Right Wing Hero Free Media Promotion Round 2

 On November 15, 1016 I posted about Right Wing Heros (RWH):

The rightwing distrusts the mainstream media. They think its all a liberal agenda selling disinformation and poor values. The more the media attacked Trump the stronger the conviction of his supporters that he was indeed the RWH. For left leaning folks like me it just seemed like a hopeless parade of fail by Trump but to the rightwing it didn't really matter much what he was saying or what he was doing. The fact that the media shit on Trump all year was about as glowing a seal of authenticity as you are going to get for the rightwing.

The current Trump trials are round 2. Its the exact same rallying of his base leading up to an election as happened all throughout 2016. We even have bumbling analysts baffled over how Trumps popularity could continue to grow during the trials. "Historians will make better sense of it than we can," they sigh in resignation.

Most of these priests can only afford to be true believers. Must be a special kinda mind-screw for the handful who wonder why everything they do only seems to help "the enemy".

Attributes of the Rightwing Hero (RWH)

In retrospect, the two things that probably threw me off the most in expecting a Hillary victory where not understanding the attributes of the RWH and the role the media played. In this post I will touch on the media but there is a lot more to be mined there, so I have a feeling I will end up writing a post that focuses specifically on the media.

What threw so many of us off about Trumps popularity is the behavior we saw was crude, racist, or misogynist, and that would naturally disqualify him from victory. Hell Howard Dean's 2004 primary campaign was supposedly derailed by an awkward yell. How long could Trump last? Much of that behavior however was just proving to the rightwing that Trump was their hero but not for the reasons one might initially think.

Its fair to say that there are more overt strands of racism throughout the rightwing. I personally believe we all have some level of institutionalized racism in us but its fair to say that the left does a better job of trying to address that within ourselves in a positive way. Misogyny is harder for me to get a feel for in the right/left dynamic. I would guess its fairly pervasive generally. There is no question some Trump supporters where primarily drawn to him for those whistles he blew. However almost the entire Republican field blows those whistles during the primaries. One could argue Trump blew it better than the rest, and that's probably true, but I don't think that explains what set him so drastically apart from the other candidates to the rightwing.

The primary draw is that Trump was seen by the rightwing as an "outsider" which is something he has in common with 2008 Obama. The right is anti-government so getting a candidate who has never even been in government is truly a special thing for them. The left got their "community organizer grassroots" outsider and the right got their "successful businessman entrepreneur" outsider.

The rightwing distrusts the mainstream media. They think its all a liberal agenda selling disinformation and poor values. The more the media attacked Trump the stronger the conviction of his supporters that he was indeed the RWH. For left leaning folks like me it just seemed like a hopeless parade of fail by Trump but to the rightwing it didn't really matter much what he was saying or what he was doing. The fact that the media shit on Trump all year was about as glowing a seal of authenticity as you are going to get for the rightwing. Even Fox news was thought to be tepid on Trump and he had battles with Fox personalities like with Megyn Kelly. That's some serious outsider RWH cred. As the right hates the media it makes sense that the RWH would battle the media and win.

2008 Obama was the polar opposite. He was loved by the media. MSNBC couldn't fawn over him enough. His 2008 campaign won advertising awards. The same way the media's revulsion of Trump made the leftwing dislike him more, the media's embrace of 2008 Obama likely made the rightwing more antagonistic.

Another aspect of the rightwing's anti-government ideology that Trump got millage from was his battles with his own Republican party. The left wants their LWH to heal the divide and bring both parties together. Obama sold that in 2008 and once in office it rarely seemed to matter to his supporters that he would "compromise" everything he campaigned on to get legislation passed. Obamacare was publicly acknowledged to be patterned after Romney Care from his time as governor of Massachusetts. Obama supporters vigorously defended the fight for Obamacare even as Obama stripped away core promised, populist features such as the Public Option and the deal Obama cut with big Pharma to leave them largely unaffected and free of risk that the US government would begin negotiating for better prices. The left was content to watch their LWH successfully work with the opposition to reach bipartisan consensus, even if that meant having critical promises left out of the legislation.

The right however wants confrontation. They want Trump to challenge Establishment forces, fight them, and force them to comply. The right is not interested in compromise which they often see as a sign of weakness, not savvy. Trump delivered this aspect during his campaign through the myriad of conflicts he had with this own party. The media portrayed the Republican Party as generally against him during the primaries. Trump had multiple battles with Paul Ryan, the Republican speaker of the House, both during the primaries and even right up to the election.

He had battles with former presidential candidate John McCain. Remember in 2008 McCain was not all that popular with the rightwing. It was Sarah Palin that brought all the energy to that campaign. McCain put out a statement that served as a whistle to the righwing that Trump was indeed their hero. If longtime establishment insider they didn't really like said Trump didnt represent them, then the rightwing thought it even more likely that Trump actually did.

  "I hope Americans understand that the remarks do not represent the views of our Republican Party, its officers, or candidates....""Arizona is watching. It is time for Donald Trump to set the example for our country and the future of the Republican Party. While our Party has bestowed upon him the nomination, it is not accompanied by unfettered license to defame those who are the best among us." - John McCain

Trump even battled the RNC chairmen Reince Priebus during the primaries claiming Priebus was running a scam and should be ashamed of himself. This is the same Reince Priebus Trump has just named to be his Chief of Staff. But just as Obama railed against Wallstreet only to pack his cabinet full of Wallstreet insiders while his supporters made up every excuse imaginable to defend him, so will be the case with Trump supporters, even though less than a year ago Trump spoke as if Priebus was a terrible, dishonorable, Republican Party Establishment shill out to sabotage him.

These are orchestrated feuds of the election psyop. The fact that Trump will not only quickly bury what seemed to be feuds filled with such vitriol and animosity, as was the case with his pivot away from going after Hillary once he won, he is taking that a step further by literally appointing a previous antagonist to one of the most important positions in his administration. However the right has been fully convinced this is the RWH through this successful election psyop so they will defend even such obvious contradictions. Americans have been conditioned to be masters of cognitive dissonance.

I mentioned in the opening thesis the example of what the left and the right want of their hero in regards to the rest of the worlds opinion of them. Obama went so far as to give a major campaign speech in Germany which is very odd for a US politician on the campaign trail. However it fit perfectly with the narrative of the ascending LWH. There was even some minor conflict with Chancellor Angela Merkel over the location of that speech but eventually it was all smoothed over and Obama gave his speech to massive, cheering crowds in the location Merkel had questioned. That's what the LWH does. He can work with world leaders to get what America wants and inspire even the people of their country.

The right is much more nationalistic. They want America first which Trump is always careful to point out. Even in his victory speech he said, "I want to tell the world community that while we will always put America's interests first, we will deal fairly with everyone, with everyone." So the fact that the world largely hated and feared Trump was another whistle to the rightwing that Trump was the RWH. The left sees this and thinks, "Why would anyone elect this troll? He wont be able to get anything done with the rest of the world." The right on the other hand generally feels that if the rest of the world doesn't get on board then screw them. 

Interestingly the only time I think Trump gave any real political comments abroad during the election cycle was when he was in Scotland promoting two of his golf courses. This was on the heels of the Brexit vote. That seems so orchestrated. Trump, a nationalist candidate who is largely hated by the world, happens to be in one of the very few situations abroad at the very moment when the sentiment has just climaxed to a very nationalist, anti-establishment vibe, so he would actually be well received.

To end this post I want to circle back around to where it started, the topic of what I will for simplicity's sake call Trumps' "crude" behavior. The left reacted with revulsion to the crude language while the right was excited by it. The left wants their LWH to be PC while the right has no interest in that. They want a "straight talker" who "tells it like it is". It didn't matter to the right what ridiculous things Trump would say, it only mattered that he was willing to say them. I bet it didn't even matter if they agreed with what he said. That he would say relatively taboo things, at least from the PC perspective, was further proof that their RWH had arrived.

As a left leaning person that distinction didn't register with me during the campaign. I was focused on what he was saying like the rest of the left without considering why the right was so excited by it. It was easy to listen to the media and dismiss his supporters as a bunch of racists and misogynists. Trump however won a large electoral victory and likely many people who voted for Obama in 2008 switched to Trump in 2016. Where those people not racists then and magically became racists by 2016? What makes more sense is that economic improvement these people were promised in 2008 never materialized. In fact for many things got worse.

A recent article showed this graphic of household median income by state from 2000-2015.



The red and yellow are the ones who actually lost median income. Notice key states that Republicans often have a hard time winning are in the red, and Trump won most of those including Michigan, Ohio, Florida, and Indiana. The article argues that much of the median income gain has to do with the shale and gas boom but that money really only helped bring up the median without helping lots of households. So while Pennsylvania is green on this graphic I think Trump won Pennsylvania because most people there are still experiencing economic hardship and do not sense any sort of recovery. 

When it comes to manipulating our emotions the Establishment largely understand the American public better than it understands itself. It has a myriad of online metrics it can use through mainstream media and social media. It has access to our email, calls, and texts. It should be of little surprise that they can push different groups of us in directions of their choosing. The Establishment very clearly understood that if you turn the entire media apparatus on the RWH it would further elevate the candidate toward RWH status. If they wanted Trump buried they would have ignored him (like they did with Ron Paul) instead of giving him unlimited free advertising. It was a feature to the 2016 Trump campaign that the media coverage was overwhelmingly negative because that was designed as a signal to the rightwing that Trump was the RWH.

Election Psyop Thesis

I contend that the US presidential elections of 2008 and 2016 are the exact same play from the Establishment playbook. The primary difference, and what makes it on the surface so hard to notice, is that in 2008 the psyop was custom tailored to deliver euphoria to the left while enraging the right. However in 2016 the psyop was tailored to deliver euphoria to the right while enraging the left.

Both elections revolve around the notion that the Establishment is always trying to sell us heros. Much of our entertainment media is focused on it and in the last 10 years there has been an explosion of movies literally about heros (super-hero genre). 2008 Barack Obama was the perfect Leftwing Hero (LWH). 2016 Trump in the perfect Rightwing Hero (RWH).

There are a myriad of similarities between their campaigns but often these similarities or connections are because their attributes are perfectly diametrically opposed. For example Obama was loved and fawned over by the rest of the world while Trump was hated and feared. What makes it similar is how farcically extreme each candidates experience was. The left wants their hero loved by the rest of the world hence why Obama, the LWH, was shown to be loved by the world to a silly degree to his supporters. Trump was hated and feared by the rest of the world and his supporters where made sure to know it, because the right is intensely nationalist so the world disliking their hero is a sign to them that Trump is indeed the RWH.

Normal people, bitten by an irradiated campaign victory for President, are transformed into the most powerful person in the world, with a benevolent heart, who will serve and sacrifice for the American people. Through this fantasy the Establishment manufactures consent of the left and the right.

These election psyops reinforce the false notion that our electoral system is a vehicle for governmental policy change. Another feature of the psyops is the classic "divide and conquer" as it pits citizen verse citizen through manufactured issues, driven expertly by the Establishment media. The election of each hero gives the Establishment room to pass obviously establishment favoring policies, as each hero earns a lot of leeway from their supporters because they are the RW or LW Hero. Paradoxically the LWH gives the Establishment more room to pass pro-establishment right wing policies and the RWH will give them more room to pass pro-establishment leftwing policies that their respective party supporters would normally resist. For example I wouldn't be surprised if Trump where the one to pass gun control laws that a Democrat would never get passed.

I had assumed like most everyone else that Hillary Clinton would win the 2016 presidential election. Either way though I felt assured that whoever won, it would be who the Establishment wanted. If they cant manufacture their result and rig something they have had so much control over for decades they wouldn't be the Establishment. So when Trump won it was clear to me he was the one the Establishment wanted all along and so began the process of trying to understand why.

I watched a mainstream site on youtube on mute to watch the electoral map on election night while I listened to a libertarian/rightwing'esq group of alternative media personalities commenting live on an audio stream. There were a couple who I know just the day before would have argued that the Establishment will get whoever they want. Everyone assumed the Establishment wanted Hillary so it was an easy thing for the libertarian/rightwing'esq alternative media pundit to argue. But as it became clear that Trump was going to win euphoria took them over and that same pundit exclaimed that the election of Trump was a huge middle finger to the Establishment. If you believe the Establishment gets whoever they want, the previous statement is nonsensical. They middle fingered themselves? What?

And that's when it hit me. I was experiencing the 2008 Obama campaign and election all over again but just of the rightwing flavor. I was the type of person they would customize the LWH for and I fell for Obama hook, line, and sinker in 2008. I experienced that euphoria. I only recently started listening to more rightwing alternative media in order to get more perspectives and information. It was that exposure that helped me understand that many of the qualities I was naturally turned off by of Trumps were actually not flaws in his campaign but rather features that signaled to the right wing that their RWH had arrived.

The day after the election a foreign family member of mine messaged her American family asking what the heck was going on over here in the US. I gave a very bare-bones version of this thesis and based off the 2008 playbook I made some predictions. While both Obama and Trump were sold as "outsiders", like Obama, Trump will pack his administration with Washington insiders. Now some of his possible folks had leaked before the election and I knew about that. But it will be on the level of the absurd. Since the election we already hear names like Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, and Jaimi Dimon. But as Trump is the RWH his supporters will not only give him a pass, but defend him as happened with Obama.

I predicted that just as Obama talked a big game about all the Bush crimes like torture or rendition, Trump will also find some form of "look forward, not backward" in regards to Hillary. I didn't hear Trumps victory speech until after I wrote that prediction (of course I cannot prove that), but early on in that speech was the beginning pivot away from going after Hillary.

"Hillary has worked very long and very hard over a long period of time, and we owe her a major debt of gratitude for her service to our country.

(APPLAUSE)

I mean that very sincerely"

From 2008 to 2010 Obama had filibuster proof majorities in both Houses. However he was often "blocked" or "forced to compromise" during those first two years by blue dog democrats. The Democrats had filibuster proof majorities so the Republicans couldn't stop him. In 2016 Trump has majorities in both Houses, but not filibuster proof majorities. However the Democrats haven't seemed to use the filibuster strategy as aggressively as the Republicans have so I am guessing Trumps more radical agenda items will be "blocked" or "forced into compromise" by his own party, just like for Obama. If I had to guess who the narrative has set up for Trumps blockers to be I would guess the old guard Republicans like Lindsey Graham or John McCain. Trumps walls, or Muslim visa bans, or mass deportations will be blocked or extremely watered down.

My final prediction right now as I look at the 2008 playbook is that I think we will get another financial crash before Trump officially takes office. The fact that the 2008 crash was well underway before Obama took office meant that he bore little culpability for the crush to the public. Even the rightwing didn't blame Obama for the 2008 crash as he had only recently even become a Senator. With no culpability and an election psyop engineered "mandate of the people" Obama was free to pass any pro-establishment policies the elite wanted with next to no opposition. In fact every time Obama would manage to pass something gutted of everything populist that it may have started with (The 2008 Obama campaign was extremely populist in rhetoric) the leftwing would joyfully bask in another core quality they look for in their LWH: someone who brings both parties together, heals the divide, to pass legislation.

The stage is set to use Trump in exactly the same fashion. Where 2008 Obama was trusted by the leftwing for his populist rhetoric, the right will accept whatever Trump offers as a solution because it will be a mixture of Trumps "blunt talk" and his supporters deference to his business acumen. I am not here to argue whether or not Trump has actually been a successful businessman. I just claim that largely that's what the right think of Trump as that is a core quality of the RWH.

My plan for now is to explore the different aspects of this play from their election psyop playbook. I am curious to see if the thesis holds up under greater scrutiny and if so, if it could allow us to better read elections going forward. But you know, meandering. So we'll see.