What if some in the Establishment want Trump to win?

I was entertaining a conspiracy theory that is favored by some partisan Republicans. They see Donald Trump as an outsider taking over their party. They point out that he was a Democrat in the past.

It must be admitted that on a number of major issues Trump is far to the left of Hillary Clinton. He makes strong criticisms of free trade agreements and big money legalized bribery, all combined what many leftists call corporatism. Even more leftist, he strongly supports universal healthcare.

He has flip-flopped on some issues, such as raising the minimum wage. Then again, Clinton flip-flops almost every time she opens her mouth.

Even some of Trump’s right-wing positions aren’t that different from some statements Clinton has made in the past. She has used racist dog whistle politics. And she earlier stated support for building a fence, instead of a wall, along the border with Mexico.

What if some establishment Democrats want Trump to win? He would be more likely than Clinton to accomplish certain leftist policies, specifically universal healthcare. Sometimes it takes someone in the opposite party to push issues in the other direction—take Richard Nixon’s liberal policies (creating the EPA, and he even advocated for far left healthcare reform and a basic income) and Bill Clinton’s conservative policies (slashing welfare, deregulating, etc).

Maybe Trump is being set up to win. In that case, Clinton would be the patsy who will take the blame. Then how will Republicans organize to fight such things as universal healthcare when it is their own Republican president who is promoting it?

The thing is that the establishment doesn’t necessarily care one way or another about such things as healthcare reform. They will always be sure that certain powerful interests benefit. So, any further healthcare reform would be further shaped to favor the corporations with the most power and influence.

The establishment won’t lose if Trump wins, as he was born and raised as part of the plutocracy and has spent his adult life schmoozing with politicians like the Clintons. And they won’t lose if Clinton wins, one of the most corporatist politicians around. Either way, the establishment wins. But maybe, just maybe there are some in the establishment that are hoping for a Trump victory.

* * *

From an establishment perspective, what is the range of allowable debate? Consider the two mainstream candidates that were the furthest to the right and left.

Ted Cruz was the right-wing candidate, giving voice to both the Tea Party and the religious right. The Republican establishment hated him and he was forced to end his campaign.

Bernie Sanders remains the most leftist candidate, excluding third parties. Calling himself a socialist is one thing, but his demands for reform are unacceptable. The Democratic establishment despises him most of all for the very reason he is so popular.

These two candidates represent the boundaries of the establishment. Only candidates within these boundaries can be allowed to win the nomination of both parties. Hillary was always the obvious establishment candidate. But one is left with the suspicion that Trump is the other establishment candidate.

After all, Clinton and Trump have been the darlings of the mainstream media. That is the same mainstream media that has corporatist ties to both parties—to such an extent that, for example, some lobbyists working within the DNC also help to raise money for Republicans. The mainstream media has given a lot of free campaign advertising to both Clinton and Trump, most especially Trump.

It does make one wonder. Maybe either candidate is acceptable to the establishment. Maybe they are just putting on a show for us voters, creating the ultimate spectacle.

The powers that be have already analyzed every possible scenario. They are surely thinking several steps ahead of the game and prepared with multiple contingency plans. Considering that, what are those several steps ahead? What are the plans already in place? Where are the insiders placing their bets?

46 thoughts on “What if some in the Establishment want Trump to win?

    • I suspect that is just part of the show. If they really wanted to stop him, they would have done it long ago and you would never heard about it. The plutocrats controlling the establishment control the main parties and the corporate media. They could have shut Trump out from day one. Instead, they promoted him.

      They aren’t stupid. They know what they’re doing. They probably see Trump as a known quantity. He is a fellow plutocrat who has been part of the establishment his entire life. The other plutocrats know how to work with someone like him. He is just a showman and I doubt the plutocrats are worried in the slightest about him. As far as we know, Trump has been organizing his entire campaign at the behest of certain groups within the establishment.

      I don’t think the plutocrats are even worried about Sanders. The shadow government can contain any president, at least for the time being. If a president doesn’t play by the rules, that president would be shut out, blackmailed, or maybe even assassinated. On the other hand, if populist unrest increases enough, even the shadow government might be forced to relent to a degree… but not until they do everything in their power to destroy the growing populist movement with COINTELPRO, assassinations, or any other means necessary.

      Of course, I’m just speculating. That is all any of us can do. I just don’t trust anything in the media these days. Even the alternative media is mostly forced to work with data that is being spun in a thousand directions. None of us have access to what is actually going on behind closed doors. I just know enough to ignore the show being put on for us. And I clearly have the sense that it’s all a show.

      I have no insider info. I can’t say what is being planned. It’s just that, at this point, all elections are spectacles. Elected officials aren’t the source of power in the US. Presidents, in particular, are just figureheads. It doesn’t matter too much who that figurehead is. Still, the rhetoric of the campaigns does make a difference. That is why I’m supporting Sanders, as it is a brief window of opportunity to influence public debate and public perception. That window of opportunity is quickly closing.

      • I just don’t understand why so many Sanders supporters are getting behind Trump. This lesser evils option needs to go. It’s not going to get us anywhere. Were still most likely going to get and establishment candidate in 2016. But if people start thinking outside the box then that can change in the future. But I just don’t see it now. I don’t get why Sanders fans can’t see that they should be getting behind someone like Jill Stein or the Green party.

        I have by and large always voted for the democrat candidate since I started voting. The Lesser evil option. But where exactly has that gotten us in terms of results? A republican party and democrat party that both continue to go more rightward.
        People that want change have got to start voting outside the democrat or republican parties. We don’t have a progressive party currently. Trump might be a lesser evil in some ways (I can understand why women and minorities don’t want anything to do with him), but he is still and evil. He supports torture, the use of nuclear weapons, the current police state, letting wallstreet regulate itself, letting states decide on minimum wage (thats what we have now and it’s pathetic), is for coal and fossil fuel use, and has not ruled out militarism. He constantly demonizes China and North Korea. And has said the US should continue to use military option on ISIS (as if that’s really helped at this point, its just done more to destabalie) Not exactly a good candidate. Not to mention his grotesque namecalling of women and minorities.

        I don’t think getting behind him is any way to build any good long term movements.; I strongly disagree with bernie fans that want to get behind him.

        • Not all Sanders’ supporters are from the political left. There are a bunch of conservative independents, disaffected Republicans, and malcontented libertarians who see Sanders as a decent option to challenge the status quo or simply shake things up. Many of these people might have been supporting Trump from the beginning if Sanders wasn’t running.

          It’s hard to know who are all these people and what are their motivations. But obviously it’s not just leftists who are tired of corruption and the generally crappy results we keep getting.

          Populist politics tend to be messy. You can see that from the early Republican party, which was a big tent party including left-wingers, right-wingers, and much in between. It was as a big tent party that the early Republicans were able to take messy populism to the next level of challenging the two-party system and, in the process, ended up as the new second half of the two-party system.

          It’s complicated. Clinton is in some ways more conservative than Trump. Likewise, I suspect many of Clinton’s supporters are more conservative than those of Trump. I don’t support Trump. He is a wild card and could do almost anything as president. But he potentially could accomplish some policies far to the left of anything Clinton would likely do. It all depends on who Trump really is and who might be hidden behind his campaign.

          Then again, Trump’s campaign could be a weird ploy to reinforce the Republican establishment. It might be an attempt to co-opt the Tea Party element back into the partisan fold and defuse their righteous anger with Trump’s buffoonery. I came across a comment that suggested such a possibility—from someone calling themselves nonclassical:

          “…the other “pattern” our author does NOT focus upon is the bushit-cheney strategy, whereby Trump gets to posture and bloviate, while his VP (Chris Christie??) runs mainstream repubLIEcon strategy…thereby unifying the “party”…”

          I found it in the comments section of this article:

          http://www.nationofchange.org/news/2016/05/13/trump-can-lie-no-one-seems-care/

          My basic point is this. I doubt Trump is as much of a threat that people make him out to be. On the contrary, one way or another, I suspect the establishment might prefer him. It might not even be an issue of Democratic establishment or Republican establishment. Ultimately, there is only one establishment. If that’s true, then it would make no sense for Sanders supporters to throw their support behind Trump.

          • “Not all Sanders’ supporters are from the political left. There are a bunch of conservative independents, disaffected Republicans, and malcontented libertarians who see Sanders as a decent option to challenge the status quo or simply shake things up. Many of these people might have been supporting Trump from the beginning if Sanders wasn’t running.”

            That is a really good point. But I think in the end were just screwing ourselves by getting behind establishment parties in the long run. I don’t see any good coming of it. I don’t even understand why Ron Paul stayed with the republican party. Sure, your treated unfairly if you aren’t running as a Democrat or Republican, but I feel like some rebellion against this would of done more for people to shake and change this up. I guess my point is that I despise trying to shake things up by trying to change from within a party. I look at this as backfiring in the long run. I just don’t think it’s going to work like alot of people think it will. Bernies wife said on TV recently (I can’t find the link, but she said this a couple weeks agi) that she wants to change things from within the democratic party – something I strongly disagree with. And you know, bernie did support those sanctions back in the 90s against Iraq. (Chris Hedges has talked about this in detail)He has been a cheerleader for US foreign policy. And that’s why to a certain extent I think he’s a sheepdog. He may have to show some accountability for this if the stablishment were to fall. US foreign policy does break International law. And Bernie sanders has cheerleaded some of these things. It worth remembering this.

          • We’re basically in agreement. But it’s hard to think tactically in a nearly impossible situation. We are surrounded by corruption and cronyism. We are ruled over by concentrated wealth and power so vast that it is hard to imagine.

            How do we win a game that is rigged to ensure we lose? What other option is there? Revolution?

            “I just don’t think it’s going to work like alot of people think it will.”

            I don’t think it will either. That said, even working outside of the system has failed. It’s partly the failure of the left-wing movement in the 20th century that led us to where we are now. It wasn’t entirely the fault of the left-wing, but they do need to take some of the blame, as do we all.

            The plutocrats out-smarted us. It’s not as if left-wingers had no opportunities to prove themselves in the world, as there were a ton of left-wing governments over this past century. One might argue that left-wingers are always at a disadvantage, but that isn’t much of an excuse for our collective failure.

            Left-wing groups like the Black Panthers knew the government would seek to destroy them. That is what governments do. There has been a failure of imagination on the left in promoting larger ways of organizing. We seem stuck in a paradigm that even radical thinking has a hard time escaping from.

            “And you know, bernie did support those sanctions back in the 90s against Iraq. (Chris Hedges has talked about this in detail)He has been a cheerleader for US foreign policy.”

            I understand. It’s the whole system. No one is going to last long in the system if they don’t play by some of the rules. And Sanders has been in the system a long time. He is a professional politicians, no doubt about that. The same thing can be said about Elizabeth Warren who also supports some war hawk policies and supports Israeli oppression.

            The problem I see isn’t primarily that of parties. So, I’m not sure that third parties can make a difference. We need to work entirely outside of the system. We need to think larger. The problems we are facing, including corporatism, are global at this point. I was just reading an article about the US government promoting the interests of a transnational corporation. At this point, none of this is about any particular election, party, or even country.

            We need left-wing movements and organizations that are equally global. That way, when one government tries to smash populist protest and grassroots organizing, those in other countries can continue the fight and put pressure on international institutions. Political parties and elections are spectacles in the US, at least for the time being in how the system operates. Any force to change will have to come from outside of the system and maybe entirely outside of the country.

            In seeking hope, I’d look to the most desperate regions of the world. Desperation can at times breed innovation. Those are the people who will find solutions, if solutions are to be found. Only those directly and personally suffering from the harm of imperialism and climate change will be motivated enough to fight back. Here in the US, we are too mired within the empire itself to be able to see clearly.

            Plus, compared to much of the rest of the world, it’s a fairly comfortable life here in the empire, even for many on the bottom of society. I’d rather be poor in a wealthy developed country like the US than be poor in a poor undeveloped country or, worse still, a violence-ravaged country. Despite our complaints here in the US, few of us know what difficult struggles and horrific suffering many others elsewhere experience on a daily basis. Maybe the US will eventually get that bad, and then we might see some real motivation for mass change in this country.

        • I urge everyone on the left to not vote for the lesser evil because it gives the Left bargaining power. Never vote purely for the lesser evil. By showing the Democratic Party that our votes are not a given, they cannot take advantage of us. They have for decades.

          The reason why the Clintons never bothered to try to please the left is because before Sanders, they didn’t need to. They could take the votes of left wing people for granted knowing the GOP is worse. By forcing their hand, Sanders has at least forced Clinton to veer left. Trump might as well.

          The threat of losing the left wing vote forces politicians, who otherwise may not want to, adopt policy positions that their voters want but they don’t actually want to do. Clinton wants to serve the rich. But she needs to at least pretend to be a person of the people (note the “fighting for us” slogans) or else she will lose the left. By losing so many voters to Sanders and now to the Green Party, along with Trump, In 4 years from now, if the Democrats want any hope of getting the votes back, they are going to have to adopt the parts of the Trump’s platform that are popular, or at least pretend to.

          The reason why people vote for Trump is because large numbers of working class whites have seen their jobs and livelihoods disappear. They agree with his anti-free trade platform. They also know that unlike the Greens, Trump has a realistic chance of winning. To them, Trump is a lesser evil. If he wins, they hope that he will keep his word on free trade and the jobs will come back.

          Economics and living standards are more important than anything else for people. Political legitimacy is based purely off of a government’s ability to deliver living standards. Plus it sends a powerful message to the Democratic Establishment, saying “you have failed us”.

  1. By the way, did you know that the US did regime change recently in Argentina and is doing now so in Brazil? Who’s going to stop them? This is probably a big reason why were seeing such massive buildup by Russia’s border and China as well. They ain’t going to let these powers doing anything about this unless they want to confront US. It might also be the case in the sense that Hilalry may go to war with Iran, and if Russia confronts this then the US will be right there at it’s border telling them that they better not.

    As for change in the US, I stand by that I don’t think it’s fixable. The US cannot be reformed. There are certain small things that have happened because they happened worldwide. But by and large the elite have always beat back at progress. The US as and entity cannot be fixed in my view. There might be small progress here or there, but I don’t think it can be fixed. Will never be like a Scandinavian country for instance.

    • This is how I think about it. I’m with you about there being no way to fix it. But I’m not sure I want to fix it. I’d like to see it entirely changed. So, where is the leverage for change? How do we create the conditions or plant the seeds that make change possible?

      I’m always looking at the bigger picture and at the longer timeframe. Even the American Revolution was part of a larger change beyond the founding of the United States. It began with the English Civil War, which actually involved war between England, Scotland, and Ireland. And it continued long after the American Revolution, with the French Revolution and Haitian Revolution, along with the various Irish rebellions.

      My bias is to be interested in language and ideas. That is how I see those larger changes. They happen as much or more within the mind than anywhere else. People begin to perceive and act differently when they think differently. All social, political and economic systems originate in the minds of people.

  2. “I’d like to see it entirely changed. So, where is the leverage for change? How do we create the conditions or plant the seeds that make change possible?” I don’t know if it can. Any attempts that may be proven to be successful are suppressed early on.

    I really don’t know how to change this current system. I know some areas I’d like to go to that could help – having multiple political parties – could potentially take us into a more democratic direction, but noone seems to want to diverge outside of the democrat and republican establishment. At least not in big enough numbers. I’ve heard anarchist say they want to support trump just for the possiblity that it could lead to big shake ups. But I kinda feel in my own way he could be a sheepdog playing out a script and setting up for hillary clinton. I know to some people saying that sanders and trump are sheepdogs is rubbish, but knowing the history of the US and how it operates I don’t think some paranoia is unfounded in regard to these type of things sometimes. It’s nice to see sanders talk about our problems. Ron Paul did this to a degree on our foreign policy, but nothing ever came of it. I kinda have that cynicism towards sanders. I think afte this presidency he’ll probably not try again, and will continue to speak out against inequality and the 1 percent, but itll probably be by and large the same results as it’s was by and large his whole politcal career – meaning no meaningful reform whatsoever.

    I also noticed in video games in recent times there’s so of this war on ideologist. Calling them radicals and extremist. It’s kinda ironic this happens despite the fact that our government uses violence and miliatrism all the time to regime change in brazil. But that’s american exceptionalism for you.

    • “I know to some people saying that sanders and trump are sheepdogs is rubbish, but knowing the history of the US and how it operates I don’t think some paranoia is unfounded in regard to these type of things sometimes. It’s nice to see sanders talk about our problems. Ron Paul did this to a degree on our foreign policy, but nothing ever came of it. I kinda have that cynicism towards sanders.”

      I don’t disagree with you. I’ve never really supported Sanders as a person or a politician. I support the opportunity that his campaign offers. I want to change minds and that can only be done by successfully communicating ideas and frames.

      I could have spent these past months writing about Jill Stein. But if I had done so, few would have paid attention. By using Sanders’ campaign as a platform for ideas, those particular posts get larger viewership numbers than they otherwise would have. This post, for example, has so far had 157 views. There is little satisfaction in writing a post about Jill Stein that might get a dozen hits, if I were lucky.

      It does suck for third parties. They’ve been intentionally excluded. And anyone who supports them get silenced and marginalized. The only time third parties get much attention is when the mainstream partisans want to blame them for being spoilers. I just don’t see third parties as a leverage for change, not at present at least. A multi-party system would more likely be a result of the change we need than its cause.

  3. Recently regime change was done in Argentina. They just did it in Brazil and are working on Venezuela. All now in the orbit of US imperialism. I wonder if they’ll be successful in Russia.

    • I take these as signs of coming global conflict. The US government and military is preparing and positioning itself. They know tough times are coming and mass violence is the likely result, whether or not it ends in all out world war.

    • I would be entirely unsurprised if Trump won the presidency.

      For a while now, it’s seemed clear to me that he is a strong candidate compared to Clinton. It would be so easy for him to rip her apart. She has so many flaws and weaknesses, and much of her political record is horrific. Plus, there is the little fact that she is being investigated for major crimes by the very government she wants to be leader of, and it’s already been proven she lied under oath.

      If Trump loses to such a weak candidate, it says more about Trump than about Clinton. The only advantage Clinton has is she is slightly less hated than Trump. That is the funny part. Clinton is the most hated candidate in Democratic history. The only candidate more hated in all of history happens to be Trump. But being hated might be less relevant for Trump’s campaign, as he also is much adored by his supporters. I’m not sure that even Clinton’s supporters genuinely like and trust her.

      The motivation gap is important. Trump’s supporters are highly motivated. Still, I wouldn’t dismiss the advantage Clinton has with massive amounts of money and support from the establishment. She has the power and influence of the whole system behind her. If she wasn’t such a crappy person and politician, that amount of power and influence would guarantee her the presidency.

      Many Sanders’ supporters will flock to Trump. Even those who refuse to vote for Trump, most will probably also refuse to vote for Clinton. Basically, Clinton’s support won’t grow much. She has attracted a few unhappy establishment Republicans and the kinds of neocons who lack party loyalty. But for the most part, Clinton’s support has decreased as her campaign has continued. For Trump, his support will likely improve over time. He’ll inspire many of the politically disengaged to come out and vote, in a way that Obama did in beating Clinton.

      The best statement in the article was that, “Trump is also in the unique position of being positioned to attack her from both the left and the right.” Clinton represents the status quo. And right now Americans hate the status quo, as much or more than they hate Clinton. Trump isn’t really an outsider, but he plays one on tv and he plays it well.

      • I would of thought that Clinton would compromise on a few things to pull Bernie supporters to her side. If she did a third of what bernie was wanting to do then she could probably get a good bump and relevancy in this upcoming race. But it looks like she isn’t going to do any of that.

        Trump has talked about universal healthcare, the bad trade deals and less hawkish foreign policy.

        There’s really not anything to get excited about in regards to hillary. And that might end up costing her if she doesn’t compromise with bernie supporters.

        Trump called mexicans rapist, but hillary called blacks super predators and supported the 1994 and 1996 bills that affected them badly. And did nothing to reverse this when she was senator for 8 years.

        • Clinton would get some of Sanders’ supporters. But my guess is not as many as some might expect.

          The longer her campaign goes on the worse her polling numbers show and the worst are her prospects against Trump. She isn’t becoming more well liked and trusted as time goes on.

          Besides, most Sanders’ supporters like most Trump’s supporters aren’t simply looking at a few issues. It is mostly irrelevant what bullshit Clinton says, even if she sometimes repeats what Sanders said earlier.

          It’s not as if Clinton is going to suddenly veer to the far left. If anything, she’ll veer right to try to gain votes from those who don’t want to vote Trump.

    • Read the comments section of Reich’s post. These people aren’t going to vote for Hillary Clinton. Some of them are Democrats, but claim this is a step too far. Here are a few choice comments:

      Lee Blake: “Ok. This is too much. I’ve defended the use of super delegates and other ways that the leaders of the democratic party have influenced the outcome of this primary (after all, shouldn’t the party have some input on who its nominee is?), but this is the straw that broke the camel’s back.”

      Beth Landry: “As a lifelong Democrat, I am appalled at the way the party has treated Bernie and his supporters. It has turned me off of the party completely. I usually donate several times a year and to various candidates and not doing any of that anymore. It sickens me that because of their blind allegiance to HRC that they are ignoring the will and votes of so many. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a disgrace and if HRC, is the nominee, and loses to Trump, it will be on her.”

      Marsha Coupé: “Schultz & Co aren’t just alienating Bernie supporters. This Hillary supporter finds it equally undemocratic. Bernie supporters deserve full representation at the conference and everywhere else. Suppression is bad for everyone.”

  4. If Hillary isn’t going to do a some pondering to Bernie supporters then there is no use in voting for her if you support sanders.

    I still wonder if Trump is a sheepdog or since he is rich isn’t persuaded by certain special interest and would actually do some of the things he said he would. I really don’t know about him. He lies and contradicts himself all the time – which is no different than Hillary.

    In the end I wish some of these people would just get behind a candidate like Jill Stein. We are still voting within establishment politics, meaning we havn’t really learned anything during this election cycle.

    • I’m not sure it matters what Trump is. His campaign, at this point, doesn’t really matter. If Clinton is nominated, Trump will likely win. But if Sanders is nominated, Trump will likely lose. So, it’s for Democrats to win or lose. Trump is just Trump. Even his supporters don’t look to him for honesty or and trustworthiness. All of that is irrelevant, as far as such people are concerned.

      I am drawn to the speculation that Trump is some kind of ploy. Or, if not that, then there is more to him than meets the eye. Like George W. Bush, I’m certain he isn’t as stupid as he pretends to be. Anyway, whatever else he may be, he is first and foremost a plutocrat who is part of the establishment. Everything else will follow from that. That isn’t to discount the possibility that he genuinely is playing his own plutocratic game, for shits and giggles.

      You are right that it would be nice for more people to get behind Jill Stein or someone like her. But that isn’t where we are at for the moment. We are getting there quick, though. It’s a waiting game. The public is a sleeping giant, slow to wake and anger, and slow to realize its own strength.

      This election season is what it is and can’t be anything else. It will, however, set the groundwork for future elections and future everything else, from organizing to activism. Even revolutions can require long periods of time to take shape, sometimes longer than a single lifetime or at least longer than a few election cycles.

      • “I’m not sure it matters what Trump is. His campaign, at this point, doesn’t really matter. If Clinton is nominated, Trump will likely win. But if Sanders is nominated, Trump will likely lose. So, it’s for Democrats to win or lose. Trump is just Trump. Even his supporters don’t look to him for honesty or and trustworthiness. All of that is irrelevant, as far as such people are concerned.”

        That might be true to some, but he did say he support universal healthcare, has been consistent of crappy trade policy like nafta and tpp. And he’s nowhere near the hawk Hillary is. Al-thought he hasn’t ruled out using nuclear weapons and he supports torture.

        I do think there’s significant support from him because a few of those policies. They certainly aren’t status quo positions. I just don’t know if he’s a fraud or not. I can’t prove it, but I do wonder if he’s the sheepdog that will lure people to a Hillary Clinton victory.

        Sometimes I view articles like that Ted Rall article I shared or this one: https://electronicintifada.net/content/hillary-clinton-more-dangerous-donald-trump/16316 and wonder if possibly maybe he’s the read deal in terms of some of these policies. He’s obviously as you said is going to protest his own interest (as part of the 1 percent) but maybe since he’s so rich he doesnt have to cave to certain special interest such as overseas job shipping, or supporting universal healthcare for all americans. or that he’d rather negotiate then wage perpetual war.

        • “I do think there’s significant support from him because a few of those policies. They certainly aren’t status quo positions.”

          I understand what you’re saying. I don’t dismiss what he says. Even with the flip-flopping, you can see some consistency in the types of things he focuses on and how he talks about them. I don’t think it’s entirely bullshit. I just don’t know that he necessarily cares enough about anything besides his own ego. Talk is cheap.

          “I just don’t know if he’s a fraud or not. I can’t prove it, but I do wonder if he’s the sheepdog that will lure people to a Hillary Clinton victory.

          I wonder about many things. Generally speaking, I assume the public is never getting the full picture about anything. We won’t and can’t know what Trump is about, except if and when he is elected president. But even then, the games and rhetoric would continue.

          Trump is freaking media mastermind. We’re not going to figure him out, considering our only sources of info about him is through the media. The only way we would get a glimpse behind the spectacle is if Anonymous released major documents by and about Trump.

          “wonder if possibly maybe he’s the read deal in terms of some of these policies. He’s obviously as you said is going to protest his own interest (as part of the 1 percent) but maybe since he’s so rich he doesnt have to cave to certain special interest such as overseas job shipping, or supporting universal healthcare for all americans. or that he’d rather negotiate then wage perpetual war.”

          There is a historical precedence for this. Like Trump, Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Delano Roosevelt were both born into immense power and influence, vast wealth and prestige. It was for that reason they could to a degree betray their own class. On the other hand, the Roosevelts came from old money and still had that antiquated sense of aristocratic noblesse oblige. I’ve kept open the possibility that Trump could surprise so many by actually pushing through universal healthcare and who knows what else.

          I’m less worried about what Trump might or might not do. He is a wild card, but I don’t think he is going to be the next Hitler. But, for good reasons, I am worried about Clinton. She has a known political record and it includes some really nasty work of pure violence and power-mongering, not to mention the endless corruption, cronyism, and corporatism. In that direction, increasing authoritarianism is inevitable and not mere speculation.

        • What’s your opinion on this:

          Do you think Trump might be going the opposite of the status quo in a couple directions to have people potentially flock to him rather going where they should go, and that’s someone like Jill Stein? Meaning giving this election cycle some meaning? So it doesn’t completely look like a farce? I guess that kinda goes back to me thinking that Trump could possibly be a sheepdog candidate or playing out a script that was mean’t for him.

          But another equally possible scenario is that he doesn’t have to cave to certain interest because he’s so rich and will ponder some policies to help americans in order to win the presidency. I guess both are equally plausible to me.

          • I doubt Trump thinks about or cares about Jill Stein. If asked about her, he’d feign ignorance.

            He does seem to be playing a wide game, running back and forth across the court with complete ease. It’s impressive. He can go from making a far right-wing statement of reactionary fear-mongering to advocating some left-wing policy. He is a brilliant populist demagouge.

            For this reason, I have my doubts that he is a sheepdog. Trump could kick Clinton’s ass and not even need to pause for a breather. Against Clinton, he probably could only lose if he threw the fight. That is the one way he could ensure a Clinton victory. But I’m not sure I can see that happening. He enjoys the competition too much.

            What would be in it for him to purposely lose against a weak competitor like Clinton? He is already filthy rich and powerful. There isn’t likely any bribe that would mean much to him. Besides some form of blackmail, no one could make Trump do what he doesn’t want to do. But what is Trump’s purpose? Does he have any purpose?

            It makes your head spin trying to see through the smoke and mirrors.

  5. Yeah, when I think of the scenario that Trump is too rich to be bought by certain interest, I think of Ralph Nader. He has called for and enlightened billionaire to run for president. A president that might not necessarily completely attack the 1 percent, but enact some policies (like universal healthcare, higher minimum wage, less hawkish foreign policy) that could help the population. He wouldn’t be slaved to certain special interest and could do some good.

    • It does seem that would be the only way somewhat leftist progressive policies are likely to be implemented from within the system.

      It would be nice to see an enlightened billionaire to run. Maybe specifically as a Republican in the semi-liberal and moderately progressive tradition of Eisenhower and Nixon. But, whichever party, someone with the plutocratic confidence of the Roosevelts to play the role of wise, paternalistic leader.

      It would take a paternalistic plutocrat to get strong conservatives and reactionaries to bow down and accept reform. I bet that kind of president could successfully promote not just universal healthcare. Even something like basic income would be possible, as it already has some support from the political right, including a few big name libertarians.

  6. I don’t think that Trump is enlightened in any way. Look at his business history.

    Lots of shady dealings. What is really good at is selling himself. His actual business results have not been anything to brag about – below an index fund.

    • I think the same thing. I’d like to live long enough to see how this era will be remembered. Even a decade from now might allow enough perspective for people to really appreciate what happened. But I’m hoping public awareness and public outrage develops much quicker.

    • Likely as a new Gilded Age or perhaps like the 1930s were.

      Another possibility is that the impacts of global warming overshadow everything else and we are remembered for how long it took to take action. Of course if someone is around to write history, I think that modern capitalism will have been discredited. Worse is if there is a collapse.

  7. I think that to an extent we should have expected that the Democratic Establishment would play really dirty.

    The sad thing is how low they would go to try to stop Sanders. With more media coverage, it is very likely that Sanders would have won. They tried to sabotage the Sanders campaign from the very beginning and appoint Clinton.

    So too has the corporate media, which first tried to ignore him, then tried to attack him.

    Lots of Sanders supporters are going to abandon the Democratic Establishment for years to come after this.

    • It’s not as if I had great faith in the electoral process even before recent events. But even I was a bit surprised by how blatant it’s been. They usually do a better job of hiding it. That might turn out to be a good thing. Too many have seen behind the curtain and seen the true face of power. The damage is done and is likely to be permanent.

  8. It may be that Sanders has forced their hand.

    I think that they know he would win in an honest campaign.

    In the long run though, it may be a good thing as you note. The sheer corruption is now open for everyone to see.

      • It will take many factors to create the right conditions. Then it will require some tipping point and a little push to get it rolling in some particular direction. All we can do is speculate until it happens. But there are some things we understand that seem to make various kinds of changes more probable.

  9. The precise timing of the tipping point may be impossible to get accurate.

    THe problem is that the revolutionary faction that changes could be from the right as well as the left. Maybe the calling of Donald Trump a Fascist is at times just another attempt by conservatives to get their base to blindly vote Establishment, but the Republican Party especially has been chillingly like a Fascist Party.

    So too has the Democratic Establishment although they try to pretend harder to serve the people.

    Nor is there any way to assure that if any tipping points happen from the left side that the end result could be another Soviet like tragedy with a Stalin like leader.

    • “The precise timing of the tipping point may be impossible to get accurate.”

      Yeah. But one can sense it coming. Not that sensing this necessarily does any good.

      “THe problem is that the revolutionary faction that changes could be from the right as well as the left.”

      I’m all to aware of that simple truth. Change will happen. I couldn’t say what that change will be.

      “Maybe the calling of Donald Trump a Fascist is at times just another attempt by conservatives to get their base to blindly vote Establishment, but the Republican Party especially has been chillingly like a Fascist Party.”

      I’ve had thoughts like this lately. Authoritarianism in the US isn’t Nazism, Stalinism, or anything like that. We already have authoritarianism in this country, but Americans don’t recognize it because it doesn’t fit 20th century European authoritarianism.

      That is the problem with Trump. While people are obsessing over him as the supposed new face of authoritarianism, the already established authoritarianism continues to grow. Out of fear of an authoritarian Trump presidency, people will vote for authoritarian Hillary who is already a part of the authoritarian establishment and so even more potentially dangerous.

      Parties are now irrelevant, if they ever were particularly meaningful.

      “Nor is there any way to assure that if any tipping points happen from the left side that the end result could be another Soviet like tragedy with a Stalin like leader.”

      I don’t think the old left-right spectrum applies any longer. It is still meaningful to speak of liberalism and conservatism in social and psychological terms. But in terms of ideological politics, it’s all muddled. What new authoritarianism is forming won’t likely be recognizable by considering previous examples.

    • That is what has surprised me. I never realized how many Democratic partisans would accept disenfranchisement as long as it was their own party doing it. I’m constantly amazed at the power of what appears to be groupthink.

  10. To be honest, blind party loyalty is equally as bad on both sides of the table.

    No doubt with these rigged elections, Clinton will win. I bet that in a fair fight, Bernie would have won, with more media coverage, more honest coverage, and a fair competition. Equally true is the fact that Clinton will desperately fight to try to get the Sanders base to vote Clinton, something that they are proving resistant to.

    Maybe a defeat will bring about the necessary reforms. Or maybe not – getting the entrenched corruption out will be extremely difficult for both parties.

    • I’m also amazed by how uninformed and misinformed people are. We are this far into the campaign season. A massive amount of info has been made available. It’s not hard to find, if you want to find it. But apparently most people don’t want to know.

      I know many intelligent, well-educated, and worldly people who seem to be choosing willful ignorance. They should know better. They have the ability and resources to inform themselves and yet choose not to. This is a large number of people.

      I admit that I was mostly ignorant of Hillary Clinton’s political record before the campaign season. I had no particular opinion about her before. Then I did some research and I didn’t like what I found. We all start from a point of ignorance. That is fine. It just would be nice if more people weren’t content to remain in ignorance.

      It perplexes me. I love knowledge and I love learning. To me, it’s the most awesome thing in the world.

      If I was forced to choose between wealth and knowledge, it wouldn’t be a hard choice. I could be happy in a prison cell, if I had access to all of the world’s knowledge. Besides, if I have enough knowledge, I might be able to figure a way to get out of that prison cell.

      But an ignorant person might as well be in a prison cell because they will be easily deceived, manipulated, controlled, used and abused. Ignorance is a prison of the mind. That is the purpose propaganda serves in our society and it entirely depends on ignorance.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s