Sullivan begins with a description of democracy paraphrased from Plato's Republic:
Democracy, for him, I discovered, was a political system of maximal freedom and equality, where every lifestyle is allowed and public offices are filled by a lottery. And the longer a democracy lasted, Plato argued, the more democratic it would become. Its freedoms would multiply; its equality spread. Deference to any sort of authority would wither; tolerance of any kind of inequality would come under intense threat; and multiculturalism and sexual freedom would create a city or a country like “a many-colored cloak decorated in all hues.”
That is more the description of a state of affairs, less a description of a political system, but it does seem a prescient description of where the US and most advanced democracies are heading -- "maximal freedom and equality." We tend in this direction, in part, because it is desirable, even utopian. As Sullivan, channelling Plato, put it, "the freedom in that democracy has to be experienced to be believed." But insofar as it undermines traditional forms of authority, indeed any form of authority other than the authority one confers on one's self, it is inherently unstable. He called it "late-stage democracy," and added Plato's caution that the "tyrant" emerges in late-stage democracy as the one who can restore order. As Sullivan, channeling Plato, put it "It’s as if he were offering the addled, distracted, and self-indulgent citizens a kind of relief from democracy’s endless choices and insecurities."
All of this should sound uncannily familiar. I won't repeat the fullness of Sullivan's argument, but it goes something like this: we live in a late-stage democracy. Several things have contributed to this development, and we have been on this path for some time, but the internet is perhaps chief among them. It gives unprecedented "freedom to information." Our language falters here a bit. I said "to," not "of," intentionally. Any sort of information, any sort at all, can float free on the internet, and as bits and pieces of "information" they are all pretty much equal -- equally true, equally false, depending upon the use one makes of them, but even then there are an infinite variety of uses. There are remnants of "authority" in "trusted news sources," but even that has been undermined. My favorite scourge, Fox News, has pretty much killed off the idea. The degree to which it remains "true," as in "faithful," to an ideology, is the degree to which it can no longer be trusted to provide a "true," as in accurate, representation of the world, such as it is.
Here's another way of thinking about it -- a thought experiment. Ask yourself, what is the final authority on X?" where X can be just about anything. To use a current example, "What is the final authority on climate change?" I am not asking what the final authority might be for YOU, personally, but the final authority for each and all. I would tend to take the word of the NASA scientists and believe that their data is true and accurate, but there are those who would discount their data, in part because it is inconvenient for certain business interests and a particular ideological stance, in part because it is irrelevant within a biblical world view, in part ... the list goes on. Once you discover that there is no "final authority" for each and all, it becomes impossible to resolve arguments. As my wife would put it, "we're all entitled to our beliefs," but this extreme egalitarianism, this entitlement to a "belief," in this particular case, can lead to a disaster of the first magnitude. By the time consensus develops, it may well be too late, and in the meantime we have a hornet's swarm of contending ideas, stances, attitudes, et cetera, with "no one better than another."
Sullivan, in other words, has a point. We live in a post-industrial, post-enlightenment, post-modern, post-structuralist world, where everything, including science, has been "deconstructed" and while it allows a giddy amount of maximal freedom, it also becomes chaotic and, yes, frightening. There is a sense of foreboding, a sense of impending doom, and it's perhaps not surprising that there is a corresponding desire for certainty. One can, of course, find it in a variety of places. There isn't a religion on earth, particularly the theistic religions, that won't put itself forward as the "final authority." It isn't surprising then that so many cling to religious certainty. I can decry the hypocrisy of it, the use of modern science to cure their diseases and to call their neighbors, but it nevertheless provides a sense of certainty in a world that has all but given up on certainty. Modern science provides another sort of certainty, but if we're honest with one another, it is a source of certainty incomprehensible to the vast majority of earth's inhabitants. If I were to ask you to explain the "time differential" that provided a plot point in the movie Interstellar, for example, could you do it? I cannot, as they say, do the math, and as a consequence, I'm sure that it seems as "mystical" or as "fictional" as any biblical miracle. As we stumble into the third millennium, neither religion nor science provides "certainties" that can be embraced by the "average joe and jane."
So what? Most, of course, can do without the certainty implicit in religion or science, and would be quite content to bumble through life with more quotidian "certainties." There seem to be few, if any, quotidian "certainties" left. I don't need to enumerate the ways in which Americans have become frustrated, particularly with their economic prospects, but as Robert Reich and many others have pointed out, the stop gap measures that allowed for the semblance of a middle class life have been used up. The dual income household has become the norm, we have drained the equity on our homes, and we have maxed out the credit cards -- now what?
It used to be "finish high school" and you were guaranteed a reasonably good life. Then it became "finish college" and you were guaranteed a reasonably good life. Unfortunately, however, even that been eroded. Retraining? More education? In the community colleges where I spent most of my active career, there was an idea, never quite articulated, but nevertheless always there in the background -- the student's right to fail. We had the responsibility to give them an "opportunity," even a responsibility to equalize the playing field and insure that no artificial barriers stood in the way to their success, but it was "equal opportunity," not "equal outcome." The community college represented a second chance at college for some, the only chance for others, but they were all given the equal opportunity to fail and the vast majority did. Their pictures did not go on the brochures. The successes went on the brochure. The success were the "man-bites-dog" story, the exceptions to the general rule. The "losers," the majority, never completed, drifted away, and failed to "achieve the dream" that so enthusiastically marked their beginning. In an increasingly techno-meritocratic society demanding some degree of higher education, they would be neither technicians nor technocrats, and so what to do with them?
We have, perhaps, never been so free to do anything we please. Top to bottom. We have, as it were, an almost unbounded right to fail, and most do. As Sullivan points out, it is into this slipstream of failure that the likes of a Donald Trump inserts himself. He writes:
he stands alone, promising to cut through the paralysis of democratic incoherence. It’s as if he were offering the addled, distracted, and self-indulgent citizens a kind of relief from democracy’s endless choices and insecurities. He rides a backlash to excess—“too much freedom seems to change into nothing but too much slavery” — and offers himself as the personified answer to the internal conflicts of the democratic mess. He pledges, above all, to take on the increasingly despised elites. And as the people thrill to him as a kind of solution, a democracy willingly, even impetuously, repeals itself.
Trump is now all but the nominee of a major party, and if anyone has offered himself as the personified answer to the internal conflicts of the democratic mess, he has. As Sullivan notes, his campaign parallels the rise of the nazi party in Weimar Germany with uncanny precision, but actually even sells the nazis short. They had a coherent ideology, at least, but Trump offers nothing but himself and a string of promises that, given a moments reflection, would require thoroughly despotic action to fulfill. Begin with just one example, the deportation of illegals, 11 million of them. Assuming we continue routine law enforcement, the deportation would require a massive internal police force and curtailment of "due process." I can imagine his supporters cheering this on, and what he and his supporters appear to despise, more than the "monied elites," are the "educated elites."
Plato, of course, was not an egalitarian. Neither is Sullivan, and he provides an impassioned defense of the "elites." This is not just, or not only, the "monied elites," what I will call the oligarchs for the sake of brevity. Plato believed in the so-called philosopher king, and it's worth pausing a moment to consider what that might mean in a current context. Thomas Frank has written a provocative book, Listen Liberal, in which details "what happened to the party of the people." He contends that it has become the party of the technical/professional class, those that have "elite" educations commanding top-tier salaries because they also command highly specialized knowledge. I inhabit, or did inhabit, this class, with an ivy league PhD, I was the chief academic officer at two of the largest community colleges in the nation and was paid well over six figures. I didn't achieve the "top of the class" status, but close enough that I could occasionally rub shoulders with and observe those who had. The contemporary philosopher king is, of course, the Steve Jobs type, commanding enormous sums of money because they leveraged a specialized knowledge of digital technologies, an "aesthetic" sensibility, and above all else an intellectual "creativity" into a massive fortune all with a rom-com plot -- boy creates company, boy loses company, boy gets company back and "saves" it into a fortune.
We can admire Steve Jobs, well, because his legacy is truly a legacy, but there is other versions of the contemporary "philosopher king," represented by the Clintons and the Obamas. If I can be blunt, Obama represents everything, and I mean everything, that the disaffected Trump supporter despises in his bones. We shouldn't set aside the racisism of the "uppity n----r" syndrome. Obama can't help himself. He "sounds" smart, even when he's playing the "smart ass" at the press dinners, much smarter than most of his peers. He is a smart "n----r" and clearly a part of that technical/professional class, who has leveraged the very best education, at the very best school, into the highest level of success within his profession. Obama can't help but remind the disaffected Trump supporter of that "college kid," twenty years their junior, who got THEIR job right out of school, not because they had good "school of hard knocks" experience, but because they had a "piece of paper" from a hoity-toity school and a "racial preference" to boot. They don't despise the oligarchs. They want to BE the oligarch, and if they cannot BE the oligarch, they want to be in his entourage. They will sign that loyalty oath, hell yes, hail Trump! because, apparently, he shares their attitudes. He too, thoroughly despise those "college kids" who look down on them as, to use Bill Moyer's word, "rubes."
If the national statistics are correct, then the "rubes" are not exactly a minority. About 40% of the American populace has finished college to one degree or another. The technical/professional class, Bill & Melinda Gates among them, have lavished enormous sums of money to budge that number, particularly in the so-called STEM field of science, technology, engineering, and math. State governments have run commercial ads encouraging people to stay in college. Still the percentage completing has hovered between 30 and 40%. I could speculate on the reasons for this, but it would be just that -- speculation -- but there it is about 40% complete some college. What do we do with the 60% who are being left behind by the new "knowledge economy?"
The "left behind" includes, of course, large numbers of blacks and hispanics, but the blacks and hispanics have never been inherently entitled the way the whites were inherently entitled. Their entitlements, such as they were, came as a result of government action -- the Equal Employment Opportunity Act -- and those acts are still on the books. They have not been wholly effective, and one can cite a wide range of statistics to show that blacks and hispanics and women still lagged behind, but nevertheless, if they are to make further gains, it is government, through legislation, that will help them along. This coincides nicely with at the attitude of the technical/professional elites that things can be "fixed" through a paternalistic social engineering of the sort espoused by the Clintons and the Obamas. This, in part, is why they continue to lean democratic. The whites, however, did feel inherently entitled. Things like the Equal Employment Opportunity Act nibbled away at their privilege, and they could bemoan it, but the ultimate ineffectuality of such acts left their inherent entitlement pretty much as it was. Less government meant less government nibbling at the edge of the cookie, meant fewer tax-supported government sponsored entitlements, meant that things would continue to stay pretty much as they were with inherent entitlements in place. This, in part, is why they began to lean toward the republicans. Of course, the republican elites had no intention of doing anything FOR them, and they didn't. All they promised was to refrain from doing anything TO them. If they are disaffected with the republican elites, the insiders, however, it's because the latter promise was broken. Less government, it seems, meant that large scale entities, like the banks, could stick it TO them. They were getting it from both sides.
So again, what do we do with the 60% who are being left behind by the new "knowledge economy?" Clinton, of course, is the continuity candidate, and it's clear enough that we'll get "more of the same" if she is elected. Trump, of course, is the discontinuity candidate, but it's completely unclear what we'll get if he is elected except the "strength" of his personality. Indeed, he revels in the lack of clarity, his "unpredictability." Having said that, we do know something about Trump, the personality. We might want to "check" him, rein him in, but the rather ineffectual efforts by the Republican elite to "check" him have shown, he's nothing if not difficult to "restrain." Sullivan captures this well:
if Trump’s policies are checked by other branches of government, how might he react? Just look at his response to the rules of the GOP nomination process. He’s not interested in rules. And he barely understands the Constitution. In one revealing moment earlier this year, when asked what he would do if the military refused to obey an illegal order to torture a prisoner, Trump simply insisted that the man would obey: “They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse, believe me.” He later amended his remark, but it speaks volumes about his approach to power. Dick Cheney gave illegal orders to torture prisoners and coerced White House lawyers to cook up absurd “legal” defenses. Trump would make Cheney’s embrace of the dark side and untrammeled executive power look unambitious.
Trump will, of course, swear to uphold and defend the constitution, but he's shown all along very little regard for its "protections" for the people. The first amendment, perhaps the bulwark of our democracy, would be the first to go, if he follows through on his ban of muslims and his "relaxation" of libel laws. The fourth amendment and due process would be next to go, if he follows through on his promise to deport Mexicans. The list can go on, but it is clear that Trump is interested in Trump, not in the "rules," and we have already seen how he responds to critics. It's one thing to send tweets, another to use the power of the presidency to deal with a critic. As Sullivan notes, "were Trump to win the White House, the defenses against him would be weak. He would likely bring a GOP majority in the House, and Republicans in the Senate would be subjected to almighty popular fury if they stood in his way."
Sullivan sees in this an "extinction level event" for our fragile democracy. I'm also not completely sure, given Trumps rise, that the extinction level event hasn't already occurred, that there may be no repair. This seems rather dire hyperbole, and begs some explanation. What exactly do I mean by democracy? I have been giving this some thought of late and it's not the easiest question to answer. I do not want to provide a civics lesson on the constitutional shape of our government. Books upon books have been written on the subject, and anything I say here would be simplistic in the extreme. Let me just repeat Lincoln's formulation -- that "democracy" is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Given this simple formulation, there are some fundamental questions that can be asked and answered. Let me work through them in reverse order.
For the people -- it perhaps bears pointing out that I didn't amend Lincoln's formulation to read "white people" or "protestant people" or "capital owning people" or even "citizen people." It is, in the broadest and must fundamental sense, the people, undifferentiated by race, religion, property, nationality, or any other distinction. If you are human, you are among the people. It is at this level that we can begin to discuss "basic human rights." So we don't get sidetracked, le't me differentiate between "political rights" and "basic human rights." Our constitution, by definition, sets out political, not basic human rights. Political rights are always reciprocal with political duties. My right to freely speak my mind implies a duty to respect your right to speak your mind. My right to bear arms implies my duty to respect your right to bear arms. My right to worship as I choose implies a duty to respect your right to worship as you choose. The list goes on, but it is important to note that they are guaranteed within our system of government that protects those rights. Outside our system of government, if I get my rifles and missiles first, I can probably prevent you from getting yours, from speaking your mind, or worshipping as you might choose. Moreover, we can choose to selectively curtail those rights. I can, for example, curtail my right to bear certain sorts of arms implies a duty for you to curtail your right to bear the same sorts of arms. The list, again, goes on, but it is important to note that such "compromises" are worked out within our system of government. I may not necessarily fully agree that, say, assault rifles should be banned, but if such a ban is enacted, if we wish to maintain full citizenship within our government, we must comply.
I want to say that "basic human rights" are inalienable. I borrow Jefferson's word from our Declaration of Independence, and by this, I mean simply, not subject to compromise. The first and most fundamental among the "inalienable" rights is the right to life. I'm not going to quibble on this any more than on the people. We can argue this point later, but I don't believe that "due process of law" has the right to deprive someone of their life. Until we have an "infallible" process of law, I do not believe that the government has the right to take what it cannot restore. Having said that, any government that is for the people will work to secure the lives of those under its charge. I am not speaking simply or solely of protection from the threats that come from within or without, the criminals or terrorists who would actively take our lives. It is important, of course, and a fundamental responsibility of government to provide such protection, but our thinking on this question should have evolved. There are active threats to life, and there are passive threats to life, and one is no more conscionable than the other. I can kill someone actively with a bullet or I can kill someone passively, albeit in ways more slow, more painful, more degrading, by denying potable water, basic nutrition, adequate shelter, clothing, and medical care. It is equally important, and perhaps an even more fundamental responsibility of government to secure the basic necessities for the maintenance and preservation of life.
The question of the political season -- do we believe that our government is working to fulfill its fundamental responsibility to secure even the basic necessities for the maintenance and preservation of life for the people? Before I say more, let me admit up front there is considerable rhetoric on this subject, most of it misleading. Just one example -- the whole notion of "equal opportunity." If we are honest with ourselves, "opportunity" is no more "equal" than anything else. I did not have the sorts of "opportunities" that one Donald Trump has had, or for that matter that one Mitt Romney has had, and my children do not have the sorts of "opportunities" that their children have. It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to see that a black child, born into a poor Flint neighborhood, has even fewer "opportunities" than my children. It's delusional to believe we all have anything approaching "equal opportunity," and for some, it's delusional to believe they have much "opportunity" at all. When the lack of "opportunity" begins to bite away one's ability to secure the basic necessities for the maintenance and preservation of life, then it is a fundamental responsibility of government to either provide the "opportunity" or the "basic necessities of life."
How to do that? From the conservative elites we get the so-called supply side economics, where taxes on the wealthy and the regulatory restraints on business are reduced, ostensibly freeing up business investments that will create jobs. Supply side economics has not produced the job bonanza promised, nor can it. It is, to put it bluntly, a sham perpetrated on the American people. It has improved and continues to improve the amassed wealth of the very wealthy, and we remain a wealthy nation in part because of that amassed wealth, but an increasing majority of the population has a decreasing share in the "wealth of the nation." Moreover, contrary to popular belief, the business sectors are not "job creators." They are "profit creators," and "jobs" are created only when absolutely needed and only when they contribute to the profit of the business enterprise, and they are discarded quickly with only the most abstract concern for the employees. We are living in a world with contracting, not expanding, opportunities to actually earn a living. It would seem to be otherwise, given the recent job numbers, but one should look closely at the so-called "job growth." A good deal of that growth comes in sectors where there is little opportunity for full-time benefited employment, where there is little opportunity for wages much in excess of the minimum wage, where there is little opportunity for wage gain over time, where there is little opportunity period. We are developing a "servant class" throughout the US. They don't live downstairs in the manse, but the maids working for that "maid service" that comes in twice a week to clean the toilets aren't rolling in the dough, and are probably working two or three such jobs to "make ends meet."
From the democratic elites, the technical professionals, we get, more and more, a sort of edu-techno-utopianism. I won't repeat Thomas Franks' whole argument, but this brand of utopianism sees "education" and "innovation," particularly technological innovation, as the solution to all problems. It is true that college graduates have weathered the economic storms better than our less educated populace, but it does not follow that everyone, even an increasing majority of people, should get a college education. In the so-called job market, as any recent graduate will tell you, there is not an unlimited demand for college educated employees, particularly those emerging from 3rd and 4th tier universities and community colleges. I distrust those numbers claiming that we need graduation rates approaching 60% in the future, but assume for the moment, however, that we have not met that demand, what happens when we do? An over-supply of college graduates is not unlike an over-supply of anything else, the increased competition will drive down wages for those who do get in and leave many others on the outside. The college degree comes to resemble less and less the ticket guaranteeing a seat on the gravy train, more and more a lottery ticket -- you can't win unless you buy the ticket, but no guarantees that you will win if you do fork out all that time and money.
Sullivan's elites have not provided a government for the people. My wife hates the phrase, "well, it could be worse." Of course it can, and if we continue on the present path, it will get worse. Neither the republican nor the democratic elites have delivered on the promised future, and increasingly the people are finding it more and more difficult to hold them accountable for their failure to deliver. Indeed, in the finance sector at least, they seem to be rewarded for their failures, and into this slow, grinding decline comes the demagogue who appears at least to be for the people. Neither of the demagogues in this election cycle, neither Trump nor Sanders, will deliver on their promises, but they appeal to those who wish to hold the failed elites accountable, and it is precisely that "climate" that threatens to unseat our fragile democracy. Trump is, by far, the greater threat, not only because he is the presumptive nominee, but because he is Trump. He cannot deliver on any of his promises, not one, without destroying the "miracle of constitutional craftsmanship and cultural resilience," to use Sullivan's words. Will he even try to deliver on his promises? As we move more into the general election, he seems to back away from his promises with the same élan, so one suspects that, once in power, he will behave as most demagogues who have been elected on empty promises. He will work to maintain and consolidate his power. We have enough historical precedent to know what that means.
No comments:
Post a Comment