2 days Ago
In 1998, American philosopher Richard Rorty (1931-2007) published “Achieving Our Country.” In that book, he makes a disturbing prediction that seems to have come true. Rorty argued that political liberals had been quite successful in their efforts on behalf of Black people, women and the LGBTQ community.
He adds, “the adoption of attitudes the Right sneers at as ‘politically correct’ has made America a far more civilized society.” However, Rorty also feared that liberals would continue to be so involved in issues of identity justice or cultural progressivism that they would overlook the reality that “economic inequality and economic insecurity have steadily increased.” Furthermore, Rorty argued, “Members 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.
” At that point, continued Rorty, “something will crack. The nonsuburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for.” Indeed, Rorty quotes another who had speculated that in the face of such economic insecurity, “fascism may be the American future.
” But Rorty, in his most imaginative moment, could not have possibly dreamed that the “strongman” elected would be a person twice impeached when he was previously president; a person who bragged about sexually assaulting women and found liable of one such assault; a person found guilty of business fraud; a person who demeaned military service; a person who mocked the physically disabled; a person, worst of all, traitorously involved in trying to overturn the result of a presidential election and when that failed, refused to participate in the peaceful transfer of political power. The list of Trump’s immoral and criminal activities boggles the imagination, and the extent to which Trump’s immorality and criminality apparently do not boggle many people’s minds is even more mind-boggling. As I say, that the “strongman” elected would be of the likes of a Donald Trump was surely beyond even Rorty’s fertile imagination.
More than the economy But, as Rorty was predicting, issues of justice seem to pale compared to the cost of eggs, milk, gas and housing. Consequently, the meme “it’s the economy, stupid” was Rorty’s prediction 26 years ago. Indeed, from liberals like Bernie Sanders (“It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them”) and Nicholas Kristof (“Will Democrats finally pay attention to the working class?”) to conservatives like Bret Stephens (the difference was “working-class Americans struggling with the high cost of living”), the economy is the issue.
And yet, notwithstanding philosopher and prophet Rorty, politician Sanders, and pundits Kristof and Stephens, the dissatisfaction of the working class as the conclusive answer to Trump’s victory seems to me problematic. Too many Trump signs on the lawns of the economically well-off and too many endorsements from the likes of Elon Musk, the wealthiest person in the world, suggest another story. That Trump lost to a man and beat two women suggests another.
Indeed, Tribune-Herald opinion contributors Blake Burleson and Solomon Stevens in recent pieces make strong arguments that sexism was a strong contributing factor in Trump’s election. And surely the racism of some of Trump’s supporters tells still another story. Causation is often difficult to determine and when it is determined, causes tend to be multiple.
At any rate, here we are. Donald Trump will become president in January. How should those of us who find the situation morally and politically nightmarish respond? Here are some tentative thoughts.
Upon the election of Barack Obama to the presidency, Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell said in an interview that “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” The single most important thing? I remember at the time thinking that that was such a reprehensible thing to say, for it indicated that McConnell had no intention to support President Obama, no intention of bipartisan cooperation, no good will toward him at all.
Now that Trump has been elected, I find myself struggling not to be a McConnell, not to be so disheartened that I cannot in any sense wish our newly elected president well. I am struggling with this dilemma. How can I wish my country well, if I cannot in any sense wish my president well too? And yet, I am morally appalled by Trump and what he represents.
What a dilemma! Was McConnell right? In fact, the election of Trump has given me pause regarding my longstanding and harsh criticism of McConnell’s response to Obama’s election. If interrogated, I imagine McConnell would have said that he was so critical of Obama’s policies that he hoped Obama would fail. But, surely, must I not say the same of Trump? I think Trump, who has given clear evidence that he is not supportive of democratic processes (think, please think, of Jan.
6, 2021), is a danger to our form of government. That the American electorate has not seen this is scary to me. Or that the American electorate has seen it and simply does not care that much for democracy is scarier still.
There is a difference between a problem and a dilemma. A problem can, at least theoretically, be solved. A dilemma is a conflict that one must learn to live with; it cannot be solved or resolved.
For me, Trump is a dilemma, a painful dilemma, that all of us have no choice but to live with. To the extent that we can, I encourage our support of the president of the United States. At a minimum, that means acknowledging that he won in a fairly run election and supporting a peaceful transfer of power.
But in the case of Trump, I would also argue that we should be alert to Rorty’s prediction and be genuinely concerned about the health of our democracy, genuinely concerned that “fascism may be the American future.” It has also occurred to me that the Trump phenomenon might be an example of “cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.” This phrase refers to a self-destructive act motivated by anger.
It is acting out of intense unhappiness, or rage, or hate in a way that harms the self. An often-used illustration: A husband out of anger at his wife burns down the house. The husband then is also without a home — and surely without a wife, too.
Trump supporters, I have heard it said repeatedly, are just angry — angry about many matters — and supporting Trump is a way of expressing that anger, of giving the raised middle finger to it all. If the Trump phenomenon is a matter of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face, it is the democratic home of all of us that may be burned down. Robert Baird is emeritus professor of philosophy at Baylor University.
He is a member of the Tribune-Herald Board of Contributors. Catch the latest in Opinion.
