RANGER AGAINST WAR: The Fool on the Hill <

Thursday, July 21, 2016

The Fool on the Hill

--Hillary Waves and Smiles,
 (El Nuevo Dia) 

And the face of the nation
Keeps changin' and changin'
The face of the nation
I don't recognize it no more
--The Face of the Nation,
John Mellencamp

The truth is incontrovertible.
Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it
but in the end, there it is
--Winston Churchill

They got little hands
And little eyes
And they walk around
Tellin' great big lies 
--Short People,
Randy Newman

This last year of incessant, relentless press excoriation of Mr. Trump and those who voted for him is dispiriting. The burden of hatred which spewed forth from nearly every outlet a reasonable person might access has been daunting. It has been a year of detestable press.

Entirely ignored by the press has been the investigation of the momentous and unlikely phenomena of Trump's nomination, without resorting to the ad hominem. But the press is an institution which also feeds at the political trough.

Mr. Trump is the court jester who revealed that the other would-be emperors were naked. The sour- grapes simpering of Mr. Cruz at the Republican National Convention gave lie to the fusty Republican trope of being the party possessed of true red-blooded American bonhomie. If it ever was, it is no more.

For this, Mr. Trump shall be rewarded as the next Fool on the Hill. And for those renting their garments, tell me that you voted for Uncle Bernie with joy in your heart (in the Kondo-ian sense). And will you hold your collective nose as you check the box for the supposed heir to the Clinton dynasty?

In Trump, Republican voters did not see a fundamentalist Christian or any of the myriad vested interests represented by the other 15 stuffed shirts fronted by the Republican machine. The majority of Trump's followers did not vote for him out of any great love for the man, but for the fact that he was Other.

The Democrats never had any such option.

These voters said "no" to the party icons and scions. They refused to eat the lie which said, "Here are 15 candidates from among which you may choose, but choose you must, if your party is to have a chance." The voters for Trump said NO to tyranny and political dynasty.

 Trump would not have won his party's nomination if a straggling band of Naderites or Perotians had cast votes helter-skelter in a kamikaze mission. These voters got it and said "No" to the Fortunate Sons ("no" to a Bush III). "No" to pandering special interests (Rubio couldn't take his home state). "No" to the religious fanatics. They know that all emerged from the same bag, and paid obeisance to the same dirty machine.

This perspective should have been revitalizing, but the press could not allow it, for it did not fit into their gestalt of a "backward-looking, hopeless uncool and bigoted" Trump electorate. 

They refused to say that Mr. Trump's "Yes" was a "No" to all the rest. For all the money and concerted press effort to deconstruct and unravel him, top-down, inside-out, it did not matter. You may call it what you will: the last gasp of the white chauvanist male (a view which provides succor to most academics) or flyover state ignorance, but derisive labels do not change the fact.

They could not fully construct him as grotesque, because it was not he, per se, who captured the voter's  imagination. It was that he was NOT they (i.e., the Others). If elected President, hopefully he will recognize the gravitas and great yearning which lies behind the facticity of his nomination.

Theirs is a hope for a nation which does not spin apart, enervating itself with self-destructive diversions. The Good Liberals call this necessary progress, but the commonweal is suffering. America still lives between the extremes, and it is their hope which is on display in this nomination.

The press is wholly beside itself, waiting like wolves at the door this week, hoping for the eruption of some violence -- something, anything, to mar the reality -- all the while demeaning those Trump supporters who held signs which expressed a desire for a safer nation. They cannot spin fast enough, and they must soon confront their failed project.

No matter, there will be evermore to carp about.

Mr. Trump is outside, and is not bought and sold; he is therefore, unsafe to those who would continue the current disarrayed status quo. He, moreso than the other party puppets, is a man situated in place and time.

He may not be a man for all seasons, but he is a man for this season.

[cross-posted @ milpub.]

Part II:  on press violence -- "Carp Diem: A  Year of Living Dangerously in the Press."

Labels: , , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well done, Ranger. I know you guys are progressives. So it's really refreshing that you are fair and balanced to Trump and his supporters. Most of your fellow travelers go so apoplectic over the whole thing. But then that's why I have become a dedicated long time reader.

I voted for Trump in the primary and will vote for him in November. It is exactly for the reasons you highlight and not because I think Trump is, objectively, the best man for the job.

I've have lost a long time friend of 30 years over this - A Mexican Indian, who became a US citizen when a child. He says that my support of Trump reveals that I have long been a racist and that Trump has given me permission to express that hidden outlook. A guy I've drank an ocean with and whom I've stood side by side through good times and bad. A friend should know better. I tried to talk it over with him, but his increasingly leftist leanings (he thinks there should be no borders, lots of free everything and that John Lennon's "Imagine" is an actual policy prescription as opposed to just a catchy song) have made him insane, IMO. Of course the attacks in the media and social media are vicious and equally unfair, as you note.

Regardless of who wins in Nov. this country is increasingly more deeply - and I fear - hopelessly divided.


Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:15:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous David said...

Despite my misgivings about Trump, I'm forced to agree about the dearth of meaningful political options you have. That said, I think that anyone who thinks a billionaire real estate investor is seriously likely to challenge America's status quo in any meaningful way is comically naive.

I don't know your friend, Avedis, but you are declaring your intention to vote for someone who claims, amongst other things, that Americans of Mexican ancestry are racially unfit to preside over cases involving his businesses. If that's the path you want to go down, fine, but I think you should probably expect that some allegations of racism are going to come with the territory. You want a candidate who stokes racial tensions to get support, well, some people who are on the other side of that are going to resent you for it. Action, reaction.

Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 12:40:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

this is Lisa's piece and i won't hi jack it,but....
years ago a friend of mine who goes bac to my cadet days disowned me b/c i write anti war stuff. thats flimsy stuff, but hey we live with ourselves.
i can't support any one who thinks that terrorism can endanger our way of life.
both parties are hawks, or shld i say both party candidates.
its strange to hear america first clap trap, and then snapping the whip and rattling the sabers to destroy isis.
words are so cheap from candidates.
but i say again, this is Lisa's work and i respect her writings immensely.

Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 1:47:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dave, Last I checked "Mexican" was a nationality, not a race. I know lots of people who hold an allegiance of some level to the "Old Country".

Jim, yes.Flimy stuff


Monday, July 25, 2016 at 8:34:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous David said...

That's a mighty fine hair you're attempting to split there.

I wonder what Trump's supporters would think if he said that white judges should be barred from hearing the cases of Americans of Mexican ancestry on the grounds that their "nationality" -- to use your word -- creates too much of a conflict of interest.

Monday, July 25, 2016 at 11:51:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not so fine a hair when you consider that the Judge has an activist history concerning Mexican immigrants. Also, I split that b/c the term "racism" gets tossed around way too quickly and lightly these days.

That said, I think Trump - as a candidate in a very PC sensitive climate - blundered in his choice of remarks concerning the judge.

At bottom, who cares? Those who were convinced Trump is a racist for wanting to enforce immigration laws and for desiring to curtail Muslim immigration until we know who these people really are - and just because he's a Republican (what R hasn't been called a racist by Ds in recent years?)- already believed in his evilness. Those who support Trump chuckled. No one switched sides over it. Just another talking point to whip up the base pro or con.


Monday, July 25, 2016 at 12:11:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One more point, David. I would say that the Ds do more to stoke racial tensions than Trump. Race relations have gotten far worse under Obama than in my life time. The Ds pander to identity and thus divide. In fact they appear to want to perpetuate the division so they can count on the Black vote (they're working on the same with Latinos) I believe that we are all Americans. period.

My friend's family had a talking parrot. The parrot was trained to identify white folks and squawk "Guerro" (= gringo,but more derogatory) when he saw them. I thought it was funny, but what if I had a parrot that called them "wetbacks" or "spics". Lot's of double standards.

BTW, I voted for Obama twice. I regret it, but I did it.


Monday, July 25, 2016 at 12:27:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous David said...

"Who cares?" indeed. I am not interested in playing your games of moral equivalency. If you believe that you are all Americans, period, then you would have a problem with your chosen Presidential candidate claiming that some American are unqualified to judge him in court on the basis of what you and he evidently consider to be impure national background.

Now, you're more than welcome to believe that American judges who have Mexican ancestry should be restricted in what cases they should be allowed to handle, on the basis that their ethnic heritage makes them unable to be properly objective. However, you shouldn't be particularly surprised when people call you a racist for that, especially other Americans who are also of Mexican ancestry.

Monday, July 25, 2016 at 5:17:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

David, That is a sweeping statement ("believe that American judges who have Mexican ancestry should be restricted"). Trump was talking about a particular judge in a particular situation. I think that is legitimate. I wouldn't do it if I was trying to win the Presidency and I think Trump blundered, but it is still a legit legal maneuver.

I am sick and tired of being called a racist by people that use racial and other identities to divide the country into voting blocks and thus win power over these same people.


Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 7:43:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous David said...

Your friend is probably sick of such people, too. That is probably why he called you a racist.

Trump's complaint was that the judge was "of Mexican heritage." Presumably that is not a category of one.

You're right about one thing, though: it's a distraction. If we were talking about people we didn't know, in some third country, there is no way that you would ever believe them when they told you that a billionaire real estate investor and reality show celebrity will be the one to break the elite's stranglehold on government and restore economic prosperity. In fact, you would probably say the supporters of such a person are being played for chumps and that elites stand to win regardless of who wins.

Believe me, I get it. It's an awful thing watching your country decline while elites gradually tighten their grip over what's left and laugh at the working class that is bearing the brunt of their economic reforms. I have to do the same thing here. But if you're waiting for change, I'd have to say your best bet is to sit this would-be revolution out, because it's a bust.

Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 9:36:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

David, Trump expresses himself badly sometimes. There were a few times that he expanded to explain the involved with Hispanic activism on the Judge's part.

What about the parrot? These things go both way, you know.

Anyhow, enough bickering over minutia.

Are you British? You understand the control of elitists and the resulting frustration and rebellion?


Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 2:59:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous David said...

As a general rule, I don't tend to pay attention when politicians offer to "clarify" remarks. Invariably they are attempting to spin their way out of a mess they created by speaking truthfully the first time around.

Look, if I thought there was a chance in hell that Trump was going to do for America what you seem to think he will, I'd say you had a good idea there, and I'd mean it, but in all honesty I can't get my head around any scenario where that would be true, any more than I can see Mexico paying to build your wall for you. I do wish you luck, and this isn't because he's conservative and I'm liberal. Actually it's the opposite: I'm a pretty conservative guy myself. It pains me to see what I think is a large group of people who are legitimately angry about the direction of their country but are being set up by a billionaire TV celebrity, is all. As I say, if we were talking about some hypothetical third country, I think you would probably agree with me on that. But we'll leave it at that. Best of luck with your choice - I really do mean that. We'll see how it all plays out, and next year maybe you can tell me how I was wrong.

Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 6:09:00 AM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

<< Home