It’s not too interesting to say that Donald Trump is a nationalist and aspiring despot who is manipulating bourgeois resentment, nativism, and ignorance to feed his power lust. It’s uninteresting because it is obviously true. It’s so true that stating it sounds more like an observation than a criticism.
Lovers of freedom need to confront the views of a man with views like this. What’s more, of all the speeches I heard at FreedomFest, I learned more from this one than any other. I heard, for the first time in my life, what a modern iteration of a consistently statist but non-leftist outlook on politics sounds and feels like in our own time.
What’s distinct about Trumpism, and the tradition of thought it represents, is that it is non-leftist in its cultural and political outlook and yet still totalitarian in the sense that it seeks total control of society and economy and places no limits on state power. The left has long waged war on bourgeois institutions like family, church, and property. In contrast, right fascism has made its peace with all three. It (very wisely) seeks political strategies that call on the organic matter of the social structure and inspire masses of people to rally around the nation as a personified ideal in history, under the leadership of a great and highly accomplished man.
Trump believes himself to be that man.
– From Jeffrey Tucker’s absolutely brilliant, must read, Trumpism: The Ideology
The Huffington Post caused a bit of a media storm earlier today with its announcement that it would be covering Trump’s presidential campaign in the entertainment section. Here’s the announcement:
After watching and listening to Donald Trump since he announced his candidacy for president, we have decided we won’t report on Trump’s campaign as part of The Huffington Post’s political coverage. Instead, we will cover his campaign as part of our Entertainment section. Our reason is simple: Trump’s campaign is a sideshow. We won’t take the bait. If you are interested in what The Donald has to say, you’ll find it next to our stories on the Kardashians and The Bachelorette.
Unfortunately, I have to disagree with this assessment. Trump may be a “joke” to people who see right through what he’s doing, but he’s no joke to his growing number of supporters. The Huffington Post would do far more good covering him religiously, while discrediting him every step of the way. Mocking him will only reflexively boost his support amongst an increasingly desperate and confused citizenry. As much as I wish he were a joke, he’s not. In fact, he’s very real and very dangerous.
Fortunately, Jeffrey Tucker at Liberty.me has penned a piece on Trump that is at the same time brilliant, incisive and necessary. He wrote the article on Trump I wish I had. If we are to ultimately choose liberty as opposed to Trump’s American brand of right-of-center statism, we much expose him for what he is in the context of history. Mocking him, ignoring him and hoping he just goes away silently into the night will not be enough.
Now here are some excerpts from Mr. Tucker’s excellent article: Trumpism: The Ideology
It’s not too interesting to say that Donald Trump is a nationalist and aspiring despot who is manipulating bourgeois resentment, nativism, and ignorance to feed his power lust. It’s uninteresting because it is obviously true. It’s so true that stating it sounds more like an observation than a criticism.
I just heard Trump speak live. It was an awesome experience, like an interwar séance of once-powerful dictators who inspired multitudes, drove countries into the ground, and died grim deaths.
The ideology is a 21st century version of right fascism — one of the most politically successful ideological strains of 20th century politics. Though hardly anyone talks about it today, we really should. It is still real. It exists. It is distinct. It is not going away. Trump has tapped into it, absorbing unto his own political ambitions every conceivable bourgeois resentment: race, class, sex, religion, economic. You would have to be hopelessly ignorant of modern history not to see the outlines and where they end up.
For now, Trump seems more like comedy than reality. I want to laugh about what he said, like reading a comic-book version of Franco, Mussolini, or Hitler. And truly I did laugh, as when he denounced the existence of tech support in India that serves American companies (“how can it be cheaper to call people there than here?” — as if he still thinks that long-distance charges apply).
Let’s hope this laughter doesn’t turn to tears.
Lovers of freedom need to confront the views of a man with views like this. What’s more, of all the speeches I heard at FreedomFest, I learned more from this one than any other. I heard, for the first time in my life, what a modern iteration of a consistently statist but non-leftist outlook on politics sounds and feels like in our own time. And I watched as most of the audience undulated between delight and disgust — with perhaps only 10% actually cheering his descent into vituperative anti-intellectualism. That was gratifying.
As of this writing, Trump is leading in the polls in the Republican field. He is hated by the media, which is a plus for the hoi polloi in the GOP. He says things he should not, which is also a plus for his supporters. He is brilliant at making belligerent noises rather than having worked out policy plans. He knows that real people don’t care about the details; they only want a strongman who shares their values. He makes fun of the intellectuals, of course, as all populists must do. Along with this penchant, Trump encourages a kind of nihilistic throwing out of rationality in favor of a trust in his own genius. And people respond, as we can see.
So, what does Trump actually believe? He does have a philosophy, though it takes a bit of insight and historical understanding to discern it. Of course race baiting is essential to the ideology, and there was plenty of that. When a Hispanic man asked a question, Trump interrupted him and asked if he had been sent by the Mexican government. He took it a step further, dividing blacks from Hispanics by inviting a black man to the microphone to tell how his own son was killed by an illegal immigrant.
Trump also tosses little bones to the Christian Right, enough to allow them to believe that he represents their interests. Yes, it’s implausible and hilarious. But the crowd who looks for this is easily won with winks and nudges, and those he did give. At the speech I heard, he railed against ISIS and its war against Christians, pointing out further than he is a Presbyterian and thus personally affected every time ISIS beheads a Christian. This entire section of his speech was structured to rally the nationalist Christian strain that was the bulwark of support for the last four Republican presidents.
But as much as racialist and religious resentment is part of his rhetorical apparatus, it is not his core. His core is about business, his own business and his acumen thereof. He is living proof that being a successful capitalist is no predictor of one’s appreciation for an actual free market (stealing not trading is more his style). It only implies a love of money and a longing for the power that comes with it. Trump has both.
In effect, he believes that he is running to be the CEO of the country — not just of the government (as Ross Perot once believed) but of the entire country. In this capacity, he believes that he will make deals with other countries that cause the U.S. to come out on top, whatever that could mean. He conjures up visions of himself or one of his associates sitting across the table from some Indian or Chinese leader and making wild demands that they will buy such and such amount of product else “we” won’t buy their product.
Yes, it’s bizarre. As Nick Gillespie said, he has a tenuous grasp on reality. Trade theory from hundreds of years plays no role in his thinking at all. To him, America is a homogenous unit, no different from his own business enterprise. With his run for president, he is really making a takeover bid, not just for another company to own but for an entire country to manage from the top down, under his proven and brilliant record of business negotiation, acquisition, and management.
What’s distinct about Trumpism, and the tradition of thought it represents, is that it is non-leftist in its cultural and political outlook and yet still totalitarian in the sense that it seeks total control of society and economy and places no limits on state power. The left has long waged war on bourgeois institutions like family, church, and property. In contrast, right fascism has made its peace with all three. It (very wisely) seeks political strategies that call on the organic matter of the social structure and inspire masses of people to rally around the nation as a personified ideal in history, under the leadership of a great and highly accomplished man.
Trump believes himself to be that man.
He sounds fresh, exciting, even thrilling, like a man with a plan and a complete disregard for the existing establishment and all its weakness and corruption. This is how strongmen take over countries. They say some true things, boldly, and conjure up visions of national greatness under their leadership. They’ve got the flags, the music, the hype, the hysteria, the resources, and they work to extract that thing in many people that seeks heroes and momentous struggles in which they can prove their greatness.
This is a dark history and I seriously doubt that Trump himself is aware of it. Instead, he just makes it up as he goes along, speaking from his gut. This penchant has always served him well. It cannot serve a whole nation well. Indeed, the very prospect is terrifying, and not just for the immigrant groups and imports he has chosen to scapegoat for all the country’s problems. It’s a disaster in waiting for everyone.
The main reason I chose to start this blog in the first place, was rooted is my deep fear of what might emerge after the current paradigm collapses. I have no doubt something very different is coming, I just desperately want that thing to be freedom, free markets and prosperity as opposed to the disaster that a $2 despot like Trump would bring. His ascension in the polls is very troubling, and makes me wonder whether the public will ultimately choose to rally behind some statist-demagogue wrapped in an American flag when things get bad enough, as opposed to something far more difficult: Liberty. I fear they may eventually choose someone like Donald Trump.
For related articles, see:
You’re Fired – Trump Campaign Tweets Photo of Trump’s Head Next to Nazi Soldiers
Meet the Immigrants Building Trump’s International Hotel in Washington D.C.
In Liberty,
Michael Krieger
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G
Follow me on Twitter.
why are you surprised…? Uneducated masses are just as dangerous as the inadequate leadership that we have. They are like waves, one chasing the other… usually it turns to bloodshed. There is not much you can do… our generation and the next one do not have enough wise people to smooth this cycle, you can only sit and watch another episode unfolding…
and pray it will not be the last one…
😉
Unfortunately, I think you are absolutely right.
Those who know history are doomed to watch people who don’t know history repeat it.
You guys hit the nail on the head here.
Even among family and friends, or those who you once thought might be most capable of understanding what is going on, and most concerned about it–how many actually DO understand or care?
Your edumacated elite have not done a very good job as far as I can see.
“A fascist is one whose lust for money or power is combined with an intensity of intolerance towards other races, parties, classes, religions…The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power.” Henry Wallace
I love the way you conflate “leftism” with “totalitarian” as though you have to be a totalitarian if you’re left wing. Obviously you don’t understand left wing politics, or maybe you just have your own right wing agenda? Having said that, Trump is a bit of a choob!
How could you have possibly come to that conclusion from reading this? The entire point of the article is that “left” or “right” have no monopoly on totalitarianism, i.e.
“Liberals” cannot recognize a statist demagogue if called Democrat.
“Conservatives” cannot recognize a statist demagogue if called Republican
it matters not if trump is president. still worried about who is president.
the cia and corporotacracy is in charge no matter who wins. even if elizabeth warren become president she is not in charge.
the endless celebritization of the presidency ignores the bigger picture of who is in charge. and no president CAN change that even if they wanted to at this point. the last president to even stand up to these people was jfk. and look where that got him.
Perhaps that’s the case. Nevertheless, the fact Trump’s obvious demagoguery is appealing to so many is in fact, disturbing.
democracy doesn’t work. that disturbs you? the problem of social cohesion is always disturbing.
churchiill may have though democracy was the least damaging of ‘systems of governance’.
i disagree with him. every type of governance is suited to its time and place.
democracy is giving way to something more effective eventually. it’s not the system’s theoretical nature that is the debate. there is no debate that governments around the wrold are hyper-corrupt and overindebted.
there’s only one direction to go from here. corruption doens’t get ‘uncorrupted’ by ‘more’ democracy or ‘right’ democracy.
the leadership capture created by our democracy , by the very people whose support for trump you find disturbing, is the problem democracy created.
you can blame goldman sachs and the banks corrupting washington all you want. but as you said with trump—it’s not a criticism its just an observation.
sure the banks are corrupting dc and vice versa. it’s all one big cluster fuck. but if you are disturbed by adults who have low and base level idiotic opinions, you aren’t going to change anything by pretending to us here that you can change their minds.
they ARE the products of our modern actual instance of a democratic system as practiced here in the u.s.
so————-what’s the answer? slavo zizek doesn’t know. but francis fukuyama told him that his book t’the end of thisory’ celebrating the final stage of all political evolution as democracy was COMPLETELY wrong.
a man whose book was like pikkety’s celebrated by the halls of propogandistic academia as encourgaed by the cia and broadcasting board of governors and the state departemtn and deep state———–these memes of democracy were used to justify our nation building imperialism. they were and remain transparent and democracy is NOT the end of any evolution of politics. it’s not superior for any mathematically physical rule of reality and the whole idea that democracy’s can fix the problems they systemically permit, or have a hand in creating, is silly.
our system of political organization is quite clearly nearing a singularity of some sort ————the charade of democracy can continue indefinitely as it did up until the civil war, and then again until fdr’s new deal, but those moments were simply the end of democracy in the united states for a temporary period, as was ww2 if you think of it as a usurpation of the entire nation to enter a massive war.
the question is , how much does a continuous facade of a democratic system actually help or hurt the causes of liberty?
arguably, it hurts. there are many in the liberty movement advocating a constitutional convention. oddly enough so are many neoconservative corporotacracy groups who want to contstiutitonally alter and make permanent the methods by which corporations rule over the government. then again, much of those changes can simply be achieved through the executive authority of the president by way of treaty power. this is wholly unconstitutional and yet it makes no difference so long as no one is succesfully able to challenge this usurpation of legsilative judicial and most importantly the POWER of the states to the federal executive.
you could say we have a democracy now, or you could also say we have a very effective dictatorship of corporations through an executive authority that is well served by the auspices and dressings of a constitutional appearance , replete with ligislatures and judiciaries. and of course, lots of lawyers!.
While I agree completely with Michael’s take on a President Trump, I have to say, Telsa, your analysis of how we are asking the mechanism that brought us to this point to have the moral vitality to save us is very powerful.
“…they ARE the products of our modern actual instance of a democratic system as practiced here in the u.s. ”
Very, very disturbing to contemplate and yet, unassailable logically.
This goes to the heart of the position I hear more and more: only a complete reset offers an opportunity, not a guarantee, of a superior form of social organization.
You are 100% right. The system cannot be fixed by the simulacra of popular rule that democracy holds out. It is broken because the nature of the system has allowed it a one possible, perhaps inevitable, outcome.
In other words, in a democracy, demagogues and totalitarian rule aren’t a bug, they’re a feature.
Trump a would-be despot? That’s nonsense. This country is in the pits but it still has some checks and balances left.
However bad trump may be, I am far more worried about the much more propable Bush v Clinton showdown. Do you really think either of them are any better than trump?
I don’t think they are better than Trump. I think that in the collapse of the establishment we have an opportunity to go in all sorts of different directions, and going in the direction of Trump would be a massively missed opportunity.
The audience at Freedom Fest received Trump’s talk with tremendous enthusiasm. This was an audience of very intelligent, successful business people supportive of self reliance, free markets and the natural rights of men as embraced in our constitution. These were not stupid, gullible people easily duped by a fascist power monger. Trump does not come across as a fascist power monger. Those who try to categorize him as such do so out of a panicked fear that he will upset the category of special interest in which they are esconced and function.
To the unbiased observer and attendee of the Trump talk, he comes across as someone who feels, as exemplified by his own accomplishments in the real world of competitive business, that he can and will flush out the current, corrupt and grossly inept political establishment and replace them with competent, savvy people of principle who will have no obligation to curry to special interest groups but will serve the interests of the nation as opposed to their own scurrilous agendas. Trump is spending his own money. He will accept no campaign contributions, thereby avoiding political obligations. He is not, as his detractors try to categorize him, a seeker after power, money or the status of a Stalin, Hitler or fascist dictator. He has already earned a surfeit power, money and status. A politician’s blood does not run in his veins.
In short, the vile establishment is terrorized by the possibility that Trump will be recognized by the public as a very capable, savvy business man with a realistic grasp of the real world that will enable him to get the U.S. on a stable footing to regain a place in the world as a great nation of free, prosperous and moral people.
Sir, you are clueless beyond belief. Trump is the only national figure speaking to issues that affect the common man, and he is hated and feared by the rest. Trump will be the next President, and he will win in a landslide.
Nobody trumps da Trump. Disclaimer: I know I’m in opposition to Trump on at least the Mil/Ind Complex & support of Israel, and he might have a naive view (or purposely cooked statements) on trade negotiation but ….
The author appears to have employed stark demagoguery in trying to thrump da Trump. All vague labels and assertions with no solid proof EXCEPT the rhetoric itself, which is potent, as it presses the emotive buttons. Nativism?? Uh… that gives it away. The elitist forces subvert our laws and enable huge labor displacement with illegal immigrants (and all the fiscal and crime effects), and the author has the ready label “nativism” for those who prefer sovereignty and rule of law (let alone basic economic, justifiable self-interest). I first heard that coined by, wait for it,… GWB, when trying to excuse illegal immigration. I suggest the author learn the meaning of “sovereignty” before trying to apply to himself the label “liberty”.
Very accurate and well-stated, sir!
Clarification … Demagogue: a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people. ————-
According to that definition, maybe he is. SO WHAT? Actually, stating what all know to be true, unlike all other candidates forever, is refreshing. Is that too logical for the author? The citizens who are sheep-like are still deserving of at least the respect of being told what they know, not the same palaver and BS. They are swimming in untold confusion and bewilderment, as they get reamed. I expect Trump’s chances will grow beyond any expectation. No matter what one thinks, he’s meeting a need. So, Mr. Krieger, in times like this why don’t you publish your prescription for the perfect candidate; how he/she must gloss over and what are the correct views and priorities? You are presumptuous.
The key part of the definition actually comes at the end.
dem·a·gogue
ˈdeməˌɡäɡ/
noun
a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.
A demagogue has an emotional as opposed to logical appeal.
(I forgot to say … I have no intention of voting for Trumpy; rather Rand Paul at this point. And interesting nobody mentions Paul here, author or commenters). ———- Now, Mr. Krieger, you did it again. What exactly was it, in any campaign speech of Trump’s, that was demagoguery without a rational backup? Limit your analysis to that; something narrow that then has a hope of being believable. I actually think Trumpy is sloppy, so such instances can be found. Consider the possibility, if you don’t find any, that your disgust is caused very simply by your unfamiliarity with what he says and why. For that, I have a simple prescription: sample the real world of people who’ve been reamed for decades by blatherers. Trump could be the worst nightmare ever, but he doesn’t blather BS. That’s my simple observation. It’s not rocket science.
Well for one thing:
“If I win, I would attack those oil sites that are … controlled by ISIS. I’d bomb the hell out of the oil fields. I’d then get Exxon, I’d then get these great oil companies to go in — they would rebuild them so fast your head will spin … you ever see how fast they put up rigs? These guys are unbelievable.”
That’s basically how Trump views foreign policy. If you are comfortable with this, we are very different people with very different political views.
No Government in the world is legitimate.
