Amanda Marcotte, who I've enjoyed reading since her days at Pandagon, was curious about what having a CT president might mean. For some crazy reason, she thought she should ask me about it. Briefly, I tried to summarize the patterns of thought conspiracy theorists engage in, their willingness to accept any belief if confirmatory of their guiding ideology, and their tendency to project their own darkest behaviors onto others. Overall, I thought she provided a great summary of the problem. My only critique would be it's not all doom and gloom.
One thing we talked about that didn't make it to the article but is worth mentioning is that America has had really, really bad leadership in the past. For those of you who may want a deeper history of stupid, incompetent, small-minded, bigoted and conspiratorial American political, religious and social movements, I recommend Richard Hofstadter's Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. Winner of the 1964 Pulitzer for non-fiction, it is an illuminating history of our stupid politics and stupid politicians over the preceding 200 years.
Ultimately, the book is reassuring, our system has sustained significant stresses before (don't take that to suggest I endorse testing it like this monster surely will). Despite decades of small-minded, ignorant bigots dominating the discourse of our country, the Republic survives; almost as if our founders were clever people who could predict the dangers of demagoguery and illiberal democracy. The history we learn in school is one viewed through rose-tinted glasses, glossing over not just the endless injustices, but also the rank cupidity of our leadership. Most people have the sense that most, if not all of our presidents have been wise, or at least qualified men, with a couple of glaring exceptions. In fact one point Hofstadter makes is that since the founders, our country's leadership has been in steep intellectual decline, and even the founders themselves were susceptible to attacks of controversy, conspiracy and demagogy. It sounds unbelievable, but even in 1796, people attacked Jefferson for being a wishy-washy intellectual. Hoffstadter quotes a pamphlet released by William Loughton Smith against Jefferson:
The characteristic traits of a philosopher, when he turns politician are timidity, whimsicalness, and a disposition to reason from certain principles, and not from the true nature of man; a proneness to predicate all his measures on certain abstract theories, things and circumstances; an intertness of mind, as applied to governmental policy, a wavering of disposition when great and sudden emergencies demand promptness of decision and energy of action.
You heard it right. Jefferson was "low energy". If not for the presence of grammar and coherence, this could have been written by our president elect. Hofstadter describes how shortly after the founding of the country, we fell into the politics all of us recognize and love today:
The shabby campaign against Jefferson, and the the Alien and Sedition Acts, manifested the treason of many wealthy and educated Federalists against the cultural values of tolerance and freedom. Unfortunately, it did not follow that more popular parties under Jeffersonian or Jacksonian leadership could be counted on to espouse these values. The popular parties themselves eventually became the vehicles of a kind of primitivist and anti-intellectualist populism hostile to the specialist, the expert, the gentleman, and the scholar.
The ensuing chapters, a history of political movements and their incessant hostility to intellectualism, education, experience, expertise, and liberal values of equality and tolerance, show that if anything, the president-elect is a more typical of American presidents than he is not. The story is of an endless cycle of smart, forward thinking intellectuals and movements of all political persuasions, being torn down, routinely and predictably, by populists espousing bigotry, hatred of elites, and suspicion of education and intelligence.
My personal belief is that the last 60 or so years were the aberration; what little respect we've shown for knowledge, scientific progress and expertise was kickstarted by the national fear of Sputnik, and the sudden implication of national survival being dependent on having a thriving educated and technological class. With the end of the cold-war, and our current greatest enemy an anti-modern movement of antediluvian religious fanatics, the pressure to maintain an intellectual elite has waned.
The anti-intellectual populists are back to their same old games - demonizing experience in government, attacking our universities as dens of liberals feminizing our good young men, and electing to power the bigoted dregs of our business class. Despite the technical nature of our current greatest challenge - that of global climate change - the perceived need for technically-competent, scientifically-literate and intellectually sound governance has disappeared. Partly this is due to the anti-intellectual climate denialist movement, which has convinced our morbidly-incurious president elect that climate science is little more than a political game being played by socialist nerds, possibly at the behest of China. But this is also due to the fact that Democrats failed to make the case the climate change, or really that any science was important during this election, and the media happily ignored such real issues to chase meaningless scandal. One question was asked about climate change during the debates and we spent the next week jubilant because the questioner was wearing a red sweater. We don't have good science debate because we allow ourselves to be distracted from the issues. The Office of Technology Assessment is no more, meanwhile Al Gore invented the internet, John Kerry is an effete wimp, and misuse of email is the only disqualifying sin for a presidential candidate.
In all the finger-pointing after the election no single reason is satisfactory to explain why we have once again devolved into the populist bigotry which was for so long our normal. It is clear though, the electorate no longer feels the expert class shares their values or their interests. While electing a kakistocracy is not a rational solution to that problem, they felt they had no other choice, they weren't being listened to, a significant portion of the population is not satisfied with government by a competent, professional intellectual like Obama or the obstinate, do-nothing Republican opposition. This is the most important lesson for those who wish for a government by thoughtful experts to return. We can not make the coming political struggle about the man, the personality, the corruption, or the bigotry. Clearly, these were not obstacles to the president-elect's success. There is no reason to think that in four years this will be any different. The electorate clearly likes or at least tolerates these personality flaws because they perceive the president elect cares about them. Whether or not this is true is irrelevant.
Luigi Zingales wrote a compelling piece in the NYT laying out the best shot for a successful strategy and it's based on the long series of failures in stopping Trump's Italian analogue, Silvio Berlusconi. Repeatedly his opponents tried to make it about the man, and failed, because they couldn't get past that his supporters just did not care that he was a terrible, terrible person. They still liked him.
Mr. Berlusconi was able to govern Italy for as long as he did mostly thanks to the incompetence of his opposition. It was so rabidly obsessed with his personality that any substantive political debate disappeared; it focused only on personal attacks, the effect of which was to increase Mr. Berlusconi’s popularity. His secret was an ability to set off a Pavlovian reaction among his leftist opponents, which engendered instantaneous sympathy in most moderate voters. Mr. Trump is no different.
And an opposition focused on personality would crown Mr. Trump as the people’s leader of the fight against the Washington caste. It would also weaken the opposition voice on the issues, where it is important to conduct a battle of principles.
Instead Zingales emphasizes Berlusconi's only electoral losses came from opponents who made elections about the issues, not the man:
Only two men in Italy have won an electoral competition against Mr. Berlusconi: Romano Prodi and the current prime minister, Matteo Renzi (albeit only in a 2014 European election). Both of them treated Mr. Berlusconi as an ordinary opponent. They focused on the issues, not on his character. In different ways, both of them are seen as outsiders, not as members of what in Italy is defined as the political caste.
We should not forget that the president-elect's nomination was a rejection of Republicans and their strategy of obstinance just as his election was a rejection of Democrats, and their supposed identity politics. That this election represents rejection of reason, science, tolerance and decency is now moot, Democrats failed to convince enough of the electorate their policies would actually be superior for them personally. They failed to make the case for science, for climate realism, or that solutions to these problems can be of benefit to ordinary people. This should not have been hard. It should not be difficult to convince people their underpaid jobs for dangerous, polluting industries can be replaced with something better, nor should it be challenging to explain why protecting wages, workers, environments and communities is a bad thing, but the Democrats barely tried to make this election a case for economic progress, technological advancement and environmental protection.
The solution will be candidates who effectively make the case that government by the competent, the learned, and the experienced can be of palpable benefit to ordinary voters - not just an expression of right and moral thinking. And should that be so much to ask?
- Log in to post comments
In the US, there has been a 40 year campaign to convince people that only namby pamby fools believe government can be useful.
There's a LOT of grassroots work needed to stamp that out & sell good government. Made harder by the horrible job the governing party will be doing.
“I have some great, great, very successful golf courses.”
The candidate who said spoke at that level was able to connect with a large number of angry , well armed white people, many of whom have lost good manufacturing jobs to lower paid workers around the world, many of whom have a hard time getting even base level construction jobs due to illegal immigrants in their own country, many of whom have had their families torn up by opioid addiction, many of whom have had their core values de-valued by liberal doses of liberal science unskillfully applied to the task of obtaining fair treatment for those who cannot help but be who they are.
Meanwhile Trump mastered television and twitter, and the right wing mastered hate radio. The vast wasteland continued its long tradition of portraying scientists as the creators of monsters, something started by or before Mary Shelly. The constant threat of nuclear annihilation in the 1960's certainly seemed to help spawn a generation of people with a less than enthusiastic attitudes towards the fruits of physics/science. The 1970's primitivism of the likes of Ted Nugent endured and grew into a powerful NRA base that helped Trump come to power.
Trump's team managed, somehow, to win Clinton's firewall states. Trump told a better story, and who knows what help he had from electronic voting. Our trial-by-election system-of- democracy-game entailed winning those firewall states, and Trump appears to have won them. His marginal win reveals the presence of a powerful undercurrent of people afraid of losing their place in line to minorities and afraid of attack by alien cultures. I certainly hope that we can help keep that group from going full fascist on us. I certainly hope that we can persuade them to respect their country's science base and scientists, and its laws and constitution.
Let's see. Where do we start.. How do we tell our story..
I like science. Science is good. Science helps me understand things. Science is good for our country.....
> I like science. Science is good. Science helps me understand things. Science is good for our country…..
I hate war. Bombing weddings is bad. Firing on ambulances is bad. Terrorising civilian populations wit drones is bad. Extradidical killing is bad. Lobbing missiles into countries with which the USA is not at war is bad. Assassinating foreign heads-of-state is bad.
Clinton never got that memo. This is why many, many progressives could not stomach voting for her, even though it handed the election to Trump.
The DLC is entirely to blame. But the rot at the root is the legalisation - in the USA - of bribery.
Now, what do we do?
I have this feeling most people just didn't care. Or didn't want to know.
I also notice your - or your pals' - high principles are very comfortable with handing the US military to a bunch of guys who never made a mystery of their own bloodthirsty appetites. Up and including using torture and tactical nukes.
I'm afraid we can look forward for more wedding bombings.