Written By: - Date published: 11:55 am, August 6th, 2018 - 32 comments
Categories: campaigning, capitalism, class war, Donald Trump, elections, Hillary Clinton, International, journalism, Left, liberalism, Media, Russia, social democracy, us politics - Tags: elites, political games
Hilary Cinton’s campaign team had an idea. They thought that if they promoted the most unpalatable of the bunch in the Republican primaries then the Presidency would be a shoo-in for Hillary. They dubbed it “The Pied Piper” strategy.
To that end, they worked to push the likes of Carson, Trump and Cruz to the forefront of the Republican primary race. (The run-off, in case you’ve forgotten, was between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.)
The rest is history.
But two things. If the Democrats were deliberately pushing the Republican Party further to the right, then what ground did the Democratic Party have it in mind to occupy if not that newly vacated ground sitting off to their right?
And if we’re to believe that Trump was the preferred candidate of Putin and Russia, and that they had been grooming him since well before the primary races, as most reports suggest or claim, then should we not also believe that Putin and the Kremlin nobbled the Democratic Party and had powerful figures formulate, promote and implement their “pied piper” strategy?
Maybe we should just concentrate on why powerful actors – and not just in the US – are seeking to drift politics further into the territory of fundamental liberalism and fascism*.
Maybe we should concentrate on why those same powerful actors – and again, not just in the US – are so keen to destroy or deny any progressive pull on politics, in part by promoting the profile of fairly despicable right wing movements and people with the presumed end goal of corralling frightened or alarmed voters back to their preferred, regressive liberal platform. (Le Penn, UKIP, Trump…etc)
And maybe we should concentrate on why it seems “our” media is all too happy to aid and abet in that promotion of right wing stuff at the expense of covering progressive or social democratic stuff in any positive light.
It seems to me that liberalism doesn’t necessarily progress to its arguably natural fascistic state by way of overt aggression. Eliminating the prospect of “left”, while promoting the spectre of some frightening “right”, allows liberalism to sidle stealthily towards its fascist home by way of “lesser evil”.
* I’m mis-using the term “fascism” somewhat. As Mussolini envisaged it, fascism was to be a viable alternative to liberalism with the state as the principle focus of all political actors. It seems fairly obvious though, that Mussolini’s fascist state would have succumbed to market forces and been brought to serve the market after a period involving a realignment of power.