A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

republican

Republicans Should Defend Trump, Just Differently

by 20 Comments

Image Credit

While some think that Trump is beyond defense and that the Republicans should be damned for siding with him, I contend that the Republicans are right to vigorously defend Trump. What I disagree with is how they are doing it.

The president, regardless of who holds the office, has the right to a fair, impartial and objective impeachment process. This includes a vigorous defense on the part of those who would take up the president’s cause, mostly typically the president’s party members. One reason for this is the presumption of innocence. While this is a principle for criminal trials, it is a good general moral principle to apply in any case where a person is accused and can face consequences. As part of American moral philosophy, we have adopted this principle and it is sensible to apply it consistently and thus it also applies to Trump. This presumption requires that a proper process be followed to prove that a person is guilty and if it fails, then the person should be regarded as innocent. If Trump were not defended, this would amount to a presumption of guilt—which would be unfair even if the president is guilty.

A vigorous defense is also important to maintain the commitment to the process—that the political battles will not fall into a sort of state of nature in which all that matters is might. Even if the outcome is certain, it is important to maintain a commitment to a proper and ideally a fair process. As always, one should apply the Golden Rule and consider that while someone they might hate or love is the target of impeachment, the next time the opposite could prove true. If we believe in truth, justice and the American way, then we must accept that the president is entitled to a vigorous defense. However, this does not entail that all defenses are justified.

Since I value truth and good reasoning, I am appalled by the usual tools of immoral politics—lies, misused rhetoric and fallacies. Ideally, these should not be employed to attack or defend a president. But my focus is not on my usual complaints about untruths and bad logic, but on a more serious matter—that the Republican’s defense strategies are damaging to the country.

One of the Republican tactics was to assert that the impeachment process is unconstitutional. In addition to getting the facts wrong (it is in the constitution) this lie is damaging because it attempts to deceive people about the constitution. That is, it is essentially defending Trump by lying about the law. But this is a small harm.

The Republicans also engaged in attacks on the ambassadors, staffers and others who testified before congress. For example, there were efforts to smear Lt. Colonel Vindman as a spy. Trump also broadly attacked the non-partisan witnesses as “never Trumpers” despite the lack of evidence and the fact that they had generally served presidents of both parties. Trump and his defenders are not only seeking to harm the witnesses, they are also serving to undermine trust in the people who serve the United States regardless of which party happens to be in control at a given moment. That is, they are causing lasting harm in the hope of a short-term political gain.

Rather than focus on a coherent defense of the claims against Trump, the Republicans tried to use red herrings in the forms of long discredited conspiracy theories about the Bidens, Hillary Clinton, Crowdstrike and the fabled server. Laying aside the moral problem about lying and the logical problem with using red herrings, the use of these toxic conspiracy theories involves undermining the FBI, the intelligence agencies, and other institutions. This is sometimes done directly by attacking them and other times by implication—if these lies are to be believed, then those who debunk them must be seen as lying or incompetent. This is not to deny that the FBI and others make mistakes but undermining these institutions for short term political gain is morally reprehensible. There is also the obvious worry that these undermining efforts are not just for short term gain but for long term gain—these institutions are obstacles to corruption and crimes.

One of the most damaging strategies is the Republican’s master conspiracy theory, that there is a deep state that exists to undermine Trump. This charge is brought up whenever anyone seeks to limit Trump’s actions or expose his misdeeds. To those who have a basic grasp of the law and the American political system, what the Republicans call the deep state is nothing more than the law and the people working in accord with the established political and legal system. That is right out in the open. Harping on the deep state is extremely corrosive since it undermines faith in the American legal and political systems and casts constitutional checks on power as some sort of vile conspiracy. This is doing a lot of damage for short term political gain and is likely also aimed at a long-term project, namely weakening the legal and political machinery that exists to resist corruption and tyranny.

So, how should the Republicans defend Trump? The ideal would, of course, be to abandon these corrosive tactics and focus on the key aspects of any defense: the facts of the matter and the values aspect. That is, the two issues are whether Trump did the actions in question and whether these actions warrant impeachment. Addressing these requires more than simply denying the facts and repeatedly insisting that the actions do not warrant impeachment. Angry yelling also does nothing, though people sometimes think that if someone is yelling angrily, then their anger must be justified. This need not be the case.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Republicans & Conspiracy Theories

by 11 Comments

Image Credit

During the Trump impeachment hearing some of Trump’s Republican defenders in congress advanced various conspiracy theories. Trump himself is quite the aficionado of conspiracy theories, and is well known for pushing the absurd birtherism.  During her testimony Dr. Fiona Hill pointed out that these theories had been soundly debunked and also chastised the House members who were perpetuating them. While Fox News and other right-wing media outlets have tried to question her credibility, Dr. Hill served under Bush, Obama and (obviously) Trump. She has exceptional credentials and an excellent reputation outside the echo chambers of the right. Given her criticism of Putin, one might suspect that some of the rage against her has been fueled by Russia.

There are three main reasons why the pushing of this debunked conspiracy theories is morally problematic. First, they are not true and those who knowingly push them are lying. While one could advance a utilitarian moral argument in favor of lying to achieve ends, pushing these conspiracy theories creates more harm than good—as will be shown in the second and third reasons.

Second, having authorities push these debunked conspiracy theories can corrupt the critical faculties of those who accept them. While one could argue that people could compartmentalize their belief forming, it seems more reasonable to hold that those who become habituated to believing conspiracy theories based on rhetoric and fallacies will become more susceptible to bad reasoning in general. This can be seen as analogous to Plato’s arguments about the corrupting influence of art in the Republic. Plato argued that those exposed to art causing feelings such as pity, lust and anger would be more inclined to yield to the negative influences of these emotions in reality. Likewise, those who become habituated to accepting conspiracy theories and rejecting good reasoning will be more inclined to reason badly elsewhere. While people with poor reasoning skills do provide an advantage to those who wish to exploit them, this exploitation is typically bad for the exploited and others.

Third, these conspiracy theories tend to be toxically divisive and harmful in other ways. For example, advancing the debunked conspiracy theory about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election serves to distract attention away from the very real Russian efforts in 2016 and their ongoing efforts. Paying attention to and expending resources on debunked conspiracy distracts from real concerns and wastes resources.  One could argue that advancing such theories is acceptable because doing so helps Trump and Trump being president will have good consequences. The obvious reply is that if Trump really is such a good president, then he should not need lies to help him—the truth should suffice.  Since these theories have been debunked and advancing them is morally wrong, one might wonder why Trump and his defenders keep pushing them.

One possibility is that a conspiracy pusher’s epistemic abilities and critical faculties are hot garbage. That is, the methods they use to form beliefs and assess them are terrible, hence they tend to form false beliefs. If these defects are not their fault, then they cannot be held accountable—they are simply incapable of knowing better. If these defects are their fault (they avoid learning), then they would be to blame. To use an analogy, if someone has cancer because they knowingly engaged in risky behavior like smoking, then they bear some responsibility. If a person has cancer because of a gene, then they have no responsibility for their cancer.

A second possibility is that the conspiracy pushers are willfully ignorant: they have adequate epistemic abilities and critical thinking skills to form good beliefs but elect to not use them in the case of these conspiracy theories. That is, they are willing victims of rhetoric and fallacies. In this case they are to be condemned. To follow St. Aquinas, they have an obligation to do their homework.

A third possibility is that their epistemic and critical thinking abilities are potentially adequate but happened to fail in these cases. This is analogous to a batter taking a swing at a pitch but missing. In this case they are, to follow St. Aquinas, not to be condemned—they are acting in the way they believe is best and have put in the effort.

A fourth possibility is that the conspiracy pushers know they are pushing lies but advance them for pragmatic reasons. A likely explanation would be that they believe that advancing such lies will reinforce the beliefs of a base that already believes them or persuade those who do not yet embrace the conspiracies to accept them in favor of the truth.

In the best-case scenario, the conspiracy pushers are failed thinkers. In the worst case they are liars lying to protect a liar.

Abortion Advice for Democrats: Rhetoric & Ethics

by 2 Comments

In the context of moral philosophy, the dispute over abortion is an ethical issue that should be addressed by argumentation. In the context of politics, the dispute over abortion is a blend of rhetoric, political ideology, religion and ethics. As such, “winning” the abortion debate in philosophy is quite different from winning it in politics. “Winning” in philosophy is, in the ideal, a matter of constructing the logically strongest argument with the most plausible premises. Winning in politics is ultimately a matter of getting the desired laws in place and enforced. This end, as would be suspected, is generally not served by “winning” the philosophical dispute. Rather, it is achieved primarily by using rhetoric, relevant fallacies (such as the straw man) and political tools such as campaign donations.

Image Credit

As most would expect, I am a registered Democrat. I am in a party because my adopted state of Florida has closed primaries and I do not want to be unjustly excluded from a critical part of the political process. I picked the Democrats because they currently hold a decisive moral edge over the Republicans: I think that, in general, more people will be better off if Democrats held most political offices.  I do not think they should hold all offices—unopposed parties get down to the Devil’s business.  Because of this, I am willing to provide philosophical advice to the Democrats. However, this must be consistent with my ethical views. Fortunately, my ethical view of abortion is consistent with advising Democrats on how to “win” the abortion debate against Republicans.

The Republican Study Committee (RSC) claims that “conservatives believe that every single human life has inestimable dignity and inherent value”, showing that someone probably read Kant. They also claim that they “believe in protecting the sanctity of life and defending those who cannot defend themselves.” Having also read Kant, I agree with the moral view that human life has dignity and intrinsic value. I also believe in defending the defenseless. Given these views, one might suspect that I would hold to the pro-life position. And you would be right: I do favor protecting and preserving life and hence I am pro-life in an honest and accurate usage of the term.

I am also pro-choice: I hold to the Lockean notion that each person “owns” themselves and cannot be deprived of their life, liberty or property except when doing so is properly justified. Compelling a woman to bear a child against her will is a clear violation of bodily and moral autonomy, even when the pregnancy is not the result of rape or incest. At this point, anti-abortion folks will inquire if I believe that a woman has the moral right to get an abortion at any time for any reason. To which I offer the same reply that any sensible person would make if asked if they think that autonomy and liberty allows a person to do any thing at any time: no. For example, I (like nearly everyone on earth) oppose aborting an infant right before viable birth. As another example, I think abortions for sex selection are wrong. As such, I am willing to accept moral limits on reproductive liberty and autonomy, just as I accept moral limits on all forms of liberty and autonomy. For example, I am morally fine with gun ownership, but I (like almost everyone else on the planet) think that people should not be allowed to own any weapon (such as bioweapons) they want or do anything they want with it (such as mass murder).

I could even be cast as being somewhat anti-abortion, in that I would morally prefer a world with less death to a world with more. However, my moral objective is to reduce death in the morally best way possible while acting in accord with the moral principles that motivate this goal. This can provide a strong rhetorical and ideological tool for Democrats.

As noted above, Republicans claim that their motivation for anti-abortion laws is their view of the dignity and intrinsic value of life. Democrats tend to counter this in two main ways. The first is to argue for bodily autonomy—that women have a right to abortion on the grounds of liberty. While this is morally fine, it will tend to prove ineffective in swaying voters who are true pro-lifers.

The second, which is used less, is to point out that Republicans’ professed motivation does not match their actions. As others have noted, anti-abortion states tend to be worse than other states when it comes to treating everyone with the dignity beings with intrinsic value are entitled to and with defending the defenseless. To illustrate, these states have the highest infant and maternal mortality rates, they tend to be states that did not expand Medicaid, they tend to spend less than other states on health care, they often lead in firearm deaths, they often are leaders in executions and the murder of women by men. As such, they are acting in direct violation of their stated pro-life principles and values. In addition to being morally wicked, it provides a political opportunity for Democrats to win over true pro-life voters. They cannot, obviously enough, win over anti-choice anti-abortion voters who are not concerned with the well-being of infants, mothers and people in general. So, how do the Democrats win over true pro-life voters in a moral way?

As noted above, the Republicans profess values and principles they directly and routinely violate with their policies. In contrast, Democrats tend to back pro-life laws and policies that are aimed at reducing death and suffering—such as expanding health care, providing support for infants and mothers, and reducing domestic violence. When debating Republicans on the abortion issue, they should focus on making the Republican hypocrisy clear and sell the pro-life voters on Democratic ideas that are, in fact, supportive of life. There are, of course, some weak points to this strategy. One is that, as noted above, it only works on people who are actually pro-life as opposed to being anti-choice anti-abortion folks. A second weak point is that people often vote based on party rather than on principle—so “pro-life” Republicans will often be fine with voting for a Republican who is most certainly not all about defending the defenseless and valuing life. To be fair, Democrats can also vote for Democrats just because they are Democrats.

The easy and obvious counter to Democrats pushing the “pro-life” line is to point out that they still support abortion rights. While supporting abortion rights is consistent with valuing life, engaging in a nuanced moral argument is not an effective way to win votes. Fortunately, one can still hold to a nuanced position while using rhetoric to “sell it.”

