American Übermensch: Donald Trump’s Thrilling Confidence

Tags

America 911, American Liberty, Art of the deal, Barack Obama, Capitalism, Civilisation, CNN, Defend the modern world, Donald Trump, Donald Trump 2016, Donald Trump could win, Donald Trump NBC, donald trump speech, donald trump wiki, Envy, Fox News, New York, Philosophy, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Riches, trump speech, United States

So, Donald Trump, the brash celebrity billionaire and star of TV’s ‘The Apprentice’ has dramatically announced a bid for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. Cue hysteria. Cue mob humour. Cue intellectual laziness.

I understand how conventional it is to laugh at Trump; at his braggadocio, his squirrelly hair and material emphasis. He is clearly someone who enjoys the media spotlight and who often speaks with the media in mind. But away from the quirks in his character, it cannot be denied that Trump, via his achievements and lived philosophy, also personifies America at its most unapologetic, creative, tough-minded and independent.

He is a throw-back in that regard; the living relic of an era – fast being lost – in which the United States was the country to imitate if you wanted your own to succeed. It was an era of unipolar domination, whether on the economic, cultural or military plain. It was the era in which most of the skyscrapers you see on the dazzling Manhattan skyline were constructed, when the bridges were built (on budget and on time), and when the US army considered concepts like ‘retreat’ and ‘failure’ to be eccentricities unique to Europe.

I believe this American spirit still survives, in pockets and enclaves, but the condition of America in general is increasingly tenuous. Toxic issues are beginning to develop in the marrow of American life; issues that if left without treatment, could prove lethal to its long-term prospects.

Trump announced his bid for presidency this week with a resounding rally held in his Manhattan skyscraper ‘Trump Tower’. The fallout would last for days. Here are some of the more ‘provocative’ statements emphasised by the press:

On immigration  – “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.”

On jobs – “Our real unemployment is anywhere from 18 to 20 percent. Don’t believe the 5.6. Don’t believe it… That’s right. A lot of people… can’t get jobs. They can’t get jobs, because there are no jobs, because China has our jobs and Mexico has our jobs. They all have jobs.”

On health-care reform – “We have a disaster called the big lie: Obamacare… Yesterday, it came out that costs are going for people up 29, 39, 49, and even 55 percent, and deductibles are through the roof. You have to be hit by a tractor, literally, a tractor, to use it, because the deductibles are so high, it’s virtually useless. It’s virtually useless. It is a disaster.”

Shortly after these comments were made, left-leaning cable channels set about presenting them as stand-alone bigotries, considerably more extreme and stupid seeming than in their original context. The television network NBC responded quickly by severing all ties with Trump, accompanied by the retail giant Macy’s, hair-product brand Farouk Systems, and the Latino TV networks Univsion, Televisa and Ora TV.

I won’t deny that the comment about Mexican rapists was lazy and ill-advised. There doesn’t seem to be a problem with sexual violence in Mexican communities more serious than in others. But outside of these unfortunate snippets (incidentally, I don’t share the Republican anxiety over subsidised health-care either), I found the speech rather inspiring.

Trump offered his audience an honest, easy to understand diagnosis of real and important maladies. His remarks about the pathetic failings of the Iraqi ‘military’ were dead on the nail. His comments about China’s cynical devaluation of its currency were timely and brave. His stated willingness to protect Israel should comfort the hearts of besieged democrats around the world.

But more than anything, it was Trump’s call for a ‘cheer-leading’ President who can resurrect the attitude of exceptionalism that truly impressed me. As I have written perhaps too many times before, positivity and the “Let’s Win!” spirit is not only useful on the football field or basketball court. It is the same attitude that destroyed the Empire of Japan and liquidised Iraqi divisions in Kuwait. It is the attitude that built the Hoover Dam, and which drives the world economy.

Trump understands this. He understands the psychological basis of American strength, that this strength is not derived from virtue alone, but from arrogance, determination and unilateralism too.

Despite my enthusiasm, I am soberly aware that a Trump administration is as unlikely Caitlyn Jenner birthing triplets. Impossible, of course, but perhaps not wholly undesirable.

D, LDN.

Advertisement

Jihad vs. McWorld.

Tags

9/11, American Liberty, Benjamin Barber, Big Mac, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, Jihadism, Lexus vs the Olive Tree, Multiculturalism, New York, New York holidays, NYT, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Terror, Thomas Friedman

It’s been a full ten years since the publication, originally to much derision and apathy, of American political scientist Benjamin Barber’s book ‘Jihad Vs. McWorld: Terrorism’s Challenge to Democracy’.

Seen by some as a dumbed-down popularisation of Samuel Huntingdon’s ‘Clash of Civilisations’ thesis, this slim volume (and especially its title) has always seemed to me a more accurate framing of the same struggle.

The struggle with/against Islam is a clash of civilisations (in that Islam is a civilisation and that there is a ‘clash’ involved) but not entirely in the way Huntingdon predicted. The war is not Islam pitched against the West specifically, but Islam versus the modern age and all who aspire to dwell in it. Muslims are as hostile to Kenyans and Japanese as they are to Brits and Americans. The Jihadi elite correctly identify the modern ideal of globalisation as a lethal threat to the integrity of Islamic culture. This is not then a clash between ‘East and West’, but a battle between progress and the 6th century, between Starbucks and the Mosque, the Lexus and the Olive Tree (to quote the title of an excellent book by Thomas Friedman).

Islamism derives it energy from the same place as neo-Nazism. Those who pine for ancient castles, Germanic runes and maidens milking cows are one and the same with those who pine for the tent-life of ancient Arabia. Though officially opposed to one another, Islamists and Nazis alike share a burning disgust at the golden arches of McDonalds, at the white tick of Nike sportswear, at the homogenisation of the global high street and of national cultures. Both long for a misty utopian past; an older, simpler way of living that was cruelly interrupted by industry, but that is recoverable if only the capitalists (Jews) can be brought down from their dominant position.

This is what Barber meant by ‘Jihad’ – the poisonous ideas that appeal to those ill-equipped to compete in a meritocratic world. This is broader and more interesting than the crude differences Huntingdon presented us with. As Barber’s definition allows us to see, we have our own Jihadis in the West, and not all of them are Islamic.

The modern world needs to be defended from all its enemies, whatever they look like and whatever language they speak. We would be fools to presume, like Huntingdon, that the battle lines will fall neatly on the borders of cultures and languages.

D, LDN.