Archive for the ‘Donald Trump’ Category

Donald Trump’s Fictional America – POLITICO Magazine – POLITICO Magazine

Speech is a powerful lord that with the smallest and most invisible body accomplished most godlike works. It can banish fear and remove grief, and instill pleasure and enhance pity. Divine sweetness transmitted through words is inductive of pleasure and reductive of pain. - Gorgias

If you think the postfactual world is a recent development, then you should see how Hugo Chvez was and is still mourned in Venezuela. One can safely say that the Venezuelan revolutionary, who from 1999 to 2013 presided over the largest oil boom in history in the most oil-rich country in the world, and yet left behind a hungry, ailing, economically ruined society, was a downright catastrophe for his countrys citizens. A factual catastrophe, as it were. Yet many there, especially the very poor, who are the hardest hit by Chvezs failed policies, still idolize him as a savior. Some have even set up a religious cult around him.

Story Continued Below

Against all reason and evidence, for more than two decades they have been living in a postfactual universe.

Meanwhile, the developed world seems to be discovering this concept for the first time. As President Donald Trump and his team of surrogates lay waste to one fact after another, the Western media is brimming with lamentations about our entry into the post-factual era and eulogies for the factual one we left behind. In these essays, post-truthism is typically defined as some sort of illness of objectivity, brought on by a rise in subjectivity and sheer emotion. The truth has become so devalued, they say, that what was once the gold standard of political debate is a worthless currency.

But take it from someone who grew up in Venezuela, surrounded by a fictional universe of Chvezs making: These interpretations are all wrong. For one, they assume that the scientific understanding of the world is somehow the natural routethe obvious one, the longstanding onewhen in fact, blind faith was until very recently the unvarying constant of civilization. For most of our human history, we lived to survive, and when faced by doubt we were not embarrassed by beliefs that required no verification. But now, late in the age of Google, we are led to believe that that which cannot be verified is somehow immediately worthless. As if we really live in the complex world of facts, and not the more human world of belief.

Indeed, these essays completely ignore the true merit of post-truthism: Its narrative coherencean easy consistency that the behemoth of data spouted at us by the mainstream media frustratingly lacks. It is precisely this coherence, this simplicity in a world of complexity, that makes fiction in the eyes of many worthier than reality.

As former President Barack Obama said in a recent New Yorker interview, The new media ecosystem means everything is true and nothing is true. Consider wealth inequality. Depending on where you read about it, and often simultaneously from the same source, you will discover that the Gini coefficient has been steadily rising across the developed world, though specially in America, because ofwhat? Robots? Trade with China? Reaganomic deregulation? Sheer financial depravity? Illegal immigration? Taxes? Even for an economist such as myself, the answer is unclear. (And so, then, are the solutions.) It might be all of the above, but one cannot know for sure: The question remains open. And so the truth then becomes that all of it is truebut also maybe none of it is true.

But then Trump says that the explanation is much more simple: Its NAFTA, and China. Were living through the biggest job theft in the history of the world folks, he says. We can fix it easily. In terms of conviction and coherence, who can beat such clarity of vision?

Many people have been too eager to blame post-truthism and the rise of Trump on a deficiency of education. On sheer showmanship and sentimental politics, whatever that is. On the rise of new, data-driven polling and marketing techniques. Some even blame Hollywood. In short: A stupefied populace, prodded listlessly by social media and big data, voted for Trump precisely out of the stupidity of his rhetoric.

But this is beyond offensive: It is intellectually lazy. It attempts to explain the Trump phenomenon only by the supply-side of the equationwith what he was proffering. What about the very human demand he tapped into? It is not an army of gullible slouches and racists on sofas with guns, smartphones and a brief vocabulary who brought Trump to powerbut rather a large, disenfranchised, chunk of society that was promised meaning through social mobility, got none of it, and after almost a generation of stagnating wages still had no clear, coherent answer to the question: Why, after so many years of work, am I still suffering?

Trumps Republican primary contenders couldnt answer that question. Hillary Clinton couldnt either. And certainly none of them proposed a fixor a new ethos to replace the flailing American Dream ideal. Trump did all of the aboveconstructing an alternate reality that gave his supporters a concise answer to their question, and the hope of a solution. It doesnt matter that its all bogus. To Trump voters, a fake realityespecially one laden with obvious enemies and golden promisesis better than nothing, or more of the same.

***

Why am I suffering? It is this question that has always prompted the disheartened to search for faith. For most of our history, religion gave them the answer they needed (i.e. I suffer because I am sinful). But modern populism in the vein of Trump and Chvez can do the same. When citizens ask these leaders why are they suffering, they too get a simple answer: I suffer because of them.

Like religion, populism asks for blind allegiance, dismisses truth as the unconditional value of meaning and arises from a certain unverified, mythological coherence. And like religion, populism promises a distant resolutionone that never comes, of course, but is constantly dangled in front of its supporters, who are soothed by the expectation.

Supporters cheers as President-elect Donald Trump arrives to speak in Mobile, Alabama during a "Thank You Tour 2016" rally on Dec. 17. | Getty

The main focus of populist policy is therefore to tend to these people waitingto give them a reason for their suffering, to verbally recreate the post-factual world of their beliefs, to make them feel like they are moving forward. Populism is not a system of facts or solutions, operating in the complex world of policy and legislation, but rather an interactive fiction, borne of posturing and symbolism, where whole countries can become not what they are, but what they believe themselves to be.

It should therefore not surprise you that the first items in Trumps presidential agenda are patently ineffective. A wall to Mexico, banning Muslims from entering the country and attacking the media and intelligence agencies are about as useful in terms of public policy as building a pyramid in the desert. But they pack quite the rhetorical punch and do reinforce the fictional recreation. They are good, populist, policy.

Ive seen this all before. If I were to recount my experience growing up under Chavismo I would be unable to frame it in the stereotypical terms of terror and loss: On Monday they took my neighbor, two months later they took my uncle never to return, three years later they took me and sent me to war. This is not a story only of destruction.

Instead I would have to say that on December 1999, the year Chvez came to power, my countrys name was changed from Venezuela to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. That in 2002 Columbus Day was renamed the Day of Indigenous Resistance. That in March 2006 the coat of arms was changed to one where its horse galloped to the left. That a year later the time zone of the country went back 30 minutes. That Bolvar, our founding father, an aristocratic admirer of the British Empire, suddenly became an anti-imperialist leftist according to official propaganda, textbooks and city graffiti. And that people all around me relentlessly nodded to all this gobbledygook.

This was all pantomime to a massive corruption industry working behind the curtain, one which stole, at its lowest estimate, the unimaginable amount of 300 billion USD and utterly ravaged my homeland. But according to official propaganda, it was always the American imperialists, with the tacit support of a treasonous Venezuelan middle-upper class, doing the destroying. This fiction was so aptly portrayed, and indeed so convincing, that the majority of Venezuelans did not care to peek behind. Chvez might have demolished the countrys institutions and economy, but in their place he put in a rhetorical reality that was worth more to his supporters than the factual, material one he destroyed. So in fact this is another kind of story: one of a country slowly becoming delirious.

How can nothing but promises and enemies be worth more than concrete progress? Because after survival, most humans crave not wealth but meaninga sense of what to do as they keep pushing the boulder uphill. In Venezuela, for the historically poor and disenfranchised, Chvez offered a potent alternative to the vacuous gradualism of other politicians: He offered revolution. One which exhorted ordinary people to get involved and with a vengeance; one built not through policy, but through unaccountable, impassioned rhetoric. A revolution that was happening as long as you believed it was.

The same thing is happening now in America. Work hard and you will achieve, society will achieveso long the meaning of life dangled by liberal democracies (and known as the American dream in the United States) has become obsolete. With that gone, it was not long before those left behind fell under the populist spell Trump was conjuring. Like Chvez, Trump offers his supporters not details, policies or laws, but faith. The swamp will be drained, he promises, and walls will rise to protect and shelter, and ruined factories will begin their clanging anew. Its all empty rhetoric. But as long as you believe it, it is already happening. Who can say that post-factual worlds do not undergo post-factual improvements?

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez waves to supporters during a caravan in Caracas on June 11, 2012. | Getty

You might be thinking that Trumpism cannot possibly endure, that the presidents most diehard supporters will eventually release themselves from this deception, and that American moderates will never succumb to it. But do not to underestimate the power of fiction. I watched the delirium spread like wildfire through a population, infecting extremists and moderates alike. And I watched it go on and on and on. Even today, 52 percent of Venezuelans still view Chvez positively, despite daily and yearly evidence in the form of increasing scarcity, crime and illness to the contrary.

Remember: Delirium is contagious. It is self-enforcing. It feeds through the natural channels of societys networks effects. Looking through history one can find many examples of civilized nations being rhetorically driven unto dementia and total war. Like Venezuela, yes. But also, like Russia in the early 20th century. And yes, like Germany in the 1930s. Reasonable people in these countries thought theyd be able to resist the irrationality. They couldnt. Do not assume the United States will not be next.

