A Series of Articles on Donald Trump… Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid…

Donald Trump isn’t just some idiot or joke that can be easily dismissed. He represents something far more sinister. In this series of articles I have reposted from alternet.org, I hope to shed some light on the man and his supporters…

Is Trump a classic fascist in the Italian tradition or German National Socialist tradition? No. His fascism is much more insidious and has been growing in this country for decades as the 1% have waged a relentless class war against the majority, taken control of the media thereby limiting acceptable debate, and the right has conflated religious fundamentalism with capitalism and capitalism with democracy, re-writing history in the process and the lack of a large leftist movement in this country has allowed the ruling class near total hegemonic control over the economy, culture, education, social life, spiritual life, and political life….

Fascism: a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. a totalitarian governmental system led by a dictator and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism, militarism, and often racism.

“…Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace…Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind…The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone…. .For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death….empire demands discipline, the coordination of all forces and a deeply felt sense of duty and sacrifice: this fact explains many aspects of the practical working of the regime, the character of many forces in the State, and the necessarily severe measures which must be taken against those who would oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement…”

A lot of this should sound familiar, as American politics has for decades been sliding down the slippery slope towards the extreme right, especially now when all sorts of radical right hate groups have come out of the wood-work to support the man they see as the embodiment of their twisted ideals…the egomaniacal, bully and demagogue known as “the Donald”…

Be scared. Be very scared.

Fascism Is Rising in the U.S. And Europe…and Donald Trump Is the Face of It

In the past, what Trump’s been shilling would’ve been soundly rejected — the fact that it’s not now is terrifying.

LAS VEGAS NEVADA, DECEMBER 14, 2015: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at campaign event at Westgate Las Vegas Resort & Casino the day before the CNN Republican Presidential Debate
Photo Credit: Joseph Sohm / Shutterstock.com

Donald Trump has eviscerated his Republican opposition and his hostile takeover of the party of Lincoln is now complete. The Republican elites have fallen in line, normalizing the xenophobia, the racism, and the politics of resentment that fuel his campaign.

The unimaginable has become imaginable: a politician who has repeatedly threatened our democratic institutions has seized the imagination of a significant portion of the Republican electorate.  Even more disturbingly, the Molotov cocktail of words Trump hurls at the American republic has invited not condemnation, but uncomfortable silence, from the GOP elites, and playful giggles from those who should be opposing him. The latter are seasoned journalists, pundits, activists, and even Democratic Party operatives who every time they are asked to comment on yet another incoherent insult Trump had made, inevitably respond by giggling, or even laughing, thereby turning any explanation that comes after into a joke. The giggles bespeak a widespread cynicism that has infected our imagination and made it possible for someone as authoritarian as Trump to come a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

The plague of cynicism has taken root not only in America, but even more corrosively, in Europe where authoritarianism has rapidly gained ground (Hungary, Poland, Turkey), xenophobia become a part of immigration policies (Denmark), and early 20th century-style nationalism edged out the idea of a European identity, threatening the very existence of the European Union (Brexit).  In the immediate post-WWII period, progressive liberalism mobilized millions of Europeans into building a continent that would never again succumb to the barbarism that was Nazism.

By liberalism I mean not the narrow liberalism of the 19th century—which was mostly concerned with preserving privileges of middle class, white, propertied men—but its more activist reincarnation following the Second World War.  It is the latter that made it possible for conservatives, liberals, social democrats, and even some communists to rally around the idea that a free, just, democratic society is not only possible, but also desirable.

It is progressive liberalism that stirred the imaginations of French and German bureaucrats who set down the foundations of a new, continent-wide union that aimed to make war an ugly thing of the past.  It was progressive liberalism that pushed Europeans to see national borders as cumbersome and unnecessary, made cultural exchanges between former enemy countries commonplace, and that often silenced national identities as anachronistic residues of a bygone era.

Lodged within the foundation of liberalism was the simple notion that human beings were essentially good and deserving of respect and that the role of governments was to provide conditions that allowed the goodness of human beings to thrive.  This is why the creation and the expansion of the European Union was also a legal revolution whereby universal laws of democracy and human rights protections were carefully stretched over the continent.

The building of a pan-European liberal union was to a large extent made possible by the policies of the United States.  In the immediate postwar years, Americans nudged the French away from the revanchist policies towards Germany and instead steered them both into a more collaborative stance.

The billions of no-strings-attached dollars the US poured into both countries through the Marshall plan made the French-German reconciliation all the more palatable to their citizens exhausted by war and poverty.  The fact that today a war between Germany and France is simply unimaginable is arguably one of the most long-lasting effects of this policy. The end of the Cold War made liberals drunk with hubris: writing at the time, the influential American political scientist Francis Fukuyama predicted that we were witnessing the “end of history,” a point of no return where ideological conflicts of the past had been replaced by the worldwide victory of liberal democracy and capitalist prosperity.  Not too long after, however, the multiethnic country of Yugoslavia burst into pieces in an orgy of violence, nationalism roared once again across the continent, and Putin style “illiberal democracy,” to quote the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, rose up in place of Fukuyama’s failed prophecy.

The end of the Cold War made liberals drunk with hubris: writing at the time, the influential American political scientist Francis Fukuyama predicted that we were witnessing the “end of history,” a point of no return where ideological conflicts of the past had been replaced by the worldwide victory of liberal democracy and capitalist prosperity.  Not too long after, however, the multiethnic country of Yugoslavia burst into pieces in an orgy of violence, nationalism roared once again across the continent, and Putin style “illiberal democracy,” to quote the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, rose up in place of Fukuyama’s failed prophecy.

Today, in many parts of Europe, cynicism has largely replaced the idealism of progressive liberalism.  The prosperity the EU promised has for many failed to materialize, the borderless regime has reignited xenophobia and Islamophobia that in many ways mirror the anti-Semitism that had plagued the continent for so long. And many feel simply uninspired by the faceless Brussels-run Europe.  To quote Pope Francis from his speech in Strasbourg in 2014: “The great ideas which once inspired Europe seem to have lost their attraction, only to be replaced by the bureaucratic technicalities of its institutions.”

Hungary is a perfect example of this trend.  Having been on the wrong side of history in WWII — which most tragically led to the mass murder of Budapest’s 440,000 Jews in three weeks!—after the war, Hungary was occupied, first directly and then indirectly, by the Soviet Union.  The country’s courageous resistance to Soviet-style dictatorship in 1956 was met with bullets, tanks, and batons, making the long awaited arrival of democracy in the 1990s particularly satisfying to the country’s middle classes and former dissidents. However, the EU membership came with the realization that Hungary is a small country, competing in a large market.  Old fears about the Hungarian language, culture, and identity in general, prominent during Hungary’s existence as part of the Habsburg, and later Austro-Hungarian, empire, were stirred once more. The rise of the far right came hand in hand with the revisionist move in historiography that downplayed the country’s collaboration with the Nazis and their participation in the Holocaust.

The revival of nationalism coupled with the corruption and the ineptitude of the center-left opposition left a vacuum in which the populist regime of Viktor Orban could emerge with a substantial electoral legitimacy. The refugee crisis, replete with images of columns of refugees storming the border, proved doubly beneficial to Orban: he cracked down on refugees, claiming to be the protector of Christian Europe from an Islamic invasion whilst further muzzling free press and NGOs under the pretense of security.  The barbed wire he erected and the vigilantism against refugees he openly encouraged have only cemented his popularity.  In fact, Orban has become so self-assured that he recently admitted that he was creating “an illiberal state.”

Similarly, Turkey, once a promising case of democracy in a majority Muslim country, which in the early 2000s seemed to be edging closer to the European Union, has seen its European hopes dashed and the democratic institutions replaced by a peculiar brand of Islamic authoritarianism practiced by Recep Tayyip Erdogan.  Turkey’s postwar period was one of uneven economic growth under secular governments that were often propped up by military coups that aimed to prevent Islamists from organizing.

But behind this secular semi-dictatorship there was an idealistic premise: that Turkey would be ushered into a European style modernity and leave its Ottoman “backward” (in the words of some secularists) past behind.  The EU not only spurned the Turks, but it did so in a particularly humiliating way by asking them to jump through hoops until finally reneging on its promises to allow the largely Muslim country to one day become a full member of the largely Christian union.

