As a postscript to the last post, there really are two competing visions for the future, not only of American politics, but insofar as America remains the preeminent economic and military power, the future of world politics. As I think most would recognize, the two parties have become more and more irreconcilable, and it is difficult to see the differences merely or only as differences of policy preference. In a recent Politico post, for example, they title a piece "Ryan uses dark imagery to warn of Democratic Washington," they point out that his "pessimistic take on the state of the union under Democratic rule signals that Ryan — who many suspect is eyeing his own run for the White House in 2020 — is acutely aware of the anger among the GOP base that Trump rode to the nomination." He claimed that in an America under the democrats, "government is taken away from the people, and we are ruled by our betters, by a cold and unfeeling bureaucracy that replaces original thinking.” Moreover, “it is a place where the government twists the law — and the Constitution itself — to suit its purposes. A place where liberty is always under assault, where passion — the very stuff of life — is extinguished.” This is not the language that signals a policy preference for small over large government, but not unlike the ravings of Trump, this is the language of apocalypse. If it were only a matter of trimming back the federal bureaucracy, one could imagine the democrats and republicans sitting down together at a table and hammering out a compromise, but in Trump's language and now Ryan's language of apocalypse, there is no space left to hammer out policy differences. There is only the stark choice between the path of renunciation and virtue or descent into a grey abyss.
I am always a bit surprised by the fervor of such language, in part because I don't share their anger. I look around, and I don't see a place where government has been taken away from the people, only certain people, and then the republicans, who control broad swaths of the government, are perhaps even more guilty than the democrats of excluding "certain people," usually minorities, through gerrymandering, voter registration laws, and the like. I look around, and I don't see a "cold unthinking bureaucracy" replacing anything like "original thinking." No one, of course, loves a bureaucracy, and admittedly it can over-step, but I don't want to live in a world where there's lead in the gasoline polluting the air we breath, where we ignore potentially cancerous chemicals in the food we eat, and the rich have carte blanche to set the banking "rules" to their benefit. We should perhaps remember that most of the "bureaucratic rules" were put in place for a reason, good reason, and the complexity of the bureaucracy simply reflects the increasing complexity of the world we inhabit. I'm not sure they're "my betters," but I do prefer the expert advice of a trained physician over the advice of my neighbor's aunt when it comes to health issues. We live in a world where "expert advice" is needed on any number of fronts, and we ignore it at our peril. This is not to say that the "experts" are always correct -- no one believes that -- but one stands a better chance of getting better with a "real" doctor than with the neighborhood shaman, no matter how "original" or "passionate" her thinking. Could it all be "better?" Absolutely, and I have a fairly long list of what needs to be improved, but even admitting the apocalyptic rhetoric that sometimes surrounds issues of climate change and nuclear armageddon, even admitting the sometimes dire warnings about Trump himself, the democrats remain essentially "progressive" -- that is to say, grounded in a present reality, the understanding of which is abetted by physical and social science. It is a reality that can be improved, and if there is a guiding "moral" principle, one might characterize it as Kantian with a Lockian twist. In his Critique of Moral Judgement, Kant "maintained that the pursuit of the 'highest good' is not just the rational aim of all individuals, it is a necessary social aim for the human race." Having said that, of course, there is room for considerable debate on what might count as the "highest good," and so one must give it a Lockian twist. In his essay, The Reasonableness of Christianity," he hoped that "by emphasizing the moral message of the Bible, especially that of the New Testament, they could persuade Christian schismatics to tolerate one another, then perhaps to tolerate those who accepted basic moral notions without being Christian at all."
I am quoting Mark Lilla again, but if there is a central moral obligation within the democratic party, it lies in the "duty to tolerate" implicit throughout the constitution, but most blatantly in the first amendment. If I expect you to grant me free expression, then I must reciprocate and tolerate your free expression. If I expect you to grant me the freedom to worship, then again I must reciprocate and tolerate your freedom to worship. There is a hitch in this, of course, and one can ask "can one tolerate intolerance?" Much of the concern about "political correctness" flows from this question. It is ultimately a sophomoric paradox, but it plays into the current political discourse. It would seem the republicans would answer the question with a "yes," and the so-called "religious freedom" laws that would allow intolerance of homosexuality for those individuals who hold sincere religious belief condemning homosexuality. Likewise, it would seem the democrats would answer the question with a "no," and would prohibit overt expression of intolerance toward homosexuality regardless of one's individual religious belief. For the most part, this is what republicans mean when they claim that democrats twist the constitution to suit a purpose -- that democrats are waging an assault on liberty -- it is their reflexive inability to tolerate, not so much individual intolerance, but the social expression of individual intolerance regardless of its motivation. It this reflexive desire to seek "legal" prohibitions against the social expression of individual intolerance. We can ask whether a society that tolerates homosexuality is a "better" society than one that does not, of course, but in the end the ensuing debate is not one that can be settled by simply quoting prohibitions found in biblical law. Likewise, abortion. We can ask whether a society that tolerates abortion is a "better" society than one that does not, but again in the end it is not a debate that can be settled by the likes of statistics showing a strong correlation between the legalization of abortion and the decline in crime.
The impasse is real and more fundamental, and for me more frightening. If the Trump candidacy has revealed anything, it has revealed what might be called a gnostic strain in American politics. There is a sense, to use a phrase from Lilla again, "that God has abandoned the created world and left it in evil hands," and he has done so because we have tolerated the evils of homosexuality and abortion, among other things. It pictures the "highest, benign being at an infinite remove from the created world, which is governed by another malignant force," and that force is the democratic president and the fear that we will likely have another democratic president that would seek, not legal sanctions against, but rather additional legal protection for the various evils besetting us. Lilla suggests that "we can speak of a gnostic impulse within the Western religious and philosophical imagination," one expressed by "the conviction that the bonds linking God, man, and world have been severed and can be restored only through a kind of spiritual exercise cultivating the divine spark within the human soul or mind" -- one might add, the individual soul or mind that repudiates a "political correctness" aligned with the malignant forces governing the world. Christianity, particularly evangelical protestant christianity, "has been plagued by the gnostic temptation since its inception," and its not surprising. Evangelical christianity is a religion that "teaches its followers to look to their hearts rather than the Law," and so we have Ryan saying, "We have the chance to save this country from decline and set it back on the right path — a path lit with hope, liberty, and self-determination." It is a religion that assures its followers that "they are the salt of the earth and light of the world," and so we have Ryan saying, “The kind of America we want is confident and determined … is a land of opportunity, driven by the individual spirit." And of course when one is "driven by the individual spirit," personal happiness and economic prosperity are sure to follow: "You don’t just live your life, you lead your life. You don’t just get by, you get ahead.”
All of which is great, but what is missing from Ryan's rhetoric is any sense of the heresy he is promoting. Lilla suggests that, "as orthodox theory sees it, the heretical danger of gnosticism is double." As the first danger, "it encourages Christians to think they can directly encounter the devine without the intercession of Christ or the church." There would seem to be little danger of forsaking christ, or for that matter, a church (if not the church) at least within the US. Or so it would seem. The mythos of the crucified Christ translates well into the current political discourse, and the christ proper, the divine redeemer, has been usurped by his terrestrial surrogate, the political redeemer. There is Washington as a stand-in for the biblical Rome and its alignment with the jewish elite. Rome was a malignant global empire, set against the chosen people of Israel, and so you have the likes of Alec Jones saying, “the globalists are building a world, in their own words, where normal human life is over,” he ranted. “It’s the devil. The churches are not going to tell you. It’s an alien force, not of this world, attacking humanity, like the Bible and every other ancient text says.” The churches -- at least the mainstream churches -- are not likely to talk about "alien forces," in part because they themselves are seen as part of the global conspiracy, but one can find the truth for one's self. There remains the appeal to biblical authority, which, if read correctly, reveals the truth, and Jones will be there to help you read it correctly. Although one might question whether Trump has gone full Jones, his rhetoric nevertheless bears a remarkable similarity. “This is a conspiracy against you, the American people, and we cannot let this happen or continue," he said, a conspiracy mounted by "corrupt media pushing false allegations and outright lies in an effort to elect Hillary Clinton president." Trump adds, “This is our moment of reckoning as a society and as a civilization itself,” and then there is Trump himself as the victimized stand-in for Christ, who sacrificed himself for the good of all. “I take all of these slings and arrows gladly for you," he said, "I take them for our movement so that we can have our country back,” he said. His victory promises the reconciliation and redemption promised by the second coming. If he loses? Well, he cannot lose, and if he DOES lose the election, it will simply be further evidence that the whole system is "rigged" against him, further proof that there exists a vast, global conspiracy against the people.
So what to do? As the second danger of gnosticism, "it tells them that they must either withdraw from a hopelessly fallen and alien world, or transform it utterly through the unique knowledge they possess." One can see a more complete withdrawal in the likes of a David Koresh, another terrestrial surrogate, but the political redeemer plays on the world stage and so there is no hope except the hope for total transformation. As it translates into the current political discourse, however, the withdrawal from the fallen and alien world becomes "America First." It is not exactly isolationist, as Trump would have it, but it is certainly antagonistic, demanding that our now traditional allies in NATO and Asia pay more as their fair share for American protection. Although he does call for a rebuilding of American forces, particularly our nuclear forces, altogether there is a sense of withdrawal behind walls mostly to expel and then keep out the "alien force, not of this world, attacking humanity." The infamous Mexican border wall being a case in point. As Lilla suggested, gnosticism is "fueled in its adherents' minds by the awareness and experience of suffering," and there is reason to believe the white working class is suffering, if not exactly the pangs of actual deprivation, then the loss of status relative to the growing presence and increasing demographic importance of non-white minorities. Ultimately, however, by placing "America first," the rhetoric suggests a hopelessly fallen and alien America that Trump will transform utterly and redeem through his unique knowledge and presence. He will, as his hats proclaim, "make America great again." At his rallies, Trump presents himself, to use Lilla's phrase, as a messianic figure urging his followers "to destroy the present satanic order, or to bring on the apocalypse by embracing sin," or some combination of the two. That he has little in the way of policy prescriptions for what follows on the destruction of the present order is largely irrelevant. His is a "faith based" movement, and just as the local pastor demands that we place our faith in the redemptive quality of Christ, there is a corresponding demand that we place our faith in the redemptive quality of Trump. If Trump's lack of "political correctness" and outright "pussy grabbing" vulgarity makes him seem more anti-christ than christ, so be it. Republican voters seem willing to embrace and forgive his sin -- his humanity -- so long as the destroys the present order.
Having said this, we will wake up on November 9th. If Clinton wins, I don't think anyone is expecting a miraculous transformation. If Trump wins, however, American will suddenly, miraculously be redeemed and restored to its former glory -- not! The world of November 8th will still be with us on November 9th, and as I've said many times before, Trump will face the prospect, not of becoming, but being president. There will still be a looming majority of black and brown people and the lingering stench of racism and xenophobia -- there will still be an uncertain and threatening world in North Korea, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe and looming prospect of nuclear proliferation within rogue states -- there will still be a "global economy" that resists description and manipulation from a thousand different directions -- and there will still be the governing imperative to "do something!"-- the political demand to "make it better!" On the assumption that he is not vested with supernatural powers, what exactly will Trump do? No one knows exactly, but one can be reasonably assured it will not be the republican platform as Ryan and the other "elites" understand it -- some of it perhaps, but not all of it, and most of it without real ideological commitment.
Ryan did, however, ask the right question: "Are we are going to be positive and inclusive, bring people together, and reclaim our founding principles?" One of the founding principles was what Lilla called the "great separation" between church and state. "Messianism, apocalypticism, chiliasm, political eschatology -- there are many terms to describe these religious impulses and how they take political form" -- and they always, without exception, lead to disaster. The American founders, however,
have made a choice that is at once simpler and harder: we have chosen to limit our politics to protecting individuals from the worst harms they can inflict on one another, to securing fundamental liberties and providing for their basic welfare, while leaving their spiritual destinies in their own hands. We have wagered that it is wiser to beware the forces unleashed by the Bible's messianic promise than to try exploiting them for the public good. We have chosen to keep our politics unilluminated by the light of revelation. If our experiment is to work, we must rely on our own lucidity.
Ryan knows we should beware the forces of messianic promise, and his hesitancy in the face of Trump demonstrates that he knows such forces, unleashed, bode ill for our experiment in democracy. As the common wisdom has it, Ryan is betting on a Trump loss, but doesn't want that loss to extend to the congress. Whether he has done so out of despair or with calculating cynicism, however, his recent adoption of Trump's tone shows him more than willing to exploit Trump's apocalyptic vision for what he believes to be in the public good, even if he hasn't fully accepted Trump as his savior and redeemer. Nevertheless, if the republican party is to become "positive and inclusive," if it is to "bring people together," ultimately it must reject the apocalyptic tone and the messianic Trump. It should, indeed, reclaim our founding principles, and rely not only on its own lucidity, but the lucidity of the American people to address the present reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment