America
is a divided nation.
Consistently
wracked by a recurring series of ‘culture wars’ and a general dissatisfaction
felt by the electorate about its political elite, it is a country beset by
uncertainty about the future of its global economic and military pre-eminence.
This general feeling of malaise; a dip in the form and the spirit of a people
inherently convinced about the exceptional foundations and rationales
underpinning their conception of nationhood is so profound as to have led some
to conclude that the currents in contemporary America bear something of a
resemblance to the Weimer era in Germany.
There
are deep fissures in the eternally vexed question regarding race and the
observance of what some feel is a stifling obeisance to the strictures of
political correctitude. While it has for long remained split down the middle on
the question of abortion there are misgivings among a significant segment of
opinion over what is perceived to be the prioritisation of the agenda of the
gay and lesbian lobby. As is the case with abortion, the issue of gun control
succeeds in producing heated and often bitter debate.
America
of course operates as a pluralistic society and has historically spawned a
range of influential social movements acting to transform its ethics and social
policies towards what is perceived as being for the greater good. But the rise
of a succession of populist activist groups; each strident in its complaints
about the perceived failings in government and society has been striking: The
Tea Party, Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street and American Border Control
to name but a significant few.
Where
the Black Lives Matter movement decries the relative expendability of the lives
of American citizens of African-American extraction at the hands of
trigger-happy law enforcement officers, the Tea Party ideology largely expounds
on the supposed favouritism given to minorities in terms of opportunities for
social and economic advancement. The mantra of wanting to “take back our
country” is viewed by opponents not so much as being based on the idea of
wishing to see government shorn of its powers as it is about wanting to halt
the progress of minorities at a time when the White House is occupied by a
black president.
While
the Occupy Wall Street movement’s perception of the decline of America is
rooted in the increasing disparities in wealth and income distribution in
society as well as the malign influence of powerful corporate interests in the
economic and political process, anti-immigration groups such as American Border
Control posit the view that the country can never be put on the path of revival
while there are what they claim to be hordes of Mexicans entering the United
States illegally; bringing with them “crime, drugs and squalor.” For these
groups, the very fabric of America as a nation with a majority European
descended population and a particular set of mores is threatened by
“immigration via the birth canal.”
The
analogy made with the deepened social divisions during the Weimer Republic may
not be totally misplaced, as indeed may be possible comparisons with the
republican and conservative divide in pre-civil war Spain. As was the case with
those traditionalists who in Spain of the 1930s looked on in askance at social
innovations introduced by the Republican regime such as the legalisation of
divorce, contraception and abortion, so too a large segment of present day
Americans recoil at the perceived constricting tenets of ‘political
correctness’ and the legalisation of gay marriage which along with other
developments are viewed as the wholesale abrogation of traditional American
values.
The
polarized atmosphere of divisiveness and even outright hatred often on display
in political wrangling and the general public discourse is clear to see. While
most would agree to a general dissatisfaction with the state of affairs, there
is no united consensus as how to tackle the root causes of the social and
economic malaise.
In
1930s Germany and Spain, the proposed solutions were predicated on
diametrically opposed rationales represented by the Left and Right of the
conventional political spectrum. In both situations the resultant ‘revolutions’
led to the rise respectively of Hitler and Franco.
There
is of course no suggestion of an imminent implosion in American society that
would lead to an internal war –such a scenario is largely the concern of
fiction in movies and in graphic comic book stories- albeit that Colin Woodard,
a reporter for a newspaper in Maine, has perceptively argued the position of North America as being constituted of eleven separate stateless nations based on the dominant
cultures of swathes of population concentrations in various regions.
Nonetheless,
the rise on the one hand of the socialist Bernie Sanders in the Democrat Party and
the populist Donald Trump in the Republican Party on the other speak towards a
divide in terms of popular reactions to an unsatisfactory view of the
prevailing system.
Those
Americans attracted to Sanders’ message are angered by the licence given to profiteering
corporations who outsource jobs outside of the United States. They hate the privileges
conferred on beyond-the-reach-of-the-law bankers and the trends pointing to the
concentration of wealth in the hands of an increasingly smaller percentage of
the population. They are concerned about the concentration of mainstream media
ownership in the hands of six corporations and are dismayed about student loans
that are packaged with onerous interest rates.
But
it is of course the campaign of billionaire real estate mogul Donald Trump
which has received the greatest amount of attention and also within whose
populist agenda the deep cultural divide in America is laid bare.
Trump’s
message has seen him become the leading candidate among those seeking the
Republican Party nomination. Significantly, his campaign has also earned him
the enmity of the political establishment; an entity encapsulated by the
duopoly of the respective machineries of the Democrat and Republican Party
Parties from which much of the electorate has increasingly become estranged.
That
Trump has proved to be a magnet for popular discontent in America is clear
enough.
An
interesting array of persons and demographics has been energized into
supporting him. On a personal level, some are impressed by his ‘no-nonsense’
talking style and ‘Alpha Male’ demeanour. So far as his capacity for executing
the office of the presidency is concerned, some believe that a man for long
enmeshed in the business world with success to go along with it could help cure
America of its economic ills.
Trump
some claim has surged ahead because he has had the temerity to challenge the
status quo. The bland ‘business as usual’ form of electioneering that has for
long constrained the discourse into a fixed set of parameters is gone. For
others, Trump is a rabble-rouser; essentially a carnival barker who has turned
over a rock that has revealed an ugly underbelly of intolerance and racism.
He
has brought immigration to the fore in a way that otherwise would not have been
the case. His criticism not only of illegal immigration but also of legal
immigration to the United States has struck a chord among segments of the
European-descended population who feel threatened by non-white immigration. For
these people, the demographic shifts and changes portend towards a marked and
irreversible change in America’s European-derived culture and mores.
For
a man concerned with the preservation of the genetic purity of the white race
which he continually asserts by their endeavours solely created the basis of
America, the present discourse on the immigration issue is one that has
captured the attention of the white nationalist David Duke.
For
Duke, Trump’s intervention signifies a fundamental breach with the normally
‘timid’ and prescribed format of debate. For instance, Trump’s pledge to deport
12 million illegal immigrants marks a clear shift from the past; a past which
according to Duke is littered with ostensibly tough-talking but ultimately
insincere Republican candidates who inevitably capitulate by granting mass
amnesties.
Duke
has of course been made a point of discussion of the election campaign because
he has applauded several of Trump’s stances while holding back from giving a
formal endorsement. It is no surprise that this former member of a chapter of
the Ku Klux Klan who later served as a legislator in his home state of
Louisiana would become a figure of controversy.
Duke’s
weltanschauung, which is predicated
on the fundamental differences between racial groups, has as a central thesis
the necessity of the neutralisation of Jewish power on both a national and
global level. Trump’s strident views on immigration are extremely important to
the likes of Duke who fear legal immigration –never mind immigration of the
illegal sort- is irretrievably leading to the scenario of European-descended
Americans becoming a minority population.
In
this, Duke sees the hand of Jewish influence in engineering a shift toward a
national policy of open immigration. Whereas Acts of Congress respectively in
1921, 1924 and 1952 had, he argues, sought to preserve a European majority, the
Immigration Act of 1965 sponsored in both houses of Congress by Jewish figures such
as Congressman Samuel Dickstein and Senator Jacob Javits ‘opened the gates’. The reason which he
proffers to his followers is that of an “atavistic hatred” Jews have toward
white European Christian culture which they blame for age-long persecutions.
Relegating
whites to minority status would, he argues, serve Jewish interests because it
enables them to supplant white Americans as the elite in American society and
also puts a damper on the capacity for the revival of cohesive ethnic
nationalist sentiments on the part of Christian whites from which Jews have
historically borne negative consequences.
In
the words of Kevin MacDonald, a retired professor of psychology and a guru of
sorts for Duke and other white nationalists, “ethnic and religious pluralism
serves external Jewish interests because Jews become just one of many ethnic
groups…and it becomes difficult or impossible to develop unified, cohesive
groups of Gentiles united in their opposition of Judaism.”
Duke’s
obsession with the power allegedly wielded by members of the Jewish community
in media, the economy and political influence has led him to praise some of
Trump’s actions.
For
instance, when Trump chided Hillary Clinton for being readily accepting of the necessity for Israel to build a wall to keep Muslims out while at the same time being dismissive of the right of America to do the same, Duke highlighted this as evidence of the hypocrisy of mainstream politicians who cravenly serve the interests of the Israel lobby at the expense of their own national interests.
Again, when in December of 2015 Trump went before the Republican Jewish Coalition Presidential Forum to tell them “I know that you don’t like me because I don’t want your money”, Duke was quick to interpret those comments as being profoundly revealing of the state of affairs in contemporary America. No political figure would have the courage to utter what he considers to be an ‘unmentionable truth;’ namely that of a preponderance of Jewish money in the electoral process.
Again, when in December of 2015 Trump went before the Republican Jewish Coalition Presidential Forum to tell them “I know that you don’t like me because I don’t want your money”, Duke was quick to interpret those comments as being profoundly revealing of the state of affairs in contemporary America. No political figure would have the courage to utter what he considers to be an ‘unmentionable truth;’ namely that of a preponderance of Jewish money in the electoral process.
He
revels in the sorts of points of analysis as that given by Uri Avnery, a former
member of the Knesset, who in his ‘Gush Shalom’ blog once accused casino
magnate Sheldon Adelson of being like a figure “straight out of the pages of
the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” Avnery was alluding to an event which
occurred in March of 2014.
As part of what several mainstream media outlets have referred to as the "Sheldon Adelson Primary", Adelson summoned four Republican politicians hopeful of
running for the party’s presidential nominations in order to make a decision as
to which candidate he would offer financial backing. All four including Jeb
Bush and Chris Christie were present or former serving state governors. What
followed Avnery described as “a shameless exhibition" during which "the politicians
grovelled before the casino lord.”
Thus
it is no surprise that Duke enthusiastically repeats his claim that Hillary
Clinton’s top seven backers are Jewish and is encouraged by Trump’s sneering
reference to a previously undisclosed loan given to his rival Ted Cruz:
“Goldman Sachs own him. Remember that!”
While
he expresses reservations about Trump, he appears persuaded by the fact of
widespread media hostility towards Trump along with the concerted efforts by
the Republican establishment to discredit him as ample evidence of Trump’s
potential as a president who will not kowtow to what he sees as prevailing
Jewish interests and will act in a manner that would go a long way in
re-asserting the interests of European-descended Americans.
The Trump campaign raises two key issues. The first relates to the culture associated with the operation of governance and the electoral process. The second is to do with the qualities of the candidate himself.
It should be clear to all that the American political process is riddled with
corruption and that what passes for a democracy is actually a system run under
false pretences as a democracy.
A
study by the political scientists Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin Page
of Northwestern University concluded that “majorities of the American public actually have
little influence over the policies our government adopts.” The views of rich
people have a much greater impact on policy decisions than those of
middle-income and poor Americans.
It
is effectively government serving the interests of oligarchs.
The
law has paved the way for entrenching this state of affairs via successive
Supreme Court decisions which relate to the funding of campaigns. The case of
Buckley versus Valeo in 1976 arguably provided the basis through which politicians
can be bought and controlled by billionaires and corporate interests. In
striking own certain provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act (1974), it
removed limits to the amount of money which could be spent on campaigns
although limits were still affixed to the contributions of individuals.
However, by overturning sections of the Campaign Reform Act (2002), the Citizens United versus Federal Electoral Commission case of 2010 went further by removing limits in expenditures made by non-profit and for-profit corporations. McCutcheon versus Federal Electoral Commission added to this by removing the biennial aggregate limit on individual contributions to national party and federal candidate committees.
However, by overturning sections of the Campaign Reform Act (2002), the Citizens United versus Federal Electoral Commission case of 2010 went further by removing limits in expenditures made by non-profit and for-profit corporations. McCutcheon versus Federal Electoral Commission added to this by removing the biennial aggregate limit on individual contributions to national party and federal candidate committees.
The
cumulative effect of these decisions –all of which invoked violations of the
First Amendment as justification- has been to effectively remove restraints
imposed on election spending.
Former
President Jimmy Carter has bluntly stated what the implications are:
It
violates the essence of what made America a great nation in its political
system. Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the
essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president.
And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress
members. So, now we’ve just seen a subversion of our political system as a
major payoff to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get,
favours for themselves after the election is over. … At the present time the
incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a
great benefit to themselves. Somebody that is already in Congress has a great
deal more to sell.
The
results are there to see.
The links between political figures and Wall Street have increasingly taken an insidious and pervasive form. This takes into account the relationships developed in-between election campaigns. Hillary Clinton of the Democratic Party, for instance, has become wealthy from her links with the corporate world and particularly from her connections with banks.
Public
financial disclosures show that she earned a total of $2,935,000 from 12
speeches which she gave before banking concerns between 2013 and 2015. While
her standard fee is $225,000, Goldman Sachs once paid her $675,000 for a single
speech and Deutsche Bank $485,000. In fact, Clinton has earned a staggering
$21,677,000 for 92 speeches that she gave to private organisations over the
same timescale.
It
would be foolhardy in the extreme to think that her benefactors will not expect
some form of dividend from their respective outlays.
It
is important to note that there was never any halcyon era of the business of American politicking being free of corruption. The ‘pork barrel’ culture of elected
politicians being disposed to return favours to moneyed interests is long
established. As Huey Long, the legendary Louisiana governor and senator who ran
the state as his personal fiefdom, once put it officeholders are “dime a dozen
punks.”
It should be remembered that the 17th Amendment to the United States constitution, which changed the method of selecting U.S. Senators from appointments agreed upon by members of state legislatures to one requiring direct elections by the electorate, was in part prompted by allegations of corruption in the selection of senators.
The
rise of the big city bosses based on the wielding of near autocratic power and the
dispensing of patronage such as for example existed with Frank Hague in Jersey
City and the Daley dynasty in Chicago is well documented as indeed is the
history associated with New York City’s Tammany Hall.
In the midst of this election campaign we witness the rise of Donald Trump bearing the mantle of an independent spirit whose wealth ostensibly inures him from the pressures faced by seasoned politicians to be ‘bought and paid for’ vassals of Wall Street as well as that of a down-to-earth outsider who is not of the establishment.
There
are parallels between Trump and other political figures in American history that
were populist in message and not the favoured candidate of the establishment of
the party with which they were associated. Barry Goldwater in 1964 and Ronald
Reagan in 1980 both come to mind. Where Goldwater tussled with Nelson
Rockefeller, Reagan took on George Herbert Bush; each opponent being
representative of the ‘blue blooded’ Republican establishment. Trump has even
been compared to Huey Long who was plotting a path to the White House when he
was cut down by an assassin’s bullet in 1937.
However,
Trump’s candidature arguably offers very little hope for a revolutionary change
for two key reasons. The first concerns the man and the policies he is
attempting to sell to the American public, and the second pertains to the
practical limitations facing an earnest candidate wishing to make changes
within the prevailing system.
The
tone of Trump’s campaign while apparently refreshing to a large segment has
demonstrably attracted those among the masses who readily subscribe to
inter-ethnic and inter-religious division. Simply put, Trump does not appear to
be a ‘healer’. A candidate who arrogantly mocks a disabled person and who makes
thinly veiled quips about the effect of a woman’s menstrual cycle on her
supposed hostility to him is at a fundamental level unsuited to lead.
An
indication of his shifty persona and generally unreliable disposition can be
garnered from the amount of about turns that he has made in regard to his
position on several key matters. He is on record as supporting a universal
health care system which would be paid for by government but now claims that he
will repeal Obama Care. Where Trump was once in favour of restrictions to gun
ownership, under the election spotlight, he now pledges to repeal Obama’s tough
gun control laws.
And
this from Trump some years ago about illegal immigration:
It’s
very tough to say, ‘You have to leave. Get out!’ How do you throw someone out
who has lived in this country for twenty years? You just can’t throw everybody
out.
Trump
has of course gained both notoriety and support for pledging to deport twelve
million illegal immigrants and to ban all Muslims from entering the United
States.
He now
excoriates both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama where in the past he was
fulsome in his praise for both; Clinton as being “very, very capable” so far as inheriting the
mantle of president and Obama as being a “strong and smart” leader. While Trump
has always claimed allegiance to the Republican Party, he admitted that in many
cases “I probably identify more as a Democrat.”
It
is doubtful that Trump can perform an economic miracle by turning around the
trends in the economy. He cannot for instance force Apple Inc. to manufacture
goods in the United States and make them pay American workers at ‘developed
country’ levels.
In
this matter and others, Trump’s sums simply do not add up. He supported
President Obama’s stimulus package and consistently supported a high level of
government spending and other forms of interventionist measures including the
use of eminent domain; that is, the compulsory purchase of private property for
public use. Trump’s tune has changed. He favours an economic policy based on
removing 75 million Americans from paying income tax. There would be a top
income tax rate of 25% for individual and 15% for corporation. Death duties
would be abolished.
Trump’s
plan for making up for the inevitable shortfall in national revenues is to
place a heavy tax on all foreign imported goods – an action which would likely
kick start a global trade war and add over $30 trillion dollars to the debt of the
United States.
He
cannot bring about a genuinely substantive economic revival without a wholesale
‘root and branch’ reformation of the economic system. This is a system in which
markets are rigged by the Federal Reserve and by the U.S. Treasury.
As
Michael Hudson, a distinguished professor of economics, argues in his book Killing the Host, the whole of the
financial system would need re-regulating. This would require a revolutionary
tax policy geared towards preventing the financial sector from extracting
economic surplus and capitalizing on debt obligations paying interest to that
sector.
All
Trump has offered thus far is a suggestion that the Federal Reserve ought to be
audited and a truculent comment about the Reserve keeping the level of interest
rates low so as to protect Obama from “a recession-slash-depression during his
administration.”
He
holds himself out as an anti-establishment reformer but from Trump there is no
reference to a substantively constructed programme detailing how he would go
about challenging the barons of Wall Street. He poses as a reformer without
attacking power. There is no tangible sense of promise that he could wage the
sort of battle with entrenched interests in the manner of previous presidents
such as Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Jackson,
weary of the powers accumulated by a powerful central bank -which he likened to
a hydra-headed monster- and its “paper money”, abolished the Bank of America. Theodore
Roosevelt attacked business monopolies via the Sherman Anti-Trust Act while his
distant cousin was the instigator of the ‘New Deal’ a radical series of
measures which included the institution of a social security system.
Trump’s
wealth, while providing a credible image of a politician who cannot be bought,
does not guarantee that he would be able to deliver on any radical policies.
For one thing, an American president cannot go over the heads of both Houses of
Congress and the Supreme Court which holds the final card so far as the
settlement of core constitutional matters is concerned.
John
F. Kennedy assumed the presidency backed by his father’s considerable wealth.
But while he could, as a senator, take bold, independent stances such as his support
for Algerian independence, as president, he had to make compromises with
interest groups who supported the political party with which he was affiliated.
As president, he earned the ire of the military industrial complex, barons of
commerce, segments of the Intelligence community and high-ranking
fascist-leaning army and air force generals in the Pentagon. He was almost
certainly eliminated by a plot originated from elements from the aforementioned
groups over discontent with his policies and fear of where he would take
America.
Outside
of economic and social policies, Trump painted a picture of prudence during a
debate on foreign policy. While the other candidates appeared to be falling
over themselves to present the image of being strong and decisive on Syria and
the Ukraine, Trump said that he would endeavour to pursue a constructive
working relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
However,
his threat to “bomb the hell out of our enemies” exposes a poor grasp of the workings
of international politics; not least a failure on his part to understand the
lessons of America’s recent past. It contradicts the criticisms he has
correctly levelled at Hillary Clinton for her part in the destruction of Libya.
It
also suggests that Trump would go out of his way to appease the armaments
industry and fall in line with the dictates of the military industrial complex.
This important cog in the economic machinery of the United States, about which President
Dwight Eisenhower issued dark warnings in his farewell address to the American
people, operates on the basis of increasing defence expenditure and
perpetuating the war industry by all available means. This has included
facilitating the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in
defiance of promises given by America’s leaders as a condition for allowing a
reunified Germany to join N.A.T.O.
A President Trump who managed to limit or otherwise remove tax obligations
domestically would more than ever need to preserve the United States dollar as
the de facto global reserve currency. A necessary element of this state of
affairs is the co-operation of the rulers of the oil rich Saudi state to which
the United States is pledged to preserve for the consideration of the sale of
oil in U.S. dollars.
The
United States has served as an overseer of Saudi imperial designs in the Middle
East including that regime’s part sponsorship of the lengthy and destructive
war between the Saddam-era Iraq and Iran as well as the Saudi-backed
insurrection against the Ba’athist regime in Syria. Further evidence of Trump
as a warmonger can be garnered from his comments that Iran’s nuclear programme
should be stopped by “any and all means necessary.”
But
something which admittedly appears to work in Trump’s favour is the criticism
he is receiving from the political establishment who the electorate hold in low
esteem. This also applies to those paragons of the economic order.
For
instance, when the economist Larry Summers alleged that Trump “is a serious
threat to American democracy”, there are many who would keenly take Summers to
task for his support of the present corrupt order. It was Summers after all, who
helped deregulate the banking system which paved the way for the ‘casino
banking’ culture that led to the economic crash of the late 2000s. Summers also
played a key role as an overseer of the mass plunder of the Russian economy in
the 1990s.
In
this heated atmosphere littered with scornful reproach and blistering
invective, the opportunity for calm and fruitful reflection is being lost.
It
is clear that Americans need to re-think the nature of the deep-seated
identity-politics and the highly partisan approach to issues which is
imperiling the sanctity of its institutions and the conventions that govern
them. The row related to the unprecedented decision of Republican leaders in Congress
to arrange for a foreign leader, Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, to give a speech
before congress over the head of the serving president provides one example of
this.
Where
many Jewish Americans saw this as a necessary tactic to stymie President
Obama’s then in progress attempt at reaching a deal with Iran over its nuclear
energy programme, many African-Americans saw it as one of a series of insults
directed at a black president.
The
“You lie” interjection by the southern Republican Joe Wilson during a major
speech to Congress by President Obama in 2009, according to former president
Jimmy Carter, had exposed “an inherent feeling among many in this country that
an African-American should not be president.”
But
even if the action of enabling Netanyahu to speak before Congress without the
consultation of the serving president in this instant was not predicated on the
“intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama as a black
man”, it clearly unveiled the power and leverage wielded by the Israel lobby
over many United States legislators.
The
actions of 47 Republican senators in sending a signed letter to the leaders of
Iran warning them against reaching agreement with the Obama administration brought enough scrutiny to warrant the an
accusation of treason.
The
crucial point however is whatever the merits of the arguments for and against
the deal with Iran, an important convention was circumvented and the office of
the presidency was wilfully undermined by legislators who were beholden to an
interest group and a gross level of partisanship.
The
polarised views over issues related to the killings of Americans by law
enforcement officials also exposes a divide based on race and political
affinities at the expense of what should be a consensus view on the standards
of policing and the even-handed operation of the criminal justice system.
While
an increasing amount of cases such as the slayings of Michael Brown and Eric
Garner brought forth uncomfortable statistics related to the killing of
minorities by police and counter-arguments positing the statistics showing that
armed white suspects were more likely to be killed than blacks in the same
situation, lost in the emotional and uncompromisingly partisan discourse is the
reality of an increasing militarisation of police forces in America.
Many
white Americans, comforted by the fact that they are not profiled as criminal
or terror suspects because they are neither black nor Muslim, appear aloof to
this phenomenon despite the rise in apparently unwarranted shootings for
instance of whites who call the police to investigate suspected crimes on their
property. Age and respectability are no barriers to being on the receiving end
of rough-handed treatment as the case last year of a retired four-star army general
in Georgia demonstrated.
Meanwhile
the Eric Garner case serves to illustrate how U.S. police officers have
increasingly become unaccountable for actions of wrongful arrest and brutality
including homicide. Taxpayers have had to fund millions of dollars in
settlement of lawsuits.
In America, the
issue of race is of course never far from the surface. “The problem of the
Twentieth Century”, wrote W.E.B. Dubois in 1903 “is the problem of the colour
line”.
It
is also clearly a problem in this, the succeeding century.
The
aforementioned Michael Brown case, as indeed also the one involving Trayvon
Martin, was overshadowed by race. Each became a contest of accusations and
counter-accusations based on perceptions of the racial attitudes of the police,
and criminality in the black community. The likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse
Jackson were called out by whites concerned about their silence in cases where
white victims had suffered at the hands of black criminals. This extended also
to situations of so-called black-on-black violence.
The
issue of race and criminal statistics are projected on to cases such as those
involving Michael Brown, serving, from the perspective of many whites, as a
justification for the killing of young black men. In other words, that U.S.
Department of Justice figures consistently attributing a high level of crime to segments of the black
population make it alright to gun down black suspects.
There are a number of caveats nonetheless which need to
be kept in mind. For instance, so far as homicides are concerned, most whites
–over 80%- are killed by other whites much in the manner that most blacks are
killed by other blacks. It is worth noting the statistics issued focus on street
crimes and not on organised crime and corporate crime.
If
the Department of Justice began compiling statistics related to the ethnic
origins of say corporate crime which became repeated like the mantra of black
street crime, then it would arguably create a new ambit of racial sensitivities.
It
is worth pausing to think of a situation where the media and the public
discourse was focused on the ethnic origins of Wall Street operatives who are
convicted of financial crimes. The issues of race and social class, needless to
say, play a part in this. How else is it
possible to explain the ‘too-big-to-fail’ rationale behind the bailout of corporations
on Wall Street? Whereas Iceland allowed banks to fail and jailed criminally
culpable bankers, in the United States, the bigwigs in the banking sector escaped
prosecution for policies and actions which appeared to be criminal in both conception and execution.
For
instance in 2006 and 2007, the Goldman Sachs Group offered over $40 billion in
securities that were backed by at least 200,000 risky home mortgages. What the
corporation failed to do was to inform potential buyers that it was also
secretly betting on a sharp drop in housing prices which would result in the marked devaluation of those securities.
The
excuse put forward by the regulatory authorities that many devices of market chicanery
were not illegal at the times of their operation is unconvincing to many. It demonstrates
an extraordinary level of descent in the standard of morality applied to the
corporate world as indeed is the case in other spheres.
Those
who helped plunge the United States and the world into an economic morass,
destroying the livelihoods of many, shrinking their pension funds, saddling
many with debts and in effect lowering the prospects of the succeeding
generation are not categorised by race.
A
worthwhile question for the American public to ponder is whether the
construction of racial statistics related to the commission of economic crimes
should be an important element of the public discourse as is the case with
street crimes.
Ultimately,
this may be unhelpful for the simple reason that it would serve to deflect
attention from the underlying failures in the system. The aforementioned David
Duke in relation to whom Trump took some time before disavowing is as fixated on the levels of
black street crime statistics as he is on repeating the claim that Jewish
organisations and Jewish individuals ‘control’ the electoral and wider political process when in fact, the system itself is open to being manipulated by the highest bidder.
The
Koch brothers, David and Charles, who are worth a combined $86 billion provide a study of how any well-resourced group or individual can
attempt to buy political influence in order to secure legislative enactment to
their benefit rather than for the benefit of the wider society.
The brothers, who have given over 60 million dollars over a 15 year period to groups which deny climate change, are the fossil fuel
industry's largest donors to the members of the congressional committee
overseeing fuel and energy matters. In 2010, the Koch brothers and their
employees donated over $300,000 to members of the House Energy and Commerce
Committee which was overseeing the Keystone XL pipeline proposal.
According
to a report by the International Forum on Globalisation, the Koch Brothers would
stand to make up to 100 billion dollars in profits if the pipeline is
constructed. This would encompass the areas of exploration, construction and
trading. Although the figure related to an expected profit margin is hotly
disputed as is the extent of the involvement of the Koch Corporation in this proposed venture, it
is worth reminding how Republican members of Congress attempted to use this
project as a bargaining tool in the confrontation with President Obama over the budget in September 2013.
This is the daunting context within which any aspiring American president will be required to discharge his or her duties. It is doubtful that Donald Trump possesses the leadership qualities as well as the requisite policies which would serve as the panacea for America’s problems, for he appears to be a charlatan and a savvy peddler of populist propaganda.
This is the daunting context within which any aspiring American president will be required to discharge his or her duties. It is doubtful that Donald Trump possesses the leadership qualities as well as the requisite policies which would serve as the panacea for America’s problems, for he appears to be a charlatan and a savvy peddler of populist propaganda.
In
any case, it is worth reiterating the limitations of the office. The last
president who seemed to act with a great measure of ‘independence’, that is, one
fulfilling the ideal concept of a robust ‘father of the nation’ who as an
elected official proceeded according to his own will in the belief that he was
serving the interests of the mass of the electorate was probably Franklin
Delano Roosevelt.
Today,
with a system so closely entwined in satisfying the interests of powerful minority
elites, it would be difficult, if not near impossible for a president to effect
change of the sort many Americans desire. A president, even one with a considerable amount of personal wealth, cannot hope to displace the entrenched interests of powerful lobby groups such as those representing the defence and armaments industry, the extractive industries, Israel, and, of course, Wall Street and the banking sector.
In
several key ways, many who support Trump do so as a projection of their fears
and their anger at the system: Anger at the economically debilitating aspects
of free trade and the perceived overreach of ‘political correctness’ as well as
the fear of immigration and Islamist terrorism.
But the
Trump supporters who cheer on Trump's promises in relation to strengthening laws to combat the
perceived ‘Muslim menace’ at home and abroad appear not to be cognizant of the
fact that they are sanctioning the entrenchment of an Orwellian-like police
state apparatus that has markedly developed in the post-9/11 era. Many who rail against 'political correctness' have only succeeded in providing overt evidence of their racial and religious prejudices while those subscribing to his strategy for regaining jobs that have gone overseas merely display their naivety of the workings of the economic order.
It
is doubtful that most can believe that he has the solutions which he claims he
has. From those sharing the racialist worldview of David Duke to the neglected
working man sensing a different political animal to the tried and failed
political classes, supporting Trump is a leap into the dark.
It
effectively amounts to a protest vote against the system.
It
is the system and the prevailing mores of the political and business
establishments that guide it which ought to be the primary concern of
Americans. It is only when the system is cleansed of the rules enabling political ‘sugar daddies’ and corporate interests to buy elections and the rules allowing the
rigging of the economic system are properly reformed that the election of a new president will be able to provide the basis for genuine change.
©
Adeyinka Makinde (2016)
Adeyinka
Makinde is a writer based in London, England.
