Friday, March 4, 2016

OK, So Trump's a Fascist

In the American Spectator, writer Jon Cassidy puts out a ten point plan that he suggests amounts to the Trump platform. It includes points on stupid treaties, borders, sending home immigrants during a recession, more sports in school, better pensions, loopholes, shadowy forces, etc.

Then he tells us that he´s just given us Hitler's agenda, minus the Jews.

Well, of course. Hitler's politics asked if you are for or against the nation. It is a narrow and bigoted world view.

But then the liberals ask: are you for or against the workers. Wait! They changed that. Now it is: are you for or against women, or gays, or African Americans. Or Muslims.

Hitler was all about national identity politics; liberals are about race, gender, class identity politics. You tell me which is the more narrow and bigoted.

Actually, I will tell you. National identity politics at least has this virtue; its principle is the fiction of the united nation within its borders. Liberal identity politics sets class against class, race against race, gender against bender, within the national borders.

And I think that's contemptible.

Oh, I get it. Every government lives on war. Without a war, there is no need for government. So the Hitlerian government must imagine a conflict between the nation and the rest of the world, and in the meantime a war with the Jews inside the nation. But the liberal government is no better. It starts out with a war between the employer and the worker, between men and women, between white privilege and black slavery. There must be a war, otherwise no government is needed.

Back in the old days, the perpetual war made sense, because land was life and food, and the more land the more food. You had to defend your land to the death, or lose life.

But now, despite the rhetoric of nationalists and liberals, land doesn't matter. Today wealth doesn't consist of land, nor does it consist of the Marxist's labor power. It consists of the intangible wealth in the minds of the people: their skills, their ideas, their enterprises. And everything is negotiable through the market and through exchange.

But no! That cannot be! There must be a need for war, against greedy bankers, or cunning CEOs, or conniving Chinese, against sexist employers, against institutional racists, against bigoted bakers. There must be a need for these wars, otherwise there is no need big government, its taxes, its power, its patronage.

It has been said, by Michael Barone, that the Republican Party, throughout its history, has been the party of people that think of themselves as "typical Americans." Another way of saying this is to say that Republicans think of America as a nation and themselves as undifferentiated citizens.

So a group of people that think of themselves as the typical citizens of a nation are going to warm to a ten point program that favors the nation and its citizens over the rest of the world. You could call it nationalist; you could even call it fascist.

Now, nationalism, according to my theory of the modern world where land is no longer life but just a convenient territory from which people produce and exchange with the world on peaceable terms, is superfluous.

It is superfluous except for the little problem that there are still people in the world that resort to force rather than exchange. Nations still war against nation, thugs still hold up people and rob them, and politicians still rile up "us" against "them."

But the people that rage against the mote of the national idea had better look to the beam in their "supranational" train wreck, and the utter poison of their intranational identity politics.

For my money, the nation state is a much better idea that the poisonous brew of modern race and gender politics.

No comments:

Post a Comment