***

You should therefore see Trumps increasing war against the media and established fact for what it is. Not as a case of presidential derangement, or even a certain carelessness about what is factual. Not even as some sort of obstinate demolition. It is something else altogether. Like all populists, Trump is motivated mainly by the construction of a fiction. His is a carefully designed plan to recreate for a large enough chunk of people an alternative reality in which there really is success, there really is vengeance, there really is a sense of improvement. For himself and for his audience, this suspicion of improvement, like the placebo effect that begins before a drug begins to work, is good enough. And to your dismay, durable enough also.

Stopping the delirium will not be easy. I wish I could say something similar to what Alberto Barrera Tyszka, the famed Venezuelan novelist, said the year Chvez died: We live in a complex country, and only complexity can save us. But in this case what you, Americans, need is simplicity. Coherence. A sense of purpose with which moderate Trump supportersyour best allies in this messcan align themselves.

Constantly trying to disprove, on a daily basis, what Trump says will only bait people into their confirmation biases. It will increasingly entrench moderates on both sides unto abstention or, worse, the extremes. What you need is a powerful message with which to substitute a true plan for a false spell.

Luckily for you the truth is all the more urgent now. Facts may be complicated, but truth, when earnest, can also be simple. In these times we live, during one of the most potent disruptions society has ever lived in terms of technology, culture and the economy, the priority has to be safeguarding a disappearing middle and working class. Go to them. Speak to them. Gain their trust again. Rescue from its ruins the true American dreamthe narrative that made your greatness possibleand present it to them anew. But mean it, this time.

Andrs Miguel Rondn is a Venezuelan economist and freelance writer living in Madrid.

Go here to read the rest:
Donald Trump's Fictional America - POLITICO Magazine - POLITICO Magazine

‘Shark Tank’s Mark Cuban Exonerates ‘No Idea’ Donald Trump In Russia Scandal Kind Of – Deadline

No one is ever going to confuse Shark Tank judge Mark Cuban with a supporter of Donald Trump, but today the critical billionaire offered the big bucks POTUS a bit of backhanded slack of sorts when it came to the sprawling scandal over Russian influence in last years election and the former Celebrity Apprentice hosts own campaign and this is no April Fools gag.

Claiming that President Trump had no clue about possible Putin string pulling and weaponized information pushing in the 2016 race against Hillary Clinton, Cuban let loose Saturday in a social media tornado (read all of the tweets below) on the ongoing FBI investigated issue. Facing further Congressional probes, the scandal has already cost the administration a National Security Advisor, with Mike Flynn now seeking immunity deal, which Trump says he supports, could go further up the campaign and White House food chain but not to the top says Mark Cuban.

Essentially, the Dallas Mavericks owner and Sharknado 3President-playing Cuban asserts, yes, there was a Russian long game plan to influence the Trump campaign and the election, but Trump had no idea this was happening. Reiterating the sentiment of past comments like when he told CNN last month that the President has no leadership skills, Cuban added today that Trump was doing what he was told to do. Stick to the script and read what was written for him.

RelatedBill OReilly & Fox News Renew Contract Despite NY Times Story Report

Cuban went on to say on to tweetthat the reason Trump wasnt really in the loop is that the 45thPresident isnt detail oriented, organized or big picture enough to pull off any time of conspiracy.

Take a look at the full 13-tweet long theory from Cuban below:

More:
'Shark Tank's Mark Cuban Exonerates 'No Idea' Donald Trump In Russia Scandal Kind Of - Deadline

A judge rules Trump may have incited violence and Trump again has his own mouth to blame – Washington Post

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump ordered numerous hecklers to "get out" of the crowd during his rally in Louisville, Ky., on March 1. Trump interrupted his stump speech five times to call for the hecklers' removal, at one point telling those in the crowd not to hurt the person being taken away. (Reuters)

The courts keep taking Donald Trump both seriously and literally. And the president's word choices are proving to be a real headache.

A federal judge in Kentucky is the latest to take Trump at his word when he says something controversial. Judge David J. Hale ruled against efforts by Trump's attorneys to throw outa lawsuitaccusing him of inciting violence against protesters at a March 2016 campaign rally in Louisville.

At the rally, Trump repeatedly said get 'em out of here before, according to the protesters, they were shoved and punched by his supporters. Trump's attorneys sought to have the case dismissed on free speech grounds, arguing that he didn't intend for his supporters to use force. But Hale noted that speech inciting violence is not protected by the First Amendment and ruled that there is plenty of evidence thatthe protesters' injuries were a direct and proximate result of Trump's words.

It is plausible that Trumps direction to get 'em out of here advocated the use of force, Hale wrote. It was an order, an instruction, a command.

On March 1, 2016, then Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump was heard shouting, "out, out," as Trump supporters and protesters clashed at his rally in Louisville, the day after his Super Tuesday victories. (Reuters)

It's merely the latest example of Trump's team arguing that his controversial words shouldn't be taken literally. But though that argument may have held water politically during the 2016 campaign, it has since repeatedly hurt Trump's cause when his words have been at issue in legal proceedings.

Just last week, a federal judge in Hawaii rejected an argument from Trump's attorneys asking that his travel ban executive order be evaluated without considering Trump's and his team's past comments about themotive behind the ban and whether it targets Muslims.

Trump's campaign in 2015 proposed a blanket ban on all Muslim immigration to the United States the news release remains on his campaign website and the courts ruled that this rhetoric was relevant when it halted his first travel ban, despite Trump's team arguing that it wasn't a Muslim ban. In striking down the first travel ban, the courts cited Rudolph W. Giuliani's comments that suggested Trump sought to make his Muslim ban idea legally practical.

So when first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban,'" Giuliani said. He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.'

When Trump and his team issued a revised travel ban a few weeks ago, the courts again halted it and again cited that past rhetoric.

And in extending that order last week, the federal judge in Hawaii yet again cited the words of Trump's team specifically, top adviser Stephen Miller, who had suggested the second ban would be, practically speaking, the same as the first.

Fundamentally, you're still going to have the same basic policy outcome for the country, but you're going to be responsive to a lot of very technical issues that were brought up by the court, and those willbe addressed, Miller said. But, in terms of protecting the country, those basic policies are still going to be in effect.

Trump and his team will undoubtedly dismiss this latest example as yet another activist judge who is out to get him.But yet again,they are forced into the position of saying that Trump's words shouldn't be taken at face value that he didn't mean what he actually, literally said.

I've argued before that this is a completely unworkable standard when it comes to the media's coverage of Trump. It allows Trump team members to retroactively downgrade whatever theywant to, while leaving the good stuff intact essentially a Get Out of Jail Free cardthey can redeem anytime they want.

Butwhile Trump's supporters have certainly bought into that arrangement, the courts have yet again proved unwilling to grant the president that Get Out of Jail Free card.

Link:
A judge rules Trump may have incited violence and Trump again has his own mouth to blame - Washington Post

Marine Le Pen’s tricky alliance with Donald Trump – Washington Post

PARIS In the early hours of Nov. 9, Marine Le Pen was the first foreign politician to congratulate the new U.S. president-elect.

In the weeks that followed, the leader of Frances far-right National Front did everything she could to tie her presidential campaign to the upset victory of Donald Trump, claiming that she would be the next chapter in a global populist revolt against the establishment.

On the morning after the U.S. election, she took to the stage at her partys headquarters outside Paris, heralding Brexit and Trump as part of an unstoppable worldwide phenomenon democratic choices that bury the old order and steppingstones to building tomorrows world.

But a month before the first round of the French elections, Le Pens tone has markedly changed: no more President Trump at least not for now.

Le Pen, almost certain to qualify for the second and final round of the elections, seems to be keeping her distance from her compadre. The word Trump rarely figures in her speeches and rallies these days, and when she squared off against Frances four other presidential candidates in the campaigns first televised debate March 20, she avoided mentioning him in any policy discussion, despite ample opportunities to do so.

On a broader level, following the defeat of Geert Wilders in the Dutch elections last month, Le Pen and her aides even have shied away from their frequent forecasts of the populist wave soon to cascade through France and carry them to power. If she wins, she now says, it will be because of France and the French not because of a seismic shift in geopolitics and the tail wind it would bring.

Im counting on you to carry out with me the battle for France! she said Thursday, speaking at an agricultural fair in rural Brittany.

We have to put France back in order! she said Monday in a speech in the Vendee.

I will engage France on the path of economic patriotism for our small business, for our farms, she said Sunday in Lille.

The shift, analysts say, mirrors her recent softening of her famously hard-line stances on both the European Union and the euro. Le Pen has campaigned largely by advocating the removal of France from both, but she now says she would hold referendums on each especially after recent opinion polls have reiterated the popularity of the currency among ordinary French voters.

The same now applies to Trump.

Its difficult for Le Pen to use Trump, when she knows that so many French disapprove of him, said Dominique Mosi, a political scientist and co-founder of the Paris-based French Institute for International Relations.

According to opinion polls, nearly 8 in 10 French voters harbor strongly negative views of the U.S. president, who has repeatedly insisted sometimes through the commentaries of a mysterious, unidentified friend named Jim that Paris is no longer Paris and that France is no longer France in the wake of the terrorist attacks that have claimed 230 lives here since the beginning of 2015.

In France, where even fringe politicians are expected to dazzle with wit and erudition, the brash and often unscripted public persona of the U.S. president has become something of a liability for his chief French ally, who was spotted in the basement cafeteria of Trump Tower on an impromptu visit in January.

In France, even if you are of the extreme right, as Marine Le Pen is, you do not have credibility if you do not know how to align a subject, a verb and a complement, said Franois Heisbourg, the chairman of the Geneva Center for Security Policy and a former member of a French presidential commission on national security.

Trump truly wouldnt last 20 minutes in the French political system not because of his ideas, but because of the way he expresses them.

In fact, the substance of Trumps ideas or versions of them does remain popular with a number of French voters, who favor a return of national sovereignty, immigration bans and rapprochement with President Vladimir Putins Russia. These are all pillars of Le Pens platform, and she is expected to garner at least 40percent of the vote, according to the latest polls.

There is also the issue of the anti-Americanism at the heart of the National Front, which for decades has railed against American imperialism abroad and its principal local manifestation the European Union. If Trumps isolationist rhetoric represents a departure from decades of U.S. foreign policy, he is still an American president in the eyes of a party long in favor of France abandoning its ties with the United States for a new relationship with Russia.

If she rarely mentions Trump anymore, Le Pen who met with Putin in Moscow last month has no qualms about reminding her supporters at every turn of her plans to deliver on that Russia promise.

In her recent speech in Lille , days after returning from Russia, she called Putin a real statesman engaged in the same fight against terrorism as France.

The crowd went wild.

Read more

Frances presidential election may determine the future of the European Union

Frances National Front co-founder Jean-Marie Le Pen says the battle is already won

Ahead of pivotal European elections, rightist websites grow in influence

Todays coverage from Post correspondents around the world

Like Washington Post World on Facebook and stay updated on foreign news

Visit link:
Marine Le Pen's tricky alliance with Donald Trump - Washington Post

Federal Judge Rules Donald Trump Incited Violence at Campaign Rally – Us Weekly

President Donald Trump while departing the White House on March 15, 2017 in Washington, DC. Credit: Win McNamee/Getty Images

A federal judge ruled on Friday, March 31, that President Donald Trump incited violence against three protesters at a March 2016 campaign rally in Louisville, Kentucky.

The Courier-Journal reported that U.S. District Judge David J. Hale ruled that the protesters had established sufficient evidence to proceed with their case against Trump, 70, and rejected the president's attorneys' free speech defense.

The protesters, Henry Brousseau, Kashiya Nwanguma and Molly Shah, claim they were assaulted by the real estate mogul's supporters at the Louisville rally last year after he repeatedly urged the crowd to "get 'em out of here." Trump's lawyers argued that Trump didn't anticipate his supporters would use force.

"It is plausible that Trump's direction to 'get 'em out of here' advocated the use of force," Hale wrote in his 22-page ruling. "Unlike the statements at issue in the cases cited by the Trump Defendants, 'get 'em out of here' is stated in the imperative; it was an order, an instruction, a command."

Hale also wrote in the ruling that the removal of Nwanguma, an African-American woman, was "particularly reckless." The judge declined to remove allegations that Nwanguma was a victim of racial, ethnic and sexist slurs from Trump's supporters.

One of the Trump supporters named in the lawsuit, Matthew Heimbach, is a leader of the white nationalist group Traditional Youth Network. Politico reported that Heimbach sought to remove references to the group, but Hale ruled that Heimbach's statements "toward non-whites and persons who oppose Trump" can stay in the record as the case moves forward.

After last year's incident, Trump called the protesters "bad dudes" who were "really dangerous."

Nwanguma, Shah and Brousseau, who are seeking unspecified punitive and compensatory damages, have accused Heimbach and another man of assault and battery. They have also accused the Trump campaign of incitement to riot, negligence, gross negligence and recklessness.

Sign up now for the Us Weekly newsletter to get breaking celebrity news, hot pics and more delivered straight to your inbox!

Read the original post:
Federal Judge Rules Donald Trump Incited Violence at Campaign Rally - Us Weekly