RUTHFULLY YOURS

In the early 1990s, when the old political order of Italy collapsed trailing the fall of the Soviet Empire, media tycoon–cum-showman Silvio Berlusconi emerged. For the next two decades he was the symptom of or cure for Italian tribulations, depending on your side of the parliamentary aisle. The country was bitterly divided about him and his leadership, something that further complicated all national issues.

Many of the problems of Italy and the European Union, of which Italy is an economic linchpin, rest with Berlusconi and those 20 years of political rifts. The country is yet to emerge from those divisions.

A similar event of very different nature happened in Thailand, likewise a political linchpin of Southeast Asia. It occurred after the 1997 financial crisis that swept the region like a typhoon. Thaksin Shinawatra took power and put forward widespread reforms that the king ultimately felt were undermining his position and power. He and the army stopped Thaksin and set Thailand on a reverse course in history. Now Myanmar, for decades the primary specimen of a rogue military regime, is moving boldly to democracy while neighboring Thailand, for decades a shining example of freedom in the region, is moving toward democracy—setting electoral rules with the sole purpose of preventing Thaksin’s return to power. Unlike Europe, South East Asia is not bound but a united currency, so the area can more easily leave Thailand behind.

The solutions the two men offered were different but both were wild cards emerging in a moment of huge social and political disruption.

Donald Trump may be in many ways the present American version of Berlusconi or, perhaps, of Thaksin. He loves to flaunt his wealth, appeals to populist rhetoric, is keen on histrionics, and receives a similarly divisive response from the public.
Months ago, when many were basically laughing about Trump, Angelo Codevillawarned that Trump was the sign of a deep crisis in American politics.

Now it is clear that Trump might be the Republican candidate in the upcoming presidential election or, at least, he will play an important part in the choice of the Republican candidate. It is already a huge victory for Trump, and concrete evidence of the crisis Codevilla warned about.

Issues in each country are different. Berlusconi promoted the rise of small and medium enterprises and peddled the idea that a billionaire could do well for his country as he did well for himself. In reality his rise was marred by his extensive business interests, which preceded his political aims, so much so that he came to politics on the verge of bankruptcy and solidly arose from it as one of the richest men in Italy.

Thaksin’s trajectory is quite different. He came to power as one of the richest men in the world and was ousted from it with his wealth dramatically diminished. But he also changed Thailand forever. Because of Thaksinomics, poor farmers now hope and have real expectations to emerge as the new middle and entrepreneurial class of the country in a way that is challenging both the old Bangkok business elite and the throne’s semi-absolute hold on power. In both cases, Berlusconi and Thaksin might be or might not be the best solutions, but they were or are important signs of something deeply wrong in their own societies.

In America, the Trump phenomenon seems twice as important, especially if seen alongside to the rise of Bernie Sanders, who also brought a significant challenge to the establishment.

The key issues, according to Codevilla, are grave: “Republicans and Democrats profit personally and through their corporate cronies by a welter of legislation and regulation by which they command what we must eat, how to shower, what medical care is proper and what is not: mandating that a third of the U.S. corn crop be turned into ethanol, restricting the use of coal, how we may use our land, etc. They justify these predatory intrusions into our lives by claiming that peculiar knowledge of science unavailable to others. They refuse to justify their scientific conclusions with the likes of us. An un-intimidated statesman, reiterating that science is reason, public reason, not pretense, would throw the notion that ‘science R us’ back into their faces. At increasing speed, our ruling class has created ‘protected classes’ of Americans defined by race, sex, age, disability, origin, religion, and now homosexuality, whose members have privileges that outsider do not. By so doing, they have shattered the principle of equality—the bedrock of the rule of law. Ruling class insiders use these officious classifications to harass their socio-political opponents.”

If one adds to this the issues raised by Sanders, one can see the same issues analyzed from a different viewpoint: the growing divide between rich and poor shatters all dreams of giving a fair chance to people, again the bedrock of the ideal of equality in the American dream. What Codevilla says of the Trump phenomenon (“Our ruling class has succeeded in ruling…by occupying society’s commanding heights, by imposing itself and its ever-changing appetites on the rest of us. It has coopted or intimidated potential opponents by denying the legitimacy of opposition.”) is valid also for Sanders. If one combines the Trump and Sanders vote, possibly over half of American constituents oppose mainstream candidates. Then whoever will become president will have to take into consideration that more than half of the American people are fed up with the present ruling class and methods.

From a distance, in China, the meaning of this phenomenon can easily be misunderstood. Are Trump plus Sanders signs of crisis in the American system? The easy answer is yes: how can a semi-successful billionaire by inheritance, sporting a blonde hairpiece and shouting political profanities, become a presidential candidate? How can the motherland of capitalism push forward a “socialist” like Sanders? Is it proof that America is sick? Yes…and no.

The emergence of candidates like Trump and Sanders proves the vitality of a society that can bring about something totally, unexpectedly new and unconventional in a peaceful, non-disruptive way. This gives society time to recover and emerge stronger from its sickness. That is, American democracy allows diseases to emerge soon enough to be treated. Authoritarian regimes may ignore diseases by suppressing them for longer time, until they are untreatable and fatal. This is why despite their vaunted stability, people know and feel that authoritarian regimes are more unstable than democratic ones—authoritarians have serious problems coping with novelty, and this is their deeper weakness.

The problem with Italy and Thailand when dealing with Berlusconi and Thaksin, perhaps was the inability to see the depth of the sickness behind the rash and the high fever—and the focus on the rash rather than the real disease. Possibly, if in Thailand the king had taken a step back and allowed Thaksin to rule, by now Thaksin would have been ousted in democratic elections rather than becoming the icon of the newly ambitious middle class.

Now, perhaps the real cure for Trumpism is to have Trump for president. And if he fails, whoever becomes president must start from what Trump and Sanders stand for because so many Americans are with them.