The Anti-Establishment’s Scorched Earth Policy
Published in Le Temps
(Switzerland) on 31 December 2016
by Stéphane Bussard Des Moines (link to original)
(Switzerland) on 31 December 2016
by Stéphane Bussard Des Moines (link to original)
Translated from
by Yasmine Garreau.
Edited by Victoria Branca.
Within Republican ranks, rants which completely ignore facts have become a political program in their own right. They do not serve the U.S. at a time when democracies are faced with increased populism and are the target of Islamic State jihadis.
There were many on the other side of the Atlantic who thought that the U.S. democracy, with its population all of 330 million, would show its limitations by voting for a representative of one of the two dynasties that have dominated the U.S. political stage for decades: Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton. On the one side, the brother of one of the worst presidents that the U.S. has ever known. On the other, a former first lady, former senator and former U.S. secretary of state. However, the 2016 electoral campaign has proven to be full of surprises. It saw the arrival of a former reality TV show host, billionaire Donald Trump, and of a "democratic socialist," Bernie Sanders, who wishes to stir up a revolution. After having elected the first African-American president, U.S. citizens are showing that they are unafraid of opening up possibilities.
However, this apparent vitality conceals a deep disquiet. Upon following electoral meetings in Iowa, there is a striking realization. Elites are detested and institutions slammed. Despite the fact that the U.S. only has two dominant parties, neither is spared by the insurrectional mood against Washington D.C., the all-powerful Wall Street, and the power of the lobbies. This, despite the fact that the Democratic administration saved the automobile industry and spearheaded the most ambitious health care reform since World War II. But a large part of the U.S. electorate only feels contempt for Barack Obama, who embodies all that they reject: a U.S. that tries to open itself to the world and who is trying to deal as best it can with globalization. Economic growth did not benefit everyone in a country where social inequalities have exploded.
The Republican Party – on the verge of implosion – is panicked by the unstoppable, unknown Donald Trump. On the Democratic side, even the hugely experienced Hillary Clinton, hindered by an email issue which could prove to be a problem during the electoral campaign, is finding it tricky to contain Bernie Sanders, found to be consistent and trustworthy. If the latter is castigating U.S. oligarchy, the Republicans’ rants against the establishment are broader. They have become a political program which, in itself, is not rooted in fact. But they do a disservice to the U.S. at a time when democracies are facing an increase in populism and are the target of Islamic State jihadis.
By painting an apocalyptic picture of the U.S., by singling out immigrants, the likes of Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and a majority of Republican leaders are positioning themselves to the extreme right of the political playing field. Such a policy of scorched earth is not without danger. It is capable of exacerbating the centrifugal forces in American society. For the worse.
There were many on the other side of the Atlantic who thought that the U.S. democracy, with its population all of 330 million, would show its limitations by voting for a representative of one of the two dynasties that have dominated the U.S. political stage for decades: Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton. On the one side, the brother of one of the worst presidents that the U.S. has ever known. On the other, a former first lady, former senator and former U.S. secretary of state. However, the 2016 electoral campaign has proven to be full of surprises. It saw the arrival of a former reality TV show host, billionaire Donald Trump, and of a "democratic socialist," Bernie Sanders, who wishes to stir up a revolution. After having elected the first African-American president, U.S. citizens are showing that they are unafraid of opening up possibilities.
However, this apparent vitality conceals a deep disquiet. Upon following electoral meetings in Iowa, there is a striking realization. Elites are detested and institutions slammed. Despite the fact that the U.S. only has two dominant parties, neither is spared by the insurrectional mood against Washington D.C., the all-powerful Wall Street, and the power of the lobbies. This, despite the fact that the Democratic administration saved the automobile industry and spearheaded the most ambitious health care reform since World War II. But a large part of the U.S. electorate only feels contempt for Barack Obama, who embodies all that they reject: a U.S. that tries to open itself to the world and who is trying to deal as best it can with globalization. Economic growth did not benefit everyone in a country where social inequalities have exploded.
The Republican Party – on the verge of implosion – is panicked by the unstoppable, unknown Donald Trump. On the Democratic side, even the hugely experienced Hillary Clinton, hindered by an email issue which could prove to be a problem during the electoral campaign, is finding it tricky to contain Bernie Sanders, found to be consistent and trustworthy. If the latter is castigating U.S. oligarchy, the Republicans’ rants against the establishment are broader. They have become a political program which, in itself, is not rooted in fact. But they do a disservice to the U.S. at a time when democracies are facing an increase in populism and are the target of Islamic State jihadis.
By painting an apocalyptic picture of the U.S., by singling out immigrants, the likes of Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and a majority of Republican leaders are positioning themselves to the extreme right of the political playing field. Such a policy of scorched earth is not without danger. It is capable of exacerbating the centrifugal forces in American society. For the worse.
As a democratic Socialist myself I was pleased about Bernie Sanders’ crushing win over Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire Democratic primary ( Sanders with 60 percent ). And I was pleased to learn that a poll in my neighboring state of Rhode Island also predicts a big victory here for the ” socialist ” Democrat Bernie Sanders ( 60 percent ).
There is a simple Marxist explanation for the rise of anti-establishment presidential candidates here : the decay of capitalism and the reality of the class struggle. Obscene economic inequality is all too obvious to working class people. The American middle class is disappearing. Even Republican Donald Trump says : ” The American Dream is dead “.
History teaches that the ruined middle class can turn to fascism-as they did in Nazi Germany in the 1930s . I see Bernie Sanders as more New Deal liberal than radical socialist in the tradition of Eugene V. Debs.
Of course peaceful, progressive change is infinitely preferable to bloody revolution. But our ONE PERCENT is probably the meanest capitalist ruling class in the world.
But TRUTH is also subversive . And TRUTH is on the side of progressive forces. I think Marx was wrong about religion always and everywhere being the ” opium of the people “. Catholic social philosophy, for example, can make Bernie Sanders seem like a timid liberal. No doubt Bernie’s left wing politics has been shaped by the ” socialist Jew ” tradition in New York . Read socialist Irving Howe’s ” World of Our Fathers “. Not a few socialists among the older generation of New York Jews. They had a feel, an empathy for the persecuted of the world.
But I remain a critical supporter of ” socialist ” Bernie Sanders. I will certainly vote for him in the Rhode Island primary.
[ http://radicalrons.blogspot.com]