Understanding why Trump won, wins, and could likely be reelected

Those who didn't vote for Trump and those who actively hate his very provocative public behavior seem unable to understand the reasons of his growing domestic support, his foreign policy's successes and the sustained economic boom he presides and encourages.

Watching some documentaries may help those who are not hostages to the oxymoron of partisan logic and thinking. Turning off CNN, Fox, Breitbart, MSNBC and PBS can be a good start. Read books and the reasoning of the other side of your ideological and political spectrum instead.

Let's begin with the contempt and condescension towards Trump's intellect and his supporters':

Hillary Clinton has yet to realize why she blew her own  "blue wall" in the Midwest -the only wall she could break through- and why her party has left her for the Far Left, that blames her for not having been even more wrong about understanding the "Somewhere" voters that used to vote Democrat. 

One good start to understand why middle America's Obama voters turned into Trump voters is reading J.D. Vance's Hillbilly Elegy :

And the more in depth sociological and demographic-based analysis in Charles Murray's "Coming Apart":

In his book "The Road to Somewhere: The Populist Revolt and the Future of Politics" British sociologist David Goodhart explains this "cognitive the same phenomenon between Remainers and Brexiteers in UK as well. He does it in terms of "anywheres" -college educated urban professionals with global skills finding jobs around the world - coming apart from "somewheres" -trades-trained suburban multi-generational blue collar workers losing their jobs to globalization and "creative destruction" fueled by "anywheres'-.

Even if you are an "anywhere" -or perhaps especially if you are one of those "anywhere" worried about the apparent right-turn in US and Western Europe voters- it's still time to look at the other side of your spectrum and remember that elections not only have consequences,  but lessons that if not learned, may come back with a vengeance.

Relax, give yourself time to open your mind to the other side's views and give a second look at how and why Donald Trump became our 45th president in 2016.

And if you think Trump is dumb and ignorant in political matters you should also check this long interview he gave David Rubinstein well before he decided to run for office a second time. 

There is a method to Trump's "madness", to his deliberate incivility towards others, and to his very New York-real estate-mogul bargaining tactics. And that method is by any means any less astute than Washington DC politicians grandiloquent rhetoric. 

Those who look down on Trump's intellect or political acumen could use some recent memory to look at how their previous forecasts based on that premise make them look now:

"Stop China" Kumbaya: Tom Friedman joins Steve Bannon

Trade wars make strange bedfellows. So is the current standoff between US and China. After three decades of diplomacy and WTO-like agreements, President Trump is trying sanctions and open confrontation to cajole China into respecting international rule of law and intellectual property.

According to Friedman -the most iconic mouthpiece for globalization since its famous book "The Lexus and The Olive Tree" coined the term twenty years ago, back in 1999-, it's due time for a "High Noon" moment of reckoning. Here's Friedman on the subject and on the record in his NYT op ed column:

"I’m glad Trump is confronting China on its market access barriers. Those are the real issue — not the bilateral trade imbalance. This is long overdue. But trade is not a zero-sum game. China can thrive and rise, and we can, too, at the same time. That’s what’s been happening for the past 40 years. But we’d be even better off if China offered the kind of easy access to its market for U.S. manufacturers that it enjoys in America. It’s time to recalibrate U.S.-China economic ties before it really is too late.  

What do I mean? China’s formula for success had three pillars. 

The first was a lot of hard work; delayed gratification; high savings; smart investments in infrastructure, education and research; and a Darwinian system of capitalism. In China’s “jungle capitalism,” 30 companies in the same business emerge and compete to see which becomes the alpha male and wins the government’s backing to go global. This system has produced high levels of innovation — Alibaba, Tencent, DJI — despite a censored internet, lack of a free press and an authoritarian government.

The second pillar was a system of cheating on World Trade Organization rules; the forced transfers of technology; the stealing of the intellectual property of others; nonreciprocal trade rules; and massive government support for the winners of both its Darwinian competitions and inefficient state-owned industries. 

The third pillar — never acknowledged by China — was a stable global trading system built by U.S. statesmen and sustained by the U.S. Navy. It’s been the U.S. Navy in the Pacific that has assured China’s trading partners there that China’s economic domination wouldn’t result in China’s geopolitical domination over them — and therefore made them open to massive trade and investment from China."

Bannon used the financial CNBC network to celebrate Trump's war trade stance:

This "coming together" in a tough stance reached even the Democratic trade committee chair, the rabid anti-Trump Chris Van Hollen, asking for even tougher stances on chinese companies such as ZTE

Economic forces seem to be realigning against China in a long-term game-changing bet. Market signs seem to indicate that there is no shortage of players wanting to gamble for this option. The stakes are high, the dimensions and global character of China's economic position in the world make the ripple effects on the interconnected international economy hard to predict:

In any case, the new strategic scenario seems headed to break the self-imposed boundaries of conventional wisdom, particularly the myth of an invincible authoritarian, state-controlled China model advantage over free market, entrepreneurial economies of the West.

For Trump's base, the realities of his trade war look different:

Free trade doesn't necessarily mean "free range" , one-sided trade deals, particularly when the other side has been voicing for years a "Made in China 2025" plan with targets of 90 percent "made in China" products.

It begs to wonder what kind of free trader is the government that accepts deals with an ultra-nationalist partner with an ultra-mercantilist policy such as China.

In any case, Trump is not provoking a trade war, but reacting to one that started decades ago and has been escalating at broad daylight.

It takes two to tango. This might be a rocky dance.

EU Parliament elections: Populism Turns to the Right

The coming EU Parliament elections will check the strength and sustainability of the populist wave that has taken over UK and Italy, most of Eastern Europe and some smaller countries like Austria.

After an initial wave with Brexit and the triumph of Five Stars in Italy, the populist trend seems to have peaked. Part of this has to do with the poor government performance of the first wave in Spain and Greece -where the far left  Podemos lost votes and Syriza ended implementing an impopular but necessary stabilization program with the IMF-. 

Other, without doubt, with the chaotic and protracted drama around Brexit, which pitted Scotland, Ireland and London against the economically declining regions of England. The Brexiteers didn't have a clear plan nor credible leadership to form a government, and turned to a Remainer PM like Theresa May to implement a deal with EU. The result has been a long stalemate and cold feet for business that have been hemorrhaging out of UK for two years already.

According to a comprehensive Financial Times poll in all EU countries, UK and Italy will increase the seats for EU populists, but far short from a working majority able to elect a populist for the position of EU PM. (click to enlarge) 

While Spain turned to the moderate social-democratic center-left with PSOE, France  -which still has a dominant centrist in power- seems to be wobbling under the street riots promoted by the Yellow Vests anti-European populists.

A closer look by Politico polls show that the moderate center-Right and the center-Left will still hold majorities in the 2019-2024 EU Parliament, with the Liberal centrists as "king-makers" but also needing populist votes to form government.

The growth chart seems to show populists plateauing and moderates bouncing back, most likely as results of Brexit/UKIP, Podemos' and Syriza's fizzling after government and opposition fiascos.

Pro-EU forces hold a healthy 467 majority seats almost doubling Euro-skeptics.

All this said, the situation for the coming five years (2019-2024) is fluid, highly dependent on the economy, mostly at the mercy of the US-China trade brinkmanship.

Last but not least significant, US anti-EU nationalist Steve Bannon is working overtime propping up Trumpian-esque forces in UK (Brexit-UKIP) Italy (Salvini), France (Gillettes Jaunes),  Spain (Vox), Hungary (Orban) and even Brazil (Bolsonaro).

Those who underestimate Bannon's impact and power do so at their own peril. Trump might be less ideological and more pragmatic, but Bannon is a man on a mission, and that mission can generate a Second Coming for right-wing populism in EU. Is good to remind those who look down on this phenomenon that the  First Coming brought Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and WWII during the 1922-1932 decade, right (pun intended) for the hundred anniversary of the crowning of European fascism that preceded World War II.

The Long View: European history tends to repeat itself. During the 20th century two world wars erupted for the same reasons -nationalism, populism, economic depression, anti-immigration and the perennial antisemitism (particularly in Eastern Europe)-

The story of US: divided we stand

 “I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discrimination. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. 

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy."

Looking at the partisan gridlock that shuts down the Federal Government every other year should reminds us George Washington's warning in his 1796 Farewell Address. In this last speech, Washington -who had decided to be a two-term president and retire from public life at the height of his popularity instead of becoming (as some proposed) a King- lay down critical advice for those he knew will follow in a peaceful succession of governments. 

What Washington described more than 200 years ago is on today's news -and every four or some years-:

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. "

Partisanship, Washington warned:

"serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."

Government shutdowns and filibusters are some of the forms divided government protects us from our extremists and our partisan excesses. Far from being "dysfunctional" (as frustrated partisans claim every time they play the play) is extremely effective as a enforcer of reason and negotiation. Everybody is served its share of humble pie and reminded government in the US is divided on purpose. And the purpose is bargaining and compromising.

Washington understood the value of partisan cross-checks over administrations as a way to keep them from excesses such as those the Framers saw in France with the Terror days. Partisanship was a natural manifestation of liberty to be protected:

"There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. 

But with restraint:

"in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.”"

Looking at gridlock with the lenses of a long view, one of those restraints to extremism is the division of powers and the ability of each branch to put a stop on the others.

Madison (Federalist 10) and the Framers designed what we could call "the Madison trap" in the Constitution, creating a Republic of law ruled through layers of powers and representatives instead of a popular (and populist) Democracy ruled by referendums and "mandates" from circumstantial majorities. United States were not designed to elect monarchs but temporary custodians of the public interest. 

A divided government, paradoxically, helped a "house divided" such as the United States are stand together better than a monolithic one. 

After 250 + years, no other democratic government on Earth has succeeded without a single year of dictatorship. No Cesar, no Napoleon, no Party. Not even during or after a Civil War. Lincoln took war powers with restraint, looking at the long view of the war's aftermath and reconciliation.

For all the irrationality, waste and foolishness of the rules that allow government shutdowns, filibusters, federal and state rights and courts or other ways to block circumstantial majorities from ramming their priorities through our COTUS -or one-sided SCOTUS from legislating from the bench- , these "dysfunctional" rules of governance have been and will continue to be essential in keeping the United States as a Republic, just as Benjamin Franklin wanted.

Trump and Pelosi, as those who preceded them and those who will follow, will have to accept a negotiate with each other. The cost and difficulty of gridlock will always be lesser than the alternative. Look at Venezuela.

That's worth the regular scandal and food-fight spectacle we have every other time a controversial decision is to be made.

A house divided is, paradoxically, the way for US to stand.

The Rise of the Freak: Slander Populism

"What goes around comes around", goes the saying. President Trump is justifiably outraged by the vicious, unproved accusations of being a Russian agent or even a Benedict Arnold spread during the last weeks by anti-Trump media.  He is right on that, for sure. Now he can appreciate how  it feels being at the receiving end of what he usually launches at his rivals.

Donald J. Trump made outrageous accusations a key component of his campaigning tactics. Now Democrats and their "friendly media" (CNN, MSNBC) returned him the favor, spreading accusations of being a Russian agent or some kind of Benedict Arnold.

For normal people -still a sizable portion of the US electorate- the kind of slander politics that populist candidates use for lack of ideas and policies becomes tiring and off-putting.

There is an extra benefit in slander politics: voter suppression. 

For Far Left and Far Right fringe extremists, slander contests help keep the moderate majority away. And favor extremist and fringe candidates that live from the politics of hatred and confrontation.

• On the Right:  Birthers, (still looking for Obama's closet-Muslim, resented Kenian nationalist past) , Tea Partiers, White Nationalists (formerly Supremacists)  and those listening to the likes of Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh. Add Ann Coulter and Newt Gingrich for better articulated English.
• On the Left: Black Lives Matter (still looking for white policemen to blame for abuse while deflecting or rejecting attention to black-on-black crime) , Antifa (looking for White Supremacists) , La Raza (waving Mexican flags to demand US citizenship) and a myriad of identity politics causes.

Since the election of the first black president, the politics of slander became more belligerent on both extremes of the spectrum. 

Unfortunately, fringe politics are spectacular and eye-catching, like reality shows or Jerry Springer's catfigthing spectacles. They have been that way since P.T. Barnum and Ripley discovered and popularized freak shows.

Democrats -the party of no ideas- have decided to compete for the party of bad ideas championship with a series of their own:

1. Matching  Trump's slander and personal aggression with theirs.
2. Voting and shouting down those that are not extreme enough.
3. Embracing fringe politics such as "Green Taxes" to the "rich", open-ended liability for speech, identity politics, "cultural appropriation" bans and barriers and taking campus politics mainstream. 

Will these policies help Democrats get elected? Maybe. It's a matter of time to see how they do at the polls. 

But even it they work to help them win: what kind of policies will "win"? 

Who are "they", the winners?

"Engagement" in slander politics is perhaps worse than indifference.

What Trump got Wrong

Given all the things Trump got right and might make him re-elected and a consequential POTUS, we should think that Americans and the rest of the world should be happy and hopeful as they were when Ronald Reagan showed he was more than a Hollywood actor and a Cold War warrior. 

Unfortunately, this is not as a clean-cut case. Reagan was a transparent man with strong personal, political and ethical principles. Even those who hated his policies came to love or at least respect the man.

Trump is the polar opposite. While many Republican, Independent and even some Blue Dog Democrats understand and share his policies -especially in the economic, foreign policy and derregulation/deburocratization fronts-, most have strong reservations towards the man in charge as a person, as a politician and as a leader.

Here are some of the things Trump got wrong and could cost dearly not just to his Presidency but to the country:

• Short-term focus, simplistic, past-mirrored vision. MAGA is a hat, not a policy. It is also mired in a symbolic, idyllic past (Again) rather than on a real future. It assumes that everything will go back to the 1950s postwar dominance and the 1960s economy. MAGA is more about undoing the Obama-Clinton-Bush legacy than creating new policy. "Policy is me", could say Trump paraphrasing King Louis XIV. "After me, the flood", could add as well, in this case paraphrasing De Gaulle. Well, the flood is at best coming by 2024. Something that the older, silver-haired Trump base might not care as much as the millenials or early Baby boomers.
• Trade wars and protectionism. Even if Trump is telling the truth (something even his closest aides have come to doubt) about this being a "rough bargaining" tactic and not a preference, its side effect has been stimulating protectionism (a popular trend everywhere among those economically illiterate) in both Trump's supporters, his antagonists (the Sanders-Antifa-La Raza- BLM-Dems and the anti-globalization Far Left) and foreign governments, forcing unpredictable consequences in the near term. If China and Europe -who are reluctantly pretending to resist a trade war- continue to decline economically, the world will suffer a major economic slowdown. Peter Navarro and other fringe protectionists -as in many other cases- are running the show with bad advice and half-baked theories. As in many other cases (Steve Bannon's white nationalism comes to mind) Trump might end having to backtrack after some significant self-damage is done and felt (watch US farmers).
• Financial irresponsibility After (correctly) blaming Obama administration for balooning the debt (something that would not have been necessary without Bush 43 reckless spending in "nation building" abroad) , Trump shows no interest in changing the destructive course of US finances and debt. Worse than that, POTUS 45 brags about his record in bankrupting his way out of financial trouble in business and talks about a possible US default as an option (no matter that it's explicitly banned by our Constitution). The potential result of the accumulated thrust of the collective POTUS heritage and the direction of the debt might cost dearly to US and the world, not to mention POTUS 46 and 47.
• Hate-mongering, exploitation of cultural wars, hatred-fanning. What is good for a reality show rating seems to be good for ushering the "base" vote and win (narrowly) elections. Trump has proven an artist in using insult and personal attacks as a way to taunt opponents, making them move far to fringe, unelectable Left-wing candidates and positions. The net result is a toxic climate that turns traditional culture wars into a low-grade civil war and compromises constitutional institutions, checks and balances. There is a method in  Trump's theatrical madness, but his performing talent reminds of the worst of vernacular populism -from William Jennings Bryant's People's Party to "Every Man a King" Huey Long and Joe McCarthy's witch-hunts (which Trump characteristically -it was his shared mentor  Roy Cohn's favorite tactic- turns around presenting himself as a victim of). The most negative consequence of Trump's tactics is tarnishing good policies with negative, self-destructive politics.
• One-man-show government. Trump has brought to POTUS 45 his (bad) management habits in spades: one-man-show, lack of organization, repelling or burning out competent people, crowding with sycophants and family, not delegate, half-delegate, then undercut the delegate, zig zagging positions, run-by-whim decision-making, and so on. A full playbook of bad small business management with pages taken from The Apprentice. Only that the real apprentice is POTUS 45. 
• Opportunistic, amoral approach to government. Trump inherited bad advice from his own father, real estate business experience and some mentors borrowed and inherited from Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon such as Roy Cohn and Roger Stone.. 
• 
  
• Like Nixon, Trump has a penchant for using crooks and checkered characters to do "special operations" in his favor. Like in Nixon's case, these seem to be causing him headaches and political risks beyond his own calculations.

• There is no principle to come before economic or tactical convenience, as shown by Trump's casual 360s on the wall, one of his hobby horses. This lack of principle combines with a Nixonian tendency to intrigue and secrecy that has already driven the Mueller investigation, a constant flurry of disaffected whistle-blowers and a climate in the White House that has been recurrently described as dysfunctional. 
• 
  
• The good that inspiring fear on enemies can cause can be outweighed by the lack of trust on the words and commitments from the current POTUS office. 

Will the things Trump got right outweigh the things he got wrong? Will it be the other way around? 

There is no way to answer that better than it would be in a small business ran by a egotistic owner. Think of Henry Ford I. Or Juan Peron. Those of us who grew in populist-driven Latin America have seen this over almost 80 years. And the consequences are in plain display in Argentina, Venezuela and Puerto Rico.

Let's hope for the best. And be prepared for the worst.

What Trump got right

Donald J. Trump is likelier to be a two-term POTUS, in spite of the brutal polarization, the controversial and incoherent policies (deregulation + tariffs?) and the constant zig zagging, managerial chaos that characterize this unusual presidency.

How can it be possible that DJT then can be considered "likelier" to be a two-term POTUS?

How can it be possible that Trump has been a one-term POTUS at all? asks the "Trump-hating" opposition.

Here are some blunt reasons why Trump will likely be reelected, perhaps in a landslide:

• Prioritize middle Americans concerns: jobs now, small businesses, policing, border security, healthcare costs. Trump -an experienced salesman and media mogul- sensed earlier than others (around 2011) that both Democrats and Republicans forgot those fundamentals and where woefully out of touch with the growing demand from voters across the spectrum and the country.
• PC-speech and elite-fatigue:  Americans are sick and tired of Liberal platitudes and language-policing censorship. Many voters in critical Mid-America states felt patronized and looked down by Obama's professorial condescension and Hillary's aggressive put-downs (her ill-fated "deplorables" probably sealed her fate). Most Americans think that "freedom of speech" includes their own speech and resent being force-fed with "newspeak" by fringe progressivism. They (some secretly) appreciated Trump's dismissal of political correctness and even his aggressive ti-for-tat.
• Right economic moves and measures: tax cuts, derregulation, pro-business message have created and sustained a bull market and ratcheted up growth from 2 to 4 percent GDP-wise, from 120.000 to 330,000 monthly jobs, raising salaries for the first time in a decade, while lowering unemployment and keeping inflation below 2 percent.
• Stop apologizing - go on the offensive Americans saw the contempt and disrespect shown to the politeness and sensibility of Obama's Cairo speech and with Chavez at OAS. They didn't like to see their President lectured by a bigoted demagogue like Chavez or catering to PLO and Hamas Far Left, anti-American supporters in UN and EU. Trump offered no apologies, even laughed at UN's reaction to his absurd self-vindicating claims. The message was clear: I don't need your Nobel Peace Prize. US doesn't accept EU or UN tutelage on moral or ideological grounds, much less foreign policy.
• Use bargaining power Trump's disrespect for what he considered bad deals for US opened a new round of bargaining, forcing those who took US for granted to took it seriously and make concessions. Whether this ends in successes or failures, it will be seen on a case-by-case basis. Americans love renegotiating mortgages, salaries, prices, loans, and loved the attitude.
• Stick and carrot TR used this policy effectively in the 1910s. "Speak softly and carry a big stick" worked and works with thugs and dictators such as those currently in power in Middle East, Africa, Asia and Latin America. They respect power and brute force, neither care nor understand principle (what means principle for China, Russia, Iran or Venezuela leaders? What for PLO, Hamas, and the larger Middle East? They certainly respect Tomahawks, 300-ship US Navy and the promise of bombing them to the ashes. More than everything, they respond to fear and unpredictable, credible menaces from what is by far the most powerful economy and military on Earth. They depend on US economic and military might far more than the other way around. Trump carried his stick with gusto and credibility, without "red lines". So far it has worked.

Having said all this, Trump still is all the other things: a dangerous opportunist, a Nixonian-minded politician, a one-man, "Wizzard of Oz" real estate speculator and also someone with a probably criminal track record of money laundering as the basis for his business record.

The "king of default" motto is also a worrying sign. His bankruptcies another. The "wrecking ball" POTUS is likely to bring the roof over his head (and ours) down. Those who lived through Latin American demagogues like Peron or Menem or Italy's Berlusconi know very well what kind of disaster can someone like them bring given free reign of the POTUS position.

That's why Madison's checks and balances are so fundamental.

But without understanding what Trump got right, there is no better alternative for American voters to support.

You cannot beat somebody with nobody. You cannot beat bad ideas with no ideas.  

Hating Trump is not a policy. It's exactly the way to campaign for him -showing there is no alternative-. "Democratic socialism" , "sanctuary cities", war on police, free immigration are perfect formulas to re-elect Trump. Or to get elected in Puerto Rico.

And perhaps the next president after his two terms as well.

The problem with competent , moderate candidates

Mitt Romney's misfortunes as a moderate Republican candidate epitomize some of the difficulties of democratic rule: competence is not enough to win elections. 

Mike Bloomberg -probably the most qualified candidate around with a stellar record in business and governing New York city as an independent- came to the same conclusion recently:

The unfortunate consequence of the most competent candidates self-selecting out of the race is that (a) the choice between the lesser of two evils -the party of no ideas vs the party of bad ideas- and (b) the prevalence of "off-the-wall" extremists that in normal times would be the ones opting out of a presidential race.

As a consequence -as in 2015 with Republicans- the 2019 Democratic rosters are overpopulated with under-qualified candidates that are likely to lose against the incumbent in a landslide like the one McGovern obtained in 1972 serving the White House to Richard M. Nixon's infaust second term. 

Democracy is not the best system to select competent candidates. For all its obvious miseries, the parties' old  "smoking rooms" that were the norm before 1968 Chicago DNC Convention offered better chances to non-charismatic, yet highly competent candidates. Governors, congress members and mayors were much better at selecting candidates than the "beauty contests" -or reality shows- that came after. Primaries are not even truly democratic, because informed, reasoning voters are outnumbered by those bamboozled by smear campaigns, social media or tweets.

And -as in the case of Governor and Senator Romney and Mayors Bloomberg- they allowed competency to get in office and turn around the disasters left behind by charismatic incompetence such as Salt Lakes Olimpic Games, Massachusetts' healthcare or Lindsay's crime-ridden, broke New York-.

The alternative for competency, otherwise, is to line up behind populist characters -like McCain picking Sarah Palin as VP candidate or Romney pitching for Secretary of State for Donald Trump-. Such Faustian pacts end usually poorly.

The art of the (bad) deal

Contrary to Barry Goldwater's assertion, moderation can be virtue when applied to public policy and government as much as it is applied to private life and personal behavior. Thinking otherwise is what brought us -and US- where we are now.

It's not all well what ends well. If the economy favors Trump, he will likely be a two-terms POTUS. The collateral damage brought by his uncivil rule will last longer than those economic results: a low-grade civil war, the rise of incompetent extremists and charlatans in both parties, a general decadence of the Union.

Cultural wars go to the couch: TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) or the politics of madness

"Trump derangement syndrome (TDS) is a neologism describing a reaction to United States President Donald Trump by liberals, progressives, and anti-Trump conservatives, who are said to respond to Trump's statements and political actions irrationally and with little regard to Trump's actual position or action taken.^[1] The term has been used by pro-Trump conservatives to discredit criticism of Trump's actions"  Wikipedia

"Derangement is the state of being mentally ill and unable to think or act in a controlled way. "   Collins Dictionary

I was recently diagnosed with "TDS" by a friend with strong pro-Trump views. 

Not being a FOX or any other cable channel regular viewer, I looked up for help in Wikipedia: "Tax Deducted at Source" showed up on top, but didn't seem the case. I kept searching until the word "Trump" appeared. Then, I was able to track its origins back to its sources: FOX channel and the self-proclaimed conservative media.

