Tags
"Augustus", "Financial Times, Abraham Lincoln, Alexander Hamilton, Donald Trump, Federalist Papers, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Marco Rubio, Martin Wolfe, pluto-populism, Reaping What One Sows, Robert Kagan, Roman republic, Ted Cruz
A friend sent me a link this morning to an article written by Martin Wolfe in the Financial Times, entitled “How Donald Trump Embodies How Great Republics Meet Their End.”
Although the article’s title may be an overstatement, the body of what Wolfe writes parallels what I have been feeling, thinking, and saying (to a small group of friends who are concerned about what the rise of Trump means for this country and what can individuals who feel similarly do).
In another post, at another time, I will add to the theme of ‘reaping what one sows’ as I think it is not only the Republicans who must face this but also the Democrats (for not having effectively countered the Republicans).
In the meantime, see what you think about what Wolfe writes:
What is one to make of the rise of Donald Trump? It is natural to think of comparisons with populist demagogues past and present. It is natural, too, to ask why the Republican party might choose a narcissistic bully as its candidate for president. But this is not just about a party, but about a great country. The US is the greatest republic since Rome, the bastion of democracy, the guarantor of the liberal global order. It would be a global disaster if Mr Trump were to become president. Even if he fails, he has rendered the unthinkable sayable.
Mr Trump is a promoter of paranoid fantasies, a xenophobe and an ignoramus. His business consists of the erection of ugly monuments to his own vanity. He has no experience of political office. Some compare him to Latin American populists. He might also be considered an American Silvio Berlusconi, albeit without the charm or business acumen. But Mr Berlusconi, unlike Mr Trump, never threatened to round up and expel millions of people. Mr Trump is grossly unqualified for the world’s most important political office.
Yet, as Robert Kagan, a neoconservative intellectual, argues in a powerful column in The Washington Post, Mr Trump is also “the GOP’s Frankenstein monster”. He is, says Mr Kagan, the monstrous result of the party’s “wild obstructionism”, its demonisation of political institutions, its flirtation with bigotry and its “racially tinged derangement syndrome” over President Barack Obama. He continues: “We are supposed to believe that Trump’s legion of ‘angry’ people are angry about wage stagnation. No, they are angry about all the things Republicans have told them to be angry about these past seven-and-a-half years”.
Mr Kagan is right, but does not go far enough. This is not about the last seven-and-a-half years. These attitudes were to be seen in the 1990s, with the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. Indeed, they go back all the way to the party’s opportunistic response to the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Alas, they have become worse, not better, with time.
Why has this happened? The answer is that this is how a wealthy donor class, dedicated to the aims of slashing taxes and shrinking the state, obtained the footsoldiers and voters it required. This, then, is “pluto-populism”: the marriage of plutocracy with rightwing populism. Mr Trump embodies this union. But he has done so by partially dumping the free-market, low tax, shrunken government aims of the party establishment, to which his financially dependent rivals remain wedded. That gives him an apparently insuperable advantage. Mr Trump is no conservative, elite conservatives complain. Precisely. That is also true of the party’s base.
Mr Trump is egregious. Yet in some respects the policies of his two leading rivals, Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, are as bad. Both propose highly regressive tax cuts, just like Mr Trump. Mr Cruz even wishes to return to a gold standard. Mr Trump says that the sick should not die on the streets. Mr Cruz and Mr Rubio seem to be not quite so sure.
Yet the Trump phenomenon is not the story of just one party. It is about the country and so, inevitably, the world. In creating the American republic, the founding fathers were aware of the example of Rome. Alexander Hamilton argued in the Federalist Papers that the new republic would need an “energetic executive”. He noted that Rome itself, with its careful duplication of magistracies, depended in its hours of need on the grant of absolute, albeit temporary, power to one man, called a “dictator”.
The US would have no such office. Instead, it would have a unitary executive: the president as elected monarch. The president has limited, but great, authority. For Hamilton, the danger of overweening power would be contained by “first, a due dependence on the people, secondly, a due responsibility”.
During the first century BC, the wealth of empire destabilised the Roman republic. In the end, Augustus, heir of the popular party, terminated the republic and installed himself as emperor. He did so by preserving all the forms of the republic, while he dispensed with their meaning.
It is rash to assume constitutional constraints would survive the presidency of someone elected because he neither understands nor believes in them. Rounding up and deporting 11m people is an immense coercive enterprise. Would a president elected to achieve this be prevented and, if so, by whom? What are we to make of Mr Trump’s enthusiasm for the barbarities of torture? Would he find people willing to carry out his desires or not?
It is not difficult for a determined leader to do the previously unthinkable by appealing to conditions of emergency. Both Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt did some extraordinary things in wartime. But these men knew limits. Would Mr Trump also know limits? Hamilton’s “energetic” executive is dangerous.
It was the ultra-conservative president Paul von Hindenburg who made Hitler chancellor of Germany in 1933. What made the new ruler so destructive was not only that he was a paranoid lunatic, but that he ruled a great power. Trump may be no Hitler. But the US is also no Weimar Germany. It is a vastly more important country even than that.
Mr Trump may still fail to win the Republican nomination. But, should he do so the Republican elite will have to ask themselves hard questions — not only how this happened, but how they should properly respond. Beyond that, the American people will have to decide what sort of human being they want to put in the White House. The implications for them and for the world of this choice will be profound. Above all, Mr Trump may not prove unique. An American “Caesarism” has now become flesh. It seems a worryingly real danger today. It could return again in future.
Many of the comments that follow this article in yesterday’s Financial Times are interesting too. Go to: http://on.ft.com/24zsLF4 and scroll to the bottom of the article if you want to read some of them. To write to the author, use martin.wolf@ft.com.
As always, I encourage respectful Comments on this site.
samuel clover jr said:
wonderful article rick…here’s my take(you’ll love this)…if we were @frost this would a ideal time to call Large Group on the mindset of some our fellow,suppose to be adults smile…this isn’t a reality show..oh my heavenly father(pause)…by the time it’s for the real election,my hope is the medication has kicked in for some of our fellow citizens…Samuel…can’t wait for baseball to start I need a field trip mr. sam
Charlie Atherton said:
In the context of the above (How Donald Trump Embodies How Great Republics Meet Their End) you may find Thomas Edsall’s opinion piece, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/opinion/campaign-stops/why-trump-now.html?emc=edit_th_20160302&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=54729363,
to be of interest.
Richard said:
Sam – Trump’s 35-45% need more than a “Large Group” called on them, although that might be a start. You’ll have Nats’ tickets.
Charlie – Yup. Another good article, particular as you get to the middle and beyond. Lots of good info there. Thanx for the link.
Land Wayland said:
The Democrats are also playing a dangerous game. They know that, if their polling is correct, Trump will be the worst possible candidate against either Democratic front-runner and there is an excellent probability that the general disgust at his candidacy by Democratic and Independent voters will generate the election of 4-6 new Democratic Senators and 15-20 new Democratic Representatives.
That is why they are silently cheering the Trump train as it continues to careen down the primary tracks to July in the hopes that he is nominated instead of any of the other candidates who would provide legitimate National opposition. In my view, the Republicans are standing on the deck of the Titanic (after it collided with the Tea Party iceberg) singing “Nearer My God To Thee” while the ship sinks beneath their feet.
The Democratic leadership apparently has great faith in the good sense of the American public to reject clearly unqualified candidates while the Republican Party leaders have apparently decided to use the coming debacle as a way of shedding the outliers in the Party who have ruled its rhetoric, airwaves and donors for the last 15-20 years. They have the hope that new Republican candidates at all levels will learn the lesson that some sources of money and some political ideas and some enthusiastic supporters are toxic and they will find ways to avoid them.
The Republican Party last re-invented itself in the 1960s when it realized that it was losing its appeal to voters in New England and the West Coast and it decided to appeal to Democratic voters in the South and MidWest who were disaffected by the Civil Rights Movement and the Progressive Wing of the Democratic party and they vigorously shifted the Republican party into a severe rightward stance. That move was successful and it worked for a while but as the negative tone to that philosophy began to wear thin and began to be exposed as being incapable of generating any new ideas that truly worked, the Party kept moving more and more right until it is began to reap what is has sown and began dropping fatal numbers of registered voters. But instead of reversing course, they have indulged in drinking more and more rancid Tea or Conservative Kool-Aid.
As it did in the 1960’s, the Republican Party leadership knows that it must re-invent itself or it will either be irrelevant for the next 30 years or it will splinter into a much smaller Republican Tea Party, with the ousted and alienated Republicans deciding to seek shelter by becoming either Independents or (horrors) Democrats
I truly hope the Democratic leadership has read the polls correctly and that the Party will successfully reap the crop they think they see growing of the current soil of acrimony and distrust and discord and despair and that they will then use the fruits of that harvest to embrace the enthusiasm that candidates like Mr. Sanders has evoked from our younger generation of optimists. But if they have read the Tea leaves wrong, then our country is in for 20 years of bedlam, until another optimist like Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan or Obama comes along.
Richard said:
Land,
To the degree the Democrats (leadership?) are playing a dangerous game, as you indicate, I think they are out of touch, particularly if Hilliary is the candidate.
She embodies so much of what people are unhappy about that I think her candidacy would bring out Republican, and other voters, who might otherwise stay away from voting in protest of Trump. So often people vote “against” rather than “for” someone or they vote in reaction to the last President.
Hilliary may know and understand the realities of governing (which is quite different than running a business), but at the same time she represents very many of the things that are wrong with the ‘ruling class’, whether they be Republican or Democrat.
Richard Miller
Anon-2 said:
Richard, I agree, both sides are out of touch.
The Wolf article does not impress me; all he does is insult Trump (talk about low hanging fruit!), but there is no substance.
Those in the beltway should heed Carrie’s post below.
The wealthiest counties in the US should be around Silicon Valley, or perhaps the Permian Basin….instead, they are Fairfax and Loudon. It’s as plain as the nose on your face why Trump is popular. He’s a blowhard and a liar…..like EVERY politician is a liar…..he is a narcissist….like EVERY politician is a narcissist. But he’s unapologetic, and funding himself.
I don’t think this is unprecedented….as any history buff can tell you, these debates are pattycake in context.
Signed,
your conservative friend
Anon-2 said:
Oh….and I stand by my prediction…..Biden will be the nominee (‘cus I’m guessing Obama, who hates the Clintons, will kneecap her somehow).
Jim Rocca said:
The Wolfe essay is excellent.
Gosh, I hope it never comes to a Trump presidency. If that does happens (“the horror!”), I think much depends on what type of Congress we elect and who is Trump’s vice president.
Any Congress with respect for the Constitution would immediately impeach Trump if he tried to implement his unconstitutional proposals, e.g., rounding up and deporting millions of illegals.
Suppose Trump was impeached and convicted, would he leave quietly and peacefully, like Nixon? Let’s say he did leave without a struggle, who is the vice president who will succeed him?
If the v-p is Ted Cruz, duck! Cruz is a right-wing ideologue who would seek to enact the extreme conservative (reactionary) agenda. Suppose Congress is packed with tea party- types. They would enact the extreme Republican agenda.
But maybe Trump wouldn’t win. I believe Hillary can beat Trump, but what about the e-mails? What if she is, God forbid, indicted, after the convention and before the election? Who would the Democrats replace Hillary with? Sanders? Could he beat Trump? Biden? Could he?
We’re sailing into uncharted waters.
Carrie said:
I believe many Americans, outside DC and big cities are so tired of our government leaders telling us “what we want” Also being dishonest about what is really happening. Obama ran on “change” and “transparency” Transparency is now a joke and the changes have not been what the people want. I used to be a Democrat but I have seen such a change in the party. How can Democrats support a socialist and a liar. If Hillary lies about Bengazi and emails— how can she keep us safe.
Obama’s policy is not to negotiate with Republicans. He has undermined small business and hurt the middle class along with Black people. Could Trump really do worse? Calling him names does not really explain why Democrats are against him He has been able to negotiate deals all over the world, employee thousands of people and give woman high level jobs. Until we can stop illegal immigration there is no way to know what will happen to all the illegal people here now. I do not want to be in the position of Germany, France etc who have had such serious problems with all the refugees that they have taken.
Richard Margolies said:
Carrie, Thank you for so honestly saying you like what you hear Mr. Trump say, and that you believe he is an honest person. And thank you for telling us you believe the Republicans when they say that Ms. Clinton is a liar. And thank you for telling us you are frightened of the poor desperate people who emigrate to our country, many willing to disregard the laws because they aspire to what we might offer. I thank you for your transparency.
You ask ‘how can Democrats support a socialist…?’ I can’t speak for Democrats as a large group. However, as one Democrat, I can tell you that I enthusiastically do and will continue to support Mr. Sanders because he is a socialist. He is the only progressive visionary in either party. Our country needs many courageous people like him who are willing to run for office at all levels. We need many to work to fundamentally change our rigged economy which undermines what is virtuous in our ideals as a democracy.
Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, was elected in a field of four candidates, and won with 40% of the vote. He went on to move our country significantly, though not completely, toward our potential. He stated it beautifully at Gettysburg, when he said that it was our responsibility as citizens to preserve “the government of the people, by the people, and for the people” so that it would not “perish from the earth”. Try repeating the phrase with the emphasis on The People. How does that sound to you? Do you feel moved, even a little?
Anon-2 said:
A few comments. Carrie can speak for herself, but I don’t see where Carrie thinks that Trump is honest. Also, she didn’t say she “believes republicans when they call Hillary a liar”. She simply said she IS a liar.
To equate socialism and Bernie with Lincoln’s words…..with all due respect, I think you missed the point of the Gettysburg Address…….Bernie doesn’t believe in government of the people, by the people for the people. He believes in government of the politburo, by the politburo, for the politburo. He does not believe in the individual over the state….he believes in the state over the individual, meaning, of course, that he doesn’t believe in freedom.
How does that work out in North Korea and Venezuela?
Anon-2 said:
Oh…and she also doesn’t fear immigrants. She is simply pragmatic; the system is broken and must be fixed. I’m sure she’d be for open borders…if there were no government handouts.
Delabian said:
Rick,
Wolfe doesn’t confront white racism– flat-out racism. Remember when Nixon
needed to find a way to get elected. His “Southern Strategy” moved the white southern Democrats, who were only Democrats because they hated “the party of Lincoln”, into the Republican camp by ending “forced busing” and the enforcement of affirmative action which became “reverse discrimination.” Bush I’s Willie Horton and Reagan’s “welfare queen” kept whites Republican. White people, as a group, cannot deal with not being on top. Maybe I exaggerate, Romanians, Hungarians may not fit my stereotype.
On the other hand, throughout the world — India, Brazil, the Middle East — those with lighter complexions tend to be the upper caste or class. “The white power structure” loves racism. If the white lower classes had their eyes open, they would see that they did not lose their job because a nonwhite person who was not recommended for the job by relatives who had a job in that company, (the normal white affirmative-action), they lost the job because the rich wanted more profit. Employers can hire a minority person at a lower salary. They can make even more money by hiring cheap labor overseas than the profit they could make by giving an American worker a decent wage. The white power structure is delighted that unemployed workers blame unions for demanding a living wage at an “American” standard of living with OSHA secured job safety, instead of blaming business owners and their stockholders who want ever higher profits. It’s the white power structure that has screwed the white working-class. The less you have to pay people, the more profit corporations make so they hire undocumented workers at low wages. The American worker blames the undocumented instead of blaming our corporate structure’s quest for ever greater profits.
Race is key to almost everything here. I am furious with Obama for failing to put in jail the people who tanked this economy. They gave subprime mortgages to Black people who should have had regular mortgages. That Prince George’s County, where the Black middle class is built on government jobs, which are stable, has one of the nation’s highest rates of foreclosure and no one is in jail is galling. I know full well, however, that even the whites who voted for a Black person as president would have difficulty stomaching a Black person destroying the white elite. Others in my community say Obama would’ve been dead by now if he had prosecuted them. I keep thinking that if he had punished them severely, the “Tea Party would have been limited to birthers that everyone knows are flat-out racists. By putting the economic conservatives, angry about the destruction of the economy, in with the racists – all Obama critics are the same – Obama supporters allowed the Tea Party to seem credible. The idea that poor whites hate Obama care when they need it so desperately can be explained by nothing except race. Trump’s talking about providing healthcare. Poor whites will accept it from a white person.
I’m remembering an article in the 1956 U.S. News & World Report about George Wallace. Wallace said that the first time I ran for governor I ran on education, healthcare, jobs. My opponent “outsegged me” (I have never forgotten that term). It never happened again. I was furious. Wallace was laughing up his sleeve at his followers. He was causing all this pain in the black community just to be elected. I have the feeling Trump is the same. He is an opportunist and a user. If he is elected and actually does spend money on infrastructure the way any sensible Democrat would, he can’t possibly shrink government. If Trump isn’t Hitler, vicious to minorities, his followers are going to be so ticked off.
We’re all just waiting. I do, however, have an old high school friend in Canada who has promised us a room if we decide we need to leave.
Just my thoughts. Thanks for the article.
Delabian
Anonymous 11 (different than Anon-2 above) said:
Anonymous 11 says,
The article and comments @ Miller’sTime air many of my thoughts; it was somewhat consoling to read intelligent discourse instead of trumpdump. Large group indeed! (I never expected to actually laugh when I heard that term used!!)
I cannot stress how similar this all feels to How Nixon Got Elected in 1968, slandering HHH as he went. The nation knew he was a crook from the early 1950s (please google Helen Gahagan Douglas and observe Nixon’s role in the Army-McCarthy world) before he was VP. But there was no way to stop what became a Republican juggernaut. At least Nixon kept his poisonous mouth out of the public sphere; listen to his racist anti-Semitism while in the Oval Office, and he sounds just the way Trump does now. But Trump’s position as a mouthpiece for sexism, racism, homophobia, WASP-centric anger, and jingoism has brought out the ignorance of Americans in droves. He is not the only narcissist in the country; the celebrity-crazed American world we have reality-showed ourselves into becoming has found its Fr. Coughlin (please google Fr. Coughlin and “America Firsters”). Trump sounds as if he is endeavoring to create a caliphate.
The late night comedians can only do so much. So I still don’t know what I can do to make it stop just as voting for Humphrey was all I could do back then.
Richard Miller said:
All,
I prefer that people with comments sign their names.
However, I do understand that there are some of you who feel strongly about not having your name on the Internet, and so I will continue to allow Anonymous comments as long as they are respectful.
When they are not, whether written by someone who signs their name or writes anonymously, I will remove those comments.
Richard Miller