From a moral standpoint, the objective is to reduce the number of abortions with minimal harm. One analogy could be to traffic deaths—in this case, one can see the abortion as being analogous to a traffic fatality. One approach to traffic fatalities is to ban all traffic; the same approach could be applied to abortion. A legal ban, as has been shown historically, tends to be both ineffective and harmful. The well-off would still have abortions as would the less well-off, it would just be far more dangerous for the poor. There would also be the deaths from illegal abortions. In some ways, this is similar to the argument advanced by pro-gun folks about gun control: it will not work and if it did, it would be bad.

If a total ban is out, then it makes sense to press the analogy to reducing traffic deaths. Obvious ways are to improve driver education, road safety and vehicle safety. These are obviously analogous to improving sex-ed and making better and more accessible contraceptives. Those who want fewer abortions should find these arguments appealing, although some people do oppose contraception and sex-ed, but they are presumably unlikely to vote for a Democrat in any case. The traffic fatality analogy does, obviously, fail when pushed too far: traffic fatalities are generally unintentional while abortions are intentional. As such, it makes moral and practical sense to address the matter of motivation. If the motivations for abortion can be addressed, then there would be little or no need for laws to restrict them. It would also be good if addressing the motivations was consistent with respecting the intrinsic value of human life and defending the defenseless.

While women obviously vary in their motivations, those most commonly reported include that having a baby would interfere with work/school/other responsibilities (three quarters), that they could not afford to have a child (two thirds), or that they did not want to be a single parent (half). Teenagers, as would be expected, were more likely than older women to say that they were not mature enough to raise a child. While all these factors cannot be addressed by public policy, the two most common can. If each human life has intrinsic worth, then public policy should reflect this by making it easier for women to continue to work, attend school and meet their responsibilities should they elect to have a child. Public policy should also make it more affordable for women to have children, should they wish. While such policy would not eliminate abortion, it would presumably have a significant impact on the number of abortions—especially if effective sex-education and affordable contraception were readily available. What could be more pro-life than enabling a woman to realistically choose to have the child and to defend the defenseless mothers and infants from the dangers of unemployment, lack of health care and poverty?

It could be objected that funding and acting on such policies would be costly and burdensome. But the anti-abortion anti-choice folks are fine with imposing costs and burdens on women who do not want to bear them, so they can have no moral objection here—unless they want to openly say that the women do not matter.

This approach could, perhaps, win over some true pro-life voters to the Democrats. It would also help shine more light on the hypocrisy and moral inconsistency of the anti-choice anti-abortion Republicans who profess to hold human life to have intrinsic worth and to want to defend the defenseless while acting in direct violation of those professed values. Republicans can, obviously enough, counter the Democrats by adopting true pro-life policies; but that would seem to make them into Democrats.

Some quick rhetorical tricks for Democrats:

  • Get the Republican to claim they oppose abortion because they think human life has intrinsic worth/is sacred/etc.
  • Push them hard on whether they support public polices that are consistent with the view that human life has intrinsic worth.
  • Push them hard on how sex-ed, contraception affordability & access, and good public policy would reduce the number of abortions, decrease infant & maternal mortality, and reduce death and suffering. Don’t they love children and mothers?
  • If they try to argue that public policies supporting women would be too costly and burdensome, point out that they have no problem with anti-abortion laws that are costly and burdensome to women. Do women not count? Do they hate women?
  • Also point out how inconsistent and hypocritical it is to put money ahead of human life, which they claim is sacred and has intrinsic worth. How can you put a dollar value on priceless human life?
  • Push that they apparently do not care about the value and dignity of life, they just want to restrict abortion—regardless of the harms inflicted or costs imposed. Do they really care about life, or do they just hate women?
  • Push that you are the real pro-lifer: you favor public policy that would safely and effectively reduce the number of abortions while defending the defenseless against the dangers of unemployment, illness, and poverty. Surely, if they are truly pro-life, they would also endorse such policies. If not, what do they really stand for? Do they even care about life at all?  
  • Do not get sidetracked by their rhetoric; avoid following their red herrings (such as sex-selection abortion in China), avoid getting tangled in their straw men (that Democrats want abortion any time for any reason), etc.
  • Avoid getting tricked into explaining or engaging in nuanced reasoning; if you are explaining or reasoning in a current political debate then you are almost certainly losing. Keep points short, direct and focused. When engaging in philosophical debate, explain and use nuance.
  • Do not lie. Leave that to them.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Bathroom Laws

by 2 Comments

Embed from Getty Images
One way to approach the moral issue of whether transgender people should be able to choose their bathrooms is to consider the matter in utilitarian terms. This would involve weighing the harms inflicted by denying this choice against the harms inflicted by granting it. In a democracy, this approach seems to a reasonable one—at least if it is believed that a democratic state should aim at the general good of the people.

