How Shall We Describe the Orange Menace?

Language helps us cope with the world. That’s why using the right words matters. Telling your companion there’s “something” behind her would be accurate, but telling her it’s a “bear” would be better, assuming it really was a bear.

This explains the continuing effort to find the right terminology for President-elect Orange Menace. He’s been called “insane” and a “demagogue”, a “con man” and a “thug”.  He’s been described as an “arrogant orange idiot”.

In fact, those last three words, “arrogant”, “orange” and “idiot” are the three most popular responses at Trump In One Word. That’s the helpful site where you can submit a pungent word of your choice to describe him, see which words have been chosen most often, and even find out what words your (anonymous) neighbors selected (good job, neighbors!).

Which brings me to the “fascist” issue. Some observers think the next President is clearly a fascist or at least exhibits strong fascistic tendencies. Others see similarities but don’t think he satisfies enough of the criteria (yet anyway) to put him in the same category as Mussolini, Hitler or Francisco Franco. All the experts agree he’s an authoritarian, right-wing demagogue, but they don’t all agree that he’s a “fascist”. The truth is they don’t even agree on how to define the term. Hence, the “fascist” problem.

[Before we proceed, please note that I recently began using the Google Chrome extension Rename T___p. That’s why you will see “*****” where the O.M.’s name appears in the text I’ll be quoting. It’s a very nice tool. I chose “*****” for everyday use, but it was gratifying to see that “Orange Menace” is the 13th most popular T___p replacement – not as popular as “Fuckface Von Clownstick”, of course – but still doing very well. The extension is free and available here.]

One scholar, Sarah Kendzior, has argued that we should compare the O.M. to the rulers of a few countries we don’t usually hear about:

Left out – as always – have been the dictatorships of former Soviet Central Asia: Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, and (to a lesser degree) Kyrgyzstan.

The Central Asian states are dictatorships. They are also spectacular. And it is by examining this–dictatorship as spectacle–that the parallels to ***** emerge… The nation becomes a brand; the dictator, a brand ambassador; the people, a captive audience….

…Spectacle soothes the masses while distracting them from their suffering. *****, a master of the American reality TV genre which has made a spectacle of human suffering – he made “You’re fired!” a beloved tagline … – knows how to make an audience feel included through the theatrical exclusion of others. This tactic carries over into *****’s rallies, where protesters are booted — and sometimes beaten — with fanfare. It also carries over into his policies, which are structured around exclusion: a wall against Mexico, banned entry for foreign Muslims, a database for U.S. Muslims, and a media denied access unless they acquiesce to *****’s demands…

The most obvious corollary to ***** is Turkmenistan’s deceased leader Niyazov … best known for the monuments and dictates bolstering his personality cult. They included building a giant golden statue of himself which rotated to face the sun; renaming the months and common words, like “bread”, after his relatives; and the Ruhnama, a collection of autobiographical anecdotes … and parables which all citizens were required to read. (A giant electronic version of the Ruhnama blared Niyazov’s wisdom from its perch in the capital.)….

“I’m personally against seeing my pictures and statues in the streets, but it’s what the people want,” explained Niyazov when asked about his ubiquitous visage. It is easy to imagine ***** making similar claims… It is also easy to imagine [him] building a giant golden statue of himself that revolves to face the sun.

Unfortunately, there’s no word that means “the leader of a dictatorship in former Soviet Central Asia”. And the phrase “***** is another Niyzaov” probably wouldn’t catch on.

In a similar vein, however, a few writers have suggested that “caudillo” would be a good label for the Orange Menace. It’s Spanish for “leader”. Thus, Franco proclaimed himself “El Caudillo” just like Mussolini was “Il Duce” and Hitler “Der FĂĽhrer”. One might object that ***** isn’t as fascistic as those other villains, but the word has a longer and more varied history than its use in the glorification of Francisco Franco.

Paul Campos at the Lawyers, Guns & Money blog explains:

The classic Caudillo is a charismatic populist, who attacks the existing political and economic establishment with what might be called trans-ideological enthusiasm.  He claims that he and he alone has the ability to solve the nation’s problems, and to be the voice of the dispossessed.  He bullies his opponents, he persecutes any media who do not grovel before him, he boasts of his supposed sexual prowess, he has a narcissistic and therefore unquenchable thirst for public adulation, he is openly contemptuous of formal legal restraints, and he talks constantly of restoring the nation to its former grandeur.  To bolster his political base he uses the latest social media to speak as directly as possible to his followers, cutting out traditional forms of governmental and journalistic intermediation.  And he loves to make lots of absurd and expensive promises, often in the form of spectacularly ridiculous government projects, many of which are designed to keep out or expel contaminating and subversive foreign influences.

Remind you of anyone?

Mr. Campos then asks why this bizarre and dangerous person has made such an alarming dent in our politics:

I suspect the answer has much to do with the extent that the United States economy is coming to resemble many a Latin American breeding ground for narcissistic despots.  In terms of relative levels of economic inequality, the U.S. now looks much more like Latin America than Europe, and the trend is only getting stronger.  As Omar Encarnacion notes:

“… *****, like many caudillos, has capitalized upon his status as a political outsider. This status, ***** argues, best allows him to blow up the current political system and to replace it with something that would work for everyone, but especially for those feeling left behind.”

… All of which is to say that, especially now, it would benefit us all to pay much more attention to both the history and the present circumstances of our various southern neighbors.

Words matter, because they help us make our way in the world. Beginning January 20, the words we use may be more important than any we living Americans have ever used before.

Do You Think Americans Are Getting What They Deserve?

The chart below is the result of a poll of 1,000 Americans who mirror the population of the country as a whole. The question they were asked was:

Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

  1. Over the past few years, blacks have gotten less than they deserve.
  2. Over the past few years, average Americans have gotten less than they deserve.

The results:

Most blacks and Clinton voters are in very close agreement: neither group has gotten what they deserve.

By the same percentage, whites think that average (i.e. mostly white) Americans haven’t gotten what they deserve. Blacks, however, have done well. 

Trump voters also agree that average Americans haven’t gotten what they deserve. They’re very sure, however, that blacks have been living on easy street.

2016-12-19-1482185503-3679361-trump_deserve-thumb

The political scientist who reported the results concludes:

It appears, then, that Trump voters weren’t simply motivated by their widespread belief that average Americans are being left behind. Rather, their strong suspicion that African Americans are getting too much—a belief held by the overwhelming majority of Trump voters—was a much stronger predictor of their vote choices in last month’s election.

Racially resentful beliefs that African Americans are getting more than they deserve were so strongly linked to support for Trump, in fact, that their impact on both the 2016 Republican Primary and the general election were larger than they had ever been before.

Another conclusion we should draw is that America’s race problem and America’s politics won’t improve much until there are fewer of us white people around.

Nobody Asked Me, But…Oh, Hell, Let’s Beat a Dead Horse

There used to be a newspaper columnist I enjoyed reading who would sometimes use “Nobody Asked Me, But…” as the title of his column. I thought maybe it was Earl Wilson, a gossip columnist who had a big following in his day. Not so. It was the equally popular Jimmy Cannon, who mostly wrote about sports:

On frequent occasions, when Cannon had no particular sports news to report, he would still manage to fill his daily column space by starting off with the phrase “Nobody asked me, but…” and then filling the rest of the column with his random opinions on any and every subject outside of the sports world. This gambit has been eagerly seized upon by newspaper columnists ever since, not only on the sports page but in every other section. Columnists who “borrow” this device will typically lead off with some lip-service tribute to its originator, such as “In the words of the immortal Jimmy Cannon: Nobody asked me, but…” and then they’re off. [Wikipedia]

 Ok, I’m off… 

Causation is a popular topic for philosophers because the idea of a “cause” gets stranger the more you think about it. For example, what causes an apple to fall from a tree? You might say the stem broke. Or you might say the apple got too heavy. Or that the earth’s gravity eventually made the apple fall. Maybe the cause was everything that led up to that moment, in other words, the entire prehistory of the universe.

It’s much harder to identify a single cause of a big event like a Presidential election. But many of us still want to know why the Electoral College went the way it did, as if there was a single cause and a simple explanation for what happened. I’ve tended to focus on the Clinton email story as the deciding factor because the media gave the story such exorbitant attention and the FBI’s involvement was so perverse. I can’t stop thinking that if only the story had received the minimal attention it deserved or if only the FBI had acted properly, the election would have ended differently.

Another factor that’s been bothering me a lot, however, is the media’s overall coverage of the campaign. This wound was reopened yesterday when I read a disturbing article about the Sinclair Broadcast Group. They’re the largest chain of TV stations in America.  Sinclair’s 173 TV stations gave remarkably positive coverage to T___p and negative coverage to Clinton.

We all know that Fox worked as a propaganda outlet for T___p. But consider how CNN showed all those unfiltered T___p rallies from beginning to end and how they recruited T___p mouthpieces to “balance” their talk shows. And let’s not forget NBC’s contributions to the T___p campaign. Remember Matt Lauer’s ridiculous interviews of the two candidates and Jimmy Fallon trying to make T___p look like a human being? T___p has been on NBC for years with his “reality” shows and has had a long business relationship with Jeff Zucker, the non-journalist who runs CNN. 

It’s enough to make you think we just witnessed a coup carried out by the media and the FBI.

On the other hand (there’s always another hand), the single most bizarre aspect of the 2016 Presidential election lies elsewhere. Putting aside the media’s failures, the FBI’s contribution, the Russians feeding Wikileaks, voter suppression, poor turnout in some quarters, Clinton’s minuses, the desire for “change”, the disappearance of manufacturing jobs in the Midwest, white resentment, racism, misogyny, xenophobia, latent authoritarianism and the movements of the planets and we’re still left with one incredible fact:

Sixty-two million adult Americans, including majorities in most states, were willing to vote for a monster.

To me, that says it all.

You may have noticed by now that I haven’t followed in the footsteps of the immortal Jimmy Cannon by filling this post with opinions on a random set of topics. That’s what I intended but failed to do. I trust the title I ended up with is reasonably descriptive.

PS – I forgot to mention the damn National Enquirer. They used their presence on every grocery checkout line in America to promote the Orange Menace and highlight fake Clinton scandals. They were another cog in the propaganda machine that contributed to a 77,000 vote margin in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, après quoi, le dĂ©luge.

A Chilling Moment from “The Manchurian Candidate”

From 1962, it’s the scene in which Senator Jordan, shown below, discusses the political ambitions of his colleague, Senator John “Johnny” Iselin: 

15732370_10101046324050040_2786114729509509676_o

Let me quote a bit more:

Sen. Jordan: You’re seriously trying for the nomination for Johnny?

Mrs. Iselin: No, we couldn’t make it. But he has a good chance for the second spot. Now, I’ve answered your question, but you haven’t answered mine. Will you block us?

Sen. Jordan: Would I block you? I would spend every cent I own, and all I could borrow, to block you. There are people who think of Johnny as a clown and a buffoon, but I do not. I despise John Iselin and everything that Iselinism has come to stand for. I think, if John Iselin were a paid Soviet agent, he could not do more to harm this country than he’s doing now. You have asked me a question. Very well, I shall answer you. If you attempt a deal with the delegates, or cause Johnny’s name to be brought forward on the ticket, or if, in my canvass of the delegates tomorrow morning, I find that you are so acting, I will bring impeachment proceedings against your husband on the floor of the United States Senate. And I will hit him, I promise you, with everything in my well-documented book.

Mrs. Iselin: [Mrs. Iselin leaves without a word, the discussion clearly over, for the present]

The three of us watching the movie all had the same reaction. Maybe you’re having it too.

You Can Spare a Few Dollars to Lobby the Electoral College

Politico reports that full-page advertisements are running in several newspapers encouraging Republicans in the Electoral College to vote against the Orange Menace. The advertisements are being paid for by a Go Fund Me campaign that’s raised more than $250,000 so far. You can make a donation here. The complete text of the advertisement, entitled “Letter To Electors”, is available here. 

From that “Letter to Electors”:

Never in our Republic’s history has there been a President-apparent comparable to [the Orange Menace]. His inauguration would present a grave and continual threat to the Constitution, to domestic tranquility, and to international stability…

We place country before party in imploring you, our fellow Americans, to investigate and deliberate. We stand with you as you exercise your conscience and give profound consideration to the consequences of your vote. We affirm your right and your duty to do so free from intimidation, and urge you to cast your ballot for a person with the temperament, integrity and commitment to Constitutional principles necessary in a President.

In doing so, know that you enjoy the support of millions of Americans.

If you’re thinking about contributing, do it today. The Electoral College votes on Monday, December 19th.