Skip navigation

John Chuckman



Well, I do think analysis of the situation at The Guardian is a little behind.

At least for now, the divisions Left and Right or Democratic and Republican are of greatly diminished importance in presidential politics.

What we have is a new division between pro- and anti-establishment. Ultimately, this could lead to a new party system, but who knows? The existing parties, after all, came about in just such past times of turmoil.

Trump has a strong anti-establishment streak, which is precisely the quality I like in him, and, incidentally, is precisely the quality The Guardian and other establishment papers dislike in him.

Bernie Sanders also was anti-establishment, but sadly retreated with his tale between his legs when confronted behind the scenes by Clinton’s crowd.

Reportedly this included Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, destined to become Minority Leader with the next election.

Schumer is reported to have threatened Bernie’s committee representation if he did not back off on endorsing Hillary. Committees are immensely important political platforms in the Senate, and this is the way the game of politics is played day-in, day-out behind the scenes in Washington.

In Britain, Jeremy Corbyn also has this anti-establishment streak, which is precisely why Tony Blair and his clutch of acolytes plus the establishment press hate him.

The Brexit vote was also about anti-establishment trends. David Cameron, as sound an establishment man as you’ll find, was literally too dim to understand what he was doing when he called for the referendum, which is precisely why he goes down as one of the most incompetent prime ministers ever.

I believe a great deal of the anti-establishment undercurrent has to do with how far the existing establishment has pushed things. Remember what Lord Acton said about absolute power, and I think these establishment people over some years have assumed a false sense of invulnerability.

The neo-con agenda for endless wars and turning over whole societies has not only killed more people than the use of a nuclear bomb on a city would, it has driven countless refugees running for their lives, sending huge floods of refugees in many directions and de-stabilizing the EU and other societies.

It has also created, as a back lash, the entire phenomenon we now call international terror as the response, young men anywhere at any time always responding to wide-scale aggression and suppression of their own kind. Armies have always been filled with such young men, Islam itself having nothing to do with the situation.

So a combination of fear of international terror plus unprecedented floods of refugees plus a public sense of unease and distrust have created a volatile and dangerous situation, all the responsibility of neo-con policies. Trump is not the problem, he is indeed part of the solution.

Trump offers a fundamental answer: stop the damn wars and killing. He also, in his less likable thoughts about immigration, is offering a stop-gap or temporary measure until the world regains some stability.

By contrast, Hillary is beloved by the neo-cons and will continue the bloody and destructive work, asshe has pretty much promised. Incidentally, a lot of people, perhaps those not well-versed in world affairs, have not tweaked to the truth that Obama – in fact, the most blood-stained president in decades – has any responsibility for the horror. They are fooled by the smile and baritone voice into thinking him a “nice guy.” Nothing could be further from the truth.


Response to another reader’s comment:

 The sociopaths in the room are Hillary and Obama.

They have killed a lot of people, and they smile about it – and that is what sociopaths do.

Trump has killed no one, and wants to stop much of the killing.

Yet readers like you are fooled by all the name-calling of Trump, the mainline media being in a determined effort to stop him.

Read my long comment above to understand why, and it has nothing to do with liberal or progressive principles, nothing.

%d bloggers like this: