Thesis on the Great Trumpian Victory (OAG #6)

Thesis: The great victory of the Trumpists would be in the destruction of faith in the American system, now approaching the consensus position.

…to which responds net-friend and former colleague “OG Jaybird“: “Where you see destruction, I see manifestation of evidence of it already having been destroyed years prior.”

Far be it from me to refuse the resort to context and history: For me it goes without saying that any particular event, to be understood, must be understood concretely: as realization of a process or development, as conditioned rather than random incident. So, we can say that the Soviet Union did not defeat Nazi Germany in Berlin, but over the course of titanic battles fought to and from Moscow and Stalingrad all across Central and Eastern Europe, and, furthermore, we can say that the Red Army would almost certainly have failed without allies. We can go a step further and say that the hopelessness of the Nazi position was itself pre-figured in the hopelessness of the German position in the general European and global conditions of the era, as already understood by German strategists at what seemed the last possible moment to alter them by intervention, on the eve of what became the First World War.

Rather than give up, the Germans under Hitler sought to defy the verdict of history one last time, and, according to historical justice, received an even harsher punishment for the second great offense. In retrospect, Germany had already defeated itself long before Hitler took power, and geography had already defeated Germany long before Bismarck, long before Frederick the Great, long before Otto, long before the deceptive victory in the Teutoburger Wald, if not before the triumph, no doubt fleeting by geological standards, of the Cro-Magnons over Neanderthals… and so on. All the same, something was different in Germany and for the Germans in May of 1945 as compared to April of 1945, or May of 1939 or 1933… and so on. Something was confirmed for Hitler and his movement in April 1945 that had previously existed only in principle, and therefore remained susceptible to doubt or hope.

Likewise, if we say that with or without Trump and his movement, the destruction of faith in the American system was well under way, or in some sense must already have occurred, for Trump and his movement even to arise, we can still also say that the remnant defenders of the remnant faith have witnessed last and vaunted bastions fall. In sum, before 11/9 they still believed or could believe, as many said, that in the end the Trump appeal would fail for many reasons but most of all because it had to; that by a respectable margin Americans would reject it because they simply could not do anything else, and not merely or mainly or even significantly because “elite opinion” told them Trump was unacceptable as President of the United States of America, but because Trump himself, in his behavior and his own words, in the sheer reality of Trump himself as conveyed in every-any medium, told them Trump himself was unacceptable. Some portion of the electorate might choose to misuse its sacred vote for protest or partisan self-defense, but, surely, sufficient majorities of voters producing a safe majority of electors would draw the line, on this side civic duty and duty even to a planet full of people whose welfare often greatly depends on ours or on our wisdom, on the other side Trump or anyone like Trump, with associates, allies, and even hostile foreign sponsors like his, and conducting himself as he conducted and conducts himself.

Now, where previously we may have suspected or believed, we can conclude and state that political things in this nation and the world, perhaps by sheer weight of odds and history, must have been bound to reach this faith-forbidden outcome, sooner or later. That a full mobilization of spiritual resources may allow us to conceive of this moment as one of those where “also grows the saving power”; in other words by dialectic that America may have had to reach this nadir, or even greater depths to come, if ever actually to become “great again” or truly “great,” does not alter the fact that something now is no longer as it was, that it is May not even April for us on this matter of the worthiness of the regime, and that perhaps millions or perhaps even billions of people whom we may now conclude should have known better, now think they know, because now proven, something very other than what they thought or believed or preferred to think and believe.

Certainly not everyone agrees that the result is a bad result; soon somewhere if not already a Trump supporter will be found shouting up an unexpected restoration of belief; and, if we possessed unanimity of opinion regarding a better system, we would already have implemented it, but something happened here that even if it could happen here we thought would not happen here, or certainly not yet, not so soon, not on “our watch.” Trump and Trumpists told us over and over again that the system was rigged and rotten, and it turns out they were right. The American system, meaning the institutions we inherited but also, as a tolerably democratic system, encompassing our very selves as fostered by those institutions – or We the People – are poised to place Donald J. Trump in the highest office in the land, the most powerful single position for a single person to occupy on Earth, and ever on Earth: Minority President Degenerate Alt-Right Russian Troll, brought to you by the American system and no other system (if with, apparently, some possibly significant outside assistance).

At this moment, which may yet last a while, uniting Trumpists who still believe as they believed before 11/9, and anti-Trumpists newly informed, from after 11/9, we must, if we are honest, concede that that system appears no longer worthy of our or anyone’s faith, in quite crucial – one might fear, the most crucial – respects.


Home Page Public Email Twitter Facebook YouTube Github  

WordPresser: Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001.

Posted in Featured, Operation American Greatness

2 comments on “Thesis on the Great Trumpian Victory (OAG #6)

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. I think that it has to do with the whole trust/collaboration thing that I keep yelling about. Trump is an example of somewhere around half the country saying “I don’t trust you anymore” to somewhere around the other half.

    I mean, look at the media. Should you have trusted the mainstream media this last election cycle?

    How’s about the polling experts? Nate Silver did better than Sam Wang, of course, but Sam Wang got *EVERYTHING* wrong. Go back and look at Sam Wang’s predictions: he wasn’t calling a coinflip. He looked and he said “yeah, this is in the bag… 98%.”

    Sam Wang ate a bug on national television.

    Trust is one of those things that we’re going to have a rough time re-establishing.

    Because I’m not sure that either side knows how to bribe the other into collaborating anyway.

    • Trusting pollsters on their predictions and trusting the “mainstream media” to attempt to report on events somewhat objectively strike me as different if not, in people’s political imaginations, wholly unrelated things.

      The question of high trust vs low trust societies is something similar: I’m on friendly terms with a Trump-supporting neighbor – he had a big MAGA flag, no mere banner, waving from above his garage. He seems like a genuinely good guy. I’d be inclined to trust him on any number of things important to me, to make good on his promises, and so on, up to and including mutual defense in case of Red Dawn or War of the Worlds…

      Except there is no external enemy to unite us, and for that matter we have no personal/private dealings in common. I just see Pete and his wife Sandra and his dogs Dallas and Rosie on my walks. (Come to think of it, I even have a picture of his MAGA flag, and will have to post it some time.) I’ve declined to inform Pete of my views on Minority President Degenerate Alt-Right Russian Troll.

      From the Founding and forward, our oxymoronical state of states has had difficulty with how and to what degree to unite, and, if the problem decreases as we reach nearer the ground truth of neighborhoods, it still remains part of the human condition in general, and all the more so in a society that depends on trust for commerce, but depends on epistemological individualism for everything else.

      I’ll just cut to the chase: If we don’t have or perceive a reason to stick together, then we will tend to divide at least until the costs of division accumulate sufficiently to motivate another reversal, but this pendulum swinging affair entails friction and loss as well as a sense of general paralysis that must sooner or later give way to something else.

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Related Posts:

Noted & Quoted


President Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, secretly worked for a Russian billionaire to advance the interests of Russian President Vladimir Putin a decade ago and proposed an ambitious political strategy to undermine anti-Russian opposition across former Soviet republics.

The allegations, if true, would appear to contradict assertions by the Trump administration and Manafort himself that he never worked for Russian interests.

Manafort proposed in a confidential strategy plan as early as June 2005 that he would influence politics, business dealings and news coverage inside the United States, Europe and the former Soviet republics, even as US-Russia relations under Republican President George W. Bush grew worse.

Manafort pitched the plans to Russian aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska, a close Putin ally with whom Manafort eventually signed a $10 million (£8 million) annual contract beginning in 2006, according to interviews with several people familiar with payments to Manafort and business records obtained by the AP.

Comment →

The texts, posted on a darknet website run by a hacktivist collective, appear to show Manafort’s family fretting about the ethics, safety and consequences of his work for Yanukovych. And they reveal that Manafort’s two daughters regarded their father’s emergence as a key player on Trump’s presidential campaign with a mixture of pride and embarrassment.

In one exchange, daughter Jessica Manafort writes “Im not a trump supporter but i am still proud of dad tho. He is the best at what he does.” Her sister Andrea Manafort responded by referring to their father’s relationship with Trump as “The most dangerous friendship in America,” while in another exchange she called them “a perfect pair” of “power-hungry egomaniacs,” and asserted “the only reason my dad is doing this campaign is for sport. He likes the challenge. It's like an egomaniac's chess game. There's no money motivation.”

By contrast, the Manafort daughters and their mother seemed much more unsettled about Paul Manafort’s work as a political consultant for Yanukovych’s Russia-backed Party of Regions, which is a subject of renewed interest among investigators probing possible links between Trump’s campaign and Russia.

In one March 2015 exchange that appears to be between the two sisters, Andrea Manafort seems to suggest that their father bore some responsibility for the deaths of protesters at the hands of police loyal to Yanukovych during a monthslong uprising that started in late 2013.

“Don't fool yourself,” Andrea Manafort wrote. “That money we have is blood money.”

Comment →

If there's anything mitigating the bad news for the White House here, it is that Comey may have also sent subtle signals that the matters under investigation are not principally about the personal conduct of Trump himself. While this is speculation, I do not believe that if Comey had, say, validated large swaths of the Steele dossier or found significant Trump-Russia financial entanglements of a compromising variety, he would have said even as much as he said today. I also don't think he would have announced the scope of the investigation as about the relationship "between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government" or "coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts"; these words suggest one step of removal from investigating the President himself. If the latter were the case, I suspect Comey wouldn't have used words suggestive of the Flynn-Manafort-Page cabal.

But that's reading a lot into a relatively small number of tea leaves. What is clear is that this was a very bad day for the President. In it, we learned that there is an open-ended Russia investigation with no timetable for completion, one that's going hang over Trump's head for a long time, and one to which the FBI director is entirely committed.

Comment →

State of the Discussion

Comments this threadCommenter Archive
+ Yeah, I read C's comments as trying to do a variety of things at the same time, having the effect of making interpretation more difficult. Any [. . .]
Benjamin Wittes: How to Read What Comey Said Today – Lawfare
Comments this threadCommenter Archive
+ Sure, so why do they have "work Phones" they take home? Even if they don't have fate of the world responsibilities, who they work [. . .]
Isenstadt and Vogel: Paranoia seizes Trump’s White House – POLITICO

Support This Site?