Those who are cheering themselves after the recent, erm, event with the hope that the Trump presidency will come to grief will be encouraged by the last day or two, in which it has become clear that Trump’s transition team is in a state of disarray and plagued by infighting between different camps. The transition team is charged with getting the president prepared to take over the most powerful country in the world, sourcing 4000 executive appointments from the cabinet on down, and creating a policy implementation plan for the new administration.
Until last week, it was headed by the hapless Chris Christie, who has spent the last six months being Donald Trump’s airbag. But Christie was moved aside on Friday and replaced by Vice-President-elect Mike Pence. With Christie went Mike Rogers, an experienced national security adviser. The reason? Christie was always a stop-gap, apparently, never in the running. His sin? As a prosecutor he had gone after the father of Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, and close adviser, for white-collar crime. Seems Christie, the poor schmuck, was being used all along.
Then, yesterday, it was said that Mike Pence was no longer in charge of the transition team. Who is now? Apparently Jared Kushner.
So, yes, one scenario is that, come January, the Trump administration takes power and staggers from crisis to crisis, all the while forgoing the populist domestic agenda it had set, in favour of a by-the-books Republican one, and thus discrediting itself utterly with its base.
But there is far too much hope being placed in that, a remnant of the belief that Trump can’t possibly have won, that this isn’t happening. It is, and it will continue to. Whether Trump succeeds or fails, even on his own terms, the administration will roll on. And what an administration it will be.
[Rundle: America, and the Donald, is trying to get used to President Trump]
The Trump administration is now an extraordinary constellation of power and influence, drawing together politics, commerce, media and international relations. Trump sits at the centre, both in control and as a ceremonial head, and his three children and one son-in-law will simultaneously run his companies, while also being involved in the decision-making at the White House.
“Senior strategist” Stephen Bannon runs Breitbart.com, the white nationalist website, set up with the money from the Mercer family, big Trump backers. The Trump admin is now restricting information released to the mainstream press, and leaking to Breitbart. Bannon’s connections lead to Russia, as do Trump’s (through Russian banks), as do his former campaign manager Paul Manafort’s — an adviser to the pro-Russian side in the Ukraine civil conflict — as does Rudy Giuliani, a candidate for secretary of state, whose consultancy company has links with every bastard imaginable. Oh, and the Trump organisation is making links with Marine Le Pen in France and numerous other bastards on the European hard right. Ha, even better, there are right-wing Israeli links too. Though Breitbart.com and Bannon tread into anti-Semitism, they have strong links with Likud, and further-right elements in Israel. The kiss of the whip was Alan Dershowitz coming on TV to say that we “shouldn’t judge” Bannon for what he has reportedly said, just see what he does. This is all falling into place.
Nor should you take any comfort in the idea that this will inevitably fall into chaos. The Trump team, for all their disarray, are quickly conforming their program to the Republican mainstream — abandoning the idea of tariffs, for example, to “tax credits” for companies that won’t offshore, which of course wont stop anything offshoring. Both team Trump and the Republican Congress are relying on the idea that a few headline wins — a shitload of bombing on Islamic State, manifest cruelty to undocumented migrants — will sate the base enough to give them a couple of years of breathing space. And they may be right.
[Rundle: why Americans will vote for Donald Trump]
This may all be over in a few years, after more chaos, failure to deliver, looting of government, etc, and that’s certainly something to work for. But even if it’s only temporary, what is happening in the world now is nothing less than a total collapse of the liberal order in the West. What was established in 1945 as a workable framework for the mediation of class conflict and a way of proceeding to a fairer, more reflexive, less unequal, and thus more liberated society, has, in the past quarter-century, been trashed by what I’ll call a “liberal centre” — to avoid pointless arguments about the N-word (“neoliberal”) — which has imposed an order combining global free markets, open borders, a winnowing of industrial employment, a steady erosion of wages and conditions and a lack of retraining and re-employment. Simultaneously, a rising progressive class has been too willing to use institutional and cultural power to impose progressive-class values, which place an overemphasis on abstract and general rights and involve a denigration of the traditional worlds people find their meaning in. The latter would not be nearly so significant, if the former process –free-market globalisation — had not done most of the demolition work.
Given their head by the end of the Cold War and the standing-down of a certain type of static-national-security state, those of the “liberal centre” have wrecked the joint. They have taken a prosperous West, moving forward towards a more socially liberal future, and, via their monomaniacal extremism for the simple principle of atomised market relations, made quite reasonable people so desperate for some sort of social ground, some solidity to their existence, that very reasonable people will go rushing towards Trump, Brexit, Le Pen or anyone who comes along. When they do so, the 30% or so of the population who one could call the “progressive class” — and who pride themselves on being literate and numerate — berate the other 70% for their racism, sexism, etc, and expect political victory.
[Usury suspects: media gumshoes have fingered five main culprits for Trump’s win]
In Australia, all that has prevented the hard right from becoming a major force has been our long run of prosperity, which has made communalist ethno-nationalism a place for eccentrics and dysfunctionals. When the prosperity collapses, or merely stalls, as it must, the hollowing-out will be all the worse — since millions of people will realise they’ve been conned. In a settler society, still Anglo at its core, the anger will be something to behold. We are not very well prepared for this shift, as evidenced by the fact that three days debate and umpteen articles can be given over to an angry exchange on a TV show.
Whatever else we want society to be, it needs a pluralist liberal culture (not a totalitarian, intolerant one) as a feature of its public sphere, and a few other liberal things besides. Those of us who aren’t liberals or progressives have long known how fragile the liberal order is, and how hubristic and intolerant progressivism has been. Those who value the best of both should do some reflecting on how reasonable societies oriented towards a progressive future became so quickly transformed, and the role they played in it. That’s necessary even if Trump, May, Le Pen, and godhelpus Abbott Mark II, or whoever, screw up. If they don’t, it will be a matter of life and death.
I’m failing to understand the reasoning behind these navel gazing articles. The omission of any differentiation between liberalism and neoliberalism is confusing, but ill leave that alone.
My question is, apart from “berating” the 70% for their views (whatever that means), what have progressive liberals actually done to bring about this mess?
Why blame that section of society that has always stood for greater tolerance for the ills of that section of society that never has?
And what can progressive liberals do in the future to shore up our fragile system?
This article, and the thousands like it that have been printed all over the world since the election, do nothing to answer these questions.
well, it’s in the article – on the reasonable assumption that humans have a need for settled worlds, some sense of ground, that makes meaningful life possible, the creation of borderless societies, in which increasing areas of social life are subject to market relations – which can close down a factory, a town, an industry – in a day, many people are rebelling. Its been imposed on them.As have cultural regimes emphasising abstract rights. So as a rejection of such, they’re choosing quasi-dictators, who they think will anchor what remains.
Not hard to understand, is it?
Well, it is hard to understand, Guy. First of all, 70% of the US population did not rush into the arms of trump & Co. trump’s win was narrow and relied on small towns. In Pennsylvania he had only a 2% win overall, which was mainly based in small towns and cities, where he led strongly. There is an even smaller basis for a Trump like figure in Australia. Before WWII we had closet Nazi’s and a right wing movement, whose most daring act was to cut the ribbon at the opening of the Sydney harbour bridge, although they did continue their military drills through the 1930’s.
Secondly, you seem to be appealing to Axel Honneth’s idea that an overemphasis on abstract rights provides inadequate recognition of the individual and cultural qualities of people. there is much to Axel Honneth’s idea but it is not at all inconsistent with liberalism. In some societies and circumstances, it may be hard to enjoy both abstract rights and recognition of the positive contributions of cultures and individuals, but they are not inherently at odds.
Your reference to the “liberal centre” might also be a bit baffling to many. We have had predominantly right leaning governments in the Western world, although Tony Blair’s government was less right leaning than the Conservatives wanted to be. Blair’s right lean was unmistakable though: without a right lean, why would he follow George W. Bush into that enormous folly of the neo-coservative invasion of Iraq, which any left leaning person opposed? If he were not right leaning, why would he be mates with Rupert Murdoch, until Rupert got upset with his relations, whatever they might have been, with Wendy Deng?
Our Hawk-Keating government was left leaning in many ways but it still leaned to the right in believing free capitalist market would allow both workers and capitalists to advance. To an extent they did in Australia, but that has not stopped inequality growing.
Your discussion, Guy, gave me an impression of being a diversion from the main problem: the great and growing inequality in the US and everywhere else in the Western capitalist world. Trump will not solve this, he will only make it worse. Trump’s appeals to restoration of Empire are part of this diversion. They will mask growing inequality with the delusion of nationalism at the expense of others for a while but they will not work forever. they will fail farcically, because a US that now represents only 20% of global GNP will never regain the status it had when it represented nearly 50% of global GNP in the aftermath of WWII.
Are “cultural regimes enforcing abstract rights” or are they enforcing real, hard fought for rights of the historically disenfranchised?
Guy, what does “a rising progressive class has been too willing to (…) impose progressive-class values, which place an overemphasis on abstract and general rights and involve a denigration of the traditional worlds people find their meaning in.” really mean? And I don’t mean in an abstract sense. Can you give me an example of an abstract right that the progresssive class has over-emphasised? And can you walk me through the the porcess by which this has denigrated the traditional world people found their meaning in? I’m not being intentionally obtuse, I seriously don’t understand it. It’s an argument that one way or another has been bandied about for a while now, but it awlways remains quite opaque of what that means *specifically*. At what point should this progressive class have stopped and said “hang on, by pursuing this abstract right we’re denigrating someone’s traditional world; let’s not go down that abstract right road.”
And the other thing – apart from that progressive class, you mention the “global free markets, open borders, a winnowing of industrial employment, a steady erosion of wages and conditions and a lack of retraining and re-employment”. Yeah, I totally get that – that’s actually quite sepcific. But the people who were going on and on about those abstract rights and those who were manic about the atomised markets – they were rarely the same people. I’m not sure there’s much overlap between the two groups.
Too often one group just didn’t care much about what the other group was doing; sometimes they were fighting each other; but they were hardly ever the same. So who is that “liberal” centre that did both those things?
second point first. yr right, theyre not the same groups. or they weren’t. the economic liberals often had conservative values, progressivists were hooked up with the labour movement. that’s starting to come apart now. the economic right arent thatcherites, preserving victorian values. they’re pro gender equality, ssm, links with asia etc. on the other side, some progressives are increasingly indifferent to economic struggles, since their social class position is increasingly prosperous and powerful. liberal economic arguments start to make sense. The UK tories are an example of this (recently shifting rightward to deal with UKIP).
to the firs question, i think people are getting jack of: workplace HR behavioural training, ditto in universities, speech codes in such, intense behaviour-shaping programmes in schools, the notion of inevitable ‘right’ in something like the ssm debate, institutions like the afl becoming values enforcers, debates which pick up on minor issues – like the steve price thing – and turn them into vast symbols of sexism, opportunities for denunciation, etc – that wld be the start of my list.
Thanks for the reply, Gut – appreciate it.
What I think I mostly disagree (and where my trouble to empathise with the argument stems from) is that I find the opposition to HR policies, `speech codes’, the AFL etc. to be based in even more silly, manufactured outrage than these policies, codes etc. themselves are. If we find the moral zeal around introducing ‘safe schools’ hard to believe, the moral zeal around getting rid of it *really* boggles my mind. If I had to make up a campaign that’s less relevant to the ‘real’ problems for the majority of people than the introduction of transgender bathrooms, it’d probably be a campaign against them. So, this is really a thing where I’d say to left and right: it takes two to tango.
And how much do these discussions really affect real people? I work at a *university*, commonly argued to be the hellhole of PC. In the last six years, I have spent a total of 90 min on some training to prevent sexual harassment; I have not had to change a single word of a single paper I wrote or teaching material I prepared (and I work in a field very close to policy) because of some speech code. How much of our day-to-day lives is *really* affected by these things? If we didn’t constantly read about some outrage over outrage, we wouldn’t even notice most of the original outrage…
And that’s really where I can’t follow you: I can understand that people may be annoyed by it. I can’t understand how their world could possibly be denigrated by it. Pissed off that that’s what the debate centers around? Okay, I can get that. Feeling so threatened that the only way out is to rally behind a hate preacher? Nah, that doesn’t make any sense. Unless one actually does think of ‘those groups’ as lowly scum, in which case the argument shows its own absurdity.
Otherwise I’m fully with you that we should focus on economic struggles more (again). I just wouldn’t have called the UK Tories progressives. And I’d say that even though progressives lost sight of that, they still didn’t actively pursue it like the Right did.
I guess what I’m trying to say is, overall: I agree that we HAVE to solve those economic issues. I agree that a focus on ‘PC’-topics *instead of doing that* has added some justified frustration. But I’m still not sure who that “liberal center” is whose fault it all is. Who have destroyed our world.
Fair comment, if the centre f#$%s everything up so perfectly, it sort of ends up that there is nowhere to go except for the extremes.
Indeed, a synthesis of what works from the liberal end, with an eye towards the best of progressive values, has to be considered, engaged and ultimately won, otherwise it surely has to go the way of revolution, in whatever form that may come.
Still, oz has been lucky, continues to be lucky, but except for small episodes, not through the good grace of quality government. Mostly in spite of what we have had.
We only need a rise in interest rates, or an increase in unemployment that feeds through to the real estate market and large chunks of Australia are up shite creek. Unfortunately, that is part of the solution, at least as far as I can see. Bubbles tend not to deflate slowly.
They’ll have the Trump Administration, we’ve just go the Maladministration.
The Maladministration has a scaffold of alt-right crazies, and a ‘best bud’ cross bench. How we get all the joints to rust out remains to be seen.
There is a mighty big elephant in this room and it is called Russia. Russia backed UKIP, Russia is the money behind every right wing fleabag group in Europe if the BBC guys are to be believed. They have won round one, by losing Hillary, idiots that the Dems are. They will fund Trump and we will never know. They could well be founding the likes of Bernardi’s little ventures here, we wouldn’t know. There should be NO overseas donations not now not ever. It seems to me we need to worry about matters closer to home. Crooked premiers and ministers, bent senators for a start. We see rorts and we see patronage, we will see a Trump fiugre if we are not very wary. Probably we have been saved by compulsory voting and a kinder welfare system.
I’ve been as frustrated as anyone with the dominance of “identity politics” triviality in the new left.
However I think the resort to a sort of Wikileaks-style gloating is taking nihilism to the next level. It appears that in the new age of cynicism and fashionable contrarianism people are more than happy to let “the perfect be the enemy of the good”, boosting your clicks/cred even as Rome burns.
Is this level of self-loathing truly justified, especially given the Trump victory was clearly and carefully strategised on the basis of appealing to reactionary right-wing/conservative identity politics and their own form of “victim mentality”?
Perhaps Rundle/Razer/Assange/Pilger etc might finally have pause for thought when regimes sweep through the West that do not permit them to carp from the sidelines as they have been allowed to do under the “liberal order”.
A liberal order that, despite all its faults, still had a base level of respect for “rules” and a civil society that enabled them to have a voice in the first place…
I’m sorry but this only the impotent are pure argument doesn’t work when you lose elections.
I think that “only the impotent are pure” argument is extremely relevant given this election was largely lost on the back of Democrat voter turnout being down.
Not to mention the continuing “contribution” of Wikileaks as it joyously seeks to “break the system” whilst still hiding out under the protection of established international protocols and laws. Maybe Trump can “throw out the rule book” and storm the Ecuadorian embassy?
Even Snowden has expressed regret at telling followers that it was “safe” to vote independent. Meanwhile Wikileaks gleefully counts down to the day Trump gets the entire NSA surveillance apparatus…
The lack of “inspirational” politicians is a convenient scapegoat, but what is at the root of the modern political malaise is more to do with the Dunning-Kruger effect of social media.
Every bozo with half an opinion can now dwell in an echo-chamber which attacks politicians as if governing a huge country and attempting to find balance between conflicting viewpoints of constituents should be EASY…as if managing geopolitical tensions whilst securing the population who elected you is EASY (everyone knows genocidal dictators are actually really nice guys until you start bombing them).
We truly get the politicians we deserve…and the demagogues.
im not gloating in the slightest. the guilty pleasure i had at lena dunham’s narration of election night (‘my boyfriend couldn’t breathe…i broke out in hives…’) i left out of the piece. this is analysis, not gloating