Chomsky on Trump

[Richard Barrett]

if we accept that it's the inequalities and protest of the 'left behind', why vote for people who - in the minds of those of us who have the difficulty you describe - seem least likely to care about them?

Firstly I don't think the explanation is quite as simple as that; secondly, as the son of working-class Tories, I'd have to say that the latter phenomenon is nothing new.

[teamsaint]

Yes, but one can understand the comfortably off at least believing it will be in their own interests to vote that way: in many cases, it will. And I think they, at any rate, instinctively feel alienated from those who advance the opposite argument.

I think it is pretty clear that a lot of those who voted leave think that the changes they ( think they) voted for will benefit them, and that the existing arrangements hurt them economically, through immigration reducing pay rates, and taxes going to pay too many politicians, bureaucrats, and EU schemes such as the CAP, for example.

One aspect might be that the way that many of those towards the bottom, have been left to fend for themselves economically over the last few decades, has made them more open to free market, libertarian style policies, since this is their everyday experience? they might perceive the system to be looking after those in the top 10%, and those around them who work the system.

[Beef Oven!]

The breaking news is that Trump has by executive order pulled out of the TPP trade deal and will replace it with bi-lateral agreements. Well done-Don!

It would be hilarious if this bloke turns out to be one of the best US presidents! He shouldn’t have any difficulty trumping the last lot back to but excluding Reagan!

[Serial_Apologist]

The breaking news is that Trump has by executive order pulled out of the TPP trade deal and will replace it with bi-lateral agreements. Well done-Don!

It would be hilarious if this bloke turns out to be one of the best US presidents! He shouldn’t have any difficulty trumping the last lot back to but excluding Reagan!

Just imagine every country having to do that, at Trump's behest and command, and how long it would take. And in the meantime.....?????

[Lat-Literal]

The problem with a Chomsky style "what is wrong with Trump?" is that it personalizes it, thereby avoiding the very obvious social and political complexities. Like Brexit, Trump is also a package as indeed are individual voters. He was complaining that America had hit the rocks and saying that only he could be its saviour during the Reagan era. Now Reagan is something of a blueprint. He reminds me of a friend of mine in the 1980s who used to delight in giving the opposite opinion of the one he had put forward the day before while others believed that anything meaningful required some consistency. On wealth, 84% of US households own cars (although only 50% do in New York). Many Americans in 2017 would make Andy Williams and Sammy Davis Jr in their heyday appear emaciated. Tattoos abound in the skilled manual sector and it is cosmetic surgery among the well-heeled. Both are costly. Yes, some have suffered terribly via unemployment and housing losses. They were probably equally divided between Trump and Clinton. As I have said before, the lowest tier voted for Clinton in large numbers along with film stars, probably half the people in the banking racket and those who are determined to see Russia as the Soviet Union.

At least President Trump doesn't appear to be overly concerned that a British missile nearly hit Florida under the auspices of the Government's principal fracking fanatic and defender in chief. Obama's speech about Britain going to the back of the queue in April 2016 - if not written by Cameron's civil servants - was upsetting to many but it would have taken chutzpah to retaliate in that way! The bottom line, of course, is health. No one works to produce anything when unwell. The American electorate isn't bothered about it and Trump seems to share Nigel Farage's opinion that "no one knows what to do about it" - end of. In Britain that can be disproved by holding a referendum on maintaining a publicly funded NHS. This should be an absolute priority, it should be binding and I don't know why we are not having one. Part of it goes back to the point that the liberal left sold out.

Hope some of this helps.

[french frank]

I think it is pretty clear that a lot of those who voted leave think that the changes they ( think they) voted for will benefit them, and that the existing arrangements hurt them economically, through immigration reducing pay rates, and taxes going to pay too many politicians, bureaucrats, and EU schemes such as the CAP, for example.

They may think that. But why do they think that? The National Institute of Economic and Social Research concluded, regarding a revised paper published on the subject of the effect of immigration on pay:" So in my view the news in this latest paper is not “new evidence shows for the first time migration depresses wages”. Rather, it is “economists revise down estimates for wage impacts of migration on low skilled workers – from small to very small”.

"And how small is small? Well, the first thing to note is that a 10 percentage point rise in the proportion of migrants working in a sector – the amount needed to generate the “nearly 2 percent” wage impact is very large. Indeed, it is larger than the entire rise observed since the 2004-06 period in the semi/unskilled services sector, which is about 7 percentage points."

and:

"In other words, the research confirms what we already thought. Immigration may have some, small, negative impact on wages for some low-paid workers. But the idea that immigration is the main or even a moderately important driver of low pay is simply not supported by the available evidence. Politicians who claim the contrary are either so obsessed with immigration that they are blind to more important issues - or they are merely trying to divert attention from their failure to propose policy measures that would actually make a meaningful difference to the low paid."

One aspect might be that the way that many of those towards the bottom, have been left to fend for themselves economically over the last few decades, has made them more open to free market, libertarian style policies, since this is their everyday experience? they might perceive the system to be looking after those in the top 10%, and those around them who work the system.

It might - but why did they place the main blame on the effect of our EU membership? The 'EU schemes such as the CAP' are only part of the £350m we pay in every week …

It all goes back to why people either believe without question or 'don't care' whether they're hearing facts or 'alternative facts'. Even when it's not in their interests to believe it.

[french frank]

The breaking news is that Trump has by executive order pulled out of the TPP trade deal and will replace it with bi-lateral agreements. Well done-Don!

All part of the plan to Make America Great Again. Pick off the little guys singly: with very little to offer, they can't expect much in return, can they? That wouldn't be fair on Americans.

[Lat-Literal]

A few more points. To those who find the election of Trump utterly inexplicable, I think one has to mention the drugs epidemic in the US and the difficulties any country would have with illegal immigration. There is a liberal undertow to both issues. Distinct differences of opinion on how to tackle drug problems and on the benefits or otherwise of immigration broadly. That has enabled a conservative line which only to some extent hypes up the concerns and offers an alternative emphasis. Then there is the thorny issue of climate change - to what extent are western countries foolish in being highly principled while areas of the Far East build tens upon tens of airports etc? And also foreign aid which would be more acceptable to many if they were sure they knew it was being put to good use, probably with some positive returns. I am not necessarily siding with every aspect of what I have outlined. However, I can understand the thinking. And in terms of immigration more broadly, there is something to be said for it to be organised on the basis of a formula - size and population of countries, the subtleties of demographics etc. The US and the UK are in a much stronger position that many European countries including Germany (and probably Scotland/Northern Ireland if they were on their own) for providing for older people etc on account of immigration to date. Ideally the public would be told how/if more is needed.

(the retaliation point in my post above was a little joke but you knew that anyway)

[teamsaint]

Discontent with the status quo has arisen from many areas, and it isn't just perceived effects on wages from immigration.

Wages in the UK, for those on low to average wages have been under consistent pressure, not least as corporate profits grow.

http://blogs.deloitte.co.uk/mondaybriefing/2013/09/profits-vs-wages.html

Perceptions about endlessly almost static ( and reducing in real terms) pay, and these are facts for many people, are not going to be dispersed by an NIESR study, I wouldn't have thought.

[french frank]

Perceptions about endlessly almost static ( and reducing in real terms) pay, and these are facts for many people, are not going to be dispersed by an NIESR study, I wouldn't have thought.

That ignores the point I made. No, the average voters won't be influenced by these conclusions because they'll never hear them. They will hear the version peddled by the Daily Telegraph or the Express that migrants decrease their wages - and they'll put two and two together. EU=migrants=less in my wage packet. Therefore I'll vote to Leave the EU.

On the whole migration benefits the economy, and the revenues, properly applied, are supposed to benefit the less well-off with free public services and welfare payments.

[Lat-Literal]

That ignores the point I made. No, the average voters won't be influenced by these conclusions because they'll never hear them. They will hear the version peddled by the Daily Telegraph or the Express that migrants decrease their wages - and they'll put two and two together. EU=migrants=less in my wage packet. Therefore I'll vote to Leave the EU.

On the whole migration benefits the economy, and the revenues, properly applied, are supposed to benefit the less well-off with free public services and welfare payments.

The very first thing I would have done as PM after the referendum is draw up a strategy for making this country self-sufficient in food.

A complete overhaul of agriculture with specific action points - and I believe it needs to be done as a priority, ahead of any trade deals.

[teamsaint]

That ignores the point I made. No, the average voters won't be influenced by these conclusions because they'll never hear them. They will hear the version peddled by the Daily Telegraph or the Express that migrants decrease their wages - and they'll put two and two together. EU=migrants=less in my wage packet. Therefore I'll vote to Leave the EU.

On the whole migration benefits the economy, and the revenues, properly applied, are supposed to benefit the less well-off with free public services and welfare payments.

But people don't tend to care about GDP, directly.
They care about their wages ,their housing costs, their chances of a well paid job, their chance of ever owning their own home, their wait at A and E.

Even if immigration does boost the economy, and clearly there are ways that it does, it will be personally irrelevant if your real wages are stagnant for years on end, which has been a reality for very many people, and one made more difficult by the equally real rise in boardroom pay and corporate profits.

I'm offering reasons why people took what you see to be irrational decisions. You are telling me how things might be in your ( our ?) better world.
I'm not sure those two things can be reconciled just yet.

[french frank]

I can see that people may very well not care about 'the economy' doing well if they don't feel they are (or even if they don't feel they're doing as well as other people). But why blame the EU rather than government policies? And I mean: Why? in a serious sense. Why does that happen? Why did they put the Conservatives back in power if they felt they were financially suffering?

But people don't tend to care about GDP, directly.
They care about their wages ,their housing costs, their chances of a well paid job, their chance of ever owning their own home, their wait at A and E.

Even if immigration does boost the economy, and clearly there are ways that it does, it will be personally irrelevant if your real wages are stagnant for years on end, which has been a reality for very many people, and one made more difficult by the equally real rise in boardroom pay and corporate profits.

I'm offering reasons why people took what you see to be irrational decisions. You are telling me how things might be in your ( our ?) better world.
I'm not sure those two things can be reconciled just yet.

[Ian Thumwood]

That ignores the point I made. No, the average voters won't be influenced by these conclusions because they'll never hear them. They will hear the version peddled by the Daily Telegraph or the Express that migrants decrease their wages - and they'll put two and two together. EU=migrants=less in my wage packet. Therefore I'll vote to Leave the EU.

On the whole migration benefits the economy, and the revenues, properly applied, are supposed to benefit the less well-off with free public services and welfare payments.

Working in the construction industry I would have to say that we need more immigration and not less such is the skills shortage. Things are so bad that the industry is looking very seriously at modular forms of design which can be prefabricated in a factory and thus obviate the need for skilled labour on site.

It is hugely depressing to see Trump as president but no real surprise. The papers like the Express will frequently make comments about the drive to rebuild broken Britain but the US has never been a country that has functioned properly. It is something of a dysfunctional construct. We should never let ourselves be deceived that America has ever been a democracy and, in it's way, it has always pursued a course whereby Socialism is considered wholly undesirable. This differs radically from Western Europe where there has been a far more democratic march towards Socialist ideals which even the likes of Cameron and May are accepting as necessary. European history has gradually evolved from feudalism and ultimately arrived at parliamentary democracies with monarchies, where they remain, being purely constitutional and of very little relevance. The Royal families of Europe will all be gone within the next 100 years, including the UK. This is just the natural evolution of things.

The problem with politics at the moment has been the advancement of "liberalism" which ultimately led the way to New Labour. I think that Trump's supporters and those in this country who have voted for UKIP appreciate that these ideas no longer square with the idea of a "working class" to exploit this fact. The fault for the Brexit vote directly stems from the failure of the New Labour project which de-franchised the core Working Class vote and made the principle left wing party in the Uk a plaything of the liberal middle classes. Ultimately, UKIP have exploited this and goaded parts of the population in to voting for something which, if explained logically no right minded person would have chosen. In the States the Democrats must take the same blame for the rise of Trump although I have never been comfortable with their politics at least on the international state as they are still something of a pariah state. Ask anyone living in the rural parts of Pakistan what they think of America Liberalism!

The most disappointing issue over the last 12 months has been Labour's failure to recognise that it remains' within the Left's gift to influence the direction of the EU and this can only be done from within. If Corbyn had been a more enthusiastic supporter of the EU and had offered to join hands with the likes of the Greeks, it would have been possible to envisage a more acceptable WU which served the people and not business. For me, this has been a massive missed opportunity and I would have liked to have seen an effort to redefine Europe along fairer lines . I have been reading a bit labour Trotsky of late and his idea of Internationalism. Whilst the book I read cast a very sunny and non-critical opinion of his merits, I think that the idea of countries working together for the people would have been awe-inspiring and a salutary lesson to the US.

The other thing that I would like to say is that I ultimately think that Trump will eventually result in the greatest fillip the Left will have had since the Second War War. It is fascinating that Theresa May has been presented with a massive dilemma insofar that an olive branch if being offered by Trump for a post-Brexit UK and that she has also gone on record as finding Trump unacceptable. Getting close to Trump will ultimately prove more catastrophic that the Bush / Blair relationship and if we start cosying up to America I can see our stock overseas taking a massive downturn. I strongly believe that Trump will be an unmitigated disaster for the Right and if May accepts his overtures she runs the risk of being labelled in the same bracket as the likes of Le Pen, etc. It is a poisoned chalice and one I cannot see the Conservative's surviving. A Trump administration will put British voters off UKIP and I think politics will eventually swing back to a form of normalcy.

I find it incredible that we now found ourselves ostracised from the EU which, despite it's eccentricities, was something admirable and find ourselves potentially aligned with a politician whose values we do not share and whose grasp of democracy is tenuous at best. It is regrettable that we look like now aligning ourselves with "The Great Satan" whereas we could have made a massive contribution in to making Europe a better and more equitable place.

[teamsaint]

I can see that people may very well not care about 'the economy' doing well if they don't feel they are (or even if they don't feel they're doing as well as other people). But why blame the EU rather than government policies? And I mean: Why? in a serious sense. Why does that happen? Why did they put the Conservatives back in power if they felt they were financially suffering?

But who put the tories back in power?

At a guess, the usual 25% core "always blue" heartlands, a huge number of who are comfortable middle class. Plus the usual 10% swing vote, who were deeply unimpressed with the labour campaign,and those on the further right with no other viable voting option. That group presumably includes a lot of UKIP and pro referendum types stymied by FPTP.


And they "blamed "the EU ( ie voted against) because that was the option offered at the time.
Ask the population at the same time to vote instead on capping boardroom pay, or getting rid of the BBC licence for example, and you might have got a similar protests. That was what they were offered .

58% of tory voters went on to vote Leave. Since they were presumably mostly people who also voted tory previously, the conclusion must be that they blamed the EU for their /our problems, and not their chosen government, which at least has a kind of logic.