#457 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Thursday September 15)
Good morning,
THE AGE OF GRIEVANCE
I read an article the other day that defines those supporting Trump’s indefensible claims as identifying with a “narrative of grievance.” Another article, this The New York Times, describes this phenomenon as “the politics of persecution.” I’ve thought about this a lot. It seems to me this is precisely Trump’s appeal and the appeal of those running for lesser office under the claim that the system is stacked against them or that the rules are unfair (like the valid counting of votes…). Mr. Trump claims he is an outsider, declares the game to be fixed, and asserts that he cannot get a fair hearing in this system. Trump appeals to others in our nation who feel aggrieved by a system that isn’t working for them.
There is something here. It is not that Donald Trump is uniquely aggrieved, or even aggrieved at all. It is that there are grievances in the wind—grievances that are, to varying degrees, and they feel legitimate to those voicing these grievances. Some of these grievances have merit or are, at least, a reflection of unfortunate circumstances in search of a cause. Neither political party has yet proved itself adept at understanding the nature and source of these grievances, such that they are able to articulate a clear path toward addressing them. Because these grievances haven’t yet found a political home, they gravitate toward someone who speaks outwardly, often, and outrageously about a “rigged system.” Trump has been (by design or by luck) successfully tapping into these grievances by asserting he, too, is a victim.
GRIEVANCE OVER POLICY
Much has been written about the working class and rural Americans who have benefited from, and will continue to benefit from, legislation propounded by the Democratic Party. Indeed, for most of my life, the Democratic Party has been seen as the party of the “working man.” Yet, many of these people, the primary beneficiaries of Obama Care and Democratic legislation propounded during and following COVID, continue to support Trump. It was then that the epiphany dawned on me. Trump’s supporters would rather vote for a candidate who shares their sense of grievance and unfairness about the system, over those who might actually legislate matters that accrue to their benefit.
Trump won in 2016 because he seized upon the sense of grievance of a large swathe of the populace. Yet that populace has yet to grasp that their interests and those of Mr. Trump and his acolytes (beyond the rhetoric) are not aligned.
WHERE GRIEVANCE LEADS TO RADICAL POLITICAL ACTION
There are historic examples of when popular grievance eventually found a political home. Sometimes it was productive, although they took different forms. Some were grievances primarily of the privileged class (the American Revolution). Some were grievances of those oppressed by a stronger neighbor (Eastern Europe in 1989). Others were grievances coming from a confluence of the grievances of labor and the realizations of the elites trying to respond (the Progressive movement of Teddy Roosevelt, the New Deal). Sometimes it is peaceful change in reaction to historical inequities (Martin Luther King, Jr. and the civil rights movement).
Troubling, however, is that more often than not, grievance manifests itself in revolutionary behaviors that aren’t focused (or focused on scapegoats) and they don’t always end well. The Germans in the 1930s had legitimate grievances against an inflationary economy and the devastation wrought by the Treaty of Versailles imposed at the end of World War I. That didn’t end well. The radical clerics of Iran were able to hijack the more modest and short-lived democratic movement responding to the Shah’s perceived excesses. The rural class (always restive in China) stood behind the movement founded by Sun Yat-sen, evolving to the more extreme Mao, only to find a despot who brought on the Cultural Revolution and other horrors.
ROBESPIERRE WAS SURPRISED
When the anger of the populace is unleashed through incendiary language and calls to arms, almost anything can happen. The French Revolution began as a movement arising from rational thought and a enlightened philosophy against monarchical excesses, in a country of culture, manners, law and good will. In short order, the revolution descended into cascading anger, violence, and retribution. Many of the leaders condoned violence against other factions. But in unleashing anger and violence, they weren’t prepared for the extent of destruction that would ensue. Even the leaders who supported earlier stages of the revolution weren’t safe. Robespierre I’m sure was quite surprised when the revolution eventually turned on him.
SOME GRIEVANCE GROUPS HAVE COALESCED
I view Donald Trump’s interactions less as ideological and more opportunistic. His actions can best be seen not as value-driven but as episodic. I think those who support him are similarly opportunistic. I doubt the majority of his supporters support his policies. After all, many of his policies seem to widen the gap between the wealthy and the poor, increase volatility in the world (see, e.g., the attempts to weaken NATO, pulling out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership), and do little to improve the economic condition of the working class (see, e.g., the effects of the trade war with China). The reason that people support him—and you’ve all heard this as much as I—is that he “says what needs to be said” or “he’s not afraid to further American values” or some other such nonsense. Those supporting him do so because they have not yet found another voice or outlet for their grievance.
There are some who appear more motivated by policy and action than by grievance. They lie at the fringes and pose their own issues. Those who believe in moving well past the social-democratic order under which we now function, to a more robust state controlled economy, higher taxation, and a “leveling” of society have found Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and AOC. A more frightening example is that many of the far right of aggrieved angry and underemployed white men (who now find it easier to find each other thanks to the miracle of social media) have found extremist groups and the likes of Rand Paul, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Matt Gaetz. And those who believe that systemic racism is the only explanation for every unequal result in society gravitate toward their own prescriptions for our society.
There is a huge vacuum to be filled. It is the as-yet unfocused acknowledgement that money is power, it is concentrated, and it isn’t in a sharing mood. It is in the undereducated for the workforce, people who were promised prosperity in an economy that left them behind. It is the dwindling middle class in the midst of huge tax breaks for corporations. Most recently, Senator Sinema of Arizona held out support for recent legislation, with which she agreed, in return for the essentially indefensible “carried interest exemption” for venture capitalists and hedge fund managers.
There yet has emerged a reasonable, centrist, voice that can give context to economic and social grievances and provide real-world solutions, financially and politically achievable results. The Gilded Age led to Teddy Roosevelt. The Depression led to Franklin Roosevelt. Jim Crow led to the Civil Rights movement. Out of the ruin of World War II came Dwight Eisenhower, JFK, and an entire generation of legislators and jurists of moderation that also shared the soaring ambition to improve lives of all Americans. Hopefully our current dilemma will breed similar enlightened leadership. I fear that, unless voices emerge that speak to the dull drudgery of governing, firebrands will emerge that will be difficult to control.
We are in a transitional period and the contours of what emerges are not at all clear.
DEMOCRACY IS NOT A FORGONE CONCLUSION
Amidst all the grievances in the air, our democracy is under attack. There are some things that are difficult to fix—the Senate is always going to skew toward small rural states and electoral votes are disproportionately allocated to these states. There are things we can fix—like amending the Electoral Count Act to reduce the risk of mischief; admitting the District of Columbia as a state (finally enfranchising nearly 800,000 voters); expanding the House of Representatives. These things and others can be fixed by Congress.
But representative democracy also is under attack through the anti-democratic actions of state legislatures, through gerrymandering, the weakening (or elimination) of nonpartisan election administrators, and resisting greater access to voting. And, as has been made clear by the fight of former President Trump, Rudy Giuliani and a cast of acolytes and sycophants, there are those who view the election of a president more as a product of the manipulation of power than the legitimate suffrage of the people. Sixty-two failed court cases, recounts that proved no manifest error or widespread fraud, and disproven theories about voting machines and dumping of ballots don’t stop the “stop the steal” idiocy.
Yet people believe it (or claim to believe it, out of political expediency). The effort to organize against democracy now has its own language. One hears phrases like, “We’re not a democracy; we’re a republic.” Oddly, most of these people couldn’t tell you what either term means, much less the historical antecedents, justifications, and functionality of each. In any case, through a variety of allegations, smokescreens, and discredited conspiracy theories, the vote increasingly is being debased, restricted, and ignored, when it belongs in the hands of the American people. The more faith in the system is lost, the greater the opportunity for political violence in this country.
IT COULD HAPPEN HERE
There is a certain smugness of many politicians and commentators regarding the long history of democracy in America. It could never happen here…they say But there is no guaranty. We want to believe the American people would never welcome an autocrat or fascist. But we now know that over 30% of the American people will stand with the narcissist in chief, no matter what laws he breaks or mores he violates.
Democracies are not immune from the attractiveness of authoritarianism, brought on by a mix of desperation, frustration, and/or economic calamity. The great Hannah Arendt, who coined the term “the banality of evil” wrote in The Origins of Totalitarianism that, “when people feel disenfranchised and disregarded, they resort to strong men and often to violence.”
Lest we forget, democracies and the leaders of democracies are not immune to fascism’s attraction. The interwar period in the UK saw a rise of an organized fascist movement, largely in the elites. The Right Club was an antisemitic club that was a pervasive organization, whose list of distinguished members was finally released in 1990 (the list apparently was shocking). The British Union of Fascists, also known as the “Blackshirts” was an organized, broadly based, fascist movement in London.
Fascism popped up in some surprising places, like Vichy France, Italy, and (while not gaining control) in Britain. But the United States was hardly immune to the feelings that a strong leader and autocracy was needed. FDR was urged by some supporters to take the title of “dictator.” Being a dictator was not necessarily viewed in those days as a bad thing. Many of us have seen pictures of the 1930s Nazi gathering in Madison Square Garden, with thousands of attendees saluting both the flags of Nazi Germany and of America, as well as a giant image of George Washington in military uniform. Over 20,000 members of the German American Bund attended. There were calls from the dais of returning America to the “true Americans.” Chilling and chillingly familiar…
Several weeks ago, two men were convicted of a plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. Hundreds of people stormed the Capitol and many will serve sentences. People in high places tried to thwart the results of a legitimate election. Calls to arms and other violent rhetoric increasingly are common. Gun sales are up. You can’t control the crazies…
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Even that well-known slaveholder, Thomas Jefferson, was right about some things.
Have a great day,
Glenn
From the archives: