Sunday, January 17, 2021

Storming of the Capitol Hill and the Anatomy of Trumpism

This article is by

Share this article

Article Contributor(s)

Raya Tripathi

Article Title

Storming of the Capitol Hill and the Anatomy of Trumpism

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

January 17, 2021

URL

Donald Trump at the Keep America Great rally in Fayetteville

Donald Trump at the Keep America Great rally in Fayetteville | Source: Jackson A. Lanier via Wikimedia

On January 6, 2021, thousands of Trump supporters marched towards the Capitol Hill and stormed the building after outgoing President Donald Trump allegedly incited the crowd during his speech. It is also being called one of the worst security breaches in American history.

One of the often-cited reason for the insurrection is the idea of “Trumpism.” Therefore, this article explores what happened at the Capitol Hill in light of the idea of Trumpism.

What happened that led to the storming of the US Capitol?

Prior to the storming, the protesters assembled on the South Lawn for the 'Save America March'  where President Trump, his lawyer and advisor Rudy Giuliani, and others gave speeches. There,  Giuliani called the election results “crooked” and Trump, who gave the speech behind a glass barrier, declared that he would “never concede”, criticised the media by calling it “fake” and “biased”, and wrongly claimed that the Vice President Mike Pence had the power to overturn the election results. He also went on to tell the crowd to “fight like hell”.

Storming at Capitol Hill | Source: Tyler Merbler via Flickr

After the rally, the crowd of supporters instigated by Trump marched down Pennsylvania Avenue towards the Capitol Hill and breached security, occupying parts of the building for several hours. They did this in an effort to disrupt the electoral college vote count during a joint session of the Congress and prevent the formalization of President-elect Joe Biden’s electoral victory. They ransacked and vandalised several parts of the building including the senate chamber and Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office. They allegedly wanted to “hang” Vice President Mike Pence and also chanted the slogan “Where is Pence?” The vice president had been whisked to a secure location in the Capitol complex. Apart from that, they were chanting the slogans “stop the steal” and “USA,USA”, among others.

The rioters left the Capitol Hill after hours of looting and riots. It led to 5 deaths, out of which one was a police officer. After the rioting was over, the senate continued its session and declared Biden as the President. It also concluded that there was no voter fraud. There have been many arrests since then and police is still searching for more.


Why do Trump’s supporters believe him?

A supporter of Donald Trump | Source: Lorie Shaull via Flickr

They believe in something which is nowadays termed ‘Trumpism'. Trumpism is a term for the political ideology, type of governance, political movement and set of mechanisms for acquiring and keeping power that are associated with the 45th United States president, Donald Trump and his political base. It is a kind of American politics that is right wing to far-right, and has nationalist sentiments. His ideologies are also believed to be illiberal and close to fascism. Trump also claimed once, in 2016, that he could shoot someone standing in the Fifth Avenue, and his supporters wouldn’t abandon him.

Trump has managed to establish an emotional connection with his supporters, which consists of around 40% of the Americans. An article by Timothy Pytell on Psychology Today pointed out that it is a narcissistic identification with Trump that leads his supporters to follow him. By openly claiming he can do whatever he wants to, shoot anyone and still retain support, or grab women without their consent, he has tapped into the unconscious desires and thoughts of millions of Americans. His vulgarity, indecency, and law-breaking leads his followers into a narcissistic identification – as if they are Trump. Even though Trump may have to leave the White House, he will have the spotlight and Trumpism will not fade away from politics. This is the reason why the protestors believed in the “stop the steal” slogan.

Whenever Trump says “ I’m suffering for you” or shows as if he’s doing everything for America, his followers begin to see him as a true leader and it consolidates belief. Another thing is Trump considers himself God-like, and therefore religious groups and other people start connecting him to religion. They start believing even in his blatant lies.

Another reason that strengthened the Trump ideology are pro-right wing TV Channels like Fox news. They turn everything that Trump did into something “great”. Such channels are able to support the movement on a deeper level by brainwashing the audience.

The way he speaks, behaves and acts – makes such people relate with him so much that they start believing in him. There’s more about feelings, emotions and “dreampolitik realm” in Trumpism rather than economics and policies. The supporters were literally devoted to Trump. And if someone is not believing in his dangerous ideas, such as the liberals, Democrats, and especially some of the Republicans who went against Trump, they have either been termed “weak” or “losers” and in some cases, even traitors. An example of this is - "Where are Republicans! Have some backbone," Eric Trump tweeted in November during the elections. "Fight against this fraud. Our voters will never forget you if your sheep!" Clearly he wanted to convey that the people who are not fighting lack “backbone” and are somewhat like a coward. Such things instigated people in the name of bravery and nationalism.

Many of his supporters and base includes White supremacists, including the Ku Klux Klan, an American white supremacist hate group whose primary targets are African Americans. Its lesser enemies include Jews, immigrants, leftists, homosexuals, Muslims and, until recently, Catholics. Other than the above mentioned his main supporters include people from the rural areas, the middle states, white evangelists, and those into blue collar jobs or without college degrees. There’s a small population of non-white as well.

The riots proved that although the President has been defeated in the elections, his Trumpism remains deep-rooted, and will outlast him. “The work of undoing the siren call of Trumpism will require, to begin, a deeper understanding of its appeal”, Jeff Goodwin, an New York University Professor of Sociology and expert on movement politics, told CNN. He added, “A large part of Trumpism's appeal is Trump's personal appeal to a lot of people -- as a celebrity, as a crass speaker of truth, as these people see him, someone who doesn't mince words, someone who really tells it like it is. He's figured things out, he's a billionaire and he knows how the system works. All these elements of Trump's personality and character seem to have a lot of appeal to a big segment of the population. But I don't know if there is Trumpism without Trump.” He describes Trumpism as a “contradictory, unstable amalgam” of five key ideological pieces – Social conservatism (anti-abortion and anti-LGBT policies), Neoliberal capitalism (tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation), Economic nationalism, Nativism (anti-immigration policies), and white nationalism (refusal to condemn Proud Boys and others).

Aftermath and Reactions on the Capitol Insurrection

People commented and condemned the incident, not only in America but from all over the world. “This is what the president has caused today, this insurrection,” Republican Senator Mitt Romney told a reporter. But the President himself didn’t condemn the rioters. Instead, he released a video message, telling his supporters to “go home and go home in peace” and said, “We love you; you’re very special.” He further went on with his false claims that the elections were “stolen”. In fact, in his speech which incited these people, Trump said he would join them and march together towards the Capitol, which he certainly didn’t do and went back to the White House, because most probably he didn’t want the dirt on him. He later tweeted telling the protestors to “stay peaceful”, but did not condemn or tell them to return back.

Reacting to President Trump’s irresponsible behaviour, Facebook locked Trump's accounts and removed posts related to the incident, Twitter locked his account for 12 hours, and then permanently suspended it.

Even the police was criticised for its role in the protests. In several footages, police officials can be seen bringing in the protestors and even clicking selfies with them. They were criticised for their biased attitude towards the riot and the leniency shown towards it as compared to the Black Lives Matter movement, that was comparatively peaceful. Several leaders, including President-elect Joe Biden have pointed out this racism which is visible in the difference between the handling of both the movements by the police.

The flags, signs, and other damaged items, including Nancy Pelosi’s broken name plate, will be preserved as historical artefacts in the House and Senate collections and shared with national museums.

It has also been called a coup d’état, and was a possible attempt to overturn the decision in a forceful manner, which certainly was undemocratic. Several leaders from countries around the world including France, China, Australia, Germany India, Israel, and the UK reacted to the incident and condemned it. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson called it “disgraceful” while Iranian President Hassan Rouhani went on to blame the system itself and tweeted “What we saw last night and today in America firstly proved what a failure the Western democracy is and how fragile and weak its foundation is,” he said.

Democrats have introduced an article of impeachment against US President Donald Trump for his role in the deadly invasion of the Capitol. The article accuses M.r Trump of “incitement of insurrection.” Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said, "The president represents an imminent threat to our constitution, our country and the American people, and he must be removed from office immediately," Calls for Mr Trump's resignation, removal from office or impeachment have grown among Democrats and some Republicans in the days following the riots in Congress in which five people died. No US president has ever been impeached twice. However, it’s unlikely that Trump will be successfully impeached, because of his broad Republican support in the Senate.

Trump has said he is ready for a transition, and President-elect Joe Biden will be sworn-in as the 46th President on January 20th. But he added he will not attend the swearing-in ceremony.

In the last four years, the liberals, Democrats, the left and all Trump’s critics were accused of hysteria and hyperbole for calling his movements fascist, authoritarian and lawless. But now, the scenario seems to validate their claims showing how the Trump movement really proved to be a threat to the US as well as to the idea of democracy.

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

July 15, 2023 10:28 AM

Locating India’s Mandi System in Historical and Contemporary Contexts

Since August 2020, the farmers of India are protesting against three new Agriculture bills (now acts) passed by the Parliament—one of the reasons stated is the potential of the new legislation affecting the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC)’s Mandi system. APMC regulates and manages the agricultural market.

The farmers have covered some major highways around Delhi and have set up camps as well. They demand that the Mandi System should remain the same and want the new legislations to be unconditionally taken back.

Per contra the government claims the bills are good for farmers, Amit Shah, the Union Home Minister of India said about the farm bills “They will liberate them from the clutches of middlemen, and the Modi govt. is committed to keeping its promise of doubling farm income.”

The middleman here is perhaps the arhathiyas who facilitate and manage all kinds of procurement related transactions in the mandis between the seller (farmer) and the buyer (government or private traders) of the APMC Mandi. Arhathiyas thrive due to the current APMC Mandi system, therefore, in order to understand the current discourse on the farm bills, it is crucial to understand how the APMC Mandi system works and locate it in a broader historical as well as contemporary context, which is what this article attempts to do.

The History of APMC: From Royal Commission of 1928 to Implementation Post-Independence

Although, the institution of wholesale Mandis—as described by Harsh Damodaran in his The Indian Express column—is “since time immemorial,” the implementation of exclusively government controlled Mandis is a newer practice. The idea is grounded in the 1928 royal commission report on agriculture that mentioned the following on the need of a regulated market:

“The establishment of properly regulated markets should act as a powerful agent in bringing about a reform which is and much needed, primarily in the interests of the cultivator and secondarily, in that of all engaged in trade and commerce in India. From all parts of India, we received evidence of the disabilities under which the cultivator labours owing to the chaotic condition in which matters stand in respect of the weights and measures in general use in this country and of the hampering effect this has upon trade and commerce generally. Needless complications and unevenness in practice as between market and market tend to prejudice the interests of the cultivator.”

One of the first implementations of the government regulated agricultural markets—now known as APMC—is credited to Sir Chhotu Ram, a farmer leader and the then Development Minister in the provisional government of Punjab. The Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, which sets up APMC in Punjab was initiated by him in 1939.

In the 1960’s, when India was a newly independent country, many of its citizens were starving due to food shortage. Adding on to the already existing hunger—droughts made the situation even worse. To fix this problem, the government started the Green Revolution, in which it tried to modernize the Indian agriculture. The Government took the help of advisors from the United States and introduced several reforms in agriculture. India had a food surplus during the Green revolution. The Indian Government decided to go back to the 1928 report and developed a nationwide food marketing system to ensure fair prices. The system differs from state to state. Farmers take their produce to wholesale markets called APMC Mandis to sell their produce to traders through open auctions with transparent pricing.

In the APMC Mandis—to protect farmer’s interests—the government fixes Minimum Support Prices (MSP)—a price floor—for some crops and makes arrangements from their purchase under the state account whenever prices fall below the support level.

The idea of MSP as well was implemented during the same period. Whereas its implementation is credited to the then-finance minister C Subramaniam, the idea is the brainchild of Dr Frank W Parker.

APMC System: Inefficiencies and Reforms

APMC system as well has got its own set of problems. The “golden period” for APMC markets lasted till around 1991. With time, there was a loss in growth in market facilities and by 2006, it had declined to less than one-fourth of the growth in crop output after which there was no further growth. This increased the problems of Indian farmers as market facilities did not keep pace with the increase in output and regulation did not allow farmers to sell outside APMC market.

The farmers were left with no choice but to seek the help of middlemen. Due to poor market infrastructure, more produce is sold outside markets than in APMC mandis. The net result was a system of interlocked transactions that robs farmers of their choice to decide to whom and where to sell, subjecting them to exploitation by middlemen.

Over time, APMC markets have been turned from infrastructure services to a source of revenue generation for the middlemen.

Furthermore, the market committee has excessive powers to give licences to the traders. A lot of licencing led to a 'licence Raj' kind of situation. The licensed commission agents started forming cartels, to collectively decide the prices at which they would or would not buy the produce from the farmers, so that the farmers aren’t left with any options—leading to creation of what supporters of the farm bill today call “mandi mafia.”

In the year 2003, the government brought some reforms allowing for better liberalization in the Model APMC Act, Indian Economic Service’s online Encyclopedia, Arthapedia, describes the reforms as:

“An efficient agricultural marketing is essential for the development of the agriculture sector as it provides outlets and incentives for increased production and contribute to the commercialization of subsistence farmers. Worldwide Governments have recognized the importance of liberalized agriculture markets. Keeping, this in view, Ministry of Agriculture formulated a model law on agricultural marketing - State Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 2003 and requested the state governments to suitably amend their respective APMC Acts for deregulation of the marketing system in India, to promote investment in marketing infrastructure, thereby motivating the corporate sector to undertake direct marketing and to facilitate a national  market.

The Model APMC Act, 2003 provided for the freedom of farmers to sell their produce. The farmers could sell their produce directly to the contract-sponsors or in the market set up by private individuals, consumers or producers. The Model Act also increases the competitiveness of the market of agricultural produce by allowing common registration of market intermediaries.”

The Model APMC Acts were implemented by some states, but not all.

When APMC was repealed: A look at Bihar

States like Punjab and Haryana, which have the richest farmers in the country, have the regulations play an important role in the industry. But Bihar, where markets were eliminated in 2006, has the poorest farmers in India. This clearly shows the failure of the removal of this system.

Before the abolition of the APMC Mandis, Bihar had 95 market yards, of which 54 had infrastructure such as covered yards, godowns and administrative buildings, weighbridges, and processing as well as grading units. In 2004-05, the state agricultural board earned 60 crore INR through taxes and spent 52 crore INR, of which 31% was on developing infrastructure. With no revenue to maintain it, that infrastructure is now in a dilapidated condition.

In a 2019 study by the National Council for Applied Economic Research, it was reported that in Bihar, there was an increase in the volatility of grain prices after 2006, which negatively affected the crop choices and decisions of farmers to adopt improved cultivation practices. It concluded, “Farmers are left to the mercy of traders who unscrupulously fix a lower price for agricultural produce that they buy from [them]. Inadequate market facilities and institutional arrangements are responsible for low price realisation and instability in prices.” Farmers who were in immediate need for money had to sell their produce at the price that was forced upon them by the private traders. Also, there were reportedly high storage costs at private warehouses.

A farmer from east Champaran, Somnath Singh, told Down To Earth, “Earlier we would get a good price for our produce but the situation has deteriorated after the abolishment of the APMC Act. The PACS simply refuse to buy our produce citing moisture; even if they procure them, they take months to pay the dues.”

APMC and Farm Act

Farmers marching to Delhi | Source: Randeep Maddoke via Wikimedia

Coming back to where we started—the farmers protests—right now, the farmers are sitting in the cold on the highways of Delhi, living in tents. They are being provided food by the langars in Gurudwaras and have received support from them. Several farmers in fact died since September—some in the protests; and others due to accidents, illness, or cold weather conditions.

One of the central demands as mentioned earlier is to let the APMC Mandi system stay as it was. Yet, one of the three Farm acts—Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, creates free, unregulated trade spaces outside the markets. The act is actually creating two parallel markets, one being the regular mandis and the other, with free, unregulated trade.

According to data by NSSO, around 6% farmers get MSP (can be even more), who mostly sell their produce in state-government regulated mandis and 94% farmers sell outside mandis. Therefore, already the majority is selling outside the markets. Moreover, in the new act, there will be no tax outside APMC pushing more farmers to leave the mandis and opt for the trade markets, eventually leading to the collapse of the Mandi system.

However, we must remember, the markets outside APMC do not provide MSP—they work on the principles of supply and demand—therefore in case the prices fall to an extent making selling the produce loss making—there will be no safeguards—potentially leaving richer traders farmers to exploit economically vulnerable farmers.

Furthermore, the tax in the APMC Mandis is collected by the state government, if this system collapses, the states won’t be receiving any taxes from the sale of agricultural produce. Moreover, agriculture currently is in the state list, however, the new act gives the center the power to regulate the agriculture across India, making the federal structure of the country in question.

Talking about the arhtiyas (or the middlemen) who are projected as the adversaries of farmers by the government and the supporters of the Act, we have to remember that’s just one side of the story. As Chaba and Damodaran explain in their column on The Indian Express:

“The arhtiya isn’t a trader holding title to the grain bought from a farmer. He merely facilitates the transaction between a farmer and actual buyer, who may be a private trader, a processor, an exporter, or a government agency like the Food Corporation of India (FCI). That makes him more akin to a broker.

The arhtiya, however, also finances the farmer. That, plus his income from commission being dependent on the quantity and value of produce routed through him, aligns the arhtiya’s interests much more with those of the farmer.”

Therefore it is safe to conclude that the Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act will create more problems than to solve them.

Read More