Trumpism: Old Con in New Bottle

There is a lot of talk about Trumpism – a new ideology, a new movement, a new kind of politics, etc.  Nothing like a new ‘ism’ to get commentators going.  But what Trump has brought to politics is actually just the same old Con, albeit in a gauche new bottle.

 

Con politics has always been exploiting lamentable tendencies in people who are susceptible to being manipulated into acting against their own interest.  

 

Here are four classic Con tricks:

 

[1] Recruit cult followers

Target people who would feel valued by joining a cult where a shameless and arrogant leader would be perceived by the flock as faultless chief to be followed with total devotion.  Give them a misguided sense of belonging, and they would back the cult regardless of its wrongdoing.

 

[2] Scam gullible buyers

Target people who would fall for con merchants selling snake oil, Ponzi schemes, or anything that would cost them and give them nothing in return but false hope.  Deflect them from good offers, and mislead them into buying into worthless, or even harmful deals.

 

[3] Feed rumour mongers

Target people who would gladly pick up and circulate malicious rumours to help stoke outrage, prejudice, mistrust, fear, etc., as that would get them attention from propagating shocking ‘news’.  Make them feel ‘special’ in spreading ‘information’ that established experts assess to be false or unsubstantiated.

 

[4] Gather law-breaking fodder 

Target people who would embrace any excuse to break the law to suit themselves, especially when it is dressed up as some self-righteous cause.  Encourage them to intimidate, or even attack, scapegoats and enemies with the help of verbal threats, display of weapons, and physical violence – all in the name of ‘freedom’.

 

Trumpian recycled Con

 

So-called ‘Trumpism’ is little more than recycled Con.  For decades we have seen the aforementioned tricks deployed, and Trump has simply made more brazen use of them.

 

First, evangelical cults have always tried to claim ‘God’ for the politics of exploitation, while trampling on religious values of love and fairness.  Like many cult leaders, the morally vile Trump was able to take on the role of the ‘one who can do no wrong’ in the eyes of his followers.

 

Secondly, the ‘free market’ scam is there to con people about the economics of redistribution from the poor to the rich.  Regulations are imposed or removed to suit the wealthy elite.  Trump continued to sell to the public that cutting funds for the less well-off to enrich the few at the top is a great bargain for all.

 

Thirdly, malicious fabrications to denigrate immigrants, public institutions, climate science etc are integral to the Con rumour mill to stir up distrust and animosity, so that the needed public policies are thwarted.  Trump extended the web of deception via social media and reached even more who preferred lies to reality.

 

Fourthly, Con politics has consistently waved the banner of Law & Order while whispering threats of disruption and violence.  From gun-toting gangs to supremist groups, Trump endorsed intimidatory behaviour, and encouraged rejection of the rule of law whenever his failings were being exposed.

 

Pour the old Con away

 

Many books and articles will be written about this tacky bottle called ‘Trumpism’, but what everyone should focus on is the dreadful old Con that it contains.  These tricks can be played in different ways by different performers.  But they all follow the same patterns, and should be thoroughly exposed.  Don’t let the face on the bottle distract you; keep the spotlight on the lies and misdirection. 

The Identity Trap

Careless talk about who we are supposed to be can throw us into a dangerous identity trap.

Some may think that pinning down someone’s identity is an unequivocal matter. But what is one’s identity is a question that depends on the context in which it is asked. Is one being asked about one’s nationality, religion, moral outlook, attachment to customs, workplace position, cultural preferences, sporting allegiance, socio-economic background, biological traits, role in one’s family, or membership of some group that holds special significance? None of the elements just mentioned is sufficient by itself to cover every possible question about one’s identity. Furthermore, just because one cites a particular category in relation to any of these elements, it does not follow that it must be part of one’s identity to possess all the features some people may choose to ascribe to that category.

For example, pick any nationality, and there will be some who associate it with all that is noble and heroic, and some who regard as the embodiment of untrustworthiness and aggression. The truth, for just about every nation, is that there are proud and regrettable moments in its history, and while its members may be judged on how they feel about these moments, they can’t be held accountable for those occurrences over which they had no influence. Similarly, one may have grown up with certain customs, but it does not follow that one will continue to embrace all those customs and related beliefs, or interpret their meaning in the same way. Short-hand labels like ‘Catholic’, ‘Buddhist’, ‘Shiite’ can be totally misleading if we assume everyone with that label must resemble one another in every vital respect, and share responsibility for the actions of anyone who happens to apply that label to themselves.

Biological features could be relevant when referred to in specific contexts, but are likely to distort how people are viewed if invoked on the basis of dubious generalisation. If information relating to DNA, X/Y chromosomes, bodily health, etc can help to determine the diagnosis and treatment of people, then it should be factored in. However, to talk about someone’s ethnicity, gender, or age as though from that element alone we can deduce every significant statement about that person is clearly absurd. Identity politics may rely on rigid categorisation of people into pre-conceived ‘black/white’, ‘female/male’, ‘old/young’ types; but every attribution of inherent psychological or behavioural traits to these types has been refuted by experience.

Equally unfounded, but just as commonly made, are identity claims formulated about people in connection with their socio-economic circumstances. For instance, people who cannot make ends meet and are socially marginalised (because, e.g., they are hampered by the deprivations in their neighbourhoods, recession has left too few job opportunities, disability limits what paid work they can find, dire conditions back home have forced them to become refugees) may have in common the need for external support to obtain food and shelter, but how they see their predicament and what they do in response vary greatly. Yet, to group them as ‘benefit seekers’ and project them disparagingly, especially by equating them with a small minority who attempt to claim benefit payment on false terms, is simply misleading and viciously hurtful.

The identity trap is one of the most insidious propagandist tools. To counter it, we should:
[1] stress we have multiple characteristics and not any single one of these can be picked out as all-defining of who a person is;
[2] expose any attempt to make arbitrary generalisations about what any partial identity label is supposed to encompass; and
[3] remind everyone that there are other characteristics that are all too often overlooked – e.g., the important self-identification as someone who seeks to be a thoughtful person, a caring parent, an enemy of cruelty, a defender of reason.

Humans are complex beings. We must never let others stick us down with a simplistic label.

Make America Sane Again

The world needs the US to be of sound mind. For then it will see that to look after the American people, it should not be divisive either within or beyond its borders. It will seek to understand what really works to make lives better for everyone, and keep at bay the rantings of deranged narcissists.

Let us hope that on 3 November, an end is put to the madness of the last four years. In its place, we look forward to signs of a genuine recovery.

First of all, isn’t it time to get much closer to affordable healthcare for all? Did it really take an inescapable pandemic for the richest country in the world to realise how outrageously wrong it is that millions of its own citizens must suffer and die just because they are denied the necessary jobs and income? Universal healthcare has to be the most fundamental of human safety net.

Next up, the ‘unscrupulous takes all’ economy has to change. So long as corporate cheats can use tax loopholes, relentless lobbying, political donations, etc. to amass a fortune for themselves while leaving most people with insecure, underpaid jobs or no jobs at all, there will be insufficient demand to sustain supplies. Worker cooperatives, community enterprise, strategic regulation and investment, are needed to give people a dependable livelihood.

Thirdly, urgent action is needed to tackle pollution, depletion of non-renewable resources, and climate change threats, all of which have surged ahead under a leader who has cared more about playing golf than not inflicting harm on countless people. These problems require international collaboration, and the sooner callous unilateralism is moved aside, the more chance we will have for a sustainable future.

Fourthly, the world has had enough of Putin’s ambassador to the White House disrupting global security to serve Russia’s geopolitical interest. Sanity calls for, not a return to military intimidation abroad to boost a false patriotism at home, but for a new era of calm leadership and rational cooperation with other countries to secure peace and stability.

Last, and certainly not least, there has to be an unmistakable resolve to put an end to vile discrimination and the politics of hate. The gratuitous stoking of animosity against people based on their gender or race; the standing alongside of misogynists, homophobes, and racists as an shameless ally; and the abuse of executive power to target the vulnerable – all this must be irrevocably displaced by a new dawn of respect and decency.

All these changes are possible. A path to civic recovery is feasible.
On 3rd November – Make America Sane Again.

The Revolution Paradox

Revolutions. What are they good for? Some might say ‘absolutely nothing’, and many caught up in the unleashing of destructive forces and random violence would agree. Moreover, leading revolutionary figures have all too often toppled authoritarian rulers only to establish themselves as even more dictatorial oppressors.

A glance back at the two archetypal revolutions – the French of 1789 and Russian of 1917 – would remind us of a familiar pattern. Vocal denunciation of the prevailing autocratic regime, coupled with promises of a new era that will truly put the people first. Overthrowing of the established order, and dismantling of long-standing arrangements for all key aspects of the governance of society. Suspicion, fear, hysteria intensifying over threats to undermine or even overturn the revolution, leading to baseless accusations, arbitrary arrests, repressive measures, tortures and executions. Tyranny asserts itself and terror reigns.

Many have argued about whether or not these negative consequences of revolutions are ever outweighed by the beneficial changes they might have engendered. What is indisputable is the impact of these revolutions had on fuelling reform movements in other countries which had otherwise long ignored calls for social and political reforms.

Throughout the 18th century, many reformists in Britain had pressed for changes that would curtail corruption within the ruling regime, and enable more people to participate equitably in democratic elections. Their demands were repeatedly brushed aside until the 1789 French Revolution turned their attention to the danger of pent-up demands for change exploding into a violent uprising that could not be suppressed. On the surface, the British establishment remained disdainful of reformist ideas, but in practice, successive reforms were enacted in the following decades to move the country much closer to what the reformists were seeking.

The effects of the Russian Revolution on Western Europe and North America were even more dramatic. Laissez faire capitalism had become the dominant power system in the advanced industrial nations in the 19th century. Against this status quo, reformists called for the state to take on greater social responsibility in protecting citizens from highly damaging economic vicissitudes, and they were routinely ignored, if not condemned. But once the 1917 Russian Revolution and its aftermaths had shown how a ruling regime could be swept aside and replaced by radicals acting in the name of economic justice and respect for workers, political leaders in the West started to accept (however grudgingly in some cases) that the state must take seriously the role of regulating the marketplace properly and providing a decent level of social security for its citizens. The New Deal in the US, the welfare state in Britain, and the rise of social democracy in many parts of Europe illustrated the spread of the new political mindset.

Then came the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, followed by the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Communist revolutionary threat was declared over. Social reforms could not only be ignored once more, but relentlessly reversed. Deregulation, privatisation, welfare cuts, removal of public safety nets, were celebrated as the best policies.

Consequently, millions have suffered. It’s depressingly likely that any revolution would bring short-term terror and long-term oppression to one’s country. But paradoxically, a revolution elsewhere might cause reactionaries to wake up to the need for genuine social and political inclusion, and change course without violent upheaval at home. Of course, in all good conscience, we wouldn’t wish the bloody turmoil of a revolution on any country. Yet what else would it take to shatter the complacency of shameless plutocrats?

Being Thoughtful: a philosophy of life

[To mark the 300th article to appear on Question the Powerful, our latest essay is devoted to setting out the core philosophy of life that runs through our critical reflections on politics and society.]

By whatever term we call it, each of us has a philosophy of life that shapes our judgement and behaviour. However, attempts to compare or improve on such philosophies are all too often hampered by overused labels which carry divisive connotations. Instead of clarifying what people mean, they convey contrasting ideas to different audiences. A nominal affiliation, a short-hand ‘left’/’right’ reference, or a loose association with certain groups – can all be invoked to declare someone a follower of this or that ‘ism’ and what that must imply.

Let us try to explore one particular philosophy of life without pigeon-holing it into some pre-conceived box. We’ll call it the Philosophy of Being Thoughtful. In essence, it prompts us to be thoughtful about:
[1] what we value, since none of us can ignore how the pursuit of our values can impact on others and vice versa, and we should recognise the mutual responsibility we have for our respective actions and their consequences;
[2] what we believe, since accepting dubious claims and rejecting sound assertions can lead us down erroneous paths, and we should engage in cooperative enquiry to ascertain what does or does not merit our assent;
[3] what we decide, since the implications of our decisions can’t be fully grasped without discovering the relevant views and concerns others may have, and we should ensure citizen participation is the norm in reaching collective decisions.

In practical terms, this means we should always try to be thoughtful empathically, cognitively, and volitionally – seeking information and understanding to appreciate how others may feel, what views should be revised, and which course of action ought to be chosen given the circumstances. It also means we must anticipate when we will have insufficient evidence, resources, or time to think everything through – we should be ready to act on the basis of what is available to us but prepared to revise our position if and when we can access more that is relevant; and just as importantly, we must constantly help expand inter-personal understanding, empirical knowledge, and collaborative arrangements as essential long-term development for our common wellbeing.

And what difference would it make? We can look at a few examples.

First, how do we view others? There are some who regard others as inconsequential when they go about getting what they want. There are some who look down on others just because of their skin tone, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, or economic background. But being thoughtful means we regard others as we would want them to regard us; we try to understand what it is like to be in their shoes; and we respect their preferences so long as they respect us and intend us no injury.

Secondly, how do we respond to ignorance? There are those who want to spread misconception and superstition, because they want to deceive others for their own ends, or they are lost in their own delusion. But being thoughtful means we are to learn from experience and experiment; apply objective tests and explorations to assess what deserves to be accepted as credible; and promote education that is grounded on science and critical scholarship.

Thirdly, how do we behave in society? There are those who are content to leave everyone to their own devices even though some will hurt and subjugate others. There are those who simply want to have the power to exploit and dominate others. But being thoughtful means we give our support to inclusive arrangements to give everyone a meaningful say; to collaborative structures for making decisions with wider social implications; and to forms of governance which protect us from harm by individuals, groups, or corporations.

Finally, how do we deal with threats? There are some who want to strike hard at whoever they deem a threat – severe punishment for alleged lawbreakers, torture for anyone accused of being a terrorist, military attacks on any foreign country designated an enemy – and do so regardless of whether or not the accused in question is guilty. But being thoughtful means we are to focus on establishing what poses the real threats; find the most effective and proportionate means of dealing with those who threaten us (deploying diplomacy, offensive action, rehabilitation, and incarceration where it is appropriate); and treat the threat from those who abuse the power to protect us as seriously as the threat they claim to protect us from.

While many will recognise the traits and dispositions characteristic of this philosophy of life, few will agree on a name for it. Elements of it can be found across diverse cultures since ancient times; they feature in the ideas of a number of Renaissance and 17th century thinkers; in the writings of many Enlightenment advocates; and in the advice put forward by numerous cooperative and progressive-minded reformists from the 19th century on. Being Thoughtful is perhaps the closest we can get to capturing the common strand in all of them that reflects what has been outlined here.

--

A guide to further reading for ‘Being Thoughtful: a philosophy of life’ can be found at: https://hbtam.blogspot.com/2020/08/being-thoughtful-reading-guide.html

What Makes Better Communities: the communitarian case

There is no shortage of ideas for making communities better. To consider what communitarian thinking may have to offer, we need to retrace what the key formulations of that thinking involves.

The initial set of formulations appeared around the middle of the 19th century. It related to the ideas and practices of Robert Owen and people who wanted to apply these to the development of cooperative arrangements to facilitate better social and economic relations. ‘Communitarian’ emerged as a common term for describing Owenite efforts to set up new forms of enterprise, work communities, and associations of workers. While a common aspiration was to realise the age-old potential for collaboration and solidarity, the strategies that were tried out pointed, not to a return to some idealised past, but to new rules and structures to deal with the prevailing reality. This was exemplified by the Rochdale Pioneers, formed in 1844, this group of worker-owners pooled their resources to buy goods needed by local people and sell them at a reasonable price with any profit to be shared amongst members of the group. Customers and workers alike could become members and everyone had an equal vote in determining how the group was run.

The next set of formulations of ‘communitarian’ came in the 1980s via the commentary on the writings of Alasdair MacIntyre, Michael Sandel, Michael Walzer, and Charles Taylor, all of whom had penned critiques with a common target – the ideas of John Rawls. The four of them came to be considered as sharing a ‘communitarian’ stance in opposing a form of liberalism that is premised on what they deemed a deeply flawed conception of the self. They argued that a person conceptually stripped of all relational connections with others is not the ‘real’ person with the utmost clarity of thought, but an isolated entity with no sense of belonging, obligations, or concerns, without which there can be no meaningful moral reflections. Significantly, all four of these philosophers’ aversion towards the atomistic self is reflected in their objections to economic individualism and the consequent rise in inequality in society.

The third set of formulations appeared in the 1990s from a number of writers who drew on the cooperative ideals of solidarity and reciprocity in putting forward theories of communitarianism. David Miller argued for a communitarian form of market socialism that could avoid the pitfalls of top-down socialism and laissez faire capitalism. Jonathan Boswell set out a theory of ‘democratic communitarianism’, which explains why neither an over-reliance on the market nor the state can solve the problems facing society, and how mutually supportive human relations sustained by multiple communities at different levels should be cultivated through cooperative institutional practices and public policies. These views were echoed by Robert Bellah in The Good Society; while Charles Derber maintained that combining the Scandinavian model of state-citizen cooperation and the inclusive approaches of cooperative enterprises exemplified by the Mondragon Corporation and others, could hold the key to the development of what he called ‘left communitarianism’. And in her article, ‘A communitarian approach to local governance’, Elinor Ostrom noted that “appropriate institutional arrangements for cooperative housing and neighborhood governance are necessary to facilitate co-productive efforts for monitoring and exercising control over public spaces”.

The fourth set of formulations were put forward by a group of public intellectuals who wanted to use the ‘communitarian’ banner to champion a different approach to public policy development. Amitai Etzioni and William Galston were the main driving force behind the initiative, with Philip Selznick and Thomas Spragens amongst the key contributors to its scholarly exposition. The group launched its Responsive Communitarian Platform to set out its main concerns with the lack of balance between meeting demands for individual rights and promoting responsibility for the common good, and went on to issue policy recommendations on strengthening family support, improving schools in value education, engaging communities in crime reduction, focusing government intervention on where it is most needed, and a wide range of other subjects. Their underlying aim is to bolster liberal politics by empowering communities through moral dialogues, civic education, and policies that pursue public goals as defined by an informed public.

The fifth set of ideas emerged in the synthesis of philosophical and policy considerations I developed in my 1998 book, Communitarianism. In addition to drawing out the three key communitarian principles of cooperative enquiry, mutual responsibility, and citizen participation, it integrated theories and practices from a wide range of countries and sectors. These offered a comprehensive critique of both unrestrained market forces and arbitrary state actions, argued for inclusive community development as opposed to the revival of old dysfunctional community relations, and explained the need for more deliberative and participatory engagement to be advanced in government institutions, business organisations, and voluntary groups.

Taken together, these five sets of formulation of communitarian ideas provide a conceptual DNA profile that can help us trace their development through history, understand their significance in challenging prevailing assumptions, and recognise what they offer in reshaping the theory and practice of community improvement.

--
You can find out more from The Evolution of Communitarian Ideas (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019): https://www.palgrave.com/gb/book/9783030265571

Communitarianism: a new agenda for politics and citizenship (Palgrave Macmillan, 1998): https://www.amazon.co.uk/Communitarianism-New-Agenda-Politics-Citizenship/dp/0814782361

The Home-centric Redevelopment Scheme

Ease or revive lockdown? What are we to do with this Covid-19 pandemic that has mired us in fear and uncertainties? Is there anything we can put in place to deal with this predicament?

There is an approach which can, not only solve many of the immediate problems we face, but also help us achieve a range of critical improvements that have for too long been held back. I call it the Home-centric Redevelopment Scheme. It has three components.

[1] Strategic Adaptation to make Home-Working the Norm
Technology has advanced to a point that there can be no excuse for not facilitating home-working in the most effective manner, and making it the norm. Being trusted, empowered, and safe, people will certainly not be any less productive than having to waste time travelling to work. Transport-related pollution is correspondingly reduced. Absenteeism from family life due to work-related time away from home is cut. And contact with colleagues can be made more extensively and rapidly across a computer network than having to go physically to different places. All this requires universal provision of high-quality internet connections, which is something every government should urgently secure.

[2] Conversion of City-centre Offices into Affordable & Sustainable Homes
What about all those empty office blocks, and all the local services that depend on the custom of office workers? The answer is in converting the office buildings that are no longer needed into decent accommodation that can be purchased or rented by people on all income levels. The new homes should meet the highest sustainability standards with low cost energy supplied from renewable sources. Their occupants will be within walking distance to local shops and other facilities, and with masks and other precautions they can keep numerous businesses in the area vibrant.

[3] Establish a Comprehensive Home Delivery Service
Beyond serving customers in their vicinity, businesses will need support in reaching people who live much further away and are disinclined to venture out. To help all businesses get their products to customers in a reliable and cost-effective way, there should be a comprehensive delivery service (e.g., an enhanced nationwide postal service) that enables businesses to send their goods (from furniture to food, clothes to computers) to any home in the country at a fast and economically viable rate. This national service will in turn guarantee its workers an income above the minimum wage, proper sick pay, and reliable health and safety conditions. It will also help many businesses compete with corporations that exploit their own large-scale/low-pay delivery service to dominate the market.

There may remain businesses where direct physical presence is unavoidable. But in parallel with the three components outlined above, it is worth paying much closer attention to how practices in these businesses can be changed as well. As automation increases, worker supervision of machine operation can more and more be done via remote monitoring. Face-to-face consultation and instruction giving can be done on screen. Technology is opening new ways for collaborative working for people who are in fact far apart. We must not, of course, ignore the need to make workplaces safer to carry out what genuinely cannot be done from home. But with the Home-centric Redevelopment Scheme, our safety, sustainability, and economic health can be greatly enhanced.