All elections have winners and losers. Most of the time, although the losers remain distressed about the loss, for the most part they either abandon their fight or come together for the greater good. That has been the history of the US for most of its history. As a matter of fact, the United States loves to tout its orderly transition of power. Although the transfer of power from Obama to Trump and Democrats to Republicans was accomplished, it has been anything but orderly. There will always be protests but the intensity of the protests after the inauguration of Donald Trump as president have created history.
A banana republic is a term used by US politicians to disparage Latin American countries. The term is based on the notion that countries dependent on one export, like bananas, is a failed state. The disparaged country was looked upon as a poverty-stricken country where the ruling class lorded over the others. Some of you reading this believe Mexico is like this. Oppressed populations lash out, especially when a new government is imposed upon them by taking to the streets in protests. Many authoritarian governments allow some measure of protests as a means of releasing population pressures in order to allow them better control over their subjects.
Donald Trump argues that he represents the people. His surrogates often resort to arguments of a dishonest media, fake news and, now “alternative facts” when the facts do not fit the narrative that Trump is a popular president propped up by the majority.
But recent events show that Donald Trump is now the leader of a “banana republic”.
Let’s go through the evidence:
Trump has made creating American jobs his top priority. He wants to do this by forcing companies to build manufacturing plants in the US, instead of in other countries. If he is successful, Trump will close out foreign imports and create a US economy based on exporting limited commodities to other countries. What country would want to buy US products when it can’t afford to because of the high-priced cost to make them and from a country that closed off its borders to them?
That is test number one of a banana republic – relying on limited exports.
Test number two is having class system in the country – usually a political class subjugating the rest.
Donald Trump himself has stated that his other priority is to “drain the swamp” of an entrenched political class in Washington. Trump himself has told you that you are an oppressed citizen being ruled over by an oligarchy.
So, now let’s look at test number three – an impoverished working class.
This one is easy because Donald Trump has argued that he needs to bring back jobs to the country because the working class has been decimated by China and Mexico. Trump is arguing that the impoverished working class needs him to lead changes in Washington.
Interestingly, banana republics have the common thread in that they are offshoots of the colonial powers of the 20th centuries. The United States rebelled against Britain, one of the better known colonial powers of the era.
Another trait is the influence business conglomerates have over the country. As evidenced by Trump’s own drain the swamp rhetoric and the financial devastation caused by Wall Street excesses that led to the 2008 financial crisis; there is no doubt that conglomerates, that have yet to be held accountable, have kept US workers impoverished.
But, the most obvious example of the Un-United States Banana Republic are the numerous nationwide protests against Donald Trump that started this past weekend. The millions of marchers are the clearest examples of why Donald Trump has transformed the United States into the latest banana republic.
However, what continues to surprise me the most is that the most visible Donald Trump supporters are the conservatives and nationalists that up until Donald Trump hijacked the US democracy, would have been horrified to consider that arch-enemy, Russia may have interfered in the US elections or that the US is being transformed into a banana republic.
I don’t get it.
Maybe it’s because I’m too stupid to understand the “alternative facts”.
Perhaps because it has happened before that an arch-enemy has interfered with US elections at the request of the Republicans. In 1980 Ronald Reagan and his campaign secretly negotiated with the Ayatollah Khomeini’s regime of Iran to take down Carter. The deal was that there would be no release of hostages until Reagan took the throne and he in turn would supply the Iranians with arms. Not a peep then, not a peep now.
Pati, your an idiot. Carter was a good man, but a Wuss. Reagan told the Ayatollah he would make a parking Lot out of Iran if he didnt give up the hostages. Reagan forced Russia into Bankruptcy. Carter let the Russians go into Afghanistan and his response ” I cant believe they did that” Reagan supplied the Afghan rebels and gave Russia fits for years until they finally moved out. There was no deal with the Ayatollah. He feared Reagan and not Carter.
Now, now, is that anyway to behave when we are trying to have a conversation here?
Let’s say for the sake of argument that I am an idiot. Well the idiot has read her share on the subject from historians and journalists who publish their well-documented research. So why would I heed the regurgitation of alternate facts from a two-bit, self-anointed history buff?
Go smoke a little reefer and relax, no need to be so bloody angry.
“…Donald Trump hijacked the US democracy…”
—————————————————–
Please explain? Wikileaks published embarrassing emails (facts- no one has refuted them) about HRC and the DNC and she lost the election. Duh… If the Russians or anyone else did it, they did us a favor because you sure weren’t going to find this info in the fact-free NYT or on CNN.
How is this a highjacking?
Jerry, I believe that Donald Trump “hijacked” the US democracy because I do not believe that he represents the core ideals of the GOP. I believe that Trump used the Republican label as a tool to be elected into office. I believe that the GOP was complicit in this because of their ineptitude and the infighting among themselves.
The true GOP core values less government intrusiveness on business, i.e. let businesses use cheaper labor outside of the country, not bureaucratic pressure to keep jobs in the country. That is a Democratic core value. It was the GOP that pushed forth NAFTA.
As for WikiLeaks, it was just a tool that Trump used. It is important to note that Hillary Clinton would never pardon Assange and therefore Assange thought helping Trump may allow him an opportunity to avoid prosecution in the US. A Clinton win would have kept him in hiding for four more years. A Trump win gives him an opportunity, however slight, to find a way out. I believe that Assange was just a useful idiot for Trump and the Russians.
-martin
Martin;
Paul Ryan and John McCain represent the true GOP, i.e., globalist. Trump used the label to mount a nationalist rebellion against the two-party global cabal. In that regard you are correct, IMHO.
Bingo Jerry. What Trump did is what Ross Perot should have done. Run as Republican even though you are truly a third party candidate who despises both political factions who havent worked in the real world their whole lives. Run against the establishment even in your own party. It worked and I think it would have worked for Perot if he had been smart enough to think of it.
Too bad it didn’t work for Bernie but the DNC realized what was coming down and outed him.
Martin
You seem to be doing well in this so called Banana Republic which you seem not to be able to do in the Real Banana Republic paradise of Mexico. Wonder why!
Martin is a “trans-Mexican” who is really an American inside (and a pretty good one, too) 🙂
I think something that is lost is that our political parties are allowed to evolve and the primary system is supposed to support that. Trump didn’t hijack the GOP, he simply became the messenger of the middle of the road Republicans who are sick of the formula of establishment politicians campaigning on social conservative wedge issues that will never get passed and then going to Washington and lining the pockets of their donors and themselves while complaining they don’t have the votes to change anything. The Dems do the same thing on the opposite side of the spectrum. The difference this election was that Trump succeeded where Sanders failed and the GOP may evolve as a result. Given that the Dems don’t yet want to admit that protecting their “next in line anointed one” cost them the election, I’m not sure there will be much change.