It’s fascinating to watch the political ouroboros taking shape in the West. With mainstream parties congregating where mouth meets tail and opposing radicals both fleeing into near convergance on the other side of the circle. For those indifferent to the result, it has to be a time of tantalizing friction and flux.
I was reflecting on this while reading about Britain’s new
far far left “anti-austerity” head of Labour, Jeremy Corbyn. Under his direction, many are projecting a sort of Anglo Syriza to materialize. Though I’m less interested in an antique English Trotskyite than the dynamics that propelled him to leadership.
There are strikingly similar plate tectonics at work in both Britain and America. Mainstream parties are consolidating as movements and turning into simply contests of men. As such, we do not hold elections for the purpose of deciding national trajectory, which has been taken almost wholly from the public’s means to peacefully alter. Instead our range of choice is limited to which apparatchik will head the politburo. That it will continue, and on a linear course is not subject to our discretion. And so it’s not that elections don’t matter, as tyrants in power have long proven. It is that they matter for different reasons than most believe.
On the continental side of the pond, you can see this clearly in the Blair, Brown, Cameron transitions. Three men, two parties, one platform. I am certain that those willing to saw sawdust can identify several fine-grained differences, though none that 2060’s white British minority will be able to recite off the top of its head. The country’s designated course was to jettison its ancient people and culture to become a racially amalgamated market segment. Elections were held to determine who would steer the course.
That course is similar in the US, where the opposing parties selected a Bush/Clinton electoral tray sometime around 1974. It is a selection of men, the movements being largely aligned. Corporate fealty, mass immigration, disintegration of the founding culture and demographics. What Jeb and Hill could find to argue in a debate is one of those mysteries we can all hope remains unsolved. Perhaps who has had sex with more swarthy women would be hotly contested. Though aside from that, it would be a dreary evening of I can walk in the same direction better. As in Britain, the bifactional establishment offers the public a fait accompli, and the choice of who will deliver it.
Yet to vexation equally abundant in both aisles, the rubes are turning into radicals. Here in Northern Latin America Trump has captured both the native survival instinct of Legacy America, along with its festering contempt for the party that perpetually betrays it. In more prosaic terms, he’s displayed a prodigal ability to actually listen and respond to voter concerns. Who’s ever ranged so far out of the box as that? Plainly Republicans were ill-prepared to combat such a cunning gambit.
Though that is not to say the party has sat glumly on its thumbs. Every mouthpiece, media whore, and suckerfish in the constellation has remained in open-throated outrage since the Trump steamcleaning began. Racist! Are you not listening? Goddamnit We. Said. RACIST! What’s most fascinating is that, in desperation, they’ve actually segued to screaming at their own constitutents rather than the apostate candidate. I find it all to be delightful. Because that fog of something is very wrong, but I’m prohibited from recognizing what is being burned away in all the apoplexy. Reliably wooden soldiers are starting to wonder why there’s a key in their back. And are begining to find Nazis! an insufficient answer. A great number are realizing they really do want the millions of encroaching squatters gone, and some are even understanding why. Rubes to radicals.
I’ll spend less time on liberals, as they’re worth less of it. Though a similar reaction is occuring in that space, where a desiccated jewish socialist from Vermont is beginning to vacuum up increasing numbers of refugees disillusioned with their own party’s abandonment of principle. In Britain, the flotsam grew heavy enough to scuttle the entire Labour Party leadership. It is not inconceivable that Clinton also will succumb. Though whether she does or not, political plates are shifting.
In both right and left, the establishments are coalescing as their constituents fracture. Both are disgorging a similar contempt for the plutocratic oligarchy whose rule is never put to mainstream debate. And while radicals of right and left are running in opposite directions toward a circular convergance, there won’t be a merging of these elements. As some wag once asserted, there is no utility in good-faith debate with a side whose core principle is your destruction. The “middle ground” is a chasm. And on opposite ends of that abyss are where opposing radicals will camp. Though if enough salutary hate can be mustered toward an indifferent establishment, we might actually get an election that decides something more than a steward.