A utilitarian assessment of the bathroom choice issue leads to an obvious conclusion: bathroom choice should be granted. As I have argued in another essay, the two main arguments against bathroom choice fail in the face of due consideration and facts. One argument is that allowing bathroom choice would put people in danger. Since some states have already allowed bathroom choice, there is data about the danger presented by such choice. Currently, the evidence shows that there is no meaningful danger. As some wits enjoy pointing out, more Republican lawmakers have been arrested for bathroom misconduct than transgender people. As such, those worried about misdeeds in bathrooms should be focusing on that threat. The other argument is the privacy argument, which falls apart under analysis.

While those advancing these arguments might honestly believe in them, it might be suspected that the prime motivation for opposing bathroom choice is a dislike of transgender people—the “transgender people are icky argument.” This “argument” has no merit on the face of it, which is why it is not advanced as a reason by opponents of bathroom choice.

One stock problem with utilitarian arguments is that they can be used to justify the violation of rights. This problem typically arises in cases in which the benefits received by a numerical majority come at the expense of harms done to a numerical minority. However, it can also arise in cases where the greater benefits to a numerical minority outweigh the lesser harms to a numerical majority. In the case at hand, those opposed to bathroom choice could argue that even if bathroom choice benefits transgender people far more than it harms people who oppose bathroom choice, the rights of anti-choice people are being violated. This then makes the matter a question of competing rights.

In the case of public bathroom facilities, such as student bathrooms at schools, members of the public have the right to use them—that is the nature of public goods. There are, however, reasonable limits placed on access. For example, people are generally not allowed to just wander off the street into schools to use the facilities. Likewise, the bathrooms in courthouses and government buildings are generally not open to anyone to wander off the street and use. So, there is a right to public bathrooms—but, like all rights, it does have its limits. It can thus be assumed that transgender people have bathroom rights as do people who oppose bathroom choice. What is in dispute is whether the right of transgender people to choose their bathroom trumps the right of anti-choice people to not be forced to use bathrooms with transgender people.

Disputes over competing rights are often settled by utilitarian considerations, but the utilitarian argument already favors bathroom choice. As such, another approach is needed and a reasonable one is the consideration of which right has priority. This approach assumes that there is a hierarchy of rights and that one right can take precedent over another. Fortunately, this is intuitively appealing. For example, while people have a right to free expression, the right to not be unjustly harmed trumps it—which is why libel and slander are not protected by this right.

So, the bathroom issue comes down to this: does the right of a transgender person to choose their bathroom have priority over the right of an anti-choice person to not encounter transgender people in the bathroom? My inclination is that the right of the transgender person has priority over the anti-choice person. To support this, I will use an analogy to race.

Not so long ago, there were separate bathrooms for black and white people. When the bathrooms were to be integrated, there were dire warnings that terrible things would occur if bathrooms were integrated. Obviously enough, these terrible things did not take place. Whites could also have argued that they had a right to not be in the same bathroom as blacks. However, the alleged white right to not be in a bathroom with blacks does not seem to trump the right of blacks to use the bathroom. Likewise, the right of transgender people to choose their bathroom trumps the right of anti-choice people to exclude them.

It can be objected that if this argument is taken to its logical conclusion, then gender mixing will occur in the bathrooms. For example, one common sight at road races (such as 5Ks and marathons) are long lines leading to the women’s bathrooms and short lines (or no lines) for the men’s bathrooms. Women runners, desperate to lighten their load, might start going into the men’s room (they already sometimes do). Then terrible things might happen. Specifically, I might need to wait longer to pee before races. This is a case where my selfishness must outweigh my moral principles: though I have no moral objection to gender mixing of bathrooms, my selfish bladder says that I cannot give up my right to a shorter line. This makes me a bad person, but a bad person with a happy bladder. Yes, this is satire. Maybe.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Trump & the Third Party

by 1 Comment

Trump’s ongoing success has created quite a disturbance in the Republican establishment. While some have merely expressed opposition to him, there is a growing “never Trump” movement. While this movement is currently focused on preventing Trump from becoming the candidate by supporting his few remaining opponents, there has been some talk of putting forth a third party candidate.

Third party candidates are nothing new in the United States. Ralph Nader made a bid on the left for president and Ross Perot made an attempt on the libertarian side. The main impact of these attempts was to pull voters from one party and enable the other party to win. For example, Ralph Nader helped defeat Al Gore. As such, the most likely effect of a conservative third party candidate running against Trump and Hillary would be a victory for Hillary. Given that the main concern of most political partisans is the victory of their party, it might be wondered why a third party option would even be considered.

One reason is that of principle. In the case of Nader and Perot, their supporters believed in them and supported them—even though it should have been obvious that doing so would not result in a victory and would, in fact, help someone they ideologically opposed reach the White House. In the case of Trump, there are those who oppose him as a matter of principle. Some oppose his apparent racism and bigotry while others contend that he is not a true conservative in regards to fiscal and social matters. As such, people would most likely be voting for the third party candidate because he is not Trump and not Hillary rather than because of who he is.

While politics is seen mainly as a matter of pragmatic power seeking, a moral case can be made for a Republican to vote for a third party candidate on the basis of principle rather than for Trump or for Hillary. If Trump and Hillary are both regarded as roughly equal in evil and the person wishes to vote, then voting for either would be wrong from that person’s perspective. After all, voting for a person makes one responsible (albeit to a tiny degree) for the consequences of their being in power. Voting for a third party candidate the person either supports or regards as the least evil of the lot would thus be the best option in terms of principle. If the person regards one of the two main candidates as the greatest evil, then the person should vote for the lesser evil that is likely to win, as I argued in an earlier essay.

A second reason to run a third party candidate is a matter of damage control. The predictions are that while Trump is winning the largest fraction of the minority of Republican voters who vote in primaries he will have a negative impact on voter turnout. While the third party strategy concedes that Trump will lose the general election, the hope is that a third party alternative who is popular enough will get people to vote. This, it is hoped, will help the Republicans do well on other parts of the ticket, such as elections for senators and representatives. As such, there is an excellent pragmatic reason to run a third party option to Trump—to reduce the chance that the never Trump voters will simply stay home to Netflix and chill on election day.

While this strategy might have some short term benefits to Republicans, running a third party candidate against the official Republican candidate would make the chasm in the party official—it would presumably be the potential beginning of the end of the party, splitting the establishment from a very active part of the base. This could, of course, be a good thing—the Republican Party seems to have been fragmenting for quite some time and the establishment has drifted away from much of the common folk.

A third reason to run a third party candidate is to hope for a Hail Mary. There is some talk that a third party candidate could cash in on the never Trump and Hillary Haters to create a situation in which there is no winner of the election. In such a situation, the House would pick the president and the Senate would select the vice-president. Since the Republicans control the House and Senate, the result would mostly likely be that the third party Republican would be president.

While this is a longshot, it is not impossible. The likely result of such a power play would be to break apart the Republican party—those who support Trump already loath the establishment and this would probably distill that into hatred. But, looked at pragmatically, the game is about holding power for as long as one can—so the power players would probably be content to take the win on the grounds that the party was probably going to split anyway.

This election could see a truly historic event—the end of the Republican party as it currently exists and perhaps the rise of a new party or parties.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Trumping Along

by Leave a Comment

When Donald Trump announced his candidacy, many people laughed. He even managed to create some bipartisan agreement among my liberal and my conservative friends: they generally believed that while Trump would be good theatre, he would either fade away or implode in a magnificent and huge manner. As Trump kept Trumping along, many of my conservative friends began to sweat just a little—while they are often dedicated conservatives, the idea of a Trump presidency was not very appealing. My liberal friends tried to reassure themselves that if Trump was picked to run against Hillary, a Democratic victory was assured. However, I could tell they were sweating a little. Now that it is the second week of December and Trump is Trumping along, I am sure that at least some people are waking up in the middle of the night, visions of President Trump trumpeting in their heads.

Since expert pundits and establishment politicians predicted that Trump would not go the distance, it is certainly worth considering why he is doing so well. While primarily a matter of politics and psychology, there are also matters of philosophical interest here.

One major factor in regards to Trumps success is that the Republican party and conservative strategists created an ecosystem that is nearly perfect for Trump. First, there has been a sustained attack on reason and intellectuals. For example, Obama is derisively described as professorial and thinking too much. Trump does not create the impression that he is thinking too much and is regarded more as the school bully rather than the professor. This seems to be a factor that is hurting Bush—he is a man who thinks and grasps the complications of politics.

Second, there has been a narrative of weakness leveled against Democrats and there have been unfavorable comparisons made between Obama and “strongmen” like Putin. Trump nicely fits the “strongman” model—he is brash, full of bravado, bullying and loud. While this stick was mainly used to beat Democrats, Trump has gleefully employed it to bash his weaker Republican opponents, such as the “low energy” Jeb Bush.

Third, there have been subtle and not so subtle uses of race in political scare tactics and manipulation. While people do have race issues and fears that do not come from the politicians, the use of race has helped forge a space for Trump. He also has a very effective narrative in that he is engaged in the culture war against the politically correct culture. Trump is willing to take this fight beyond lines that most institutional Republicans, such as Paul Ryan and Dick Cheney, are unwilling to cross. It is worth noting that some blame the political correctness machinations of some Democrats for helping Trump out here.

Fourth, there has been a repeated narrative of attacking the establishment. For the most part, this has been mere rhetoric—establishment figures say they are going to go (back) to Washington to fight the establishment. But they usually just settle in. Trump is a genuine outsider to politics and he is clearly willing to go hard against the establishment. This is not to diminish the fact that people also have their own reasons to be angry at the establishment—mainly because of what it has (and has not) done. If America had been better governed, Trump would probably not have made it past the first few months. While this is a dagger that the Republicans like to use to stab the Democrats, it works great against fellow Republicans.

Fifth, there has been an ongoing war against the “liberal media” which has trained many people to reject the mainstream media as biased and lacking in credibility. Since one role of the media is to vet candidates and to call candidates out for lies, this means that Trump has an easy reply to any criticism from the media—even from the conservative media (such as Trumps bouts with Fox).

Sixth, while the use of scare tactics (the fallacy of offering as “evidence” for a claim something that is intended to cause fear and thus motivate acceptance) is as old as politics, the conservatives have beaten the drum of fearing foreigners for quite some time (Democrats also take turns at the drums of fear and panic). Trump is just devouring this fear and growing huge.

Another major factor in Trump’s success is the very real dissatisfaction of Americans. While the economic recovery has returned most of the wealth that the richest people lost, the majority of Americans are still suffering from the enduring economic scars. There is also the fact that wages have stagnated and the lower economic classes (that is, most of us) are worse off than our predecessors. As Bernie Sanders has pointed out for decades, there is grotesque economic inequality in America.

While Americans have been conditioned to dislike socialism and love capitalism, people cannot help but feel the impact of this inequality. As such, they need to reconcile their economic worries with their ideology—they need someone to blame other than the rich. While Americans are mostly reluctant to blame those who are clearly responsible (those who benefit from the inequality and those who serve them so well), they feel that someone must be to blame. Trump has been able to tap into this dissatisfaction, as many a skilled demagogue has tapped into economic dissatisfaction before him.  In fact, what is somewhat surprising is that it took so long for a demagogue to arise.

A third factor in Trump’s success, as noted above, is the fear many Americans feel in regards to safety. After the Cold War ended, a narrative of terrorism was lovingly crafted to scare Americans—helped by real terrorism, of course. The United States also faces the fear caused by repeated mass shootings and high levels of violence. This creates a deep well of fear that Trump can draw from repeatedly.

When people are afraid, they tend to reason poorly and act stupidly in very predictable ways. One part of this stupidity is that people often seek a leader who is loud, confident and promises that he will solve the problems, usually using means that most others initially regard as morally unacceptable. This willingness to act in such ways is often seen as strength and, in many cases, can actually match the views of those who start following the leader. Trump knows how to deal and how to put on a show and a second aspect of stupidity in this area is that people are drawn to the safety theatre rather than to the rather dull and complicated things that actually enable people to be safe.

Trump could very well ride the wave of fear and dissatisfaction through the primaries and emerge as the Republican candidate. While the professional pundits claim that Trump would be trounced in the general election, his numbers are not that bad. Also, the hallmark of the professional pundit seems to be being consistently wrong. So, get ready for Trump 2016.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

%d bloggers like this: