{"id":9664,"date":"2016-03-20T06:10:15","date_gmt":"2016-03-20T10:10:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/wavechronicle.com\/wave\/?p=9664"},"modified":"2016-03-18T20:41:20","modified_gmt":"2016-03-19T00:41:20","slug":"the-us-two-party-system-made-donald-trumps-fascist-campaign-possible-g-stolyarov-ii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/wavechronicle.com\/wave\/?p=9664","title":{"rendered":"The US Two-Party System Made Donald Trump\u2019s Fascist Campaign Possible \u2013 G. Stolyarov II"},"content":{"rendered":"

It is disconcerting to watch as the front-runner for the 2016 Republican Presidential nomination in the United States espouses a genuinely fascistic agenda \u2013 not just from in terms of protectionism, economic nationalism, militarism, and the desire to centrally plan economic greatness \u2013 but also in terms the overtly uglier sides of historical fascism: the xenophobia, racism, advocacy of torture and blood guilt, desire to silence political opponents, and incitements to violence against protesters and dissenters. Yet this is precisely what Donald Trump has done, unleashing the long-dormant worst tendencies of American politics. He has emboldened the crudest, least enlightened, most hide-bound enemies of tolerance, cosmopolitanism, and liberty to emerge from well-deserved disgrace to fuel the campaign of a cynical, unprincipled opportunist who thrives by pandering to their lowest impulses. Trump is vulgar, volatile, and unhinged. He has already turned his rallies into miniature versions of the police state he would create if elected \u2013 evicting even protesters who simply stand there with signs or clothing that express disagreement with Trump, or even individuals who attract the ire of the frenzied Trumpists for having the \u201cwrong\u201d color of skin<\/span><\/a> or the \u201cwrong\u201d incidental expressions. Because of a bizarre law<\/span><\/a> (H. R. 347, enacted in 2012), it is illegal to protest inside Trump rallies (or rallies of any candidate that receives Secret Service protection), so Trump is already utilizing coercive police powers to suppress dissent.<\/p>\n

Though it may be alleged that economic fascism has characterized America\u2019s \u201cmixed economy\u201d since at least the New Deal of the 1930s, the resurgence of cultural fascism <\/em>would have been unthinkable even during the 2012 Presidential Election. Mitt Romney, who seemed to me at the time<\/span><\/a> to represent a paradigm of crony capitalism that inched toward overarching totalitarianism, now appears to be a gentleman and an intellectual \u2013 a voice of reason, class, and prudence in his eloquent denunciation of Donald Trump<\/span><\/a>. Romney, as President, would have been unlikely to avert an incremental descent into fascism (although, in retrospect, he seems to be a decent human being), and his own candidacy was marred by manipulations at various State Republican Conventions, but, compared to Trump, Romney is a model of civility and good sense. Romney, if elected, would primarily have been the next status-quo President, overseeing a deeply flawed and deteriorating but endurable economic, political, and civil-liberties situation. Trump, however, would plunge the United States into an abyss where the remnants of personal liberty will suffocate.<\/p>\n

And yet the manipulations that occurred in 2012 to aid Romney paved the way for a Trump candidacy and its widely perceived \u201cunstoppable\u201d momentum. (Let us hope that this perception is premature!) I was a delegate to the Nevada State Republican Convention in 2012, where I helped elect a pro-Ron Paul delegation to the Republican National Convention. However, upon learning of the events at the National Convention, I became forever disillusioned with the ability of the Republican Party to become receptive to the advocacy of individual freedom. I wrote<\/span><\/a> after Romney\u2019s electoral defeat that<\/p>\n

the rule change<\/span><\/a> enacted by the party establishment at the National Convention, over the vociferous objections of the majority of delegates there, has permanently turned the Republican Party into an oligarchy where the delegates and decision-makers will henceforth be picked by the \u2018front-runner\u2019 in any future Presidential contest. Gone are the days when people like me could, through grass-roots activism and participation at successive levels of the party conventions, become delegates to a state convention<\/span><\/a> and exert some modicum of influence over how the party is governed and intellectually inclined.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Republican Party establishment intended its rule change to prevent the ability of motivated grass-roots activists to elect delegates at State Conventions who would vote against the \u201cpresumptive nominee\u201d and in favor of an upstart \u2013 presumably more libertarian \u2013 contender such as Ron Paul. Little did the establishment expect that this rule change would prevent its own <\/em>favored candidates from effectively contesting Donald Trump\u2019s nomination if Trump continues to win popular votes, especially in \u201cwinner-take-all\u201d primaries, and approaches a majority of the total delegates. The most that the Republican Party elites can hope for now is that a candidate such as Ted Cruz eventually overtakes Trump, or that the remaining candidates \u2013 Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich \u2013 split enough of the delegates to deny Trump the majority and lead to a brokered convention. But as the narrative of inevitability continues to be spun in Trump\u2019s favor and he amasses prominent endorsements and even promises from the other candidates that they would support him if he were the nominee, these damage-control plans seem quite vulnerable. Blind party loyalty, combined with a bandwagon mentality, appears to be driving the Republican establishment to a reluctant capitulation to Trump \u2013 which would be political suicide, but they are apt to do it anyway.<\/p>\n

If Trump trumps the old Republican Party establishment, however, this would be nothing to cheer. It would be a replacement of a defunct, cronyist, and backroom-dealing oligarchy \u2013 but one considerably tempered by satiation from its own decades of comfortable dominance and the remaining checks and balances of the political system \u2013 with a vicious, crass, completely unrestrained new oligarchy headed by Trump himself, and fueled by populistic pandering to masses about whom Trump personally could not care less. Trump asserts that he is incorruptible because he is funding his own campaign. However, the truth is that he does not need to pay anyone off for special political privileges, because he is<\/em> the special interest that would be garnering the favors during \u201cnormal times\u201d. If elected, he will simply do so without the intermediaries of the traditional political class. As Jeffrey Tucker eloquently explains<\/span><\/a>,<\/p>\n

many have fallen for Donald Trump\u2019s claim that he deserves support solely because he owes nothing to anyone. Therefore, he is not part of the establishment. Why is that good for liberty? He has said nothing<\/em> about dismantling power. [\u2026] He wants surveillance, controls on the internet, religious tests for migration, war-like tariffs, industrial planning, and autocratic foreign-policy power. He\u2019s praised police power and toyed with ideas such as internment and killings of political enemies. His entire governing philosophy boils down to arbitrary, free-wheeling authoritarianism<\/span><\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Yet the biggest underlying facilitator of Trump\u2019s frightening rise is the very two-party political system in the United States. Had the ballot-access laws not been rigged against \u201cthird\u201d political parties and independent candidates, and had representation been determined on a proportional rather than a \u201cwinner-take-all\u201d basis, there would have been genuine alternatives for voters to choose from. At present, however, every recent election season has degenerated into a spectacle of demonizing \u201cthe other side\u201d \u2013 even if that side is just a different wing of the same political establishment. Far too many people vote for \u201cthe lesser evil\u201d in their view, rather than the candidate with whom they agree most (who will most likely be a minor-party or independent candidate, since both the Republican and Democratic Parties are widely perceived as ineffectual and misguided once actually in power). Instead of evaluating specific candidates based on their stances on the issues as well as their personal record of integrity (or lack thereof), too many voters have learned to viscerally hate \u201cthe other\u201d party\u2019s brand and exhibit unconditional loyalty to their own. During the primary process, even voters who prefer the candidates who did not become the nominee will often capitulate and embrace a deeply flawed frontrunner. If too many Republican voters come to believe that Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders would be intolerable choices for President, then they may come to rally behind Trump even if they personally would have preferred Rubio, Cruz, or Kasich \u2013 and that is how a fascistic campaign could elicit the support of even the many non-fascists who simply cannot distance themselves from the \u201cR\u201d next to a candidate\u2019s name.<\/p>\n

The only way in the long term to defeat Trump and those like him (because, in the wake of Trump\u2019s bewildering popularity, others will emerge to imitate his tactics) is to renounce the two-party political system and judge each candidate solely on his or her policies, record, and personal merits or demerits. As I pointed out in 2012 in \u201cOn Moral Responsibility in General and in the Context of Voting<\/span><\/a>\u201d,<\/p>\n