Shoot them all in the head.
Sadly, I’m starting to believe that. Incredibly, our checks ‘n balances Republic (such as it is) is the perfect machine for corruption. This may be why monarchies functioned better: someone to hold accountable, and put on the guillotine if necessary. I say back to the future, ho!
@Krieger … re: quote from Trumpy. Yes, that may well be bat-shit crazy of him. Clever use of militia and Kurds might be better first strategy (which hasn’t worked fully yet). Keep in mind, he cannot blurt out the utlimate details of why he thinks our govt has its head up its arse on trade, etc., since he’d tip his hand – or just show that he’s a moron. Don’t know. So, if one believes & votes for him, it might have to be on principles and some faith. He’d have to convincingly commit to constraints and checks and explain a lot first. I’m voting for R. Paul.
Your analysis is interesting. But, I think perhaps you are a little hard on Donald Trump. There are 15 months to go before the election. I suspect we will be hammered to death with valid and not so valid opinions both rational and irrational. The question is who has the Chutzpah to lead this country after the damage that the current administration has brought forth.
PS… Senators scare me also. They never should have been elected. They should have been appointed by the state’s legislature.
All of the worst demagogues in history have both chutzpah and charisma. That means very little.
Uncle !!!!
Without more cogent talk about the broader ills of illegal immigration and the ignoring of existing law that would prevent it, and means to address it all, The Don does indeed present as a demagogue. Not enough rationality. Still, it could just be he’s about business and a little lazy, that he simply sees a business approach. But, I doubt it. He present enough truth about the causes and broad ill effects. He concentrates on crimes of illegal immigrants like the recent one. He seeks the hot button. Though he might mean well, he’s being a demagogue. He appears to be not bright enough to appreciate that. Well… won’t be the first schmuck candidate, and not the last.
There is simply no voting our way out of this. I find it hilarious any candidate may be better or worse than another.
We live in an oligarchy of administrative tyranny where all the factions scheme and lie and con and cheat and connive for who will be the leader of the ruling regime for the next 4 or 8 years.
All these psychopaths and tyrants want is fool enough people into voting, and it matters not who gets the most votes, but it is enough people who vote who give the state the appearance of legitimacy.
And that is the thing right there.
They need that consent, tacit or given. Without that consent they have to resort to coercion, via threat of force and use of violence, like any banana republic.
Trump, the pants suit, don’t matter, it is those who vote who are the real problem. Without them, non of these clowns would get elected. That could only happen by coup, or by force and violence.
Secession from slavery of the state and abolition of government is the way to go.
There is no such thing as limited government, just as there is no such thing as a little bit of slavery, just as there is no such thing as a little bit of tyranny.
It is only tyranny…
or Liberty!
Truer words never were spoken.
My comments here (separate) were more narrow and just in reaction to the journalism.
Mr Krieger,
This is a terrible article. It has weak support for it’s conclusion (actually I’d argue no support). The average college freshman could tear this to shreds.
One of the main (if not the main) conclusions from you/Tucker is:
“What’s distinct about Trumpism… is that it … seeks total control of society and economy and places no limits on state power. ”
There is absolutely nothing in your article to support this? You/Tucker argue that Trump uses race bating and throw little bones to Christians and then you come to the conclusion that “Trump seeks total control of society and economy and places no limits on state power.” Absurdity.
I read the Tucker article that you referenced, and he takes the absurdity a step further:
“What do capitalists on his level do? They beat the competition. What does he believe he should do as president? Beat the competition, which means other countries, which means wage a trade war.”
Forget the average college student, I think the kids in the special education classes could see this is a slippery slope argument and total garbage. Trump didn’t succeed in real estate and business with anything comparable to trade war. Trump is a deal-maker. Deals means that the competition ends up with terms that are acceptable to them (most deals between good deal makers are even win win). Clearly Tucker has no idea about how Trump operates.
So Mr Krieger, I believe you are doing a disservice by putting out such a nonsensical article.
Regards,
Noah Hudson
Although the messenger is a buffoon, I’m afraid his message maybe be one we need to seriously discuss. Trump is basically saying the things that other first world nations like Japan (and now Germany) are already doing something about. I don’t think this is going to end well for many countries. He’s my argument: http://www.knowmadicnews.com/2015/07/17/bush-clinton-trump-and-xenophobic-japan/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=60&v=eaPwqokBn9M
wesley clark is already preparing for a job in the whitehouse. he will work with elizabeth warren or bush or hillary or rand paul. it makes no difference who is elected.
this is all scripted. literally. cnbc news is prescripted. they know why and when they are saying these things and to what end.
Wow, thanks for this.