Trump is NOT a “populist”

This past weekend, Jeff Stein alleged in the Washington Post that Donald Trump—after three years of promulgating laws and regulations that helped the rich and hurt the poor and low-income—is suddenly confiscating the working class “populist” turf of Democrats in year four, particularly on issues of trade and spending levels. Of course deficit spending hand-in-glove with tax cuts for the wealthy isn’t a “new” phenomenon for Republican administrations, but Stein claims that the fact that Trump doesn’t “care” and that he opposes the traditional Republican “free trade” policies—and that he isn’t exactly a paragon of so-called conservative “values” in general—means that he is a cause of concern for what Republicans actually stand for these days. But Stein goes further, implying that because Trump is supposedly more “aligned” with the Democrats’ “natural” constituency on such issues, this is a cause for concern for Democrats in 2020.

And it’s all bullshit.

If “populist” means to most people something that appeals to “all” people who are not part of the economic and power elite, then calling Trump a “populist” is clearly false—particularly since he himself is a born member of that elite “class,” and everything he has done benefits himself financially, and his political rhetoric is meant only to maintain his position of power to continue to benefit himself and those of his “class.” So the question is what is the “populist” message that Trump is using that tips the scales in his favor with his working class “base”? You won’t find it in Stein’s piece because he never once mentions them: things like racism,  xenophobia, white nationalism and white grievance. George Wallace was also called a “populist” when he ran for president in 1968 and 1972, and everyone knows what he “stood” for. The UK website Open Democracy called out this hypocrisy last October with a post entitled ‘Populist’ Can Be A Weasel Word For ‘Racist’, and That’s Dangerous. The authors made the case that “populist” is the wrong word to use to describe people like Trump:

While much of the media has been happy to settle for the terms ‘populism’, ‘populist’ and ‘populist parties’, the picture is somewhat different for academics. In 2007, Cas Mudde, one of the foremost experts in the field of populism and political extremism, rightly warned that such parties should be called ‘populist radical right’ as opposed to ‘radical right populist’, as the latter would put the emphasis on populism (a secondary characteristic) away from radical right (which Mudde argued was the core of the ideology). However, this nuance appears to have been lost on many, feeding the growing hype about populism, and avoiding the careful work done by many others on typology and terminology, as well as rigorous analysis, over the years.

The authors continue by observing that “the populist hype has led to a dual process of euphemisation and legitimization, whereby far right parties are described in a less negative manner, allowing their ideas to spread more easily into mainstream discourse. The use of ‘populism’ instead of other more accurate but also negative descriptors has been core to this dual process. This choice has been at the expense of other well-studied terms such as far right, radical right or extreme right.” 

Those “negative descriptors” includes words like racism and white nationalism. As I pointed out previously, the media was extraordinarily reluctant to describe the Tea Party “movement” as racist, despite the fact that the paranoia of the “movement” clearly had a racial dimension, particularly in its conspiratorial responses to a black president. Trump himself with that “birther” nonsense was very much a part of this “movement.” Yet the Tea Party was referred to as “populist,” with its supporters simply opposing what it saw as “socialist” policies, a belief that was always a fraud of the purposely ill-informed.

Meanwhile Trump, regardless of what he feels in his “heart” or when he hypocritically puts the one or two minorities who attend his rallies in the group behind him for the benefit of the cameras, thinks nothing of employing racist and anti-immigrant tropes at every opportunity. Except for Fox News and other right-wing media, everyone knows that Trump has employed the race card on many occasions, and yet there is a refusal to apply the “R” word in regard to what is in the hearts of many if not most Trump supporters—in spite of the fact that Trump’s ugly racial and anti-immigrant rhetoric has not put a dent in his support; they obviously “like” what he is saying and doing, like caging children in concentration camps and denying them medical care when they contract deadly diseases. While Trump said almost nothing about the El Paso massacre which he clearly inspired by his racist rhetoric which continues to this day, his sudden “interest” in anti-Semitic attacks does have a “racial” element to it as well: Jews, or at least those that Trump knows, are all white, and he believes that when push comes to shove, they will side with white nationalism, just as Stephen Miller (who is Jewish) has done. 

People like Stein apparently think that racism and nativism are not “necessary” descriptors in regard to Trump’s false brand of “populism” or that of his base support. But the authors of the Open Democracy piece say otherwise: “One does not have to look far to find deeply problematic uses of the word ‘populism’, lending a sense of democratic legitimacy to politicians and actors otherwise defending deeply exclusionary and elitist politics. While it is of course understandable for journalists and commentators to ensure that their claims are not defamatory, the use of the term ‘populism’ is clearly not neutral. It is not surprising that the term has been openly embraced by some.” It goes on to name far-right racists and politicians who have used to the term “populist” to describe themselves, like France’s Marine Le Pen, Britain’s Nigel Farage, and Richard Spencer and Gavin McInnes in the U.S. Furthermore, 

As a result, racism often seems to be sidelined: not as an overt political tactic, but because people think that the term is too polemical, difficult to define or requires more evidence, sometimes for fear of defamation. It is thus usually only used in the context of the liberal democratic order to describe the most extreme cases, such as instances which link to historical forms such as slavery, biological racism and Nazism or fascism. The process of euphemisation takes place not when racism is in these historical and almost caricatured forms, but in its more subtle and structural manifestations. This facilitates the denial of racism, as we see in the construction of the ‘post-race’ narrative, according to which our societies are said to have overcome racism, bar in its most extreme and exceptional forms. This means that systemic discrimination and subtle forms of racist politics, for example claiming to target religion or culture instead of race, are ignored. While concerns over defamation are understandable, this approach is nonetheless flawed as racism and the mainstreaming of racist ideas in public discourse has a far clearer measurable impact for those at its sharp end, than concepts such as populism, nationalism or nativism.

The authors debunk the claim that we live in a “post racial” world, and that racism is “in the past.” The demonizing and dehumanizing attitude toward Hispanics and Hispanic immigrants in this country that Trump and Miller have fostered clearly reveal as much. Using the term “populism” attempts to undercut and even deny the reality of this racism; “Moreover, when this is called out, accusations of racism are often portrayed as being worse than racism itself, and even at times a kind of reverse racism.” An example was when a UK morning television show host, Naga Munchetty, was suspended for commenting about her experience with “embedded racism in relation to Donald Trump’s ‘go home’ comments. The BBC’s justification was that in an attempt at impartiality, it does not condone ‘calling out people for being liars or racist.’” 

Although there are those in the U.S. media who are willing to call out Trump—especially the Washington Post with its ongoing count—on his many lies, there are few who are willing to make the connection between Trump’s racial and anti-immigrant rhetoric and actions with what his “base” wants as well. This is not “populism,” this is racism, and white nationalism. Period.

Packers manage to play better than hapless Lions in second half to earn playoff bye

With a playoff bye on the line and even the top seed in the NFC in the cards if the Seahawks beat the 49ers, the Packers only needed Aaron Rodgers to avoid putting up one of his periodic stinkers against the Lions, although to be fair he’s put up about a half-dozen or so against teams not called the Lions this season. That fear seemed to be a real-life nightmare as Rodgers completed just 2 of his first 11 passes as the Packers fell behind 17-3 at halftime. By the time Mason Crosby missed another field goal early in the third quarter (he missed five in Detroit last season), Rodgers was still just 11 of 23 for 118 yards. After that, although he would still almost throw the game away with a late interception, the Packers would dominate on both sides of the ball the rest of the way, outscoring the Lions 20-3. 

Although Aaron Jones rushed for 100 yards, the Packers spent most of the second half trying to get Rodgers and his receiving corps in gear, very much a hit-or-miss proposition, something that has been a problem when Davante Adams has been in the line-up, for whatever reason. Rodgers threw 37-count-them-37 passes in the second half, completing just 18 but for 233 yards and two touchdowns. Again, as last week, cold air was not the problem, as the Detroit area was experiencing a downright balmy 50 degrees; in fact some parts of Michigan were experiencing record high temperatures. 

So now what? Did the Packers performance against the now 3-12-1 Lions put any doubts to rest? Hell no, but somehow this team manages to win games. Few “experts” think that Matt LaFleur is coach-of-the-year material, yet in his first season despite the lackluster play of HIS offensive scheme, the Packers are 13-3, compared to winning 13 games combined the last two years of Mike McCarthy’s reign. What does this mean? We’ll give the defense some credit for playing good enough when it needed to, especially against questionable quarterbacks, and the offense doing just enough to outscore the opponent in all but three games. Rodgers managed to squeak by the 4,000 yard passing mark, and Jones gained over a 1,000 rushing. Except for last week against Vikings when they turned the ball over three times in the first half, the Packers have played mostly turnover-free football. 

On the negative side, besides the offensive inconsistencies, the Packers defense has been prone to falling into deep slumbers on occasion, and against the likes of the Saints, Seahawks and 49ers that is not a recipe for victory. No one can see the Packers blowing out those teams; winning “ugly” seems to be the best that can be hoped for.

Democrats need to start talking in one voice soon to counter Trump's campaign "message"

Donald Trump decries the “carnage” caused by Russian and Iranian forces in northern Syria, a problem he thinks that his dictator friend Recep Erdogan is going to “fix” for him; Trump neglected to mention that the reason for this “carnage” was this dim bulb’s waking-up-on-wrong-side-of-the-bed decision to pull U.S. troops out of the area. Meanwhile, Trump wants to declare Mexican drug cartels “terrorist” groups; assuming this isn’t just a rhetorical pitch to his fan base, such a move would rock the entire Mexican economy and institutional structure, and send more people heading to the border. After the “success” against Colombian cartels merely moved the epicenter of the drug trade to Mexico, “success” in Mexico means what? A return to the 1920s, when organized crime syndicates in the U.S. had local politicians and police in their hip pockets? Except instead of illegal booze, its illegal drug production and sales. I mean, someone has to supply the insatiable domestic demand.

George Conway opines that world leaders see Trump as a “deranged idiot”; well, why not? This is a guy for whom things like dishwashers and windmills really annoy him. If Trump was just some guy at work, he would be someone you thought was just some jerk you had to tolerate and be glad you didn’t actually have to go home with him. Someone with his personality, knowledge and judgment would be the last person you’d think would be “qualified” to be anything higher than the lead on the night shift at Burger King, and he’d probably get fired from that job after being caught on a viral cell phone video conducting a racially insensitive rant toward a customer or an employee. For people like Trump, everything boils down to the petty and personal; he never looks at the “big picture” or considers what other people think, because such things are beyond his ability to cogitate. In “business” as in life, Trump’s only concerns are the things that affect him personally, his likes and dislikes, and it’s the same with his “base.” He is almost childlike in that sense. 

The new Trump campaign “slogan” is “Keep America Great”; anyone with any sense knows that Trump has brought this country to its nadir in “esteem” internationally, and domestically its moral and ethical decline has been even more steep. The country’s “better angels” have yet to emerge. Since it seems unlikely that this country can survive another four years of Trump, it becomes imperative that he is defeated in 2020. But no matter how ridiculous it may be, so far it is only Trump's "message" that is getting out; for those who don't like to think too much, one is better than none. To "counter" it, we only have a mishmash of competing theories of what the electorate "really" wants.

However, if you are hoping that a suitable Democrat emerges any time soon to deliver whatever message that turns out to be, that might be a challenging proposition. With polls now show Trump ahead of all Democratic challengers in key swing states in the Midwest, it is imperative that someone very soon becomes the frontrunner, meaning the quicker Democrats can start speaking in one voice against Trump. We don’t need a crowded field to gum-up the works. There are those who are saying the recent debate stages were too “white,” but whose fault is that? Barack Obama stood out because he had charisma and the look and feel of someone who was presidential; Kamala Harris and Cory Booker just didn’t have “it”—although to be honest, I can’t really say than anyone else has “it” going forward. 

Who is it going to be? Pete Buttigieg? His name aside, there has got to be something wrong with a guy that Cher is supporting. Joe Biden continues to be the “safe” choice, but who knows what “revelations” are going to emerge, even if they are not precisely true; Trump says he isn’t going debate the Democratic nominee, and that might actually help Biden given his propensity these days to lose his train of thought. Elizabeth Warren to me just comes off as someone a bit on the flakey side; I suspect voters will fear she is capable of anything and nothing. Michael Bloomberg? I dunno, maybe he just seems too much the Wall Street elitist type to really “catch on” with those working class voters in the Midwest the Democrats lost to Trump in 2016. That leaves as a “serious” contender Bernie Sanders. I thought he was the Democrats best chance against Trump in 2016, and compared to what else is out there, I think he is their best hope in 2020, since he should still have credibility with those white working class voters, plus he has certain qualities that Trump lacks, like morality, ethics and truth, if any of those things still mean anything to those voters. 

In any case, the Democrats can’t afford to have a drawn-out, confused primary season. Someone has to catch the imagination of voters, and quick. As it stands, Trump is dominating the “message,” and Democrats need to start putting out a single message to counter it. In the 1932 pre-Code film No Man of Her Own, a desperate Dorothy Mackaill tells Clark Gable that she’s going to jump out the window if he leaves her; Gable deadpans “I can’t count on you.” In 2020, we can’t count on anything in this country gone crazy.

The religious right abandoned all claim to moral or ethical "authority" when it embraced the anti-people policies of the political right.

In order to insert some holiday cheer into the proceedings, let’s talk about the recent religious controversies via competing Christian publication editorials. First came the Mark Galli editorial in Christianity Today, a publication whose stated mission is to “help evangelical Christians interpret the news in a manner that reflects their faith,” in which he not only backed the impeachment of Donald Trump but his removal from office, and decried the “moral and political danger we face under a leader of such grossly immoral character.” In response, the “real” evangelical “Christians,” apparently represented in the Christian Post, hit back with a pro-Trump editorial, which blasted Galli as an “elitist,” attacked Trump’s impeachment as “unconstitutional,” and praised its readers’ “prudential” support for Trump and his policies—presumably including his lying 15,000 times, using foul, “unchristian” language constantly, caging children in concentration camps, and other “Christian” activities. One of Christian Post’s editors, Napp Nazworth, resigned in protest over the editorial’s partisan agenda, having previously noted that “evangelicals who rationalize Donald Trump’s misbehavior are sacrificing their moral authority at the altar of politics.” 

I don’t pretend to be any “expert” on religion; I was born and raised a Roman Catholic, and attended a Catholic grammar school for eight years. Attending mass six days a week during the school year didn’t make me anymore “devout,” probably the opposite. Every week you had to go to confession, even if you hadn’t actually done anything wrong; I always wondered what the priest who heard my confessions thought, since it was the same one every time: I lied three times, took the Lord’s name in vain twice, and talked back to my parents once. And I always received the same “penance” for lying about lying. When I joined the Army I quit going to church, because I had a choice. Still, my dog tags continued to denote my religious affiliation as “Roman Catholic,” and I guess I’m just too lazy to call myself anything else, especially since I feel contempt for people who have the left the church for the “evangelical” crowd because they don’t like feeling “shamed” for not following traditional teachings.

Outside the “established” Christian sects (Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, the Church of England, Lutheranism), most Protestant denominations fall under the “evangelical” umbrella. As to whose moral “system” is “superior,” between Catholic and Protestant beliefs,  a  post on a website called The Library of Economics and Liberty, written by some guy named Bryan Caplan,  states that “As a moral realist, I think the most important question is ‘Which ethical view is correct?’  And as a moral institutionalist, I judge the Protestant approach plainly superior.  The moral case against adultery is easy to grasp; the moral case for celibacy (!), not so much.  The moral case against hating people who have done you no wrong is easy to grasp; the moral case for loving (!?) total strangers, not so much.  And if an action is wrong merits condemnation, not pity for the “human weakness” that many humans habitually overcome.” I find it particularly despicable here the lie that Protestants—at least of the religious right sort—do not hate certain people or groups regardless, or lack thereof, of reason (Barack Obama, Hispanic  migrants), and that they somehow believe that practicing dehumanizing bigotry doesn’t constitute “human weakness” in themselves.

And, of course, there is that little thing about the hypocrisy of what merits  condemnation in regard to Trump. Apparently for evangelicals of the religious right, there is nothing to complain about.

We can add to that belief system the assertion that people are born either “good” or “bad,” that people of “faith”  have no sins to confess (well, unless your name is Bakker or Swaggart), and whether someone is rich or poor is their “predetermined” lot in life. Furthermore, in order to be welcomed as an the evangelical, one must “prove” that they have washed away all shred of sinful doubt about the “true” version of the Christian faith, which frankly implies that as long as you have “faith,” nothing evil done in the name of said “faith” is “wrong.” Naturally, the Republican Party since at least 1980 fits right into this “ethos” and “moral order.” And of course it was the “religious leaders” the likes of Pat Robertson, Billy Graham (“America’s pastor”) and Jerry Falwell who began the far-right politicization of religion. The self-consciousness about the obvious un-Christlike moral and ethical beliefs of the religious right can ascertained by Falwell’s denunciation of Christians like Galli who “think they are more moral and smarter than the rest of us,” apparently in defense of the kind of ignorant bigots Trump attracts at his rallies. 

The religious right obviously has no need for the part of the New Testament that describes the Sermon on the Mount, which spells out the “new” standards of morality and ethics of the new religion.  Jesus tells the gathering that the old laws of “retribution” are out, and “in” is the law of “love,” even for one’s enemies. It makes you wonder if evangelicals on the religious right actually have the “right” to call themselves “Christians” at all.  Some of the Beatitudes as transcribed in Mathew uttered in the sermon can clearly be abused by hypocrites, but others are less open to “interpretation”: “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy; Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God; Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” Right-wing evangelicals tend to be none of these things.

Unfortunately, the religious right and evangelicals have been too closely aligned with far-right politics, meaning anti-people, anti-labor, anti-environment, pro-corruption, pro-moral and ethical “confusion”—and of course racist and nativist. Perhaps for white nationalist types, evangelicalism provides a so-called “moral order” that keeps the “others” at arms-length so that they can pursue their vision of white “purity.” To people or groups who are the victims of prejudice, “moral order” as defined by the religious right means nothing more than a “system” to perpetuate prejudice and discrimination. The Christian Post worries that the “credibility” of religion is “endangered” if it abandons Trump even when confronted with his moral and ethical outrages; the truth is, those it speaks for on the religious right long lost their credibility in mainstream society when they decided to abandon Christ for political power.

Packer D "dominates" awful Vikings offense, division title clinched

Oh, yes there was a Monday Night Football game. Although the final score of 23-10 did not necessarily reveal it as such, this game was the closest all season that the Packers have come to a “dominant” performance on both sides of the ball, marred only by three first-half turnovers, two of which led to short-field scores which the Vikings were barely able to muster. The Packer D cut Kirk Cousins back down to his normal size; on 37 pass plays (including those leading to sacks) the Vikings managed a measly 82 forward yards passing—meaning just 2.2 yards per pass play. In total, the Vikings were held on their own home field to seven first downs and 139 yards total offense. Although the Packers only forced one turnover, the way the Viking offense was “running,” their motor was mostly in “idle” all game, with even their longest drive of the game—31 yards—being swiftly halted by a Cousins interception.

On offense the Packers were not exactly turning night into day—especially in the first half with three turnovers and three stalled drives leading to field goals. Despite outgaining the Vikings by more than 3 to 1 at halftime, the Packers still trailed 10-9. But unlike the Vikings they were at least showing some life on the offensive side, and two touchdown drives in the second half without providing any “gifts” to the Vikings ended any further suspense. Aaron Jones made-up for an early fumble by scampering 56 yards for a touchdown midway in the fourth quarter, and Cousins could only flail about helplessly in response. Jones finished with 154 yards rushing, helped along without the presence of snow or rain. 

The Packers showed some “balance,” in a fashion, on offense—199 yards passing, 184 yards rushing—but one should not be fooled by the notion of “balance” here: this was another subpar performance by Aaron Rodgers. It wasn’t like the weather should have been a factor—U.S. Bank Stadium is a covered venue and protected from the elements—but given Cousins poor play, maybe the temperatures were (oh wait, isn't the stadium heated to room temperature?). But then again we’ve seen Rodgers have a miserable game in the balmy climes of Southern California this season, and he threw for only 104 yards on 33 attempts against the 49ers; but this game featured a season low 68.3 passer rating. Maybe the Packers are winning in spite of him, which isn’t necessarily a “bad” thing since Tom Brady isn’t exactly lighting up the world either, but the Patriots keep winning anyway. But you can only go so far with that analogy: I’m not ready to put Matt LaFleur in Bill Belichick’s league yet.

Nevertheless, the Vikings' awful performance did at least provide the appearance of a dominating win for the amazingly 12-3 Packers. Next week is in Detroit which should be more or less a gimme game and one more opportunity for Rodgers to “get right” for the playoffs.