Trumped

There  has been much hand wringing about the election of late.  I hear mostly an attempt to accept and normalize the results, but I do fear we have just voted to do away with American democracy.  There is a bit of a paradox involved in the idea of voting to end democracy, but as Andrew Sullivan and others have noted, it's a paradox that has been around since at least the time of Plato.  It's really not much of a paradox.  The people, the demos, willingly give up their rights to self-governance for security -- or rather the promise of security -- and we shouldn't be surprised.  From a Hobbesian perspective, the paradox is inherent to the very idea of government.  Arising out of a state of nature, which Hobbes sees as a war of all upon all, we give up individual autonomy out of weakness, out of fear, and pledge our allegiance to a sovereign, the great man, who promises nothing more, nothing less than security.

I am using the term security in its broadest sense -- a freedom from fear.  Although he may well be a reprehensible man, Trump promised security in ways that Clinton did not and could not.  The infamous wall promises security from the encroaching hordes of illegal aliens, while Clinton promised amnesty and a "path to citizenship."  His ban on muslims and rejection of refugees promise security from the intermittent threat of terrorism, while Clinton bore responsibility for Benghazi and pledged a home to more refugees.  His simultaneous isolationism of America first and his bellicose promise to rebuild the military promise the security of hearth and home, while Clinton's foundation and her political connections promised a global perspective.  His ostentatious wealth and the altruistic promise to use his midas touch to build national wealth promise economic security, while her own behavior seemed to use political influence for petty money grubbing.   The list could go on.  Those who have nothing, who are teetering on the war torn edge of penury and starvation, are not concerned with security.  They are focused on avoiding the next bullet and acquiring their next meal.  Those who have something, who fear losing even the little they have, are concerned with security.

In a perverse way, Obama in his person and his modest success paved the way for Trump.   His black face and his muslim middle name represented the sum of all fears for too many Americans, and so you have Alex Jones headlining an InfoWars piece with "Nation of Islam and New Black Panthers Directing Violent Protests in Ferguson."  Aging baby boomers who have no real memory of Hitler and his rise to power and the devastating insecurity he caused, but do have living memories of Huey Newton and the domestic insecurity he cause, are still fighting the culture wars of the 60s and 70s.  And no, it's not entirely the economy because the economy has been on the mend for some time -- modestly on the mend -- and not equally for everyone.  Although broad swatches of rural American have not been left utterly bereft, they are clearly losing the race.  The main streets of small town America are mostly derelict while the Walmart on the hill prospers selling cheap goods all of which are made in places other than America.  While small business and family farms give up the ghost, the more urban professional classes prospered in support of democrats, the global monied class prospered even more in support of the republicans, but the broad swatches of rural America see themselves in decline, fear they will decline even further.  They voted for security and the autocrat who promised it.

It is one thing to promise, another thing to deliver, and rarely can the autocrat deliver anything other than autocracy, and when that fails, more autocracy.  It is one thing to run for office, another thing to actually govern, and as I've said, as many have said, there is nothing in Trump's past that suggests that he personally is capable of actually governing.  There is little in Trump's past that suggests he can gather about him the "best and brightest" to assist in actually governing.  The editorial page of today's NY Times laments that "anyone holding out hope that Donald Trump would govern as a uniter — that the racism, sexism, anti-Semitism and nativism of his campaign were just poses to pick up votes — should think again."  They do so because Trump has selected Steve Bannon, his campaign strategist, "as his chief White House strategist and senior counselor, an enormously influential post."  Steve Bannon, of course, was the editor of Breitbart News, and one doesn't need to spend much time on the site to gather what it's all about -- fear.   While one may be vaguely anxious, and many Americans are anxious about the future, fear always has its immediate object.  Fear is always a fear of something, or someone, and Breitbart is quite willing to identify what should be feared, and, consequently, what should be hated.   As I and others have said, Breitbart's headlines reveal "a parallel universe where black people do nothing but commit crimes, immigrants rape native-born daughters, and feminists want to castrate all men."   One can read through the examples given by the Times, but on any given day, one can come up with plenty of examples for one's self.  

The Times, however, may have missed the point.  Trump is sincere in his pledge to govern as a "uniter."  Fear and loathing are powerful forces of "unity," and for all too many Americans the objects of a unifying fear and loathing can be easily enough identified by race, by ethnicity, by religion.  The Times imagines a "uniter" who will gather together all for a rousing, misty-eyed chorus of "We Are the World," but Trump promises another sort of unity altogether and it's not difficult to imagine because we have seen it before in Weimar Germany and we see it today in post-soviet Russia.  Trump is neither a democrat nor a republican.  On NPR the other day, Thomas Frank (pardon the inaccurate quote) marveled at Trump's single handed destruction of BOTH parties, and Michael Moore is correct when he sees Trump as a middle finger raised at both parties -- at the democrats for their feckless assumption that black voters would turn out for a white Clinton in the same way they turned out for a black Obama and her (somewhat shameless) courting of the global capitalists who contributed to the foundation and her campaign -- at the republicans for their equally feckless assumption that, with sufficient cash, "little Marco" or "low energy Jeb" would carry the day and their astonishing under-estimation of their  own "base" and the depth of their resentments.   There is a good deal of "if everyone" thinking -- that is to say, if everyone were just like me -- if everyone were white, christian, straight, fill-in-the-blank, just like me -- then what a wonderful world it would be.   If it is just wistful, wishful thinking, that's one thing, but when it becomes "programmatic," when it becomes a matter of "government," that's another thing.  Of course, not everyone is white, christian, straight.  Some are black, muslim, and gay.  And of course "it can't happen here," but nevertheless it is the fondest wish of every genocidal maniac to create "unity," by unleashing the forces of fear and loathing, by repressing or eliminating those who are not "just like me," if not from the world at large, then at least from the sacred enclave of the homeland.  

One must give Trump some credit.  I have heard said over and over again that this was the "change" election, -- there may be some desire for an over-throw of the existing "establishment" and "politics as usual" -- but if there is a desire for "change," it is a desire for regressive, not progressive change.  It is a nostalgic desire "to get back to where we once belonged," a small town "main street" nation viewed through the gauze curtain of a Norman Rockwell painting, a place where one could feel secure in one's person and one's future.  Although one can empathize with the desire to be great again, secure again, one cannot ultimately condone it.  That small-town, main-street nation was not so great for women, at least women who might have a modicum of "gumption," as the protagonist  in Sinclair Lewis' 1920 novel, Main Street reminds us.  Carol Milford at least "does not admit that Main Street is as beautiful as it should be!  ... that dish-washing is enough to satisfy all women!"  She herself  "may not have fought the good fight, but [she] kept the faith," and after the suffragettes, after the flappers, after "Rosie the riveter," there were a good many others after who picked up where she left off, imagining a different sort of future for women.  Of course we won't mention the "colored folk" who, not unlike women, seemed inevitably consigned to the  subordinate role of servant, but the civil rights movement has forever ended the separate and subordinate role of blacks in American society.   Bedford Falls may have provided "a wonderful life," but it did so for some, not all.  If we had been given even a brief glimpse of the inner life of George Bailey's maid, she may also have had her own insecurities about the future, and too, she may also have had her own set of resentments over how "impossibly unfair" her current condition.  It is easy enough to gaze back at a better, more innocent, and more secure time, but Citibank  has long since made George Bailey's bank economically and politically irrelevant, and Walmart forever put "main-street" Bedford Falls out of business while the internet hammered home the nails on the sheets of particle board covering its shop windows.

