Introduction to Part 2 (2 of 2)

In the first part of this two-part post I discussed one reason for my move from perhaps a naïve optimism to moderate pessimism about today’s polity and society. In this post, I discuss several additional reasons for my change in attitude.

One is the deep, intense political polarization now present in our polity and society. I think it important to differentiate between strong cultural divides or polarizations and our deep political polarization. During the past several decades the country witnessed several significant cultural divisions that were not aimed at or involved specific political parties.

In the 1950s, the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education generated a good deal of protest, especially in the South. The “Impeach Earl Warren” signs were too numerous to count. Chief Justice Warren had been the Republican attorney general in California before a Republican president, Eisenhower, nominated him to the Court. Yet, the protests did not generate an intense political polarization. In the 1970s, Vietnam War protests blanketed the nation, but political polarization did not occur as the protestors aimed at both Democrats (Johnson) and Republicans (Nixon). In the early ’70s weak political polarization occurred in the McGovern vs. Nixon presidential campaign. But this was over almost before it started.

The ’60s also saw the urban civil disorders or riots, which seem directed, if one could call it that, at corporate, political, and labor elites. Most of the cities in which the riots occurred were strongly Democratic, but the polarization was not blatantly Democrat vs. Republican. Additionally, the ’70s witnessed the start of a strong cultural divide over the issue of abortion and, more generally equal rights for women. The 7-2 Row v. Wade decision was supported by four Republican-nominated justices, and a Republican nominated Justice, Blackmun, wrote the majority opinion. There was little political polarization based on the Court’s decision.

However, Inklings foreshadowing political partisanship occurred in the decades before the 1970s. One might include the McCarthy hearings of the early ’50s, the John Birch Society of the late ’50s and early ’60s, perhaps some of the rhetoric (as opposed to the character of the person) that Goldwater used in the late ’50s and early ’60s, and the politics of resentment used by governors Wallace and Reagan, and especially by President Nixon. Nixon’s strong emphasis on “law and order” was directed primarily at blacks. Nixon moved to consolidate support for the Republican Party from Southern Democrats. Republican moderates, basically from the Northeast, began to disappear.

In the presidential elections of 1936 through to 1960 the percentage of blacks voting for the Republican candidate ranged from 23% to 39%. In the presidential elections of 1964 through 2016 the percentage of blacks voting Republican ranged from 4% to 15%. Beginning with the 1964 presidential election, black voting for the Democratic candidate never went below 82%. Political polarization, at least electorally, was beginning to mirror cultural polarization. Voters increasingly saw the Democratic Party as representing blacks and other minorities, pro-abortion voters, and voters perceived to be soft on crime and communism.

Nonetheless, this electoral polarization lacked intensity and appeared not to affect much the workings of Congress or of the Presidency. However, political polarization as we now know it began to take shape in the mid-1990s, specifically with the “Gingrich revolution” in the House of Representatives. The political polarization has continually intensified through to today. Thus, the depth and intensity of today’s political polarization and its accompanying cultural polarization helped to reinforce my pessimism. The effectiveness of democracy rests largely in deliberation and compromise, political re-adjustment and political rebalancing. Can we get that back?

The second additional reason for my pessimism deals with the notion of post-truth. Here I will use the Oxford definition of the famed “word of 2016”: Relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.

The advent of talk radio and cable news and then the towering impact of social media greatly facilitated the use of post truth and its associated fake news and echo chambers. Democracy depends on developing and using a relatively common set of facts and definitions. When one person’s opinion is seen as good as another’s and when facts don’t matter, democracy becomes imperiled. I wonder if democracy as we know it can survive a long-lasting post-truth world.

No doubt political polarization and post-truth reinforce one another. Although post-truth preceded Trump, his presidency has greatly exacerbated post-truth dangers through the magnitude and scope of his bold and shameless lies and the lies of people who work for him or promote his presidency. I am unsure, from the perspective of post-truth, whether our country can recover from Trump. I become especially pessimistic regarding the impact of a possible second term.

The problem of post-truth segues into another reason for my move to pessimism, which is the Trump presidency. Not only does Trump put post-truth on steroids but his norm-breaking and authoritarian or despotic tendencies, to be mild, are seriously problematic. Unfortunately, I believe most citizens are unaware of the slow backsliding away from democracy that can realistically occur. Democracy is much more than elections. While the rule of law is vitally important, our political/governance norms are even more important. Once a critical threshold of norms evaporates, the rule of law becomes endangered. If I had to put a single political label on Trump, his administration, and his followers it would be authoritative populism. My fear is that another term as president the label would change to populist authoritarianism.

Unfortunately, the authoritative populism label masks the pro-wealth and pro-business aspects of Trump’s presidency. From Reagan through to Trump corporate/ business power has continued to strengthen to where it now seems to dominate all other interests. Corporate/business power along with the wealth of shareholders and senior executives and some professionals permeates both our economy and our polity. Much of this power relates to or inheres in the change in direction that began to occur in the early ’70s, but it also relates to post-truth, political polarization, and the Trump administration as well.

The post subcategories of Part 2 track the topics identified above: (1) the 2016 election, (2) post-truth (to include fake news and echo chambers), (3) discontent within democracy, which includes topics like political polarization, alt-right, populism, authoritarianism, and democratic backsliding, and (4) discontent within capitalism, which includes topics like neoliberalism, financialization, precarious employment/work, and wealth and income inequality.

These subcategories and their included topics overlap. It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to draw sharp boundaries. This makes writing about them difficult as their interdependencies make them more problematic.