr. Trump made no real case for his qualifications to lead the world’s largest economy and strongest military. He is, he said, a very successful man who knows how to make it all better.
Why would that be, exactly? Why would knowing how to gouge out staggering amounts of money from building super-expensive real estate mean he knows how to “fix” the things he identifies as problems or any other national problems? Bernie Madoff built himself a huge fortune too, until the Ponzi scheme collapsed; so what?
The rest of the Times piece is just the same stupid shit Adam Gopnik excoriated in the New Yorker: analysis of what bad campaign strategy it was.
John Cassidy at the New Yorker is not so interested in giving helpful advice to Trump on how to campaign better:
As all would-be authoritarians do, Trump sought to portray himself as the defender of the little guy. “I have visited the laid-off factory workers and the communities crushed by our horrible and unfair trade deals,” he said. “These are people who work hard but no longer have a voice. I am your voice.” And again, toward the end, he used the same phrase after a riff on Clinton’s “I’m with her” slogan. “My pledge reads, ‘I’m with you, the American people. I am your voice,’ ” he said.
Right. The billionaire builder of expensive Manhattan towers is the voice of the working class. You bet.
I was standing next to the delegations from New York and Florida, both of which were Trump strongholds during the Republican primaries. The portions of the speech that received the loudest cheers were the most nativist and controversial bits. When he said, “We don’t want them in our country,” referring to people from Muslim nations with histories of terrorism problems, whom he would bar from the United States, he got perhaps the loudest cheer of the night. And when he said, “We are going to be considerate and compassionate to everyone, but my greatest compassion will be for our own struggling citizens,” the chants of “U.S.A.! U.S.A.!” were so vigorous that he joined in and gave the chanters a quick thumbs-up.
White people! White people!
Ultimately, Trump’s motivation doesn’t matter very much. The platform that he is running on is divisive and dangerous, and, despite the consensus in the media and political worlds that he is destined to be defeated, it still isn’t entirely clear that his strategy won’t work. After Trump had finished, I asked Congressman John Mica, who represents a district just north of Orlando, and who was standing with the Florida delegation, what he thought of the speech. “He ticked all the boxes,” Mica replied. “I thought he was great.” But weren’t Trump’s words perhaps too dark to appeal to the country at large? Mica thought not. “The emphasis on safety and security,” he said. “I think that is a message that will resonate.”
And if it does we’ll all be in deep deep shit.
The funny thing is, we are scrutinizing every single dollar Hillary Clinton has ever earned or gained through investments; her status as someone who can get rich quickly marks her as suspect. Trump, not so much. But then, Hillary does lack a crucial piece of anatomy that Trump assures us he is sufficient in.
Whether you agree or disagree with Hillary’s policies, at least she has policies that she shows, and people can go over them and pick them apart, and agree or disagree. Trump offers us platitudes – more jobs, less murders. Great. No one wants to be jobless or murdered, but he simply tells us, “Don’t worry, I’ve got it” – only he can fix these problems? This is megalomania, pure and simple. He is setting himself up as a god-figure, and people are falling on their knees and worshiping him, because he hates all the same people they do. If they really wanted a better economic system that wouldn’t leave them out, they should have rallied around Bernie. But Bernie wanted a better system for all, and not just for white men.
Even if Trump doesn’t win, he’ll have caused yet another major setback in our political process.
The Democrats, centrist-ruled and dominated, will be ever more comfortable in holding onto power by being feckless and non-controversial. The GOP, having learned that you can’t fight naked fascism with cloaked fascism, will come further out of the closet. And the public will increasingly be stuck dealing with this scenario as our choices for the top office. I can envision only one cure, and I cannot see how it would possibly happen. We need to resurrect the notion of the Roosevelt Republican–that’d be Teddy, not Franklin. Pro-environment, anti-corporate (to the extent one needs to be to keep their power in appropriate check), and in favor of (among other things) universal health care. There’d still be bits I wouldn’t care for–the hyper-aggressive imperialism, in particular, is of little appeal. But it’d be at least an honest division, and it would force the Democratic Party to stop taking their base for granted.
The Washington Post editorial board posted an excoriating op-ed today.
Some of my favorite quotes: