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.