In "Donald Trump Just Stopped Being Funny," Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi foreshadows a theme that I expect will soon flood leftist sentiment on the Web. I say foreshadows a theme, for while the theme is orphaned to ambiguity, its presence is unmistakable. And the theme is that fascism stalks America (exclamation mark).
Taibbi's opening is promising. Premised on the beating of one homeless Hispanic by two thuggish Bostonians, he opens the door to a spooky read:
[E]ven as Donald Trump said and did horrible things during this year's incredible run at the White House, most sane people took solace in the fact that he could never win. (Although new polls are showing that Hillary's recent spiral puts this reassuring thought into jeopardy.)
There's the intimation — parenthetically, delicately lobbed at the reader: Trump could go all the way. The White House is "in jeopardy." Remaining in the past tense, Taibbi then writes:
In fact, most veteran political observers figured that the concrete impact of Trump's candidacy would be limited in the worst case to destroying the Republican Party as a mainstream political force.
There's that intimation again. Most political observers "figured" that most of Trump's harm would be internal. In assorted fields of probabilities — political, electoral, mathematical — their figuring was, and remains, almost certainly correct. (I say "almost," since of course there are no absolutes.) Yet Taibbi is suggestive: Well, that's what they figured.
The past tense implies a rather egregious misreckoning. It's all quite vague — this hinted uneasiness with conventional expectations. The intimation hovers, however: What political observers once figured no longer holds. A dark, uncontrollable force has been unleashed, and, moving to present and future tenses, its destructive power portends far more than Republican ruination.
At this early point in Taibbi's essay we suspect we are on to a modification of Sinclair Lewis' It Can't Happen Here, or perhaps Philip Roth's The Plot Against America. This is great stuff, thrilling stuff, really spooky stuff. So we read on, in search of some plausible support of the intimated theme.
And then … nothing happens, there is nothing forthcoming in the way of argument, there is no there in the hovering thereness of Taibbi's speculation about a creeping fascism. We are treated instead to a familiar survey of Donald Trump's idiosyncrasies and the right's overabundance of the stupid. Ambiguities, intimations and alarm become torrential, which, as noted, implies real danger ahead. But, I dare you, just try to grab onto something here — anywhere:
Trump … doesn't need to win anything to become the most dangerous person in America. He can do plenty of damage just by encouraging people to be as uninhibited in their stupidity as he is….
Karl Rove and his acolytes mined a lot of the same resentments to get Republicans elected over the years, but the difference is that Trump's political style encourages people to do more to express their anger than just vote….
The political right in America has been flirting with dangerous ideas for a while now, particularly on issues involving immigrants and minorities. But in the last few years the rhetoric has gotten particularly crazy….
Trump isn't really a politician, of course. He's a strongman act, a ridiculous parody of a Nietzschean superman.
The only item of any theoretical substance is Taibbi's last characterization. Yet he neutralizes, or nullifies, the characterization by saying that Trump is but a "ridiculous parody" of it. How are we to take Trump seriously — that is, as a threat — if he's "ridiculous"? Authentic Nietzschean supermen are terrifying, not ridiculous; but somehow, in Taibbi's mind, the ridiculous Trump may "become the most dangerous man in America."
Read: "It Can Happen Here." How? That's a scenario left to only the wildest of imaginations. Taibbi helps them out in a concluding paragraph that brims with horror:
Those of us who think polls and primaries and debates are any match for [Trump's act] are pretty naive. America has been trending stupid for a long time. Now the stupid wants out of its cage, and Trump is urging it on. There are a lot of ways this can go wrong, no matter who wins in 2016.
Even a dram of specificity would be welcome. Just what is Taibbi suggesting? A miraculous metamorphosis from rowdy electoral politics to a bloody, street-fighting putsch? Fought by whom? In what conceivable numbers? A coup? Again, by whom? And how? A swamping of clear demographic advantages held by the Democratic nominee? A sudden, sweeping and deep reddening of America, contra every public opinion poll with respect to immigration and just about every other political topic?
