Ted Cruz was Ted Cruz again last night...the firebrand Lone Star Senator again proved that his hallmark is defiance in the face of unpopularity.
This will go down well for those who still value the purity of principle - conservative principle - above everything else. Say what you want about Cruz - you can't deny the man's stubborn integrity and independence.
Problem is, this isn't 1976. Cruz and like-minded movement conservatives are taking a huge gamble: a bet that when the smoke clears from the Trump train wreck, that they'll be back in vogue with the angry GOP base.
That could turn out to be wishful thinking - even if the Trump train does become said train wreck between now and November.
The world has changed beyond recognition since Ronald Reagan took the reins of the contemporary conservative movement in his inspiring performance at the RNC in 1976. Yet like Jay Gatsby, much of the movement essentially thinks that the party's only problem is that it's not trying hard enough to repeat the past.
Cruz has now become their point man - and their ideological mooring is radio host Mark Levin, whose growing fan base among all age groups suggests that this strain of dissent is hardly a fringe viewpoint.
Trump himself will eventually take all this in stride, if he isn't already. He seems more interested in nabbing center-leaning independents and even poaching anti-establishmentarian leftists from Bernie Sanders than in securing the purist segment of the base.
That's probably because he can reasonably count on at least 70-80 percent support from them anyway at the ballot box: the lack of endorsement from the likes of Cruz and Levin doesn't mean in the least that they won't loyally close ranks behind the Republican ticket when it actually counts. It's as if he can take them for granted in much the same way establishment Democrats like Hillary have taken the black vote for granted for years.
So depending on how smart you think Trump is - and this blogger for one thinks he's much smarter than the rest of us - the whole Cruz drama last night may have been an elaborate setup. He may well have figured that Cruz is actually more useful to his cause by remaining fiercely autonomous - and drawing much criticism upon himself in the process - than if he seemed to compromise for once in his life.
Trump doesn't want to give the impression that conservatives automatically must water down their ideals and expectations to help put him in office. He needs the movement and that part of the GOP electorate to eventually converge on Mike Pence's pragmatic take right before the decisive Indiana primary on May 3: Cruz is better, yes, but go with your gut.
That's what Cruz himself effectively said last night - and he's caught hell for it.
Which gives Trump the opportunity, somewhere down the line, to play the peacemaker/unifier role by cutting "Lyin' Ted" some slack - and grudgingly endearing himself to conservatives who otherwise can't stand for him, or even stand him.
Thursday, July 21, 2016
Monday, July 18, 2016
Good economy won't hurt Trump (or help Hillary)
The conventional wisdom that Donald Trump needs a bad economy to win the presidency - i.e. that a good US economy between now and November will hurt him - is likely to be the latest in a long line of common establishmentarian assumptions that will be rendered invalid in this election. And ultimately, probably the most important.
The fact of the matter is, just look at the messenger himself: Donald Trump, a flamboyantly wealthy business mogul, isn't exactly the kind of guy you'd think would be complaining about a rotten economy. That tells you something: this isn't about the absolute level of prosperity or poverty in America, but 1) the direction that things are going, 2) the structural obstacles that have become entrenched in preventing a much higher level of general well-being for the populace as a whole, and probably most importantly, 3) the distortions that even our prosperity is causing in society and culture.
Make no mistake: the American dream is still alive and arguably quite well. If you take a glass-half-full view of the Millennial generation, it's quite remarkable that half still believe in it - their actual experiences since the Great Recession would easily lend to a gloomier outlook. Tellingly, even those who don't believe in it appear as likely to be skeptical of its moral and spiritual value as opposed to just plain cynical that it's actually achievable. If you take a more holistic view, an unmistakable picture emerges: whilst older Americans are more confident about the economy and material well-being, they're the ones most upset about the country's social and cultural milieu; by contrast, younger Americans are less gung-ho about their temporal welfare but resoundingly more positive about how the country's faring and where it's heading overall (undeniable exceptions notwithstanding).
That means that 2016 already exhibits a different dynamic between economics and politics than previous elections. Not too long ago, it was still possible to consider politics as effectively a function of economics; today it's becoming just as valid to consider economics a function of politics.
That's because the mythic "capitalist free market" has long ceased to exist in any meaningful form, true to its ideologically pure pedigree. But even more to the point, it's become obvious that even if the material benefits of globalization have outweighed its material costs, this strictly materialistic criterion for assessment is no longer credible.
If you were to sum up in just one word not just America's but the general global backlash against the international financial-corporate cartel-elite, it's alienation.
Stunningly, this quintessentially Marxist term is hard to dismiss in a world that has been utterly dominated by the transnational capitalist ruling class for a generation; and to the extent that they and their spokesmen and apologists are now ignoring this reality, they are effectively digging their political graves.
By alienation, in today's postmodern, post-industrial context, we fundamentally refer to the distance and aloofness of the global economy's modes of wealth transfer and production from its actual rank and file of not just workers - whether blue-collar or white-collar - but especially consumers too; it's the effective reduction of Joe Sixpack to just one more class of economic commodity not even so much for his muscle and toil, but for his consumption of what the powers-that-be choose to feed him with ever more detached or remote processes which don't require his participation.
Remarkably, this is a very old concept (and reality) which in the age of internet-driven globalization has acquired a particularly virtualized and impersonal - to the point of being faceless or roboticized - character. It's the ultimate triumph of "capital" over "labor": the steady abolition of the latter by the former, whereby the latter is rendered so superfluous and expendable by the former that it's effectively transformed from worker to dependent. Or, as "capital" progresses towards its final irrevocable victory, "labor" becomes "torpor", if not "stupor."
Behind the subpar economic numbers in the latter phases of the Obama recovery, it's this deeper metamorphosis of the societal condition that's arousing the populist backlash of Mr. Trump. A "good" economy is no longer to be judged merely by its production and consumption stats, but also by its production and consumption ethic. It's the global financial-corporatist ethic of maximizing the black bottom line that's allowed the economy to look really "good" regardless of its consequent structural socioeconomic inequities and extreme concentrations of real power and influence in very few hands, which makes a complete mockery of the vaunted democratic process.
And that's what this whole rebellion against the Republican - and Democratic - establishment is all about.
And that's what this whole rebellion against the Republican - and Democratic - establishment is all about.
Saturday, July 2, 2016
Trump is asking for our vote, not our blessing
I write this because I'm somewhat disturbed that there are still conscientious Christians out there who won't vote for Donald Trump even though they know Hillary Clinton is a far less palatable choice for their values and beliefs.
My simple message is this: Trump is asking for your vote, not your blessing.
Our president is not our priest or pastor: the role of the office is principally temporal and of the material order, with spirituality a guiding light, for sure, but not the overriding concern that dictates what can or should be done down to the minutiae of each decision or act.
In an ideal world - definitely not the sin-tainted one on this side of the last judgment - we won't have to bother with characters like Trump because there won't be any dangers or challenges that require the style and flexibility of leadership that more often than not comes in a less-than-exemplary moral package.
Consider our military. We wouldn't even need one if we had no enemies with the capability and/or intent to harm us. But the fact is there are, and while it's always a worthy cause to negotiate for lasting peace where possible, in the meantime we need plenty of head-bashers and a**-kickers. You have to be alive to even have the chance to do a deal; and the stronger your physical position vis-à-vis your adversary, ironically the more you can achieve without resorting to additional violence.
We don't expect our troops - especially our best men and women who bear the brunt of the fighting - to be such nice guys and gals, do we? I sure hope not!
And ultimately that's what the presidency is: commander-in-chief. As St. Paul would say, there's a reason that human authority is symbolized by a sword - of course it so happens that the one wielding it is less than likely to be a great example of loving your enemy, but in a world full of sin it's a compromise that God is perfectly willing to allow.
We want a commander-in-chief who can actually do very difficult things and get those under him to actually do difficult things, too. What we don't want is a flabby moralist who, under the guise of being "enlightened" and "open-minded", is just another pansy terrified of political incorrectness and bad poll numbers.
So in conclusion, my fellow Christians still reserved about or downright hostile to Trump: just ask yourself what your vote actually means - what the presidency itself actually is. In the end, if you're crystal-clear about what it is you're actually granting to the candidate you vote for - and what you're not - your conscience shouldn't bother you at all at night.
My simple message is this: Trump is asking for your vote, not your blessing.
Our president is not our priest or pastor: the role of the office is principally temporal and of the material order, with spirituality a guiding light, for sure, but not the overriding concern that dictates what can or should be done down to the minutiae of each decision or act.
In an ideal world - definitely not the sin-tainted one on this side of the last judgment - we won't have to bother with characters like Trump because there won't be any dangers or challenges that require the style and flexibility of leadership that more often than not comes in a less-than-exemplary moral package.
Consider our military. We wouldn't even need one if we had no enemies with the capability and/or intent to harm us. But the fact is there are, and while it's always a worthy cause to negotiate for lasting peace where possible, in the meantime we need plenty of head-bashers and a**-kickers. You have to be alive to even have the chance to do a deal; and the stronger your physical position vis-à-vis your adversary, ironically the more you can achieve without resorting to additional violence.
We don't expect our troops - especially our best men and women who bear the brunt of the fighting - to be such nice guys and gals, do we? I sure hope not!
And ultimately that's what the presidency is: commander-in-chief. As St. Paul would say, there's a reason that human authority is symbolized by a sword - of course it so happens that the one wielding it is less than likely to be a great example of loving your enemy, but in a world full of sin it's a compromise that God is perfectly willing to allow.
We want a commander-in-chief who can actually do very difficult things and get those under him to actually do difficult things, too. What we don't want is a flabby moralist who, under the guise of being "enlightened" and "open-minded", is just another pansy terrified of political incorrectness and bad poll numbers.
So in conclusion, my fellow Christians still reserved about or downright hostile to Trump: just ask yourself what your vote actually means - what the presidency itself actually is. In the end, if you're crystal-clear about what it is you're actually granting to the candidate you vote for - and what you're not - your conscience shouldn't bother you at all at night.
Saturday, June 18, 2016
Catholic conservatives fundamentally confuse cause and effect
The firestorm of criticism from conservative Catholics over Pope Francis's controversial statement that a "great majority" of sacramental marriages are "null" has exposed the very heart of the crisis of the Church: namely, that countless millions of Catholics are receiving the sacraments without sufficient spiritual instruction or maturity.
In the strict sense, of course, the Pope's critics have a point: the mere fact that 60-odd percent of Catholic marriages in the West end up in separation (to avoid the term "divorce") doesn't render these sacramental unions invalid to start with. That would deny both the power and the universality of sacramental grace, which as Christians (Catholic or otherwise) we must firmly believe is ultimately independent of human will and actions (i.e. sin or rebellion).
On the other hand, it's undeniable that faith can't work like magic - at least, not in most cases. No less than a child must be continually instructed according to the Catechism for years after first communion and/or confirmation, in order to constantly acquire habits of life that conform to it and shed those that don't, a new married couple must constantly work to maintain and improve their actual state of matrimonial union - an endeavor typically requiring very conscious and deliberate choices to forgive faults which, outside the sacrament's protection, are simply impossible to repair.
That's where it's crucial to really grasp the context of the "provisional culture" that the Holy Father repeatedly speaks of: it's the provisional culture that renders traditional and orthodox conceptions of marriage and family far less exclusively influential than they used to be.
To put it bluntly: asking many couples and families to stay together in this day and age is effectively asking them to suffer more than they would if they split apart. This societal and cultural dynamic simply didn't exist before the era of mass consumerism and women's participation in the workforce.
This is what Catholic (and other Christian) conservatives never seem to understand or, even if they do, concede: where they believe that it's the attack on the family that has corrupted the culture, the reality is that a corrupted culture has severely weakened the family.
In other words, conservatives fundamentally confuse cause and effect, and because they misidentify the source of the powerful forces arrayed against the traditional family, they're always reduced to a highly reactive kind of defensiveness which betrays a deep insecurity, sometimes even bordering on quasi-Apocalyptic foreboding, over the state of the world they inhabit. And the pontificate of Francis has left them distressed to see that even their own leadership has somewhat moved on from such an inflexible nihilist view of God's creation (tainted though it may be).
Anyway, I'm hopeful that sooner or later even conservatives will start reconsidering their self-imposed exile from the realm of contemporary social realities.
In the strict sense, of course, the Pope's critics have a point: the mere fact that 60-odd percent of Catholic marriages in the West end up in separation (to avoid the term "divorce") doesn't render these sacramental unions invalid to start with. That would deny both the power and the universality of sacramental grace, which as Christians (Catholic or otherwise) we must firmly believe is ultimately independent of human will and actions (i.e. sin or rebellion).
On the other hand, it's undeniable that faith can't work like magic - at least, not in most cases. No less than a child must be continually instructed according to the Catechism for years after first communion and/or confirmation, in order to constantly acquire habits of life that conform to it and shed those that don't, a new married couple must constantly work to maintain and improve their actual state of matrimonial union - an endeavor typically requiring very conscious and deliberate choices to forgive faults which, outside the sacrament's protection, are simply impossible to repair.
That's where it's crucial to really grasp the context of the "provisional culture" that the Holy Father repeatedly speaks of: it's the provisional culture that renders traditional and orthodox conceptions of marriage and family far less exclusively influential than they used to be.
To put it bluntly: asking many couples and families to stay together in this day and age is effectively asking them to suffer more than they would if they split apart. This societal and cultural dynamic simply didn't exist before the era of mass consumerism and women's participation in the workforce.
This is what Catholic (and other Christian) conservatives never seem to understand or, even if they do, concede: where they believe that it's the attack on the family that has corrupted the culture, the reality is that a corrupted culture has severely weakened the family.
In other words, conservatives fundamentally confuse cause and effect, and because they misidentify the source of the powerful forces arrayed against the traditional family, they're always reduced to a highly reactive kind of defensiveness which betrays a deep insecurity, sometimes even bordering on quasi-Apocalyptic foreboding, over the state of the world they inhabit. And the pontificate of Francis has left them distressed to see that even their own leadership has somewhat moved on from such an inflexible nihilist view of God's creation (tainted though it may be).
Anyway, I'm hopeful that sooner or later even conservatives will start reconsidering their self-imposed exile from the realm of contemporary social realities.
Wednesday, June 1, 2016
Trump's a flip-flopper but not a hypocrite
How is it that Donald Trump can seemingly get away with so much flip-flopping and lack of political consistency?
The answer is deceptively simple: Trump has never pretended to be anything other than a narcissistic egomaniac, anyway. In other words, even with all the flip-flopping, he's not a hypocrite - he's just being The Donald. The same standards and expectations that apply to any normal politician simply don't to someone whose whole life has been a reality TV show of private profiteering to start with.
So where, for instance, orthodox conservatives consider Trump's donations to the Clintons during his long years as a New York Democrat as anathema, his fans muse that he's carried Bill and Hillary around like pocket change.
In the end, Americans want genuineness in their candidates, even if it's a genuine lefty-loony like Sanders or a genuine confidence artist like Trump. What more and more of us can't stand is the mask of altruism of the ruling-class left and the mask of ideological and moral purity of the conservative right.
The answer is deceptively simple: Trump has never pretended to be anything other than a narcissistic egomaniac, anyway. In other words, even with all the flip-flopping, he's not a hypocrite - he's just being The Donald. The same standards and expectations that apply to any normal politician simply don't to someone whose whole life has been a reality TV show of private profiteering to start with.
So where, for instance, orthodox conservatives consider Trump's donations to the Clintons during his long years as a New York Democrat as anathema, his fans muse that he's carried Bill and Hillary around like pocket change.
In the end, Americans want genuineness in their candidates, even if it's a genuine lefty-loony like Sanders or a genuine confidence artist like Trump. What more and more of us can't stand is the mask of altruism of the ruling-class left and the mask of ideological and moral purity of the conservative right.
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
Don't worry, Donald Trump isn't a wannabe dictator
Financial Times argues that Donald Trump's rise merely caps off what's become a global trend of the resurgence of strongman politics, which has introduced authoritarianism even into established democracies.
While the stylistic similarities between autocratic personalities such as Trump, Putin, and Xi Jinping are unmistakable, this fear that America is flirting with fascism in a prospective Trump presidency is wildly overblown.
True, the 2016 GOP primary race has shown that the "middle American street" has become more responsive to neo-collectivist, nativist and nationalist populism than to the increasingly stale rhetoric of "limited government", "free markets", and even (individual) "liberty" itself. This is why some leading conservative figures - including renowned radio host Mark Levin - are still disturbed by Trump's leadership, even after most of the party rank and file and even elite establishment has at least become resigned to it (if still largely hesitant to positively support it): they perceive in it a unique threat to "American exceptionalism", which for them is ultimately the notion that this law-loving country is uniquely well insulated against the baser passions of the lynch mob.
But Trump is very much a creature of the American system, and he has absolutely no interest in tearing it down to imitate Russia or China. Rather, he has merely exposed the sorry reality that our nation isn't working so well anymore, and that this is actually a consequence of a toxic brew of both too little democracy (i.e. regulatory capture by massive banks and corporations) and too much democracy (i.e. partisan bickering and gridlock by elected politicians). Both ills must be confronted and remedied: walls must be erected where bridges are the problem and bridges must be built where walls are the problem. And there's no reason this can't be done completely democratically and within the due processes of our great Constitution.
That being said, these are extraordinary times, and in the American context, they call not so much for extraordinary policies as for extraordinary politicking within an electoral and representative framework underpinned by free flow of news and information. Trump's abrasive style and contempt for niceties make him come off as an authoritarian, but in fact those who fear him might want to ask themselves: Am I so deeply in thrall to my own convictions of how our republic should work that I can't stand being shown up by a shameless narcissist?
While the stylistic similarities between autocratic personalities such as Trump, Putin, and Xi Jinping are unmistakable, this fear that America is flirting with fascism in a prospective Trump presidency is wildly overblown.
True, the 2016 GOP primary race has shown that the "middle American street" has become more responsive to neo-collectivist, nativist and nationalist populism than to the increasingly stale rhetoric of "limited government", "free markets", and even (individual) "liberty" itself. This is why some leading conservative figures - including renowned radio host Mark Levin - are still disturbed by Trump's leadership, even after most of the party rank and file and even elite establishment has at least become resigned to it (if still largely hesitant to positively support it): they perceive in it a unique threat to "American exceptionalism", which for them is ultimately the notion that this law-loving country is uniquely well insulated against the baser passions of the lynch mob.
But Trump is very much a creature of the American system, and he has absolutely no interest in tearing it down to imitate Russia or China. Rather, he has merely exposed the sorry reality that our nation isn't working so well anymore, and that this is actually a consequence of a toxic brew of both too little democracy (i.e. regulatory capture by massive banks and corporations) and too much democracy (i.e. partisan bickering and gridlock by elected politicians). Both ills must be confronted and remedied: walls must be erected where bridges are the problem and bridges must be built where walls are the problem. And there's no reason this can't be done completely democratically and within the due processes of our great Constitution.
That being said, these are extraordinary times, and in the American context, they call not so much for extraordinary policies as for extraordinary politicking within an electoral and representative framework underpinned by free flow of news and information. Trump's abrasive style and contempt for niceties make him come off as an authoritarian, but in fact those who fear him might want to ask themselves: Am I so deeply in thrall to my own convictions of how our republic should work that I can't stand being shown up by a shameless narcissist?
Monday, May 16, 2016
US presidential hopefuls better be thinking really big about China
When Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton becomes US president come January 2017, this is what the new leader of the free world will be dealing with on the global stage:
One Belt One Road (OBOR):
Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB):
The sheer scale of Beijing's global economic (and hence geopolitical) ambitions presents the US with an arguably greater challenge than either the anti-fascist struggle in World War II or the Cold War against the Soviet Union. From the above maps, it's obvious that Beijing intends to dominate the traditional heartland of world politics - the Eurasian supercontinent.
In its latest play for global supremacy, its largest state bank, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), has acquired a flagship secret UK gold vault from Barclays in London - instantly adding up to 2,000 tons of physical gold to Beijing's sovereign oversight (if even just a small fraction of it under Chinese ownership or lease) out of a global total physical gold supply estimated at only 35,000 tons, i.e. scooped up access control of nearly 6 percent of the whole planet's gold stockpile.
The Donald, interestingly, has bragged about ICBC's presence as a major tenant in Trump Tower. This is the kind of news that gets him riled up more than ever: while the White House and Pentagon remain preoccupied with the charade of a standoff in the South China Sea, the communist dictatorship is seizing direct control of the Western financial system piece by piece, right under our noses.
Donald's already accustomed to thinking big about China - he's now compelled to think even bigger. And Hillary had better follow suit.
One Belt One Road (OBOR):
Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB):
The sheer scale of Beijing's global economic (and hence geopolitical) ambitions presents the US with an arguably greater challenge than either the anti-fascist struggle in World War II or the Cold War against the Soviet Union. From the above maps, it's obvious that Beijing intends to dominate the traditional heartland of world politics - the Eurasian supercontinent.
In its latest play for global supremacy, its largest state bank, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), has acquired a flagship secret UK gold vault from Barclays in London - instantly adding up to 2,000 tons of physical gold to Beijing's sovereign oversight (if even just a small fraction of it under Chinese ownership or lease) out of a global total physical gold supply estimated at only 35,000 tons, i.e. scooped up access control of nearly 6 percent of the whole planet's gold stockpile.
The Donald, interestingly, has bragged about ICBC's presence as a major tenant in Trump Tower. This is the kind of news that gets him riled up more than ever: while the White House and Pentagon remain preoccupied with the charade of a standoff in the South China Sea, the communist dictatorship is seizing direct control of the Western financial system piece by piece, right under our noses.
Donald's already accustomed to thinking big about China - he's now compelled to think even bigger. And Hillary had better follow suit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)