Trump's Renormalizing of Politics

Since his famous escalator ride, Donald Trump has, as Jacob Levy documented repeatedly, undermined many democratic norms and also the quiet, vital functioning of the government's role as a machinery of record. And while often, alongside the endless deception and bigoted offensiveness, Trump is very funny, his remarks this week are not humorous at all. They are dangerous: purposely undermining the credibility of the electoral process risks generating a non-peaceful transfer of power, or even civil war. As I write, he has not conceded the election yet.

So, it may seem perverse to rehabilitate Trump even in qualified sense. While a case can be made that, perhaps together with Jimmy Carter, Donald Trump was the most pacific president in the age of American empire. But this claim must be qualified, in turn, because the evidence suggests he only escalated the number drone attacks abroad; and here. But today I am going to leave that aside.**

Rather, Trump is to be credited for having (ahh) re-politicized politics. And my suggestion here is that as dangerous as this is, it is not all bad. As I write this around 145,000,000 votes have been counted, and many more -- including in populous places like California and New York -- remain uncounted. The 2020 election will be the highest turnout election in a century, perhaps longer. (To say that, is compatible with noticing that the United States makes it uncommonly difficult to vote; and has striking tendency to disenfranchise whole groups of citizens.) Now to be sure, as Orwell taught, one of the great virtues of a well functioning liberal society is that it permits one to be indifferent to politics without major cost. And, undoubtedly, a non-trivial amount of President Elect's Biden voters voted, in part, for the right to be able to ignore politics at least much of the time. (Feel free to call that 'privilege.')

Even so, the increased turn out reflects a real, renewed interest in politics. And that's because Trump seemed to offer a real choice distinct from the pre-existing status quo along multiple dimensions. And while I do not deny the significance of his ability to entertain, and to draw any attention to himself, his real almost instinctive genius was to frame every issue in terms of winners and losers that drew everybody into taking sides, often existential, and identity shaping (and aesthetically significant (here; here) sides. And in so doing he re-activated and mobilized the, one might say, ur-form of politics: the zero-sum fight (and recall).*

And while in power Trump left the running of much of the government to the cadres of those he had defeated (who delivered tax cuts for the rich, deregulation of environmental standards, and conservative justices), his rhetoric and persona altered the political landscape (including a changed conception of American empire--about which more in the future). But not unlike other demagogues, he failed to adapt to changing circumstances and his luck ran out at the worst possible moment.** 

The record turn-out (by US standards) was, of course, also a mobilization against Trump. And this mobilization was, in part, as Biden's campaign repeatedly suggested, in part about a truly alternative political vision, also of the political, for the country. This vision blends commitment to liberal and republican (in the traditional senses of both terms) ideals: it's a politics of inclusive win-win, logrolling compromises and a certain amount of anodyne cliches emphasizing unity.  

I do not want to suggest that Biden's Democrats are in all things the opposite to Trump. While Biden is no socialist, there is a clear retreat in the air from open borders, from free trade, and from market solutions to social problems. The last decade has reminded progressives of the awesome powers of the Presidency; and while wisdom would counsel a renewed vigor at curtailing the executive -- the next authoritarian nationalist may show more interest in being authoritarian --, I expect, on the contrary, more energetic attempts at using it. The debate to come is more about the manner of deploying government than its scope. (For more on my views about the future Biden presidency recall here.) 

So, my point is simple: Trump's ability to mobilize his base, and to mobilize a coalition against his, is constitutive of democratic politics. And his success has re-established citizen interest in political affairs. This energetic element of American polarization is not to be deplored; it is one of the ingredients of a lively, even healthy polity. In recognizing the inhumanity and dangers of a Trump presidency, American citizens also rediscovered what they value. To recognize this is to accept one the most fundamental liberal insights -- I learned it from Walter Lippmann --, that the survival and flourishing of liberal polity may well also require the presence of illiberal parties and commitments in order to maintain liberalism’s own vitality and thereby the vitality of the whole. 

One feature that a liberal conception of markets and liberal education have in common is a willingness to tolerate unpredictable outcomes. In markets this is due to fundamental uncertainty; in education it is due to our willingness to let the young find their own way and surprise us with their ingenuity and creativity.+

Political mobilization is also inherently unstable and unpredictable; but, as BLM has reminded us the last few years, it helps us discover not just what we we want/desire, but also who and what kind of 'we' we wish to be. And, so, we must acknowledge -- even those like me who prefer political debates to be settled by reasoned discussion in representative bodies--, that such mobilization is an essential ingredient to political self-legislation. 

The fact that also illiberal, disruptive, and even immoral forces must be tolerated to a considerable degree means that American experiment in self-government is intrinsically dangerous. It will not always be lucky in its enemies. For, the demagogues and the authoritarian-nationalists are enduring archetypes of democratic politics. Given that our modern profit-driven, algorithmic mediated media feed on anger and emotion, it is predictable we have not seen the last of them.

 

 

 

*Yes, he used the language of 'deals'--but in his universe, the point of a deal was to show the other a sucker. 

**I also hope to return some day to reflect a bit critically on the so-called 'resistance' that successfully de-legitimized his victory. 

+Yes, we educators often fall short of this. 

Comments

[Charles Blattberg]

Interesting post, though I couldn't disagree more. Following those such as Bernard Crick (https://books.google.ca/books/about/In_Defence_of_Politics.html?id=uHPUAwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false), I define politics as the practice of responding to conflict with dialogue. Trump, in consequence, is anti-political.

[David Zimmerman]

This is a genuinely stupid argument.
The Trump years have done nothing that is "constitutive of democratic politics."
His "base" is filled with people drawn to authoritarian rule.