Just a decade or so ago, what Trump says, about a non-interventionist US, end to globalization, and so on, were left demands. Remember the anti-war protests, Seattle and Genova anti-globalization protests, and so on?
If a pro-war and pro-globalization republican was in office (e.g. someone like Bush), the US left (I use the term loosely) would still be against those things and protest widely.
If a pro-war pro-globalization democrat was in office (so like Obama), they'd just have some token resistance.
As it stands, democrats are butt-hurt from losing the elections to the Republicans, even more so when it's to a morally reprehensible person that goes against all the etiquette of the 10% (even if he himself is of the 0.01%).
Republican career politicians are butt-hurt too, that someone who's not one of them, and hasn't played the game long enough and paid enough dues, disturbs their "business as usual" musical chairs with the democrats.
This bipartisan agreement is good for the big corporate interests and the media they own, since globalization and interventionism are where the big money are made, and all of the business interests and deep state (what they used to call a "military-industrial complex" support them.
And for the rest of the "good people" (Hollywood, the "bon pensants", etc) as always will go with the flow and the fashion du jour.
This is what concerns me more than anything, Trump is basically 90's Bill Clinton and yet the world has shifted so far left that today he's considered a Nazi for wanting to reduce illegal immigration. Go lookup Bill Clinton's state of the union address on youtube and he sounds like Trump when talking immigration. Same for Chuck Schumer, and Dianne Feinstein from the 90's.
Trump is a 90's democrat who got left behind by the party.
2 comments
[ 6181 ms ] story [ 2459 ms ] threadIf a pro-war and pro-globalization republican was in office (e.g. someone like Bush), the US left (I use the term loosely) would still be against those things and protest widely.
If a pro-war pro-globalization democrat was in office (so like Obama), they'd just have some token resistance.
As it stands, democrats are butt-hurt from losing the elections to the Republicans, even more so when it's to a morally reprehensible person that goes against all the etiquette of the 10% (even if he himself is of the 0.01%).
Republican career politicians are butt-hurt too, that someone who's not one of them, and hasn't played the game long enough and paid enough dues, disturbs their "business as usual" musical chairs with the democrats.
This bipartisan agreement is good for the big corporate interests and the media they own, since globalization and interventionism are where the big money are made, and all of the business interests and deep state (what they used to call a "military-industrial complex" support them.
And for the rest of the "good people" (Hollywood, the "bon pensants", etc) as always will go with the flow and the fashion du jour.
Trump is a 90's democrat who got left behind by the party.