2007 - 2020

I Told You So

Cw0OV_MXEAAm9QW.jpg-largeWe’ve not heard from John McTernan yet but I’m sure we will very soon. Meanwhile over at CapXecrable Chris Deerin admonishes people saying:

“Time to take a look at ourselves. If Hillary Clinton is in part the author of her misfortune, so the wider liberal community is responsible for its own downfall.”

He goes on: “Liberal progressives have lost. The stark truth is that the model that has more or less dominated Western politics for the past three decades is defunct.”

Eh? What? Reagan, Thatcher, Cameron, Bush (1 &2), Blair, they were all ‘liberal progressives’. Okay, got it. So economic failure is a fault of ‘liberal progressives’ and their darn falutin’ lefty economic system.

He writes: “We used our hegemony to take down barriers and borders, to connect and build, to (yes) line our own pockets and smugly luxuriate in the goodness of our ideas and intentions.”

Speak for yourself.

‘Our hegemony’.

Deerin explains that there is thinking to be done and that “there are limits to the acceptability of free movement of people and mass immigration and it appears we have reached them”. So the answer is more capitulation? More triangulation? The problem he seems to have conjured up is that has driven Trump to victory is, somehow, immigration?

He concludes with a flourish:

“They are the masters now, and we are about to visit some extremely dark places. We only have ourselves to blame” … says a columnist for the Daily Mail.

Meanwhile over at there Telegraph Tom Harris is in full smug mode declaring: “If you’re tweeting in liberal outrage about Donald Trump and his bigoted supporters, you actually helped him win”.

This is the commentariat eating itself.

It’s avoidance and blame game stuff. Chris McCullich is more accurate when he says:

“It has been like a slow-motion train wreck that we have been watching in amazement, fear and disgust over the course of the past several months. But now, shortly before the trains finally plow into each other, something akin to understanding has set in. The real story is that of the last 35 years. Since the 1980 Reagan Revolution, a conservative syndicate has systematically strived to destroy the foundations of liberal democracy by elevating the economy, selfishness and social Darwinism above all.”

It’s 100% true that Democrat hubris and complacency allowed this travesty. It’s 100% true that there is huge untapped anger and disillusionment with the political class. But, as Paul Mason has noted, the motivations for supporting Trump are being charted: “The New York Times’s rolling update exit polls confirm: racism #1, misogyny #2. The poorest voted Clinton, rejected Trump”.

He writes: “Donald Trump has won the presidency – not because of the “white working class”, but because millions of middle-class and educated US citizens reached into their soul and found there, after all its conceits were stripped away, a grinning white supremacist. Plus untapped reserves of misogyny.”

That’s harder to face up to than a Bruce Springsteen story about ‘blue collar America’.

 

 

 

Comments (35)

Join the Discussion

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

  1. Gordon Guthrie says:

    Tough on Hitler and tough on the causes of Hitler – war and social security.

    Social Security because an insecure society breeds fascism. The Reagenite switch to ‘welfare’ was intentional – and racially coded – not about society and protecting us from fascism but about individuals, feckless individuals, weak individuals, failures…

    Tough on Trump, tough on the causes of Trump means returning the security of society to the front.

    But there is another reason for the success of the Right. The government ownership and running of business – old fashioned socialism of control of the means of production didn’t work, isn’t going to work, will not work in the future – so the culture and programme we need for the future is not some ‘socialist’ revival…

    1. You been on Scotrail recently?

      1. Crubag says:

        Because of how Abellio are running it?

        Under EU rules, the Scottish Government were required to put the contract out to tender.

        We’ll have to see what the rules are post-Brexit.

        1. c rober says:

          Is that the same EU rules that prevent state ownership – and abellio is owned by whom again?

          Nederlandse Spoorwegen. Nederland state.

          Theres rules and then theres rules…. Someone somewhere in the darkest of Holyrood must therefore carry the can on this one , its the very reasoning why many may have chosen brexit.

          1. indiaosaka says:

            “Is that the same EU rules that prevent state ownership – and abellio is owned by whom again?”

            No. The EU obliged the Scottish Government to put the Scotrail contract out to tender and the reserved Railway Act prevented public sector operators from competing in such a tender.

          2. Alf Baird says:

            Civil servants probably mess up on specifying rolling stock, much as they do with calmac/cmal where civil servants attempt to specify and ‘procure’ the ships, when they know nothing about either, so we end up with grotesque PFI ‘deals’ and high cost ‘vehicles’. And of course UK rail infrastructure is obsolete.

          3. c rober says:

            India osaka

            “Is that the same EU rules that prevent state ownership – and abellio is owned by whom again?”
            No. The EU obliged the Scottish Government to put the Scotrail contract out to tender and the reserved Railway Act prevented public sector operators from competing in such a tender.

            So what you are saying is that Holyrood prevented UK companies , if public so state owned from tendering – but somehow allowed EU public companies , so state owned to tender – which is why we have a state owned enterprise from the Nederlands (abellio) operating in Scotland against the EU rules on one hand because of using eu rules on the other?

            Someones head must roll on that one then – or we risk the very reason why brexit happened repeating.

          4. indiaosaka says:

            I’m not entirely sure why I can’t reply to your last reply to me, but:

            “So what you are saying is that Holyrood prevented UK companies , if public so state owned from tendering – but somehow allowed EU public companies , so state owned to tender – which is why we have a state owned enterprise from the Nederlands (abellio) operating in Scotland against the EU rules on one hand because of using eu rules on the other?”

            I’ll try and clarify what I am saying:

            In this instance, the EU rules part of the story is that the Scotrail franchise have to be put out to tender. There are a couple of other obligations, but they’re not exactly relevant here.

            The restriction on publicly owned bodies competing for the Scotrail tender comes from the 1993 Railway Act. The act, a creature of Westminster that was wholly reserved, is largely concerned with defining and regulating the tendering process and section 25 prohibits public sector operators. As part of prohibiting public sector operators, the act defines public sector operators and how it does that is the problem here: section 25 only defines public sector operators in relation to the UK state.

            Because Abellio is not a part of Edinburgh council, nor a corporate body created, controlled, or majority shareholded by Edinburgh Council/Scottish government ministers/UK Government ministers it — and honestly this upsets me — isn’t a public sector operator according to the tendering process.

            Holyrood didn’t prevent UK-state-owned public bodies from tendering, it wasn’t allowed to let them tender and they weren’t allowed to apply under the Railway Act.

            If you want to have a look at the relevant section, it’s here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/43/section/25

  2. Mach1 says:

    Spot on. The term false consciousness may have fallen out of fashion, but anyone who believes the Donald will strive on their behalf rather than his own can only be so enthralled.
    That Putin and Xi are eager to seize Trump’s hand also suggests a commonality of interest which does not extend to any kind of altruism.
    Rightly, sober analysts identify the squeezed middle rather than the working class as the miasma from which creatures like Trump draw strength.
    The media, more out of touch than ever before, assists in promoting baseless opinion as fact, partisan gossip as news. The failure to put Trump and his business dealings under rigorous scrutiny allowed him to go unchallenged as being a multi-billionaire entrepreneur, his USP in the US middle market he so successfully cornered.
    His victory defies common sense or decency. It also signals a crisis at the heart of our mass media, no longer geared to inform, reducing journalism to churnalism, serving the needs of the market above the public good. Shame on us all.

    1. John Robertson says:

      Her victory would have defied common sense or decency more:

      1. The Clinton family, like the Bush family before, are very close to the Sunni regimes in Saudi Arabia and Qataar. Both are fabulously rich from oil deals or from donations. The Saudis have given $25 million to the Clinton Foundation
      2. In return the Bush and Clinton regimes have given favourable treatment to these Sunni Arab regimes. Saudi families were allowed to flee the US immediately after the Twin towers attack. US families of the dead are not allowed to sue the Saudi regime for supporting the mainly Saudi attackers. The US sells advanced weapons and offers advisors to train the Saudi and Qataari armed forces.
      3. The Sunni and Qataari royal regimes despise and fear the Shia, slightly democratic, regimes in Iran, Syria, Iraq and now in Yemen. They are currently using US and UK weapons to kill Yemeni civilians.
      4. The royalist Saudis long to see the overthrow of the slightly democratic Alawite, (Shia-related) regime in Syria and provided US and UK weapons to Sunni groups, including al-Qaeda and ISIS to fight the Syrian government.
      5. This triggered the civil war, mass deaths and the flight of millions toward Europe creating our refugee crisis. These Syrian refugees added to the already hundreds of thousands of displaced Afghans and Iraqis trying to enter Europe. You might say Clinton helped cause Brexit!
      6. Because the Russians have intervened to help the Syrian government win against the Sunni rebels backed by Saudi and Qataar, using US arms, the US, in the person of Secretary of State Clinton has raised the tension in the area with threats of confrontation with the Russians, thus risking WW3.
      7. To challenge the Russians and to make sure they do not win, Clinton is prepared to prolong the suffering of the Syrian people by further supporting anti-government, Sunni groups.
      8. Clinton has the blood of thousands on her hands. The Saudis are funding both the Clintons and ISIS! Trump is a nasty piece of work but that’s it.
      9. I’m not defending Trump or the Russians so don’t be stupid and suggest I have to be.

