Trump. Whose fault?
Details
"When sufficient numbers of people have come to feel so poorly served by democratic institutions that they are prepared to see them crumble, democracy is in a precarious position."
~Suzy Killmister (http://dailynous.com/2016/03/14/philosophers-on-the-2016-u-s-presidential-race/)
So many smart people, philosophers even,* who consider themselves educated and “critical thinkers” are joining to lament almost in unison the election of Donald Trump.** These, apparently, didn’t see this coming a long time ago (or, if they did, said little), who act surprised now, who thought the “more-of-the-same” chickens were not someday going to come home to roost…. Who are still looking for facile excuses for why Hillary didn’t win: stupid emails, Comey, bad campaign strategizing, the electoral vote system, Facebook, Twitter, fake news, Jill Stein, etc… If the electoral system is idiotic, it’s been that for a few centuries, how come the sudden alarmed realization? The media’s pandering to theatricality? Nothing new there, somebody with a mastery of it*** was going to take its helm, sooner or later....
Trump. Whose fault?
At least one thinker offered an inkling of an answer. The following lines from philosopher Richard Rorty's 1998 book, Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America, have been circulating and the object of discussion in the past few weeks:
"[M]embers of labor unions, and unorganized unskilled workers, will sooner or later realize that their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported. Around the same time, they will realize that suburban white-collar workers — themselves desperately afraid of being downsized — are not going to let themselves be taxed to provide social benefits for anyone else.
At that point, something will crack. The nonsuburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for — someone willing to assure them that, once he is elected, the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen, and postmodernist professors will no longer be calling the shots.…
One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past 40 years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion.… All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet.”
We won't confine ourselves to Rorty, however, but use him as a springboard to ask questions about what exactly it is that people want who are not content with things as they are? (Aka, those on the left, especially.)
There will not be an extensive writeup. (My ideas are too "out there," probably, for this group. Besides, I don't have the time.) Instead, I know there are a lot of thoughtful people who may want to discuss the question about what Trump means to the left or the right or—possibly even the country. If anything.
I will urge the discussion to rise a bit above mere politics and be philosophically informed. In other words, the questions will be about concept clarification (what exactly does it mean to be on the "left" or "right" or somewhere in the middle?) and about founding ideas and institutions (is this "democracy" or what? is democracy desirable? if so, exactly why?). Assuming we get some clarity on those points, next, we should ask what is to be done? And why that and not something else?
To get to the bottom, I think the most fundamental question needing an answer is what picture of human nature does the left, right, and center assume? And why?
....
But I won't be lecturing much. Come tell us what you think!
...
https://a248.e.akamai.net/secure.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/b/d/6/1/600_456588481.jpeg
More Trumpian stimulation:
For those who can't get a hold of Rorty's slim, now scarce, book, you might want to read this (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/books/richard-rortys-1998-book-suggested-election-2016-was-coming.html?_r=1). Or check out at least the first chapter of Achieving Our Country.
Zizek expounds on the notion of Trump as catalyst (https://www.meetup.com/The-Philosophy-Club/messages/boards/thread/50307865)... And here Zizek suggests (http://bigthink.com/videos/slavoj-zizek-on-the-failures-of-the-leftist-movement)that the left had better re-conceive itself from the ground up or see fascism rise from its ruin and ineptness. He addresses specifically the situation in Europe and the failure of the liberal states there to deal with ISIS inspired fascism, but I hear an echo of Rorty's prediction in the American context...
Zizek is hardly alone in seeing Trump as a learning experience. A podcast with Firmin DeBrabander: "Roughly Speaking podcast: A philosophical lift for those troubled by Trump," (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/dan-rodricks-blog/bal-roughly-speaking-trump-philosophy-story.html) furthers the case: "Panic is good."
"Happy periods in history are blank pages," Firmin DeBrabander puts it, paraphrasing Hegel: "He is happy who finds his condition suited to his special character, will, and fancy, and so enjoys himself in that condition. The History of the World is not the theatre of happiness. Periods of happiness are blank pages in it, for they are periods of harmony, — periods when the antithesis is in abeyance." ~Hegel’s Philosophy of History (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hi/history3.htm)
Then there are the "identitarians (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz7kmIIYsBw)" ("Our main enemy is not a different culture but the system that wants to destroy all cultures.") But Michael Moore (maker of Trumpland (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5z8sCo2KBg)) desparately tries to pull a leash... will he succeed? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiyqlOfSOjM)
An interesting example (https://www.meetup.com/Sacramento-Politics-and-Philosophy-Group/events/235296283/) of what other philosophical meetups are discussing.
Notes
- A lot of philosophical hand-wringing going on here (http://dailynous.com/2016/03/14/philosophers-on-the-2016-u-s-presidential-race/). And here (http://dailynous.com/2016/11/10/philosophers-2016-u-s-election/).
** Though not all, see (https://www.meetup.com/The-Philosophy-Club/messages/boards/thread/50284742).
*** "An Age of Unreason?" (http://www.ideasfestival.co.uk/events/an-age-of-unreason/) Julian Baggini and James Garvey discuss our "post truth" society in this podcast.
**** I don't agree that the "psychological traits" measured in the survey really are psychological, as opposed to "considered opinions" or "adopted stances," but for what it's worth... Also Zizek says in one of his video talks above that Ted Cruz is the worst---or would be, if he had more support. Combine his extreme authoritarianism with high elitism plus little trust in experts and low American identity---very little holding him back or his followers from tyranny... See also this article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/ted-cruz-scares-the-me-th_b_9138720.html) by Brynn Tannehill (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/ted-cruz-scares-the-me-th_b_9138720.html).