Imagine what a Presidential “press conference” might look like if the U.S. had real journalists. Imagine the answers. Or even a real system of debate where the Prime Minister has to answer questions from the Opposition. Or even if we had a real Opposition party.
Q. Mr. President, millions of Americans feel that you were elected unfairly. What do you say to them?
Q. Don’t you think it may be too much for the U.S. to be challenging both China and Russia at the same time?
Q. To follow up, many people don’t understand your freely expressed antagonism to Russia. After all, investigation proved they did not interfere in our election.
Q. Americans like to think we have the greatest military in the world. Some analysts think we are over-estimating our capacity. What do you think of the claim that our aircraft carriers, on which we place great reliance, are now actually sitting ducks because of new missile technologies? If so, what should we do about it?
Q. George Floyd had a gold casket and three funerals. Millions of dollars have been contributed in his name and he has become a kind of saint. Do you think maybe this response is unjustified for a lifelong, dangerous, heavily drugged felon? Do you think that the policeman involved in making Floyd’s arrest can ever receive a fair trial since he has already been convicted by the press and politicians? Are there plans to file federal charges against the officer?
Q, We now hear a lot of discussion of “a crisis at the border.” What caused this and what can we do about it? Do you credit the reports that the new border policy has empowered drug cartels and human traffickers?
Q. In your opinion, is there any such thing as an “illegal alien”? Is crossing our border illegally a crime?
Q. Polls have shown for years that American citizens are not in favour of the high levels of immigration that the government has sponsored for several decades now. Perhaps so vital an issue should be put to the people to decide, as has been suggested in France?
Q. Why do you think 75 million people voted for your opponent in the election? Are these all dangerous extremists that need to be purged from American society, as many of your supporters say?
Q. Critical Race Theory is now widely sponsored by your administration. Have you studied this theory? Can you explain to the public what you understand about it?
For millions of Americans President Trump has become the symbol, voice, and hope of saving their America from ongoing destruction. Though the hope he raised remains spectacularly unfulfilled, he is still its recognized representative. Possibly his presence is now an obstacle to his program, but that can’t be helped. There is no other populist in sight with any significance, nor is the present Republican party likely to produce another one.
It is perhaps fair to say that Trump’s public role has sometimes reflected more ego than principle - he has shown more allegiance to his family and cronies than to his “people.”
There are two things that Trump could do now that would prominently show his leadership and care for those who follow him. He has the funds to begin this and these efforts would soon attract other support.
It seems evident that Trump has never realized the deadly ideological nature of the battle he is in - something more fundamental than personality and policy tinkering. We can only hope that experience has brought him understanding.
Almost everybody assumes that Kamala Harris will succeed Joe Biden as President, perhaps before the end of his term.
If so, she will be the first woman President and the first Asian-American President, with extra credit for being the second African “American” President.
They don’t mention that she is the first Anchor Baby President, the first President with no American background at all. Her mother came from India in 1958 as a student and stayed. Her father came from Jamaica as a student in 1961 and stayed. The mother is a high caste Indian—that is, comes from the most racially discriminatory group in the world, who cannot even be touched by inferiors. Her black father brags that his people were not slaves but slave owners.
Neither Obama nor Kamala is an “African American” in a genuine sense. Why are they considered such? What about the long-suffering real African-Americans whose forebears have been here longer than most Yankees’? With good and really enforced immigration law, Kamala might not even be a citizen. As it is, she kept in touch with her foreign relatives and also lived in Canada for several years.
Most Presidents have descended from families that were here even before the United States appeared. Washington and Adams were already the third generation in America. All Presidents have had at least two generations of native-born behind them.
What happened to Americans? We are starting to resemble the corrupt days of the Roman Empire when foreigners regularly became Emperors.
Then there is the ‘Squad ‘ in the House of Representatives, with gushingly laudatory biographies on Wikepedia. There is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, born in New York City to Puerto Rican parents. She is determined to re-educate or eliminate me whose family on both sides were here in the 1600s. And Ilhan Abdullahi Omar, a Moslem born in Somalia, whose attainment of citizenship has been questioned. And Rashida Tlaib, born in Detroit to Palestinian immigrants.
One hears Republicans with their usual short-sightedness complaining about the appearance of these leftist termagants with national influence. If only Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes had sponsored and enforced good immigration laws, we may never have heard of these folks.
And, of course, it used to be taken for granted that a President had a substantial record of public service as good citizen, Governor, Senator, or general. Obama was excused from this requirement. At least he had a demeanour and a patter that pleased a lot of people. The fall from George Washington to U.S. Grant was catastrophic. The fall from U.S. Grant to Kamala Harris beggars belief.
The United States began as a republican confederation. With Appomattox it came a consolidated regime the most important symbol of which was $. With conquest and occupation of the Southern states the ruling element began to get a taste for empire, which Europe seemed to demonstrate to be a profitable affair. Thus annexation of Hawaii and the Philippines and various interventions in Latin America and Asia. World War I created a widespread anti-imperial reaction. The instincts and institutions of republicanism continued to have some hold on the people.
World War II and the Cold War completed American conversion into an imperial state, possessing of a worldwide empire, with bases and client states across the globe. (Imperialism is always covered with blather about spreading “democracy,” whatever that means.) There has never been in history an empire with leaders as flabby, arrogant, unpatriotic, and clueless as the American ruling class. Their empire is bound to be challenged by other rising powers, in response to which they likely will create events disastrous to humanity---the extent of which will be only limited by their incompetence and delusions.
Empires do not have citizens. They have subjects. The bizarre events of recent times are part of solidifying the empire internally. We are all being made into subjects, although some subjects are more favoured than others. The Bidenites may well succeed in their project. If so, what will be left will be a regime that no civilised person can love.
Speaker Pelosi is reported as saying that the folks who got into the Capitol building the other day want to destroy “democracy” and substitute “whiteness.” On the face of it this is a lie, since the protestors were not advocating anything particularly white but asking for redress for an election stolen by people mostly white.
Democracy is a troublesome term always. A reasonable definition would be a regime in which citizens are equally free and decisions are made peacefully by majority rule. But Pelosi’s “democracy” is a bit strange. There is democracy only when her viewpoint is the only one allowed. The 74 million who voted for Trump for President are not members of her democracy, but enemies who must be eliminated or re-educated and have no equal right to talk to their rulers. In fact, her “democracy” is an ideological fantasy that does not exist in the real world and can only be attempted by coercion (which is already being publicly promoted). Sounds like the Chinese Communist Party, without the Chinese constructive pragmatism.
Being white is real, but “Whiteness” too is an ideological concept. Is whiteness an enemy of democracy? Can you think of any nonwhite country other than Japan that qualifies as genuinely democratic? There are many things that Trump supporters might be accused of, but she resorts to “whiteness” as their greatest sin because of the moral charge connected with any hint of mistreatment of nonwhite people. And if we cannot help being white, shouldn’t she show us a little sympathy rather than extreme malice?
Republican leader McConnell tops Pelosi in dishonesty and stupidity, impossible as that seems. He said he is forwarding Trump’s impeachment because he wants to save the GOP by purging Trump and Make American Great Again. (Presumably, if he is actually convicted of “high crimes,” Trump will not be able to run next time.) Mitch wants to get back to the old comfortable self-serving party rule and pre-Trump business as usual. But what GOP is he saving? Does he think that the 74 million people who voted for Trump will rush back into the arms of Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney? He shows not only contempt for the 74 million but also a cluelessness that qualifies as stupid. Reminds me of a snake swallowing his tail.
There was a time when exercisers of high government power were expected to have done something worthwhile or at least have long experience in office. Even if not perfectly honest they had some knowledge of large human affairs and competence in handling them.
Madame Pelosi has never in a long life done anything notable, much less distinguished. Her knowledge of history is adolescent. McConnell has never shown any accomplishment or wisdom in anything beyond political party tactics. Their world is limited to the corridors of power. They are courtiers, not by any stretch of the imagination leaders. Not a single congressperson had the courage or initiative to leave their cocoon and listen to a mostly peaceful if angry group of citizens. They are too elite and virtuous to be held to account for their actions.
Then there is Kamala Harris, without any achievement or worthwhile distinction or even experience, soon to exercise the immense power of the Yankee Empire, heavy with potential for destruction within and without. Can you imagine her, or even Biden, going up against the wily and patriotic leaders of China, or Russia, or even Iran?
But, not to worry, we still have the best government money can buy.
Successful capitalists are men whose main focus is on making money. Now and then, a few may be tempered by some religious, patriotic, or cultural consideration. That is not true of the global capitalists who are the de facto rulers of the people of the United States.
For them, politics is not protecting the welfare of the people. They feel no patriotism, no sentiment for the commonwealth of their fellow citizens (us).
For them politics means securing profitable favours from government.
Face the facts. Ignore ephemeral issues. The global capitalists, as the events of recent weeks make clear, own the government and society of America--- lock, stock and barrel. They, through their willing lackeys, own both political parties, the bureaucracy, the police, the judiciary, the military, the media, the educational establishment, effective street mobs, and most of the clergy and local and State governments.
Us Deplorables are disposable people. With the bottomless supply of impoverished Third World labour, they have no interest in even keeping us alive. There is considerable evidence that they or planning for our disappearance. So much for Heritage Americans. The new world of global capitalism has no need of our old-fashioned ideas of freedom and self-government.
Freedom of speech and press for all practical purposes no longer exist. A couple of shallow rich boys can prevent the elected President of the United States from speaking to the people. Nobody ever voted for them but they never doubt their right to control the country. My family on both sides goes back to the 1600s in America. My words are monitored by a few Hindu imports hired by the rich boys. Dissidents can be shut off and personally destroyed without any remedy. The new executive will certainly press for the tools to make “hate criminals” of any who disputes the official state of things.
The purpose of law is no longer to administer justice but to protect de facto power. They have no interest in suppressing falsehood. Their goal is to suppress damaging truths. There is not yet the 3 a.m. breaking down of the door, but otherwise we have a full-fledged Communist regime. Forget the silly Republican fraud about fighting socialism. The capitalists and the government are already so deeply wedded in mutual profitability that “free enterprise” and “socialism” make no sense.
Donald Trump aroused a great wave of dissident sentiment because the core American people are desperate for a champion. He failed in every way. He does not understand the battle he was in. He did nothing for his people. He has effectively betrayed us, with calamitous results. We deplorables are in every way worse off now than if Hillary had been elected. She would have aroused opposition. Trump’s most recent declaration that his people will not be harmed under the new regime is a ridiculous lie, like all his other promises.
There are a lot of us, but we have no leaders, no plan (except stupid counter-productive rallies), no program, no organisation, no control of any social institution. Our only slight and short-term hope is that the new power wielders will, for their own purposes, try to quiet things down.
That so many Americans are interested in Presidential “legacies” and are personally and emotionally involved with “my President” and "my leader” is unhealthy. After all, the President was supposed to be a Constitutional public official.
A President should respect the Constitution and Union, obey and enforce the laws, and keep a firm but prudent stance in regard to the world beyond our borders. He was not assigned to be the leader of the world or to have a legacy as the reformer of human society. “Legacies” usually mean some change in society and change is always the agenda of some self-interested minority.
And we should remember that any President is always first and foremost a politician.
There are still optimists who think Trump might yet emerge as the winner of a second term. He has against him much of the judiciary and of his own party, the authorities in most of the States in question, the entire federal law enforcement apparatus, the military, and the media. Suppose the unlikely event that he emerges victorious from the lawsuits, the States, the Electoral College, and the House of Representatives. Does he have the determination, the skill and vision, and the support in power to deal with the obstruction and violent uprising that is bound to come?
His election would provoke the greatest law and order crisis ever seen in an English-speaking country in modern times. We can expect conditions similar to what preceded dictatorships in Russia and Germany. The Enemy is well-organised, we Deplorables are not.
Wishful thinkers are convinced that Trump has left a “legacy” of a new perspective and direction in American politics and society, that he has permanently reformed the Republican party and given a voice to us Deplorables, the millions who have supported him.
It might be useful to consider how we Deplorables will be faring after late January. Will we have a better view of the future of our country? No. Will we feel more secure? No. Are we less fearful of the federal government? No. Are we likely to be more prosperous? In fact, millions of us have been devastated economically by Trump’s truckling to the bureaucracy over the Covid scare.
How many Trump voters and policemen have now been killed and maimed by “peaceful protesters”? How many are now in prison for defending themselves against thugs who have been freed? I see no evidence that Trump really cares about this and I know that the Republican Establishment does not.
In power Trump was unable to master the Republican Establishment. Is he more likely to do so out of power? Nothing prevents the party from reverting to its natural state, serving the capitalists and providing public office to its myriads of mediocrities while expecting to keep the votes of us Deplorables who have nowhere else to go---even after four years of Trump.
Good folks in Georgia are holding rallies and demonstrations in support of the GOP candidates in two doubtful U.S. Senate elections. And what use if Republicans maintain a slight majority in the Senate? Both the candidates are weak on immigration and the defense of Southern symbols. And doubtless Mitt Romney is smiling complacently at the prospect of thwarting any opposition to the Harris agenda. Trump is working for the candidates. He is not doing it for himself or his people, but for the Party, which will show no gratitude. Romney is a genuine Republican while Trump is a Republican in Name Only.
Trump’s great and enthusiastic support rests upon his rhetorical performance in repudiation of the Deep State. But there is nothing substantial to justify this support, which is entirely sympathetic and hopeful without even the rudiments of a useful organisation of the Red People. Making America Great Again is a slogan, not a political agenda.
A Trump post-presidential movement will require an organisation, a platform of tangible satisfactions for his voters, and a clear rallying justification. (And a determination to destroy the Republican party.)
The primary constituency of both parties is the financiers. This is a given of American government since 1865. But beyond that the parties still have to win elections. The Democrats already have all that is needed. They offer tangible benefits, i.e. money rewards, to the bureaucrats and minorities. They have a rationale---Cultural Marxism, an evil delusion but one that seems to attract millions of Americans. Red State Americans have nothing except our discontent.
It is true that Trump has suffered slander and obstruction of an extent never before seen by an elected Chief of State. His task was very likely impossible for anyone. But he is his own worst enemy whose legacy will be but a blip in the story of American degeneration.
But there might be still some hope for a legacy. Trump might actually come to understand the people for whom he has posed as a spokesman and become the genuine leader of a movement or a new party that represents them. Perhaps there are new younger leaders rising now from the grassroots who will speak for us Red people. That prospect is hopeful, providing such potential leaders are not bought or suppressed by the Republicans before they can become effective.
A real historical view of Donald Trump’s one term in the White House will require the passage of considerable time. Assuming intelligent history is still being written twenty years from now, not an entirely safe assumption, the emphasis will probably be on Trump’s role, positive or negative, in the degeneration of American society that is the main theme of our time.
The President was supposed to be the Chief Magistrate of the Union, responsible for administering the executive branch and enforcing the federal law, keeping up the armed forces, and being the front man for our very limited contacts with foreign governments. Like the rest of the Constitution, that President disappeared long ago, to be replaced by any number of made-up responsibilities, including Leader of the World.
But we might take a look at how Trump has performed in his actual constitutional responsibility.
*His appointments have been catastrophically bad, right up to the last weeks of the administration. He has apparently even now not realised that he needed to appoint people who support him to high executive offices. The federal branch has remained an employment bureau for Republican hacks, most of whom disdain him and his voters. Good people were available and ready, but were never called. Should he get a second term is it likely he will do any better? No, the Republican Establishment will become even stronger with a beleaguered and lame- duck President.
It is claimed that he has appointed good judges, but that remains to be seen.
*Immigration, his signal issue and vital responsibility. A few gestures, marginal, have been made in securing the border, but too little and too late. Illegal immigrants remain in the millions and continue to come. The gap between campaign promise and action is immense.
*The President should be enforcing the laws, not only in regard to defending the borders. Yet Trump has failed to pursue the obvious course of prosecuting Hillary Clinton, and even the evil men who illegally conspired inside the government against himself. We should ask ourselves why. Such prosecutions would have exposed dramatically the corruption of the Deep State. The Democrats drove Nixon out of office after he carried 48 States. Without any doubt Trump will spend his next years out of power defending himself against official charges, mostly, like his impeachment, phony. He may yet win himself personal immunity by some concession to the enemy.
*He might also have taken some preventive measures against the overwhelming election fraud that has defeated him. But he seemingly left this to the Republican Establishment, eager to get rid of him and get back to business-as-usual.
*Law enforcement rightly should be a local and State matter. But the government has never shown any hesitation in federalising law enforcement when it fit their agenda. A foreign billionaire is subsidising violent mobs in the streets. He has been busy promoting the election and appointment of local district attorneys who favour those mobs and are inimical to decent citizens. This is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Nor does it fit any legitimate definition of government of, by, and for the people. The situation is ripe for RICO investigations. Trump could have made himself a champion of democracy for that.
*Another entirely lost opportunity to be the champion of democracy was to move against the internet oligarchs. These billionaires make government of the people impossible and they are the active censors of Trump and his people. A little creative statesmanship could go a long way toward curbing such illegitimate power.
*Trump’s welcome promise in foreign affairs was a wind-down in international interference. Who can forget his bold repudiation of Bush the Lesser’s illegal and catastrophic war-making and his promise of peace with Russia? All gone and forgotten. It is hard to find anything substantial Trump has done for us Deplorables, but he is certainly the best president the Likud party ever had.
*Covid. It was natural to be cautious at first when such a threat appeared, especially since its origins were in the vicinity of a Chinese poison facility. (I have yet to see any explanation of why U.S. troops were operating in the same vicinity shortly before. I doubt if many Americans even know such things are going on.) While Trump showed some personal disdain for the panic, he did nothing else. He lost a great opportunity to defy the bureaucracy and preach common sense to the public. But he let the lockdowns go on and even supported the dubious vaccination business, promising that it would be implemented by the army. He damaged the people, mostly his own supporters, economically beyond repair and left the enemy free reign to go on with the tyranny.
*The candidate might have marshalled a real re-election campaign, championing real issues and making clear to the people the evil of his opponent’s support and agenda. Instead, he never rose above the daily news cycle or effectively countered the opposition. Voters rallied to him out of fear of the other side, not because he presented them with any clear alternative.
In my first paragraph I mentioned Trump’s evaluation in the light of history. Actually that is already decided. What memorable speech or Presidential message has he left in the hearts of the people? The historical record, which only the most deep and contrary future historians will question, already has Trump down as a dangerous man and a failure from whom America was saved by the righteous and wise.
White picket fences
Comic books that were actually intended to be funny
When boys could play football in the street without fear or helmets
When a boy could explore the woods alone with a rifle (probably an old .22)
Old Fashioned service stations with 35 cent per gallon gas and air pumps that were free and actually worked
The Southern Methodist Church
I don’t miss it but it was certainly a better time when all young men went into the service instead of just poor men (and women).
A country too honourable to put women in harm’s way
Smokehouses and tobacco curing barns
Huge pots of Brunswick stew cooked and served outdoors
Old-time windup Southern orators in white suits. (My favourite was Senator Clyde R. Hoey of North Carolina.)
When abortions were done rarely and quietly and only for rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.
When county courthouses and state buildings were not armed fortresses excluding citizens
The pattern for modern American politics was set by Lincoln and his cronies in the 1850s—1870s, although it took an immense war against other Americans to make it stick. The pattern involved making the federal government (not the “Union” or the Constitution) the center of power and the fount of good (and goods). This meant, in everyday terms, that the victory of Lincoln’s Republicans established control by those who regard the government as a machine to make money for themselves, covered by a blasphemous religion of Americans as the chosen people who are to lead all mankind into what a later Republican would call “global democracy.”
Until Lincoln there had been a strong Jeffersonian/Jacksonian counter-current: preference for low tariff, avoidance of public debt, limited government expenditure, dispersed power, distrust of moralistic movements, and patriotic but non-entanglement sentiment in regard to affairs beyond the continent. There was some sense, not always dominant but understood and sometimes prevailing, of a “public good.”
You will find in Confederate statements appeals to this former good faith of peaceful preservation of the larger good as previously understood. In Union statements you will find appeals to power and righteousness that would have made no sense to Americans before the 1848 revolutions in Europe.
Lincoln’s unseemly combination of control of the government by big capital in alliance with occasional irresponsible “reform” crusades is where we are now. It is the Deep State and it is the Deep State that is sovereign. We find the ever-increasing control of great capital joined at the hip with the revolutionary crusade of antifa and Black Lives Matter.
Under the old dispensation we would not have entered into international imperialism in the late 19th century or the senseless bloodshed of World War I “to make the world safe for democracy.” We would not have allowed the government to permanently deform natural American society by the “Great Society.” We would not have to listen to Joe Biden blithely promise that with him the government will soon make us all equal, prosperous, and happy while his minions kill and loot. Donald Trump disagreed only marginally.
Under the Lincoln regime American issues never have been and never can be decided on the basis of “the public good.” The genuine thing does not exist in American discourse.
Many are rightly concerned about threats to the environment. But in addressing this matter we are confined to debates within the regime---on the one hand the power of capital and on the other the irresponsible and revolutionary tree-huggers. It is theoretically possible that a “public good” approach of responsible stewardship, not controlled by this division, might be found. It cannot happen in the regime that governs.
Medical care is a continuing concern for all. The costs of drugs and insurance threaten most of us. The quality of care is often marvelous and always potentially so, but it declines in the nightmare of government bureaucracy of a semi-socialised system and the bottomless expense of serving millions of wastrels and aliens. The Covid fraud should have convinced any awake American of the corruption of the federal medical bureaucracy. Once again we have the collaboration of the money interests that can easily buy Congress with claims for universal control and benevolence without regard to cost.
In regard to foreign affairs we have the same dilemma. We are governed by a combination of vast vested interests that will never freely give up their immense purchase on the public purse, combined, as in the Lincoln regime, with fervid delusions that the U.S. government must and can punish all in the world who refuse to obey their good and right. It is theoretically possible to devise a prudent policy of “national interest” in regard to the world (such as is outlined by Srjda Trikovic) but it will never happen and our country will plunge forward to the disaster that always awaits the deluded.
The two sides of the national character that I have described are dominant. The rest of us don’t count and haven’t for a very long time. The two are really one, the same Puritan penchant for money-grubbing and moral imperialism that was implanted in Massachusetts in the earliest days, amplified by European socialism and minority demands. It is said that character is fate and this national character will in the long run, decide our fate.
Clyde Wilson is a distinguished Professor Emeritus of History at the University of South Carolina He is the author or editor of over thirty books and published over 600 articles, essays and reviews