Two Takes on Trump's Trials

Two posts opine on the indictments of Donald Trump, both written before the recent charges were leveled in Georgia. The first--by James Dennis Hoff (English prof, CUNY), dated Aug. 4th, entitled Trump Indictments Are About Capitalist Stability, Not Justice--appears in Left Voice. The second, by Terry Evans, appearing in the August 21st Militant (publication of the Socialist Workers Party--SWP) is headed Defend free speech for all! Drop charges against Trump. As the headlines suggest, these take quite different positions on Mr. Trump's travails.

Professor Hoff (in his lede paragraph) is convinced of Trump's guilt, and suggests that the recent indictment from Special Counsel Jack Smith will

... focus exclusively on Trump’s attempts to stay in office by overturning the 2020 election results, thus, as prosecutors claim, defrauding and violating the civil rights of millions of U.S. voters. That Trump is guilty of these charges, and much worse, goes without saying. 

Contrary to Professor Hoff's prejudice, it is not at all obvious Trump is guilty of anything in this indictment. A subsequent sentence in Professor Hoff's paragraph also doesn't ring true. 

And after a political career of spewing hate, advocating violence, and promoting and helping to pass harmful laws against immigrants, women, and people of color, Trump deserves nothing less than to spend what’s left of his pathetic life in jail. 

I don't think Trump has ever advocated violence--quite the opposite--as I wrote back in 2019.

President Trump has turned down many opportunities to go to war. His retaliation against Syria (for chemical weapons violations) was destroying an empty "research facility" in the middle of the night. When Iran shot down a drone, it turned out that he didn't want to kill any Iranians. He rejected John Bolton's desperate pleas to invade Venezuela. He wants to pull our troops out of Afghanistan. He has studiously ignored all the provocations coming from Pyongyang.

...The man is a pacifist. It's that simple.

Indeed, later in his article our friend condemns Trump for wanting to pull out of NATO and refusing US involvement in the Ukraine war--i.e. precisely for his pacifism.

Professor Hoff admits that the 78 (now 91) charges against Trump are mostly an electoral ploy to prevent Trump from winning, though he believes there is a darker, more nefarious motive.

Indeed, this latest indictment has nothing to do with protecting the rule of law, and everything to do with protecting bourgeois rule and the stability and legitimacy of the capitalist state that facilitates the continued exploitation and oppression of working people everywhere. Trump’s supporters and conservative right-wing media outlets, including Fox News, have argued for months now that the indictments are politically motivated. ... While they are correct that these indictments are part of a broader attempt to keep Trump from winning a second election, ... behind the many damning charges against Trump lies a more fundamental attempt on behalf of a broad sector of capital to defend the stability and legitimacy of the U.S. regime in the midst of a series of ongoing military, economic, ecological, and political crises.

Elsewhere in the article, Professor Hoff uses "ruling class" as a synonym for "broad sector of capital." I believe this nomenclature is a source of confusion.

The "ruling class" is defined by economic status--the very richest in our society who control the most capital. By the most generous definition it includes the top 1%--which includes households earning more than $500K/year. The median salary for a doctor is $400K, so there are many, many doctors who earn enough to get them into the 1%. They may be rich, but they're not exactly members of the "ruling class." By contrast, the top 0.1% earned a minimum of $3.3 million in 2021, which seems like a more reasonable cutoff for membership in the "ruling class."

The problem with Professor Hoff's analysis is that--despite the power over the economy the ruling class possesses--they are much too small in number to determine our cultural and political lives. That kind of influence rests not with the economic elite, but rather with the status elite. The status elite caste includes government officials, academics, journalists, corporate HR departments, and--these days--social media influencers. Indeed, given his academic rank with tenure at a large university in New York City, Professor Hoff is a member of that elite.

No wonder he hates Trump. The status elite universally hate Trump because he represents a direct threat to their status. He wants to shrink the federal bureaucracy (may the heavens forfend!), defund the universities (God help us all), and trash the Woke/climate propaganda (just imagine what the deplorables will believe in then!).

Despite his radical pretensions, Professor Hoff is a loyal member of his caste. Indeed, he even seems to suck up to NATO and the Ukraine war because that's what his caste does. He is definitely against shrinking the federal government and defunding the universities.

If Professor Hoff misconstrues the ruling caste, then he certainly mischaracterizes working class! He writes,

For huge portions of the U.S population, particularly disaffected and downwardly mobile petit-bourgeois whites, Trump’s anti-establishment rhetoric and strongman Bonapartism are the embodiment of a growing resentment of what Nancy Fraser called progressive neoliberalism, and a misguided desire to solve the capitalist crisis through a reactionary and frequently racist attempt to “Make America Great Again” at the expense of the further immiseration of Black and Brown working people.

Typically, Marxists refer to "huge portions of the U.S population" as the working class, not as "downwardly mobile petit-bourgeois whites." Indeed, that latter phrase refers much more to Professor Hoff himself than it does, say, to Walmart employees. Status notwithstanding, economically speaking the professor is a member of the lumpen intelligentsia, whose income (in light of declining enrollments and all) comes mostly in the form of what amounts to a welfare check.

Indeed, defining working class as non-college educated workers, Trump got the majority of those votes (a large majority of white voters, nearly 40% of Hispanic voters, and a still small but record portion of black voters).

Unlike Professor Hoff, who posits some vague conspiracy theory on the part of the "ruling class" to protect "...bourgeois rule and the stability and legitimacy of the capitalist state that facilitates the continued exploitation and oppression of working people everywhere," The Militant's Terry Evans, in his lede paragraph, is very clear about the threat the indictments pose.

Defending constitutionally protected free speech is at the heart of fighting the latest assault on political rights by President Joseph Biden’s Justice Department. Special counsel Jack Smith’s second indictment of former President Donald Trump would gut the First Amendment in an attempt to drive Biden’s main rival for the presidency out of the 2024 race and put him in jail.

He buttresses his argument with a quote from Trotsky:

Under capitalism, all suppression of political rights — regardless of who is targeted — “bear down upon the working class, particularly its most advanced elements. That is a law of history,” Leon Trotsky, who had been a leader of the Bolshevik-led 1917 Russian Revolution, said in 1939.

In other words, the indictments against Trump are a direct attack on Constitutional civil liberties, for which the working class are the chief beneficiaries.

Politicians lie all the time. Under the First Amendment they have a right to lie. Even if Trump had lied through his teeth about the 2020 election (a dubious proposition since Trump likely believed his own bullshit), he still has a First Amendment right to speak. Even if Trump is convicted it is likely that the Supreme Court will overturn the conviction as violating the Bill of Rights. As it should.

I'm proud to say that, in the 1970s when I was a member of the SWP, I stood for the defense of civil liberties in the Party's COINTELPRO lawsuit against the FBI. In those days the rightwing establishment was infringing on the civil liberties of its leftwing opponents.

Today the shoe is on the other foot: it is a leftwing establishment illegally attacking their rightwing opponents. I am proudly still defending civil liberties today. Meanwhile, Professor Hoff is an unabashed supporter of the establishment--and as such he opposes freedom of speech and is betraying his professed allegiance to the working class (which was always mostly fake to begin with).

Further Reading:

• Professor Wants to Shut Down CUNY
• Academic Workers on the Rampage
• Book Review: The Cult of the Smart