Boarne: Truthout
Even after Trump-appointed bureaucrat Emily W. Murphy of the General Services Administration signed a letter enabling Biden to start working with federal agencies and prepare for a transition of power, Donald Trump has personally continued to resist conceding, thus breaking the tradition of a peaceful transition to power.
What is he after with his bogus legal challenges of a “rigged and stolen” election? Can he really hope for a legislative coup? Is the contemporary United States a country divided not merely on political and ideological issues among its body politic, but, more frighteningly, along different conceptions of reality? And will Trumpism continue after Trump has left office? Revered public intellectual Noam Chomsky sheds light on these questions with groundbreaking insights in this exclusive interview for Truthout.
CJ Polychroniou: Amerikaanske ferkiezingsamtners hawwe de ferkiezings fan 2020 ferklearre "de feilichste yn 'e Amerikaanske skiednis." Dochs bliuwt de Trump-kampanje juridyske útdagings foar it ferkiezingsproses, en driuwt skandalige falskens, wylst Rudy Giuliani sa fier is gong om bûtenlânske oanspraken te meitsjen fan in enoarme wrâldwide gearspanning om de ferkiezing fan 'e Grutte Leader te stellen. Wat is neffens jo wirklik efter Trump's juridyske útdagings?
Noam Chomsky: Speculation of course, but I’ll indulge in a bad dream — which could become reality if we are not on guard, and if we fail to recognize that elections should be a brief interlude in a life of engaged activism, not a time to go home and leave matters in the hands of the victors.
Ik fermoedzje dat Trump en kollega's har juridyske útdagings beskôgje as in súkses yn wat in plausibele strategy liket: hâld de pot siedend en hâld de trouwe basis op koartsnivo, lilk oer de "stolen" ferkiezing en de ynspanningen fan 'e ferrifeljende elites en de " djippe steat" om har ferlosser út it amt te ferwiderjen.
That strategy seems to be working well. Neffens resinte peilings, “Three-quarters (77%) of Trump backers say Biden’s win was due to fraud” and “The anger among Trump’s base is tied to a belief that the election was stolen.” Rejection of the legal challenges with ridicule may please liberal circles, but for the base, it may be simply more proof of the Trump thesis: the hated elites will stop at nothing in their machinations.
Meanwhile, this strategy requires keeping the wrecking ball — Trump’s symbol — actively at work. Do nothing to deal with the pandemic, even delay in providing data to Biden’s team while a top nurse’s union warns of “katastrofale dea” in the growing chaos while “our hospitals are knowingly still not prepared” and the government is on vacation.
Viewed through the lens of this vile strategy, if the pandemic gets worse, so much the better. Then local officials will try to impose restrictions and even lockdowns to control patriotic Americans — in line with the plans of the supposed “Communist-run deep state” — leading to economic harm and intrusions on normal life. Meanwhile, Trump and his associates could abandon other normal governmental activities so that when Biden establishes what they describe as a “fake government” on inauguration day, the immediate problems will be severe and failure likely.
Op dy dei, dy't yn skamte ûnder de leauwigen sil libje, soe Trump miskien in autentike regearing yn Mar-a-Lago opstelle, mei Mitch McConnell's Senaat yn syn bûse en in fûle populêre basis. De folgjende stap soe wêze om it lân ûnregearber te meitsjen, in spesjaliteit dy't McConnell al in desennia perfeksjonearret en dat in betûfte demagoge lykas Trump refleksyf beheare kin. Alles wat ferkeard giet kin de skuld wurde op 'e ferriederlike "elite".
Trump and associates might, as some have speculated, set up an alternative media empire, incorporating talk radio and other far right outlets but perhaps not Fokse, which has shown occasional signs of disobedience. Then they could come roaring back into power in 2022-2024, feeding on growing discontent.
They would then be free to destroy the environment with abandon and maximize short-term profit for their primary constituency, impose discipline on what remains of government, tame the media, institute harsh authoritarian measures elsewhere, and continue with their abject service to their masters — the real elites, the very rich and the corporate sector, the decision-makers, as recent akademysk ûndersyk once again establishes very clearly.
It’s of no little interest that we have to turn to the world’s leading business journal, the very respectable London Financial Times, to read some elementary truths about what could once claim to be a leading democracy: “Anyone with a pulse,” Financial Times Associate Editor Rana Foroohar writes, “knows that in the US today the system is rigged in favour of the wealthy and powerful.” Foroohar adds:
One particularly illuminating paper [just cited] found that considering the opinions of anyone outside that top 10 per cent was a far less accurate predictor of what happened to government policy. The numbers showed that: ‘not only do ordinary citizens not have uniquely substantial power over policy decisions; they have little or no independent influence on policy at all’. We have had decades of legislative tweaks to everything from tax policy to corporate governance and accounting standards that have favoured capital over labour. Supreme Court decisions such as the Citizens United case have also dramatically increased the amount of money funneled into political campaigning. This has left the nature of America’s political economy perilously close to an oligopoly.
As de Trump-strategy sa'n bytsje is as de hjirboppe beskreaune spekulaasjes, kin it hearskjende oligopoly lykje op in leuk oantinken.
Lilkens en ferachting foar "eliten" is gjin flater, sels as de echte elites effektyf ferburgen binne troch de propagandamasine.
The masters do not much like Trump. His vulgar antics undermine their preferred image as humane and benign figures who labor tirelessly for the common good, directing “soulful corporations,” trustworthy guardians in whose hands our future is safe. But they may find it hard to fault someone whose major legislative achievement is a tax scam designed to enrich the very rich while imposing a heavier tax burden on the undeserving (and unwitting) majority.
Trump’s hopes for denying a Biden election win lie with a legislative revolt — that is, by overturning the certification process. Experts indicate that such an outcome has a very slim chance of taking place, yet the fact that it is even considered as a possibility surely reveals something utterly problematic about the way democracy functions in the United States. Can you share your views with us on this matter, and discuss what it would take to make the democratic process in the U.S. actually democratic?
Wat ek de jildichheid fan myn spekulaasje oer de doelen en it sukses fan 'e Trump-strategy is, de heule ferkiezing lit de ekstreme fragiliteit fan' e Amerikaanske demokrasy sjen. It is geweldich genôch dat immen waans kwea-aardige beslút om in pandemy dy't út 'e kontrôle út te lokjen krekt tsientûzenen Amerikanen hat fermoarde, sels foar it amt kin rinne, sels in grut part fan it lân mei him drage, en dat de politike partij dy't syn praktysk skynt skuon kinne winne in klinkende oerwinning op elk nivo útsein it Wite Hûs. Dat set Trump's grutte "prestaasjes" oan 'e kant: riden nei miljeukatastrofe op koarte termyn en skerp fergrutsjen fan de driging fan terminale oarloch, misdieden dy't amper registreare yn it ferkiezingsproses.
De ôfwizing fan Trump fan 'e ferkiezingsresultaten is gewoan de coda foar syn heul yndrukwekkende kampanje om in autoritêre oername te realisearjen, mei de útfierende macht skjinmakke, wylst syn neiste meiwurker Mitch McConnell de Senaat omset yn in grap, dy't hast folslein funksjonearret om de riken te ferrykjen en de rjochterlike macht te stapeljen mei jonge, fierste rjochters waans taak sil wêze om de ultra-reactionary Trump-McConnell aginda foar in generaasje op te lizzen.
But that is only the icing on the cake. Foroohar of the Financial Times, whom I quoted earlier, is quite right that the malaise cuts far deeper. It traces back as far as the constitutional order, which was established on the principle that “those who own the country ought to govern it” (first Chief Justice John Jay) and that a prime duty of government is to “protect the minority of the opulent against the majority” (leading framer James Madison).
Hard struggles ensued to overturn the “Framers’ Coup” against democracy — the title of the gold standard of scholarship on the framing of the Constitution, by Michael Klarman. There have been periods of progress and of regression. We have just endured 40 years of regression, the neoliberal regime, a bitter assault against democracy and on the kind of society that can sustain it. An estimate of the monetary cost to the general population was recently given by the Rand Corporation: $47 trillion transferred from the working and middle classes (90 percent of the population) to the super-rich; the top 0.1 percent doubled their share of wealth to 20 percent of the total since Ronald Reagan.
De Rand sifers binne in flinke ûnderskatting. Tsientallen trillions mear waarden "oerdroegen" neidat Reagan iepene de spigots foar belestinghavens, shell bedriuwen en oare apparaten te rob it publyk. Mear waarden ûntwikkele ûnder Clinton's deregulearjende mania. Reagan en syn partner Margaret Thatcher ferhuze yn ien kear om de arbeidersbeweging te ûndergraven, en sette de kampanjes yn beweging om wurkjende minsken de primêre middels te ûntnimmen om de oanfal te wjerstean. De serieuze delgong fan funksjonearjende demokrasy is in firtuele útkomst fan 'e radikale konsintraasje fan rykdom en ferstjoering fan in protte fan 'e algemiene befolking nei stagnaasje en prekariteit.
There is no need to review the rest of the sordid story once again. But it is important to remember the deep roots of the undemocratic structure of the government. In the 18th century, despite the Framer’s Coup, the U.S. Constitution was an important step toward democracy, so much so that the great statesmen of Europe invoked the venerable domino theory. They feared that “the pernicious doctrines of republicanism and popular self-rule” spread by “the apostles of sedition” who had freed themselves from Britain’s grip might encourage similar “vicious principles” beyond.
Dat wie doe. Der is in protte bard yn 250 jier. As de FS hjoeddedei lidmaatskip oanfreegje soene yn 'e Jeropeeske Uny, soe it wierskynlik ôfwiisd wurde. It radikaal ûndemokratyske karakter fan 'e Senaat soe genôch reden wêze. D'r is grif wat in bytsje frjemd oan 'e respekteare lear fan "originalisme", dy't hâldt dat wy bûn wurde moatte troch de ideeën fan in groep rike blanke slaveeigners 250 jier lyn, sels de sinyske manieren "orizjinele" en "tekstualistyske" learingen oan 'e kant sette. wurde faak yn 'e praktyk tapast.
Sels sûnder Trump soene de Feriene Steaten noch te krijen hawwe mei in swiere konstitúsjonele krisis. Mar dat is mar in fraksje fan it probleem. Demokrasy is op syn bêst in breklik reed as minsken it grutste part fan har wekker libben trochbringe ûnder it bewâld fan in master mei frijwol absolute macht. Dat begrepen de arbeiders yn 'e iere dagen fan 'e yndustriële revolúsje tige goed, dy't har hurd stride tsjin dizze oanfal op har fûnemintele rjochten en persoanlike weardichheid. Se sprieken ek har soargen út dat der in dei soe komme kinne dat leanslaven "oant no ta ferjitte sille wat te tankjen is oan manlikheid as oan hearlikheid yn in systeem dat har optwongen is troch har need en yn tsjinstelling ta har gefoelens fan ûnôfhinklikens en selsrespekt," in dei hopen se "fier fier" wêze soe.
Tinzen dy't it wurdich te beskôgjen.
Miljoenen fan Trump's oanhingers lykje te leauwen dat har lieder eins de ferkiezings wûn. Yn feite binne d'r sels tekens west dy't beweare: "De wrâld wit dat Trump wûn." Yn it ljocht hjirfan liket it my ta dat de hjoeddeiske Feriene Steaten net gewoan in ferdield en polarisearre naasje binne op politike en ideologyske problemen allinich, mar dat wy ek alternative epistemologyen yn wurking hawwe: ien segmint fan 'e befolking leaut yn feitlike feiten en fertrout op wittenskip foar in útlis fan 'e wrâld, wylst in oar segmint fan de boargerij is ûnder de tsjoen fan falskens, disinformation en bedrog. Hoe ferklearje jo dit eigenaardige ferskynsel, benammen om't wy it hawwe oer in tige ryk en technologysk avansearre lân?
In bytsje foarsichtigens is hjir nedich.
This is the country of the Scopes trial. When I was a student at an Ivy League college, lectures on the theory of evolution were introduced with the professor’s warning that you don’t have to believe this but it’s important to know what some people think. Today, “Both Protestants and Catholics are considerably wierskynliker to say evolution was guided or allowed by God than they are to say that humans evolved due to processes such as natural selection, or to say that humans have always existed in their present form.” Mear as 40 prosint of Americans expect the Second Coming by mid-century, while oer 80 persint of the population believe in miracles.
Op guon manieren binne wy net sa fier fan ieuwen lyn.
It’s also important to consider the devastating impact of the neoliberal regime on much of the country, with particular severity in rural areas that were also major centers of manufacturing. After steady growth for many years, employment in manufacturing declined from its 1979 peak of almost 20 million to under 13 miljoen 40 years later. The decline was in large part the result of policy choices: bipartisan investor rights agreements, mislabeled “free trade agreements,” which provided unparalleled protection and other rights to corporate power while setting working people in competition with the most poorly paid and repressed workers in the world. That has been a large factor in the devastation of rural America: towns depopulated or abandoned, no jobs or hospitals or other services, general malaise and a justified sense of having been abandoned. That’s hardly conducive to participation in the most advanced sectors of global culture.
The sources of the divide you mention are complex. The split, however, is very real. And it has major impacts. Right now, the country is in the grip of a severe pandemic. It was understood by scientists in 2003, after containment of the SARS epidemic, that another coronavirus was likely. The cultural divide soon emerged. When Obama took office in 2009, one of his first acts was to convene the president’s scientific advisory council to request them to provide a pandemic response plan. They did. It was implemented, and remained in force until January 2017, when one of Trump’s first acts was to dismantle it, opening the most anti-science administration in modern history, with consequences that we have seen on many fronts — and with effects on popular culture.
It konflikt fan epistemologyen is echt. It is gjin ienfâldige saak om it út te lizzen of om te gean mei it. De takomst sil substansjeel ôfhingje fan hoe't it konflikt oplost wurdt.
Op ien of oare manier sil Trump syn kantoar gau ferlitte. Mar de fraach dy't noch yn 'e loft bliuwt is oft it Trumpisme ek fuort sil. Is d'r, neffens jo, Trumpisme sûnder Trump?
Returning to my original speculation, I think both Trump and Trumpism will remain with us for a long time, both the individual himself and the poisonous currents he has unleashed. These poisons may be virulent enough to bring civilization to a horrifying end. There are workable solutions to the crises that humans face in this uniquely dangerous moment of human history. What happens within the most powerful country in human history cannot fail to have an overwhelming impact on what eventuates — an impact even on survival of human society in any recognizable form.
ZNetwork wurdt allinich finansierd troch de generositeit fan har lêzers.
Donaasjes