Smorgasbord: Trump, populism and an Argentine poet

This whole Russians-and-fake-news theme is going to work out poorly for the Democrats. Here are some interesting recent developments along that line:

Spencer Ackerman and Julian Borger, US legislation proposes new committee to counteract Russian 'covert influence' Guardian 11/30/2016. This is a link to the proposed legislation they discuss.

Julian Borger and Raya Jalabi, US Syria policy: signs of shift as Trump son meets pro-Russia Damascus figure Guardian 11/23/2016: this isn't necessarily sinister. But it's part of what will become a much bigger picture.

Christian Lowe and Natalia Zinets, Russia says foreign spies plan cyber attack on banking system Yahoo! Tech/Reuters 12/02/2016. Because cyberwar is such an arcane thing and is surrounded by secrecy and complicated by multiple agendas, it's very hard to know what to make of these reports. Because there are things like this: "The Obama administration is contemplating an unprecedented cyber covert action against Russia in retaliation for alleged Russian interference in the American presidential election, U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News." (William Arkin, CIA Prepping for Possible Cyber Strike Against Russia NBC News 10/14/2016)

Marcy Wheeler, Seven Democrats Write Obama Asking Him to Declassify More Information on Russian Involvement in The Elections Emptywheel 11/30/2016. I hope the Obama Administration releases more substantial information on this. If he doesn't, it just makes the Democratic position on Russian interference in the election look even more like McCarthyist desperation.

On the continuing and lively discussion of populism, Mike Konczal (Learning From Trump in Retrospect Medium 12/01/2016) makes an important observation on how Trump rhetorically constructed the Elite against which he ran a populist campaign: "Trump never blames the rich for people’s problems. He doesn’t mention corporations, or anything relating to class struggle. His economic enemies are Washington elites, media, other countries, and immigrants. Even when financial elites and corporations do something, they are a combination of pawns and partners of DC elites."

There are some really good analyses out there evaluating the evolution of rightwing Republicanism into Trumpism and how to prepare for what's coming:

Rick Perlstein, Democracy and Indecency: From Nixon to Trump Washington Spectator 11/29/2016: "For me, 2007 was the watershed, not 2009: that was when I began stating as a matter of fact that millions of Americans now considered a government controlled by Democrats de facto illegitimate. "

Tina Dupuy, So We Elected an Autocrat: What To Do Now Medium ExtraNewsfeed 12/01/2016: "Really want to get under Trump’s liver-spotted thin skin? Call the movement [against him] The Popular Vote, its members The Popular Voters. At the time of this writing Hillary is leading in the popular vote by 2.5 million." Something tells me that "The Popular Voters" won't become one of Ernesto Laclau's "vacant signifiers" that catches on as the self-definition of a left populist movement. But who knows?

John Shattuck, Resisting Trumpism in Europe and the United States The American Prospect 12/02/2016: "The election of Donald Trump shows what happens when democracy misfires."

Hamilton Fish, White Grievance, Little Hyperboles, and the Coming Storm Washington Spectator 11/17/2016:

Yet, as ProPublica’s Alec MacGillis suggests in his masterful reporting from Pennsylvania and Ohio, the Trump voters are not always who we thought they were. MacGillis cites three common denominators—they live in places that are in decline, they lack strong attachments to either party, and they carry a profound contempt for a dysfunctional Washington. It’s a perverse tribute to the political skill of the Republicans, and an indictment of the inattentiveness of their audience, that the GOP could oppose every Obama initiative, bring the federal government to the edge of the precipice more than once, and still reap the support of those who were angry at the do-nothing Congress. For liberals, this runs parallel to their recognition that the greatest political achievement of the right is to have made their victims their most ardent supporters.

Daniel Engber, Does Fighting Racism Make Racists More Racist? Slate 12/01/2016 (My own short answer: white racists would certainly like you to think that!)

Joanthan Chait goes around the block to get back to a safe, comfortable assumption that the Trump Era won't be that different than anything that came before in The 2016 Election Is a Disaster Without a Moral New York 12/02/2016. And he repeats the it's-all-the-Rooskies-fault Democratic excuse that will come back to bite the Dems, "Clinton would have beaten Trump anyway, if not for the combined efforts of Russian intelligence and the FBI to bring her down."

John Dean takes a look at the Coming Consequences for the Litigious President-elect Trump Justia 11/11/2016:

Unlike any of his predecessors, President-elect Trump has “at least 75” open lawsuits, according to a nationwide study by USA Today. Just before his election on November 8, Trump threatened to sue all the women who claimed to have been sexually molested by him (some 12 women at last count), and several of them threatened to sue him for defamation for calling them all liars. In addition, as his campaign was winding down, several vendors whom he had used during the campaign, claimed they were confronted with his standard business practice of refusing to pay, so several of these people may soon file actions against him, if they are not paid. So, Donald Trump could enter the presidency with as many as one hundred active civil lawsuits, which will have potentially differing and multiple detrimental impacts on his presidency.

Either as a plaintiff or defendant, and Trump is on both sides, in any lawsuit requires time and effort to prepare oneself and one’s attorneys. It takes time and effort to testify at a deposition or during a trial. And it takes time and effort to stay abreast of the lawsuit. Given the fact that Trump may be the least qualified person to ever be elected president, he has much more work to do than most who seek and reach this high office. He does not even have a good newspaper knowledge of the way Washington works, let alone the presidency. It appears he has never read even a single biography of any of the men who preceded him as president, so he has a very steep learning curve. Throughout the campaign there have been reports that he has a very short attention span. Bottom line: His litigation is going to make it much more difficult, if not impossible, to meet his responsibilities as president. The smart move would be to settle these cases, but he may not have the money to do so. And he may be financially stretched to pursue them as well.

On a totally different topic, Felipe Pigna highlights a different article each day on his El Historiador website. Today he features José Mármol y su lucha contra Juan Manuel de Rosas. José Mármol (1817-1871) was a poet who opposed the government of Juan Manuel de Rosas (1793-1877), the Governor of Buenos Aires who was the main national leader of Argentina 1829-1832 and 1835-1852. Though Rosas' legacy is much contested, he was the leader who first established a national identity from various provinces of the previous Spanish Vice Regency of Rio de la Plata.

Rosas, "The Exterminator of Anarchy"

Mármol was associated with the cause of the Unitarians - a political designation, not a religious one, they were basically all Catholics. Rosas was part of the Federalist party. Mármol's most famous work is Amalia (1855), which is set in the context of the violent political struggles during the Rosas period. It still stands as a major work in Argentine literature.

I should start doing Argentine History Mondays or something like that on a regular basis.

José Pablo Feinmann on Sarmiento and the menaces of and to "civilization"

This is Chapter 6 of the third season of Argentine philosopher José Pablo Feinmann's public TV series Filosofía aquí y ahora, "T3 CAP 6. Sarmiento en Chile" Encuentro n/d YouTube 02/07/2013.

The topic of this talk by Feinmann is Domingo Faustino Sarmiento (1811-1888), one of the most important historical figures of 19th century Argentine history. He was a partisan of the Unitarians, the centralists, and served as President of Argentina 1868–74. The Federalist ruler of Argentina, Juan Manuel de Rosas (1793–1877), exiled Sarmiento to Chile in 1840, where he wrote a series of articles collected in a book published in 1845 known as the Facundo for short. It's full title in English is Life in the Argentine Republic in the Days of the Tyrants; or, Civilization and Barbarism.

In the conservative, "Mitrist" history that became dominant in Argentina for decades, Sarmiento tends to appear as a hero of "civilization," which for him and the conservatives was represented by the urban, centralist perspective of the Unitarians. For Sarmiento, Rosas was a representative of Federalist barbarism, the perspective of the uncivilized gauchos and poor farmers of the country.

On the 24th of May this year as part of the week of celebration of national independence, a key ceremony was President Cristina Fernández' presentation of the sword of "the Liberator" José de San Martín (1778-1850) to the Museo Histórico Nacional, saying in her presentation that this “la espada que liberó a medio continente” ("the sword that freed half a continent"). (Alejandra Dandan, La espada que simboliza la soberanía y la independencia Página/12 25.05.2015)

Juan Manuel de Rosas

In her address on May 25 in the Plaza de Mayo, Cristina said:

... pero ayer, cuando difundíamos en las redes y difundía la Televisión Pública, mientras el sable corvo de San Martín recorría la ciudad para ir a su destino, donde había querido que estuviera, en el Museo Histórico, ahí millones de argentinos recién se enteraron que el libertador de medio continente había legado su sable en cláusula de testamento al brigadier Juan Manuel de Rosas, miren lo que nos falta argentinos todavía en materia de educación y cultura.

¿Y saben por qué? Porque la historiografía liberal, la que le contaban a los chicos en los colegios decía que Rosas era un tirano, y si Rosas era un tirano entonces cómo un hombre como San Martín le iba a legar su sable. ¿Y saben por qué se lo legó? Porque nos defendió en la Vuelta de Obligado frente a la invasión extranjera, con valor y coraje que pocos hombres han tenido.

[... but yesterday, when we broadcast on the networks and it was broadcast on Public Television, while the curved saber of San Martín returned to the city to go to its destination, where he would have wanted it to be, in the Museo Histórico, there millions of Argentines recently learned that the Liberator of half a continent had left his saber in a clause of his will to Brigadier Juan Manuel de Rosas, look at what we Argentines are still missing in the material of education and culture.

And do you know why? Because liberal {Mitrist} historiography, the one that is told to children in the schools, says that Rosas was a tyrant, and if Rosas was a tyrant, then why would a man like San Martín have come to give him his saber{?} And do you know why he gave it to him? Because he {Rosas} defended us in the Vuelta de Obligado against the foreign invasion, with bravery and courage that few men have had.]

The Vuelta de Obligado was a battle in November 1845 against a joint Anglo-French invasion attempt.

Another reminder that "civilization" is also defined by politics, class and national perspectives.

20-peso Argentine note commemorating the Vuelta de Obligado

José María Rosa wrote of that battle (Rosas, nuestro contemporáneo; 1974):

El gran talento político de Rosas se revela en esta segunda guerra contra el imperialismo europeo: su labor de estadista y diplomático fue llamada genial por sus enemigos extranjeros... (...) Aunque resistir una agresión de la escuadra anglo-francesa ... parecía una locura, Rosas lo hizo. No pretendía con su fuerza diminuta ... imponerse a la fuerza grande, sino presentar una resistencia para que “no se la llevasen de arriba los gringos”. Artilló la Vuelta de Obligado, y allí les dio a los anglo-franceses una bella lección de coraje criollo el 20 de noviembre de 1845. No ganó, ni pretendió ganar, ni le era posible. Simplemente enseñó – como diría San Martín - que “los argentinos no somos empanadas que sólo se comen con abrir la boca”, al comentar, precisamente, la acción de Obligado.

[The great political talent of Rosas revealed itself in this second war against European imperialism: his work as a statesman and diplomat was called brilliant by his foreign enemies ... Although resisting an aggression of the Anglo-French squadron ... seemed crazy, Rosas did it. He didn't expect his diminutive force ... to impose itself on the large {Anglo-French} force, but rather to present a resistance so that "we don't concede to the gringos." The Vuelta de Obligado tookk place, and there they gave the Anglo-French a beautiful lesson in Creole courage on November 20, 1845. He didn't win, he didn't expect to win, nor was it possible. He simply showed - as San Martín would say - that "the Argentines are not empanadas that someone can just open their mouths and eat," commenting precisely on the action of Obligado.]

Feinmann in this lecture says the following of Rosas. The Argentine word negros here doesn't mean precisely what the English cognate "Negroes" means. Dark skin color is part of it, but it refers more broadly to people considered lower-class by those using the word and to dark skin generally, not only specifically to African ancestry. He refers to a novel of that period, Amalia (1851/1855) by José Mármol (1817-1871):

Amalia es una novela que muestra el enfrentamiento entre las clases altas y la persecución a que Rosas somete a estas clases privilegiadas. ¿Cómo los somete Rosas?

Los somete por medio de darles importancia a clases como los gauchos, los negros e incluso los indios –pese a que Rosas hizo una excursión punitiva contra los indios–. Pero lo que no toleran las clases altas es la importancia que los negros cobran dentro del esquema político rosista. Y los negros eran los sirvientes, sirvientes, así sin vueltas, los sirvientes que estaban en las casas de las familias adineradas. Y estos sirvientes eran delatores, eran delatores. Entonces las clases adineradas, las clases altas, les tenían miedo a estos negros porque eran los negros del Restaurador de las Leyes y fácilmente delataban a las familias bien, a las familias de alcurnia, a las familias patricias, a las familias que representaban el avance de la civilización en la Argentina.

Pero Rosas, Rosas para esta gente era un populista, un populista. Ustedes saben que las clases altas odian a los populistas. Porque, claro, odian al pueblo y lo que hacen los populistas es mezclarse con el pueblo.

[Amalia is a novel that shows the confrontation among the upper classes and the persecution to which Rosas submitted these privileged classes.

He submitted them to it to give importance to classes like the gauchos, the negros and including the Indians even though Rosas made a punitive expedition against the Indians. But what the upper classes don't tolerate is the importance that the negros achieve within the rosista political scheme. And the negros were the servants, servants, that is without recourse, the servants who were in the houses of the wealthy families. And these servants were informers, were informers. So the wealthy classes, the upper classes, were afraid of these negros because they were negros of the Restorer of the Laws {Rosas} and easily informed on the good families, the families of good breeding, the patrician families, the families who represented the advance of civilization in Argentina.

But Rosas, Rosas for these people was a populist, a populist. You know that the upper classes hate populists. Because, obviously, they hate the people and what populists do is mix with the people.]

José Pablo Feinmann on Esteban Echeverría and the tyrant Juan Manuel de Rosas (Updated)

This is Chapter 5 of the third season of Argentine philosopher José Pablo Feinmann's public TV series Filosofía aquí y ahora, "T3 CAP 5. Esteban Echeverria: 'El matadero'," Encuentro n/d YouTube 02/07/2013.

Feinmann here discusses the political activist and Romantic author José Esteban Antonio Echeverría (1805–1851) in particular for his criticism of the tyrannical rule of Juan Manuel de Rosas (1793–1877). Rosas was head of the Federalist Party. And while the Federalist position is arguably the more important carrier of the democratic tradition in 19th-century Argentine than their centralist Unitarian opponents, Rosas' rule of the Province of Buenos Aires beginning in 1929 and later extended to the Argentine Confederation was one of the ugliest episodes of brutality and state-terrorist rule in Argentine history.

Echeverría was a partisan of the Unitarians and, as Feinmann describes him, an especially bitter critic of the despicable Rosas.

(Update 05/31/2015: In re-reading this, I realize that the version of Rosas that I sketched here is far too oversimplified. Feinmann here in this is describing the work of Esteban Echeverria, a contemporary who took a decidedly unfriendly view toward Rosas, but whose view on Rosas isn't the last word in historical judgment.

The long-standing mainstream view of Rosas as a villain is part of the conservative historical view identified with Bartholomé Mitre [1821–1906]. A non-Mitrist view of Rosas that enjoys support among Peronistas views him in a more nuanced light. Among them Argentine President Cristina Fernández.)