Pages

Pages

Thursday, December 10, 2015

Dissecting the Don

6 months ago, I was worried that the 2016 presidential election was shaping up to be one of the most boring in modern history. The conventional wisdom at the time was that Hillary and Jeb would go against each other in the 2016 Battle of Bores with Billions. Now, with Donald Trump polling in the high 30's with only three months until Iowa and New Hampshire, that prediction was, thankfully, far off base.

Trump's success has come to the surprise of most of the US political establishment, media, and punditry. Nobody took his campaign seriously during the few weeks before the first Republican debate, and following the debate, most pundits thought he was finished. Of course, now we know that the exact opposite was true (and that most of the political punditry is worthless).

The same pundits that got everything wrong so far have taken to writing hundreds of complicated articles dissecting the Trump phenomenon, and predicting when or if it would end. But as I see it, the reason for his success is actually quite simple: Donald Trump understands, perhaps better than anyone, that political language no longer has any meaning. American political discourse has been rendered meaningless by decades of Orwellian tactics by the right wing political and media machine. The media, which is supposed to be the caretaker of objectivity in national political discussions, has for decades been complicit in the conservative takeover of the US political economy and therefore has little to no legitimacy in the eyes of the American public, which has been economically crippled and politically marginalized by neoliberalism. The media can yell and scream all day long about the vile, racist, and borderline-fascist comments made by Trump and his supporters, but it will have little to no impact. To steal a line from"Who's Line", 21st century American politics is a place where "everything is made up, and the facts don't matter." 

Trump understands that the political process has no integrity or legitimacy, so he treats it with all the respect it deserves-- which is to say, none. Unlike the more serious establishment GOP contenders, Trump doesnt bother to act as if any part of the process is worthy of anything in and of itself. He sees it as purely a means to an end, and doesn't care how he gets there. Anyone who's read a few lines of his infamous "Art of the Deal" knows that Trump is a master media manipulator, who lives by the "no such thing as bad press" mantra. Anytime he gets a hint that one of his rivals is gaining on him (even in just one state like Iowa), Trump says/does something he knows is popular with the right wing base, and will inflame the media and establishment.

As this chart shows, Trump has spent NEXT TO NOTHING on advertising, compared to his rivals. He is the master of "earned media".


And he probably knows that the reliably short-term memories of the American electorate will allow him to soften and regulate his tone during the general election, and re-cast himself as a practical businessman who just want to "Make American Great Again!!!" Watch for his tone to drastically soften once he has sewn up the primary.

I suspect Trump also knows that policy proposals, especially during hotly contested primaries, are a joke. That's why his plan to cut taxes by $10 trillion, regulate health insurance at the federal level, ban Muslim immigration, and deport all illegal immigrants are so absurd. Since these proposals are meaningless anyway, why not go full-on right wing to suck in as much of the base as possible? So far, this has worked better than any political analyst could have imagined. This is a perfect strategy to woo in a Republican base that has been conditioned to angrily reject nuance and analytic thought.

It is also hard to overestimate how much Trump's ascendancy scares the shit out of the Republican establishment. Trump has swiftly hijacked a political and media machine that many in the GOP establishment have spent their entire lives crafting. From the Powell memo to Citizens United, the GOP has built a system of electoral repression and unbridled corporate financing that they thought would cement their political power for a generation. Then along comes Donald Trump, a billionaire with no political experience, who simply manhandles their entire operation and forces it to his own personal advantage. He easily dispensed the  'inevitable' $125 million Jeb Bush campaign with a few zippy deliveries of the novel "low-energy" line. All the right-wing SuperPACs, attack ads, pundits, analysts, and even Fox News, were no match for Trump's "high energy", wealth, and force of personality. Trump has brow-beaten them all into submission and now has a clear path to the nomination.

Keep in mind, Trump is really not a right wing conservative at heart. He is more likely an Eisenhower Republican, who believes that government has some sort of proactive role in the economy, to do great, 100% yuge things, Big League.  And in all honesty, Trump is a good representative for the United States at the moment- White, slightly overweight, aging, loud, rich, and rabidly unapologetic.

That's why nothing Trump says, controversial or mundane, matters at this point. He's little more than a political opportunist who saw a right-wing base that was ripe for the picking. He took one look at the field of so called "inevitable" Republican candidates, and thought out loud "Hey, I can do better than these bozos!"-- and so far, he has.

23 comments:

  1. The reliably short-term memories of the American electorate will allow him to soften and regulate his tone during the general election, and res-cast himself as a practical businessman who just want to "Make American Great Again!!!" Watch for his tone to drastically soften once he has sewn up the primary.

    Good analysis, Just Gatekeeper, and I particularly agree with that quote, which is why I am not joining other lefties in their outrage over the politically incorrect Trump statement of the day.

    The real question is what would President The Donald do if elected ? My instinct is that the "real" The Donald is the moderate Democrat / Eisenhower Republican that he was for most of his life. I'm not convinced that a Donald Presidency would be so bad and it might even be good in some ways.

    Donald is a pragmatist. Pragmatists, like FDR, Huey Long, and LBJ, have made effective leaders. They know how to wheel and deal to get stuff done.

    That is not an endorsement of Trump, just saying he may not be the Satanic villian the left makes him out to be.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Here, if you want a long but interesting read, are Peter Sandman's views why the race card rarely helps candidates win in national US elections:
    http://www.psandman.com/gst2015.htm#Trump

    ReplyDelete
  3. "My instinct is that the 'real' The Donald is the moderate Democrat / Eisenhower Republican that he was for most of his life."

    I totally agree, Dan. That's why I think he'd be a better president than the other GOP candidates. I hope he wins the nomination.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The race card seemed to work well enough for Nixon and Reagan. :-/

    ReplyDelete
  5. US politics is based on creating coalitions of interest groups. As lot of these groups are single-issue — anti-abortion, white supremacist, xenophobic (anti-immigrant), etc., which defines the conservative base that traditionally votes GOP. The Democratic base is comparable but fairly opposite wrt to interests, mostly socially liberal issues that conservatives oppose.

    Candidates have to shore up the base first to ensure that they turn out in the election and then turn to the center to broaden appeal while throwing a wink-wink to the base that its all just part of the political game.

    So then the game turns to capturing the center while keeping the base highly motivated and active.

    It's all a façade because the Establishment that controls the institutions ensures continuity of policy, which is needed for planning and maintaining confidence. So there is very little actual change that takes place other than at the periphery for show.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Lol. Where have I heard this before.

    Barack Obama governed on almost exactly the same policies and principles he ran on. But a lot of lefties were dismayed, because they had talked themselves into believing that there was a "real" secret, super-progressive Obama who didn't really believe the things he was only saying to get elected. They were wrong.

    So here we go again. The "real" Trump is not the flaming jackass he plays on TV. He has a secret plan he will implement once he no longer has to play to the ignorant morons. Hope springs eternal.

    ReplyDelete
  7. A example of this is what happened in Germany after WWII compared with Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam.

    After Germany was defeated, a few high profile Nazis were prosecuted and hung, others received a slap on the wrist and business continued as usual, since both the US and Germany were focused on opposing the USSR. "Alfried Felix Alwyn Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, often referred to as Alfried Krupp… was convicted after World War II of crimes against humanity for the way he operated his factories; served three years in prison, and was pardoned." Wikipedia . See also Operation Paperclip.

    Conversely, when Saddam went, the entire Baath party structure was taken down with no comparable replacement. As a result the former Baathists joined the jihadists and are now staffing AQ and ISIS. Since Shi'ites are the majority in Iraq, democracy brought Shi'ite rule and accord with Shi'ite Iran, which is just what the US did not want to happen strategically. Russia is now flying and firing missile across Iraq to Syria with the permission of the Iranian and Iraqi governments.

    The goal of removing Assad in Syria is based on the same strategy as Iraq. Everyone knows that Assad himself is not the problem but the Syrian institutional structure, which would have to be disassembled the same way it was in Iraq. There is nothing to replace it with other than Islamists and the strongest is Al Nusra, which is AQ in in Syria. But they are Sunni Islamists who are Wahhabis and Salafis, so that suits KSA and Qatar fine. Genius move, right? what could possibly go wrong with a plan like that?

    Modern governments and societies are based on stability so change is precarious. Leadership changes in democracies but policy remains relatively constant to ensure continuity and stability.

    The point of terrorism is to destabilize a country so that it can be taken over. It's also the prime tool in the CIA playbook, too.

    So don't look for big changers as a result of so-called democratic elections, unless there is a wave election in which a formerly opposition party takes both the executive and legislative branches and gains control of the judiciary. It happens, but rarely, and this sets the tone until the next wave election.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Dan Kervick, Obama had a track record before becoming president as the corrupt protege of Robert Rubin, Rahm Emanual, and Penny Pritzker. Never mind young Obama's stint with the CIA or his involvement in shady Chicago real estate deals. You were not surprised by the fiscally conservative President Obama with the kill list if you paid attention to his actual track record and work history.

    Trump has been a builder, a deal maker, a risk taker,and a reality TV star. I believe that's the "real" Trump.

    That said, Trump is still very much a wild card. Like most narcissistic psychopaths, he's mostly interested in power and will do anything to get it (and keep it). No telling what he would do as president. But my guess is that he would continue to be a builder and a deal maker.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Pearce/Dan L., remember Muslim is not a race it is a religion...

    But leaving the national security issues aside, from an MMT perspective Trump is saying he will pursue a policy to balance the current trade deficit... I think govt probably CAN control that if it controls/regulates ex/im at the borders (ie no more "free trade!")... as opposed to the fiscal balance which govt CANNOT control...

    In fact if he was able to balance the CAD we probably would get a result in the primary balance that was very low at least on a relative basis... a lot closer to balance perhaps to the point where people would start to de-emphasize it...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Barack Obama governed on almost exactly the same policies and principles he ran on.

    More or less, but he did run as the anti-Bush/Cheney, which was the reason for the Noble. He was a huge disappointment on that score, and arguably he upped the ante in some ways or at least turned Bush/Cheney doctrine into precedent, rather than moving in the opposite direction. In that respect Obama has been a disaster.

    I said at the time the 2008 election that McCain would bring catastrophe if elected, but Obama only disaster.

    ReplyDelete
  11. That said, Trump is still very much a wild card. Like most narcissistic psychopaths, he's mostly interested in power and will do anything to get it (and keep it). No telling what he would do as president. But my guess is that he would continue to be a builder and a deal maker.

    I think that from day one a President Trump would be focused on his place in history and would be about carving a legacy that would put him in the running for Best President Ever.

    ReplyDelete
  12. He was a huge disappointment on that score.

    Only if people weren't paying attention. Obama said he would wind down Iraq so we could wind up Afghanistan. And that's what he did.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yeah, I guess Trump's a builder of some kind.

    I always read him as a greedy capitalist pig-boy; a philandering misogynist who married a string of bubble headed bimbos; and a completely shallow narcissist and philistine who is a sort of walking poster boy for Everything Ugly about America - just a big sloppy burger of the nihilistic, amoral, spiritually vacuous, media concocted, post-modern nothingness into which our national life has degenerated. Sort of a Gordon Gecko, but goofier and less intense. I guess there is still something thrilling about that kind of display in the land of the Eternal Teenager. Trump is also kind of a throwback to the early days of pre-crisis neoliberal excess when everyone was falling in love with money.

    One of the more recent escapades in "building", as I recall, was putting another worthless rich man's golf course in somewhere in Scotland, and piling up huge berns around the perimeter so that the rich guys wouldn't have to look at the regular people in their boring houses.

    Some people build societies, communities, institutions or even civilizations. People like Trump just build ephemeral crap to stamp their name on, and leave nothing of real note behind after they have marked up the territory a bit with their piss stains.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'm not sure playing the anti-immigration/anti-Islam religion will play nice in a general election. It's a matter of how many people would mobilize to vote the Democrat candidate just so he doesn't get into power. REMEMBER that people does not vote on average because they like a candidate, they vote because they dislike the opposition the most. This has been certified by recent research...

    IMO Trump would mean an automatic victory for HRC (as it would be for Sanders, but I've my doubts Sanders will be able to pass Clinton), even if I would take Trump any day over HRC, for the reason above, but there is A LOT of time to shape the communication- Trump is playing to win the GOP candidacy, and the Islamophobic and anti-immigration card plays well in that stage. People has very short memory, once he has secured this he will start to change language to fight over the presidency, he is a smart seller (but ultimately he ain't a Mussolini, I agree he is probably more a moderate and that's why the elites and media are scared about what he might do, they are quiet about Sanders because they believe HRC has got it under control).

    Even in a theoretical Sanders vs. Trump election probably president Trump will be able to get more things done (if president Sanders is not followed by a deep change in democratic nominees and a strong grass root movement). In any case I believe that Trump is NOT less electable the clowns in the GOP clown car, and in practice way less dangerous than the crazy Cruz and Carson, or the crony Rubio.

    ReplyDelete
  15. LOL Dan he puts his name on everything.... YUGE!.... LOL!

    "Trump Tower"... Trump Marina... Trump National Golf...

    He was on TV last evening and the announcer said "joining us tonight from his offices in Trump Tower..."

    And my 17 yo asked me "Does he have his own big building in NY with his own name?"

    I said "yes...."

    He said ... "Cool!"

    LOL! So he definitely has the teenager vote...

    Ignacio, Scott Adams now blogs that Trump is going to get the Latino vote to swing by bashing the Muslims...

    You couldnt make any of this up no one would believe it...

    ReplyDelete
  16. Only if people weren't paying attention. Obama said he would wind down Iraq so we could wind up Afghanistan. And that's what he did.

    That's not what I am talking about. Obama made the decision to give the previous administration and the deep state a pass on war crimes and crimes against humanity, effectively making them official US policy.

    Bush, Cheney and Obama all belong in a dock at the Hague, along with every single person that was involved in planning, ordering, carrying out, signing off on and blocking justice concerning this heinous behavior. Obama went on to make it American and to amplify it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yeah, I guess Trump's a builder of some kind.…...

    Hey, that's capitalism you are talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Trump seems stuck in the 30% range. Soon the GOP candidate field is going to narrow considerably and the decisive factor is were those now supporting other candidates will migrate. This is going to determine who wins the nomination.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dan of course you are right. Trump has only ever really built tacky shit. But that's still REAL tacky shit, not fake shit like financial instruments, or political careers based on clueless ideology. Its the lowest of the low standards I know, but hey thats where we are right now in the USA...

    ReplyDelete
  20. This analysis completely misses the point.

    1. Trump has been in the public eye for a long time. People know he's not a hateful person, including his top critics. So he can get away with making politically incorrect statements. And when people like Hillary call him a bigot, people laugh because WHAT WAS SHE DOING BEING FRIENDS WITH A BIGOT?!?! People know its pure demagoguery on her behalf.

    2. Trump is wildly popular because people understand the effect leadership tone. When Obama gets up there and half-asses a speech on immigration or terrorism, regardless of his intent, the message sent to our enemies and illegal immigrants is "I dont care."

    ReplyDelete
  21. I have no interest in defending HRC, but I dont think her and Trump were/are exactly friends. As Trump himself said, he made a donation, and she came to his wedding...not exactly the making of a friendship. More like ruling class acquaintances.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Matt, tell your son. Trump made his money by LICENSING HIS NAME to foreign builders,including the building he lives in in Manhattan. He got his apartment in payment. He charged builders 3-4% of either the building cost, or the building value. I forget which.

    He gave a talk at Wharton abut this in the early 80s when my friend was a student there. Another friend was the personal assistant to the richest Jewish real estate mogul in Manhattan whose name I've forgot. Begins with "R" and it isn't Ratner. Quiet guy. This was before the 1031s kicked in in the late 80s. This mogul called him a po'boy who had to appear in public and generate publicity to keep the foreigners bamboozled that he was an important NYC name. During the 80s in Manhattan, everyone was upset with the Japanese buying up everything in sight, including landmarks. Putting Trump's name on a building got around that. He built a brand: himself.

    Trump is still doing it. If you google '2008 Baja Mexico Trump resort owners lose everything when builders abandon project' you can read that the owners of a Trump resort wanted to sue Trump for their upfront money (pre-paying) when the real builders (foreign) abandoned the project. During discovery, the licensing contract between Trump and the foreign builders indemnified Trump from any failure on the builders' part to complete the project. The golf course in Scotland with rich houses on it is another licensing deal.

    Trump DOES own the former Merriweather (sp?) Post estate Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, which he bought at a fire sale price, refurbished, and turned into a tony private club.

    Trump's campaign finance statement says he's worth $10 billion. It also says he's $275 million in debt. Many of the licensors were Saudis, so his recent comments have probably upset a number of them.

    ReplyDelete
  23. @The Just Gatekeeper,

    Trump's daughter and Chelsea Clinton are best friends. Both married religious Jews, too, but only Ivanka converted.

    ReplyDelete