      1. interpolar says:

        Well, if it meant that the US were to reassess its close ties to Saudi Arabia, that would not be a bad thing. However, I am guessing that the Saudis will very well know where to tickle T.

  3. florian albert says:

    Attributing Trump’s victory to white racism is as predictable as it is wrong. Trump won Ohio, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Michigan. All these states voted for Obama in 2008.

    1. MBC says:

      No it’s not. 88% of black men and 93% black women voted Clinton. Similar majority pattern with Latinos though the %s voting Clinton were not as high as for African Americans. Of those who voted Trump the majority were white – of either gender, of all educational backgrounds, and from all income brackets.

      Whites make up 69% of the US population, but that is rapidly shrinking as Latinos in particular increase in numbers. The browning of America is a fact, and it is fuelling fear and resentment amongst whites.

      1. florian albert says:

        In Michigan in 2008, Obama won by 17%; by 57% to 40%. This week in Michigan, Trump won narrowly. There has been little change in the ‘racial’ demography of Michigan in the intervening 8 years. I see no evidence of white racism in these votes.

        1. You see no evidence of racism in Trump’s campaign?

          1. florian albert says:

            I made no comment about Trump’s campaign. I long ago lost track of all the obnoxious things he said.
            My point was, and is, that his voters were not motivated by white racism. They viewed him as somebody who would stand up for their interests – particularly over trade – against elites.

            Writers such as John Harris and Thomas Frank, both in the Guardian, have explained at length why Trump is so popular. Against that, so much of the left is stuck in a fantasy world of fascism and white racism.

  4. Davie Park says:

    Voters wanted change. The Dems offered them more of the same. Trump wins.

  5. Steve says:

    Although Clinton did win the popular vote

  6. John Robertson says:

    Stop saying John McTernan. I’m not well. I have a prescription. I’m trying to forget about him. OK? OK?

  7. Mike17 says:

    This is the link to the Paul Mason article mentioned at the end of the article

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/globalisation-dead-white-supremacy-trump-neoliberal

  8. kate macleod says:

    i believe neither the NYT, who also said clinton would smash trump, nor paul mason, a leftist who dislikes socialism & wouldn’t touch an actual revolution (should one even be possible in the age of state controlled drone militia)

    i am glad WW3 , via clinton’s big macho balls & russia in her sights has possibly been averted, or at least postponed. if that was motivated by racism and misogyny that is unfortunate. but every cloud has a silver lining.

  9. kate macleod says:

    btw ‘counterpunch’ (whose articles on trump far more on point, can be read online) says
    about 5 states that voted obama twice voted trump. so maybe racism not main reason as NYT claims .

    & if it was rather peoples anger over living standards, loss of work, conditions and pay , poor healthcare, eternal wars, the dumping of sanders in favour of clinton, etc. NYT, democrats will not admit that .

    now how is misogyny defined in an exit poll???
    did they say for instance ‘i hate that woman’, if so that is individual specific, not necessarily all women inclusive & may involve policy issues unconnected to gender. & so on .

    yeah right NYT so pure

    1. tartanfever says:

      I’ve read maybe a dozen ‘political experts’ today tweeting that ‘the poor didn’t vote for Trump’ – and quoting the information from the NY Times.

      It’s data does show that the poorest voted more favourably for Clinton, but they all conveniently miss out the data that there was a 16% swing to Trump in the lowest wage bracket from the last election. Thats a pretty huge stat to overlook.

      Of course, to turn the argument around against the NYT and other ‘media’, the question should be asked ‘So you’re saying that 10’s of millions of Americans are racist, especially the poor ?’

      Apparently if you have a reasonable concern about immigration, a perfectly acceptable political position, you are a racist. Of course, that’s just nuts, but it seems to be where we are.

  10. john young says:

    “We came we saw we killed him” accompanied by much guffawing tells you all you need to know about Clinton and her cabal,not to mention totally destroying a country that had health care and free education unlike the democratic USA,oh yeah poor old Hillary are you fcuking mad.

  11. Alf Baird says:

    The big difference between Trump and yer usual gravytrain machine politician is that Trump is unlikely to suffer any crap (i.e. dubious ‘advice’) from supposedly ‘smart’ public officials who rise in post by the Peter Principle.

    I’m curious as to which Scottish political ‘leader’ will meet President Trump off Airforce1 when it touches down in Edinburgh – they have all insulted him big time, especially Nicola. At least all the Scottish leaders have something in common, i.e. they have all insulted the President of the USA. That probably just leaves Mundell to do the welcome then. Well done Alex and Nicola – your international relations skills are about as useful as yer dilettante legislation (e.g. fitba sangs, booze pricing, and named person nanny). I suggest you ‘stick tae the knittin’, i.e. focus on independence, yer raison detre. Get indy, and retire, please.

    1. c rober says:

      Guy is a bell end , Nic has cut her cloth , something she could be commended for – were it not for the party being in bed with the guy in the first place – over investment into an elitist golf resort on a nature reserve…. then finding he was a dictator climate change denier.

      But the SNP has form on removing nature for foriegn investors – including housing on farmland and nature reserves all over Scotland , while decrying they are our protectors of it and the providers of land reform. BUT where are the internal detractors , the principled that highlight this , the politicians are contractually prevented from speaking out against the party – and anyone else whom does is somehow anti snp , anti indy and portrayed as SNP badders.

  12. Thrawn says:

    The uncomfortable truth is that the rise of Trump is not the fault of the mainstream media or the failure/weakness of establishment politicians.

    His rise is down to the fact that representative democracy is being replaced by mob rule…mobs whipped into a frenzy by the instant interactivity and self-reinforcing feedback loop of social media and blogs such as these. And mobs always have and always will be susceptible to being captured by those who should the loudest and promise the easiest solutions.

    How we fix it…I have no idea…but one step could be for a return to a minimum of respect for those who choose to devote themselves to public service and serve as our elected representatives. That is not to say we shouldn’t hold them to account rigourously and implacably but that while we do so, we hold as true, that however misguided we feel them to be, in the overwhelming majority of cases their motives come from a sincere desire to aid their fellow citizens

    Returning to Trump…we can hardy be surprised that after we have spent 20-30 years reinforcing the perception that all politicians are fundamentally corrupt and evil…finally the people elect someone whose defining characteristic and selling point is that he is that last thing a politician would ever look or act like

    1. Bella put Trump in power?

      Sorry everybody : (

      1. Thrawn says:

        Sorry to break it you but…the only difference between Bella, Wings and breitbart is ideology (ok and size and influence of course) but your methodology is the same: sensationalist demonisation of the “enemy”; inability to accept any motives other than corrupt or evil ones for your opponents; cherrypicking of facts to suit the argument; and end justifies the means political philosphy.

        So while of course Bella had nothing to do with Trump’s victory you are very much symptomatic of the trends in political discourse that have led us to him….so apology accepted

        1. Sorry to break it to you but you are talking so much shite … but do continue it’s quite entertaining.

          1. Thrawn says:

            Sorry to break it you but you have just proved my point….and quite entertainingly…thanks!!

          2. Great. So if this site’s so awful, why do you spend so much time here? What do you want?

  13. w.b.robertson says:

    how dare the USA voters rise up and rebel. (other countries might copy… and what would life be like then for the great and the good?)

    1. c rober says:

      But what have they rebelled against , perhaps thats the bigger question?

      Is it the wealthy – by electing a wealthy president and more than half of senate/congress that have the real power – outside of the banks of course , that caused the FC leading them to where they are today?

      And this is where I fear that Scottish Indy is related – in that by rejecting our masters in Westminster , we only replace them – not remove them.

      But of course hes already coining it , free advertising for Bubba Trump Shrimp co.

      The disenfranchised have failed to notice he has promised to reduce corporation tax to allow the likes OF Apple , Google , Ebay and the rest to repatriate their funds worth trillions by reducing their taxes to 10 percent…. you know the very people and corps that they are rallying against by voting for him.

      Turkeys , crossed with ostriches , voting on whats for thanksgiving dinner.

  14. Jo says:

    I think the person who lost the Democrats the election was Hillary Clinton.

    Despite the attempts of the MSM both here and over the pond to banish all mention of her track record from their articles and editorials people knew all she was responsible for. People knew, thanks to Wikileaks and the internet, about the efforts inside the Democrats to smash Sanders out of her way as she tried desperately to make it to the White House in her own right rather than just as her previous time there as First Lady.

    People remembered her role in Libya and her appetite for more war. (She said right out in the final debate that she intended to impose a no-fly zone in Syria, a country where she has no authority, thus provoking a direct conflict with Russia and, potentially, WW3! She is a nut case! And what did we get from the likes of the Guardian here? “It’s time for a woman President.” (Yeah, even if she makes the worst war-mongering man look like Mary Poppins!)

    There’s plenty you could say about Trump, none of it good, but I think, when it came to it, many who would normally vote Democrat could not find the stomach to vote for Clinton. And I can understand that.

Help keep our journalism independent

We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.

Subscribe to regular bella in your inbox

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address on our subscribe page by clicking the button below. It is completely free and you can easily unsubscribe at any time.