Monday 5 December 2016

The Ghost of Saul Alinsky

Last August I attended a dinner with the CEO's of a number of major US corporations who unsurprisingly were staunchly Republican but in the main had not yet jumped on the Trump bandwagon with one vocal exception.

She was rabidly for Trump and equally ferocious in her denunciation of Obama, roundly criticizing him as a disciple of Saul Alinsky.

To be fair I did not know Mr Alinsky. When I questioned just what it was about him that she objected to she accused him of being a radical organizer. When pushed, she could not substantiate her accusations as she had never read anything written by him and it was obvious she was just parroting what someone else had said.

Given the setting I decided not to indulge in what would certainly be a difficult discussion about someone that neither of us had read and chose instead to purchase one of his books and try and understand what all the fuss was about. The next day I duly went to the bookstore and bought a copy of the "Rules for Radicals", published in 1971.

He is essentially a community organizer with a Marxist/socialist bent believing that our society could be transformed for the better. This of course explains why he is on the receiving end of so much abuse.


For the record the book was a great read. It had a list of 12 rules which Glen Beck thought so powerful he put them on his website.

His rules are not left or right wing. They are simply how to go about achieving your goals. They are opportunistic. They believe the end is more important than the means. They are harshly realistic and yet simple. But most importantly they require that the leaders of a movement understand what they want to achieve and how to mobilize a constituency in reaching their targets.

Glen Beck, annoying as he might be understood what Alinsky was about. He also understood how dangerous these rules for radicals could be in the wrong hands. Bizarrely I would posit that Beck was equally distraught that Obama had used the rules so effectively to get elected twice, and that Trump, or at least his advisers had also read the rules and appeared to understand how to apply them.

Obama, like most left of center politicians/democrats, had focused on the demographic shifts taking place in the USA and was able to mobilize the myriad minorities into a coherent block paving the way to the presidency as well as a democratic election the first time round.

But that is where Obama made his gravest error. The single largest "minority" in the USA are women. But women are not monolithic. And just as the largest group in the USA are ethnically white, approximately 50% of that majority are women.

And when push comes to shove white women vote with white men. The Tea Party saw this.

Alinsky foresaw it in 1971.

He realized that the middle class college radicals were rebelling against their parents, taking up the banner of the minorities in confrontation with the "silent majority". That backlash brought us Nixon, Reagan and eventually Trump.

But I get ahead of myself.

Throw into the mix the decline of the middle class towards working class at the same time that the captains of industry and their lieutenants are busy feathering their nests and you suddenly find the white "majority" circling their wagons against the encroaching minorities and the economic and political elites. Trump understood this. He understood that the silent majority had lost faith in the economic and political elites. They felt threatened that they were being squeezed in the middle and that no one had their (white American) interest at heart.

Of course neither does Trump. But that is irrelevant.

The liberal establishment thought demographics would win the day. The populists knew to exploit the (in part valid) concerns of the white middle/working class knowing full well that they would not be able to make good on half of what they promised. Indeed, an analysis of Trump's campaign by the German Public News agency found that 70% of his rhetoric was untrue, although they failed to recognize that this was irrelevant.

While the liberal elites focused on the inanity of Trump, belittling his support base, Trump happily followed one of the main tenets of Alinsky- the end justifies the means.

If your lies feed into the desires of the electorate you need to win an election, why tell them the truth?

We can't castigate every Trump supporter as an uneducated white racist. Some are. But many are truly filled with existential fear.

Trump believes it is a zero sum game and so has embraced the white majority at the expense of basically every minority.

The challenge is to create a policy that understands there is enough room in the boat for everyone and minorities are not the problem....


Tuesday 29 November 2016

Trump


I know it sounds extreme but I find it difficult not to equate voting for Trump with voting for Hitler.
No. I am not suggesting that he is Hitler. He at least had a platform and was relatively coherent in presenting it.
And I am not really that concerned with Trump's economic plans. I think the system has enough checks and balances both within the government and outside of it in the form of bond and equity markets to temper his actions.
I am however seriously concerned with his social agenda.
Trump has unleashed strains in the USA which are definitely proto-fascist. He has not distanced himself from the KKK or the Alt-Right neo-Nazis. Indeed he has chosen the ringleader of this mishmash of white Christian supremacists, Steve Bannon, to be his Chief of Staff thus ushering him directly into the corridors of power.
So I have to ask myself how did the Republican Party become the vehicle of Mr Trump.
I think the answer is two fold.
On the one side stand educated white men making short-term, selfish decisions focused solely on their desire for even more power and influence. Hollow captains of industry willingly selling their souls in a Faustian pact.
Standing right next to them is the disaffected white working class, left to fend for itself, easy prey to populist exhortations that their's is the kingdom and that they will be returned to the land of milk and honey.
Put these two together and you have the perfect storm of national populism, which is just one step away from its sister national socialism.
Just as with Hitler there is the hope that the institutions of constitutional democracy will tame him and his bark will be much worse than his bite.
I could say this is because Trump contradicts himself so consistently that one could pretend that he doesn't mean half of what he says- but that begs the question which half.
He certainly said all the right things to the white supremacists and their potential storm troopers the WWC. He said the right things to the educated Captains of Industry who chose to sell their souls.
Last week he tried to show the same lip service to the other half of America personified by some editors, columnists and reporters at the New York Times. In a meeting, despite a campaign of relentlessly bashing the NY Times he suddenly flipped to trying to flatter them, telling them of his "tremendous respect for the New York Times" and that is was"a great American jewel".
His exhortations to "White America" on the one hand and to the NY Times on the other are mutually exclusive.
The Americans who believe in a constitutional democracy, who believe in a multi-ethnic liberal society didn't vote for Trump.
That leaves the National Populists.






Friday 6 May 2016

The Snake Sheds Its Skin

So the last of the Republican hopefuls finally threw in the towel to leave the ravaged party grandees to put the pieces together again. Now I didn't mind Mr Cruz admitting defeat: I thought he was potentially even more dangerous than Mr Trump. But that is all relative.

I despise evangelists regardless of affiliation. They are all fundamentalists who have yet to recognise that one of the most powerful, dare I say sacred tenets of the Age of Enlightenment was the separation of Church and State. The Evangelicals thrown together, be they Christian, fundamentalist Jewish or the extreme Muslim groups are all adamant that the earth is 6000 years old and the bible is god's word spoken directly to whomever.

This headlong flight from the Age of Reason back to the Dark Ages of the Age of Superstition is being led by the Republican Party, be it Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. It is an all-out assault on the political freedoms won over the centuries. And now the ringmaster-in-chief Mr Trump has the baton firmly in his hand as he rushes into the past giving the crowd panem et circenses while stripping them of their civil liberties and tries to recapture an America that never really existed.

One only has to think back six weeks ago when the Republican Party heavyweights were circling their wagons to try and stop Trump. Now they are circling their wagons around him, to make him one of their own.

How quickly they are willing to forget every racist, misogynist, fascist and ignorant bit of drivel he spat out back when he was the evil entertainer. Suddenly he is being shaped into a presidential, measured almost house trained caricature around whose banner they look like they will all now flock. This reversion to type- any Republican- even a brain-dead Republican rather than an intelligent, experienced presidential being like Hillary Clinton is not surprising, even if it is revolting.

This is not going to be a pretty election.

Wednesday 16 March 2016

Immigration Opens the Door to the Right Wing

There were three regional elections in Germany on Sunday.  The right wing anti-immigration party Alternativ fuer Deutschland (AfD) made significant gains achieving around 10, 15 and 25% of the vote in the three regions.

Of the voters who chose AfD almost 10% of the total votes were from people who had not voted previously through apathy or disinterest.  Upward of 85% of the AfD voters said their vote was an anti-immigration vote.  Around 60% mentioned their fear that Germany was being overrun by Islam and a similar amount were concerned about increases in crime.

Now the AfD started off as an anti-Euro party and then morphed into an anti-immigration party.  One of its major figures was recently quoted as saying what a god-send the immigration crisis was as before that they were not really getting anywhere.

Taken individually the fears are not necessarily grounded in reality, but as we all know, perception is a form of reality.  The AfD had no qualms about feeding those fears and happily took advantage of the reluctance of the major parties to engage entertain the fact that even if the fears being voiced were exaggerated, they still need to be addressed. 

Enter the AfD.

A party that wants to build walls around Germany to keep out immigrants and advocates the use of arms to beat back the men, women and children at the gates.  This is a party that condemns all Muslims and nonchalantly blames a perceived increase in crime on immigrants without any information to support their accusations.

It is a party that wants women back in the home rather than in the workplace.  Perhaps they will reintroduce the Mutterkreuz.  They want to cut benefits for single mothers, lower the minimum wage, and in general return to the cultural mores of the late 19th century and more recently under the 1000 year Reich....

I can only hope that all of the "protest" voters come to their senses and realise that they have let a wolf in sheepskin in the door.

Friday 11 March 2016

Notes From a Federalist or Back to the Future

Everywhere I look I see the world retreating from the Age of Enlightenment back to the Dark Ages.  Reason is losing out to emotions where everything is secretive, mooted, superstition and instinct.

The strong leader is sought out as the simple solution to seriously complex questions.

Human frailty in the face of crisis is reflected in the support for the Leader who will stamp their authority on the situation, for the Leader who through platitudes promises to remove all the evils from the world relying on xenophobia and ignorance to feed their angry and resentful audience.

Globalism is the root of evil to the thinly veiled National Socialists on the right in their appeal to the narrow-minded bigoted nationalists as portrayed by Donald Trump, the National Front, Alternative for Deutschland and all the populist parties of Eastern Europe.

Not far behind this group is the discussion of the UK's plebiscite to decide whether or not to leave the European Union. 

Britain has traditionally played the spoiler in European politics.  Whenever a continental power looked like it might achieve hegemony in Europe the British would pile in on the other side to force a stalemate/treaty that would keep Europe a divided continent.

There are two major themes underlying the Brexit supporters.

The one is a realisation that through economic strength there is actually a European hegemon.  It is Germany.  There is still much done to try and keep the image of a consensus driven EU but in reality Germany has the power to essentially impose its will on the Union.

Bizarrely, and luckily, the leader of Germany is a committed European.  She comes from East Germany and is a committed democrat.  Although not without her faults- she does know how to play power politics-her motives are by and large driven by a deep seated moral and ethical ethos and a belief that a united Europe is vastly superior to a divided Europe.  She is a rational, moral and intensely intelligent woman who will not stoop to populist rantings to support her policies.

So how does this fit into the Brexit camp?

They realise that there is no real continental heavyweight to counterbalance Germany, and they also know that the British are not in a position to play that role so under the guise of any number of myths and excuses around cost, sovereignty, balance of payments and the ability to become another "Switzerland" the Brexit group is actually throwing in the towel and saying we will retreat to our island fortress and won't play with the rest of the class.

The second and more disturbing driver is actually the more sinister Brexit "myth".  Immigrants are accused of taking jobs away from the British and so leaving Europe will get rid of all those job taking immigrants and the British Empire will rise again.

Actually, after a few pints, the average Brexit supporter will admit that given the choice between having immigrants and a growing economy and not having immigrants and a shrinking economy they would choose the latter.

So much for a rising empire...

Thursday 3 March 2016

The Snake Wins

A couple of days ago on  Frau Merkel was interviewed on German TV by Anne Will.   As most of you know Ms Merkel has fallen on hard times trying to manage an immigrant crisis of monumental proportions.


She remained calm despite the numerous attempts to shake her from her measured responses.  She snapped twice: once when she said the equivalent of "watch yourself", and once when she emphasised that she had already answered that question a number of times.  Otherwise she took everything that was thrown at her and responded with a rational, concise analysis. 


The best, and to my eyes the worst moment of the evening was when Ms Will asked if Frau Merkel felt that we were perhaps entering a Weimar Republic stage of history. 


Not for the first time the right wing populist parties are once again using their bully pulpits to incite their thug followers to violent self-justice in voicing their disagreement with the government.


Frau Merkel's response was hard and cold.  The Bundesrepublik Deutschland is not the Weimar Republic. 


Two days ago I wrote about Donald Trump and the fable of the Snake.  My interpretation was that he was using the snake as a metaphor for immigrants.


A good friend pointed out to me however that my interpretation just might be off the mark. 


As Martin Wolf wrote in yesterdays Financial Times "Mr Trump is a promoter of paranoid fantasies, a xenophobe and an ignoramus".  Mr Robert Kagan of the Washington Post went on to call him "Frankenstein's monster". 


But the most damning is Mr Wolf's comment that Mr Trump has threatened to round up and export (11) millions of people.


Donald Trump has repeatedly revealed his willingness to ride roughshod over the American system all the time claiming he is doing it to save America, to make America great again.  He has appealed to every base instinct of the mob and actually said some very frightening things.


Upon reflection since Mr Trump only seems to think about himself and he has done nothing to hide his reptilian side I think my friend might be right.


And maybe, just maybe, Anne Will's Weimar question should have been directed to Mr Trump.


He's already sided with David Duke.







Tuesday 1 March 2016

Donald Trump and the Snake

I am always amused when right wing politicians revert to fables and fairy tails to get their point across.  Invariably it is to illustrate an idea such that even a child could understand it.  And, like most fairy tales, their explanation will invariably be binary- good versus bad.


So Mr Trump has taken to reciting the story of the Snake which for those of you who don't know is the simple story of a woman who while walking home sees a frozen snake which asks her to help him.  She takes him home, warms him up, and by the end of the day he is fit as a fiddle.  She picks him up to hug him as she is so happy to have saved his life and he promptly bites him.  As the poison slowly kills her she asks him how he could bite her after she took him in and nursed him back to health.  The snake's answer- 'don't blame me foolish woman- you knew I was a snake when you picked me up'.


Of course the snake here is the great mass of immigrants who risk their lives to enter (in this case the USA) and then of course, following the fable, will turn out to be terrorists and bite the hand that feeds them.


Let's think about this. With one fell swoop Trump has just turned all immigrants into terrorists. 


It is the same ploy that the right wing in Europe and the Euro-Sceptics in Britain use. 


Make the world black and white, good and bad, and it's easy to make a decision.  Turn difficult decisions into instinctual one's rather than taking the time to analyse what's going on.   Promise simple answers to complex questions.  Appeal to the individual's self-interest at the expense of the community.  And then appeal to their sense of community through a xenophobic rant against the 'others'.


We have seen all this before....just not in the USA.










Wednesday 20 January 2016

Ich Deutsch, nix verstehe!

I have written in the past how important I feel learning the language of one's new homeland is if one wishes to integrate and participate in the society at large.
My title today is the by-line of a joke in Germany which literally means "I'm German and I don't understand you" spoken in pidgin-German.  It's the polite version of "We speak German in Germany!".  It was from the 80's and was a response to the prevalence of Turkish heard on the high street in major cities.
Today many of those Turks are second if not third generation Germans and have become relatively well integrated into German society.
So I was mildly surprised when the British Prime Minister Mr Cameron came out with a new rule on Monday January 18th that if a woman is participating in the 5 year spousal visa program she will be expected to take an English language test after 2.5 years.  If she were to fail the exam it could have negative consequences for her visa status.
Here was a main stream politician suggesting that there is a native language in their country and that people should learn it.
Unfortunately, although I think there is a definite need to have immigrants learn English Mr Cameron shot himself in the foot by specifying Muslim woman in his speech announcing the new requirements.  This has nothing to do with religion.  It is a language question which is a door opener to integration.
Mr Cameron did try and defend his stance by saying that not only does the state have responsibilities to immigrants, but immigrants too have responsibilities vis-a-vis the state although singling out Muslims suggested that he was either stupid or bigoted, or quite possibly both.
That being said I agree with his call for responsibility, but wish to apply it to immigrants regardless of race or creed.  Indeed I wish to apply it to Citizens and visitors alike, whether they come for a day or forever.
Our society should be predicated on a Social Contract between the State and its Citizens.  Both must adhere to the tenets of that contract, and one of the most basic requirements is to speak the national language of one's country.
Now I am aware that language and culture are significant markers for self-identity and so there will be many that will interpret this requirement as an attack not only on one's language but as an assault on their independence and by extension on their sense of self.
I disagree. 
Language is like religion.
What you choose to speak in private; what religion you choose to follow, in private, is one's private business.
But just as secular states demand adherence to the rule of law as prescribed by the state's legislature firmly placing secular law above the demands of any non-secular requirements, the state is also correct in expecting, no demanding that a nation's citizens speak (read and write) the language of the country in which the live.
Not to leave the US out of the discussion I don't understand why as a native-English speaker when I call information I am always asked whether I would like to speak Spanish or English.
I will even go so far as to say that I disagree with Jeb Bush electioneering in Spanish.
It is great marketing (as is the offer to speak Spanish when I call customer support), but it avoids the fact that English is the native language of the US.
And anyone who suggests that over time it just might be that Spanish is the native language of the US- just look at the demographics- is missing the point.
I am not anti-immigrant.
But welcoming immigrants shouldn't require one to lose their national identity.
It begins with language.
And it ends being grateful every day that we are a secular nation.









Monday 18 January 2016

America for Sale

Despite the fact that I reside in the UK I am a committed citizen of the US and as such have not only followed the campaigns this year but have donated to the candidate of my choice.


Simultaneously I am a member of a Public Interest Research Group (PIRG)which is a code word for an environmentalist group- not all of which I agree with.


By donating to the candidate of my choice and by being a paying member of the Massachusetts PIRG I invariably find myself on other groups mailing lists ranging from gun control to saving grizzly bears to grass-roots organisations angry about almost anything you could imagine in between.


But what worries me about this, above and beyond the fact that my personal data is obviously being sent/sold/purchased/stolen to/by a whole raft of groups is that they are all tied together by one overriding request- DONATE.


Granted I left the US in 1986 and the "Selling of the President" was written in 1969 and so the writing was on the wall I am still disturbed by the undertone of every request I receive.  Their overriding message is that with my money they will be able to get this law through or block that law  or elect this candidate, block that one- basically that with enough funding they can get anything done.


I think it starts with campaign finance. 


According to the New York Times there are 158 families in the US who essentially are bankrolling the primary campaigns split about  85/15 Republican/Democrat. In addition to these big spenders there are super-PACS that now have the protection of the 1st Amendment and the right to remain anonymous although why I would be willing to fund a candidate but not be willing to admit to it is somewhat bewildering. 


 But what I don't understand is that besides the occasional throwaway line about campaign finances no-one really seems to be all that riled up about this.


I have been accused occasionally about ranting on these pages.  Perhaps I have been overseas too long and what I consider to be rightous indignation is now classified as a rant.  But I am sure that if Americans were aware of similar economics in the electoral process in foreign countries they too would be indignant, if not boiling over with self-righteous indignation.