883 White Working Class overthrows the Globalist Establishment

White Working Class overthrows the Globalist Establishment

Newsletter published on 9 November 2016

(1) ISO Trots lament "revenge of the white working class"
(2) ISO Trots call Trump 'Monster', ponder "the irretrievable racism of
all white workers"
(3) The (Rothschild) Economist calls Trump 'Malign'
(4) Stunning Repudiation of the Establishment - NYT (telling the truth
for once)
(5) Deplorables Overthrow the Ruling Elite
(6) Trump will change the Supreme Court - The (Rothschild) Economist

(1) ISO Trots lament "revenge of the white working class"

https://socialistworker.org/2016/11/08/riding-on-the-election-2016-swing-set

What's riding on the Election 2016 swing set?

November 8, 2016

[...] DAYS BEFORE Election Day, Hillary Clinton's once formidable lead
in the national opinion polls had shrunk to a few percentage points,
spreading panic among liberals and Clinton supporters.

If the polls are correct--and given their pro-Republican slant in 2012,
that is a big "if"--Clinton is in danger of losing as many as four
"swing states" that Barack Obama won in two successive presidential
elections: New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio and Iowa.

With the exception of Florida, all of these states have a higher
percentage of non-Latino whites in their electorates, compared to the
national average. All of them except New Hampshire have a lower rate of
voters with a college education than the U.S. average. (See the U.S.
Census data here.)

Why focus on race and education level? Because the national media and
many social scientists dub "non-college educated whites" as the "white
working class," which is supposedly the core of Donald Trump's base. So
if Trump can cut into Clinton's support in these states, the media will
explain it as the revenge of the "white working class." [...]

(2) ISO Trots call Trump 'Monster', ponder "the irretrievable racism of
all white workers"
https://socialistworker.org/2016/11/09/how-could-this-monster-win

Editorials

How could this monster win?

No one expected Donald Trump to become the Republican nominee, and his
election victory is a bigger shock--but the first step is to understand
why and face it squarely.

November 9, 2016

AN ENDLESS, miserable presidential campaign is over--with the most
miserable result imaginable. [...]

The liberal base of the Democratic Party came through for Clinton.
According to exit poll data, she won 88 percent of the Black vote and 65
percent from Latinos. It was the swing voters who Clinton courted that
stuck with Trump. [...]

Bernie Sanders' left-wing campaign for the Democratic presidential
nomination nearly upset Clinton by making an appeal to workers to
challenge what he called the "billionaire class." Clinton, who has spent
her political career ingratiating herself to that class, managed to bury
Sanders' message--and rather than continue his "political revolution,"
Sanders abandoned his opposition to whip up support for Clinton.

Clinton and Sanders and much of the rest of the political establishment,
some Republicans included, criticized Trump's ugly outrages. But because
they never acknowledged the real economic grievances that he built his
campaign around, they left the way clear for Trump to channel legitimate
bitterness into scapegoating and scaremongering.

Even when Clinton did counter Trump's racism, woman-hating,
immigrant-bashing and Islamophobia, it rang hollow. As a personification
of the insider Washington political establishment, Clinton bears
responsibility--often directly--for policies that led to the mass
incarceration of African American men, the sweeping deportation of
immigrants and endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that have fueled
anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bigotry. [...]

THE CONVENTIONAL media wisdom was stunned by this outcome, and so there
will be a scramble for simple answers to explain away Election 2016: a
fundamentally conservative population; the irretrievable racism of all
white workers; even the impact of the Green Party's Jill Stein, whose
"crime" was to rightly insist that the greater evil can't be stopped by
championing the lesser evil.

We should refuse to accept those simple answers. One of the first
challenges for the left will be to explain what happened in all its
complexity. But there are many more challenges to come.

As the radical left warned, in defiance of calls for moderation from
liberals, the right wing has been emboldened by Trumpism and needs to be
confronted. But we can't let the people most responsible for this mess
point the finger at the most reactionary bigots. Hillary Clinton, Barack
Obama and the Democratic Party need to answer for why they had nothing
to offer as an alternative to Trump's scapegoating.

We have a lot of work to do, starting today, to build a real left
alternative that recognizes the misery and suffering so many people
endure; that confronts these conditions politically and practically; and
that builds organization capable of turning the tide.

Large numbers of people are already horrified by Trump and will be
determined to take action to show their opposition. More will be spurred
to act by the inevitable outrages of an arrogant right wing that
oversteps--that's a lesson from all of the right's victories in recent
elections. In the end, at least some of those who voted for Trump will
come to understand that they abhor what he stands for.

But for now, we need to start building that resistance from the ground
up. The first step is to understand the lessons and implications of this
election and face them squarely--and then we move on from there.

(3) The (Rothschild) Economist calls Trump 'Malign'

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21709551-good-people-have-been-frightened-and-angered-backing-dangerous-man-donald-trump

Donald Trump, vigilante

Good people have been frightened and angered into backing a dangerous man

Nov 5th 2016 | From the print edition

ON NOVEMBER 8th around 60m Americans are likely to cast ballots for
Donald Trump to be president. That will present the country with a
puzzle. If nearly a quarter of the adult population are Trump-backers,
many good people will have ended up supporting a bad man. [...]

Having painted the established order as an assault on all that America
cherishes, however, Mr Trump’s rivals offered only a reshuffling of
political leaders in Washington as their solution. Mr Trump proposed
something much more stirring: to take protection of the homeland into
his own hands, as a sort of vigilante strongman. "I alone can fix it,"
as he told the Republican National Convention. "I am your voice." That
is one reason why so many will forgive his boorishness, his refusal to
release his tax returns, his praise for sundry foreign autocrats and
other flaws that would normally doom a presidential nominee. Supporters
hear a presidential candidate talking of the need for desperate measures
in the name of self-defence, and that resonates. As a result, they judge
him as they would judge themselves, should they hear window-glass
shattering in the dead of night. Such voters will not easily be stood
down, however this election ends. Mr Trump’s malign influence will not
quickly fade.

(4) Stunning Repudiation of the Establishment - NYT (telling the truth
for once)
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-president.html

Donald Trump Is Elected President in Stunning Repudiation of the
Establishment

By MATT FLEGENHEIMER and MICHAEL BARBARONOV. 9, 2016

Donald John Trump was elected the 45th president of the United States on
Tuesday in a stunning culmination of an explosive, populist and
polarizing campaign that took relentless aim at the institutions and
long-held ideals of American democracy.

The surprise outcome, defying late polls that showed Hillary Clinton
with a modest but persistent edge, threatened convulsions throughout the
country and the world, where skeptics had watched with alarm as Mr.
Trump’s unvarnished overtures to disillusioned voters took hold.

The triumph for Mr. Trump, 70, a real estate developer-turned-reality
television star with no government experience, was a powerful rejection
of the establishment forces that had assembled against him, from the
world of business to government, and the consensus they had forged on
everything from trade to immigration.

The results amounted to a repudiation, not only of Mrs. Clinton, but of
President Obama, whose legacy is suddenly imperiled. And it was a
decisive demonstration of power by a largely overlooked coalition of
mostly blue-collar white and working-class voters who felt that the
promise of the United States had slipped their grasp amid decades of
globalization and multiculturalism.

In Mr. Trump, a thrice-married Manhattanite who lives in a
marble-wrapped three-story penthouse apartment on Fifth Avenue, they
found an improbable champion.

"The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no
longer," Mr. Trump told supporters around 3 a.m. at a rally in New York
City, just after Mrs. Clinton called to concede.

In a departure from a blistering campaign in which he repeatedly stoked
division, Mr. Trump sought to do something he had conspicuously avoided
as a candidate: Appeal for unity. [...]

Mr. Trump’s win — stretching across the battleground states of Florida,
North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania — seemed likely to set off
financial jitters and immediate unease among international allies, many
of which were startled when Mr. Trump in his campaign cast doubt on the
necessity of America’s military commitments abroad and its allegiance to
international economic partnerships.

 From the moment he entered the campaign, with a shocking set of claims
that Mexican immigrants were rapists and criminals, Mr. Trump was widely
underestimated as a candidate, first by his opponents for the Republican
nomination and later by Mrs. Clinton, his Democratic rival. His rise was
largely missed by polling organizations and data analysts. And an air of
improbability trailed his campaign, to the detriment of those who
dismissed his angry message, his improvisational style and his appeal to
disillusioned voters.

He suggested remedies that raised questions of constitutionality, like a
ban on Muslims entering the United States.

He threatened opponents, promising lawsuits against news organizations
that covered him critically and women who accused him of sexual assault.
At times, he simply lied.

But Mr. Trump’s unfiltered rallies and unshakable self-regard attracted
a zealous following, fusing unsubtle identity politics with an economic
populism that often defied party doctrine.

His rallies — furious, entertaining, heavy on name-calling and
nationalist overtones — became the nexus of a political movement, with
daily promises of sweeping victory, in the election and otherwise, and
an insistence that the country’s political machinery was "rigged"
against Mr. Trump and those who admired him.

He seemed to embody the success and grandeur that so many of his
followers felt was missing from their own lives — and from the country
itself. And he scoffed at the poll-driven word-parsing ways of modern
politics, calling them a waste of time and money. Instead, he relied on
his gut.

At his victory party at the New York Hilton Midtown, where a raucous
crowd indulged in a cash bar and wore hats bearing his ubiquitous
campaign slogan "Make America Great Again," voters expressed
gratification that their voices had, at last, been heard.

"He was talking to people who weren’t being spoken to," said Joseph
Gravagna, 37, a marketing company owner from Rockland County, N.Y.
"That’s how I knew he was going to win."

For Mrs. Clinton, the defeat signaled an astonishing end to a political
dynasty that has colored Democratic politics for a generation. Eight
years after losing to President Obama in the Democratic primary — and 16
years after leaving the White House for the United States Senate, as
President Bill Clinton exited office — she had seemed positioned to
carry on two legacies: her husband’s and the president’s.

Her shocking loss was a devastating turn for the sprawling world of
Clinton aides and strategists who believed they had built an electoral
machine that would swamp Mr. Trump’s ragtag band of loyal operatives and
family members, many of whom had no experience running a national
campaign. [...]

But over and over, Mrs. Clinton’s weaknesses as a candidate were
exposed. She failed to excite voters hungry for change. She struggled to
build trust with Americans who were baffled by her decision to use a
private email server as secretary of state. And she strained to make a
persuasive case for herself as a champion of the economically
downtrodden after delivering perfunctory paid speeches that earned her
millions of dollars.

The returns Tuesday also amounted to a historic rebuke of the Democratic
Party from the white blue-collar voters who had formed the party base
from the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt to Mr. Clinton’s. Yet Mrs.
Clinton and her advisers had taken for granted that states like Michigan
and Wisconsin would stick with a Democratic nominee, and that she could
repeat Mr. Obama’s strategy of mobilizing the party’s ascendant liberal
coalition rather than pursuing a more moderate course like her husband
did 24 years ago.

But not until these voters were offered a Republican who ran as an
unapologetic populist, railing against foreign trade deals and illegal
immigration, did they move so drastically away from their ancestral
political home. [...]

A version of this article appears in print on November 9, 2016, on page
A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Trump Triumphs.

(5) Deplorables Overthrow the Ruling Elite
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/how-trump-replaced-americas-globalist-consensus-nationalist-18341

How Trump Replaced America's Globalist Consensus With A Nationalist
Sensibility

Trump revealed through his often Quixotic campaign that millions of
Americans agreed with him that the real threat came from the country’s
ruling elites.

Robert W. Merry

November 9, 2016

The old order of American politics crumbled on Tuesday with an election
that signaled an inflection point in the nation’s history. Donald
Trump’s victory, almost universally considered impossible until it
happened, shattered the globalist consensus of America’s governing elite
and replaced it with a nationalist sensibility exemplified in the
slogan, "America First." Never in the country’s history has it seen an
anti-status quo, anti-establishment politician of such force and
effectiveness.

The globalist consensus contained a number of central tenets, all
rejected by Trump. They included:

— We live in a unipolar world, with America at its center as an
"indispensable nation" with an imperative and mandate to dominate events
and developments around the world; spread Western-style democratic
capitalism; and salve the hurts and wounds of humanity in far-flung
precincts of the globe.

— The nation state is in decline and is being replaced by emergent
multinational super-institutions such as the European Union, the United
Nations and, presumably, Hillary Clinton’s proposed "hemispheric common
market," with open trade and open borders.

— The demands of constituent identity groups, based mostly on ethnicity
and gender affiliations, are more important than any concept of national
unity.

— Borders have lost their significance as nationalist sentiments have
receded, and while something probably needs to be done about illegal
immigration, largely to assuage political pressures, there is nothing
essentially wrong with mass immigration.

— Free trade is an imperative in the post-Cold War era of globalization
to lubricate global commerce and spur global prosperity.

— Despite the advent of Islamist radicalism, fueled primarily by intense
anti-Western fervor, there is no reason to believe that large numbers of
Muslims can’t be assimilated into Western societies smoothly without
detriment to those societies.

This globalist consensus was embraced by American presidents from Bush I
to Clinton I to Bush II to Obama and then to Clinton II. It was so
entrenched within the top echelons of American society—the federal
bureaucracy, the media, academia, big corporations, big finance,
Hollywood, think tanks and charitable foundations—that hardly anyone
could conceptualize any serious threat to it. Then Trump attacked it and
marshalled a rowdy following of people bent on upending it. The
globalist sensibility won’t go away, but it now is seriously challenged.
The result is a new fault line in American politics.

The Trump constituency rejects most of the central tenets of the
post-Cold War consensus. Its beliefs include:

— The American experiment in national building, with an attendant
propensity for regime change, has been an utter failure, particularly in
the Middle East, and needs to be replaced.  America must be in the world
but shouldn’t try to dominate it.

— Nationalism is a hallowed sentiment, tied to old-fashioned patriotism,
and shouldn’t be denigrated or rejected.

— Identity group politics is eroding national cohesion and, through
political correctness, is threatening free speech on the country’s
college campuses; that threat will grow throughout society if not checked.

— Borders matter; countries without clearly delineated and enforced
borders soon cease to be countries. Immigration numbers should be
calibrated to ensure smooth absorption and assimilation.

— Free trade, as practiced in the post-Cold War era, is killing us,
hollowing out the country’s industrial base and devastating its middle
class.

— Islamist radicalism represents a serious threat to homeland security,
and it is merely prudent, therefore, to consider adjustments in
immigration policy as one tool in seeking to lessen the threat.

Clearly, a clash is inevitable between the post-Cold War elites and the
Trump constituency. And its intensity was presaged by writer and thinker
Shelby Steele in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal. Steele traced the
emergence over recent decades of the view that America was a
"victimizing nation," tainted by its history, particularly slavery, its
treatment of its native Indian populations, and its diminishment of
women and minorities. This raised a perceived imperative, in the view of
many, that the country must redeem itself from its oppressive past. This
could be done, writes Steele, only through a kind of deference "toward
all groups with any claim to past or present victimization."

But this call for deference assumed a moral high ground—and thus became
a political weapon. From this moral position, the deference cadres could
look down upon those who didn’t embrace the argument and stigmatize them
as "regressive bigots." Writes Steele: "Mrs. Clinton, Democrats and
liberals generally practice combat by stigma." He cites Clinton’s famous
"basket of deplorables," those Trump followers who don’t embrace her
view of America as victimizing nation. They are stigmatized as
"irredeemable," subject to her sense of political correctness. "And
political correctness," says Steele, "functions like a despotic regime."

Then along came Trump, a thoroughly non-deferential figure, "at odds
with every code of decency," who "invoked every possible stigma" and
rejected each with dismissive sneers. "He did much of the dirty work,"
writes Steele, "that millions of Americans wanted to do but lacked the
platform to do." [...]

But Trump revealed through his often Quixotic campaign that millions of
Americans agreed with him that the real threat came from the country’s
ruling elites of both parties who presided over national decline and
economic inertia, failed to secure the country’s borders, got America
mired in unceasing Mideast wars, and pursued trade policies viewed as
harmful to the country’s middle class. He galvanized white working class
voters and rural folks throughout the nation, even in traditionally
Democratic states in the Midwest and Great Lakes region, such as
Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio and Pennsylvania. By 2:40 a.m. Eastern time, when
Pennsylvania put Trump over the top in the Electoral College, the
Republican candidate had flipped five major states that had voted for
Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012—Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, and
Pennsylvania. In addition, Michigan and New Hampshire, also Obama states
in the two previous elections, teetered between the two candidates as
votes were counted late into the night.

Trump was particularly strong among whites without college degrees,
expanding his margin of victory with this voter segment to nearly 40
percentage points from just 25 percentage points in 2004. Whites with
college degrees remained with the GOP but by a much smaller margin than
in previous years. Wealthy Americans shifted away from the Republican
Party in significant numbers.

All this suggested the possibility of a serious realignment in American
politics, with more wealthy voters (educated suburbanites, Country Club
types, urban dwellers) moving toward the Democrats and with working
class Americans (once the bedrock of the Democrats’ old FDR coalition)
shifting to the GOP. [...]

(6) Trump will change the Supreme Court - The (Rothschild) Economist

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/11/nominator-chief

How the Supreme Court will change under President Trump

Nov 9th 2016, 11:37 by S.M. | NEW YORK

THERE are two ways to think about the future of the Supreme Court in the
wake of last night’s stunning upset in the presidential race: taking
Donald Trump at his word when he says he will load the bench with
conservatives, or, in view of his penchant for changing his mind, taking
these promises with a shaker full of salt. Neither offers much solace to
liberals.

Mr Trump has pledged to appoint highly conservative justices who will
uphold gun rights, walk back the 18-month-old decision allowing gays and
lesbians to wed and "automatically" overturn Roe v Wade, the 1971 ruling
recognising a right to abortion choice. On the campaign trail, Mr Trump
provided more information about his intentions with regard to the
nation’s highest court than any presidential candidate has ever
divulged: not one list of potential nominees but two, totalling 21 souls
he says merit a shot in one of the Supreme Court’s nine seats.

That is 21 more names than previous applicants for the White
House—including Hillary Clinton—have made public. Mr Trump released his
first list of 11 names in May to shore up support for his budding
nomination and to reassure conservatives that he could take just as hard
a line on replacing Antonin Scalia, the arch-conservative justice who
died in February, as his nearest rival, Ted Cruz. Publicising the
roster, which was curated with the help of the Federalist Society and
the Heritage Foundation, two solidly conservative think tanks, was a
highly unorthodox move, and it’s likely Mr Trump knew very little about
any of the potential nominees. But the stunt had its intended effect:
the conservative base coalesced around Mr Trump and the real-estate
magnate took the mantle of the Republican party.

The original Trump Eleven were all white judges, six sitting on federal
circuit courts and five on state supreme courts. In line with what would
become a promise to "drain the swamp" in the final weeks of his
campaign, none hailed from inside the Washington beltway. That is a
remarkable slight to the DC Court of Appeals, an institution where many
presidents have fished for nominees. Of the eight justices currently on
the Supreme Court, three once served on the DC court: the liberal Ruth
Bader Ginsburg and conservatives Clarence Thomas and John Roberts, the
chief. Barack Obama’s pick to replace Mr Scalia, Merrick Garland, is the
DC circuit court’s chief judge.

Late in September, Mr Trump added ten more potential picks to his
Supreme Court wish list. This list was more diverse. It included more
women and three people of colour, including Amul Thapar, a Detroit-born
judge of South Asian descent; Federico Moreno, a Florida judge who hails
from Venezuela; and Robert Young, the black chief of Michigan’s supreme
court. It also featured Mike Lee, a senator from Utah who refused to
endorse Mr Trump and who called on him to quit the race following
revelations about his treatment of women in October. Mr Lee has said he
is happy serving in the Senate and is not interested in taking a seat on
the Supreme Court.

Nobody knows who Mr Trump will actually tap for Mr Scalia’s empty seat.
Mr Trump himself might have little clue. In the course of his business
career, the president-elect has shown a remarkable ability to dodge and
parry and reverse himself on everything from the war in Iraq to
immigration policy to Mr Obama’s birthplace. Notably, Mr Trump never
said he would choose one of the 21 people on his lists: he said the
names should be viewed as "a guide" he would consult when sitting down
to make his selection. They are "representative of the kind of
constitutional principles I value", he said. Time will tell whether
those principles make their way into an actual Trump nominee.

But with Republicans in control of both houses of Congress and the White
House, there is only one barrier to Mr Trump seating a justice of his
choice: the Senate filibuster, a maneouver that permits the minority
party to prolong debate and block votes as long as the majority is
weaker than 60 votes. Senate leaders told The Economist over the summer
that this last line of defence will be erased no matter which party
takes the chamber in the November election. With their successful
nine-month stonewall of Mr Garland now looking like a brilliant move to
preserve a half-century-long conservative tilt on the Supreme Court,
Republicans will have no reason to bow to a Senate rule that hamstrings
their new president. Expect the filibuster to dissolve and Mr Trump to
have his way with the empty chair—one way or another.

Meanwhile, last night’s vote may have changed retirement plans for Ruth
Bader Ginsburg, 83 and Stephen Breyer, 78, the elder liberals on a court
that is destined to swing to the right. If they hang up their robes over
the next four years, the Supreme Court may be unrecognisable a
generation down the road.