The country has just witnessed wild primary presidential contests. Both parties are seeing internal divisions, and struggles against the puppeteers. But on the right, it is most interesting to watch power pass from Ailes to Trump.
Republican Concerns
From Ailes to Trump: this is the legacy of Lincoln and Reagan?
A couple of years ago, I came home and said to my wife, “Maybe we should switch to Republican.” Aghast (my wife is more liberal than I am) she said, “Why on Earth would we do that?!”
“Because the current Republicans are screwing it all up.”
I have noted that I am a bleeding heart moderate. I agree with many conservative concerns: government is too big; government cannot solve all of our problems; the private sector can (often) do things better.
Higher than those concerns, however, I also believe that a one-party system would be ruinous for the country. All monopolies are. So even when I disagree strongly with conservatives, I feel even more strongly that the long-term dialogue is much more important than short term concerns.
There is yet one other area where I agree with conservatives: I believe that, before Fox News, most news programming leaned toward liberal. America needed more conservative voices.
Having said that, I am not supportive of Fox News, for a simple reason: it’s not conservative. Or at least it’s not American conservative.
It’s simply angry.
Fox Ain’t Conservative
We have discussed here the importance of collegiality, and this is also true in the political arena: to be disrespectful of differing opinions is insulting to the person.
But it is much more insulting to the democracy. The first protection in our Constitution is freedom of expression. But obviously, saying what we think is only important if we are also willing to listen. If we believe that inclusiveness and plurality are essential to our form of government – and they are – then disrespecting someone who disagrees is to also disrespects democratic ideals.
That is the reason I reject Fox News. I sincerely want to hear intelligent discussion of conservative ideas and concerns. Instead I get rolled eyes, inyaface rejoinders, snickers, and other puerile bathroom behavior. I get a room of talking heads where everyone agrees, with only an occasional token dissenter who is shouted down after a few seconds. As I’ve noted before, if everyone thinks the same way, who’s thinking?
This is why Fox News is not American conservative, because anger-mongering undermines democratic discourse, and democracy itself. For all of the complaints about other mainstream media being too liberal, at least the liberal news feigns respect for those with whom they disagree.
At least they are professional.
There is nothing in conservatism that requires unprofessionalism. I have noted that I like to read George F. Will. I don’t often agree with him, but I want to hear what he has to say, because it often gives me something to think about. Sometimes he even changes my mind.
Will is able to get people to reconsider their ideas where Fox is not, because Will is typically collegial, and respectful: respectful of the opposition, respectful of the democracy, and therefore respectful of the audience.
Fox just preaches anger to the choir.
Roger Ailes
The news this week is that Fox’s architect and angermonger-in-chief, Roger Ailes, is being forced out. That is fascinating: Donald Trump is anointed as the Republican nominee for President and a couple of days later Roger Ailes is forced out at Fox.
I should note at this point, that I seriously considered not writing this post, I worried it might attract flamers and trolls. But then I realized how much of my previous writing pointed to just this post.
First, I discussed how anger is a quick and easy way to motivate people. Then I noted that once people were angry, it is all too easy for someone else to attract them with even more anger, and that Trump is a master at angermongering. I also talked about drive-by journalism, and how the desires for quick profit overshadow the needs of in-depth understanding in the democracy. I have also repeatedly talked about how our educational system trains us to be followers, not leaders; to avoid independent thinking; and how we have trouble understanding complex systems.
And finally, I talked about Donald Trump and his anger-mongering.
Donald Trump
I see in all of this the baton passing from Ailes to Trump. Ailes used conservative issues, not as vehicle for the conservative agenda, but as a vehicle for anger-mongering, which brought him great personal power and wealth.
Which sounds a lot like Trump. I don’t disagree with Trump’s conservatism, for a simple reason: I don’t believe Trump is a conservative.
As we noted, anger draws supporters to the anger-monger, and those recruits shut down their brains; Trump is the master at this. Look objectively at the wide disparities between Trump’s realities, and his supporters’ stated desires. He was a Democrat until the last few years. He is thrice-married, knows little if anything about the Bible, yet evangelicals picked him over Cruz. He said he would build a wall with Mexico and make Mexico pay for it; even his supporters said they knew he wouldn’t do it, and now he is backing off from that. He said he is a tough negotiator, when all he ever shows us is a ham-fisted bully, and what does a strongman need of negotiation? He says he is tough, but he launches ad hominem attacks at anyone who dares disagree with him, or worse, taunts him; in fact, he apparently became a Republican after being publicly (and justifiably) ribbed by the President and a Saturday Night Live comedian. He says he loves our country and our Constitution, but at every turn he threatens to trample the Bill of Rights: freedom of expression, freedom of religion, equality under the law, limits on executive power.
Now he says he wants out of NATO, and that he supports Putin.
Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan are running double saltos with full twists, all in the confines of 6-foot boxes. In what universe is Trump conservative? What are all of the Trump supporters thinking?
Are they thinking? It is becoming apparent that many of them are not.
From Ailes to Trump
I don’t disagree with Trump; I have no idea which Trump to disagree with. I don’t know who Trump is, or what he stands for. To my mind, he is simply a narcissistic opportunist, wiling to say whatever gets him immediate money and attention. Trump is simply another wily huckster, a media-savvy anger-monger.
Just like Ailes.
Trump simply one-upped Ailes. He out-played Ailes at his own game: when Trump boycotted the Fox debate before the Iowa caucuses, Ailes found that his highly successful, highly profitable exploitation of frustration with liberal media had become a generalized disgust with all media, his included. Suddenly Ailes was hoisted on his own pétard, he became the target of the high-powered machine he had created. Trump had simply jumped Ailes’s runaway train, and stoked the engines even hotter, ever faster. The job of conducting the train, and conducting the orchestra of angry supporters, moved from Ailes to Trump.
And as millions jump on the run-away train with him and the traditional Republican leadership panics about what they can do, the rest of us, those of both parties who believe that government is a sober obligation, a collective deliberation designed by learned statesmen-philosophers, can only watch with fascination and horror.
Mostly horror.
‘Train Wreck’ courtesy of The Lone Ranger, ©2013, Disney Films. All rights reserved.
Revolutionaries often end up eaten by their creations, some sooner, some later.
In the instant the revolution succeeds, accomplishes its goals, they immediately become the most dangerous person in the room.
What they create persists, they themselves rarely do.
Hopefully, if you’re referring to Trump as the revolutionary, he will be “eaten up” before the Presidential election.
You made me laugh. Thank you.
But no, I was just speaking in generalities. “Revolutionary” is a dangerous occupation — often even for the “winners.”
( a nod towards Ailes but I don’t know that “muckraker” rises to the level of “revolutionary.”)
There’s a strong tie between what caused the rise of Trump and the popularity of Bernie … it’s a country that is tired of the same old thing. We get promises to address the problems that the nation faces, but once we elect someone, they just follow the same old tired directions. They become more focused on getting re-elected than doing what their constituents elected them for.
National debt? It’s that other party’s fault.
Immigration reform? It’s that other party’s fault.
And the list goes on and on …
Bernie didn’t succeed in getting the nomination because he was up against one of the most powerful political machines seen in this country … the Clintons.
Trump succeeded in getting the nomination because there were so many candidates who were indistinguishable and Trump took advantage of the lack of message and said all of the things that the voters wanted to hear, whether he believed them or not (and, as is usually the case with politicians, even new ones, he didn’t really believe what he said).
Something’s gotta give, folks. We need elected officials who will concentrate on real problems, address them with solutions that can be measured and adjusted if they are not working.
My very old and very good friend, with all respect, no.
We do not need elected officials who concentrate on real problems, we need voters who do. The voters need to begin paying attention. Really paying attention, not just to the specific problems, but to the way the world really works.
And in some way, your post points up the problems, problems I have been tip-toeing around. People say they are tired of the same old thing; what they don’t realize is that we are the same old thing. Politics didn’t start last year. It started 10K years ago with the first civilization, or 10M years ago with the first human-like things. The prehistoric tribal council did not look like Philadelphia 1776, it looked like the tribal council on the TV show Survivor. Even the USA never looked like Philadelphia 1776; after sweltering in the summer heat to generate a couple of remarkably well thought-out documents, as soon as the country was created, the Founders lapsed into ugly, ugly politics.
We have all experienced small groups and large bureaucracies; politics and unfairness are everywhere.
You have, of course, also hit on the problem: it’s their fault. I wonder about wisdom a lot; if I have anything to say about it, is that wisdom is realizing that most problems are everyone’s fault. We don’t listen, we don’t pay attention.
That’s my concern with Trump. He doesn’t listen, he doesn’t pay attention (or at least he doesn’t pay attention to anything except the latest rabble-rousing technique).
I disagree with conservatives, but I also disagree with liberals. Trump is outside of those, he is something very different.
Trump and Bernie supporters exemplify the problem; they don’t think holistically. They have lapsed into anger, where dispassionate analysis and cool logic evaporate.
But there is one thing that people are missing: Trump and Bernie supporters may compare, but Trump and Bernie do not. They disagree over ideology, and that’s fine, that’s what we’re supposed to do. They do not, however, agree about the political process, and about respect for the group, not just their group of supporters or the party groups, but the whole group. Bernie got screwed, but he also got some of what he wanted, and he changed things radically. He played hardball, but he played by the rules of the game and the rules of sportsmanship.
Even when his opponents did not.
I do not believe that Trump did, or would. If Trump had gotten the royal shaft as Bernie did, I personally believe he would have continued to run as a third party candidate.
Again, my comment is not about ideology (and also again, what is Trump’s ideology?!), but wisdom. Bernie has some impracticable ideas, but he also has a wider and wiser view of the whole ball game. He fought, won what he could, licked his wounds (even those in his back; forget the anatomical problems this presents, it’s a metaphor), and lived to fight another day.
To my mind, Trump has never exhibited anything I would call wisdom. He has never listened to objections, he has never been respectful of critics, particularly when those critics treat him exactly as he treats his opponents. And from what I can see, if Trump can’t get what he wants, he doesn’t care what it does to the Republican party, or the nation. That is why the old hands, the more experienced and wiser Republicans, are keeping him at arm’s length. They have exactly the same concerns.
The point of this post is that the Trump supporters have things, on the one hand, that they want, and on the other, the things they feel. They feel frustration and anger; but they don’t realize that they do not want more anger, but that’s what Trump is giving them. A president who only expresses what the voters feel, their frustration and anger, will never solve what his supporters want. A ham-fisted president will never get anything done (at least not without declaring marshal law): Congress won’t work him, business won’t work with, international leaders won’t work with.
Ask yourself: when does getting angry get you what you want, with your spouse, your kids, your co-workers? And if it gets you what you want in the short run, what does it get you in the long run?
The only time getting angry really works, is when the other person exhibits calm restraint; wisdom, if you will. Trump ain’t got wisdom.
And for those voters who do not find Trump unwise, wait until January. Trump will either insure the candidate they hate most is president, or he will give us a nation that goes from being the leader of the free world to an economic, political, and military pariah. Again, politics did not start last year. Nor will it end next year. Working to get people everywhere to work together, particularly the large egos around the world, cannot be accomplished by an even larger ego.
And I respond with a resounding “No” as well.
I do agree that voters are ill informed and easily swayed with emotion when logic should dictate. That is not likely to change. As you’ve noticed, people don’t feel like they need to learn anything once they are out of school, including how to best cast their vote.
But, I disagree with the fact that it is all the voters’ fault. If we elect someone who promises “A”, but never even tries to get “A” accomplished, it is NOT the voters fault. It is only their fault if the re-elect the lying a$$hole, which is too often done.
I don’t like Trump. That said, though, Trump succeeded in getting noticed because he is an opportunist. When the news of Kate Steinle’s death at the hands of an illegal alien hit the news last year, Trump saw the opportunity and shouted “Build the wall!”. He was the only candidate saying that. The others (in BOTH parties) thought it to be a silly notion. He’s wavered on his commitment to do that, as well as almost everything else he’s said needed to be done. I trust him no more than I trust Hillary.
But the angst he tapped into by that statement is real. Ordinarily, a buffoon like Trump would never have had any support. But he got it, and for that one statement. Immigration reform has been batted back and forth by both parties. Candidates promise to do something. We elect them to do it. And they don’t keep their promises. Sadly, the voters won’t call them on this and bounce them out at the next opportunity. But, the lie is still there. And we continue to allow illegal immigrants to come into the country, we give them benefits, we do NOT deport them when they commit crimes nor lock them up here, and we have a large number of cities that designate themselves as Sanctuary Cities, where the local officials will not cooperate with federal officials to enforce our immigration laws.
The Republicans ousted Boehner because they thought that he was just an Obama lackey. Rand Paul promised to be different. He has not been. It’s not all his fault, as the deadlock in Congress is so overwhelming that little to nothing gets done. But he is an idiot for knowing that and yet promising to change things.
People followed Bernie and Trump because they both claimed to be for things that voters want. People want an education without crushing debt. People want to feel safe in their cities. People want a job that will let them properly care for their family. People do not want to bring the immigration crisis that Europe is struggling with onto the shores of the US.
We have way too many examples of our country being run by people who do not follow the laws of the country, and are not being punished for not following the law. I can give as many examples as anyone needs to prove this point. Not my fault as a voter.
I despise both Trump and Hillary. I feel like Vizzini (Princess Bride), sitting before Dread Pirate Wesley, looking at the 2 vials, and stating why I can’t choose either one. And in this election, we know that both candidates are vials of iocaine powder.
Well said, and you make some very good points.
But we’re still left with the central problem: the elected officials won’t change until the citizens make them change.
Yes, the voters are a bunch of bags of emotions. And we can talk about ‘blame’, but that’s the current problem, blame gets into emotions. So we need to talk about change.
This is my solution, this blog: a) talk to the minority who are willing to talk and reflect, b) try to convince them that the only mechanism we currently have to change everyone else is education, and c) try to convince them that education only rarely changes people because our current educational paradigms are designed to produce followers rather than leaders, and memorizers rather than thinkers.