For this week’s reflection, I am going to focus solely on the “Rise of American Authoritarianism” presentation, or rather, the reading’s rhetoric and opinions. I am not really going to talk about the quality of the presentation, as I thought Melissa did an excellent job in relaying the facts and opinions expressed in the reading. She also did a great job in bringing in supporting facts from other authors. What I will be discussing is my difficulty in agreeing with some of the assumptions that Traub, and her political equals make regarding authoritarianism in the United States.
One of the things that I am most thankful for in my University career is the insight some of my Political Science professors had shared with me – most notably to always question and analyze the bias in political commentators, as more often than not, they are following some sort of political ideology, whether it is realist/Marxist, liberal/conservative etc. I do not think that Traub is an exception either, nor do I find her article to be of any value, besides potential casual interest.
To begin, her definition and analysis of authoritarianism is both interesting and accurate; a staunch strongman leader elected in response to a social and political change. If anything, the election of an authoritarian is almost a reaction more than an affirmative action. What I have a problem with is the language used in the article – constant labelling of Trump supporters as authoritarians; Traub almost treating being an authoritarian as some kind of illness that one cannot prevent. This is reinforced by the political theorists that she brings in, with one declaring that some people might not even realize they are authoritarian, but will become so once the proper conditions are met. I understand the want to study an ideology like this, but I fail to see the value, when all this is going to do is simple alienate the supposed ‘authoritarians’ in the first place.
Perhaps this is what I am most frustrated with: the constant “I can’t believe that Trump got elected!”, the refusal to acknowledge the failures of the governments and the system to explain his rise. Trump didn’t get elected because he triggered the authoritarianism within people, rather he recognized an opportunity to exploit both Democrats and Republicans’ frustration with the current government. People wanted something new, someone who wasn’t a classic politician like Hilary. Furthermore, as he gained popularity, leftist media portrayed both him and his support base as complete fools, which only further divided the population. Insulting a group of people’s intelligence is not going to get them to vote for someone else. Instead of trying to understand Republican frustrations, there was simply a failure of discourse. I think this failure of discourse has been inevitable, as the culture war between liberals and conservatives has only gotten more heated over the past few presidential terms. To an extent, this failure to engage in discourse is visible in almost every environment, but most notably in liberal institutions such as universities. Instead of “Let’s debate this and maybe both of us can learn something that can impact our opinions” it’s “I don’t even want to talk to you because you believe in XYZ”. Just as Donald Trump has set the precedent for people to be more vocal about their often-extreme beliefs, articles such as Traub’s set the precedent that it is acceptable to have such a divide. Traub’s article does nothing to bridge the gap – something the US needs now more than ever, but rather profits from its divide.
As I wrap up, I would like to say that the understanding of the presidential election is reliant on understanding the texts we’ve studied about rhetoric, and more importantly, being able to recognize and acknowledge it. This acknowledgement of rhetoric can also be useful when looking at the presentations of different social groups, and how different groups identify each other and themselves. I am happy that we are all able to recognize the bias in these discussions and can learn how to avoid being caught in bias in the future!
Hi Piers,
Thank you for wonderful, passionate reflection post. I actually found myself nodding in agreement through most of it, as I also feel that the discourse surrounding Trump supporters from the pre-election period to now has harmed all of us as both citizens of America’s world and “intellectuals” as a whole. I am not a fan of Trump’s comments in the media and his proposed policies, but I was intrigued by his mass following and wanted to know what people found so enchanting about him. Unfortunately, the way that his supporters and his platform were disregarded in left-leaning media coverage did not make that easy. On a related note, I found the in-class discussion regarding authoritarian leaders vs. fascist leaders vs. fascist states to be very fascinating, as I believe that while some pre-conditions may be present, it does not automatically equate to the entire label being applicable.
Piers,
I think you have a lot of very interesting points here. It is certainly the case that it’s far too easy to generalize and essentialize people to a single character trait, saying that all Trump supporters are authoritarians and that that is the only reason they support him is extremely reductive and ignores a lot of the issues at hand. But at the same time, I think there is a lot of leftist media that does examine the deeper reasons behind the rise of Donald Trump. Beyond that, while I certainly recognize your comments about leftist institutions and the premature cessation of discourse, but there is more to that than simple disagreement. A lot of the time, if somebody says “I support Trump” it holds a lot of weight beyond a mere political leaning. When there are such complicated issues as race, gender, sexuality at hand, and when there is an institution which discriminates based on these issues, it is generally difficult to engage in discourse on these issues.
If somebody says that they support Trump, responding by stepping back from that conversation is a valid response. When Trump represents Racism, Sexism, and Homophobia, a supporter of Trump supports these qualities, even if they themselves are not racist, sexist, or homophobic. While maybe somebody is a single issue voter and supports Trump for his economics, I don’t think a gay person must engage in discussion to understand their perspective, to understand why somebody supports an institution that seeks to marginalize them and to refuse them basic human rights.