Iv'e never been a triumphalist. Perhaps, somewhere deep inside I'm too superstitious. Fortuna's wheel can turn against you on a dime and certainly doesn't need any temptation to thwart your plans or wishes. Some people, of course, are triumphalists for a living, such as political media professionals. They have to continually talk in triumphant terms to project a sense of confidence. But, other than such professionals, I've noticed that the smarter people are, the less likely they are to speak in triumphalist terms. It appears to me that competent people are more likely to be cautious about potential outcomes, and less likely to talk boastfully about their victories. Such people are probably seldom caught in a psychological state of superstition, as I suspect I am. Rather, I think they are keenly aware that overconfidence tends to lead one to make mistakes, and boastfulness alienates potential allies.
On the other hand, I've also noticed that people with little analysis (or to be less polite, stupid people) are often wildly triumphalist and nauseatingly boastful. And in politics, this correlation appears to be even more pronounced. I don't think I noticed this connection until later in life. This oversight is, I think, in part because I really tried to avoid listening to what rightwingers were saying, unless they were particularly bright and needed to be listened to for strategic reasons. However, the internet put an end to my ignorance fairly quickly because it is simply difficult to avoid the most rattled, shockingly ignorant opinions out there. I came late to the party and wasn't particularly struck by this rightwing triumphalism of ignorance until it looked like Justin Trudeau was going to run for the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Everywhere I looked, Conservatives seemed downright giddy about the prospect of Trudeau leading the Liberal Party. They were so happy with the prospect that they kept talking in child-like triumphalist terms, saying things like "Please, please, please make Trudeau the leader of the Liberals because then the Conservatives will have the biggest majority in history." Now, I've never been a Liberal and the people I have voted for have, literally, never won an election. But I try to be as objective as possible about what might happen politically. And it seemed to me, at every objective level, that Trudeau was going to be a very popular candidate for the Liberals. He was young, personable, attractive and friendly - particularly when set against the Conservative incumbent, Harper, who was objectively (regardless of your politics) older, secretive, stand-offish, decidedly unfriendly, and (by most standards) less attractive. The distinction was so clear that I even cautioned many rightwingers online that their triumphalism was dangerous to their political goals and that underestimating a formidable opponent was a classic political mistake. The blinder and less informed these people were, the more they seemed to relish in facing a Trudeau-led Liberal party in the election. We all know the outcome of this story.
But no one is more triumphalist than the followers of a populist leader. And among this group, surely none are so wildly optimistic as Trump supporters. I can't tell you how many times I've seen Trump supporters on film or online bragging about the LANDSLIDE victory that Trump is going to have in the November election. And I really think most of them believe it. This phenomenon mystifies me. There have certainly been presidential elections that we can fittingly call "landslides," but many presidential elections are close run affairs. Even John Kennedy, who was a very popular president, only won election by less than one percentage point over Nixon. And, of course, because they have the antiquated Electoral College in the US, presidents can win the election while simultaneous losing the popular vote. I believe only five people have ever lost the popular vote and then won the election, two of them in my life time (George W. Bush, and Trump). And Trump's loss of the popular vote was by far the largest for anyone who then won the electoral college. In fact, there is really no comparison. Trump lost the popular vote by over 2.8 million votes. The next in line of infamy of minority victors is George W. Bush who lost by a mere 500k. Now, putting aside elections with strong third-party candidates, we can safely say that Trump is, in terms of pure numbers, the least popular man to win the White House. Hardcore Trump supporters who live with aluminum foil hats will, of course, deny this fact and scream about non-existent voter fraud etc. But let's live in the real world.
Thus, putting aside the real whackos, what would ever lead someone to a level of triumphalism to say that Trump is going to win by a landslide? Particularly given that Trump is the only president (since modern polls began) to never register above the 50% mark in popularity. Now, don't get me wrong - Trump could still win the next election, though it is hard to imagine, without some wildly unpredictable event, him winning the popular vote at this point. In fact, the only president who lost the popular vote and then went on to win a second term was George W. Bush, and his second election was by no means a landslide. And even though Trump is going up against someone who is, I think, a fairly poor candidate from an objective point of view (given his age, his baggage, his hapless tendencies, and corporatism at a time when the Democratic rank and file are leaning more to the left), I think there is almost no chance for Trump to win the popular vote. And, keep in mind, even to win the Electoral College vote Trump has to essentially get, at the very least, every vote he won last time (no easy feat for a president who has never broke the 50% mark of popularity and is arguably the least popular president since, at least, Herbert Hoover). Hoover, by the way, lost his second term election by an incredible %17 margin!
For now, given the potential company, I'm going to stick with my avoidance of triumphalism. Other than saying that Trump probably won't win by a landslide, I don't know what the outcome of the next election will be. And, I will try to remember that it is hard to underestimate the intelligence of the American public. Meanwhile, I will watch the rightwing triumphalists and think, "be careful, history can turn on you when you least expect it."
Showing posts with label Trump. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trump. Show all posts
Thursday, June 11, 2020
Friday, March 18, 2016
The "Melting-Pot" is Boiling Over. . . .
There has, understandably, been much talk recently about the potential decline of the US into genuine fascism. Strict discourse on such matters depends, of course, on how one defines the political ideology of fascism. Dr. Lawrence Britt, offers us a fairly straightforward definition of fascism here. There is little doubt in my mind that even sticking with such strict definitions, the US is currently edging toward genuine fascism.
At the very least, the US is falling toward a difficult and dangerous situation in which outright violence (that is to say, not simply systemic violence) committed by civilians in the name of a perceived nationalism, is taking the place of 'normal' political discourse. Not only has Trump begun to encourage and justify violence by his supporters, his supporters have upped the ante and begun to talk about carrying guns at rallies and voting booths, and killing opponents as a matter of course. As routine as violence has become in a country like the US, even those inured to such matters should be sweating a little more nervously of late.
The great American writer Sinclair Lewis once wrote a novel "It Can't Happen Here," in which he attempted to remind his fellow citizens how easy the slide toward fascism can occur and how vulnerable American was to this potential slide. Regardless of what happens from here, political historians will talk for a long time about the events we are seeing unfold. They give us a strange sense of unreality as we watch, much like we had here in Canada as Harper slowly attempted to pervert the history of this country gradually and from the inside. But, as they often are, events in the US are more intense and radical than they are in Canada, and this is like the Harper revolution on crack.
Daniel Marans and Ryan Grim have written an interesting article on how the Trump phenomenon could fall into traditional fascist violence. "Extreme political movements like Trump's" they say, "often go hand-in-hand with street violence. But organized militias like Hitler's Brown Shirts and Benito Mussolini's Black Shirts don't spring up overnight. They evolve."
And, in retrospect, we have seen that evolution over the past fifty years in America. As the demographics have changed, we have seen diversity become the norm in American society and many whites have resented this process as they see their traditional entitlement and power slipping away. I think that there is an irony in this fact because I think that it has evolved directly from the US notion of a social 'melting pot.' Many white Americans had a vision that diversity would mix society together such that they would still live in the same society they had always known, just simply one that had people of colour still "towing the line" of traditional "white values." Ironic too is the way conservatives here in Canada have maligned and attacked policies of "multi-culturalism," because I suspect it has been such policies that have actually prevented the white population from feeling too entitled and waking up suddenly, as many have done in the US, feeling as though they have been "taken over." In other words, while many Canadians have grown gradually accustomed to a diverse society, many white Americans have been "taken by surprise" by what they perceive to be a suddenly changing demographic. I understand this process empirically because when I grew up in the US, it was clear to me that immigrants and "non-whites" were simply expected to "integrate" into US society. When I came to Canada still in my youth, I experienced a very different attitude. Though racism was still evident, I saw that there was a much greater expectation that there was strength and enrichment in diversity and that we could celebrate different cultural aspects and still unite together. This issue is exactly why, when Harper and his minions tried to stoke the flames of racism as a way of getting reelected, they were considerably less successful than someone like Trump could be.
What happens in the next few months and years in the US is anyone's guess. Fascism doesn't happen with a sudden coup or the election of an autocrat. It begins years before when a nation lets its anger, bigotry, and hate take over its political discourse, a tendency which inevitably slides into violence.
At the very least, the US is falling toward a difficult and dangerous situation in which outright violence (that is to say, not simply systemic violence) committed by civilians in the name of a perceived nationalism, is taking the place of 'normal' political discourse. Not only has Trump begun to encourage and justify violence by his supporters, his supporters have upped the ante and begun to talk about carrying guns at rallies and voting booths, and killing opponents as a matter of course. As routine as violence has become in a country like the US, even those inured to such matters should be sweating a little more nervously of late.
The great American writer Sinclair Lewis once wrote a novel "It Can't Happen Here," in which he attempted to remind his fellow citizens how easy the slide toward fascism can occur and how vulnerable American was to this potential slide. Regardless of what happens from here, political historians will talk for a long time about the events we are seeing unfold. They give us a strange sense of unreality as we watch, much like we had here in Canada as Harper slowly attempted to pervert the history of this country gradually and from the inside. But, as they often are, events in the US are more intense and radical than they are in Canada, and this is like the Harper revolution on crack.
Daniel Marans and Ryan Grim have written an interesting article on how the Trump phenomenon could fall into traditional fascist violence. "Extreme political movements like Trump's" they say, "often go hand-in-hand with street violence. But organized militias like Hitler's Brown Shirts and Benito Mussolini's Black Shirts don't spring up overnight. They evolve."
And, in retrospect, we have seen that evolution over the past fifty years in America. As the demographics have changed, we have seen diversity become the norm in American society and many whites have resented this process as they see their traditional entitlement and power slipping away. I think that there is an irony in this fact because I think that it has evolved directly from the US notion of a social 'melting pot.' Many white Americans had a vision that diversity would mix society together such that they would still live in the same society they had always known, just simply one that had people of colour still "towing the line" of traditional "white values." Ironic too is the way conservatives here in Canada have maligned and attacked policies of "multi-culturalism," because I suspect it has been such policies that have actually prevented the white population from feeling too entitled and waking up suddenly, as many have done in the US, feeling as though they have been "taken over." In other words, while many Canadians have grown gradually accustomed to a diverse society, many white Americans have been "taken by surprise" by what they perceive to be a suddenly changing demographic. I understand this process empirically because when I grew up in the US, it was clear to me that immigrants and "non-whites" were simply expected to "integrate" into US society. When I came to Canada still in my youth, I experienced a very different attitude. Though racism was still evident, I saw that there was a much greater expectation that there was strength and enrichment in diversity and that we could celebrate different cultural aspects and still unite together. This issue is exactly why, when Harper and his minions tried to stoke the flames of racism as a way of getting reelected, they were considerably less successful than someone like Trump could be.
What happens in the next few months and years in the US is anyone's guess. Fascism doesn't happen with a sudden coup or the election of an autocrat. It begins years before when a nation lets its anger, bigotry, and hate take over its political discourse, a tendency which inevitably slides into violence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
