Can the political right truly be anti-establishment?
For me whether someone is establishment or not is about money as well as the office.
In the US election, the Republican mainstream got a kicking in the primary; not just from Trump; remember because the second and third placed contenders where both Tea Party candidates. Though for all the talk of being against the mainstream, bear in mind that all three had extensive corporate sponsorship. Trump is (arguably) and exception but he doesn't need money from lobbyists only because he is a lobbyist. He has also 'drained the swamp' by appointing a cabinet of other billionaire lobbyists.
In who's interests does these people serve if not class interest? When these people talk about 'better deals' do they really want to redistribute wealth, raise corporate taxes or regulate Wall Street; the things which would actually benefit non-establishment people? It is the same in Britain with UKIP, where Trump's buddy Nigel Farage condemns the 'liberal establishment' when he is a privately educated ex-stockbroker who is on record as saying our NHS should be privatised.
Yes there is a liberal establishment and yes it is also culpable. Hillary did receive massive amounts of Wall Street money but not because she is 'left-wing' as I understand it but because of the opposite reason; she is pro-corporate and business friendly. Likewise with the British Liberal elite; including Prime Minister's Blair, Brown and Cameron. The culture war will not feed your children and the most fundamental political questions are about economic and class interests.
In this sense, Bernie Sanders was the only truly anti-establishment politicians in the US election. He refused all corporate money and crowd funded his campaign with the aim of achieving a different settlement for the 99%. This is also true of Britain's Jeremy Corbyn. If someone claims to be anti-establishment, the first thing you should ask them to do is follow the money to find out whose interests they serve. Money is at least as consequential as formal political power when it comes to how decisions are actually made and the two are intertwined anyway.
In the US election, the Republican mainstream got a kicking in the primary; not just from Trump; remember because the second and third placed contenders where both Tea Party candidates. Though for all the talk of being against the mainstream, bear in mind that all three had extensive corporate sponsorship. Trump is (arguably) and exception but he doesn't need money from lobbyists only because he is a lobbyist. He has also 'drained the swamp' by appointing a cabinet of other billionaire lobbyists.
In who's interests does these people serve if not class interest? When these people talk about 'better deals' do they really want to redistribute wealth, raise corporate taxes or regulate Wall Street; the things which would actually benefit non-establishment people? It is the same in Britain with UKIP, where Trump's buddy Nigel Farage condemns the 'liberal establishment' when he is a privately educated ex-stockbroker who is on record as saying our NHS should be privatised.
Yes there is a liberal establishment and yes it is also culpable. Hillary did receive massive amounts of Wall Street money but not because she is 'left-wing' as I understand it but because of the opposite reason; she is pro-corporate and business friendly. Likewise with the British Liberal elite; including Prime Minister's Blair, Brown and Cameron. The culture war will not feed your children and the most fundamental political questions are about economic and class interests.
In this sense, Bernie Sanders was the only truly anti-establishment politicians in the US election. He refused all corporate money and crowd funded his campaign with the aim of achieving a different settlement for the 99%. This is also true of Britain's Jeremy Corbyn. If someone claims to be anti-establishment, the first thing you should ask them to do is follow the money to find out whose interests they serve. Money is at least as consequential as formal political power when it comes to how decisions are actually made and the two are intertwined anyway.
41-45, M
