At the republican national convention, during an ABC news interview with one of the prime time speakers, Antonio Sabato Jr., was asked "You believe that Obama is a Muslim?" to which he responded "absolutely." He went on to add, "I have a right to believe that, just as you have the right to go against that, but I believe it." When I quoted Dr. James Scaminaci on the christian right's "epistemological break with reality," such is precisely what he meant and what I meant. There is nothing one could say, no facts one could bring forward, no evidence that one might present, that would change his mind. Earlier in the same interview, despite the interviewers pointing out that Obama regularly attends church, Sabato said of him, “I don’t believe the guy is a christian. I don’t believe the guy follows the God that I love and the Jesus that I love. If you follow his story, if you understand about Obama, I mean, that’s not a Christian name, is it?” The newscasters interviewing him are somewhat stunned, and you see them trying, unsuccessfully, to bring the conversation into the realm of reality, back into "normal" political discourse. Sabato's insists that, despite any evidence to the contrary, he believes Obama is "on the other side," and his belief is all he needs.
Sabato's interview lends credence to Neal Gabler's 2009 assertion (cited in Scaminiaci) that
Perhaps the single most profound change in our political culture over the last 30 years has been the transformation of conservatism from a political movement, with all the limitations, hedges and forbearances of politics, into a kind of fundamentalist religious movement, with the absolute certainty of religious belief. I don't mean "religious belief" literally. This transformation is less a function of the alliance between Protestant evangelicals, their fellow travelers and the right (though that alliance has had its effect) than it is a function of a belief in one's own rightness so unshakable that it is not subject to political caveats. In short, what we have in America today is a political fundamentalism, with all the characteristics of religious fundamentalism and very few of the characteristics of politics.
By politics, Gabler means "a process of conflict resolution has been based on give-and-take; negotiation; compromise; the acceptance of the fact that the majority rules, with respect for minority rights; and, above all, on an agreement to abide by the results of a majority vote." Gabler, of course, is describing secular democracy, but when the patterns of belief implicit to religious fundamentalism come to encompass the political -- when, that is, the inerrant truth of god, as represented by the "biblical world view," becomes applicable to all "political, economic, social, and scientific situations" -- there can be no negotiation or compromise. There is one truth, and one truth only, and the authority of that truth trumps (pun intended) anything that might resemble "majority rule."
There are a number of ways to understand why conservatives "hate President Obama with a fervor that is beyond politics," as Gabler put it, but perhaps the principle reason is a differing moral world view centered, not on what might be called an "observational" view of truth, but what might be called an "authoritarian" view of truth. There is a deep and nuanced argument here stemming from enlightenment epistemology, but if I could just summarize. On the one side, the "observational" view of truth is perhaps most profoundly captured in the scientific world view -- that is to say, any hypothetical statement or theory about the world, if true, must be verified by multiple and independent observations of "evidence" that support the theory. Think of it as a court of law. The hypothetical statement, "Joe Doe murdered Jane Doe," must be supported by direct evidence that he had the opportunity, the means and the motive to do so, and that he in fact actually did so. The police collect the evidence, the jury deliberates on the evidence, and a verdict is rendered on the hypothesis, "Joe Doe murdered Jane Doe." All such verdicts are provisional. Good evidence may make a convincing case for the truth of the hypothesis, but additional evidence may draw it into question. The use of DNA evidence to dispute standing convictions might be an example.
On the other side, the "authoritarian" view of truth posits a central, incontrovertible authority. It may not be the sole arbiter of truth -- and most who hold authoritarian views also live quite comfortably in a day-to-day world commonsensical observational reality -- but the accepted authority is always and ever the final arbiter of truth. The "authoritarian" view of truth is perhaps most profoundly captured in the "biblical world view." Consequently, as Chris Mooney (cited in Scaminaci) has noted, "the republican party has a base composed of conservative religious believers who are convinced that reality and the bible ... must comport." The emphasis on "must" is my own. If one is presented with evidence that seems to contravene the authority of the bible, it is either dismissed out of hand, or ONLY the evidence supporting the authority of the bible is admitted into discussion.
Democratic politics, as Gabler defined it above, is contingent upon a common set of goals and "observational" view of truth. Gun violence might provide a case in point at the moment. There may well be those who support additional gun violence, but one suspects they are very few and far between. It might reasonably be assumed that both the conservative and liberal parties favor a reduction, and that the real questions center on the best means available to effectuate such a reduction. There is, of course, considerable room for disagreement on this matter, and the devil is always in the details, but after deliberation back and forth, one might form hypothetical statements about the best course of action to take based on the evidence at hand -- "we should do X to reduce gun violence." Any verdict will always be provisional, and after X has been implemented, one can and should follow up, asking "how's our current policy X working out? Has gun violence gone down?" If it's not working, or not working as well as one would hope, then one should take other measures until the trend line goes in the right direction and gun violence is reduced. Democratic politics, at the end of the day, is deeply common-sensical, deeply pragmatic -- either X works to reduce gun violence, or it doesn't work, and one goes from there.
On the other side, however, democratic politics, both in the small sense and the large sense, cannot survive within an authoritarian world view. Here again, gun violence might provide a case in point. Again, it might reasonably be assumed that both the conservative and liberal parties favor a reduction in gun violence, and one might discuss the best means available to effectuate such a reduction, but one can do so ONLY so long and ONLY so far as it doesn't contravene the central authority -- in this case, the constitution, read literally and interpreted conservatively -- thou shalt not limit my ability to keep and bear arms. This might be called a "constitutional world view" is drawn up into the "biblical world view," and shares the same attitudinal and intellectual insistence that "reality" and the "authority" must comport. Any limitation on anyone's right to bear arms must be vigorously opposed, not because such limitations might be ineffective in the effort to reduce gun violence, but because such limitations are forbidden by the central authority. Any evidence that might contravene the dictates of that authority is either suppressed -- hence the congressional limitations on the use of federal funds for gun violence research -- or dismissed out of hand -- "it's not guns that kill people. It's people that kill people."
One might adduce any number of cynical "reasons" to support either side of the debate. The democrats will tend to look for "real reasons" within the observational world view outside the authoritarian world view -- e.g. the "real reason" the NRA has supported the right to keep and bear arms has more to do with the gun manufacturer's ability to reap profits from the sale of guns than the constitution. The gun manufacturers all share a common goal, improved profits, and the NRA is simply lobbying against restrictions that might impede their ability to make profits on the sale of certain arms. Also, given that the sale of arms goes up after a mass shooting, even more cynically one might suggest that they accept a certain level of collateral societal damage because it facilitates their ability to make profits on the sale of certain arms. There may be some truth in this, but conservatives will tend to look for "real reasons" from within the authoritarian world view outside the observational world view -- e.g. the "real reason" that democrats want to limit the right to bear arms in order to render the forces of good defenseless against the forces of evil. Implicit to, and driven by an authoritarian world view, is a "siege" mentality. The forces of good, the social stability arising from a disciplined obedience to the "true" authority, are always under siege by the forces of evil, those who would disrupt the prevailing social stability, whether from sheer willful perversity or from the desire to usurp the true authority for a false authority. One must, that is, have a gun handy to fortify one's self against the robbers and rapists that would steal one's goods and defile one's daughters. At the further extreme, even more cynically, one must have a gun handy to fortify one's self against those who would oppose the "true authority" and impose a "false authority" on the populace.
Implicit to both the "observational" and the "authoritarian" world view are differing, and irreconcilable, views of social order. The "observational" world view sees social order arising out of common goals and the values they reflect. Although discussion around the best available means to effectuate those goals may grow disputatious, even chaotic, in the end order is maintained by the glue of common goals and the values they reflect -- in enlightenment terms, the enlightened self-interest of the people. There is an historical and "progressive" aspect to the "observational" world view. On the one hand, during periods of relative stability, one can assume a "continuous improvement" in the means available to effectuate common goals. On the other hand, during periods of relative instability, the goals and the values they reflect themselves may grow disputatious. The social upheaval during the 60s and early 70s around civil rights for minorities and women are something of a case in point. For those who hold an "observational" world view, the upheaval simply raises the ante. The common goal becomes the search for a new set of common goals and values, and once found, it can be assumed that the new goals and values are "better," that minorities and women should be afforded equal rights, and work can begin anew on the best available means to effectuate those goals.
The "authoritarian" world view, however, sees social order arising solely out of obedience to the given authority and the mandated values. It might be assumed that those who hold "authoritarian" world views live in the real world, and there might be some dispute around how best to maintain obedience to the given authority and implement the mandated values, but in the end order is maintained by an enforced obedience to authority -- in Hobbesian terms, the enforced will of the sovereign. There is an historical aspect to the "authoritarian" world view, as well, but it is less "progressive," more "successive." During periods of relative stability, one can assume "continuity" and the orderly succession of sovereigns who maintain the existing alignments -- in particular, the existing alignments between secular and religious authority. On the other hand, during periods of social upheaval, the existing alignments are disrupted. The social upheaval during the 60s and early 70s again provide a case in point. For those who hold an "authoritarian" world view, the existing racial and gender alignments were called into question and disrupted. Such circumstances might result in a new set of alignments, but more often they result what "authoritarians" feel as "social disintegration" and the call for a new sovereign, a new "authority," one sufficient to exact obedience and "reset" the alignments.
I am suggesting, of course, that the current election cycle has settled out to be a contest between the "observational" and the "authoritarian" world view. Since at least the Bill Clinton era, there was an emergent core economic consensus around what might be called a neo-liberal agenda, best exemplified by his welfare reforms domestically and his support of trade agreements internationally. There was plenty of room for disagreement about how best to implement the neo-liberal agenda -- the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 being a case in point. It reduced taxes on the low income earners and small business while raising taxes on the so-called 1%, much to the chagrin of the Republicans, who would have preferred cuts to entitlement programs over taxes on the rich, but in the end there was a consensus on the core, free-market issues of "personal responsibility" and the "reassertion of America's work ethic" within an increasingly global, increasingly tech-driven, increasingly finance-driven corporate economy. Whether or not Clinton is on the payroll of wall street is debatable, but her commitment to the core values of the neo-liberal economic agenda of "personal responsibility" within a free-market economy seems clear enough. Had the contest settled out to Clinton against Kaisch, for example, the terms of the Democratic/Republican debate would not have changed since the time of the first Clinton. To what extent do we tax the rich to maintain (or expand) the existing social safety net programs? To what extend do we "reform" social safety net programs to reduce "welfare dependency" and over-all spending? In either case, the military and its role as "protector" of the "stability" necessary to global capitalism remained sacrosanct.
Sander's populism challenged the neo-liberal consensus that had centered the Republican/Democratic debate. It is difficult to support "personal responsibility" when there's a diminishing "work opportunity" for a growing majority of Americans within that same tech-driven, finance-driven global corporate economy. Moreover, if one relinquishes (or at least shares in more substantive ways) what appears to be the interminable and "no-win" US role as the "protector" of global capitalism, then the enormous expense associated with our foreign interventions could be put to better use. In either case, Sander's populism remained fixed within an "observational" frame of reality. There is plenty of "observational" evidence to suggest that the disparities of wealth are growing, that "opportunities" are not based on merit or "one's work ethic," that free international markets have displaced wages away from the US, et cetera. There is also plenty of "observational" evidence to suggest that our military interventions on behalf of "stability" have been "counter-productive," particularly in the fight against terrorism. They may have removed the likes of bin Laden, but they have recreated and exacerbated the conditions that led to his emergence, et cetera. In short, Sander's populism may have challenged the neo-liberal consensus, but it did not challenge the basic enlightenment assumptions behind "observational" reality. He was simply (simply?) suggesting that the time had come for a re-examination of the "neo-liberal" consensus and a re-instatement of the core values and principles of the "social democratic" consensus that had emerged during the FDR era. We go on from there.
Trump's populism, however, represents something quite different. The much quoted line from his convention speech -- "death, destruction, terrorism, and weakness" -- represents an pure appeal to an authoritarian world view. In "The twisted genius of Trump: His dark fantasy of a coronation speech was dangerously effective," a recent Salon article by Chauncy Devega, a similar point is made. Trump paints an apocalyptic view of the American social order, one shared by many who feel the "true" authority that had governed American has been displaced by a "false" authority, and then presents himself as the messianic figure, the authority who can exact obedience and reset the alignments. As a bit of an aside, it is significant that Ted Cruz mounted the most effective challenge to Trump. Although he is clearly not as charismatic as Trump, he nevertheless shared the same sense of apocalyptic America, where the "true" biblical authority had been displaced by a "false" secular authority, and he was offering himself as the one who could re-instate the true biblical authority and "free America from" the demon secularism. Although Ben Caron's "lucifer" comments have received considerable derision, he is touching on the same truth. The forces of good, represented by disciplined obedience to biblical authority, have been challenged by the forces of evil, represented by the secularism that would flaunt, for example, gay rights and transgender service "men?" If one imagines the world to be a constant Miltonic loop of the great battle between God and Lucifer that animates Paradise Lost, then Clinton and Ailes ARE aligned with Lucifer, the opposing forces that would usurp god's "true" authority and install an "all too human" authority of their own.
Trump, as it were, trumped the religious right. He played not only the biblical card, with his winking at the evangelicals, his sudden unconvincing conversion to (as Samantha Bee puts it) the "little cracker," and his selection of Pence as his running mate, but he also played the "race card." Cruz had the distinct disadvantage of being hispanic, Carson the even greater disadvantage of being black, but you cannot get more "white" than Trump, and his winking at and retweeting of racist memes from white supremacist web-sites signals a shared belief. The true "white" authority that had governed America from its inception had been displaced by a false "black" authority. One can challenge Obama's economic or foreign policy, but the visceral hatred of Obama, the persistent belief that he must be aligned with the dark forces of "islamic terrorism" despite his repeated military attacks on terrorist strongholds and strongmen, the fox news hysteria that he is destroying America with malice aforethought despite rising employment and wages, that America is a dangerous place despite falling crime rates, et cetera, is ultimately explained by the simple fact that he represents a false "black" authority that has usurped the true "white" authority. No amount of evidence can over-turn this core belief. No change of policy can over-turn this core belief. Trump alone can "make America great again," not because we suffer under unbearable burdens, not because policy prescriptions can make us "better." Trump will make America great again by simply imposing himself on the American people. Of all the candidates, as Devega put it, Trump alone, like an avenging Batman, "can save the besieged (white) people of Gotham from rampaging gangs, hoards of illegal immigrants who 'roam' the streets, Mexican rapists, black street thugs, and other criminals."
Moreover, Trump has one more advantage -- a penis. My wife has said on a number of occasions that she is disappointed that Hillary Clinton might be our first woman president, and I have to admit that I too am a bit disappointed. Although Lora reacts to the notion of dynastic politics -- another Clinton? -- my own concerns are more along the lines of the Bernie or Bust folks, that she represents "more of the same" and will not significantly challenge the neo-liberal economic and social welfare consensus. Having said that, however, as I've implied above, within the "authoritarian" world view, authority must be authority over something, and every notable distinction creates a call for placement on the hierarchy of authority ranging from the lowest to the highest. If the black/white distinction calls for black subservience to white authority, the male/female distinction calls for female subservience to male authority. In the authoritarian world view, it is difficult to maintain a distinction without a difference -- racial and gender equality. If the distinction is valid, one side of the divide must be in authority over the other. Moreover, those in authority must guard against miscreants on the other side of the divide, those jealous of the existing hierarchy, those attempting to usurp authority. Clinton represents "more of the same" in another way as well. Although she is clearly white and clearly christian (despite Trumps dark musings to the contrary) she has the distinct disadvantage of having a vagina. If Obama represents a false "black" authority, Clinton will represent a false "female" authority. While there are evidence based reasons to distrust Clinton, the current array of buttons and stickers available for sale proclaiming "turn America into hell, vote Hillary" or "life's a bitch, don't vote for one" perhaps say it all. As reported by Salon, "professional right-wing conspiracy generator — and fervent Donald Trump supporter — Alex Jones, who reportedly received a 'special guest' credential at the Republican National Convention last week" has gone so far as to call her a witch, evoking another era in American life that too perhaps says it all. She will represents a false "female" authority that has usurped the true "male" authority. No amount of successful policy work will over-turn this core belief. Trump alone can "make America great again," not because Clinton's policy prescriptions will be unsuccessful. Trump will make America great again by simply imposing himself, suitably equipped with a large white penis, on the American people.
No comments:
Post a Comment