2016-03-10: The Ironies of Anti-Trumpism


 10 March 2016 – Copyright © Mark H Goodrich

The “establishment” has recently been attacking Donald Trump’s candidacy for President – both directly and through various surrogates – by charging that he is running a confidence scheme against the voting public, with plans to take advantage as President of the very people about whom he professes to care.

The greatest irony of these attacks is that the Republican Party has itself been running the very same scam since the inherent racism in the south gave the Party an opportunity to game southern voters based on their racist reaction to the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act of the 1960s, promoted by Democratic President Lyndon Johnson. Indeed, the recent rise in voter anger is mostly the result of the Republican Party and its candidates stoking the fires of fear, hatred and prejudice in the most poorly educated of its membership for decades, but then once elected continuing to ignore mere citizens while enriching the coffers of its wealthiest supporters – both individual and corporate.

In the 2016 iteration against “Trumpism”, these attacks are credited to “party leadership”, and are most often explained by political pundits as resulting from a well-based fear that Donald Trump cannot win a national election, or alternatively that his nomination would cause the Republican Party to implode. This is complete nonsense, and reveals the extent to which the media and its self-serving political commentators have become a part of the corporatocracy. In this shameful age of reality television and factoid journalism, nearly all media outlets produce what was once the exclusive province of grocery-store tabloids – creating horse-races where none exist, hypothesizing endlessly in the absence of facts, and exploiting sensationalism as “breaking news” for profit in place of journalistic integrity.

The true facts are that the puppet-masters are not “party leadership”, but the moneyed interests that have been controlling the Republican Party for 100 years. Their fear is not of Donald Trump, but rather that they – and the political establishment they fund so well to represent their interests – will no longer enjoy unilateral control over selecting nominees. The Party and its financial backers have traditionally selected a nominee who is an insider, and can be trusted to continue the status quo ante. This time-honored back-room process is now in jeopardy as citizens are elevating the political status of an actual outsider. Donald Trump skipped the step that has traditionally been required – that is, kissing the rings of and pledging allegiance to political power brokers, K-Street lobbyists and alphabet groups as a condition precedent to receiving support from the establishment.

The best evidence of this are the recent statements by the Party and its surrogates arguing democracy demands that the selection by primary voters of a nominee be overturned through the use of procedural tricks at the national convention.

This has been seen before. The Democratic Party has long been guilty of the same behavior, and in one of its worst moments, used chicanery of the lowest order at the 1944 Convention to steal the nomination for Vice-President from Henry Wallace, and instead coronate Harry Truman, seen by wealthy party financiers as unsophisticated enough to be easily controlled by the party establishment when his near-certain elevation to President took place upon the impending death of Franklin Roosevelt. That the corporatocracy of that time – invested as it was in the enormous profiteering enjoyed throughout World War II – correctly evaluated its likely increase in influence over the political process has been subsequently validated by history. Many historians believe the Cold War was created and maintained by the administrations of Truman and Eisenhower, neither of whom ever said “no” to the unholy alliance of military, industrial, congressional and financial powers that increasingly used the political process for their own benefit. Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush continued to support the alliance, further isolating the electorate from what most Americans mistakenly believed to be a democratic process.

I hear the arguments that Trump cannot be President for this reason or that. But even as I watch the lips of the Party surrogates move, the voice I hear is that of moneyed interests, expressing fear that the success of Donald Trump may actually represent democracy leaking into the water-tight process that they have controlled for a century. They will resort to any statement, expenditure or action to prevent actual democratic activity from diminishing their enormous back-room influence over the process.