November 2, 2016
THE PROGRESSIVES CONUNDRUM: BUT
DEFEAT TRUMP FIRST (a revised post)
Harry Targ
The presidential candidacy of Donald
Trump has mobilized rightwing populists, economic nationalists, racists,
anti-Muslims and anti-Semites, sectors of the marginalized and growing
precariat, and some Republicans. His stock in trade has been a continuous
communication by brief soundbites and tweets lies and innuendos, egregious
insults, personal attacks, and slanders. These have exceeded much of the
history of political discourse in the United States (with the possible
exception of the anti-Communist ravings of the 1950s and the virulently hostile
campaigns in the days of Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and Aaron Burr).
It is clear to most well-meaning
political activists of the center and the left, that a Trump presidency would
cause untold pain and suffering to an already aggrieved population of people of
color, workers, women, gays and lesbians, and advocates for the environment.
However, Donald Trump, for a year now, has been a candidate who is largely a
creation of the mainstream media. Day after day mainstream media reported on
the candidate’s every word, his seeming popularity, and his “presumptiveness”
as the Republican nominee of his party. CBS executive Leslie Moonves said about
the Trump candidacy: “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for
CBS” (Campbell Brown, “Why I Blame TV for Trump,” Politico Magazine,
May/June 2016). The Trump candidacy has been worth millions more dollars in
corporate profit for a news industry that has experienced declining viewership
and readership in recent years.
Once
Trump secured almost enough delegates to be nominated the Republican candidate,
the media, including liberal and left voices, launched a non-stop effort to
discredit his background, his assertions, and his broad array of rightwing
supporters. And since candidate Trump continuously articulates his
bizarre views he has become the gift that never stops giving. The frame has
shifted from Trump the curiosity to Trump the monster. Both tropes, it is
hoped, will increase the viewership and advertising as 24/7 coverage shifts to
the general election.
The narrow media frame on the Trump
phenomenon and his daily statements lead to a portrait of an electoral contest
with his Democratic Party opponent that prioritizes personalities and sound
bites and not ideas, issues, worldviews, or ideologies. The media frame
reaffirms the typical American personality “binary,” that is if not Trump then
the presumptive Democratic Party nominee, Hillary Clinton. Although the
differences between the two candidates matter, fundamental questions of policy
and purpose which should be part of political discourse are frozen out of
the political process. The central issue of the election has become Donald
Trump.
The Trump candidacy has poisoned and
distorted the real political contest of ideas undergirding the issues of the
twenty first century. Black Lives Matter, the Occupy, the Fight for 15, Moral
Mondays, and the climate change movements are all about the fundamental
structural impediments to any semblance of a humane society. Many of the issues
articulated by these campaigns have been reflected in Bernie Sanders’
presidential campaign. But because of the Trump media frame and the political
binary these vital issues do not get discussed.
Fundamentally, because Trump
represents the worst aspects of United States history and politics, political
conversations center on him. They do not address the connections between
capitalism and poverty, inequality, racism, sexism, homophobia, war, and
terrorism. And the mainstream media prefers that such discussions not take
place either. In addition, since the Democratic candidate is part of the problem,
not the solution, the Trump conundrum limits necessary political discourse.
So progressives have a problem. A
Trump victory in November will have enormous negative consequences for the vast
majority of the most marginalized sectors of American society, some of whom
struggled for almost 100 years to achieve some modicum of social and economic
justice. And a Clinton victory ensures the continuation of the institutions
that have promoted the global capitalist agenda that has been in place for the
last forty years: monopolization and financialization of the global economy and
the use of “humanitarian” military interventions to implement the neoliberal
order.
Perhaps for the coming period the
prioritization of the progressive political agenda should include in this
order: effectively say “no” to Trump at the
polls; say “no” to the revitalization of neoliberal globalization after a
Clinton Administration enters office in January, 2017; and finally say “no” to
the American political binary that institutionalizes just two choices,
forestalling discussions of fundamental change in the United
States.
