Our destiny is Trump - Part 1

Yeah, I know. Maybe I should have written "fate" instead of "destiny".

Scale makes us focus on DT. The scale of his unexpected ascension. The scale of his "eccentricity". The scale of the consequences of his victory.

This last point is important. We already have, at least, two victorious Trumps in Europe (Hungary, Poland), but we don't focus on these. And if we consider these are already ruling and making decisions, that's not very rational of us. But then, rationality is a fairy tale we like to tell ourselves in order to feel better.

To their credit, there is a difference between our European Trumps and the US "certified original" - our Trumps tend to do this peculiar thing, before opening their mouths, called "thinking". Still, DT's results will show us how important this "thinking" business actually is.

Right now, everyone is looking for someone to blame for the Trump phenomenon. We're in a deluge of brain-dead media articles telling us who's to blame (hint: If the title begins with "Everything you need to know..." or contains the words "Here's why", you might be better off giving it a miss). Funnily enough, the media often blames Trump on... the media. But, naturally, on the "other" media, because "our" media is caring and responsible, and would never contribute to this Harbinger of Hatred, right?

Yeah, right...

I'm not a man of many certainties, but there is one thing I have little doubt about: Our destiny is Trump. Probably not this Trump. Probably a more credible, nuanced Trump. But some sort of Trump, nonetheless.

There have been many comparisons between Trump and Hitler. In most such comparisons there's usually one useful detail that's lost in all the noisy "Dooooooom" hype - the possible (probable) effect of the rise of inequality throughout the world. I, too, will be comparing these "fine" specimens of Mankind, but I will be more interested in the context, rather than the actual persons involved; it's the context that matters, not if we're comparing DT to Hitler or Donald Duck.

Context, then...

When we talk about the currently rising inequality, someone always mentions there are more and more people being pulled out of poverty. True. However, when you earn next-to-nothing, getting to earn second-next-to-nothing is not as much of an achievement as it is made to appear. And that's what we're talking about, in most cases - people who earn their salaries by working in factories with a wide assortment of working conditions (yes, it's an euphemism), with no financial safety net at all, and who won't be able to create such a safety net, based on their low income. We're definitely not talking about people coming out of poverty into a sustainable long-term middle-class; and I'm definitely including the so-called "Developed/First-World Nations" in this description, even though, for these nations, I do put things in perspective - as bad as we are getting, we're still in a different world, compared to countries like China or Bangladesh.

So, what's the point behind all this? If you look at Hitler's path to power, you'll see two note-worthy details:

1. The first step along that path was achieved by democratic election, not a coup or a German Spring.

2. The Nazi Party went from 2.6% (810,127 votes) in 1928 to 18.25% (6,379,672) in 1930. I'll let you figure out on your own what was the Big Event between 1928 and 1930.

So, you see, the problem isn't someone shouting at the top of his lungs "Jews are evil". The problem is when a significant part of the population falls on hard times and someone says "I can solve your problems! Oh, and by the way, not only are Jews evil, but they're also the cause of your problems".

We won't get leaders like Trump because people are actively racist/chauvinist/whatever, anymore than we got Hitler because people were actively anti-Semitic. We will get leaders like these when enough people fall on hard times and someone comes along and says "I can solve your problems". Regardless of whatever else they say.

And, right now, this is what an ever-growing part of the population perceives as its major problem - inequality. Not so much that there are a few people getting richer, but that there are a whole lot more getting poorer. Yes, I know, there's a lot of sound bites to counter this "conspiracy theory":

• Trickle-down. I won't even address this BS, other than to ask "Is this still a thing?!"
• We're taking untold millions from abject poverty. Riiight... and where exactly are we putting them, pray tell?
• The times are changing, life has become more precarious, and people have to get used to change. Oh, they will get used to change. We all will, in fact. I just think that, sooner or later, we'll all regret the change that "people" will choose.

When we mention "inequality", the first thing that comes to mind is income inequality. But there's more to it than that.

Legislative inequality

This one is easy. The push to rise the minimum wage is met with cries of "Doooooom". The push to lower corporate tax is lauded by pretty much every pundit and "independent" financial institution/watchdog. Even "better", the tax evas..., er, I mean, "avoidance" schemes are considered "good management".

Executive inequality

A major bank is on the brink of collapse and the taxpayers "volunteer" to step in with a bailout. All the usual suspects applaud.

The government says "Well, the State will now take over the bank's management, since we're paying for it". All hell breaks loose, with "reasonable" statements such as "The State cannot interfere with the management of a private corporation".

Judicial inequality

There's no need to say much here, as it's obvious from the current cost of "Justice" that it's completely skewed to favour those who can afford it.

At the end of the day, all this means is that more and more people are being pushed into precarious situations, more and more people are getting out-priced - or even scared out - of what should be ordinary life choices, all the while watching the "chosen few" living it out.

In fact, we can make a final comparison to illustrate this uncertainty gap:

• Entrepreneurs (whatever that means) and business owners will usually cry out for fiscal stability, demanding to know the "rules of the game", which usually means "rules that suit them".

• However, when it comes to those who work for them, they'll parrot out the "Times are uncertain" line, and push people into precarity, denying them the same stability they so vocally demand for themselves.

This, I believe, is the main reason why some sort of Trump is our future. Not the only reason, but definitely the main reason.

More about this next time.