There is indeed a way that Trump's populism "can go wrong," and it remains internal: The destruction of "the Republican Party as a mainstream political force." If Trump becomes his party's nominee — please, God — then sure, we could see platoons of brownshirts embodied by little blue-haired women and angry old white guys. And when it's all over, Trump will leave nothing but partisan rubble.
If some on the left imagine we're on the edge of a fascist abyss — and wish to excite others into joining their paranoid panic — well, so be it. All the more entertainment for the rest of us.
No one in moden journalism is better than Taibbi at missing the obvious. My wife, believing my interest in music warranted it, got me a three year subscription to RS. I find Taibbi's pieces are best treated as humor.
Posted by: Peter G | August 22, 2015 at 09:51 AM
Taibbi felt obligated to write something about The Biggest Thing Of The Summer Silly Season but just couldn't bring himself to do it. Not really. Who could blame him? BTOTSSS has been hyped and mocked from every angle and there's really nothing left. Gosh, I even beat him to the Nietzschean superman riff in a comment here weeks ago and *no one* pays me to write. Some vicious dimwits beat up a homeless Hispanic citing the will of Biggest Thing, but in 2010 a couple of Rand Paul campaign workers beat up a leftist woman and stomped her head on a sidewalk. It's not as if that kind of thing is unknown on the right.
Numbers vary, but BTOTSSS appeals to 25-30% of Republicans that are somewhere around 45% of the electorate at this point, so he's got in the neighborhood of 13% of voters following him and some only to gawk at the freak show. Of all the claptrap written about Biggest Thing, trying to make him into a post-Treaty of Versailles German politician is one of the most obviously silly, and it probably seemed droll to Matt after the puffs of medicinal smoke he resorted to as a replacement for inspiration.
Posted by: Bob | August 22, 2015 at 10:01 AM
The GOP will retain the.house for years they're not going away
Posted by: Bob Puharic | August 22, 2015 at 02:09 PM
One part fascism, three parts restless narcissism.
Posted by: Shaun Appleby | August 22, 2015 at 09:06 PM
But you are already on "on the edge of a fascist abyss":
"[T]he U.S. Court of appeals for the Fifth Circuit [...] has upheld the reversal of civil-rights convictions against five New Orleans police officers. The court’s painstaking opinion concludes that, despite the severity of the charges, the district judge properly threw out the convictions because of **Justice Department corruption so shocking that “words like ‘incredible’ and ‘novel’ and ‘unprecedented’ were no longer enough” to describe it.** [My emphasis]"
As I mused over at 'my place', can anyone show me much in the way of difference between the 'apparats' of Obama and Putin?
Posted by: David & Son of Duff | August 23, 2015 at 04:42 AM
The police will have a retrial, David, something I doubt would happen in Putin's Russia.
NEW ORLEANS -
A federal appeals court ruled that five former New Orleans police officers convicted of civil rights violations stemming from deadly shootings after Hurricane Katrina will be retried.
The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the ruling Tuesday. In September 2013, U.S. District Judge Kurt Engelhardt overturned the convictions and granted the officers a new trial. The matter has since been under appeal.
The five former New Orleans Police Department officers are Arthur Kaufman, Robert Gisevius, Anthony Villavaso, Kenneth Bowen and Robert Faulcon. Prosecutors said the men shot and killed two unarmed people and wounded four others on Sept. 4, 2005, at the Danziger Bridge before engaging in a cover-up designed to make the shootings appear justified.
Each of the defendants have been serving sentences that range from as little as six years to as much as a 65-year term.
Engelhardt ruled that the "highly unusual, extensive and truly bizarre actions" of prosecutors warrant throwing out the officers' convictions. The reference relates to, among other things, leaks to certain media outlets and online remarks posted by members of the U.S. Attorney’s Office during the course of proceedings.
READ: Danziger Bridge officers: Where are they now?
The scandal led to several resignations last year – including that of U.S. Attorney Jim Letten – and a formal Department of Justice investigation.