The British PM David Cameron recently noted, sarcastically of course, that Turkey would not become a part of the EU until the year 3000.  Seeing no political benefits from democratic reforms, Erdogan embarked on cementing his regime by cracking down on free press, demolishing the secular regime previously seen as sacred, reigniting the war on the Kurds, and doubling down on denying the Armenian genocide, perpetrated by the Ottoman troops during the First World War.  The genocide denial has increased his legitimacy even in the eyes of many of his detractors.  Erdogan’s authoritarianism is unique because it is infused with an unprecedented blend of religiously-inspired Ottomanism (and the imperial nostalgia this invokes) and militant secular nationalism that has for so long opposed the very forces Erdogan is now commanding.  But as is the case with Trump, it is not ideological consistency that endears Erdogan to his supporters. It is his openly authoritarian style, his reckless rhetoric, his radical policies that fulfill his campaign promises, and his uncompromising style that have all fueled his cult of personality so much so that even German comics are now being prosecuted for making jokes against the Turkish President.

It is in this context of the rise of neo-fascist authoritarianisms that Trump has to be situated.  As I have previously written for Salon, Trump inspires his followers because of his authoritarian persona and not because of any specific policies he prescribes.  Unlike other politicians, who are all talk, he is a man of action, he continually reminds us. But what has to be emphasized is that this authoritarian persona would have been met with derision had he emerged at any other time since the Second World War.

 But he has emerged today.  Today when progressive liberalism has run out of steam, its arguably most successful project — the European Union — teetering on the edge of collapse. Today when illiberal right-wing populist movements are on the march from Paris to Vienna to Copenhagen to Budapest to Ankara.  Today, when it has become perfectly acceptable for mainstream European politicians to brand Muslim refugees “parasites” or for a government (in Denmark) to requisition (or steal), refugees’ meager savings in order to pay for their temporary room and board.  Today when the party formed by unrepentant Nazis in the immediate postwar period, in the birth country of Adolf Hitler, has missed seizing power by only the slightest of margins (which is not to say that the next time the Freedom Party in Austria will not be more successful!).

So what underpins all these authoritarian movements, including Trump’s, is a pervasive pessimism about the human condition: we are deeply broken.  We are all losers, to borrow from Trumpist vocabulary, because we have not made progress in any area of life, be it racial reconciliation, immigration policy, or trade agreements.  America is not better off after eight years of Obama despite evidence to the contrary.  Instead, Trump keeps repeating, we are a third-world country.  What is troubling is that it is not entirely clear what comes next.  Trump, like other authoritarians, invokes a mythical past when humans were better: whether that’s the 1950s for Trump, the golden Ottoman age of Suleyman the Magnificent for Erdogan, or the interwar dictatorial period for Orban is irrelevant.  What is important is that the mythical past can never be recreated because it does not exist.  It never did.  What is terrifying, however, is that the mythical past can be re-invoked continuously to justify an ever-expanding array of undemocratic, intolerant and repressive policies.  In what is possibly the most egregious example of this, Himmler kept reaching into an ever more distant past, including the Teutonic period, to justify the savage policies of the SS.  Authoritarianism of any stripe feeds off of this pessimism.

To giggle at Trumpism — or Erdoganism, Orbanism, or any other authoritarianism for that matter—is to either accept its premises or to wave them away.  We can no longer afford to do this.  Recently, The New York Times laid out the disturbing extent to which President Trump would be able to implement the hateful promises of candidate Trump.  Instead of giggling, we need to rejuvenate progressive liberalism and its core belief in the goodness of human beings.  Policy prescriptions of the Hillary Clinton kind are important, but what is needed is a much more comprehensive mobilization of political imagination based on concrete achievements of postwar liberalism. Politics once again have to become the arena in which imagining a better future moves people to do things that build each other up and not tear each other down.

Worn out, hungry and grieving, the Europeans who had just emerged from World War II threw themselves into clearing the still smoldering ruins and building a more peaceful Europe because they believed that such a Europe was possible. I was reminded of this postwar optimism while talking to a Bosnian man, now in his seventies, who participated in the so-called Yugoslav work brigades building roads and bridges in a Yugoslavia that had just been ravaged by the Nazis.  Knee deep in mud, stuck in some remote Bosnian village, Asim worked all day shifts, for free, whilst singing.  “Whilst singing!” Asim said and leaned into me, raising his forefinger uncomfortably close to my eyes and sighed deeply before plumping himself back into the chair.

The conversation happened a few years ago, and I am not even sure if Asim is still alive, but the image of a muddy, singing Asim came to me while I was watching, on TV, the violence unfolding outside of yet another Trump rally, this time in California.  If we are to prevent such violence from escalating — which it surely would if Mr. Trump is elected President — and if we are to prevent our own slide into authoritarianism, we need less giggling and more inspirational optimism.


Why Millions of GOP Voters Bought Into Trump’s Phony Populist Act

Donald Trump is the last person who should be expected to lead a working class movement.

Photo Credit: via Wikimedia

Donald Trump does not come across as a typical plutocrat — and if he did, it is doubtful whether he would be the leader of a new right-wing populist movement in America. Though the billionaire was born into great wealth and privilege, and started running his father’s $200 million real estate firm in the 1970s (a lucky break?), he has a very down-to-earth and unsophisticated way of communicating; as crude as the stereotypical drunk uncle and as slick and self-assured as a used-car salesman from New Jersey.

Over the past year, the Trump has skillfully crafted his political image as a common man fighting against the elite Republican establishment, the politically correct “limousine liberals,” and, of course, the foreigners and immigrants who want to steal American jobs and impose their alien values on Jane and Joe Average.

In a recent NPR interview, President Obama — who, unlike Trump, is a self-made man who grew up with very little — ventured to remind everyone about Trump’s plutocratic status, and how he has been a wealthy elite for his entire seven decades on planet earth:

“Mr. Trump embodies global elites and has taken full advantage of it his entire life,” said the president. “So, he’s hardly a spokesperson — a legitimate spokesperson — for a populist surge from working class people on either side of the Atlantic.”

Indeed. Trump is a capitalist who has combated unionsoutsourced production of his many products to countries like China and Mexico, scammed vulnerable working class people out of thousands at his defunct Trump University, and attempted numerous times to seize the property of unwilling homeowners and small business owners through eminent domain. As Obama implied, Trump is the last person who should be expected to lead a working class movement.

Of course, the billionaire is not leading a working class movement in a typical progressive or socialist sense, but a reactionary one. The Trump campaign can be described as anti-intellectual and anti-internationalist rather than anti-elitist or anti-capitalist. Trump hasn’t derided the capitalist system or the billionaire plutocrats who profit so handsomely because of it (after all, he is one of them), but the technocratic experts in government, the snobby intellectuals in academia, the politically correct liberals in the media, and so on.

The campaign is in many ways a revolt against neoliberalism from the right, just as the Bernie Sanders campaign is a revolt from the political left. The latter candidate has been very critical of free market and neoliberal economics and the corrupt political process (i.e. unlimited political spending), while the former has directed his fury at the “totally incompetent” government officials (read: experts) and the politically correct elites who hate America (cultural issues have tended to dominate his rhetoric over economic ones).

This kind of right-wing populist approach is hardly novel; author Thomas Frank explained how reactionaries paint themselves as common folk while serving the interests of the economic elite in his classic 2004 book, “What’s the Matter with Kansas,” by largely ignoring economic realities:

“You can hardly deride liberals as society’s “elite” or present the GOP as the party of the common man if you acknowledge the existence of the corporate world — the power that creates the nation’s real elite, that dominates it’s real class system, and that wields the Republican party as its personal political sidearm,” writes Frank. “The erasure of the economic is a necessary precondition for most of the basic backlash ideas. It is only possible to think that the news is slanted to the left, for example, if if you don’t take into account who owns the news organizations and if you never turn your critical powers on that section of the media devoted to business news. The university campus can only be imagined as a place dominated by leftists if you never consider economics departments or business schools. You can believe that conservatives are powerless victims only if you exclude conservatism’s basic historical constituency, the business community, from your analysis.”

Frank more recently wrote “Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened To The Party Of The People,” a polemic against the Democratic party and the meritocratic dogma that has dominated it for years. The so-called “party of the people,” argues Frank, has become the party of an elite professional class over the past thirty or so years. After the Reagan revolution, the party of FDR adopted third-way centrism to get on the good side of corporate America, and began advocating reactionary economic policies that had once been firmly Republican, such as financial deregulation, welfare reform, and corporatist free trade (NAFTA, TPP). The last two Democratic administrations have been made up largely of professional “revolving door” elites who serve in government for a few years only to go and make big paydays in private industry afterwards (recall the notorious “Committee to save the world”). The next Democratic administration will likely be no different, as Hillary Clinton has close financial ties to Wall Street and corporate America, and is a firm believer in professional class elitism.

In other words, Trump’s diatribes against the liberal and technocratic elites are not completely unfounded. Right-wing populists like Trump have been able to succeed because Democrats have become less egalitarian and more elitist over the years.

Sanders has attempted to push the Democrats to the left with his own presidential campaign, and while it was an unequivocal success — especially considering it began as a fringe campaign — it is too soon to tell whether it will have any long-term effect on the party (if the Sanders campaign morphs into a popular movement, of course, the chances rise exponentially).

Conor L-nch is a writer and journalist living in New York City. His work has appeared on Salon, The Hill, AlterNet, and openDemocracy. Follow him on Twitter.


Why So Many Evangelicals Find Donald Trump Irresistible

Powerful, sexist, war-mongering, and in need of constant attention, Trump is an awful lot like the God of the Old Testament.

Photo Credit: Art by Nancy Ohanian

People have been scratching their heads about how so many “family values” American voters who claim to love Jesus can follow Donald Trump. What ever happened to love thy neighbor, and if you have two coats give one to the poor, and turn the other cheek, and feed my lambs, and the meek shall inherit the Earth? Some horrified Christian leaders have gone so far as to say a person can’t be a Christian and a Trump supporter.

Of course, times are hard, and in fairness, fear and downward mobility do weird things to some people, including Christians. And some folks, whether Christian or not, are congenitally horrid. But shouldn’t Bible belief inoculate earnest believers against someone who seems like the polar opposite of Jesus?

Perhaps the problem is that Trump is a lot like a different Bible character—one who also is the polar opposite of Jesus in many ways, but whom young believers are nevertheless taught to worship and praise. I’m talking about the character of Jehovah; Yahweh as some people call him; the Great I Am; the LORD God of the Old Testament who makes it into the New Testament as both the father of Jesus and his alter-ego, and later into the Quran.

One way biblical literalism screws with people’s heads is this: Children are taught from a young age that God is perfect—the essence of Love and Truth. But when you look a little closer at the stories in the Bible, it turns out he’s an awful lot like Trump.

He is powerful, and He wants us all to know it. Isaiah 45 is just one of many egomaniacal diatribes about God’s unparalleled power and contempt for humanity, as if the force that created the DNA code and supernovas would need to brag and posture and lord it over lowly bipedal primates. It contains the word “I” 22 times, as in:

“I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides me there is no god. I arm you, though you do not know me, so that they may know—from the rising of the sun and from the west—that there is no one besides me; I am the Lord, and there is no other. I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe; I the Lord do all these things … To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear… ” (Isaiah 45:5-7 KJV)

Me, me, me, I, I, I, I, I.

He’s an insatiable attention seeker. From Genesis through Revelation, the Bible lays out precisely how people should grovel and sing God’s praises and otherwise kiss up. God wants his adoring followers to beg for things he already knows they need. He loves the smell of burnt offerings and dictates just what should be burnt and when. He demands proof of loyalty, like cutting off the cover of your penis, or whacking relatives who don’t think he’s awesome, or being willing to turn your child into a human sacrifice.

And he doesn’t like it at all if anyone pays attention to competing deities. “Thou shalt worship no other god!” he roars, “For the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God!”

He issues two sets of 10 Commandments, one of which contains nothing but details of how to pay him homage. The other, better known set includes some basic, universal ethical principles—but even there, four out of 10 are about giving the Big Man the kind of exclusive adoration he wants. That’s why there was no room for Wash your hands after you go to the bathroom. Or Don’t have sex with anyone who doesn’t want to. Or Treat other living beings like they want to be treated. Or Thou shalt not own other human beings.

Imagine our world if Jehovah had been a little less concerned with attention and a little more concerned with compassion and sanitation.

He’s mean. The internet abounds with articles, sermons and videos assuring us that the Bible-god isn’t really the embodiment of mean people suck. But what exactly would you call sending a bear to tear apart 42 boys who tease a prophet? Or slaughtering a son in each Egyptian peasant family and blaming the mass murder on their unelected ruler who is actually your puppet: “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Pharaoh will not listen to you, in order that my wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt.’ Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh; but the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he did not let the people of Israel go out of his land.” (Exodus 11:9)

Or let’s go back to the very first Bible story. What would you call putting a tantalizing fruit tree in front of two naïve and inexperienced creatures you’ve just made out of dirt and then punishing them brutally when they eat from it? (Genesis 2-3). Not long ago, an Alabama pastor wanted to teach a lesson about Christian obedience so he starved his chained-up dog for two days and then put food in reach but told the dog not to eat.

Yeah, sadistic. Sometimes Christians reveal a little more than intended about the deity they worship.

He’s racist and prejudiced. God may claim credit for making us all, but that doesn’t prevent him from picking favorites or finding some people repugnant simply by accident of birth. The Old Testament narratives are about favored blood lines, whites—I mean Hebrews—who get the right to claim land already occupied by other ethnic groups. According to God’s rules, even slaves must be treated better if they are Hebrew slaves.

But being Hebrew won’t help if you’re handicapped. Jehovah, like Trump thinks that arthrogryposis is just gross. Stay away! “No one of your offspring throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the food of his God. For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, one who is blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, or one who has a broken foot or a broken hand, or a hunchback, or a dwarf, or a man with a blemish in his eyes or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles.” (Leviticus 21:17-21)

He demeans women. If a guy with crushed balls might contaminate Jehovah’s inner sanctum, a menstruating woman would be far worse. Whatever you do, don’t let Megyn Kelly sit on the furniture! And by the way, a woman who gives birth to a girl baby is nasty for twice as long as one who gives birth to a boy. But don’t get too insulted. Women can be saved through childbearing.

Donald Trump may treat women like trophies, but Jehovah literally defines women as economic assets belonging to men—just like slaves, children and cattle, which is where the word chattel comes from. He actually sets up formal guidelines for sexual slavery. As chattel, a female who voluntarily gives up her virginity (thus reducing her economic value) can be stoned, but a rapist must simply buy the damaged goods. If a man suspects his wife of infidelity (again reducing her ability to produce purebred offspring of known origin), he can forcibly give her an abortion potion. Never say Jehovah is anything less than a bro.

(See also Fifteen Bible Texts Reveal Why God’s Own Party Keeps Degrading Women. Or, don’t take it from me, take it from Christian leaders themselves: Twenty Vile Quotes Against Women By Church Leaders from St. Augustine to Pat Robertson.)

He’s bellicose and vindictive. Lists of Jehovah’s enemies and stories about how he ruins their lives or plans to ruin their afterlives occupy much of the Bible. First there’s Satan and all of those uppity angels who have apparently gotten tired of acting like everlasting groupies. Then come giants and people who build the Tower of Babel, which threatens to break through to God’s home above the sky.

Then comes everybody but Noah and his ark-building sons, and then the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Midianites and Amalekites and the Philistines (other Semitic tribes), and the Assyrians and Babylonians, and a long litany of foreign kings and queens like Nebuchadnezzar and Jezebel. And let’s not forget all of the traitors among his Chosen People, who—despite constant displays of divine temper and butchery—never seem to grasp how badly Jehovah will burn them if they fall down on sucking up. Unable to threaten lawsuits like Trump can now, Jehovah instead threatens all who displease him with eternal torture.

His statements contradict facts and each other. Unless the Bible writers got things garbled, Jehovah’s claims are wildly contradictory. Jehovah says he created evil, and also says he can’t look on it. He shows up, then says no one has ever seen him (Exodus 33:11/John 1:18). He tempts people to do bad things, then denies having ever done so (Genesis 22:1/James 1:13). He declares himself unchanging but changes his mind at will (Exodus 32:14/Psalm 105:25-27). He apparently can’t remember if he created animals before humans or vice versa, so boldly tells the story both ways (Genesis 1 & 2).

Add to the contradictions a surreal layer of ignorance.

Jehovah’s official biography is full of scientific hogwash. He creates day and night before the sun. He makes the sun stand still as a favor to some Iron Age fans—meaning he somehow stops the earth’s rotation without everything flying off the planet. He covers Mt. Everest in a flood which then dries up. He assumes that pi equals three. He predicts that a star will fall to earth. He warns against eating four-legged insects (which don’t exist). In sum, despite his claim to have created the world, he doesn’t have a freaking clue how it works.

But that’s OK, because all that really matters is …

He’s wildly rich, and he promises to make you rich too if you follow him. Jehovah’s version of heaven, which sounds rather hellish if you actually think about it for more than five seconds, perfectly sums up Jehovah as the protagonist of his own story. It’s a place of conspicuous opulence with streets of gold and gem-encrusted walls where everyone gets their own mansion. But these trappings of wealth are on offer only to those who are willing to spend a literal eternity standing around singing about what an awesome god he is. This, according to many Christians, is the pinnacle of human existence. And if you don’t find that appealing—it’s outer darkness for you, baby. Wailing and gnashing of teeth.

You can see why someone primed on Jehovah might admire a bully with an almost limitless sense of his own importance, who demands constant admiration, has an enemy list a mile long, and shows a perverse lack of empathy for those he perceives as lesser beings. These classic characteristics of narcissistic personality disorder are the reason we often refer to a narcissist as someone with a god-complex. Most of humanity’s gods are assholes, and the Bible-god is no exception.

Biologist Richard Dawkins once summed up Jehovah in a sentence: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Christians may make the head-spinning claim that Jehovah is a stand-up guy, goodness incarnate, and worthy to be worshiped by all of humanity, but he makes Donald Trump look morally intact. To the best of my knowledge Trump has no history of infanticide, genocide, filicide, or ethnic cleansing. Despite his god complex, Trump is a pale shadow of the Great I Am.

Even so, from an electoral standpoint, Trump’s likeness to Jehovah may be as valuable as his celebrity name. If Trump manages to get himself elected by Evangelicals looking for streets of gold and old white males who think they are the Chosen People, we may all be grateful that the worst he can do is build a big wall or nuke the Middle East rather than drowning the entire planet in a flood that covers Everest.

Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington, and the founder of Wisdom Commons. She is the author of “Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light” and “Deas and Other Imaginings.” Her articles can be found at valerietarico.com.


How Donald Trump’s Doublespeak Really Works—and Is Highly Calculated

We should dispense with the Republican candidate’s myth of spontaneity.

Photo Credit: a katz/Shutterstock.com

Donald Trump’s speaking style is said to be off the cuff and spontaneous. Far from it. He’s actually using a very sophisticated doublespeak.

One of the obligations of a candidate is to commit to policy solutions. You review a public problem, decide what you will do when in office, and report in detail how you will address the problem. You make yourself accountable for your position.

Instead of doing this, Trump practices what one might call “multiple-choice communication.” Whenever he speaks on a given topic, he gives multiple options on what he might mean.

For instance, at a recent rally in Fresno, Trump stated that, despite five years of low rainfall in California, “There is no drought. They turn the water into the ocean. If I win, believe me, we’re going to start opening up the water so that you can have your farmers survive.”

Now, this is a very confusing statement. What could he mean? Go ahead and choose your answer to this multiple-choice problem. Does Trump mean that:

  1. There never was a drought (perhaps the drought was a myth?)
  2. There was a drought, but it has ended naturally.
  3. There was a drought, but somebody’s fixed it.
  4. There is no drought, because what others call a drought is simply their inability to drain the Sacramento River Delta and use its water for farming.
  5. There is drought, but as president of the United States, Trump will singlehandedly change California water policy. The fact that a huge engineering project, like draining the Sacramento River Delta, is theoretically possible, is the same as there never having been a drought in the first place.

Do you see how many options Trump gives us to believe? Which answer did you choose?

Now imagine some attendees at Trump’s rally. They get to choose their own answers, just like you. Some people simply feel reassured by Trump’s words there is no drought. Whew! What a relief.

Some are farmers who hear Trump say he will send them water. Thank you, Donald Trump!

Some are anti-government and are happy that climate change is a myth. No further government intervention needed. Amen!

Some are pro-government and welcome a huge engineering project. This would destabilize the ecology, the water table, real estate values, and would have countless other consequences. If you want this option, you want heavy government intervention.

These different listeners at the Trump rally are not in agreement on what needs to be done. However, because the speech is given in multiple-choice format, each hears a different promise. It may seem they’re cheering together, but they’re cheering for different results.

Back in the Republican primaries, Trump got massive media coverage by making extreme promises about immigration, trade and religious discrimination. This won him the loyalty of political extremists such as anti-foreigners and white supremacists. At this point in the campaign, Trump needs to expand his share of the American voter base by appealing to more moderate voters.

How does he appeal to moderates without losing his early extremist fans? Multiple-choice communication. This enables him to speak separately to the different listeners without changing his tune. He still speaks to the racists. But he now he’s also speaking to the moderates.

Here’s how it works.

At a rally in San Diego Trump spoke publicly about a judge presiding over a lawsuit against Trump University. After calling him a “very hostile judge” and a “hater,” Trump adds, “What happens is the judge, who happens to be, we believe, Mexican, which is great. I think that’s fine.”

In fact, the judge, Gonzalo Curiel, was born in Indiana.

So let’s do the multiple-choice. Which of these is Trump saying?

  1. Anyone who gets in my way, I can single them out in a speech and focus the crowd’s hate on them.
  2. I can single out any American at any time and bring public focus on their ethnic or religious heritage.
  3. I can describe any American as foreign (as “Mexican”) rather than as an American.
  4. My racist fans may follow my lead and also single out other Americans based on their ethnic, cultural or religious heritage.
  5. Judge Curiel’s professional behavior may be based on his being Mexican.
  6. Judge Curiel’s ethnic heritage is up to my approval, and I think it’s great that he is Mexican (even though he’s not Mexican).

Let’s imagine how this sounds to the different listeners.

Say one of the people in the audience is a man named Tim, who is a white supremacist. As he listens, he hears Trump say that this American-born judge is essentially a “Mexican.” Tim thinks, “I can’t believe Trump can say this out loud! A candidate after my own heart.”

Another listener, Maria, hears this: Anyone who gets in Trump’s way might suddenly be singled out and labeled as a non-American. Especially if you’re “Mexican.” You could lose your citizenship rights. Scary! Keep your head down.

A third listener, Steve, is a moderate independent who came because he was curious. When he hears Trump saying, “it’s great to be Mexican” he thinks “Gosh, I was worried Trump was a racist. But he says Mexicans are great. I guess he’s not racist.”

You see, if Trump communicated his proposed policies (build the wall, deport, ban Muslims) like a normal candidate, we would be seeing him as an extremist and as a cruel man. That would not be very fun and would not win more voters. It’s smarter for Trump to court moderates and undecided voters by confusing them with multiple-choice statements.

Multiple-choice communication is not unique to Donald Trump. You may also have seen it in advertisements, especially when the advertiser doesn’t intend to deliver on their promises. For instance, you may see shampoos that promise men “thicker hair.” Men buy it thinking they will solve their hair loss. Nope. The shampoos make your individual hairs thicker, but don’t stop hair from falling out. The shampoo maker knows customers will make this mistake, but it’s not false advertising. You simply heard the wrong option.

The problem, of course, is that people at a Trump rally each leave having heard a different promise. And if Trump should become president, there is no way he can fulfill all of those different expectations. Which reminds us that the people who would be most let down by a Trump presidency are the people who believe in what he says.

Mark Peysha is CEO and cofounder of the Center for Strategic Intervention.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s