The most reliable way to avoid adverse moral responsibility in voting is to vote for a candidate whom one considers to be an improvement over the status quo in absolute, not relative, terms \u2013 and without regard for how others might vote. Morality is not based on consensus, but on objective truth. One\u2019s own understanding of objective truth, and the continual pursuit of improving that understanding, is the best path to moral action and the habits of thought that facilitate it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

More recently, in 2015, I explained that<\/p>\n

voters who are caught in the expectations trap will tend to vote for the \u201clesser evil\u201d (in their view) from one party, because they tend to think that the consequences of the election of the candidate from the other party will be dire indeed, and they do not want to \u201ctake their vote away\u201d from the slightly less objectionable candidate. This thinking rests on the false assumption that a single individual\u2019s vote, especially in a national election, can actually sway the outcome. Given that the probabilities of this occurring are negligible, the better choice \u2013 the choice consistent with individual autonomy and the pursuit of principle \u2013 is to vote solely<\/em> based on one\u2019s preference, without any regard for how others will vote or how the election will turn out.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Had Trump been one candidate among tens of independent contenders, he would have been rightly recognized as a demagogue whose base of support is a xenophobic, poorly educated fringe. Had numerous political parties been able to compete without major barriers to entry, today\u2019s \u201cmoderate\u201d establishment Republicans and movement conservatives would have had no need to fight with Trump over a particular party\u2019s nomination, since they \u2013 having little in common \u2013 would have likely fielded multiple candidates of their own from multiple parties. As it stands now, however, the two-party system has destroyed the checks that would exist in a truly politically competitive system to prevent a fascistic demagogue\u2019s meteoric rise. Only the consciences of voters stand between Trump and the Republican nomination, as well as the Presidency. Now, more than ever, it is imperative to vote solely <\/em>on principle and escape the \u201clesser evil\u201d trap, lest the greater evil of untrammeled illiberalism trap us forever.<\/p>\n

Original Link To Article.<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

This essay may be freely reproduced using the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike International 4.0 License, which requires that credit be given to the author, G. Stolyarov II. Find out about Mr. Stolyarov<\/strong> here<\/span><\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

It is disconcerting to watch as the front-runner for the 2016 Republican Presidential nomination in the United States espouses a genuinely fascistic agenda \u2013 not just from in terms of protectionism, economic nationalism, militarism, and the desire to centrally plan economic greatness \u2013 but also in terms the overtly uglier sides of historical fascism: the xenophobia, racism, advocacy of torture and blood guilt, desire to silence political opponents, and incitements to violence against protesters and dissenters. Yet this is precisely what Donald Trump has done, unleashing the long-dormant worst tendencies of American politics. He has emboldened the crudest, least enlightened, most hide-bound enemies of tolerance, cosmopolitanism, and liberty to emerge from well-deserved disgrace to fuel the campaign of a cynical, unprincipled opportunist who thrives by pandering to their lowest impulses. Trump is vulgar, volatile, and unhinged. He has already turned his rallies into miniature versions of the police state he would create if elected \u2013 evicting even protesters who simply stand there with signs or clothing that express disagreement with Trump, or even individuals who attract the ire of the frenzied Trumpists for having the \u201cwrong\u201d color of skin or the \u201cwrong\u201d incidental expressions. Because of a bizarre law (H. R. 347, enacted in 2012), it is illegal to protest inside Trump rallies (or rallies of any candidate that receives Secret Service protection), so Trump is already utilizing coercive police powers to suppress dissent. Though it may be alleged that economic fascism has characterized America\u2019s \u201cmixed economy\u201d since at least the New Deal of the 1930s, the resurgence of cultural fascism would have been unthinkable even during the 2012 Presidential Election. Mitt Romney, who seemed to me at the time to represent a paradigm of crony capitalism that inched toward overarching totalitarianism, now appears to be a gentleman and an intellectual \u2013 a voice of reason, class, and prudence in his eloquent denunciation of Donald Trump. Romney, as President, would have been unlikely to avert an incremental descent into fascism (although, in retrospect, he seems to be a decent human being), and his own candidacy was marred by manipulations at various State Republican Conventions, but, compared to Trump, Romney is a model of civility and good sense. Romney, if elected, would primarily have been the next status-quo President, overseeing a deeply flawed and deteriorating but endurable economic, political, and civil-liberties situation. Trump, however, would plunge the United States into an abyss where the remnants of personal liberty will suffocate. And yet the manipulations that occurred in 2012 to aid Romney paved the way for a Trump candidacy and its widely perceived \u201cunstoppable\u201d momentum. (Let us hope that this perception is premature!) I was a delegate to the Nevada State Republican Convention in 2012, where I helped elect a pro-Ron Paul delegation to the Republican National Convention. However, upon learning of the events at the National Convention, I became forever disillusioned with the ability of the Republican Party to become receptive to the advocacy of individual freedom. I wrote after Romney\u2019s electoral defeat that the rule change enacted by the party establishment at the National Convention, over the vociferous objections of the majority of delegates there, has permanently turned the Republican Party into an oligarchy where the delegates and decision-makers will henceforth be picked by the \u2018front-runner\u2019 in any future Presidential contest. Gone are the days when people like me could, through grass-roots activism and participation at successive levels of the party conventions, become delegates to a state convention and exert some modicum of influence over how the party is governed and intellectually inclined. The Republican Party establishment intended its rule change to prevent the ability of motivated grass-roots activists to elect delegates at State Conventions who would vote against the \u201cpresumptive nominee\u201d and in favor of an upstart \u2013 presumably more libertarian \u2013 contender such as Ron Paul. Little did the establishment expect that this rule change would prevent its own favored candidates from effectively contesting Donald Trump\u2019s nomination if Trump continues to win popular votes, especially in \u201cwinner-take-all\u201d primaries, and approaches a majority of the total delegates. The most that the Republican Party elites can hope for now is that a candidate such as Ted Cruz eventually overtakes Trump, or that the remaining candidates \u2013 Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich \u2013 split enough of the delegates to deny Trump the majority and lead to a brokered convention. But as the narrative of inevitability continues to be spun in Trump\u2019s favor and he amasses prominent endorsements and even promises from the other candidates that they would support him if he were the nominee, these damage-control plans seem quite vulnerable. Blind party loyalty, combined with a bandwagon mentality, appears to be driving the Republican establishment to a reluctant capitulation to Trump \u2013 which would be political suicide, but they are apt to do it anyway. If Trump trumps the old Republican Party establishment, however, this would be nothing to cheer. It would be a replacement of a defunct, cronyist, and backroom-dealing oligarchy \u2013 but one considerably tempered by satiation from its own decades of comfortable dominance and the remaining checks and balances of the political system \u2013 with a vicious, crass, completely unrestrained new oligarchy headed by Trump himself, and fueled by populistic pandering to masses about whom Trump personally could not care less. Trump asserts that he is incorruptible because he is funding his own campaign. However, the truth is that he does not need to pay anyone off for special political privileges, because he is the special interest that would be garnering the favors during \u201cnormal times\u201d. If elected, he will simply do so without the intermediaries of the traditional political class. As Jeffrey Tucker eloquently explains, many have fallen for Donald Trump\u2019s claim that he deserves support solely because he owes nothing to anyone. Therefore, he is not part of the establishment. Why is that good for liberty? He has said nothing about dismantling power. [\u2026] He wants surveillance, controls on the internet, religious tests for migration, war-like tariffs, industrial planning, and autocratic foreign-policy power. He\u2019s praised police power and toyed with ideas such as internment and killings of political enemies. His entire governing philosophy boils down to arbitrary, free-wheeling authoritarianism. Yet the biggest underlying facilitator of Trump\u2019s frightening rise is the very two-party political system in the United States. Had the ballot-access laws not been rigged against \u201cthird\u201d political parties and independent candidates, and had representation been determined on a proportional rather than a \u201cwinner-take-all\u201d basis, there would have been genuine alternatives for voters to choose from. At present, however, every recent election season has degenerated into a spectacle of demonizing \u201cthe other side\u201d \u2013 even if that side is just a different wing of the same political establishment. Far too many people vote for \u201cthe lesser evil\u201d in their view, rather than the candidate with whom they agree most (who will most likely be a minor-party or independent candidate, since both the Republican and Democratic Parties are widely perceived as ineffectual and misguided once actually in power). Instead of evaluating specific candidates based on their stances on the issues as well as their personal record of integrity (or lack thereof), too many voters have learned to viscerally hate \u201cthe other\u201d party\u2019s brand and exhibit unconditional loyalty to their own. During the primary process, even voters who prefer the candidates who did not become the nominee will often capitulate and embrace a deeply flawed frontrunner. If too many Republican voters come to believe that Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders would be intolerable choices for President, then they may come to rally behind Trump even if they personally would have preferred Rubio, Cruz, or Kasich \u2013 and that is how a fascistic campaign could elicit the support of even the many non-fascists who simply cannot distance themselves from the \u201cR\u201d next to a candidate\u2019s name. The only way in the long term to defeat Trump and those like him (because, in the wake of Trump\u2019s bewildering popularity, others will emerge to imitate his tactics) is to renounce the two-party political system and judge each candidate solely on his or her policies, record, and personal merits or demerits. As I pointed out in 2012 in \u201cOn Moral Responsibility in General and in the Context of Voting\u201d, The most reliable way to avoid adverse moral responsibility in voting is to vote for a candidate whom one considers to be an improvement over the status quo in absolute, not relative, terms \u2013 and without regard for how others might vote. Morality is not based on consensus, but on objective truth. One\u2019s own understanding of objective truth, and the continual pursuit of improving that understanding, is the best path to moral action and the habits of thought that facilitate it. More recently, in 2015, I explained that voters who are caught in the expectations trap will tend to vote for the \u201clesser evil\u201d (in their view) from one party, because they tend to think that the consequences of the election of the candidate from the other party will be dire indeed, and they do not want to \u201ctake their vote away\u201d from the slightly less objectionable candidate. This thinking rests on the false assumption that a single individual\u2019s vote, especially in a national election, can actually sway the outcome. Given that the probabilities of this occurring are negligible, the better choice \u2013 the choice consistent with individual autonomy and the pursuit of principle \u2013 is to vote solely based on one\u2019s preference, without any regard for how others will vote or how the election will turn out. Had Trump been one candidate among tens of independent contenders, he would have been rightly recognized as a demagogue whose base of support is a xenophobic, poorly educated fringe. Had numerous political parties been able to compete without major barriers to entry, today\u2019s \u201cmoderate\u201d establishment Republicans and movement conservatives would have had no need to fight with Trump over a particular party\u2019s nomination, since they \u2013 having little in common \u2013 would have likely fielded multiple candidates of their own from multiple parties. As it stands now, however, the two-party system has destroyed the checks that would exist in a truly politically competitive system to prevent a fascistic demagogue\u2019s meteoric rise. Only the consciences of voters stand between Trump and the Republican nomination, as well as the Presidency. Now, more than ever, it is imperative to vote solely on principle and escape the \u201clesser evil\u201d trap, lest the greater evil of untrammeled illiberalism trap us forever. Original Link To Article. This essay may be freely reproduced using the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike International 4.0 License, which requires that credit be given to the author, G. Stolyarov II. Find out about Mr. Stolyarov here.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":599,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1,683],"tags":[902,903,904,905,906,907,891,908,909,84,51,443,910,911,912,913,914,915,916,917,918,919,920,921,922,305,192,193],"class_list":["post-9664","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-activism","category-activism-usa","tag-bernie-sanders","tag-brokered-convention","tag-campaign","tag-convention","tag-delegates","tag-donald-trump","tag-election","tag-establishment","tag-fascism","tag-feature","tag-g-stolyarov-ii","tag-hillary-clinton","tag-illiberalism","tag-john-kasich","tag-lesser-evil","tag-marco-rubio","tag-mitt-romney","tag-political-party","tag-president","tag-primaries","tag-principle","tag-protest","tag-protesters","tag-ted-cruz","tag-two-party-system","tag-united-states","tag-vote","tag-voting"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/wavechronicle.com\/wave\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9664","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/wavechronicle.com\/wave\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/wavechronicle.com\/wave\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/wavechronicle.com\/wave\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/wavechronicle.com\/wave\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=9664"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"http:\/\/wavechronicle.com\/wave\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9664\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9668,"href":"http:\/\/wavechronicle.com\/wave\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9664\/revisions\/9668"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/wavechronicle.com\/wave\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/599"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/wavechronicle.com\/wave\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9664"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/wavechronicle.com\/wave\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9664"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/wavechronicle.com\/wave\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9664"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}