Looking at the levels of anger around the public persona of Donald J. Trump I couldn't help but to remember similar reactions towards his three predecessors: Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Presidents before Clinton (1992) were contested -Reagan being the most obvious example- but not with the intensity that the last four have experienced. 

I looked up again and noticed a revealing marker: 1993. It was the year Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes launched Fox News Channel with the explicit mission of promoting a militant, anti-liberal agenda and the candidates of the Republican Party.

Over time, MSNBC took FOX's role on the Left camp and CNN turned to what its critics (mostly in FOX) nicknamed "Clinton Cable News".

The rise of partisan mass-media combined with the populist politics of personal attacks and slander campaigns has created a toxic atmosphere that turns politics into a civil war re-fought by other means.

In such a climate, paranoia prospers and spreads -conspiracy theories, "us-versus-them", identity politics and so on- and finds constantly malignant and insane enemies in those who think, look or live differently from "us".  

The newest fashion promoted by FOX channel is the ultimate "psycho-insult": calling on others the "TDS syndrome" (for Trump Derangement Syndrome), a new epithet meant to dis-qualify any criticism directed toward Donald Trump as a mental instability problem of the critic. 

The problem with encouraging self-made psychologists to engage in drive-through psychoanalysis  is that ill-defined categories can be obviously applied back the other way around. 

Let's stop for a minute on the "D" for Derangement in TDS. 

If we follow the definition of the term:

"Derangement is the state of being mentally ill and unable to think or act in a controlled way. "   Collins Dictionary

When we think of "Derangement" we should  include "Trump-lovers" in addition to "Trump-haters". Love and hate, after all, have little to do with reason. And infatuation can turn into hate and vice versa. As it did with Hillary and Donald's views on each other before and after the 2016 election.

The good old days when Donald was a Clinton fan -and Hillary loved his jokes-

If there is such a thing as a Trump Derangement Syndrome, it seems as accurate to describe unconditional and fanatical allegiance as hate. In both cases, irrationality is on full display, and both TDS-negative and TDS-positive types can close their minds and ears to each other's views and arguments. Family and friends included. 

Psychoanalyzing others instead of discussing facts and arguments ratchets up another notch the barriers to rational discussion and communication. Both TDS-positive and TDS-negative might find comfort in saying: "after all, why bother listening to deranged people?". Mental institutions are crowded with people feeling that way.

Civility takes a serious blow each time discussions turned into personal arguments and character attacks. On this area, Left- and Right-wing extremist media -from Mother Jones to Breitbart- not only excel, but thrive as a cottage industry catering to extremism and reciprocal paranoia.

TDS is the Trumpian-intolerance equivalent to Left-wing "safe zones". It has the same uses -preventing any contact with those who think differently, enabling aggression and shutting down any criticism. 

Both forms of TDS serve the purpose of erecting walls between Americans. Walls much thicker than physical barriers and much stronger than party registration.  The Anti-Trump Far Left sets its TDS walls in the campuses calling them "safe zones". 

The Pro-Trump Far Right  has created its own version of "safe zones" with "TDS" shutdowns.

The danger of this psychological "TDS walls" is precisely that they shut down peaceful communication,  escalating the inevitable contact with the "others" into physical confrontation.

The "TDS" category is also a recycled product. 

It used to be called "BDS" for Bush when it was first invented by FOX news to use against any Bush 43 critic. 

There was, of course, also an "Obama Derangement Syndrome" (ODS) as well -used by Obama fans to shut down Obama critics as bigots and those like talk show host Glenn Beck to shut down Obama supporters:

And, of course, we don't have any moral or rational reason to listen to haters. 

We actually are told (by partisan media) that we have a moral and rational obligation not to listen to those we diagnose with TDS.

Each time we use the "TDS" argument to shut down others, we engage in cultural warfare and become part of the TDS syndrome we just tagged to others.

This rant scene of the old Network film was very popular among anti-Obama Tea Party conservatives, back when Trump campaigned on questioning Obama's birth certificate. It is a good example of Derangement Syndrome (you choose the first letter for the object of deranged passion) and it summarizes the power and the danger of "TDS" and the politics of madness: