Is it safe to come out yet?

There are still a few rocks hitting the ground, but the wailing and rending of garments seems to be fading out. I really was intending to say not one damn word about you-know-what, and keep my thoughts entirely to myself, but I suppose I have at least to say something about why I felt like this. Anyway this blog does emit the occasional parp about politics, so here we go.

The first thing is, I live in the UK, I do not live in the flaming United States. Why the hell should I be expected to have an intense interest in the minutiae of their bloody election and follow all the day-to-day yelps and growls of the process? Yes, the result is relevant to the whole world, and hence to me, because one needs to have a good general idea of what is happening globally as one of the factors in making one’s own future plans. It would be foolish to be indifferent to the result but there was no point at all in getting all worked up about a process whose eventual result I have no possibility whatsoever of affecting. The sight of so many British citizens expressing forceful public opinions about the US election and then joining in the post-result keening and moaning led me to the dark suspicion that at least a few people might have been using it as mere emotional pornography. An election is not the cup final.

The second thing is that I have previously noticed that US citizens can get all shirty when us Brits start joining in with their elections. Back at the start of the eighties I recall a USian grad student of my acquaintance getting all pouty and upset at British people expressing dismay and fearfulness about Reagan’s election. I thought this was a bit oversensitive, but later it occurred to me that the President, as well as having an executive function, is also the head of state – basically they are the Queen, and really, you shouldn’t diss somebody’s queen. (Viewed purely as the symbolic embodiment of the state, Reagan was actually a good choice. Just a pity he had a bit of real power as well). I finally understood properly how she must have felt when I came across USians pompously “congratulating” us on our recent referendum result. Piss off, you know nothing about it!

Which brings me to the third thing. Of course this Trump fellow seems a ghastly prospect, but really, what do I know? What I have been following, is not so much the BBC and the guardian, but the comments on John Michael Greer’s blog, because they are from people with an actual vote in the election, and who are usually pretty articulate. Two points – neither of which I could have gleaned from the British media – became clear. The first is how much Hilary Clinton is hated – loathed is probably a better term – much more so than can be accounted for by misogyny alone. The commentariat was by no means one-sided and some cogent arguments were presented by those who were voting for her – but it was “voting” rather than “supporting” if you see what I mean. What was also enlightening were the reasons given for this negativity – most prominently that her record showed her to be dangerously hawkish and that she would continue business-as-usual – increasing foreign intervention, increasing wealth disparity, nice words about sustainability but no effective action, and so on.

The second point which I wouldn’t have picked up from the British media is that there was a non-stupid, non-racist, non-whateverist, case for voting for DT. In its simplest form this amounted to “better the devil you don’t know” – in other words, if HC has a record as a politician which you think bad, and DT has no record at all, then you have no real idea of what he’ll do, and at least there’s a a chance of things being different, and if they are different then there is a chance of them being better. That seems a fair enough argument to me – in desperate situations, gambling can be a rational choice. I note that Andrew Rawnsley has just said something similar but only after the fact:

A big chunk of the electorate in western democracies are, for various reasons, so discontented that they are willing to blow up conventional politics – if only to see what happens next. A lot of Trump voters told pollsters they didn’t think he was fit to be president, but put him there anyway.

A strange thing (among all the other strange things) is that the wailers and moaners seem to imagine that DT will necessarily do what he says. Isn’t it obvious that he was just saying whatever he thought would get a response? Some of his remarks contradicted each other and even amongst more reputable politicians, haven’t you noticed that they don’t (or can’t) always do what they said they were going to? There are a few articles out there arguing that some of the things DT is accused of were themselves simply made up (this one is widely cited, but there are others). Really, I’m not expressing a substantive opinion about the US election: I’m saying that I’m agnostic in the original sense, not only do I not know, but I cannot know what is going to happen. What I do know is that politics is a messy, incoherent, pragmatic and confused business: the ‘art of the possible’ as Harold Wilson put it. Therefore investing any emotion in the result is a complete waste of energy and probably some sort of displacement activity.

So my final point is that there is no point in being either pessimistic or optimistic because (again) we really do not know what will happen. To quote my earlier post:

Whatever nice plan you have (“we could meet all the worlds energy needs if only we spent enough money on …”) you can be sure it won’t work out quite as you thought. On the other hand, silk purses do sometimes emerge from the sows ears of apparently disastrous decisions

Clive Lord (revered elder of the Green Party) has a couple of recent posts speculating how a silk purse could emerge from this particular sows ear – whatever else DT may or may not be, he isn’t an ideological neoliberal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *