Anger versus hubris

*** In this politically charged atmosphere, it seems ridiculous to put a disclaimer, but here it is. I do not think Donald Trump is a good choice and if I were an American and a Republican, he would not receive my vote. On the other hand, I do not think his supporters are some strange sub-species that inhabits sewers, or should be publicly shamed and herded off a cliff. In fact, I think that such disdain actually has the unintended consequence of fuelling that movement. Understanding their motivation is not the same as agreeing with it.***

Long ago, I began my first campaign – to secure a party nomination in my local provincial constituency. A supporter had lined up a meeting between myself and a key contact - a local restaurant owner and political activist. In short, an extremely important person. I went to the restaurant and met with the man, along with a few others – two of which would be elected to municipal councils in future votes. It was a good conversation. We talked about the issues, the nomination race, and had time to talk about some personal connections we shared.

I did not win that race, but came very close. I can say without a doubt that I would not have done as well without the backing of this group. We remained friends beyond the vote.

A couple of years after, sitting down in the restaurant, we talked about that race. It was then that the man told me exactly why I got their support. He told me that my competitor had gone to pay a visit the week earlier. He went on to say that there was one particular difference between the two of us that made the difference. I asked him what it was, and he answered “you didn’t wipe off the seat.”

I was a bit confused by this, but he went on to explain that when the other candidate came and pulled out a chair to sit down, he grabbed a napkin and proceeded to wipe off the seat before sitting. The man was a proud business owner, and his restaurant was a focal point for the community. In that one gesture, the candidate gave the impression of haughty disrespect, of looking their nose down at them, and his establishment. The owner said that I showed up, sat down without ceremony, and talked informally.  The bottom line is that I won their support because I showed respect, and my opponent lost it because he didn’t.

It has been about two decades since that time, and I never really thought much about it. That is, until I started watching both the rise of anti-establishment politicians and the tone of those who are opposed. Although I do think that there are a number of people who ‘get it’, one of the better summations was made by Brendan O’Neill of The Spectator magazine in his piece “From Trumpmania to Euroscepticism: Revenge of the Plebs”:

“In both Middle America and Middle England, among both rednecks and chavs, voters who have had more than they can stomach of being patronised, nudged, nagged and basically treated as diseased bodies to be corrected rather than lively minds to be engaged are now putting their hope into a different kind of politics. And the entitled Third Way brigade, schooled to rule, believing themselves possessed of a technocratic expertise that trumps the little people’s vulgar political convictions, are not happy. Not one bit.”

For me, the direction of political debate in America and elsewhere creates a great deal of conflict in my own mind. By full disclosure, I have a bit of a foot in both camps. I do have a degree from a highly rated school, and I have had many an occasion to associate with people who exercise a great amount of ‘resources’. In short, I’ve been relatively lucky. I am also the child of working poverty, of a rural family that struggled to pay the bills and faced the kind of adversity that many of my university friends would not have first-hand knowledge of. Most times, it leaves me a bit cold and frustrated with both camps, but it also provides an insight.

When those in positions of authority say that the answers aren’t always that simple, they are right. When they say that anger and emotion are not helpful in the development of public policy, they are also right.

The thing is that when people living on the margins say they are angry and feel disrespected, they are speaking sincerely. When they say that they feel victimized by a system that certain people game for advantage, they are right. When they say they feel scapegoated for every ill of the world and feel as though they are being told to take the blame for every problem in society, I cannot disagree.

The truth is that if those who are considered part of the socioeconomic ‘elite’ feel at liberty to make the argument that the ‘average’ voter is naïve and uninformed, it must also be acknowledged that they also come off as arrogant, insulting, and oblivious to the life experience of a significant part of the population.

Let’s also broaden the dialogue a bit, because this is not about left wing versus right wing either.

My argument is thus: The activists in the Tea Party and Occupy movements are different signs of the same anti-establishment coin. They differ only in their ideological approach, but they have little use for the same group of people; and that people are drawn less to a political program than a desire to:

a)      fix what they think is broken;

b)      humble the people they feel have kept them down; or

c)      all of the above

If you think that there is an establishment elite stifling legitimate political debate and dissent, you may be drawn to Donald Trump. If you think the problem is that the same establishment elite is lining their pockets and reserving social and economic privilege for themselves at the expense of you and others like you, then you may have considered showing up for a Bernie Sanders rally. Same anger, different direction.

In martial arts, you are taught you can defeat your enemy by channeling their momentum to your own benefit. The faster someone runs at you, the higher you can fling them in the air. Trump (on the right) and Sanders (on the left) have succeeded by practicing politics like a martial art. The harder people who are identified as ‘establishment’ run at them, the more they are able to use the attack to solidify their own position. This creates a feedback loop where the attacks feed the entrenchment, giving rise to more attacks and more entrenchment. If a feeling of disconnect and disrespect by the establishment is what drove people into those camps, then a doubling down by the establishment is not going to do anything but boost those numbers.

But there is something more to this – something that is making the debate more intractable and potentially more volatile.

My father worked for years as a Stationary Engineer. In simple terms, he worked on and maintained steam boilers. Beyond all of the specific duties of care and maintenance, his job was to ensure that the boilers worked under a constant and steady pressure. Run too cold and they do nothing. Run way too hot and you’ll get anything from a heavy blast of steam from a release valve to an explosion that could take out part of a city block.

Democracies work the same way. Polite and vigorous debate generates healthy heat. On the other hand, apathy makes them run cold and if you stifle or prohibit debate, expect the gauge needle to go into the red. The anti-establishment direction is like the water in the boiler. It lies dormant on its own, only boiling when it come into contact with heat.

And like boilers, the Trump and Sanders campaigns are driven by the steam generated by the establishment elite that not only provided heat to the disaffected, but pressurized them by constricting what constitutes fair and socially acceptable debate.  The lack of opportunity and socioeconomic mobility is the flame, and the inference that people lack the intelligence or moral grounding to legitimately complain about their lot in life serves to ratchet up the PSI’s.

While leaders are creations of their own particular time and circumstance, the forces that put wind in their sails have come before and will likely do so again.

In many respects, the US (along with a number of countries) is going through something akin to the ‘Gilded Age’ (1870’s to roughly 1900), where life got exceedingly good for some while not so much for others. During that time, the Democrats produced William Jennings Bryan, who advocated ‘free silver’ in order to alter the Gold Standard, while the Republicans had Theodore Roosevelt, the ‘trust buster’ who went toe to toe with men like Morgan and Rockefeller. In other words, both major political parties in the US fielded Presidential candidates who made shaking up the status quo a major priority.

Disenfranchisement leads to reaction, leading to more feelings of disenfranchisement. Of course for some it will officially end in November when an individual is elected US President, but that is a merely milepost along a much longer road.

We live in the political age of the irresistible force meeting the immovable object – lots of heat and light with no respite from the fireworks.  Unless one group loses their anger, or the other loses their hubris, we will continue to live in interesting times.