The Rise of Discontentment and the Continuing Unraveling from the "Centrist" Establishment

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin was once quoted as saying that the collapse of the USSR was one of the major geopolitical disasters of the century. What many neglect to mention are his next few lines, which describe the reasons he said this. It wasn't exactly because of a fondness for communism that he brought this up. His reasons were: a) the fact that so many citizens rapidly found themselves outside the borders of their former country. b) the fact that so many were driven into poverty within a very short time after the collapse. I would believe that his point (b) is the more important point. (Note: For English subtitles turn on YouTube captions in controls of video.)

Others have echoed this sentiment in different ways, and even sometimes for different reasons. For instance, James Petras in an article circa 2012, notes that the fall of the USSR may have contributed to the further rise of neo-liberalism in the US and Europe. He particularly is displeased with those academics (and others) who chose to vilify the USSR, and took an anticommunist line, which may have aided the neo-liberals rise. As Petras writes, "The entire army of impotent ‘anti-Stalinist’ leftists, comfortably established in the universities, brayed till they were hoarse against the ‘neo-liberal offensive’ and the ‘need for an anti-capitalist strategy’, without the tiniest reflection over how they had contributed to undermining the very welfare state that had educated, fed and employed the workers."

For decades, arguably until the time of Reagan (although probably earlier), the Soviet Union provided a model that had to be vilified and guarded against, as far as the US and Western European political class was concerned. One way of doing this was to provide high standards of living (relatively) for their populations. Of course, perhaps another less positive method of defending against this concern was to go after those who saw the potential of communism, and sought to apply some what was pragmatic about communism to Western European societies. Thus, we have the reports of things like "Operation Gladio" that took place in Europe.

In short, there was a modicum of balance in the world, and although the US did things like the Vietnam War, the USSR tended to provide balance in the sphere of foreign policy as well. For example, we should take notice that it was after the fall of the Berlin Wall, in the time of Gorbachev, that the US decided to begin the long program of the destruction of Iraq. It is an open question I pose: Could the US elite have   given us the first Gulf War if the USSR was not so weakened? I contend that they would not have been able to do such a thing without confronting the risk of global war.

Therefore, I would argue that we can trace out current set of circumstances, at least in part, back to the collapse of the USSR. I wouldn't claim it was a chain reaction, but would say without the USSR, the US and Western Europe were left unconstrained in the economic and military sphere to a large degree. Since then, we have had not only an endless cycle of wars, but increased pressure for neoliberalism that has decimated the middle class, and certainly harmed the poor.

Shortly after the first Gulf War, circa 1992, Gore Vidal wrote an essay entitled, "Monotheism and its Discontents."  I don't exactly agree with the way he tied his entire argument to religion, however, he certainly seems to play the role of a latter day Nostradamus. He was critiquing what he saw happening during the 1992 election. He began to see the outlines of two parties, not the phony two-party (which is one-party) of the current system of his time, but of two distinct parties. For him, the embodiment of one party, which he called the "party of man" was on display in the person of  Jerry Brown, who was running a quixotic attempt at a campaign for president. Pat Buchanan was doing the same, in Vidal's terminology, for the "party of God."

As I've said, I'm not sure how much religion has to do with it, but if one looks closely, we can see that two distinct parties did (and do) exist, and more than 20 years later, they are confromting one another yet again on the fringes of the political establishment. Except, it is no longer very "fringe." For Vidal's "party of man" we have Bernie Sanders standing in for this election cycle. And until Super Tuesday, the media had to very much count him in as having a chance to gain the nomination of the Democratic Party. Even more amazing, standing in for the "party of God" we have the Donald Trump. What either of these two think about religion is irrelevant.

If I could be so bold as to attempt to summarize what I think Vidal was getting at, the  "party of man" wants things like campaign finance reform, rights for the many, a general enlightenment if you will, while the "party of God" would want to curtail immigration, to scapegoat the other, and generally be comfortable with a more authoritarian society. Of course, as Vidal pointed out, the "party of God" also seemed to be against the continuance of an American Empire abroad.

But rather than put words into Vidal's mouth, let me share some of what he wrote about these parties. Of the "party of God," Vidal wrote, "Buchanan speaks for the party of God--the sky-god with his terrible hatred of women, blacks, gays, drugs, abortion, contraception, gambling--you name it, he hates it. Buchanan is a worthy peddler of hate. He is also in harmony not only with the prejudices and superstitions of a good part of the population but, to give him his due, he is a reactionary in the good sense--reacting against the empire in favour of the old Republic..." Of the "party of man," he wrote, "The party of man would like to re-establish a representative government firmly based upon the Bill of Rights..." This isn't much to go on, but if one reads the essay, Vidal gives a pretty explanation of what he means by all of this.

Rather than attempt to tie this together on my own, I'll leave this essay with some of what Vidal wrote from his essay. He certainly said it better than I can. Near the end of his essay, Vidal makes a point that is difficult for me, but none-the-less something that leaps out of the page given our current politics. He writes, "For once, it's all out there, perfectly visible, perfectly plain for those who can see. That Brown and Buchanan will not figure in the election does not alter the fact that, for the first time in 140 years, we now have, due in part to their efforts, the outline of two parties. Each knows the nature of its opposite, and those who are wise will not try to accommodate or compromise the two but will let them, at last, confront each other."

Now that is such a frightening prospect, that I can understand why the establishment would rather do all it can to provide us with a comfortable "centrist" for the next election.