So what to do?  Trump is not the answer.  Like every other narcissistic autocrat who believes, really believes that he is the one great man, that he alone can solve the ills of the world, he will fail.  There is already evidence that he will fail, not just in the reported "firings and discord" that have put the "Trump transition team in a state of disarray." the real reason lies in his reported tweets where "Trump himself fired back at critics with a Twitter message he sent about 10 p.m. 'Very organized process taking place as I decide on Cabinet and many other positions,' he wrote. 'I am the only one who knows who the finalists are!'"  It is the sheer messianic scope of his self-esteem, it is the narcissism itself, that will lead him to ignore good advice, to favor sycophantic advice, and his narcissism will eventually lead to his demise, just as it has for every other narcissistic autocrat from Caesar to Milosevic.  Despite his professed admiration, he is not a fox, like Putin, with many ideas.  He is rather a hedgehog, with one idea, and that idea is Trump himself, and that singular idea makes him dangerous.  When his economic policies fail to produce the halcyon revival, when the disposables of rural and rust belt America remain red faced with anger, who will be to blame?  It will not be Trump, or his flawed thinking, or his failure to address present realities, it will be the jews controlling wall street, the hoards of illegal immigrants, the international muslim jihadist conspiracy, and the list will go on.  Trump has already demonstrated the tendency to attack, then double down personally on the attacks if he gets push back, and he is now attacking even his own sycophants, to include the disgraced Chris Christie, who do not sufficiently gild his image.  Of course, "it can't happen here," but those who let loose the demons are not immune to their own desire for security, their own fear and loathing, their own sense that others are perpetually conspiring "unfairly" against them. If one objects to the analogies to foreign dictators -- as Kristof objects because "they stop conversations and rarely persuade" -- then one can look closer to home.   Nixon came to power at a similar juncture in our nation's history, inheriting an intractable war abroad, no-win discord around the implementation of civil rights, and economic disarray sparked in part by a middle-east oil embargo.  According to Conrad Black, who should know, Nixon "thought that he was doomed to be traduced, double-crossed, unjustly harassed, misunderstood, under-appreciated, and subjected to the trials of Job, but that by the application of his mighty will, tenacity, and diligence, he would ultimately prevail."  He didn't.  His fear of being traduced trumped his mighty will, and led to the disgrace of watergate.  If that doesn't sound familiar, then perhaps one hasn't been paying attention.

So again, what to do?  Kristof's 12 step program may be good advice, but in some respects it asks too little and too much.  Nothing he suggests will fundamentally reform American political life, while everything he suggests will be impossible for the average American to sustain, no matter how deep their political convictions.  Life must go on, and we must admit that it continues with increasing insecurity for altogether too many Americans.  We need to fundamentally reform American political life, and the first step is acknowledging that we are a deeply divided nation.  One must admit one's alcoholism before one can engage the 12 step program, but then too, most must hit rock bottom before they can admit their addiction.  Does Trump represent rock bottom?  My own visceral fear for American democracy and loathing for the man who is the sum of all those fears directed my vote to Clinton, but in the absence of a four year "reprieve," I hope my predictions for the demise of American democracy, like most predictions, turn out to be overblown, but I see much harm coming in the next four years, and little good.  I share Chomsky's estimation of the GOP as the "most dangerous organization in human history," but given the democratic party's failure to speak clearly and forcefully to the dangers, I do hope my own paranoia is misplaced.  After the drunken orgy of this election,I hope we can all wake up, shower, and go about our daily lives without some new and virulent STD, but with sufficient shame to take steps.

The first step is reform of our electoral system.  I am not sure how we go about doing so, in part because those who SHOULD have the debate WON'T have the debate -- the congress -- but there are a number ideas that need to be seriously considered.  Imagine, for example, a system where every man and woman, who is a citizen and has reached the age of majority, is REQUIRED to vote -- where the failure to vote is a breach of civic duty and punishable by fine. The ballot, in whole or in part, may be left blank, but it must be acknowledged and submitted.  There are technical details to be worked out, but such a system, would eliminate the need for "turn out the vote" ground game, the need for "voter registration" laws that target minorities, and the like.  It is not without precedence.  Austrailia has such a system, and could provide the model.  Also, imagine, for example, a federally funded system for national office.  There would need to be some way of determining who does and who does not get funding, and the technical details are perhaps a bit more onerous than mandatory voting, but again it is not without precedence.  Canada has such a system, and could provide a model.  Overall, the intent is to make government accountable to the plurality of voters.  An election should the beginning of governance, not the next round of fundraising necessary to the next election cycle.  Whether we have the humility to accept the idea that Austrailia or Canada may have a better system is a question without an answer, but despite my antipathy to the Citizen's United decision, it should be clear enough that the scotch and cognac of big money didn't much help Jeb Bush in the primaries and didn't much help Clinton in the general.  Whether we have hit rock bottom hard enough to end the intoxications of big money is another question without an answer.

As an addenda, which harkens back to the first step and looks forward to the second step, we need to consider the real divide in this country, and return to first principles.  I am not an astute enough reader of the Federalist Papers to engage the debate fully, but the division between the house and senate is a kind of case in point.  The house was intended to provide proportional representation, the senate state representation.  Large, more populous states would have greater representation in the house, smaller states would have at least equal representation in the senate, each "checking" abuses by the other. and creating an overall balance.  Although it is impossible to imagine the US as anything other than the colloquy of states, the hand wringing over red-states and blue-states is something of a distortion of the real divide between the more urban centers scattered throughout the US, but concentrated on the coasts, and the more rural portions of the US expanding across the heartland and the inland west.  The Times published maps illustrating the divide.  Clinton could win the popular vote, or the plurality of actual people living in the US because more people today live in large metropolitan areas.  Even in the reddest of red states, Utah, its capital, Salt Lake City, with its increasing diversity, its increasingly "urban" problems, is blue.  The same might be said of Texas, with Dallas, Houstan, San Antonio all trending democrat.  What is true of the US as a whole, however, is not true considered state by state.  To the north and south of Salt Lake, one finds Ogden and Provo, suburbs that have expanded rapidly and have done so most because of "white flight" from Salt Lake City, flight motivated in part by insecurity over what it might mean to schools and property values should their neighbor be less than "white."  Outside that, one finds rural America, scattered, small, homogenous, religiously conservative communities who understand the world as it is "presented" to them on the media, meaning the hyperbolic worries of Fox News.  The democrats of Salt Lake, considered within the expanse of the state as a whole, contribute to the national plurality, but cannot conceivably become a "majority" in the state.  Ditto Texas.

Much of the "issue" divide can be explained by this one rural/urban divide.  Consider, for example, guns and gun rights.  A gun in rural America means something different than it does in a city like Chicago.  In rural America, guns are seen not only as a deterrence to crime (you never know who's packing so you mind your p's and q's) but as a tool.  The deer they shot last week provides not only sport, not only an affirmation of their independence and grit, but sustenance.  It is, in that respect, an "income" supplement, and for those who didn't have the desire or the skills to "educate" themselves out of rural America, who live in areas that are clearly in decline, that supplement is increasingly important.  The threat to "take away our guns" leaves them insecure on two fronts, both physically and economically.  In urban America, having a gun in the house does little to "deter" the gang member whose drive by bullet misses its target, passes through a wall, and kills a child sitting on a living room sofa.  Indeed, having a gun puts one at greater risk for break-in and theft.  The gang member might see the gun as a tool, and an affirmation of their independent bad-ass machismo, but its an affirmation that cannot be condoned.  Gun control in the city allows police to confiscate weapons, but so long as there is no control outside the city, they are easily replaced with "imports" from places like Idaho.  Consequently, the inability to enact workable gun control measures leaves the urban resident insecure on a number of fronts.  Gun control needs to be national, beginning with national criminal background checks at the very, very least.  

So, pick an issue, and one's position on that issue might have a lot to do with whether you live in urban or in rural America, and what is good for the rural "goose" is not so good for the urban "gander," and vice versa.   I am suggesting, of course, that the state-based system of checks and balances seems to be antiquated, and along with it the state-based electoral college, and should be reformed along with other electoral reforms.  In at least two recent elections, the results have not reflected "the will of the people," if by that we mean an outright majority of the people, but a simple majority vote on many "issues" would simply not be fair to those who live in less the populous expanses of rural America.  On the other hand, the current state-level "gerrymandering" in places like Utah and Texas, reflect a "geographic" majority, and now have stacked the cards in favor of the rural expanses, but they are simply unfair to those who live in the more densely packed urban areas.  There are distortions laid on top of rural and urban divide, some of them originating in the outsized influence of the donor class, some of them originating in the darker angels of our psyche, some of them originating in an increasingly partisan media, but the fundamental question is this: how do we create checks and balances between rural and urban concerns.  In the current structure, no matter who wins, it is clear enough that at least half the population will be left out of the equation, and that is unconscionable.