28 January 2016

Redefining the right

Ryan Lizza analyzes the Trump vs. Cruz race in this week's New Yorker. He emphasizes that Trump "doesn't use the traditional language of the right," while his supporters are "uninterested in how conservative the G.O.P. should or shouldn't be." Standard conservative litmus tests don't apply to The Donald; his supporters prefer to choose a la carte from the ideological menu. Ann Coulter, for instance, likes Trump's position on immigration so much that she wouldn't care if he "wants to perform abortions in the White House." A non-celebrity fan, who also claims to be a fan of Kim Davis, the homophobic county clerk from Kentucky, says that Trump's apparent lack of religion doesn't faze her, since "strength" and "forthrightness" determine her political preferences. Lizza notes that Trump's strongest supporters are "less educated and less well off" while his fiercest opponents (among Republicans, that is) have "advanced degrees and high incomes." In effect, Lizza claims, "Trump has turned what is traditionally an ideological fight into a class war." Quoting another observer, Lizza writes that Trump is forcing Republicans to ask and answer a new question for them: "To what extent should the G.O.P. be the advocates for those struggling in the modern economy?" No Republican can stop Trump, Lizza warns, unless that candidate "can realistically address the economic anxieties of its base without succumbing to Trump-style bigotry."

Given all this information you might ask why Trump is still considered a candidate of the "right," except that Lizza answered the question in that last sentence. However I may define the term "populist," it often means "working class bigot" when used to describe Trump's fans, if not Trump himself. When a Trump supporter says "We're tired of being run over," Lizza makes sure you understand the person means they've been run over by welfare cheats and their political patrons. This particular person says her husband works two jobs for seventeen hours a day with one leg -- and there's the hubby to confirm this -- but while a liberal progressive or democratic socialist might say that a person in his condition shouldn't have to work any job, he's more interested in seeing Trump put those other people to work. Of course, there's also the anger vented at protesters and journalists at Trump rallies, while Trump's own attitude toward the press -- expressed most recently in his boycott of tonight's Fox News debate -- is rightly disquieting to the media. The left wants Trump's base to be angry, but they have to be careful of whom they're angry at to avoid being relegated to the "right." But what is "the right" now? Trump and Cruz are fighting to determine that, whether Trump is aware of the stakes or not. He may well think of himself as a man of "the right," if only because he perceives a "left" that he despises, however he defines it. To any left, I suppose, "the right" means privilege. Cruz obviously upholds the "privileges" of wealth and business, but to the left Trump and his people uphold some sort of privilege, also, whether it's "white skin privilege" or something else along those lines. In this case it might be best to oppose "privilege" to "inclusion," a supreme value of the 21st century American left. Whole groups of people don't feel welcome in the Trump movement, probably including many Trump hasn't actually attacked or criticized. That's most likely because the left assumes that to exclude one is to exclude all, that hostility to Mexicans or Muslims is only an aspect of that universal white (or white male, or straight white) hatred of any Other that, to some, virtually defines western civilization.

But while the left perceives any sort of exclusionary populism as "the right," that populism actually occupies the center of at least one continuum of thought. At one end, the "right" of capital and free enterprise, anyone can succeed and the successful are welcome everywhere, but nothing is promised, much less guaranteed, to anyone. For them it's survival of the fittest, albeit within certain self-justifying rules, and the losers can rot. At the other end, which in this case means liberalism rather than an often less-forgiving hard left, everyone must make it, with no questions asked, or else the world is unjust. In the middle are those who believe that their membership in a particular group entitles them to something more than the right would grant, but believe that entitlement to be a birthright rather than a human right to be shared unconditionally with everyone else. Populists often think of themselves as "the people," but at the same time they effectively affirm that they are a people who are distinct from others and like it that way. Let's say they see themselves as the people who define a people as a distinctive thing. This becomes problematic if they're not the only ones who form a particular people, but it shouldn't be as problematic when they demand that a people, in the national sense of the word, ought to be considered by their nation before the nation looks abroad for monsters to destroy (today's populists oppose neoconservatism and liberal interventionism, seeing them as two sides of the same coin) or strangers to embrace. It needn't be a matter of hate or ethnocentrism or any sort of prejudice. It can be as simple as what I hear every day: why do we spend so much money on foreign countries when there's such crying need in this country? Democrats hear that and say: no problem, we'll tax the rich more to help you out without changing anything else; while most Republicans won't listen unless someone can profit by addressing those crying needs. The middle ground between those positions doesn't have to be "the right" unless the people occupying that ground are pushed there. That doesn't mean those people have no obligation to think straight about who all the people are who make this a people, but it does mean that the rest of this people have to think hard about their priorities, too.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

So, in your opinion, should those who refuse to assimilate still have a right to consider themselves part of "the people" they refuse to assimilate with?

Anonymous said...

I think we need to end the stigma attached to the word "privilege" and begin thinking in terms of privilege, rather than right. A right, being something guaranteed to all citizens simply for being a law-abiding citizen. A privilege is something that is earned by citizens for good citizenship and for going "above and beyond". Gun ownership, as an example, would become a privilege that is earned by achieving the age of majority without legal mishap. And it remains a privilege until one proves oneself irresponsible in its ownership. The same with automobile ownership, etc.

Samuel Wilson said...

6:42 -- Depends on what it means to assimilate, which has to be politically defined. You might set the terms for assimilation a certain way but some fellow citizens may not consider you assimilated, even though you were born in this country, unless you acknowledge the God of Abraham as a Christian or Jew. Not so nice, right?

9:33 -- The problem with "privilege" right now is that we don't think of it as something conferred by the state, as you propose. If the wealthy are privileged, for example, it's not because the government granted them some special status, but because they've claimed for themselves, by accumulating wealth, access to things unavailable to the rest of us. And when inherited wealth has such access, we don't think of "privilege" as something earned, as you would have it mean. No matter how you spin it, "privilege" will rankle some egalitarian sensibilities, but there are probably ways to sell your general idea if not that specific word.

Anonymous said...

Except I can prove, in law, that this is not a christian country. By assimilate, I mean, quite pointedly, speaking in English, wearing fashions that are considered "Western", etc. and leaving one's original culture in one's country of origin, where it belongs. I've said it before, I will say it again. A strong nation needs a single, unifying language and a common culture. What we have is far from a strong nation in all but military aspects because we refuse to insist on a common, American language which everyone is expected to speak. We refuse to insist on a common culture, based on the culture of those who created this country.

Unless, of course, you prefer the idea of your precious freedom of speech being outlawed under sharia, and yourself beheaded as an atheist. And don't give me that bullshit that "it can't happen here." History is littered with the corpses of those who made that particular argument. Better to err on the side of caution than die because of stupidity and gullibility.

The left may be completely gutless when it comes to the muslim problem, but if they continue on that path, they will be gutted instead.

Samuel Wilson said...

You seem to be more of a conformist than you used to be, though I suppose it becomes easier when you're the one telling people how to conform, presumably while reserving your right not to conform when the Christians make demands. You may be able to prove why you shouldn't have to conform to them, but the subject, as I recall, is culture, not the U.S. Constitution. Many people consider Christianity inextricable from "Western" culture, and that's my point. Your notion of "Western" culture isn't necessarily the majority notion, so how do you win this game?

Anonymous said...

It isn't a matter of me "winning", since this is NOT a game. What is important to me - and to anyone who truly desires the "freedoms" we Americans supposedly cherish - is keeping out a religion that is diametrically opposed to those freedoms. Obviously, you have no problem with the notion of submitting to muslim rule. Most Americans, however, do.

Samuel Wilson said...

You're dodging the question. You demand conformity to a "western" culture but reserve your right to pick and choose what that culture consists of. You can't get away with just defining it as "not Islam" because others may demand more of you before they agree that you're one of the people. Most Americans have a problem with submitting to atheist rule, too. Perhaps you have no problem submitting to theirs -- and don't tell me that can't happen here.

Anonymous said...

And you're dodging the question of why you continue to defend a religion which is opposed to the very freedom you, at other times, seem to hold sacrosanct. I'm dodging nothing. If you can't look around for yourself and realize what is "western culture" and what is not, that is your deficiency, not mine. But what is OBVIOUSLY NOT Western culture is islam and, pretty much, everything it stands for.

Call me a "conformist" for not wanting to share MY nation with a people who believe I should be executed for refusing to believe in their peculiar set of ancient superstitions if you feel the need. It only makes me question whether you understand the idea of "conformity" to begin with. I sincerely hope you enjoy getting on your knees five times a day to pray to an infantile sky despot. I'd much rather become a mass murdered of muslims than a muslim.

Anonymous said...

By the way, I'd be more than willing to sit down with other non-muslim westerners and hammer out a definition of western culture. I don't reserve the right to define it myself for other westerners. But either way, ISLAM IS NOT PART OF WESTERN CULTURE.

Samuel Wilson said...

6:56 - I'd like to see that, especially if it involves actual hammers.

6:34 - I call you a conformist because I assume you propose to indoctrinate the American people in a repressive fashion that may well exclude a lot more than Islam, and you're going to tell them how to dress. And is "I'd much rather become a mass murdered of muslims" a typo or a freudian slip?

Anonymous said...

I won't tell them how to dress, but how NOT to dress. No hajib, no burqa, no turbans. No article of clothing that originates in the near east, middle east or far east. There are already nations where those fashions are in vogue and those wishing to indulge in those fashions should do so in those nations.

Insofar as what western culture I'd promote? Whatever is likely to make muslims least comfortable and most likely to leave. My animosity is with islam and its sub-human adherents.

Remember to face west when you pray to allah.