This Was Brilliant

Sometimes I find Amy Goodman both too careful and too compartmentalized these days. She's got an institution to protect and favorites to promote, and that can sometimes mean that Democracy Now! is less than it could be.

But yesterday, Amy spent a good deal of her show with Nancy McLean talking about what's really going on in our rancid political culture and who's behind it and I think it's a segment well worth watching and considering.

Making It Impossible to Govern

I'm not clued in to the various -- and contending -- protest movements under way to "stop Trump". The initial street protests seemed to fizzle out, partly because of the holiday season I'm sure (priorities and all that), partly because people have to work to get by, and partly because they were being overwhelmed/co-opted by Democrats who basically didn't want any uprisings in the streets.

No, they were going to go about the business of de-Trumping by clever political strategy. Except they didn't have one. They still don't. Some of the most ludicrous examples of the failure of political strategies are on view daily at Daily Kos. I will say no more about that.

What the Dems have had all along, though, is an intense and overriding interest in knee-capping the Left -- or what they believe to be the Left. No genuine popular movement can get going under their wing. Any independent "left" movement must be crushed or co-opted. They must control the process. Otherwise, who knows what might happen? Someone like Trump could get elected.... ooops.

Speaking of, we just can't know whether vote casting and counting was done accurately this time around. It's a mystery that will never actually be solved because in too many cases, there's no way to verify the vote. It can't be done. What is becoming known, however, is that efforts to suppress the vote, to disqualify millions of voters, and to make it impossible for significant numbers of voters to vote, or for their votes to be counted were very successful, and these efforts were directed at and largely affected Democratic voters. It also appears that many Democratic voters declined to vote for president, whereas others voted third party.

So for the sake of argument, I'm going to accept the results as a relatively accurate reflection of what those who were able to vote and were so inclined voted for. I'm not taking it on faith. The announced outcome is one of many possibilities. For the sake of argument, the result is instructive.

We get to this outcome in large part through the failure of institutions and politics to protect and defend the People from the depredations of the Overclass, an Overclass which has had almost unfettered free rein to pillage and plunder for decades.

Politics hasn't changed it; politics has enabled it. No matter what the People say they want, no matter what or who they vote for, the political class does what it wants. Institutions have been more interested in preserving, protecting, and defending themselves rather than anything or anyone else, and they have almost all failed their constituencies. NGOs have long been a bad joke. Churches forgot their mission. Institutions of higher learning exploit their students and their parents. Police go rogue and murder without consequence. Financial institutions loot their customers. Media parades bizarre falsehoods.

On and on. It's a goon show, and most Americans know it.

Since its all a con anyway, why not put a master con-man on the throne? What do we think Obama has been? Or Big Dog? Or Bush the Lesser? All of them con-artists. And that's big reason why they were put on the throne to begin with. Their job is to con the public and keep them tame in the face of all the horrors and exploitation they're subjected to. Hillary couldn't do it.

The biggest institutional failure in the political realm is that of the Democrats who have failed in every way -- especially since 2009 -- to protect and defend the People against the forces arrayed against them. I maintain that failure is cynical and deliberate. They knew what they were doing: betraying their constituency. That's been the way of nearly all leftish political parties in the west for many years.

And that is a primary rationale for the "rise of the right." Given that the so-called Left has entirely abandoned the People, there is no political party that serves them. The "rise of the right" is not due to popular will, it's due to abandonment by the pseudo-left, the Democrats and Social Democrats and in some regions by Socialists. They obviously don't care any more -- if they ever really did -- about what happens to the Little People. No doubt it has something to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the transformation of China into the capitalist workshop of the world, but that happened so long ago now, hardly anyone remembers any more.

The right rises when the People, abandoned, have no political anchor on the left or center. A political vacuum thus created is filled one way or another.

What is necessary, then, is for the People to take matters into their own hands, outside the political process, and make it impossible for the Ruling Clique to govern.

That's both easier and more difficult than it sounds. Most people, by nature, are going to go along with the powers that be. Most think they have no other choice. On the other hand, it doesn't take a lot of resistance or rebellion to throw a spanner in the works and bring the Juggernaut to a halt -- at least temporarily.

A weak government can be stalled or overcome rather easily.

I will not recommend ways to do it at this point, but understand that many of the "resistance manuals" out there are little more than support manuals for the failed political institutions and systems that don't work.

Robert Reich has one that's gotten some currency. It's not really about resistance at all. It's about supporting failed institutions, the political process and the Democrats. To that I say, No. He blew his premise in any case on Democracy Now! yesterday. It bordered on self-parody. Sorry that Amy didn't call him on his bullshit.

Another is the Indivisible Guide produced by congressional staff and political consultants which again focuses on working within the failed political process that's brought us to this point.  It doesn't work. But it keeps people busy doing things -- which won't work -- so there is that. Keep hope alive and all that!

If the Trumpian agenda is to be stopped or thwarted, what's needed is to make it impossible.

The political system is designed and intended to enable it. It's just that simple.

The Second Contact Between Hillary and Trump

Always one for a good time, I had the second "debate" between the Presidential contestants on last night while I busied myself with other things.

My, wasn't it nasty, though.

Jeebus.

They seem to have picked up energy from the VP set-to, or something, and the accusations flew fast and furious. Trouble is, we've heard them all before and they no longer resonate. Yes, he's a misogynist and liar; yes, she skirts the edges of legality and may cross over from time to time; yes, Bill is a serial philanderer (or was, anyway).

I didn't know about Trump's press availability with The Women Who Accuse Bill (and One More) just before the "debate"" until after the event. How interesting. Yah, it was a good deflection from his own "locker room banter," but ultimately, it's a nonstarter. Everyone knows -- too much -- about Big Dog's randiness and they long ago made of it what they would. Nobody's mind will be changed by trotting out The Women again. On the other hand, we're just getting used to the notion of Trump the Serial Assaulter (though why it should have been a mystery until now is anyone's guess.) His peccadilloes will play for a while until people get bored with them.

Ultimately, though, they don't stain Hillary. She's  blameless -- well, more or less -- in all of this, so the point of bringing up Bill's indiscretions (or the Other Accuser that I'm still somewhat mystified by) is more of a distraction than a Thing. Hunh?

I didn't watch much of it, but I heard plenty. All the same accusations we've been hearing on and on, about taxes, emails, Russia, Muslims, yadda yadda, almost all of it completely meaningless.

Mention was made of the Wikileaks release of partial transcripts from the high-paying Clinton speeches to People Who Matter. The issue that's been glommed onto is Hillary's "public" vs "private" positions. OK, so?

Or rather it would have been a meh if it weren't for Hillary's hooey about the Ruskis hacking; what the FFF? Another tailspin into the gutter.

The point of course is that she didn't even try to deny she said what she's reported to have said, doesn't discount the truth of what's been released, but she blames it on the Russians, which is stone stupid.

But then Our Rulers never were known for their smarts, I think.

Meanwhile, I looked over some of the Wikileaks leaks of what she said to the High and the Mighty, and my initial impression is that she was trying -- probably unsuccessfully -- to inject some concept of social consciousness into the realm of Those Who Must Be Obeyed.

In other words, if she had a brain -- or her people were actually thinking things through -- they would realize these leaks are better for her than opponents make them out to be.

But then, who ever said they could figure things out without a focus group?

Her baroque and legalistic excuses for the Email Thing are wearing thin, but Trump's continued yapping about it doesn't help his cause in the least. Saying she should be in jail because of it, while red meat to his fans, is one of many disqualifications for high office Trump has exposed throughout this mess of a campaign. I'm sure that a tit for tat could be used -- no, YOU should go to jail! -- but it's just stupid. If Trump were running a  serious-revolutionary campaign and he didn't have so many vulnerabilities and skeletons in his own closet, I'd say go for it, jail them all and hang the rest of them, but that's not what he's doing. He's trying to finagle a neo-Republican ascendancy with Himself in the driver's seat. It's not revolutionary, it's just more of the same bullshit, with an extra dose of cruelty.

So in the end, I'm more convinced than ever that he's a ringer, meant to lose and to split the R Party in the process. Revenge, let's say, for the impeachment. Yes, of course, Our Rulers are just that obsessed with Get Back. This tells me that when Trump loses, he will be rewarded handsomely. Oh, very handsomely indeed.

It's all as phony as a three dollar bill.

Yep.

So I'm thinking that when they gamed this thing out, they discovered that Hillary couldn't win the White House unless the R candidate were someone like... Trump, who I'm given to believe has been a family friend of the Clintons for years, and perhaps was.... induced to run with the proviso that he lose and throw a monkey wrench into the R Party to boot.

Signs are sure pointing that way.

I think I'll skip the next one.

The Essentials of Disruption/Destruction

I've said I'm not much interested in the presidential campaign this year largely because the two main candidates are.... simply appalling. That's not to say that one or the other doesn't have some positive qualities, that's not the point. The point is that both of them represent ideals of the State and society that are loathsome. They are both ideologically neoLibCon. They are both exploiters and oppressors. Neither has a shred of faith in or genuine interest in the well-being of the masses.

Hillary is the avatar of the perpetuation of the status quo, and under other circumstances, that might be enough to get her back into the White House all by itself. After all, we've been propagandized for years that "everything's fine," the world is a better place, the economy is steaming along nicely, everyone who wants a job can find one, and now we are learning that incomes for the Lesser People are rising for the first time since 2007!!!! Yay!!!!!

Whut? Think about it. Household incomes are rising for the first time since 2007... what does that imply? Obvious, isn't it? Household incomes have been declining or flat since 2007. Ah, now that makes sense, because that's clearly the case. Actually, statistically, the median household income has been in decline since 1997. There may -- or may not -- have been a slight uptick in 2015 over 2014, but the overall trend is downward, and that hasn't changed.

Think. When was Obama elected on a promise to halt/reverse the Great (for the Rabble, the Endless) Recession? Ah. 2008. And guess what? He hasn't done it. At least not for the Rabble, not even close. The High and the Mighty, however, have made out like the bandits they are.

For many of them, there never was any Recession at all.

And Obama made sure that situation was institutionalized.

Hillary represents the continuation of, indeed the intensification of, the policies that make it so.

Thus, of course, the majority of the Highest of the Mighty support her candidacy over that of one of their own class, Donald Trump.

At least they have until recently.

Now after Hillary's Unfortunate Incident at the 9/11 Memorial, they seem to be hedging their bets. Trump may not be The One -- yet -- but if Herself craps out, who they gonna turn to? And after all, Trump has long been One of the Tribe and he seems to be picking up steam among the Ignorant Rabble, soooooo.... why not?

After all, he is a Disruptor/Destructor. And that's important to the success and well-being of his class.  Part of their culture is the disruption and destruction of rivals below them. Trump is a master at that. He showed it on his TV show for years and years, and he is certainly adept at it in life. Not only does he disrupt and destroy, he often gets his victims to like it. Now that is a highly desirable skill among the rich and powerful. In fact, it is a necessary one given the ideological foundations of the modern political economy.

Obama has that skill too, though he's far more subtle about it than The Donald. He's been soothing the savage beast of the Rabble throughout his entire reign at the top, and he's better at it than any politician I know of.

Hillary simply does not have that skill, though her husband does, though that can't overcome some of his other qualities that we need not get into here.

Hillary inspires resistance, not so much because she's The Devil Incarnate (as she's been characterized by a large segment of the Internets) but because she tends to scold rather than uplift, tends to negatively characterize her opponents, tends to be less than inspirational in large gatherings, tends to be so wedded to preserving and extending the status quo, she's all but unable to recognize that the status quo hasn't worked for the majority for a generation or more.

She can see discreet elements of failure, but not the whole, basically because she's wedded to the whole picture, a picture which from below is horrendous.

She doesn't seem to see that, nor can she grasp it.

On the other hand, Trump sees it clearly -- because he's profiting from it -- and seeks to exploit the Rabble to the maximum degree he can, first by being elected, and then who knows what will follow?

No one.  No one can be sure, and that is a big part of his appeal. This was also part of Reagan's appeal. There were lots of dog whistles for those who were attuned, and there was his (suddenly forgotten and ignored by the media) governorship of California that clued some people into what his governance as President would become, but it was an era of hailing the hero, in contrast to the "failed" status quo represented by Carter, and in the public eye, a celebrity is almost always Heroic, no?

But nobody could be sure what Reagan would do, anymore than they could be sure what  Trump will do in the White House.

Hillary, like Carter, they already knew all about -- too much about. And they could anticipate policies that would do little or nothing on their behalf, or would actually make things worse for the many while ensuring that things would get better and better for the few.

Trump on the other hand can play the Rubes like a room full of marks much like the hucksters who sell real estate courses do. They dazzle the Rabble with the promise of getting rich! rich! rich!. But when it comes to it, the only one who really gets rich! is the course promoter. Gee, who'd a thunk?

Trump is pure show business, pure con-man. But that's what it takes anymore. Obama is more cerebral, but he's just as much a con-man, as too many people found out after he was elected. The con was that he held out such promise to the Rabble, but he delivered mostly  to the High and the Mighty whom he served.

Trump is a different kind of con-man; he serves no one but himself. No one. The concept of "public service" is anathema to him -- something he makes clear if you cut through his gobbledygook. He's in this for himself alone, period. End of discussion.

OK. So why does that appeal to anyone else? Well, why are gangsters often held in high esteem? Because, at least for those on their side, they hold out a promise of well-being, even prosperity, so long as you don't cross them. In other words, if you're on their side, you'll be OK -- until you aren't.

Gangster rule works, at least it can, but it is also disruptive and destructive of the Established Order.

Gangster rule is a rival and a threat to the Establishment. And the Establishment has to make deals with the Gangsters or be uprooted and destroyed by them. "Deals" are what Trump promises. "Deals".

Hillary offers essentially nothing new at all. She started her campaign with the implied slogan: "No you can't," and she really hasn't budged an inch since then. It's still a "No you can't" campaign, and it's hard to see any resonance among the People. She offers the Rabble nothing but a long-hard slog to gain marginal improvements -- eventually. "Stronger together," indeed, but to what object, when ultimately her message is that "nothing can be done," and "there is no alternative." (h/t Baroness Thatcher, may she burn in Hell.)

Further, Hillary posits that she knows best, and the rest of y'all need to go along with it. It's for your own good after all.

Sigh.

Trump promises to upend and overturn all that, sweep t all away, and in the end rule as a dictator, strongman, gangster. This is the ideal of his class after all. Whether this is the time for that, I can't say, but I was shocked to the bone in 1980 when Reagan won against arguably one of the nation's best presidents -- one who was, however, incapable of controlling the pile on of negative forces that undermined his authority and ability. Reagan just swept all that aside. This is what Trump promises to do as well.

If the status quo doesn't work for the majority -- and arguably it doesn't -- then a quasi or literal revolution is required.

But as I've long maintained, if the Revolution is to come, it will come from the Right.

I didn't think it would be quite as openly gangsterish, but that's what it looks like is in the offing.

Oh boy.

Reversals of Fortune

Though I've pretty much boycotted this year's Grand Guignol Political Spectacle, some of the reversals that have taken place and the incidents leading up to them have been kind of interesting.

For example, the Hillary Hysteria over her (apparent) pneumonia seems to have marked a turning point in the presidential campaign. She's back, yes, but seemingly subdued, perhaps even chastened (what? Hillary chastened? Nah!) at being caught out sick as a dog, unable to function at least for a time, and hauled around like a sack of potatoes by her "detail."



Jeeze, bad optics, right? [Note: there aren't actually 3 different angles. It's the same video, three different ways. There's only that one video -- so far -- of her apparent collapse.]

Terrible, really. But only in the sense that the Spectacle was momentarily interfered with. That was not supposed to be seen. At least not yet. Or was it?

Suddenly, there was this "body double" eruption, as if on cue, but no one ever questioned whether the "Hillary" who was unable to walk to her waiting armored car (is that really what she travels in? Whoo.) was the "double." Did it not occur to them, at all, that the incident was staged? Is it that their imaginations fail, or is there a narrative at work, one that requires a "double" for PR purposes only? Ie: when she emerged from Chelsea's $10.5 million pad all cheery and chipper with her hair combed and her face smoothed. That was the double, so goes the widespread rumor. "Proof" of which is all over the InterTubes.

Got to love the InterTubes, no?

I came to think that perhaps the "double" was the "Hillary" waiting for and then tossed into the van because we never saw her face, only the back of her head and her dragging feet. I know enough about movie making to know that they do this kind of thing all the time. It's routine to have a double in distant shots or back of the head shots so that the principal can take care of other scenes or take some time off.

The Internet bought it without a pause. Easily manipulated, aren't they? And then there's the whole lack of critical thinking thing...

The "double" accusation may well be due to something real -- it's been a fairly common practice at high levels of politics for many a long year -- but maybe the "double" doesn't appear where and when most people think.

So there was that.

The diagnosis of pneumonia can't be assessed by us groundlings, though it is certainly plausible. All those saying Nay seem to have no clue about the effects of pneumonia or they're being deliberately obfuscatory, either of which wouldn't surprise me a bit, for lies and cultivated ignorance are both a big part of the Spectacle. Cultivated ignorance and lies asserted with supreme arrogance and authority, let it be said.

Wait. That's the definition of the Trump campaign, no?

Well, think. Is it? Or rather, is it so in contradistinction to the Hillary campaign?

Ah. They both do it, in other words, perhaps Trump more assertively than Herself, but she's no slouch in the cultivation of ignorance and the propounding of lies department. They do it differently -- Trump all bluster and bullying, She-Demon (so Hillary has long been characterized by the Internet) does it through legalistic mumbo-jumbo and parsing.

Oh, the Parsing! Ah, the Clintons are back, aren't they?

Hillary talks like a lawyer and parses like a lawyer, lies like a lawyer and relies on the rubes' ignorance of the facts like a lawyer. It's pretty obvious to any of us who are familiar with the customs and culture of the Legal Profession. She's just carrying out her duties to her clients...

He, on the other hand, Trump "has no filter," and just says whatever pops into his coiffed and bleached blond head, much of it (most of it?) utterly false. Amusing, but false. No parsing and legalist mumbo-jumbo from Trump, heck no. Just in your face lies and falsehoods.

Wow.

When I see this, I think of him as a representative of his tribe, the ultra rich who actually work for a living rather than living off of inheritance and dividends. Trump isn't Leisure Class, but he is Upper Class, rough-edged nobility in a way. Trump's offspring would be Leisure Class if he'd let them, but it seems he forces them to work for him, just like all his other dependent employees.

These people are, as a rule (in my personal experience) mean, expolitative, deceptive, cruel, destructive, unrepentant, bullying, thieves, liars and con-(wo)men. It's a whole subculture at the top of the pyramid, one that is largely responsible for the economic and political mess we've been in for so long now. They are surprisingly successful agents of Chaos, and they are as American as apple pie.

You can trace the ilk back to the beginning of European -- ie: British -- settlement on this continent.

And you can trace it back in Britain for many a long year before their American Imperial Adventure. There are many similar examples throughout Europe's former aristocracy, and present in its current ever more vicious/Fascistic power-structure.

Hillary and her tribe work for and curries the favor of people like that.

Get the picture?

So we come to the sudden and almost unbelievable reversal of her fortunes subsequent to the 9/11 Incident. Suddenly and inexplicably, the polling reversed, and her trendline started falling, collapsing really, and Trump was declared to be "surging," as only he can.

A repeat of the primaries, no? Where he was thought to have no chance, and one by one, he slew the competition until he was the last man standing and would face off against the Hildabeast, only to slay her too, or so it would seem.

In fact, at the moment Trump is President-presumptive, no need of an "election," just declare him the Victor Over Hitlary and have done with it.

She seems to have retreated into her shell and all but conceded.

Of course there can be and probably will be a couple of more reversals before this thing plays out -- the media need them for the horserace narrative and all -- but if Trump is ultimately to be crowned King-Emperor, this has already been gamed out by the PTB, and his coronation is intended to advance a particular faction's agenda, which they have decided Hillary cannot do, or perhaps has refused to do.

The role of the President, after all, at least in modern times, is to keep the Rabble in line while the real power behind the throne advance their own pecuniary and power interests. Obama was installed obviously because of his ability to hold the Rabble in thrall, even when they fussed and fretted, while the looting and exploitation of same went into hyperdrive. Neither of his presidential opponents had even a tenth of his persuasive ability.

Same thing seems to be going on with this Trump-Hillary contest. He seems to be able to keep enough of the Rabble in thrall (if only by setting loose their worst instincts) while she faces nothing but brick-bats and contempt even if her abilities and policies are, in her masters' view, both better and more useful to their ultimate designs.

If she can't control the Rabble, she can't be president.

Not in this country, not during this era.

If Trump can keep only half the Rabble enthralled, that may be sufficient, since the other half has repeatedly demonstrated that they won't -- can't -- do anything to interfere with the interests of the PTB. Trump will rally his half to cheer on the exploitation and looting by the High  and the Mighty. Hillary can't-won't do that. But she won't interfere with it, either.

She may have a couple more chances to pull this thing out of the fire, but I suspect They have made their decision, and She won't do for the next phase of the neoLibCon adventure in Global Domination. Whereas Trump maybe a loose cannon, at least he's one of the tribe. He can be controlled or eliminated as needed, but he's probably been told what his role will have to be, and he's agreed to it for it will not only make him richer than his wildest dreams, but will give him at least the illusion of infinite power as well. Who could object to that?

On the other hand...

Well, we just don't know, do we?

Hillary!

Later.

Godwin-going Apres Thanksgiving -- The Trumpen Proletariat Arise

Apparently the meme -- or is it now a trope ?-- about The Donald is that he is as thorough-going a fascist as there has ever been in American politics. Well, in recent memory, anyway. They're calling him a fascist straight out, no filters, among the Republican chatterati, at least from what I've seen on the intertubes. This is said to be unprecedented, and I suppose it is. The media is always reluctant to call out any Republican candidate, and Republican politicians and commentators generally hold their fire in public, but The Donald has caused something of a dilemma for the Big Boys.

At first, they didn't know what to do when he went off on one of his rightist-populist jags. It couldn't be for real, right? But then it got more and more real, especially as polling showed Trump leading the Republican field, despite the fact that Carson was catching him here and there and now and then (that's interesting) and Rubio was clearly the choice of the cognoscenti. After all, a nice clean Hispanic character should be good for the demographics, right? Especially after That Negro in the White House (eeek!)

The problem being that pesky populist billionaire who keeps surging in the polls, keeps drawing large crowds of rabid fanatics, and keeps getting his ugly mug on the teevee because of something outrageous he's said or one of his goons or one of his fans has done.

A "populist billionaire?" Whut? That's a key to understanding what's going on here as I see it. Trump is a famous personality first and foremost. He's been a character on the teevee for years, and he was in the news constantly before he became a television celebrity. He's known for the character he plays on teevee, and it's a character he's honed and perfected on the stump as a self-funded presidential candidate. The character is obnoxious and outrageous, but it touches a certain segment of the population that feels left out of the economic and social changes that have been going on in the nation for many years now. These people identify with Trump and his own outrageousness and so he's doing very well as he stalks the country for votes.

His populism, however, is more likely a mask for his real intent -- to impose Billionaires' Rule directly by capturing the levers of government power. Well, now. It wouldn't be the first time that billionaires or their equivalent have had control of the government, but it might be the first time a genuine billionaire was put in office or rather bought the office of the Presidency, as if it were a hostile take over.

Other billionaires don't seem to be cottoning to Trump's rising, and that seems to be at the root of the current memes (or is it tropes?) about Trump's fascism...

Is he a fascist? Genuinely? I don't know. He uses a lot of fascist-style rhetoric to appeal to the public, and that has given rise to the charge that he is a fascist along the lines of a Mussolini or a Hitler, which means he's no "conservative" (not that anybody seeking high office ever is these days), but he's been tapping something soul-satisfying to his constituency while he tub-thumps away on his racist and exclusionary policy prescriptions.

His approach is so deep-seated American. What he rants about are the things that so many (largely white) Americans have long held dear and want to see preserved for their progeny. They see the racist, sexist and exclusionary pillars of Real Americanism under attack from within and without, and Trump's rhetoric is a means of fighting back, as is his -- apparent -- fascism. In their lights, no one else is showing the fortitude and balls to do it.

Trump is the one. Some have said he's a stalking horse or not a "serious candidate," and they could be right, but I go back to Reagan, both his two terms as governor of California (he first took office in 1967 -- generations ago). He was thought to be a joke or a stalking horse or not a serious candidate too, and he swept into office over and over again, not so much because anybody cared for his policies, but because he was a personality, famous, and he touched the souls and spirit of so many (largely white) Americans who felt left out of the social and political milieus of the times. Reagan brought back their sense of importance, and he gave them much raw meat to chew on as his policies -- which favored the rich and ruined the lives of millions, throwing many into the streets and nearly destroying public education and tattering the social fabric -- were implemented.

Those policies were recognized as socially destructive and economically unsound from the outset, but there was no political will to oppose them sufficiently to prevent their implementation. What Reagan wanted was what the public wanted, so it was thought, therefore strenuous or active opposition was not considered viable.

And so it didn't happen. Democrats went along with Reagan, even praising him from time to time, because they didn't feel institutionally opposed. Or something.

There was much about his policies that were fascistic or precursors. Certainly authoritarian. His determination to use police power to crush the rising of students and blacks and other minorities was well-known and well-documented. To a surprising degree it was successful, too. His determination to dismantle the Progressive social and political system that had become nearly universal was not as well known, but he proceeded with little opposition, and again he was largely successful.

Trump is tapping into all of that and more, and if he were to be elected, I think it would be seen as the Will of the People and strenuous political opposition would evaporate.

So if he's a fascist, what does that make the System itself? What is the fundamental belief that underlies the American Way? Is it by nature fascist as well?

Has this nation's government and social arrangement always been a fascist construct? It's always been authoritarian and imperial. It becomes more so, not less so, as time goes by. If Trump succeeds, will he actually be doing something not in the nation's character, or will he simply be using the racist and exclusionary underpinnings of the national character to advance his personal and class interests at the expense of everyone else?

And if he is so popular, what is to be done about it?

One thing to recall about the interwar years in Europe and the political/economic situation just prior to the outbreak of WWII is that almost all of Europe had gone fascist or fascist-lite; German war-making and domination didn't necessarily interfere with the deep-rooted fascism of much of Europe at the time. The German goal was to unite Europe under its suzerainty to oppose, fight and ultimately conquer ('godless, communist') Russia. Many powerful Americans believe that the US and its allies were on the wrong side in WWII, and it's taken all this time to start correcting the errors made generations ago by well-meaning (some of them) but misguided (all of them) politicians who threw their lot with the commies and the socialists when they should have been supporting the Nazis and fascists...

So here we are.

The Trumpen proletariat are those who fear they don't have a future in the America that's becoming. They can only secure a future for themselves and their progeny through force of will and will to power. Trump appeals to their deepest fears. But then, despite the torrent of insults that have been flying, so do all the rest of the Republican field, and so... when you examine closely... do the Democratic candidates. Sanders is appealing to the fears of a different constituency, to be sure, but it's the same strategy.

Not to go all doom and gloom, but I don't see any easy way out of this mess. We've been down this path before; there seems to be little or no way to change direction...

In Other News -- The Rise of the Racist Right (Again)

The Summer News Cycle is winding down -- the shark and missing white people stories are being put away (this summer it seemed to be white boys going missing rather than the usual white women), and the presidential campaign for the 2016 election is being given the media's main spotlight.

Bernie, The Donald, Herself... and the wild card of Ol' Joe (Biden)... seem to be sucking out all oxygen from the newsroom.

The Bernie campaign is the one with the most populist energy in that the campaign is drawing large crowds practically everywhere. Some of those crowds are immense. They seem to arise spontaneously. In some ways, the Bernie campaign reminds me of the Howard Dean phenomenon when time was, and I cannot help but recall the real shock the single digit vote results in the primaries were. How could that be, we all wondered, when he had been drawing such enthusiastic crowds? Why could he not even break into double digits -- except in Vermont?

Well, I think Bernie is going to be faced with a similar situation. How such large and enthusiastic crowds translate into such a small vote result is something for a scholarly study I haven't seen yet, but I suspect it will happen to Bernie (though he might do better than HoHo did.)

