The Rhetoric and Implications of the 2016 US Presidential Election

Looking back on the unit, or should I say reflecting, the most prominent and impactful reading has certainly been Dylann Roof’s ‘Manifesto.’ The sheer conviction in his hate, the factual information interpreted in a way I would never have thought to interpret it. I think I may have mentioned it but reading that piece felt like watching a 7 car pile-up. It was horrifying and yet I could not look away and found myself completely caught in thought about what he said, and what he had done.

One thing which also came to my mind was the discussion we had about veterans and their alienation from public life, all the while being praised and lauded for their service. Personally, I am and have always been anti-war as a concept, particularly those wars in which the US so often engages which are more colonial and imperial than anything. The comments in the presentation about protestors failing to take into account the difference between the war itself and those who fought really got to me. While I try to separate the two, and while it logically makes sense that someone could be a part of a war they did not want, it can still be hard. And there still remains a sort of stigma against military service-people largely based in my opinion of the administration in charge, and the commander in chief.

Now, while these two points probably seem entirely distinct, I was bouncing between them, trying to figure out why these two had come to the forefront of my thoughts when I made a potential connection. Now do bear with me, as this is basically a total stretch and not entirely clearly thought out.

When I was studying the philosophy of Law, one of the most impactful things I had heard was what I believe to be a quote from HLA Hart. Now, I haven’t been able to verify it, but I will look more this evening. The comment was on the Nuremberg trials, specifically on this classic example of someone turning in their neighbour, or family, or friend to the Nazi regime. The question, according to Hart, was whether to allow a gross injustice to stand, or whether to violate one of the most basic tenants of criminal law, viz. no retroactive punishment. Simply put, do you respect that they were following the laws of the time, or do you judge their actions morally and punish using the law. According to Hart, despite the horrendous things done under the Nazi regime’s law, they could not convict them from a legal perspective, not without some form of international law having been in place prior to World War II.

Granted, this may seem entirely disconnected. But, we can see a much less severe perspective on this applying to veterans. Especially in the Vietnam war, or other wars which hold public disapproval. Here are groups of people who joined the military to protect their country, or perhaps due to the draft, and who wanted to do the right thing. As such, they had to follow orders, even when they thought those orders were wrong. And yet, socially, we punish them. On the other side of things, we have Dylann Roof. He certainly thought he was doing the right thing when he killed 9 people in Charleston, despite our inability to see quite how he thought that. We find his actions despicable and deplorable, but what if 20 years from now, that becomes the social norm, and a court convenes to punish those people who didn’t kill their black neighbours? I would not say they would be morally justified in doing so, but they certainly would be legally viable, so long as that was the law.

To me, it just all screams of the complicated interaction of our legal systems and moral thought. We see laws as being grounded, perhaps, in morality, but how can we be sure we got it right when the past is so full of what we see as mistakes in moral thought. Dylann Roof didn’t think he was evil, he had reasons for acting the way that he did, even though it was contrary to laws. Veterans may very well be in an opposite situation, of joining the military for a reason and carrying out orders they do not agree with simply because they feel compelled by their institution. While they are certainly on a different level entirely (at least in my opinion). These questions about morality in following laws when one disagrees is one of the most interesting intersections of ethics and law to me.

Honestly, I’m not certain how well thought out any of that was, but I’m rather ill and may not be thinking clearly.

The talk that interested me most throughout the week was the one on American Authoritarianism. As always, the presentation was insightful and engaging and the topic really allowed me to get involved and think about what it meant politically.

After going over my notes and reading this text again, I felt like the author was trying to make two very valid points when talking about Authoritarianism in America.

1) Authoritarianism is a desire for order and fear of outsiders.
2) Authoritarianism leads to social order and hierarchy.

