The democratic political system is about cooperation and compromise. Passing legislation and winning elections hinge on these two ideals. In order for any politician to gain the support needed to get elected their message needs to appeal to a wide array of people. These people need not agree on everything, but they do need to agree on enough that they are willing to accept the shortcomings of the candidate that champions their beliefs.
In the most recent presidential election, the coalition that elected Donald Trump was quite varied. It included the fiscal conservative faction, which is comprised of voters mostly concerned with the price of groceries, steady stock market growth, and the continued increase of GDP. But it also included those with strict religious views and even those with strong prejudice convictions.
While some on the far left will label every Trump voter as a bigoted fool, I think a more compassionate approach is best. Making the crude blanket statement that all Trump supporters are racists diminishes all serious critiques of the administration’s actions and policies. Having said that, it is undeniable that those in our country that do hold strong racist, bigoted, and misogynistic views were part of his coalition.
It is also undeniable that the Trump coalition includes the wealthiest people in our country. Many were seated behind him at his inauguration. The three wealthiest men in our country have seen their wealth increase by something like a quarter trillion dollars since the election. The richest of those men, and wealthiest person on the planet, has spent the last few weeks making aggressive cuts to our federal government. Much like a toddler in a candy store wielding a hammer…or chainsaw.
This is a dangerous gamble for those that voted for this administration. Many were pandered to in order to build the coalition based upon their views on abortion and their misunderstanding of the transgender community. There is much nuance with these topics, but the ability to think critically is a prerequisite to understand them and form nuanced opinions.
Unfortunately, thinking critically requires having factual data. The machine of lies and disinformation is currently so strong that conspiracy theories and anecdotal evidence are the basis for many opinions currently held within that Trump coalition. Anyone that disagrees or presents evidence that contradicts those opinions is an agent of the devil or an enemy to ‘the people’. I wish that were hyperbole, but I fear that it is not.
From my perspective, it seems that we are not a very well-informed citizenry. I’m not even sure how possible it is to be well-informed these days. The core tenet of the ‘do your own research’ phenomenon is that one simply finds and sites information that already aligns with existing emotional perspectives. We are not a data driven citizenry. Even if we were, where would we look to get trusted data that we could agree on?
It is a feature of our society to have a venue for disagreement, argument, and hopefully, eventual compromise. This is not a bug of our system. It is what makes this grand experiment that is the United States so unique in the history of our species. However, in order for any of this to continue to work we need to be able to agree on a certain set of facts. From there we can discuss diverging perspectives on a way forward.
For example, let’s say we were all living in some abstract existence of numbers. And we all agreed we were standing on the number 2. It would be perfectly logical for factions to argue about how we should proceed into the future. One-third of the population arguing to stay on 2. One-third arguing to move on to 3. And one-third arguing to move back to 1. Everyone could make their case about 1, 2, and 3 because everyone agrees that we are currently standing on 2.
That is not the case in America and perhaps even the planet. We aren’t standing on a static, and agreed upon, set of facts. Let’s imagine that a faction in the example above came along and said, ‘actually folks we are standing on the color orange’. How does someone argue the case for, or against, 2 when we aren’t even in agreement that we are currently standing on 2?
To take that example to it’s extreme let’s imagine that some say, ‘I’m actually standing on a cat.’ Others say, ‘I’m standing on a cloud.’ A person with little credentials but a large number of social media followers says, ‘I’m actually floating’ and then broadcasts that to millions of people that now also believe they are floating.
The distrust in reputable media and government institutions leaves a void. And just like any other void, it will be filled with something. In these modern times, the void left by the trusted information of reputable institutions will be filled with whoever has the most followers on social media. Credentials be damned. The ability to gain the most followers seems to make one creditable enough to be an authority on whatever issue comes down the pike.
We can see why we are in this current situation of anger, distrust, extremism, and most prominently, confusion. If I’m advocating for anything here, it would be to exercise caution when joining any movement or coalition that is offering swift and decisive action against some of our core tenets and institutions.
Indeed, we must hold people and institutions accountable when they make mistakes. I may even be so bold as to say we should offer them some grace and time to make their atonements. However, taking a wrecking ball to institutions that took decades or centuries to build because of a few gaffs seems like an overreaction and a dangerous gamble.
Please be good to one another. I hope you have found some value in this. Thanks for reading and I appreciate your attention.
Billy's Briefs 