The #BLM interruptions of his campaign speeches and his subsequent acknowledgement of and policy program to redress structural and institutional racism has been taken as a marker of Bernie's civil rights and progressive cred. But what he doesn't say is the same as every other politician on the national stage. He won't endorse or repeat the principal demand of the protesters: "Stop Killing Us."

Nor will any other politician on the national stage.

Not one.

The killing is apparently something to deal with in the future, the distant future preferably, once the problem of structural and institutional racism is solved. Or maybe the killing isn't to be dealt with at all. It's really hard to say.

The killing, though, is the immediate, emergency problem, and the rate of police killings keeps climbing despite all the protests, inconveniences and interruptions of routines that the protesters engage in.

The message here is that the political class as a whole -- Bernie included -- is not particularly troubled by the killing. Nope. I've seen arguments that it is actually quite a rare thing for someone to be killed by the police (despite a higher rate of police killings than just about anywhere else in the world) and those who are killed for the most part "needed killing" anyway, so the problem of police killings is not really that much of a problem when you really look and sort it all out.

Racism, though, is something else again.

At least that's the political message.

Racism is the issue that we must tackle with all available resources and from every angle. Structural racism, institutional racism, historical racism, personal and private racism, overt and public racism, all must be tackled and dismantled, or we will forever face an intractable, socially destructive  problem of racial injustice and discrimination.

And we're better than that. Or something.

So I was cruising around the interwebs and found a story that said the Prairie View, Texas, city council had voted to rename University Blvd to "Sandra Bland Drive Parkway," and I thought, "well, isn't that something?" Not necessarily progress -- that would be expecting too much -- but at least it was an acknowledgement that her life mattered. And that's something.

The story I read was from Channel 2 in Houston, and the comments on the story were filled with racist invective, literally in every comment I read. Oh my. I've seen this before on the internet. In fact, I see it pretty frequently. Racist invective seems to be a feature of the internet, not a social bug at all. It's built in to the structure of internet commentary somehow, but every time I see it, it's a shock. I thought I was fairly sophisticated about these things, but the sort of racist animosity I've been seeing for the last several years -- and sheer amount of it -- is both bewildering and shocking.

I regard it as specifically an internet phenomenon and not particularly representative of the general feelings and beliefs of Americans, but I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it is just the tip of a racist iceberg...

What I saw and read in the comments on the Channel 2 story about renaming the street on which she was manhandled and arrested for Sandra Bland was appalling, but it's not unique.

Apparently since the removal of the Confederate battle flag from places of honor in several Southern -- and some not so southern (ie: Albuquerque) -- places, a certain variety of white racist, incensed at the disrespect for their flag, have taken to arms and are prepared to fight the nigra tide that is sweeping over them... yadda, yadda, yadda. It's just ridiculous, but there you are. OK then. So be it.

The problem with this kind of white racism is that even though it may involve a relatively small minority of white folks -- though I can't be sure of the size of the current racist rise -- it can be very powerful because it taps in to America's original sins -- black chattel slavery and Native American genocide. Both were fundamental for the nation's creation and sustenance. There could be and would have been no United States of America without them.

Every effort to overcome those original sins has been fiercely resisted by some white folks for generation upon generation, and so far, while there has been progress -- chattel slavery has been largely eliminated, genocide renounced if not ended in practice -- these sins are still inherent in the nation's very being. The current level of racist internet trolling may be shocking to me, but apparently there are plenty of white folks who live this racist reality all the time.

It's powerful and it's dangerous.

I suppose that so long as it is largely confined to internet trolling, it's not really a serious problem, but I don't know that the internet actually confines it.

The #BLM movement has forced the issue of disparate justice and violent racist policing into public consciousness (again -- it's really always been with us) but so far has been ineffective in reducing the level of disparate justice and violent racist policing. In fact, the rate of police killings has substantially increased this year over last, and courts will still cheerfully charge, try and sentence black and brown folks far more severely than whites for the same offenses. Those same courts will also overlook police violence and killing.

In other words, nothing has yet positively affected the problem which has long since been identified.

At least superficially things are getting worse, not better.

There are some hopeful signs which I will try to get to in another post. But for the time being, the white racist trolls are having a field day.

Not a pretty picture.