Year of illusions

This is the time of year when writers are making their predictions. The Archdruid Report foresees the election of Donald Trump as president. Gail Tverberg has a thoughtful post about oil. The usually delightful, politically incorrect, and trenchant James Howard Kunstler is worth quoting at length:

Given where we are in human history — the moment of techno-industrial over-reach — this crackup will not be easy to recover from; not like, say, the rapid recoveries of Japan and Germany after the brutal fiasco of World War Two. Things have gone too far in too many ways. The coming crackup will re-set the terms of civilized life to levels largely pre-techno-industrial. How far backward remains to be seen.

Those terms might be somewhat negotiable if we could accept the reality of this re-set and prepare for it. But, alas, most of the people capable of thought these days prefer wishful techno-narcissistic woolgathering to a reality-based assessment of where things stand — passively awaiting technological rescue remedies (“they” will “come up with something”) that will enable all the current rackets to continue. Thus, electric cars will allow suburban sprawl to function as the preferred everyday environment; molecular medicine will eliminate the role of death in human affairs; as-yet-undiscovered energy modalities will keep all the familiar comforts and conveniences running; and financial legerdemain will marshal the capital to make it all happen.

Oh, by the way, here’s a second element of the story to stay alert to: that most of the activities on-going in the USA today have taken on the qualities of rackets, that is, dishonest schemes for money-grubbing. This is most vividly and nauseatingly on display lately in the fields of medicine and education — two realms of action that formerly embodied in their basic operating systems the most sacred virtues developed in the fairly short history of civilized human endeavor: duty, diligence, etc.

I don't make predictions in my Seattle Times column. "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future" as Yogi Berra said. Instead, I have laid down markers, written about the perilous prospects ahead for workers, and the chance of a recession.

Illusions abound, not least in the political realm. The chaos in the Republican presidential contest is commonly narrated as trouble with an insurgency, especially led by Trump, against "the establishment."

The trouble is, a real Republican establishment doesn't exist. It died out with George H.W. Bush, ending a process that began with the Goldwaterites takeover in 1964. Barack Obama is the closest thing we have to a "establishment Republican," except for his party affiliation and skin color. Today's "establishment" came to power with the Gingrich revolution in 1994. The revolution always eats its children.

On the "left" — quotations necessary because the center has shifted so far to the right — is the illusion that Bernie Sanders has a chance at winning the presidency. And, if he did, that he could implement any of his programs, many of which I agree with. But doing this would require commanding majorities in the Congress. As Mr. Obama's tenure has shown, the presidency is only one branch of one segment of our republic's federal-style government.

We have an interesting argument going here at Rogue. Our Front Page Editor, a man with extensive experience in government and foreign policy, will not under any circumstances vote for the "Clintoons," as he calls Hillary and Bill and his dodgy foundation. To him, they are responsible for many of our woes and a President Hillary Clinton would be more of the grifting neoliberal same.

In his reasoning, a Democratic defeat in 2016 would bring Republicans to total power and disaster, paving the way for a real progressive revolution in 2020.

This is not to be lightly dismissed. Hillary is no enemy of the oligarchs or the Military Industrial Complex. Much of the hatred of Obama would easily be transferred to her in the White House, continuing the gains by the GOP at the state and congressional level against a hapless and perhaps dying Democratic Party.

But to me, this is madness. Whatever Hillary's flaws, she would be a bulwark against repealing the New Deal, Great Society, and Enlightenment. She would control appointments to the judiciary. Progressive revolution? Despite #BlackLivesMatter and other effervescences in the liberal echo chamber, where are our armies, as Soleri has asked? They can't compare to those of the right. A Republican sweep in 2016 would only cement the "permanent majority" for which Karl Rove lusted and worked.

As an example, I point to the latest New York Times story about the Koch brothers. In reporting on the new book by Jane Mayer, Dark Money, it buries the lede beneath the sensational but not surprising assertion that the patriarch built an oil refinery for Hitler.

The important news is how the book details the oligarchs who have spent billions building the vast right-wing infrastructure:

The Kochs, the Scaifes, the Bradleys and the DeVos family of Michigan “were among a small, rarefied group of hugely wealthy, archconservative families that for decades poured money, often with little public disclosure, into influencing how the Americans thought and voted,” the book says.

Many of the families owned businesses that clashed with environmental or workplace regulators, come under federal or state investigation, or waged battles over their tax bills with the Internal Revenue Service, Ms. Mayer reports. The Kochs’ vast political network, a major force in Republican politics today, was “originally designed as a means of off-loading the costs of the Koch Industries environmental and regulatory fights onto others” by persuading other rich business owners to contribute to Koch-controlled political groups...

This is what we're up against. As for Trump, throw in an economic downturn, a campaign framed exclusively about fear for Der Homeland, white anger, and the astonishing and growing number of Americans who don't read newspapers, don't know history, can't think critically, and are robots of talk radio and Fox "News"...anything is possible. Including a vote for fascism and national suicide.

 

 

Comments

[Mark Carlson]

Kunstler's been making pretty much the same dire predictions for years now, going back to the Y2K folderol.

But man, is he spot-on about the meds and eds rackets.

[soleri]

Now days are dragon-ridden. The nightmare rides upon sleep.
WB Yeats

There are two interwoven fantasies. The one from the right imagines an anti-Establishment Republican who finally gets rid of brown-skinned immigrants, political correctness, and America's emerging demographic reality. The one from the left imagines a different America, say like Denmark, midwifed by the election of a socialist from Vermont. What they have in common is a problem called reality. There is no emerging majority for either program. What there is a chronic bad mood where political paralysis results from dueling demonologies.

So, what if it's Bernie vs Der Donald? My prediction is that Trump would win. An aging Jewish (if atheistic) socialist is a bridge too far. Obama won because he massaged this jittery nation with his pledge to post-partisan hope and change. It was atmospheric, to be sure, not so challenging that we had to consider difficult changes. Compromise would prevail. Republicans, sensing the danger, undertook to scuttle that enterprise and succeeded all-too well. Now, base Republicans want their racist and xenophobic preoccupations validated. Into this vacuum rides Trump on his very white horse.

Imagine for a moment the election of a president backed by the American Nazi Party and the KKK. It can happen here, and I suspect will, if the stars continue to align in this toxic pattern. Trump, by all measures, should be unelectable. But if the contest is between a reactionary and a socialist, reaction will win. We are not Canada. We are America, warts and more. We consider the idea of "sharing" with blacks and Latinos with revulsion. We, the good Americans, work hard. "They", on the other hand, are "takers". "They want to raise YOUR taxes so those people can get more free stuff!" Republicans will work this ugliness with verve and find a majority with it.

Maybe this scenario will not transpire. Maybe Hillary will tough it out, win the nomination, and lose the election anyway because the purists on the left will cede yet another winnable election to the hard right. Maybe not! Still, it's not a calming thought. I'm not in the mood for wishful thinking, however. Tell me how our better angels win in this nightmare we call our nation. I probably won't believe you but I'll welcome your effort.

[Dr. AZ]

"[A] Democratic defeat in 2016 would bring Republicans to total power and disaster, paving the way for a real progressive revolution in 2020."

Sounds like chemotherapy.

[Cal lash]

Soleri we don't win this nightmare. Move to Uruguay or maybe Belize. The Republicans win and we nuke Iran. We sell all western public lands to the boys in Salt Lake and they charge admission to Disney Grand Canyon. So vote for Bernie and you will sleep better in your hammock on the beach in Uruguay.

HOWEVER my predictions are the Republican attempt to fix voting machines fail and Bernie is elected President. Texas and the South restore the confederacy and prepare for war.
Cal moves to a tent in Organ Pipe near Why Arizona and visits with the ghost of Ed Abbey.
Hasta luego

[Pat]

I said quite awhile back that whoever won the primary on the democrat side would face Trump in the general. I said that because I grew up around working class white "rednecks," and I know what drives them. They don't hide their opinions from me, the way they do-or used to do until Trump came along and freed them from the chains of civility- because I'm not a "suit." I also knew that Obama would get as much racist pushback as he has (but, who didn't?) What they're responding to is a kind of "frontier anxiety," which is what humans always do in the face of what they perceive to be diminishing resources (what if blacks or immigrants get stuff before I can?). They don't want to talk about inclusivity and diversity, because that only increases their anxiety and resentment. They don't want to hear Obama saying "We have to make sure everyone has a shot at the dream," because they don't think there's enough to go around in the first place.
As to whether Clinton or Sanders would better be able to push their agenda in Congress, neither will, unless and until the stupid fever breaks and the "freedom" caucus is back home in Hooterville scamming the yokels. And sorry, but if you accept that this permanently butthurt segment of society who supports Trump is big enough to influence the general election, you should know that none of them-zero- will vote for Clinton, even if Trump somehow loses the primary. Sanders, though? He'd peel off a few votes from Cruz or rubio, because he's talking about things that actually affect them. They don't give a shit about the Middle East, or the Ukraine, they want action right here at home, right now.

[Mark in Scottsdale]

I still choose to believe Trump is unelectable and I continue to hope at some point his supporters move on to more realistic, less frightening candidates. Maybe I'm overreacting but I fear that Trump's ultra-confrontational, egotistical, don't you dare cross me personal style might embroil us in war, international political crises, or who knows what other catastrophes.

I still think there are too many conservatives like myself who are dismayed by Trump and many of his statements and lack of decorum, and therefore that he will fall in the end.

Hillary is the ultimate status quo candidate and therefore I still think she has a good shot at winning.

Ultimately the real question is can Hillary mobilize irregular voters like Obama did. If "no one votes" the Republicans will likely win ... if turnout is huge, that will bode well for her.

[Cal lash]

So far there are no sane Republican cadidates.

[yt kealoha]

Mr. T:

Remember THE importance of the 2010 election. Off year, but all the states' redistricting was bossed by the GOP after their home runs in that year's elections at state levels. 2020 is another major important off year election. A downHILLiary win in 2016 sets up another mega off year win sweep for the GOP and thus, another decade of control. If I was Rovian, I'd get some chump to lose this year and go for the 2020 gold baby.

I would care more if I wasn't about to win the Powerball tonight. See you in New Zealand on my new farm.

[Cal lash]

YT. Good advise.
Fortunate, a farm in New Zealand! Maybe a place in the manger for Soleri?
What's the desert like?

Is Nikki Haley possibly a better Republican than the current nut jobs?

I know that's an illogical question.

[INPHX]

Well, the Koch's have responded to Mayer's allegation with facts and access to detailed information that she could not possibly have had access to. Pretty good read here:

http://kochnews.com/articles/2015/false-and-inaccurate-claims-about-koch

Of course, it doesn't have the "sizzle" that someone like Mayer needs to sell books (Koch's in bed with Hitler!!), but detailed, factual responses rarely do.

Predictions? Hillary voted twice for the Patriot Act, for the Iraq war resolution, for escalation in Afghanistan, and she was against the surge in Iraq. So, she'll be a swell Commander in Chief.

She'll probably win. But none of that's the point.

World economy continues to slide. Government budgets are going to continue to get pressed and someday everyone's going to stop buying everyone else's soverign debt.

Then what?

[Joe]

The difference is that if Bernie is able to surpass Hillary, it will be due to the emergence of a movement.
Absent that movement, it cannot happen.
In the presence of that movement, Congress could be retaken, in defiance of all prevailing wisdom.
Claims about the likelihood of that movement manifesting are not only premature but also pointless: it does, or does not.
But why not put in the work to see if it can?
Argue for your limits, and sure enough, they're yours...

[Petro]

What Joe said.

Speaking of a Sanders presidency with the expectation of a hobbling Congress is premature. What he is demanding is a revolutionary level of participation by the people - and it is easy to imagine that includes exhorting the people to pound on their representatives in the two Houses.

If Bernie has the resolve to do that or die (and he seems to be of that character,) then let's not prematurely write off the potential vitality of his presidency.

This is not an invitation for soleri to posture and counterpoint me for the general audience. Not that anything I say will stop him. :)

[Cal lash]

Hillary attacks on Sanders and having her daughter being her attack dog certainly have been counter productive moves.

[joel hanes]

soleri [quotes Yeats, comments at length, a tragedy]

Wins the intertubes for today.

a tip o' me hat

[joel hanes]

Cal Lash writes:

there are no sane Republican cadidates.

Kasich is sane, but he's a sane SOB.
Among the R clown candidates, only Kasich could competently run a very right-wing government that governed a bit to the left of Generalissimo Francisco Franco.
The rest are incompetent, so might actually do less harm.

[joel hanes]

Mark in Scottsdale writes :

Trump's ultra-confrontational, egotistical, don't you dare cross me personal style

There's a word for this.

It starts with f, and originally denotes a bundle of staves

[Tim]

Rogue -- and anyone else, I would be interested to hear what you think Clinton would be able to accomplish that Bernie wouldn't. Republican hatred of Clinton is so strong, i can only imagine them employing the same strategy they have used with Obama or would use with Bernie, a complete refusal to work across the aisle. They're goal would be to make her a one term president, again. Putting electability aside, Clinton is a hawk Bernie isn't. Can she be trusted to hold Wall Street in check? Bernie would also be a bulwark to progressive ideas, would he not?

[Cal lash]

Amen Tim.