In desperate times, people do desperate things. Trump had spoken directly to people who had felt left behind and abandoned by the globalised, liberal world.
Over a week has passed since Donald Trump was elected President of the United States. And it still hasn’t sunk in fully. That morning, watching his victory speech was one of those surreal moments you just sit there thinking "this is real?". It seemed I was watching a film, not reality. How could it be that America conceivably make the decision to elect this man as President of their country? Had things really gone that badly? As this article discusses, the tides of change are in the air in the Western world, and those seen as the vehicles of that change are taking us down a worrying road.
Over a week has passed since Donald Trump was elected President of the United States. And it still hasn’t sunk in fully. That morning, watching his victory speech was one of those surreal moments you just sit there thinking "this is real?". It seemed I was watching a film, not reality. How could it be that America conceivably make the decision to elect this man as President of their country? Had things really gone that badly? As this article discusses, the tides of change are in the air in the Western world, and those seen as the vehicles of that change are taking us down a worrying road.
The morning after the Brexit results left a deep feeling of disappointment, shock and anger. It was that moment where you felt let down by the voting public. Had people really bought in to the rhetoric about fear of immigration, about Turkey being welcomed into the EU and that we would be better, and safer, closing our borders. Nigel Farage had almost single handily got his wish and convinced 17m people in the UK that out was better. It sent shockwaves across the country, Europe and the world. What had the UK just done? De-stablise the world is what.
The elections coincided with the refugee crisis emanating from Syria due to the terrible situation the country had found itself in the past several years. And instead of being open and welcoming, Europe showed fear and trepidation. Fear of terrorism, mainly through the new Western threat ISIS convinced many that helping people in trouble was not as important as the dangers of a terrorist being welcomed in to the country. Right wing media jumped on the fear of the public and pushed the agenda against the refugee crisis and the worries about mass immigration.
Brexit appears to be the catalyst for a right wing conservative movement across the Western world. The era of liberalism appears for some to have gone too far. We have been to lax, to free, to open. We have allowed our values, culture and religion to be under threat. And the worry is that this message speaks to a lot of people. Which is why the election of Donald Trump, which seemed so unlikely, was actually inevitable.
The election of the anti-establishment billionaire
Trump being elected was truly amazing. This is a guy not in politics, who is most famous recently for hosting the US’s version of The Apprentice. He is a celebrity businessman, who in the opinion of many decided to run for President because it may give him some free publicity, at home and abroad, boost his 'brand' and help improve his business interests. It appears that this was not a man who was driven by political motivation or any form of ideology. This is a man who is driven by fame, money and power. And incredibly he has fashioned his way to the top of America.
In terms of what he has achieved you have to commend him, it’s an incredible achievement. Against all the odds and doubters, and all the gaffes he has made, he continued to solider forward, ultimately achieving the unexpected. The question then is, how did he do it against all the odds?
Europe and the West is in the midst of change, in a not too dissimilar way to the Arab Spring of 2011, which saw the ‘people’ take to the streets to overthrow their governments and dictators. There’s a sense that the people in the West have had enough in a similar way. They view their governments and political parties as the same. They see them all as the ‘establishment’, see them cozying up to big businesses and seeing their own wealth grow while they tell their population that they must go into a time of austerity and cost cutting. You can understand people’s frustrations.
In the US election it got to a stage of 'anti-establishment frustration' where it seemed that every celebrity which Clinton showcasted at her rallies, whether Jay-Z, Beyonce, LeBron James or Pharell simply increased the anger towards the establishment. Truth is that these celebrity’s aren’t ‘one of the people’, they are extremely rich people. And people are turning off from them, especially when they cozy up to the establishment candidate. Even though their reasons were I’m sure more bore out about respect for Obama, liberal thinking and concern over the rise of racism and attacks on black people and Muslims across the US, as well of course against Trump and all he stands for.
In retrospect it’s not surprising Hillary Clinton wasn’t elected, not that she was a woman, which could well have affected some people’s vote. But that her history in politics, the years of service – regardless of how much she championed change in that time, all made her look like the poster girl for ‘The Establishment’. Of course the links and concerns with the Clinton Foundation and the money generated for 'talks and speeches' from lucrative business and nations didn't help. And the email issue generated very bad press for her at an awful time, Which may well cost her the nomination.
The truth was that this election was about ‘change’. And while Clinton may well had been an excellent President, she suffered because of how she was perceived. It’s just ironic that this billionaire celebrity can persuade 'the people' that he is the one with their interests at heart and that he is the one who can make the change they want. Donald Trump was lauded as the man to bring about this change. Incredible! But this isn’t or shouldn’t really be a surprise now.
Trump's strategy was excellent, while Clinton's was "I'm not Donald"
After Brexit you can see the change in opinion in the West, you can sense a frustrated part of the population has ‘had enough’ and has found their voice and confidence to stand up - using the only means they really have, their right to vote. As Michael Moore argued in an article a few months back, it was more likely that Trump would win than many believed. The polls got it so badly wrong because people weren’t entirely happy to voice their honest opinion when asked. Yet they would be honest when they stood in the booth on their own.
There was an assumption by many pundits in the media that Trump just wouldn’t get in. Perhaps that was because people just didn't want to believe it could happen. And that's the problem right there. Same as Brexit. People just assumed it wouldn't happen. Which didn't motivate a large part of the population to vote as they just assumed it wouldn't happen. But it did happen. Brexit has started this wave, almost like a domino effect across the West. A radical rise of the right wing conservatives.
It didn’t seem likely that he would actually have enough of a following to win the Presidential election, there was a sense that his newly devoted followers wouldn’t be enough to actually secure the nomination. Yet the problem was that not enough people turned out to campaign against him, or felt motivated enough to vote for Hillary. That’s the truth of it.
Trump got his strategy almost perfect; he focused on the key states which not only would help secure him the nomination, but which were the most desperate for change. The ‘rust-belt’ states had endured times of degradation; factories closed, jobs lost and families struggling. As they report, even middle class (mainly white men) voted for Trump because they saw a future for their kids which worried them. And Clinton wasn’t the solution. But Clinton didn't help herself, effectively stating her position as "I'm not Donald". But that wasn't enough in this election where the voters were looking for something new, even it was false hope.
The truth is that Trump sold a message of change which people wanted to hear. Charlie Beckett of the LSE made the salient point that Trump did what you are supposed to do in an election; "convince people to vote for you". As he says, "Trump had the better politics. Tactically, strategically, personally and policy-wise. He won partly because the Democrats and Hillary Clinton got most of that wrong." But above all he won because "They (and he) knew what they were doing".
Trump trumped Hillary in all areas. Notably social media. He won a key battle in the current world where social media really matters. As The New York Times wrote "For election day influence, Twitter ruled social media. Donald Trump won Twitter, and that was a giveaway that he might win the Presidency."
The media may act surprised, yet they shouldn’t be. They created Trump's ascension to the top of US politics. The whole election from the primaries through to November centred around Trump. He was the most appealing candidate because it seemed so ludicrous. But by giving him airtime, by showing documentaries about his life, upbringing and his business life, the media helped Trump in building his ‘cause’ and creating his following.
While the media felt the more they showed Trump the worse he would look, in fact they were allowing him to spread his message. A message which became more strategic and targeted every time. And when the media felt Trump had gone too far he kept fighting on. Because everytime they reported his speeches and soundbites, he was generating a greater following from the people who he was targeting. Yes he was losing support at a political level and from liberals. But his strategy wasn't about targeting this part of the electorate. And this why he must commended.
His strategy was excellent. By losing the support and gaining more criticism from those in government, those in the ‘establishment’, he was gaining more following from the ‘normal’ Americans who felt abandoned and let down by their government. The media and those critiquing him were actually make him look better and better with the key electorate which his team had strategised would win him The White House.
The insatiable desire for change
They say that when Adolf Hitler was making speeches to crowds Joseph Goebbles would be making notes and judging the reaction from the crowd based on what was said. What generated the most noise, applause and reaction from the crowd would be noted. And then each new speech would hit on these motivators, adding more clarity to the key messages which got the greatest reaction from the crowd. It provided greater impact and clarity in the message. Goebbles and Hiter were feeding off the crowd’s reactions and fuelling the flames. I bring up Hitler not to compare him to Trump in terms of policy or ideology, I am comparing the impact of their speeches in generating hatred and anger.
Trump destroyed his oppoents in the Republican primaries because he was a new and different voice, and a voice that listened to the people. He was also a man who abandoned all form of political tactics, he said what he wanted. And a lot of people loved him for it. His ‘soundbites’ became global news. I bet everyone would be able to quote one of the things Trump had said yet would struggle to know anything that Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio had said. Trump played a new form of politics, the reality TV world version. A worrying sign of the present culture perhaps?
He was unorthodox (to say the least) and yet built his freedom of expression as a critique against the liberal elite and liberal/left media who had created a world of political correctness. He gave himself carte blanche to say whatever he wanted, to do whatever he wanted, and he was loved for it. And whenever he was criticised by those ‘outside’ the cult he was building, those in the media and on the left, he gained greater following from ‘his’ people. Like a cult he fed off the people's insecurities and made himself into their great saviour. He fed off the fuel of negativity aimed towards him, as a way of justifying the elite’s desire to keep him and his followers 'down'. My god they added fuel after fuel to the flames of discontent, which continued to grow in the key areas which Trump and his team had targeted.
Unfortunately Barack Obama’s legacy will be a Donald Trump Presidency. So too the Tea Party movement for the Republicans. Who went so far to the right that they almost destroyed their party. They left the door open to someone like Trump to bulldozer his way through and in. The majority of the Republican part made it clear that they didn’t want Trump and yet incredibly he has gone and delivered a rounding success for the Republican party who now have the White House, Senate and House as well as the pick for Supreme Court.
The problem for Obama is that he was seen as the face of change for America. After the failure of George W. Bush America needed someone new. Competing against Clinton and the potential for a Bush/Clinton era potentially lasting 20 years, in came this young man, full of inspiration, a fantastic orator, an African American. His ascension was wonderful to watch. It felt positive, it felt like a new era was beginning for America and the world.
And yet while Obama’s Presidency contained many positives, it didn’t deliver the ‘change’ which many expected and hoped. Obama was a safe President. He didn't or couldn't change as much as he had hoped or desired. Certainly not as great a change as those who had voted for him hoped he would. Clinton promised a continuation of the Obama era, which unfortunately did not inspire enough people. People didn't want a continuation, they wanted something different. Which is why Bernie Sanders was so popular.
While unemployment has fallen and the economy is a much better position, Obama made some decisions which alienated and annoyed his voters; notably Obamacare and the trade deals he negotiated such as NAFTA and the TPP. Both were seen negatively by many Americans because for them it affected their jobs and lives. Trump embraced this feeling of discontent, notably in the 'rust-belt' and exploited it to it's maximum.
While I do believe that it was Trump’s message of job creation which won him the election in these key states, not racism, sexism or xenophobia, I am still amazed and shocked he actually did it. Yet in desperate times, people do desperate things. And Trump had spoken directly to these blue collar workers, who had felt left behind and abandoned by this globalised world. Do I have any belief that Trump will ‘fix’ the issue for these people? No. He said what people wanted to hear, he garnered their support, and exploited it for votes. Already you see the people he is bringing into his cabinet and worry about what the future holds these next four years. Not just for America, but the world.
A new, worrying era for the West
This is the stat of a new era of politics for the Western world. An era where it appears you can say whatever you want and it not be an issue. It is most certainly the reality TV era of politics. Where a celebrity businessman can say what he wants about women, race and disabled people and not only continue to run and gain crowds, but gather enough votes to become President. My god what type of culture do we now live in the West? The anti-political correctness brigade is growing, and we are seeing and hearing some shocking things happening. This is what these kind of victories and 'politicians' do. They bring out hate in people, condone what comes from it and accept it. And it then becomes the norm.
There’s no doubt that Trump has been a vehicle of change on the political landscape. Like Farage's steady build up of UKIP and the small but significant following he increased with his constant messages of fear about immigration and foreigners, concluding with the hammer blow of a Brexit vote. Which in turn has been the catalyst for what we've seen in America and what we are seeing in France, Holland and across Europe. Trump's strategy was excellent, while Clinton's was "I'm not Donald"
After Brexit you can see the change in opinion in the West, you can sense a frustrated part of the population has ‘had enough’ and has found their voice and confidence to stand up - using the only means they really have, their right to vote. As Michael Moore argued in an article a few months back, it was more likely that Trump would win than many believed. The polls got it so badly wrong because people weren’t entirely happy to voice their honest opinion when asked. Yet they would be honest when they stood in the booth on their own.
There was an assumption by many pundits in the media that Trump just wouldn’t get in. Perhaps that was because people just didn't want to believe it could happen. And that's the problem right there. Same as Brexit. People just assumed it wouldn't happen. Which didn't motivate a large part of the population to vote as they just assumed it wouldn't happen. But it did happen. Brexit has started this wave, almost like a domino effect across the West. A radical rise of the right wing conservatives.
It didn’t seem likely that he would actually have enough of a following to win the Presidential election, there was a sense that his newly devoted followers wouldn’t be enough to actually secure the nomination. Yet the problem was that not enough people turned out to campaign against him, or felt motivated enough to vote for Hillary. That’s the truth of it.
Trump got his strategy almost perfect; he focused on the key states which not only would help secure him the nomination, but which were the most desperate for change. The ‘rust-belt’ states had endured times of degradation; factories closed, jobs lost and families struggling. As they report, even middle class (mainly white men) voted for Trump because they saw a future for their kids which worried them. And Clinton wasn’t the solution. But Clinton didn't help herself, effectively stating her position as "I'm not Donald". But that wasn't enough in this election where the voters were looking for something new, even it was false hope.
The truth is that Trump sold a message of change which people wanted to hear. Charlie Beckett of the LSE made the salient point that Trump did what you are supposed to do in an election; "convince people to vote for you". As he says, "Trump had the better politics. Tactically, strategically, personally and policy-wise. He won partly because the Democrats and Hillary Clinton got most of that wrong." But above all he won because "They (and he) knew what they were doing".
Trump trumped Hillary in all areas. Notably social media. He won a key battle in the current world where social media really matters. As The New York Times wrote "For election day influence, Twitter ruled social media. Donald Trump won Twitter, and that was a giveaway that he might win the Presidency."
The media may act surprised, yet they shouldn’t be. They created Trump's ascension to the top of US politics. The whole election from the primaries through to November centred around Trump. He was the most appealing candidate because it seemed so ludicrous. But by giving him airtime, by showing documentaries about his life, upbringing and his business life, the media helped Trump in building his ‘cause’ and creating his following.
While the media felt the more they showed Trump the worse he would look, in fact they were allowing him to spread his message. A message which became more strategic and targeted every time. And when the media felt Trump had gone too far he kept fighting on. Because everytime they reported his speeches and soundbites, he was generating a greater following from the people who he was targeting. Yes he was losing support at a political level and from liberals. But his strategy wasn't about targeting this part of the electorate. And this why he must commended.
His strategy was excellent. By losing the support and gaining more criticism from those in government, those in the ‘establishment’, he was gaining more following from the ‘normal’ Americans who felt abandoned and let down by their government. The media and those critiquing him were actually make him look better and better with the key electorate which his team had strategised would win him The White House.
The insatiable desire for change
They say that when Adolf Hitler was making speeches to crowds Joseph Goebbles would be making notes and judging the reaction from the crowd based on what was said. What generated the most noise, applause and reaction from the crowd would be noted. And then each new speech would hit on these motivators, adding more clarity to the key messages which got the greatest reaction from the crowd. It provided greater impact and clarity in the message. Goebbles and Hiter were feeding off the crowd’s reactions and fuelling the flames. I bring up Hitler not to compare him to Trump in terms of policy or ideology, I am comparing the impact of their speeches in generating hatred and anger.
Trump destroyed his oppoents in the Republican primaries because he was a new and different voice, and a voice that listened to the people. He was also a man who abandoned all form of political tactics, he said what he wanted. And a lot of people loved him for it. His ‘soundbites’ became global news. I bet everyone would be able to quote one of the things Trump had said yet would struggle to know anything that Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio had said. Trump played a new form of politics, the reality TV world version. A worrying sign of the present culture perhaps?
He was unorthodox (to say the least) and yet built his freedom of expression as a critique against the liberal elite and liberal/left media who had created a world of political correctness. He gave himself carte blanche to say whatever he wanted, to do whatever he wanted, and he was loved for it. And whenever he was criticised by those ‘outside’ the cult he was building, those in the media and on the left, he gained greater following from ‘his’ people. Like a cult he fed off the people's insecurities and made himself into their great saviour. He fed off the fuel of negativity aimed towards him, as a way of justifying the elite’s desire to keep him and his followers 'down'. My god they added fuel after fuel to the flames of discontent, which continued to grow in the key areas which Trump and his team had targeted.
The problem for Obama is that he was seen as the face of change for America. After the failure of George W. Bush America needed someone new. Competing against Clinton and the potential for a Bush/Clinton era potentially lasting 20 years, in came this young man, full of inspiration, a fantastic orator, an African American. His ascension was wonderful to watch. It felt positive, it felt like a new era was beginning for America and the world.
And yet while Obama’s Presidency contained many positives, it didn’t deliver the ‘change’ which many expected and hoped. Obama was a safe President. He didn't or couldn't change as much as he had hoped or desired. Certainly not as great a change as those who had voted for him hoped he would. Clinton promised a continuation of the Obama era, which unfortunately did not inspire enough people. People didn't want a continuation, they wanted something different. Which is why Bernie Sanders was so popular.
While unemployment has fallen and the economy is a much better position, Obama made some decisions which alienated and annoyed his voters; notably Obamacare and the trade deals he negotiated such as NAFTA and the TPP. Both were seen negatively by many Americans because for them it affected their jobs and lives. Trump embraced this feeling of discontent, notably in the 'rust-belt' and exploited it to it's maximum.
While I do believe that it was Trump’s message of job creation which won him the election in these key states, not racism, sexism or xenophobia, I am still amazed and shocked he actually did it. Yet in desperate times, people do desperate things. And Trump had spoken directly to these blue collar workers, who had felt left behind and abandoned by this globalised world. Do I have any belief that Trump will ‘fix’ the issue for these people? No. He said what people wanted to hear, he garnered their support, and exploited it for votes. Already you see the people he is bringing into his cabinet and worry about what the future holds these next four years. Not just for America, but the world.
A new, worrying era for the West
This is the stat of a new era of politics for the Western world. An era where it appears you can say whatever you want and it not be an issue. It is most certainly the reality TV era of politics. Where a celebrity businessman can say what he wants about women, race and disabled people and not only continue to run and gain crowds, but gather enough votes to become President. My god what type of culture do we now live in the West? The anti-political correctness brigade is growing, and we are seeing and hearing some shocking things happening. This is what these kind of victories and 'politicians' do. They bring out hate in people, condone what comes from it and accept it. And it then becomes the norm.
Trump and Farage have sought to bring forward the views and opinions which were festering below the surface across communities. Issues which were bubbling under which these men have brought the out from under. Blaming immigration, blaming globalisation and trade deals, feeding off the fears and worries of a population burdened by a lack of jobs and low wages. I'm not saying there aren't issues but the manner and rhetoric which these men speak is what worries and frightens me most. Effectively they want to return to the "good old days".
These men carried out (unfortunately) successful campaigns, based on fear and anger. Which worryingly appears to be a stronger motivator for many voters than love and positivity. A culture of fear, dis-trust and isolationism is not a positive move forwards or a catalyst for change. Yet we’ve seen in the UK, US and in 2017 will see in other European counties, the rise of the right wing of the country.
Like Brexit was, we are seeing a change for the worse. And that’s what disappoints and worries me most about where the world is heading. The irony for this 'want for change’ is not that people actually want ‘change’, but that they fear change. There is a part of society, which worryingly is growing, fuelled by the campaigns of men like Donald Trump and Nigel Farage, which hit on people’s concern of immigration. They talk about the ‘good old days’, meaning the time when the US and UK were white dominated nations, based on Christian and conservative values.
Their strategies have been simple. They understand that many people in the population, particularly those who have seen their communities ‘changed’ or affected by immigration, aren’t happy. The Brexit vote had everything to do with immigration and the desire to ‘close the doors’ to Britain. It was a campaign filled with fear mongering and seeking to divide communities based on ethnicity and race. For those who voted Leave they wanted the UK to take back it’s sovereignty they were talking about taking back their culture and values. The problem is, we can’t go back. Isolationism is not the solution to helping the world move forwards. Greater education and further training is, this is where jobs will come and be generated.
The rise of the right wing conservatives
These elections have shown a worrying trend for the West. A fear of change, growing nationalism and a desire for isolationism. The right has risen and has found a voice through the vote box. This is a worry for the future of Europe and the US.
We can blame these men for inciting hate. We can show our astonishment when people vote for Leave and for Trump. Yet the blame should lie also with liberals and left leaning voters. They should take the blame also. There’s become this expectation that either everyone thinks like you do, because that’s the kind of community you associate yourself with, mainly through social media today. Therefore your viewpoints and ideas are accepted and approved of, you very rarely have a discussion with those who ‘disagree’ with what you think. It’s therefore developed a feeling of being too relaxed and content in terms of voting and campaigning.
While Clinton wasn’t a great candidate to get inspired about, the polls weren’t forcing people to vote against Trump. Meaning many didn’t vote and paid the price for it. The same happened in Brexit. Too many, mainly 18-24’s, didn’t vote. Reports say that only 36% of this demographic voted. That's just not good enough. Whereas a lot of older voters did. This created an age gap in terms of political opinion.
This is understandable, the change across both Europe and the US in the past 30 years has been extreme in terms of immigration and culture change. Older voters see this and look at it with fear and trepidation. Whereas more younger people see it is as the way the world is, and embrace and appreciate the multi-cultural world we live in. Problem is, the older voters are more motivated to vote. Because this is what fear and negativity does, it generates more passion and drive to do something to change it.
And now it’s left the liberal thinkers of the divide feeling ashamed and worried. But you were to blame. Had people known the outcomes of both elections beforehand the outcomes would have been different. We are paying the price for being too casual on the left.
Amazingly the two candidates who offer genuine positive change for their countries, who actually are serious about helping the poor and dis-advantaged in our societies, are almost marginalised. Bernie Sanders was denied the chance to rival Trump because of the Democrats desire for Clinton to ‘get her chance’. They supported the establishment candidate instead of seeing the voters desire for someone and something new in Sanders. There was a growing energy for Sanders from the young voters, the key demographic who don't vote enough.
The same is happening with Jeremy Corbyn, who while has his faults, is offering a different form of politics for the UK. The problem is he is being criticised or laughed at by the media and political elite. They don’t want change. They are afraid of it. Just like a growing part of the population, fearful of a changing world.
It’s a shame really, because the UK now seems to have just one viable party in the Conversatives, while the US is now ruled by the Republican party. What a four years ahead we have to endure. Talk about fear, well this is the fear right here. And it's not down to immigration.
These elections have been built on fear and this is a shame. I understand that some people felt that voting Leave and thus supporting Nigel Farage’s UKIP policies and thinking, or voting Trump, while not wanting to support ideas of racism, sexism or xenophobia, felt this was a "necessary evill" to enact change and improve their lives and the lives of their children. Perhaps it was a protest vote to voice their frustrations, the only way some think they could provide a 'nosebleed' to the establishment.
But I fear that the elections this year are taking the Western world on a wrong and worrying path. We are seeing a political movement akin to that of Germany under Hitler. It is the rise of fasicm once again. With men leading it campaigning on fear and anxieties of it’s electorate. Of promises to make their countries great again and blaming their nations troubles on foreigners.
I have no doubt that change will come from these elections in 2016. Yet it won’t be a change for the good. I fear for the coming years and dread to think where our nations are heading. As we enter 2017 we see Marie Le Pen leading the polls in France. Angela Merkel has said she will stand for another term in office, yet the growing discontent of her decision to allow Germany to take in thousands of refugees, may see her fall victim to the Western world's desire to see "change". Change is certainly happening, the rise of the Right is upon us.
The Whitehouse Address @The_W_Address
No comments:
Post a Comment