Global Independent Analytics
Danny Haiphong
Danny Haiphong

Location: USA

Specialization: War, Racism, Capitalist exploitation, Civil rights

Is Fear-Mongering of Trump Liberal Insecurity or Resistance?

The question is, will liberal insecurity prevail come to the general elections or is US society on the cusp of a massive rebellion?

There is a general tendency on the left in the US to equate Donald Trump's 2016 election campaign with the rise of fascism. This tendency has largely developed within the liberal sections of US society. Rather than present a theoretical and historical analysis of fascism that can be applied to this moment, many who decry Trump a fascist uncritically espouse the term. On March 11th, thousands protested Donald Trump and shut down his campaign rally in Chicago, Illinois. These activists must be moved away from the insecurity inherent in a growing pattern of liberal "resistance" to Trump and toward a mode of political organization capable of building a revolutionary movement independent of the corporate duopoly that exists in the here and now.

This author does not support Trump or any candidate running for the Empire’s seat in Washington. However, the left is mistaken to dismiss him without a critical analysis of the significance of his campaign. Trump's corporate media celebrity and politically incorrect speech do not fully explain why he remains the most popular Republican Party candidate in the 2016 elections. White working class and petty bourgeois forces have used Trump as the vehicle for their internal revolt against the Republican Party establishment. These sectors of society are sick of endless war abroad and material impoverishment at home. They have thrown their support for a candidate who promises to end corporate trade deals, reign in the US military, and focus on bringing jobs back to the US mainland.

The Bernie Sanders campaign represents a similar phenomenon but from the Democratic Party ticket. Sanders has inspired a section of the white working class and a broad base of young Black and Latino Americans to move against the tide of the Democratic Party establishment. Rather than build on the advances in consciousness displayed by the Sanders and Trump development, American liberals have called for "unity" against Trump should he end up competing against Hillary Clinton in the general election. They have cloaked their "lesser of two evils" justification for imperialism in their use the word fascism. However, the call to build "unity" against Trump is more of a product of liberal insecurity than it is resistance against "fascism."

recent article in Prospect clearly reveals the liberal insecurity inherent in the effort to unify the masses against Trump. In a criminal fashion, the author uses Marxist revolutionaries to justify support for Hillary Clinton. The article quotes Karl Marx, stating, “. . . We don’t get to make history as we please 'under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.'" The quotation of Karl Marx is used to convey to the masses that the demands and methods of "left leaning" activists are beyond the scope of the present moment. Fidel Castro's History Will Absolve Me and the so-called missteps of the Soviet Union are also cited to insinuate that the left has historically been complicit in the rise of fascism.

Such slander of revolutionary thought and action possesses a dual character. On the one hand, it shows that the current unrest at this moment has forced the most reactionary liberal forces in the US to acknowledge the thirst of the masses for an alternative to capitalist ruin. On the other, the separation of the struggle for socialism from its historical context helps aids in the suppression of socialism’s popular appeal. To blame "left-leaning activists" for the GOP's rightward political direction is pure fallacy. Bourgeois liberals making such claims need to look in the mirror.

Bourgeois liberals in the US have empowered US imperialism's rightward dissent both ideologically and materially. It was the bourgeois liberals who sat back and watched as the Clinton Administration eliminated welfare in the US and passed the 1994 crime bill which greatly expanded the prison state. It was also the Clinton Administration that deregulated Wall Street and pushed NAFTA down the throats of the working class. This resulted later in mass home foreclosures and loss of jobs. Clinton also supported the sanctions against Iraq that killed over a half a million children. Of course, these are but minor details to bourgeois liberal servants and ideologues of the Democratic Party.

Bourgeois liberals then found a convenient punching bag in President George W. Bush starting in 2000. However, The Bush Jr. presidency merely extended Clinton era policies. Clinton strangled Iraq with sanctions while Bush bombed the country. Clinton bombed Serbia while Bush increased NATO's presence in Eastern Europe. Clinton militarized the police and expanded mass incarceration while Bush Jr. amplified the mass surveillance machine through the Patriot Act. President Bush was rightly criticized for his insistence on lowering taxes on the rich while Clinton received little criticism from bourgeois liberals for his service to Wall Street.

The cooperative relationship between the Democratic and Republican Party only intensified with the election of Barack Obama. President Barack Obama's presidency allowed bourgeois liberals in the US room to protect imperialism and silence critics of the so-called first Black President. Obama quietly expanded US imperialism's military dragnet deeper into the Middle East and Africa. His Presidency cracked down on whistle blowers, eroded civil liberties, and built a regime of austerity and privatization that Republicans can only dream of. Conditions for all people, especially Black people, are a lot worse since Obama came to office. And it was bourgeois liberals who told the masses all along the way that his presidency represented a "historic" moment and "progress" for humanity.

The Democratic Party, far from being agents of "progress" for the working class, is nothing but an anchor for the right. In recent weeks, the Boston Globe ran a mock article on what life would be like under a Trump Presidency. Ironically for the Globe, most of what it cited has already happened under recent Democratic Party Presidents. The Globe article is a prime example of how liberal insecurity currently "trumps" a concrete, revolutionary analysis of the 2016 elections. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have shown their success has the potential to split the two-party corporate duopoly. This should be a welcome site.

Those who have channeled their anger and resistance to white supremacy primarily at Donald Trump should reflect on whether the rise of right-wing ideology in the US is the fault of Trump or the Democratic Party. US imperialism has been moving rightward ideologically since the 1970s. The rise of the far right, far from being an isolated development, is the creation of a bipartisan consensus. As this author has analyzed, the Democratic Party has facilitated this rightward shift through collaboration with the Republicans. It has saved its liberal face through an intricate performance where the Democratic Party acts as the progressive option while the Republican Party scares the masses with overt racism and bigotry.

Yet both parties have agreed for over four decades to wage wars, lower wages, and bail out Wall Street banks. Both Parties continue to militarize US society and move closer to World War III abroad. President Obama’s administration represented the highest form of the two-party con game. The system is now in desperate need for a replacement in the White House. Neither Donald Trump nor Bernie Sanders fit the needs of imperialism. Both candidates have sparked anti-system sentiments that could split the corporate parties. And unlike the past, a recovery from this is nowhere in sight. The question is, will liberal insecurity prevail come to the general elections or is US society on the cusp of a massive rebellion?

Related ARTICLES

NO MATTER WHAT, THE ESTABLISHMENT WILL HAVE THEIR CONTROLLED CANDIDATES IN BOTH MAJOR PARTIES.

NO MATTER WHAT, THE ESTABLISHMENT WILL HAVE THEIR CONTROLLED CANDIDATES IN BOTH MAJOR PARTIES.

The problem for the establishment this year is that there is not one, but two anti-establishment candidates in the race: one in each party.

18 April 2016

by Chuck Baldwin

Why would AIPAC dump Trump?

Why would AIPAC dump Trump?

It is possible that AIPAC was worried that Trump wouldn’t be pro-Israel enough, after last week’s gaffe when Trump said he would be “neutral” between Israel and the Palestinians.

08 April 2016

by Max J. Schindler

POPULAR ARTICLES

Not Found

OPINION

Vladimir Golstein

Vladimir Golstein

The Danderous Acceptance of Donald Trump

James N. Green

James N. Green

Politics in Brazil: Fasten Your Seat Belts!

Barbara H. Peterson

Barbara H. Peterson

Health officials confirm spread of Zika virus through sexual contact in Texas, first in US

Danny Haiphong

Danny Haiphong

WHY IS OTTO(SUPER)MAN ERDOGAN LOSING HIS CHARISMA?

Miray Aslan

Miray Aslan

How relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran reached a breaking point

Navid Nasr

Navid Nasr

How relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran reached a breaking point

Writers

chief editor

Joshua Tartakovsky

Analysis should serve as a method to better understand our world, not to obscure it.

Materials: 42

Specialization: Israel and the Middle East, US politics

Materials: 7

Specialization: Balkans, NATO and EU policies, Strategic communications

Materials: 3

Specialization: Foreign politics, Immigration, Human rights.

Materials: 2

Specialization: Political Science, Social Anthropology

Materials: 3

Specialization: Eastern Europe

Materials: 14

Specialization: Industrial Safety, Corporations

Materials: 12

Specialization: Eastern Europe, Labor movement

Materials: 3

Specialization: American history, way of life, and principles

Danielle Ryan

Ireland

Materials: 10

Specialization: US foreign policy, US-Russia relations and media bias

Materials: 20

Specialization: War, Racism, Capitalist exploitation, Civil rights

Materials: 8

Specialization: Modern Japanese History, Modern Chinese History, Military History, History of Counterinsurgency, History of Disobedience, Dynamics of Atrocities in Wartime

Dovid Katz

Lithuania

Materials: 3

Specialization: Holocaust Revisionism and Geopolitics; East European Far Right & Human Rights; Yiddish Studies & Litvak Culture

Materials: 20

Specialization: History, Catalunya, Spain, Geopolitics, Nationalism in Europe, Islamization, Immigration

Materials: 5

Materials: 3

Specialization: migration, international relations

Materials: 1

Specialization: Syria, US Foreign policy and strategies, BRICS/SCO

Materials: 19

Specialization: Balkans, Yugoslavia

Materials: 10

Specialization: Jihadist Groups, Islamic Terrorism, Global Security

Materials: 4

Specialization: Geopolitics

Materials: 4

Specialization: Media and government relations

Materials: 2

Specialization: Latin America, Brazil

Jay Watts

Canada

Materials: 2

Specialization: History, Marxism-Leninism, Imperialism, Anti-imperialism.

Materials: 2

Specialization: International Relations, Sociology, Geostrategy

Materials: 1

Specialization: civil rights

Lionel Baland

Belgium

Materials: 22

Specialization: Euroscepticism, Patriotic parties of Europe

Maram Susli

Australia

Materials: 3

Specialization: Geopolitics

Materials: 2

Specialization: Civil rights, Racism, US politics

Materials: 1

Specialization: geopolitics, economics

Max J. Schindler

Palestine-Israel

Materials: 9

Specialization: Politics

Miray Aslan

Turkey

Materials: 12

Specialization: Media, Politics

Materials: 5

Specialization: Politics, International relations

Navid Nasr

Croatia

Materials: 13

Specialization: Global security, Politics

Materials: 9

Specialization: Development of European Union, Non-governmental organizations, Politics and economics in Baltic States

Materials: 9

Specialization: Greece, Crisis of the US hegemony; Israel / Occupied Palestine, Oppression of Black people in the US

Materials: 4

Specialization: geopolitics, Russia, USSR

Pedro Marin

Brazil

Materials: 17

Specialization: Latin America, Ukraine, North Korea

Materials: 13

Specialization: Sustainable development, International relations, Comparative European politics, European integration, Eastern European politics and EU-Russia relations

Materials: 8

Specialization: Politics

Materials: 16

Specialization: Counterterrorist Finance

Seyit Aldogan

Greece

Materials: 3

Specialization: ISIS, Middle East, Globalization, Migrant crisis

Materials: 1

Specialization: Head of "Srebrenica Historical Project"

Materials: 3

Specialization: Economy, Social politics

Stevan Gajic

Serbia

Materials: 1

Specialization: Full time researcher at the Institute for European Studies

Materials: 5

Specialization: Geopolitics, Geoeconomics

Materials: 2

Specialization: Civil rights

Tobias Nase

Germany

Materials: 8

Specialization: Syria, US Foreign policy, Ukraine

Valerijus Simulik

Lithuania

Materials: 2

Specialization: Politics and economics in Baltic States, education and science, non - governmental organizations, globalization and EU

Van Gelis

Greece

Materials: 17

Specialization: Middle East

Materials: 1

Specialization: Kosovo, Serbia, Belgrad bombing

Materials: 5

Specialization: international relations, Russia

toTop