Much like the proletariat, the kynicist can only appear once devoid of any other ‘real’ identity to ground herself in. Cynicism was a popular philosophical movement in classical Greece, epitomized by Diogenes, known for living a life entirely adherent to his ideals. Stories tell of how he refused participation in the polis, how he wandered the market with a lamp, pining for an honest man, and that he would often masturbate in public. It is unlikely that Diogenes actually existed, and certain that most of his tales are fabricated. Still, it is necessary to emulate him at an ideological level, i.e. enacting one’s personal philosophy and ontology. I staunchly believe, to form an ontology or ethics, it requires one to express those ideas through expressing them in all actions. If you cannot realistically act in accordance to your beliefs, then it is necessary to adjust your beliefs, ‘lest you become the modern cynic.

As Slavoj Žižek has noted, we live in a period that much resembles Nietzsche’s idea of the last man, if we don’t embody it entirely. Consumption is rampant, ideals are exchanged for jouissance, and a mixture of cynicism and mindless solipsism has become the norm. The majority of Americans (if they aren’t the part of the terrifyingly fast growing minority of authoritarians) are disillusioned from patriotism, and at the very least understand that our government and system of living are horribly flawed. Yet, still, serious change is feared and liberalism has been obfuscated into a word meaning nothing. Most people hate their jobs, as the media is all too glad to reveal to us with movies like Office Space. Youths, like myself, often resent the capitalist system which enslaves them to mind numbing, repetitive tasks just for survival, but instilling any serious policies is deemed communism. I will admit, I have seen some hope with the populist movement behind Bernie Sanders, as he is surprisingly successful acknowledging necessary changes. This is why I will explore three forms of ideology presented by the top presidential candidates: Fascism (Trump), Cynicism (Clinton), and Kynicism (Sanders).

I understand that Trump being a fascist is a common sentiment taken by the neo-liberal left, and I will talk about that later, but there are definite aspects of fascism in Trump’s rhetoric. Whether or not Trump truly believes in his fascistic statements is entirely irrelevant. Politics are theater, and Hannah Arnedt was correct in saying that all a politician has beneath her mask is another mask. This applies equally to the other two candidates, their actions are what matter, but it needs to be considered that Mussolini was just as much a facade as Trump is now. As Umberto Eco attested in UR-Fascism, Italian fascism was a constantly shifting thing, connected only by tactics of fear and ignorance. Our economic position today is very similar to that of Germany before World War II, we are reeling from a tiring, horrible war and a depression, and have lost trust in the people who rule us (meaning Washington). It’s even similar in the opposing populist movements: Fascism and Socialism. It is as Marx said when referring to Napoleon I and his nephew Louis Napoleon “Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.”

Looking back to Umberto Eco’s UR-Fascism, you can find many of the fascist signifiers indicated within Trump supporters. Of course, not all of his supporters are fascists, but neither were Hitler’s when he first came to power. Still, fringe and especially vehement supporters of Trump are ridiculously authoritarian. These individuals value a strong personality as the greatest virtue, are extremely militaristic, and hold xenophobia for the perceived ‘other.’ Fascism always appears as a false revolution, instilled as a way to avoid any true or effective revolution from occurring. It needs perpetual conflict to survive, and will eventually fail in a short time. Fascism is a form of obfuscated idealism, where the elites they claim to despise maintain power, and they then divert attention to an ‘intruder.’ For Trump, this intruder is the undocumented immigrant and the muslim, who’re often able to, and may actually be US citizens, but are still ‘other.’

Clinton, on the other hand, is an almost perfect representation of the neo-liberal. She advertises social change, but only through compromise with the capitalist and imperialist state. Unlike many of my fellow Bernie supporters, and general socialists, I believe Clinton is an exceedingly intelligent individual, who truly does want to promote women (even if her form of feminism is very outdated). However, social responsibility is secondary to maintaining the status quo of a capitalist society, even though we are aware that such a system is greatly limiting. Both Trump and Clinton represent the boogeoisie, in Marxist terms, and no matter how much they speak of limiting exploiting capitalists, neither of them intend to end capitalism. They both take on forms of master-signifiers of fetishism, Trump representing the ideals of “business sense,” “honesty,” and “power.” Clinton represents the ideals of “liberalism,” “common sense,” and, perhaps, even “feminism.” Clinton presents herself as the only defense against Trump, focusing greatly on his fascistic aspects, and uses them to essentially say “Clinton may not make the changes you want in America, but she is the only realistic defense against fascism.”

Ultimately, both of those candidates would be completely ineffectual at changing the status quo, for any group. They will both slowly further the cause of capitalism, just from different approaches. Noam Chomsky has a point when he says that Sanders will probably be too handicapped to really change much either, but I think Žižek has a point as well. Whatever policy Sanders can pass will signify a blow to the foundation of capitalism, and his mere running as a socialist will, and already has, create socialist candidates. Sanders is a representative of the kynicist, and this is why his supporters run from the some of the greatest of our society, to some of the worst. Yes, he is not a perfect kynicist, he dons the mask of the polis, he has performed some political maneuvering, and he frames himself as the artificial ‘democrat.’ However, if it is the mask which matters, Sanders is wearing what should be a Michael Myers to most Americans. He is a socialist, he admits to it, and all his actions are in the name of advancing socialist policy. He has found success within this identity, sticking to his feared principles, and through this the United States finally has a chance to form a serious socialist movement, since the Frankfurt school and other such academic marxists..

I believe that the secret of Sanders success is from his tapping into the ‘cultural marxist’ movement within the youth of America. Social activists who have been torn their entire life between social reality and political fantasy, and marxism, with conflict theory and alienation theory, provides a cohesive ontology. Many disenfranchised youths realise that they can never reach the full extent of their ideals within capitalism, as capitalism demands social hierarchy. Perhaps they don’t believe socialism is the answer, but even having a representative that rejects capitalism provides a kynicistic fire to the people.

Kynicism now has a double meaning, it refers to the tradition of the disadvantaged populace mocking the elite, and on personal terms, one’s own personal ideology subverting that of the reigning one. Clinton, as I stated, is the perfect example of the cynic. She acknowledges many, if not most, of the problems that socialists recognize, and which have founded modern liberalism. Still, despite recognizing these issues, she still supports the broken economic and political system in America, because she fetishizes the idea of ‘America,’ ‘the free market,’ and ‘perfect compromise.’ If she could somehow recognize the falsity of these concepts, then she could be an even greater force for change then Sanders.

