Monday, July 25, 2016

Trump’s Victory at the RNC sees the Neocons in Hysteria

Because Trump has broken decisively with the Neoconservatives, the warmongering faction of the GOP, who have been behind pretty much every US war since 2000. He has also pushed the GOP to the left on economics, even if this is a rhetorical play.

But it is strange how most people on the Left can’t see this or notice its significance, as Michael Hudson explains:

Note well: over at the Weekly Standard, which is pretty much Neocon Central, there is as much hatred of Trump as on the left.

Neocon warmonger-in-chief Bill Kristol, in his latest screed there, is now opining that Trump is the sock puppet of Putin.

Bill Kristol, you might remember, was behind the Neocon push for a third party candidate to run against Trump.

Kristol made noises about a third party candidate called David A. French. Unfortunately for Bill, that all collapsed when French decided not to run. Part of the reason may have been that French has a somewhat, err, “controversial” opinion: he agrees with Kevin Williamson that the American white working class should die.

And the Neocons wanted this guy to be president of the United States?!


  1. Neocons are dellusional and dangerous its true and trump indeed did a wise solution to cut the ties with them.

    but some people on the left are dellusional as well.

    for example the usa did a lot of mess in the middle east its true and its been unjustified.

    but does it mean that the usa and nato is the sole factor to blame for middle east radicalization?

    the answer is of course no there been another important factors like

    1.stagnant economy for deceades(since the industralization of the arab world started much later than in the west and been pretty sluggish).

    2.until recently they also had really high birth rates which caused a situation where big percentage of the population is pretty young.

    3.billons been spent on radical islamic indoctrination for deceades by saudi arabia and qatar and iran.

    4.extreme nepotism of the rulling elite which mostly consisted of ethnic secterian religious minorities which percieved as not only disconnected corrupted elite but also they been percieved as strangers which control their countries.

    so americans did a lot of mess in the middle east? definitely

    they are having the sole responsibility for the mess in the middle east? not at all

  2. How would you classify Trump? He's not really a neocon although he seems somewhat hawkish. I can't say he's a libertarian, paleocon, or part of the religious right. I think he's basically a center-right nationalist.

    I say center right because, aside from how outspoken and over the top he can be, a lot of his views are not that hard right. Only his border/immigration plan and views on guns really stands out as overtly right wing. He's pretty moderate on taxes, infrastructure spending, and social spending. He does want tax cuts and too try and deregulate. His trade policies are also hard to pinpoint the populist left and right both oppose free trade while the each parties establishments have endorsed it since the 80's.

    1. I think Trump is a national conservative. You might also say right-populist but I think he has trimmed his populism a bit to appeal to the Republican base, like walking back his previous support for single-payer healthcare.

      Interestingly, the neocons used to be very pro-New Deal and pro-labor. In fact, they were originally Democrats but split with the Dems over Vietnam (the neocons were always strong anti-communist hawks) and over identity politics.

      Eventually the neocons mostly dropped their populist economic wing and primarily focused on bellicose foreign policy and joined the Right in the 1990s.

    2. Trump is a populist nationalist, of the Pat Buchanan type. He is close to Paleoconservatism.

  3. The NR crowd are exemplars of the class prejudice that drives much of the anti-Trumpers. *Those people* like him, icky. So much of what I see passing as criticism of Trump -- such as mocking accents -- is really just attacks on lower class whites.

    Add in some pique about having no influence with Trump and voila, Kevin Williamson.

    Oddly enough, Murphy and Callahan see this clearly. Landsburg not at all I think.

  4. Trump is every bit as bad as the Neocons, just in a different way. The whole Nationalistic fervor tied with an Anti-Foreigner "Blame Game" smacks of can guess which country during which time period. Plus he misrepresented his original stances on Iraq & (especially) Libya - he was not the great loud critic of those wars he would have you believe. And contra Mike Hudson, I think the choice of the very Free Trader Mike Pence is giving Trump wiggle room - to become the Obama of the Right and not deliver on his promises. Then there's the fact that he backed out on the earlier Universal Healthcare noises he made. This has been his official position for months now:

    In agreement with Mike Hudson, I think the picture that emerges of the GOP is one where you can get told whatever you want: Old Neoconism & Religious Right (Pence) New Nationalism (Trump) Millennials eschewing labels (Ivanka) Cold-Warism (Christie) and even a new Bimboism for those who prefer women who don't know anything (Melania.)

    Hopefully people will see right through all of this in time, but having lived through Reagan, Clinton & Obama Idk why they should start now.

    Those who are serious about reform are backing Dr. Jill Stein, presumptive nominee of the Green Party. These were recent Tweets of hers during Trump's speech, 3rd one is solid gold:

    1. But what is Jill Stein's position on border control and mass immigration?

    2. She doesn't appear to list one:

      But the US doesn't have open borders so it's irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

      If you think Trump's wall is going to solve anything, I invite you to find anyone who thinks that will accomplish anything, let alone be economically or logistically feasible:

      I might also add that at least one former border state Governor - Gary Johnson of New Mexico - the Libertarian candidate - says Trumps remarks are indeed racist and that the crisis is overblown. in fact the current governor, Susana Martinez - strongly disagree with Trump's rhetoric. And she's also a former border prosecutor:

      IMHO the only way to get Progressives to hear the gospel of Worker's rights & Keynesianism is to temper our words with compassion, and if there's any place we need to start pointing the finger, it should be at American interference in the Middle East.

      Speaking as a resident of a Sanctuary City (and proudly so) I'm pretty certain I know how Trump will fare around here in November.


  6. "If you support new nationalist ideas — like regulated immigration, renegotiated trade, and a more hands-off foreign policy — aren't you a little worried that Trump will do to these ideas what he did to Atlantic City? Champion them for a little while, try to build up his brand, and then leave a gaping disaster behind him?"

    1. But a Trump victory, assuming it happens, will clearly smash the neoliberal consensus and force the Democrats to move to the left on economics and sanity on other issues.

    2. But what might happen in the meantime?

      "Consider the interview he gave to The New York Times the week of his nomination, in which he casually put into doubt America's security guarantees for Eastern Europe. This was plainly dangerous. An American president who judged that the 1990s expansion of NATO left the United States with too much security risk and liability would have to begin untangling or reforming this alliance with great care. Putting the whole damn thing into doubt in a news clipping, without any warning or consultation, is an invitation to either Russian escalation or Baltic panic. Both of these increase the chance of catastrophic diplomatic or military miscalculation."

      We have to understand that his grandstanding may have extremely detrimental effects that he may not even intend.

      I have no idea, to be honest. Maybe a Trump presidency will do the things you say. But it greatly raises the risks of something awful happening.

      Then again, allowing the NATO expansion in Eastern Europe to go ahead may raise those risks too. I have no idea. All I know is that I have my passport on hand.

    3. Quite frankly, I have to tell you I don't buy this hysterical bullsh*t from the left that Trump is some loose cannon or won't take advice. All the evidence suggest he is quite smart.

      The neocons, who are now flocking to Hillary, are the far greater danger and want conflict with Russia. This is insane. Trump doesn't want conflict with Russia. This is clearly a better policy.

      There are issues on which he does appear to be hawkish, however: Israel and Iran.

      But Trump will be surrounded by hordes of military, diplomatic, and foreign policy advisers who know the score, telling him to tone down language or urging restraint. With the neocons gone, there might be a real change for restrained policies.

    4. Will he be surrounded by them though? We don't know. It looks to me like he wants to build up his own cabinet of outsiders.

      I agree that Clinton's stance on Russia is immediately and obviously dangerous and Trump's is far more appealing. I'm just concerned about implementation. Serious diplomatic blunders can lead to unintended war. Anyone who knows the history of WWI can attest to that.

      Finally, Trump may be fairly smart but he burns a lot of bridges. His past definitely suggests that he tends to just do whatever he wants and then leaves wreckage behind him. Not that Clinton has a very nice past either. She strikes me as an extremely stupid woman who is completely wedded to her self-image and unable to learn from previous mistakes.

      I don't harbour any illusions about either candidates. After this election the risks in the world become substantially greater than they currently are.

    5. There is a vast US government bureaucracy of advisers and officials. Even Trump and the people Trump appoints have to listen to these people.

    6. The buck stops at someone, always. And that someone will probably be an outsider with business experience if Trump gets in.

    7. NATO expansion into Eastern Europe was always the wrong thing to do as it needlessly antagonized the Russians. People tend to forget that Russia was attacked by Western powers more often than Russia aggressively invaded the West. The Teutonic Knights, Poland, Sweden, Napoleonic France, and Germany all attacked Russia from the West. Soviet domination over Eastern Europe had a lot to do with keeping a buffer between the anti-communist West and the USSR (the Western Allies had invaded Russia during the Russian Civil War on the side of the Whites).

      Russia should be allowed to have its own buffer zone in its near abroad. The US went ape whenever socialist regimes popped up in Latin America. Why are we surprised when the Russians act nervously when the West expands into the Russian near abroad?

      I actually think Trump's policy sounds better. I am more worried about Clinton needlessly antagonizing the Russians.

      In all honesty I would like an even more isolationist president. US security policy is helping to prop up neoliberalism at home and abroad and has brought us a lot of trouble via the Middle East and involvement in Muslim countries.

    8. Tiberius while u.s did a mess in the middle east its been just the catalyst of a catastrophe to come there is many reasons why radicalisation of u.s would happen even without western enovlvment.

  7. No wonder the Neocons and the establishment Republicans are upset, Trump really could be accelerating the economic realignment of the major US parties.


    Here is an interesting excerpt:

    "The CNN/ORC poll found Trump vastly expanding his advantage among whites without a college education, while actually losing ground among those holding at least a four-year degree. In their last survey immediately before the Republican convention, Trump led Clinton among non-college-educated whites by 20 points; that advantage roughly doubled to 39 percentage points in the new survey. But while Trump and Clinton tied among college whites in the last CNN poll before the GOP convention, the new survey found her leading among them by five percentage points.

    The CBS poll found different margins, but a similar split. It showed Trump leading among non-college-educated whites by 23 points, but tying among college-educated whites, according to figures provided by CBS. Compared to their final pre-convention poll that represented a small improvement for Trump with college-educated whites, and essentially no change among those without degrees."

  8. LK, I think you fail to realize the lack of propensity for Trump to be able to learn. He apparently has nearly no attention span whatsoever outside of whatever he does for his own self-aggrandizement. He hasn't learned much of anything over the past year. And while he's stupid, he really doesn't have a whole lot of talent outside of marketing and the more basic business dealings that he's used to.

    Trump is exactly the kind of guy that would let his ego get in the way of sound decision-making. That's kind of why he's dangerous.