In What Fascism Talk Really Accomplishes Peter Berkowitz of Stanford misses the duopoly forest for the partisan trees.
Razzel-dazzel faux populist leaders need a reason to betray their base, excuse their caving, and otherwise toe the establishment line. I call shill opposition to a faux populist President enforcers. They are joined by apologists who try to explain away betrayals and caving on issues.
Trump is a ‘fascist’ as much as Obama was a ‘Muslim socialist’.
Trump wasn’t turned by the Deep State as apologists claim. He knows how faux populist politics works because he was close to the Clintons and led the ‘birther movement’.
Corruption today is as well engineered and covered-up as it was during Tamany Hall in late 1800’s New York City:
It’s hard not to admire the skill behind Tweed’s system … The Tweed ring at its height was an engineering marvel, strong and solid, strategically deployed to control key power points: the courts, the legislature, the treasury and the ballot box. Its frauds had a grandeur of scale and an elegance of structure: money-laundering, profit sharing and organization.
Citizen’s United, the 2011 law that made money speech and corporations people, means that US democracy is a sham. In our money-driven duopoly, both flavors of politician serves the money – not the people.
Although distrust of the political establishment is at a record high, many STILL are not cynical enough to see the games that are played.
Interestingly, much of the establishment games seem to center on the Clintons. The Hillary camp (Trump supported Hillary in 2008) helped to keep Obama in line, as much as the Republican opposition (that is not to say that Obama wasn’t keen on serving the establishment – he was). And Hillary’s Democratic Party has been the principal force that provided Trump with excuses to betray his base.
But here’s the rub: if Bernie was a sheep-dog for Hillary and Trump’s populism was sure to overcome Hillary’s negatives and negativism, then what real choice did American voters have?