More words on the “three-way fight”
December 10, 2017
Posted by on
If we look at the election, it is clear that a space emerged for Trump (and his inventers Steve Bannon and Robert Mercer) to address the needs of workers, who were largely white, in a manner democrats could not. Trump could give a talk in Detroit saying that he would stop the import of foreign cars, his “American first” economic nationalism. No Democrat could give that sort of a speech because although they are committed to ethnic diversity, they are not interested in class issues and do not care about ordinary workers, black or white. At least Trump appealed to whites.
The anti-globalization left thought that having Trump (supported by the anti-globalization right) would mean that the false face covering up American imperialism would be torn off (which would be healthy) and that he was not looking to start new wars, or to expand in the Middle East. Of course Trump made statements, probably sincere, that he wanted to eat a hamburger with Kim Jung Eun and that US policy in the middle East, starting with the invasion of Iraq in 1992 was all mistaken.
Sadly, Trump is a political amateur and had no network at all in the military industrial complex. He was very quickly captured and put in a cage, reading off a script written up by the far right.
But those “conservative” flavor of globalists basically speak the same way to Goldman Sachs or to Lockeed Martin as do left wing globalists (like Clinton, or for that matter Sanders). But in their appeal to ordinary citizens they stress Christian values, patriotism, a strong defense and law and order. Clinton would speak to her audience more in terms of “diversity” “opportunity” and “innovation.” But the fundamental interests are basically the same for both groups, granted the Democrats take more money from Hollywood and media, from biopharmaceutical, and from specialized investement banks whereas the Republicans take more from fossil fuel companies, defense contractors and retailers and providers.
there are certain poses of a strong and confident leader that are essential to be a Republican politician that are just visually offensive to diversity Democrats. Democrats have to look like they are participatory, not strong leaders barking orders like a lieutenant or a preacher.
We should not mistake that show for the actual nature of power and money relations.
But although these Republican politicians want to give a message of “America first” they cannot say no to investment banks that fund them and cannot come out against free trade even though their followers want them to.
Steve Bannon and Trump found a weak point here and are pushing symbolic acts of economic nationalism as a way of carving out a separate party within the Republican party which is a union of globalists with other priorities than the Washington consensus with anti-globalist right wingers who want immigrants out and blacks and Jews back in their place.
In current American politics, since 20000, the political parties, and the government itself, is perceived by Americans in general, and especially the right wing as innately hostile to the people.
Yet question of how to respond to the alienation citizens from politics and government that expressed in the media and in political discourse phrased in rather complicated and contradictory ways.
The odd political debate is often an interference pattern of the perspective of the three distinct political ideologies described who are in a fierce three-way fight which is never discussed in the media. The three groups, in alternation, pair up with each other, or confront each other, in an unending cycle that confuses anyone thinking in terms of left vs. right.
For the original essay see