By C.J. Polychroniou, Truthout |
Just how bad are things with Donald Trump in the White House? And
what does having a racist, misogynist, xenophobic and erratic president
who continues to enjoy unquestionable support from his base tell us
about the state of US politics and the dangers to the future of
democracy in the US and in the world on the whole? Noam Chomsky shares
his thoughts on these and other related questions in an exclusive
interview with C. J. Polychroniou for Truthout.
C.J. Polychroniou: Noam, it's been already 14 months into
Donald Trump's turbulent White House tenure, but sometimes we still need
to pinch ourselves to make sure that it's not a nightmare that a
racist, misogynist, homophobic man who apparently cares only about
himself runs the world's most powerful nation. But, really, how bad is
it having Trump in the White House?
Very bad. As Trump began his second year in office, the Bulletin of
Atomic Scientists advanced their Doomsday Clock to two minutes to
midnight, citing increasing concerns over nuclear weapons and climate
change. That's the closest it has been to terminal disaster since 1953,
when the US and USSR exploded thermonuclear weapons. That was before the
release of Trump's Nuclear Posture Review, which significantly
increases the dangers by lowering the threshold for nuclear attack and
by developing new weapons that increase the danger of terminal war.
On climate change, Trump is a complete disaster, along with the
entire Republican leadership. Every candidate in the Republican
primaries either denied that what is happening is happening or said ...
we shouldn't do anything about it. And these attitudes infect the
Republican base. Half of Republicans deny that global warming is taking
place, while 70 percent say that whether it is or not, humans are not
responsible. Such figures would be shocking anywhere, but are remarkably
so in a developed country with unparalleled resources and easy access
to information.
It is hard to find words to describe the fact that the most powerful
country in world history is not only withdrawing from global efforts to
address a truly existential threat, but is also dedicating itself to
accelerating the race to disaster, all to put more dollars in
overstuffed pockets. No less astounding is the limited attention paid to
the phenomenon.
When we turn to matters of great though lesser import, the conclusion
is the same: disaster. While Trump's antics occupy the attention of the
media, his associates in Congress have been working intensively to
advance the interests of their actual constituency -- extreme wealth and
corporate power -- while dismantling what is of value to the general
population and future generations. With justice, the Republican
leadership regard the tax bill as their greatest triumph. Joseph
Stiglitz rightly describes
the triumph as "The US Donor Relief Act of 2017," a vast giveaway to
their actual constituency -- and to themselves. As he points out, the
Republican leaders "are stuffing themselves at the trough -- Trump,
Kushner and many others in his administration are among the biggest
winners -- thinking that this may be their last chance at such a feast."
And "Après moi, le deluge" -- literally in this case.
The grand triumph brings an extra advantage. It explodes the deficit
(a trademark of Republicans since Reagan), which means that they can
move on to cut away at entitlements, as the chief architect, Paul Ryan,
announced happily at once. The US already ranks near the bottom of the
[Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] countries -- the
35 richer and more developed countries -- in social justice measures.
The Republican triumph will sink it even lower. The tax scam is only the
most prominent of the devices being implemented under the cover of
Trump buffoonery to serve wealth and corporate power while harming the
irrelevant population.
Many other policies are simply [unconscionable], such as Trump's
initiative to have the Department of Homeland Security separate
children, even infants, from their mothers in order to discourage
immigration -- 700 families have been split in this fashion since
October, a New York Times investigation found. Many of these families
are fleeing from the murderous consequences of US policies: Honduras has
been the main source of refugee flight since the US, almost alone,
endorsed the military coup that ousted the elected president and the
fraudulent election that followed, initiating a reign of terror.
We also must endure the sight of Trump wailing in terror because a
caravan of victims reached Mexico, most hoping to settle there. Trump's
suggestion that these victims are threatening the security of the US is
reminiscent of Reagan strapping on his cowboy boots and calling a
national emergency because Nicaraguan troops were a two days march from
Texas, and about to overwhelm us. It's amazing that such performances do
not evoke profound national embarrassment.
To the extent that politics is the art of the possible, would
you say that Trump has been consistent so far with the promises he made
to voters during the 2016 campaign?
In some cases, yes. He is fulfilling the wishes of the Evangelicals
who are a large part of his voting base. He is greatly increasing the
military budget, as he promised. ... Most of his promises are about as
close to fulfillment as his commitment to "drain the swamp," which is
now overflowing. [Scott] Pruitt's [Environmental Protection Agency]
alone is a cesspool, though its dismantling of efforts to deal with the
impact of climate change are far more serious than the wholesale
robbery, which seems to be a Pruitt specialty from well before he was
handed the wrecking ball.
On trade, though the policies, insofar as they are coherent, are
generally harmful, the rhetoric is not completely false. Thus it is true
that China is using devices that violate World Trade Organization rules
-- devices that were critical to the growth of the rich societies, from
England to the US and beyond, and are now banned by the investor rights
agreements mislabeled "free trade agreements." This is a textbook
illustration of what economic historians call "kicking away the ladder":
First we climb up, then we kick the ladder away so that you can't
follow.
And Trump is right that the [North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA)] should be revised. Some sensible proposals have been put forth
by the partners in NAFTA. For example, Canada has proposed that the
revised NAFTA should ban harsh US anti-labor laws, like the
right-to-scrounge laws called "right-to-work" in contemporary Newspeak.
These laws are soon to become federal policy, it seems, under the
reactionary Roberts Court, which was made more extreme by [Senate
Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell's shameful parliamentary maneuvers to
prevent even consideration of Obama's nomination, opening the way to the
appointment of Neil Gorsuch -- another gift to the far right.
The Canadian proposal was prominently reported in the major Canadian
press, but, oddly, is missing from the discussions of NAFTA revision
here, which keep to Trump proposals.
Allegations of collusion continue to haunt Donald Trump's
presidency, primarily over his alleged ties to Russia and Putin, and
former FBI Director James Comey said in a recent interview with ABC News
that Trump is "morally unfit" to be president. What's your take on all
this, and what does Trump's disrespect for law and the fact that his
base is refusing to abandon him tell us about the current state of
American democracy and US politics in general?
We don't need Comey to tell us that Trump is morally unfit. He made
that abundantly clear in the primaries, if not before. The fact that the
Oval Office is coming to resemble a schoolyard on a bad day may be
obnoxious, but it doesn't rank high among the misdeeds of the
administration, in my opinion. ... Same with his alleged ties to Russia
and Putin. Much more serious is the clique that now surrounds him. It's a
sad day when one has to hope that General [James] Mattis will keep the
... [rest] in check. The [John] Bolton appointment in particular should
send shivers up the spine of any person.
As for Trump's base, they are indeed quite loyal. Most Trump voters
were relatively affluent and probably are fairly satisfied with the
ultra-reactionary policies. Another important segment was
non-college-educated whites, a group that voted overwhelmingly for Trump
(a 40 percent advantage).
There is a close analysis of this group in
the current (Spring 2018) issue of the Political Science Quarterly. It
found that racism and sexism were far more significant factors in their
vote than economic issues. If so, this group has little reason to object
to the scene that is unfolding, and the same with the white
Evangelicals who gave Trump 80 percent of their vote. Among justly
angry, white, working-class Trump voters, many apparently enjoy watching
him stick his thumb in the eyes of the hated elites even if he doesn't
fufill his promises to [working-class voters], which many never believed
in the first place.
What all this tells us, yet again, is that the neoliberal programs
that have concentrated wealth in a few hands while the majority stagnate
or decline have also severely undermined functioning democracy by
familiar mechanisms, leading to anger, contempt for the dominant
centrist political forces and institutions, and often anti-social
attitudes and behavior -- alongside of very promising popular reactions,
like the remarkable [Bernie] Sanders phenomenon, [Jeremy] Corbyn in
England and positive developments elsewhere as well.
Ryan, an influential architect of the Republican economic
platform, announced that he is stepping down from Congress. Do you think
his decision was motivated by the fear that a "blue wave" may be coming
in November as a result of a growing backlash against Trump and
Trumpism?
There is much talk about how this "admirable" figure, who bedazzled
the media with fraudulent spreadsheets, wants to spend time with his
family. Much more likely, I think, is that he decided to leave Congress
because he had achieved his long-standing goals, particularly with the
"Donor Relief Act of 2017" and the deficit cuts that open the way to
sharp reduction of entitlements: health, social security, pensions --
whatever matters to the people beyond the very privileged. And perhaps
he prefers to be out of town when it becomes too hard to conceal what's
being done to the general population and someone will have to face the
music.
With regard to foreign affairs, what do you consider to be the most menacing elements of Trump's handling of US foreign policy?
Trump inherited multiple crises. His own policies have been largely
incoherent, but he has been consistent in some areas, primarily the
Middle East. He has provided strong support for the Saudi war in Yemen, a
major catastrophe, and is exulting in the huge arms sales to the
dictatorship. Last December, UN agencies warned that the Saudi blockade
of Yemen could lead to "one of the largest famines in modern times."
Yemen already has the world's worst cholera outbreak, which is not under
control. The Saudi blockade is hindering desperately needed imports of
food, medicine and fuel.
Apart from the human disaster it is creating, the Saudi dictatorship,
always with firm US backing, seems intent on carrying forward the
Taliban and ISIS projects of destroying precious antiquities. Reviewing
the systematic Saudi destruction, the chair of Yemen's Organization of
Antiquities and Museums charges that the attacks on 60 sites are "a
conscious campaign to wreck Yemen's heritage and demoralize its
citizens." Western experts agree that the destruction seems deliberate,
using information provided by the [United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization] on cultural heritage sites to
direct bombing attacks, with no military objective.
The US-led attack on ISIS in Raqqa destroyed the city, and nothing is
being done to reconstruct or help the victims. Under the influence of
[US-UN Ambassador] Nikki Haley, one of the more sinister (and, it seems,
ambitious) figures in the administration, Trump has sharply cut funding
to the [United Nations Relief and Works Agency], which barely keeps
millions of Palestinian refugees alive. In general, "make America great"
means great at destroying, and that's where the greatness ends. It's by
no means entirely new, but is now raised to a higher level and becoming
a matter of principle.
In May, Trump will presumably refuse to renew sanctions relief for
Iran, as required by the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA). That does not
constitute formal withdrawal, though that's the likely effect. Even if
the European signers formally persist, the consequences will be severe
because of the central role of the US in the international financial
system -- not to speak of the danger that their persistence might arouse
the ire of the unpredictable Trump, who can do a great deal of damage
if crossed. Effective withdrawal might provide an opening for the new
national security adviser, Bolton, a genuine war criminal who publicly
calls for bombing Iran, presumably in collaboration with Israel and with
tacit Saudi approval. Consequences could be horrendous.
There is much fevered debate as to whether Iran might have violated
the JCPOA, contrary to the firm conclusion of [the International Atomic
Energy Agency] Director General Yukiya Amano on March 5, 2018, that
"Iran is implementing its nuclear-related commitments." But we hear
virtually nothing about US violations, though these have been clear
enough. Thus the JCPOA commits the signers to support the successful
implementation of the agreement, including in their public statements,
and to refrain from any adverse effect on trade and economic relations
with Iran that conflict with their commitments to successful
implementation of the JCPOA. The US has been in flat violation of all of
these commitments, which have serious consequences.
Unmentionable as always is the obvious way to alleviate whatever
threat Iranian nuclear programs are imagined to pose: establishing a
nuclear weapons-free zone in the region. The way is clear. The proposal
is strongly supported by Iran, the Arab states and the world generally.
But there is an impediment. It has regularly been blocked by the US, for
familiar reasons: Israel's nuclear weapons. Also ignored is that the US
[and] UK have a special commitment to work for this goal, having
committed themselves to it in the UN [Security Council] resolution they
invoked in an effort to find some thread of justification for their
invasion of Iraq.
There is more to say about this troubled region, but there are crises
elsewhere as well. One involves North Korea, and here there might be
some rays of light. Trump has so far accepted the moves of the two
Koreas toward improving relations, and has agreed to negotiations with
North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un that so far look promising. If these
initiatives succeed, they might go as far as the September 2005
agreement in which North Korea pledged to abandon "all nuclear weapons
and existing weapons programs." Unfortunately, the Bush administration
immediately violated all of its commitments under the agreement, and
North Korea proceeded with its nuclear weapons programs. We may hope
that Trump will be willing to accept success in denuclearizing the
peninsula and in further steps toward accommodation. And if he wants to
brag about the achievement as a demonstration of his brilliance as a
deal-maker, just fine.
This by no means exhausts the foreign policy issues that should be seriously addressed -- topics that would carry us far afield.
What's your overall sense about Trumpism? What is it really
all about, and do you think Trumpism is showing us the future of
right-wing politics in the US?
Trumpism is one of many manifestations of the effects of the
neoliberal policies of the past generation. These have led to extreme
concentration of wealth along with stagnation for the majority.
There
have been repeated crashes of the deregulated financial institutions,
each worse than the last. Bursting bubbles have been followed by huge
public bailouts for the perpetrators while the victims have been
abandoned. Globalization has been designed to set working people
throughout the world in competition with one another while private
capital is lavished with benefits. Democratic institutions have eroded.
As already mentioned, all of this has led to anger, bitterness, often
desperation -- one remarkable effect is the increasing mortality among
middle-age whites discovered by Anne Case and Angus Deaton, analyzed
as "deaths of despair," a phenomenon unknown in functioning societies.
While there are variations from place to place, some features are
common. One is the decline of the centrist parties that have long
dominated political life, as we see in election after election. In the
US, in recent years, whenever candidates arose from the base in the
Republican primaries, the established powers were able to crush them and
impose their own choice: Mitt Romney, most recently. In 2016, for the
first time they were unable to do so, but they quickly rallied to the
winning candidate, who proved quite willing to front for the more brutal
wing of the traditional party. The real surprise in the election was
the Sanders campaign, which broke with a long tradition of pretty much
bought elections, and was stopped only by machinations of the
Obama-Clinton party managers. The Democratic Party is now split between
the donor-oriented New Democrat managers and a growing activist social
democratic base.
What all of this portends, worldwide, is far from clear. Though there
are also significant signs of hope, some commentators have -- with good
reason -- been quoting Gramsci's observation from his prison cell: "The
crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new
cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms
appear."
