SANQUIXOTENE DE LA PANÇA | (In English) MAGA, Trump, Plutocrats, and Conservatism

I’ve had this idea of posting in English for quite awhile now. This week, the opportunity presented itself after exchanging some messages with an old friend. I’ve interviewed John for Esmeril once. So, he’s not new to the magazine either.

I expected the whole day to see whether he would reply my last message. Unfortunately, he did not. This time, I’ll have the last word. (Oh, well… He started it!) If he sends me anything, I’ll post it in the comment section below. I’m eager to know where I got it wrong. If you know, please, do not wait for him and point it out.

It’s a short talk on Economics and Politics. I edited the conversation a bit so to make it publishable.

—

[John] Paulo, do you think that M.A.G.A. voters could turn against Trump if he is seen as siding with the plutocrats? As the Sub-Prime crisis turned into the Bush-Obama depression, I used to say that it was enough to turn one into a socialist.

[Paulo] Define “siding.” As Edmund Burke would remind us, what has been done is done. The clock doesn’t run backwards. When we take a wrong turn, we can’t magically reappear at the intersection. Thus, we must take the current circumstances as the ground for improvement. Some concessions should be expected, as sad and infuriating this might be. Which ones shall be considered acceptable? Which should be deemed unacceptable? Those are the questions…
It’s Trump’s job to convince the electorate that either his decisions were the best among the alternatives or he had good reasons for choosing wrongly and learned from his mistakes. It’s a really difficult task, but he wanted to deal with it. Now, he must deal with it.
Moreover, I can see why one would feel tempted to become socialist, but most of the best criticism of the current economic system comes from the Libertarians. Socialists and Keynesians share a “controlist root,” which is the main reason why we got into this mess.

[John] Paulo, need I say it? I’m not tempted to turn socialist. But the average unwashed, uneducated voter may want revenge on the profiteers in the government-financial complex of state capitalism. In a way I do too… but socialism punishes everyone for the crime of living.
In the Bush-Obama depression, while some did lose their shirts, the super-banks that were too big to fail won big. With the gov’t bailouts, the money changers came out ahead, the people who collect a toll anytime money is moved, no matter whose money it is and where it is getting moved. They profit from inflation. It’s my idea that we need a constitutional amendment to allow a capital levy on these profiteers every time there’s a bailout…
As for Trump, whatever impulse he has to side with the crony capitalists is checked, inasmuch as the crony capitalists were against him. Thank heaven for his long memory… “Siding with” would mean protecting the crony capitalist arrangement. For one thing, his tariff program is a sign that he will not do their bidding.

[Paulo] I’ve never said you were tempted. I just understood you saying that, in such a context, “it’s comprehensible for someone to look at Socialism through positive lights” — to which I agreed. If I read you wrong, I apologize.

[John] “No problem.” I left out one fact from the story, one we all know very well, but that always needs to be repeated: the fact that nobody went to jail for the financial melt-down. Also, I’ve said it before, one reason the Bush II administration would not pull the plug and risk popping the financial bubble (to mix metaphors) was the need to pay for the forever wars.

[Paulo] Yep. No one went to jail. The stakes were doubled, instead. They believe that nothing wrong was done, because they all share the fantasy described by Frederic Bastiat: “everyone living at the expense of everyone.” They thought they could have all the money they needed forever. That’s an old illusion, and unfortunately it got ingrained into our societies. It’s shared by both the elites and the commoners. Republicans and Democrats just disagree on details of the distribution. There’s no one willing to say “no.”
The main problem here is that the most economically-sound solution is usually different that the most politically-sound solution. No politician wants to be known as the guy that allowed the system to crash and burn, even though it’s the most effective way to generally improve the lives of the people. A politician wants to be known as the man who established the new order. It’s really difficult for them to accept the role of dismantler. There are unavoidable short-term losses. Things get worse before getting better. No wants to carry such a burden.
So, things keep getting worse and worse slowly, until the bomb explodes in someone else’s lap. It’s always the worst outcome possible to everybody. However, it doesn’t matter how many times this happens; we will never learn the lesson – and, yes, that includes Trump.

[John] Let us use this to meditate on the failure of the Conservative Movement. It is a failure insofar as half the voters are in favor of Democratic Socialism, and an entire generation knows nothing about the Conservative Movement.

[Paulo] There has been many failures on the conservative part, but let’s acknowledge that it was a very steep uphill battle from the get-go. This is still reminiscence of the environment established in the Late Medieval/Early Modernity period. We are talking about 500 years of History; a history of continuous spiritual decay.
It’s true that the Anglo world (mainly England/UK, USA) adjusted better than anyone else to the changes, but that came with costs of its own. The underlying factor is the assumption that salvation is somehow at hand.
By the way, that should be the key difference between “conservatives” and “progressives”. Conservatives shouldn’t believe in it. However, this thought ended up also ingrained in the so-called “Conservative Movement” – especially in the Anglosphere, because the experience of success made it all more believable. It should be the main cause for the current situation as you’ve described it.