Attorneys for the five former officers convicted at trial in 2011 argued that the leaks to news organizations were part of a "secret public relations campaign" that deprived their clients of a fair trial.
http://m.wdsu.com/news/five-former-new-orleans-police-officers-to-be-retried-appeals-court-says/34787384
But thanks for demonstrating by quoting from a doubtlessly right-wing source, that your are as gullible as your conservative counterparts across the pond.
Too much Merlot, David?
Posted by: The Dark Avenger | August 23, 2015 at 08:00 AM
No kidding Dave? Did you notice that the judge who both imposed the convictions and overturned them was a Bush appointee. As were the prosecutors accused of misconduct. That is why I pointed out before to your great dismay that the difference between conservatives and serial killers was a matter of scale only. We do need to stop you before you govern again. Thanks for leaving the note. Whenever conservatives fuck up it must always be their opponents fault.
Posted by: Peter G | August 23, 2015 at 08:34 AM
Interesting stuff is it not? The comments that were anonymously posted that rendered the convictions problematical? They were virulently racist and made by Republican prosecutors with a history of doing the same. Dave doesn't do homework. It takes whole seconds. Life's too short.
Posted by: Peter G | August 23, 2015 at 09:00 AM
Only one question, gentlemen, who was in command and control of the Justice Department from 2009?
Oh, and a second question: why is Karla Dobinski, having only received a "lip reprimand" still employed at high level within the (non)Justice Dept.?
Jest askin'!
Posted by: David & Son of Duff | August 23, 2015 at 10:26 AM
One other question, what asshole president (named Bush) politicized the Justice Department and fired prosecutors unwilling to go along with politically motivated prosecutions? Hell, here's another, what president named Obama didn't politicize the Justice Department despite hope on the far left that he would? Or maybe this, are we talking about the same Justice Department that exonerated Darren Wilson, properly in my opinion! because that's what the evidence required. You can't really escape the facts on this case David. It was your boys who screwed the pooch, wasted huge amounts of money and sabotaged themselves. Perhaps we should blame Obama though for not firing every single Republican asshole in government. Certainly it would have saved the day here. On the evidence the convictions certainly would have stood. Is it surprising that they didn't because right wing racists screwed up? Not at all.
Posted by: Peter G | August 23, 2015 at 10:45 AM
David, as you seem to have access to the Internet, is it too much to ask that you do your own raearch instead of relying on RW sources to trash Obama about everything from adultery to zoonoses?
Posted by: The Dark Avenger | August 23, 2015 at 12:10 PM
Hmmmmn! So no answers to my two simple questions. Draw my own conclusions, then, shall I?
Posted by: David & Son of Duff | August 23, 2015 at 02:51 PM
You got your answer David. You just don't like it. Draw your own conclusions? Those were drawn before you woke up this morning. You could have taken the five whole minutes it would take to establish that every single asshole involved in the whole sad fiasco before the Fifth Circuit was a Republican appointed asshole. But no. On the other hand I did quickly do my homework and looked up the principle participants and who appointed them. So all you managed to do here is, once again, convince me and everyone else who cared to follow the exchange that you are full of shit. And it isn't even your own shit! You're full of someone else's shit.
Posted by: Peter G | August 23, 2015 at 03:24 PM
I didn't know that being elected President gives one automatically power and responsibility for every single action taken by an employee of the Federal government, Dave. That's what your question implies, and that why it isn't a simple one, but an idiotic one.
Posted by: The Dark Avenger | August 23, 2015 at 04:27 PM
Temper tantrums are bad for your health, Peter, do calm down, dear, and when you have, try your very best to answer my two questions.
DA, 'there's none so blind as them what doesn't want to see'. Stumble on, my friend.
Posted by: David & Son of Duff | August 24, 2015 at 03:36 AM
Blind is someone who believes NRO without checking out the facts David.
Posted by: The Dark Avenger | August 24, 2015 at 08:34 AM