Naomi Klein - No Is Not Enough: Resisting Trumpв’s Shock Politics and Winning the World We Need

Shock.

Its a word that has come up again and again since Donald Trump was elected in November 2016to describe the poll-defying election results, to describe the emotional state of many people watching his ascent to power, and to describe his blitzkrieg approach to policy making. A shock to the system, in fact, is precisely how his adviser Kellyanne Conway has repeatedly described the new era.

For almost two decades now, Ive been studying large-scale shocks to societieshow they happen, how they are exploited by politicians and corporations, and how they are even deliberately deepened in order to gain advantage over a disoriented population. I have also reported on the flip side of this process: how societies that come together around an understanding of a shared crisis can change the world for the better.

Watching Donald Trumps rise, Ive had a strange feeling. Its not just that hes applying shock politics to the most powerful and heavily armed nation on earth. Its more than that. In books, documentary films, and investigative reporting, I have documented a range of trends: the rise of Superbrands, the expanding power of private wealth over the political system, the global imposition of neoliberalism, often using racism and fear of the other as a potent tool, the damaging impacts of corporate free trade, and the deep hold that climate change denial has taken on the right side of the political spectrum. And as I began to research Trump, he started to seem to me like Frankensteins monster, sewn together out of the body parts of all of these and many other dangerous trends.

Ten years ago, I published The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, an investigation that spanned four decades of history, from Chile after Augusto Pinochets coup to Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union, from Baghdad under the US Shock and Awe attack to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. The term shock doctrine describes the quite brutal tactic of systematically using the publics disorientation following a collective shockwars, coups, terrorist attacks, market crashes, or natural disastersto push through radical pro-corporate measures, often called shock therapy.

Though Trump breaks the mold in some ways, his shock tactics do follow a script, one familiar from other countries that have had rapid changes imposed under the cover of crisis. During Trumps first week in office, when he was signing that tsunami of executive orders and people were just reeling, madly trying to keep up, I found myself thinking about the human rights advocate Halina Bortnowskas description of Polands experience when the US imposed economic shock therapy on her country in the midst of Communisms collapse. She described the velocity of change her country was going through as the difference between dog years and human years, and she observed that you start witnessing these semi-psychotic reactions. You can no longer expect people to act in their own best interests when theyre so disoriented they dont knowor no longer carewhat those interests are.

From the evidence so far, its clear that Trump and his top advisers are hoping for the sort of response Bortnowska described, that they are trying to pull off a domestic shock doctrine. The goal is all-out war on the public sphere and the public interest, whether in the form of antipollution regulations or programs for the hungry. In their place will be unfettered power and freedom for corporations. Its a program so defiantly unjust and so manifestly corrupt that it can only be pulled off with the assistance of divide-and-conquer racial and sexual politics, as well as a nonstop spectacle of media distractions. And of course it is being backed up with a massive increase in war spending, a dramatic escalation of military conflicts on multiple fronts, from Syria to North Korea, alongside presidential musings about how torture works.

Trumps cabinet of billionaires and multimillionaires tells us a great deal about the administrations underlying goals. ExxonMobil for secretary of state. General Dynamics and Boeing to head the department of defense. And the Goldman Sachs guys for pretty much everything thats left. The handful of career politicians who have been put in charge of agencies seem to have been selected either because they do not believe in the agencys core mission, or do not think the agency should exist at all. Steve Bannon, Trumps apparently sidelined chief strategist, was very open about this when he addressed a conservative audience in February 2017. The goal, he said, was the deconstruction of the administrative state (by which he meant the government regulations and agencies tasked with protecting people and their rights). And if you look at these Cabinet nominees, they were selected for a reason, and that is deconstruction.

Much has been made of the conflict between Bannons Christian nationalism and the transnationalism of Trumps more establishment aides, particularly his son-in-law Jared Kushner. And Bannon may well get voted off this gory reality show entirely before long (perhaps by the time you read these words). Which is why its worth underlining that when it comes to deconstructing the state, and outsourcing as much as possible to for-profit corporations, Bannon and Kushner are not in conflict but in perfect alignment.

As this has been unfolding, it struck me that whats happening in Washington is not the usual passing of the baton between parties. Its a naked corporate takeover, one many decades in the making. It seems that the economic interests that have long since paid off both major parties to do their bidding have decided theyre tired of playing the game. Apparently, all that wining and dining of elected officials, all that cajoling and legalized bribery, insulted their sense of divine entitlement. So now theyre cutting out the middlementhose needy politicians who are supposed to protect the public interestand doing what all top dogs do when they want something done right: they are doing it themselves.

Which is why serious questions about conflicts of interest and breaches of ethics barely receive a response. Just as Trump stonewalled on releasing his tax returns, so he has completely refused to sell, or to stop benefiting from, his business empire. That decision, given the Trump Organizations reliance on foreign governments to grant valuable trademark licenses and permits, may in fact contravene the United States Constitutions prohibition on presidents receiving gifts or any emolument from foreign governments. Indeed, a lawsuit making this allegation has already been launched.