John Bellamy Foster - Trump in the White House: Tragedy and Farce

TRUMP IN THE WHITE HOUSE

TRAGEDY AND FARCE

John Bellamy Foster

Copyright 2017 by John Bellamy Foster

All Rights Reserved

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data available from the publisher.

ISBN (paper): 978-1-58367-680-6

ISBN (cloth): 978-1-58367-681-3

MONTHLY REVIEW PRESS, NEW YORK

monthlyreview.org

5 4 3 2 1

by Robert W. McChesney

To Carrie Ann

by Robert W. McChesney

IN TRUMP IN THE WHITE HOUSE:Tragedy and Farce, John Bellamy Foster connects the great and pressing issues of our times, the resolution of which will go a long way toward determining the course of human civilization for generations. Those issues are climate change, capitalist stagnation, and, centrally, the return of fascism to the United States and the global political scene.

When Foster and I were young menwe attended college together in the early 1970sthe term fascism was bandied about periodically. It was often used in a pejorative sense, as the ultimate put-down for someone opposed to progressive politics, or just to castigate any unpleasant person on a power trip. Yet in the United States and Western Europe, the idea that fascism was a plausible political development seemed entirely farfetched. Where it continued to exist, in Francos Spain for example, its days were numbered. The experience of the Second World War guaranteed that no credible political party or figure would ever advocate such a reprehensible and repudiated political order. By the 1970s, we were all democrats, at least rhetorically.

When neoliberalism emerged as the dominant political movement in the United States and much of the world by the 1980s, it was careful to distinguish its embrace of so-called free markets and hostility toward trade unions and the welfare state, not to mention socialism, as having nothing to do with fascism or the xenophobia that invariably accompanies fascism. Neoliberals were for a puny and enfeebled government that would not interfere with individuals as they went about their lives however they best saw fit. Government was liberal, the polar opposite of fascist.

The recent emergence of neo-fascist movements in Europe, and now Donald Trumps 2017 ascension to the U.S. presidency, courtesy of the Electoral College, has forced a serious reconsideration of fascism and its relationship to capitalism and to democracy. As Foster notes, in the 1950s Paul Sweezy characterized fascism as the antonym of liberal democracy. And now, with economic stagnation prevalent and seemingly permanent for capitalism worldwide, crises of poverty, inequality, and grotesque political corruption are increasingly the order of the day. Liberal democracy is failing, as social problems are spiraling out of control. Zombie fascism is on the march again.

We are fortunate to have a scholar like Foster tackle this subject. As a leading political economist and theorist, Foster contextualizes fascism and provides an accessible and coherent, yet sophisticated, analysis. And as perhaps the leading environmental sociologist in the world today, Foster connects the emergence of neo-fascism to the climate crisis that threatens the survival of our species. Needless to say, it is a frightening picture at every level.

If one thing becomes clear in reading these essays, it is that the notion that neoliberalism, or libertarianism, as its boosters prefer to call it, is the polar opposite of fascism is entirely bogus. Libertarianism is, in fact, the other side of the exact same coin. Nancy MacLean provides crucial evidence to this end in her recent book Democracy in Chains (Viking, 2017), which details the origins and rise of libertarianism and the radical right in the United States since the 1950s. It is impossible to read the internal correspondence of the masterminds of libertarianism and not see the fundamental contempt for liberal values and the rule of law. Their concern with civil liberties is opportunistic. Shout from the mountaintops about the rights of man when it advances the position of the hard right; remain mute if not be outwardly supportive when leftists are purged.

What becomes clear in MacLeans account is that the masterminds of libertarianism are driven by a contempt for democracy above all else. Their great fear is that anything close to genuine majority rule would be antithetical to the maintenance of existing capitalism, with its extreme wealth inequality, which libertarianism heartily approves. In fact, libertarians, or free market conservatives, see their most important mission as protecting and extending the class domination of the wealthy few by any means necessary.

This explains the obsession among libertarians (read neoliberals) to limit the ability of the dispossessed to enjoy the right to vote, to encourage gerrymandering, to allow moneyed interests unchecked power over government officials and bodies, and to do whatever is possible to corrupt effective popular governance and thereby guarantee the rule of capital. But it goes far beyond that. The libertarian obsession has been far more strategic, and its proponents are playing the long game.

On the one hand, the neoliberal movement has been obsessed with conquering the court system and changing the Constitutionor changing interpretations of the existing Constitution, which is effectively the same thingto reduce the possibility of effective majority rule. The idea is to make it so that no matter who gets elected, the rule of wealth cannot be meaningfully altered or undermined. Just lock in structures that repel the ability of the majority to change course.

On the other hand, the neoliberal/libertarian crowd has been obsessed with eliminating those institutions that make effective political participation in a democracy possible, what is termed the democratic infrastructure.

What do I mean by this? If you eliminate labor unions and other organizations for those without property, sharply reduce quality public education and a credible independent news media, undermine the independence of public universities, devote billions to generating slick propaganda, make it virtually impossible to launch effective new political parties, and privatize as much of traditional government functions as possible, then having the right to vote is largely handcuffed and ineffectual. You get a democracy where the outcome is all but predetermined. The logical result is that people become disenchanted and apathetic, and turn away from politics, dismissing it all as a massive pile of bullshit. And that is precisely the libertarian goal. People should put all their energy into their commercial affairs and leave governance, such that it is, to their economic betters, those who own the societys commanding heights.

In this sense, neoliberalism is distinct from fascism; in the former people tune out politics, whereas in the latter people get worked up in a lather over various racist and nationalist solutions to the immense problems of a society in crisis and without a functioning governing system.

The neoliberal assault on the democratic infrastructure of the United States has been proceeding for a good four decades now and has been significantly completed. It means that the United States is now a formal constitutional republic, but very far from being even a marginally democratic society. And this means that the civil liberties Americans have taken for granted stand on a much flimsier foundation.