The Art of the Steal

It's official: Bojo and the Donald has opened at an electorate near you. This is political theatre as we have never known before. Or is it? Those of us who have been around a while will remember the early 1980s when a long-retired movie actor and an iron lady led the governments of the USA and UK. We thought things couldn't get any more bizarre. Well, we were wrong. The year 2016 will prove to be one of those moments in the endless flow of time that sets the course for years, perhaps decades to come. Think back to some similar inflexion points in the post-war world.

1968 was a year of assassinations, major street protests in Europe and the Americas, tanks rolling into Czechoslovakia, and the moment when it became clear that the US had lost the Vietnam War. Nixon and stagflation followed, ending the decades of relative prosperity in the West and sparking the conservative supremacy in electoral politics that, in the US case, was triggered by reactions to Barry Goldwater's monumental loss in the 1964 presidential election. The Reagan-Bush senior presidencies entrenched the marriage of conservative social policies and neo-liberal economics that Bill Clinton's administrations consummated.

1989 saw the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet (but not Russian) empire. Out of the turmoil, another Boris rose to momentarily strut the world stage, paving the way for the rise of a new Russian dictator and a particularly unlovely form of mafia capitalism. To the West, a number of ex-Soviet satellites seized the chance to lock onto the coattails of the expansionist European Union. Aping the outward symbols of parliamentary democracy, they professed their peoples ready to enjoy the fruits of western capitalism and individual freedom. The decades since have seen Poland, Hungary, Ukraine and the Baltic States progressively slide towards authoritarian regimes that increasingly resemble their great foe to the east. This is creating major tensions within the EU and NATO, at a time these pillars of post-war prosperity and security are under huge internal pressures, marked by Trump's turn away from Europe towards the dictators in the near, middle and far east and as Britain (dis)organises to take their bat and go home.

2008 marked the end of the neoliberal view of the supremacy of the market and provided the objective conditions for the rise of a new national populism and a series of oppositionist movements against the manifold dimensions of globalism. The visceral mobilisation of anger, fear and the desire for retribution, no matter what the cost, could not have happened without the previous slow boil of growing inequality and complacency among the dominant classes. It was too easy for the 'new new right' to mine this seam of discontent and undermine conventions of representative democracy, especially in the major Anglosphere.

The question remains, at least for those who would hope for something different; can Boris/Trump pull it off? Both have a self-centred view, formed by an uber-narcissistic personality, that they can bend the world to their peculiar vision of national greatness. In Johnson's case, it's a flashback to the days of empire and the nineteenth century view of his hero Churchill. Trump's great nation is more difficult to discern. In the end, it appears to be anything that makes him look great - and rich. Both leaders will say anything - literally anything - to keep their enemies off balance and be seen to win. Winning is everything. No lie is too outrageous to be beyond grasp, in order to win the point. Both leaders feel no need to offer any evidence in support of their sweeping observations. Evidence is for losers. The truth is whatever works. Both leaders have the grifter's skill of looking plausible to their marks. They are able to lock onto the camera and lie without blushing or staring at their feet. In Johnson's case, misrepresentation appears to be partly a result of laziness, a belief in his ability to waffle through any interview without having to bone up on the politician's normally well-prepared talking points. Trump's lies seem pathological in origin, the 'normal' response of someone who cannot bear the psychological pain of being wrong. This trait was obvious from the first days of office when he steadfastly held out against photographic evidence that the crowd at his inauguration was not larger than for Obama's. He has the perfect vehicle for communicating the world-according-to-Donald; Twitter. He has also perfected the long verbal grab that both repeats and contradicts itself as an unfiltered stream of consciousness. Both men use language replete with racist and sexist codes.

The test will arise first for Boris. His deadline is three months away. If his brinkmanship does not force the EU to relent and sweeten the deal on Brexit, Britain will crash out on the first of November. Trump's test will be whether he is re-elected in November 2020. The political opponents of both leaders believe that both men stole the top job. How accurate is such a claim?

Taking Boris first, a case can certainly be made that he systematically undermined his fellow Etonian David Cameron and, subsequently Teresa May, while hedging his position until the time was right to raise his head. But this is not so much a case of theft, as one of subtle timing. The case against Trump appears unassailable. It is certainly so held by Hilary Clinton and her supporters. The Mueller Report and Mueller's subsequent appearance before Congress provide ample ammunition for the claim that Russia interfered with the 2016 election and that Trump has a case to answer on obstruction of justice once his presidency ends. Investigative reporting on the role of shadowy data mining operations like Cambridge Analytica has uncovered the powerful impact that access to big data gives political campaigns in tailoring and targeting their candidate's message. The Ill-judged intervention at the eleventh hour by the then FBI Director, James Comey, may have had a role in swinging key votes away from Clinton in 2016. But it is fanciful to claim, as she does, that this was the decisive reason for her loss.

Trump's victory was only too predictable, just not by many (me included) at the time. With perfect hindsight, and a clearer understanding of how the beast acts, and who was helping him, it now seems obvious that Trump would win. The basic reason is baked into the constitutional history of the United States. Four of the first five presidents came from the queen of the South, Virginia, all of whom were slave owners and determined to preserve the power and influence of their class in the new Union. This was achieved by, first, allowing slaves to count as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of counting each state's population when setting electorates in the lower house - though without, of course, allowing slaves to actually vote. Once slaves did become free citizens with the right, though rarely the opportunity, to vote, a range of other measures were invented to stop them from doing so. These selective measures of voter suppression exist today and had some impact on the 2016 outcome. Creation of a powerful upper chamber with equal state representation (a further inducement to federation offered the smaller states that was later copied in Australia) further sandbagged minority representation. The other constitutional barrier that worked in Trump's favour was the indirect method by which the President is elected. The Electoral College was foisted on the Northern states by the less populous Southern states as a way of constraining the weight of popular votes nationally. That's the basic arithmetical reason why Trump won with 3 million fewer votes than Hilary. In such a system, campaigns naturally home in on the marginal (swing) states where the electoral college votes can tip the balance one way or the other. Thus Trump, aided by identification of 'the persuadables' in Florida and the Northern Mid-West, garnered the necessary numbers to win.

Can Trump do it again? Well, he's doing pretty well at the moment. The voting system hasn't changed. Republicans control most of the state houses. He has the advantages of incumbency and the unlimited financial backers of those prospering from his first term policies of tax cuts. A recent poll found that 94 per cent of self-identified Republicans support him. The underlying torrent of rage still resonates the sentiments of many workers and marginalised voters, especially in swing states. But will the man himself beat himself? Can he hold it together for another year and a bit? Will he over-stretch and spark a trade war, or an unwinnable military conflict. Will the American economy tank? Will powerful corporate forces decide that he threatens their long-term interests? Above all, will the bureaucracy and military hierarchy continue to treat him as their commander-in-chief? Will the arithmetic fail? Can the Democrats choose a candidate with a reasonable chance of attracting the six per cent of Republicans who don't support Trump? Can his Democratic opponent successfully target the other persuadables and non-voters in key states, drawing on the new techniques of voter identification and manipulation?

The 2020 election promises to be a turning point in US politics and society. If Trump wins - and the smart money is on him doing so - and he drags Congress and the state houses and governors along with him, the Republican party ascendency may become set in concrete. He will be able to appoint at least one, possibly more conservative judges to the Supreme Court that has already tilted to the right, and Republican state Attorneys-General will set about gerrymandering federal electorates to win federal elections into the distant future. The partisan politics of division and social inequality will live! Trump may also be in a position to organise his daughter Ivanka into succeeding him, as ludicrous as this may sound, assuming he can't beat the constitutional limit on winning a third term for himself. Of all the scenarios, this nepotistic one is the most fantastic. The founding fathers were mostly agreed in opposing the notion of an elected king with hereditary powers as president. Twentieth century republicans were among the strongest supporters of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution that limited individuals to no more than two terms, given that they were on the receiving end of FDR's four presidential victories. And yet...

We are told that all this is possible because, in the wake of 2016, of Trump and Brexit, of Wikileaks and Russia, of Cambridge Analytica and Facebook, it is no longer possible to have free and fair elections in the Western democracies. If this proves true, then the future is indeed bleak. That future may belong to the authoritarian leaders and mini-FÜhrers, and the global corporate interests, legal and illegal, who fund them. The two-century link between capitalism and representative democracy will be decisively broken. The former will reassume its red in tooth and claw supremacy, while the latter fades into history reprising the fate of ancient Athens. The loss of our future will be the greatest steal of all.