Authoritarianism Is A Desire For Order And A Fear Of Outsiders

The idea of authoritarianism as a desire for order and a fear of outsiders isn’t a new one at all. I would argue that in creating “The Leviathan” the political scientist Thomas Hobbes was actually the first one to engage in this. Within Leviathan, Hobbes says we have a desire for order because without it we would “naturally” live in a state of war. It’s a state of chaos in which “every man is against every man” as we would hunt and hurt one another, and be no different to the animal kingdom. This portrays a level of fear that we have for outsiders and for chaos, and that fear forces us to enter a social contract. The social contract gives others the power to rule over us in trade for order, thusly creating an ordered system purely out of “self-preservation”. While this idea is now mostly outdated (because we’ve moved far beyond the idea of social contracts) I still think that it is possible that the political right’s desire for authoritarianism comes from a level of Hobbes’ “self-preservation” and the want to keep their current status the same within society as the order works for them. This is mostly conjecture however, my best guess as to why there has been a rise, without there actually being studies on the rise itself.

Authoritarianism Leads To Social Order And Hierarchy

This was a big part of Melissa’s presentation and upon rereading the text, also a large part of the paper. When reading this sentence I am almost instantly reminded of Plato’s Republic, a famous text in which Plato laid out his thinking for the best forms of government. He himself asks the question of “why is authoritarianism seen as a bad thing?” and makes a point for the need in a hierarchy. Plato believes that we need authoritarianism in rule because, without it, our society would get nothing done. However, in his ideal government, a selection of leaders are elected (mostly philosophers) which make up an oligarchy, who are to be seen as knowing better than others and ranking higher in social platforms. While this system does create greater amounts of efficiency, the obvious problem with social order and hierarchy is the ability to corrupt and the belief that some are better than others. Corruption in modern politics is rampant enough as is, with Russia calling themselves a “democracy” and The current issues going on within the U.S. So while I would agree that with authoritarianism comes social order, I don’t think that within contemporary society, authoritarianism is the best way to run governments or social circles.

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!

One of the interesting experiences that I have had over the past few weeks in the “defining American” part of this course was listening to different groups of people and how they have been defined in American society.  The biggest revelation came when I was doing my presentation on Asian Americans.  As an Asian Canadian myself, and as someone who has relatives living in the United States, I always knew there were specific challenges that I would have to work with in society because of my race, but being able to do research on these topics, and to look in depth as to how Asian Americans were historically treated in America, and the specific challenges they still face in America was eye-opening.  Perhaps the most interesting thing I found was the way how even seemingly “positive” stereotypes can have negative effects on a population.  Being called a “nerd” because I’m Asian seems to have a more positive connotation that being called a “terrorist” or a “thug” because someone is Muslim or Black, but regardless, the stereotypes still reinforce images on a certain group of people and can affect the way someone looks at them because they are of a specific racial or ethnic group.  Being able to relate so much to my project and also to be able to learn more about myself was by far, the biggest highlight of the unit.

Besides my presentation, I also had the opportunity to learn more about how different groups of people were defined as well.  One group that particularly stood out to me was on veterans.  A lot of the time, we talk a lot about social issues that are based on race, gender, sexuality, and other socioeconomic factors, and while these issues are extremely important and shouldn’t be ignored, we often forget to talk about the countless issues that veterans who have served in the military face.  Because when talking about social issues such as homelessness and poverty, veterans make up a large part of America’s homeless and economically challenged.  And while many of us would agree that we do not like war and conflict, veterans still play a vital role in defending America as well as helping in peacekeeping efforts during conflicts, and we also cannot ignore the fact that veterans have fought in wars in the past and many have developed TBI and PTSD from their service.  In the end, they are human like the rest of us.  I found a video of a Bernie Sanders rally where he is listing off groups of people that Donald Trump has insulted.  I noticed that the crowd was not as loud when he mentions veterans, compared to other groups that he has mentioned.  The presentation on veterans has also made me more aware of the ways the American government fails to take care of veterans after they return from combat, and notably, the quality of the services that veterans can turn to for help.  When I think about this, I remember hearing Bernie Sanders talking about in an interview that if America can’t afford to take care of its veterans after they return from war, it shouldn’t be sending them to war in the first place, criticizing America’s habit of getting involved in too many conflicts.  This raises the question about whether or not America is willing to sacrifice its “standing on the world stage” in order to ensure they can take care of our veterans.  America has been known to be involved in many large-scale international conflicts, all the way from WWII to the recent War on Terror, and also spending a lot of money on military operations.  But even with the over half a trillion dollars America spends on the military every year, they still can’t help our veterans who are at the heart of making the military run.  I think if America wants to support their veterans, there needs to be prioritization into funding adequate programs and services that will help veterans after they return from service.

These past two weeks, I have found that a common theme that threads together nationalism, identity and social exclusion is that of imagined truth. The nation is defined by imagined truths about boundary and nationhood, which then manifest themselves through physical borders and nationalistic patriotism. This patriotism is fuelled by an imagined identity that draws upon values and sentiments that cannot be seen or explained consistently, yet it comes to life through anthems, flags and cultural symbols. Together, these imagined truths create real experiences that impact various groups differently, shaped entirely by their social, cultural, economic and political positions in society. It is interesting to explore how these imagined truths have slowly transformed into modern-day beliefs that guide the way we approach “the other” in society, a concept which again, depends on our own social position.

I am particularly intrigued by how these imagined truths present themselves in Dylann Roof’s “manifesto”. In order to better understand this, I would like to take a small piece of sociological theory called labelling theory and connect it to the concepts of identity and race, creating a small palette of imagined truths that I believe contributed to painting Roof’s harrowing “manifesto”.

I begin with labelling theory. In simple terms, this theory claims that when somebody is labelled a deviant, it often leads to them perceiving themselves as deviant and then engaging in acts of social deviance. I would like to clarify that in this context, social deviance includes anything that strays from the established norm, and is not just limited to criminal deviance. When I first learned of this theory, my first reaction was to wonder why groups succumb to, or at least don’t resist, this external defining. However, as I mulled it over more, I came to realize that a lot of our identity is shaped by external sources, whether they are family members, teachers, professors, coworkers, or friends. If we extrapolate these individual experiences and apply them to numerous people that are perceived as being part of the same group, we can understand how this external labelling promotes and reproduces internalized behaviours associated with certain characteristics. In other words, imagined ideas about how people should act create expectations and treatment that indeed produce those ideas (read: self-fulfilling prophecy).

And so, with race as my frame of reference, I want to understand how Dylann Roof employs labelling theory and social definitions of groups to justify his “manifesto” and the associated murders. I would first like to explore what Roof reasserts as the established norm. In contemporary (and historical) US society, the norm is based on and caters to the heterosexual, the white, and the male experience for the most part, with other identities falling on the peripheries of social inclusion. For instance, as discussed in Devos & Mohamed’s work on American identity, the concept of “American” is most often associated with White Americans. Racialized minorities and immigrant groups, while being American, are not American “enough” in the full sense of the word. This begins the process of defining, where groups are othered and stereotyped on the basis of race, religion, nationality, and more.

These racially othered groups are Roof’s point of interest, with him relying heavily on stereotypes or one-sided interpretations of social phenomena. For instance, in the same few paragraphs, Roof draws upon stereotypes of Black people as being dangerous and violent, and moves on to point out that White families move to “safer” suburbs to escape issues associated with low-income families, particularly Black families. I found this blending of stereotypes and observable patterns to be extremely fascinating, because it furthers a cycle of creating claims and then using observable patterns or assumed beliefs as supplementary material or evidence to then support the claims. However, what I find most fascinating about Roof’s “manifesto” is also what I find most disturbing. His ability to selectively weave threads of imagined truth and observable social patterns together is extremely dangerous. Phenomena and behaviours that have separate social (amongst other disciplines) explanations are being used to justify and explain one another. It demonstrates the circular reasoning of “Why did they do X? Because they are Z. Why are they Z? Because they do X.”, an argument that is as dangerous just as it is nonsensical.

Through this application of labelling theory and its connection to stereotypes, I find that Roof draws upon existing imagined truths to justify his actions and beliefs, and in the process, creates more imagined truths that can be used to further disadvantage groups that possess the negative stereotypes in question.

I feel a bit far away from the readings this entry is meant to consider, but I’m going to do my best. Kind of obviously, and also sadly, the “manifesto” has lodged itself in my brain most firmly, although I have no desire to go back to it, let alone expend any energy analyzing it. It scared me, how much truth I found in it, interpreted dangerously. To be clear, most of it is sickening, but there are observations throughout that appeared to have validity to me, for instance, his description of whiteness, and how it operates. But I mentioned this in class, and besides, there are a lot of really talented, insightful people who have been and are theorizing about whiteness, so really, he is not saying anything special or new, his thoughts have merely attracted attention because of the violence he enacted.

While the other readings drew from textual and historical analysis (for example, in the article on what constitutes American nationalism) or statistics, or testimonies and experiential learning (as in the article on the various ways racism is denied,) Rooff relies only on himself, on his own experiences. Even when he is discussing external, historical factors, or providing context, it is always and irrevocably through his own, righteous gaze.

I think that being consistently and absolutely correct is a position that a lot of philosophers and theorists, especially more contemporary ones, disparage. Not only is it often considered impossible, but the assumption that one knows all cannot easily lead to growth or new knowledge. In my opinion this has been widely acknowledged in many  disciplines, but especially in newer ones (such as affect theory, necropolitics.) But I think we can trace this trend, of being open to suggestions, to other opinions, to other modes of being, much further back.

I want to talk about Kierkegaard, though this is by no means as far back as we could go. I have a test this week on Kierkegaard and for the first time in my entire degree I have no idea what the fuck is going on. I have become, for all intents and purposes, obsessed. I’m watching every video I can find on him, I’m rewatching lectures, I’m asking people. When I looked at the practice exam questions I felt like I had no idea what was even being asked.

The test focuses on, but is not limited to his first book, Either/Or, which is mainly comprised of various points of view (two main ones, Author A and Author B) and several other texts which are either also written by the aforementioned authors, or at least the connection is strongly suggested. Meaning, apart from its introduction the book is written entirely in pseudonyms.

At first, I thought this was cowardly. I became really frustrated. I thought why doesn’t Kierkegaard just own it? Why does he have to pretend his views are not his own? When speaking of texts, which can perform and incite hate, it has historically been useful for men to distance themselves from the views their espousing through means such as pseudonym. So I was skeptical.

As I kept reading, though, and listening to interviews and clips about him, the choice to organize the book the way he did began to make sense to me. One of the videos I watched begins with the claim that Either/Or is more like a novel than a treatise, which really struck me. He goes onto clarify: “The views aren’t summarized, they’re expressed.” This person believes that Kierkegaard does not necessarily believe that any of these authors knows the correct way to live. These are merely options. Through using pseudonyms, who sometimes address each other (‘s arguments) explicitly, Kierkegaard can easily bring these modes of living, and their various values, into conversation with each other. Not only that, but these choices are embodied and as readers we can see how they might play out in a person’s real life, rather than strictly theoretically.

Many people have suggested that author B’s defense of a “Life of Duty” (ethical life) is clearly Kierkegaard’s own preference and that Author A’s stories exist to lend Author B’s gravitas.

The person who’s video I was watching pointed out that: if that’s the case, why is Author A’s account of the The Life of Pleasure (aesthetic life) so completely compelling. He suggests that Author A has “the best lines” and that many people prefer to read that author’s sections.

I decided I didn’t think that Kierkegaard would write such an enticing character just to totally disregard him, but rather to show how and why this way of living might and does get chosen. It sounds good, it sounds fun, we’re intrigued by it. That’s exactly its strength.

In this way, Kierkegaard does, in a sense, write each character as though they think they are right, but I think this is more so to implore his reader to start thinking deeply about the way one conducts oneself and what effects that might have.

Much later, Kierkegaard apparently wrote of Either/Or that his point was to “withhold an explicit evaluation.” [of life, I think]

I am really hoping he uses stark, uncompromising positions to expose the dangers of such inflexibility.

This is one of the videos I was watching, if you’re interested: