By Deepa Majumdar
In the theater of the 2016 American presidential elections, Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton each played a role. Notwithstanding their distinctive differences, a Tycoon, a Revolutionary, and a Bureaucrat could not have exhausted the limitless possibilities of America’s political theater. Some would say that all three were better than a religious zealot. Others, that given the need of the hour – neither Mr. Trump, nor Mrs. Clinton were good enough. At this extraordinary historical moment – the last phase of jihadi post-colonialism – what one needed was a moral giant – a color-gender-class blind leader, who forged his pragmatism in the fire of his idealism – not vice versa (as a cynic would). What one needed was a leader strong enough to defend the nation from all real and imagined threats to its charmed domestic existence and menacing international presence. Above all, what one needed was a leader who would love not only his own people but also the common humanity they share with the rest of the world. In short, the need of the hour was for a true Cosmopolitan – to lead this uniquely cosmopolitan nation-state.
To understand this historically matchless election one has to look beyond American history to the tincture of nihilism that colors our times – to the valorization of anger, the fragmented consciousness, and the cynical materialism that characterize the malaise of modernity. It may be tempting to say that Mr. Trump attracted the redneck vote so that America remains a racist redneck nation. No doubt, a touch of the wild lingers in this lawless nation of laws – as evinced by America’s love affair with the gun. Some might say that a gun-slinging cowboy lingers in the soul of the Redneck Biker for Trump, who now rides a motorcycle instead of a horse. Others might point to toy weapons as the sure insignia of a warrior nation that militarizes its children. Yet America is as much a Historical Conundrum as any other – perhaps more, given its superpower status.
The same America that loves justice also betrays justice often enough through race, class, religious, and gender inequalities. The same America that adores external political freedom, neglects the self-control essential for inner freedom without which, external freedom becomes a farce. The same America that worships Lady Liberty also engaged in the brutal trans-Atlantic slave trade. The same Bastion of Modernity that has made unique contributions to science, technology, and the ideals of democracy, yet harbors a fact-denying delusional thinking that draws from religious zealotry and the wild subjectivity of pecuniary “realists.” The same nation of unfettered creative individuality also seeks to overcome the ego through experiential (often esoteric) spirituality. The same bully-nation that imposes democracy in violent, dictatorial ways – through the hi-tech war and the bullet – also rebels and protests democratically – through the ballot. The same isolated imperialistic America that calls foreigners “aliens,” yet grants refuge to the persecuted. Thus no simple answers suffice to understand the complex mood of the electorate – except this. The rise of a Donald Trump was inevitable – given the range of dimensions and guises sought by this chameleon-like Historical Conundrum. Some would say that the anger of the electorate during 2016 was aimed not only at the Plutocracy in Washington DC – being thereby the most authentic voice of democracy ever – but also at political correctness. Fed up with the sale of their democracy, Americans – so the narrative would claim – were determined to reclaim their democracy, by voting for an outsider. But herein lies the grandest irony of all ironies. The electorate fought plutocracy by voting not for an idealist – but for the quintessential Conman Plutocrat America has ever produced – namely “the Donald,” who, one might say, purchased the presidency, without money changing hands.
Jill Harth – a woman who accused Mr. Trump of sexual assault – said that with this win, he pulled the biggest con ever. But nobody can be conned unless he is naïve and deluded. If indeed Mr. Trump managed to con the electorate, this speaks volumes about the latter. It ruptures the romantic worldview the Left often possesses about the oppressed – that they are necessarily heroic, politically just, and goodhearted. In fact, many among the blue-collar, often indigent Trump voters are perhaps wannabe millionaires – materialistic and hate-filled enough to be deluded and conned by Mr. Trump. But there was a second broad reason for rebellion through this election. Fed up with asphyxiating Political Correctness that demonized “the white male,” Trump supporters expressed a vengeful backlash that reclaimed the proverbial “white male” in his unvarnished imperial vulgarity. We should not be surprised that “the Donald’s” supporters included the Alt Right and the Ku Klux Klan. It isn’t enough to cite statistics here – to see what percentage of Trump voters were white men. The deeper question has to do with the nature, ethics, and efficacy of revolution and with the three characters involved.
It was indeed heartening to see a poster saying “character matters” in the post-election protests against Donald Trump – the only president-elect to have elicited protests. It is Trump, the man that protestors are protesting. It was equally Bernie, the man that his followers loved. If Mr. Trump, with deep cunning unified his followers by stoking hatred against Washington DC, President Obama, women, Muslims, Mexicans, immigrants, the media – the list goes on and on – then Senator Sanders unified his followers with altruism for the underdog and righteous indignation against the American plutocracy. Although white and male, Senator Sanders has been unselfish enough to accept the verdict of History in the liberal wrath against the “white male.”
As for Hillary Clinton’s supporters, some said they were voting for the “least of all evils” – others that they were voting for experience at the cost of character defects – and still others (especially women) blinded by gender bias, that they were voting for a woman they admired as the only candidate with foreign policy experience. Plutocracy and political correctness go hand-in-hand. In a militaristic plutocracy, it is inevitable that the voice of conscience will fade into its faint echo – which is political correctness. Yet, although a skeletal shadow of conscience, political correctness is a lifeline to cling to – for those who lack conscience altogether. It is a lifeline for the likes of “the Donald” and for all who claim to be “post-truth” (the most dangerous of all philosophical takes on truth). It is this faint echo of conscience that keeps them tethered to the very truth they deny in their reckless egotism. Instead of deriding political correctness, they should therefore heed it – not merely as a means to social justice – but as salvation for their own fading souls. But for those who already hear the voice of conscience, political correctness can be inadequate, redundant – even harmful. For, it deals in 3 generalities, ignoring the individual. Unlike conscience, political correctness cannot be individuated by individual circumstances and spiritual needs. It generalizes – and all generalizations are vulgar distractions from true justice. After all, not all white males are evil and not all women are good. What this election reveals, reaches perhaps far deeper than the immediate travails of the American democracy. It proves that it is not enough to have the best structure and set of rules (aimed at checks and balances) in the world. For democracy is no mere formula encoded in a constitution. The pre-designed structure of democracy that looks good on paper – comes to life as a living, breathing polity – only through the actors who enact it. And if these actors lack spiritual discernment – then regardless of how great the constitution might be, we end up with a worldly warring democracy – wherein deluded voters vote for narcissistic, bombastic candidates who represent what they themselves crave – raw power.
From this standpoint, the electorate ought not to be coddled – as political pundits often do. No constitution on earth can guarantee a good-hearted electorate. For the most part, the people as such will be a mix of good and evil. They will be largely self-centered and narcissistic in their views of the nation and the world and in their democratic choices. Indeed, if free-will comes with the risk of evil, then democracy comes with the risk of mob-rule. The voice of the Rust Belt therefore should not be coddled. Not merely about pink slips, nor just about the economy, this voice was surely a sign of the times. It was a sign of a civilization in a downward spiral, as it has been since the pre-emptive attack on Iraq, when more than 100,000 innocent Iraqis died – with little to no contrition by the American voter for what his government did in his name. Signifying a futile nostalgia for a mythic American greatness, the slogan, “make America great again” was perhaps the surest sign ever of a sinking ship.
In fact, the root of American anger – which, on the surface seems aimed at plutocracy, political correctness, and the government’s indifference to the woes of the electorate – lies perhaps more in a growing-grudging awareness that America’s role as superpower is over – that the sun of America is setting on the Horizon of History. If nothing else, this election has proved that America is not outside the pale of world history. For in this Age of Strongmen, “the Donald” is America’s contribution to the pageant of history. The extreme opposition between Mr. Trump and Mr. Sanders – in terms of character and ideology – and the fact that they contested the same election, are again a sign of the times. For modernity demands exacerbation of the opposition between the opposites. Indeed, we are living in times when a Tycoon and a Revolutionary will appear with simultaneity into the theater of politics. Alleviating their extreme opposition will be someone seemingly neutral – like a Bureaucrat. Thus, the fact that a Tycoon, a Revolutionary and a Bureaucrat, all three contested the same elections – is again a sure emblem of modernity.
This election proves as well that revolution – like the market – can be no more than a utilitarian arbiter that delivers results amorally. No more than a channel for human discontent – a revolution, on its own, is neither good nor evil. Like an indifferent wheel, it returns again and again from one node of injustice to another – rarely reaching the balance of justice. The results it delivers become good or evil – or something in between – depending on the nature of the cause it serves – and on 4 the character and actions of the people who revolt through it. In the end it is the people who determine the moral quality of a revolution, a democracy, and a nation. Civilizations rise by the virtues of their people. Equally, they fall by the vices of their people. The results of the 2016 American elections tell us that we are at a crossroads – that the need of the hour is for radical resurgence in the very heart and soul of this polity. Like the human soul, which cannot rise unless it first falls, the same is perhaps true of nations.
(The author is Prof. Philosophy, Purdue University Northwest – Westville)