Trump Hysteria and the Good Old Days
Peter Schultz
Recently, I
have heard people lamenting the fact that, especially in the age of Trump, that
the United States has become a divided nation like never before. In the “good
old days” it is said that the American people were moderates politically and
now they are “forced” to take sides and are not willing as a result to
compromise, as they did in “the good old days.”
Some things
about this argument bothered me and it took a little while to figure out what these
things were. First, the very idea of “the good old days” bothered me as I think
Billy Joel was right to sing, “The good old days weren’t always so good and
today isn’t as bad as it seems.” I especially like the first part of this
refrain because today is, often, as bad as it seems.
Second, “the
good old days” is a myth, a comforting
myth according to which that in the good old days people were moderate, willing
to listen to opposing viewpoints and to compromise. I wonder: When was this
“golden age” of moderation and compromise? Was it the 50s and 60s when blacks
could not legally sit at lunch counter and order food in Greensboro, N.C.? Was it
when there were no blacks at southern colleges and universities like UNC, N.C.
State, or Wake Forest College? There was a time, in the good old days, when
there were no black athletes playing any sports in the ACC or the SEC and a
basketball player like Oscar Robertson, a resident of Winston Salem, N.C. had
to go north to play division 1 college basketball.
Were people
moderate and willing to compromise when very few gays or lesbians would “come
out” for fear for their bodies and lives and for being arrested and charged
criminally? Was our politics moderate
when JFK, because he was a Catholic, was not on the presidential ballot in
Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia? Was our politics moderate when JFK was
gunned down in Dallas in 1963? Or when MLK was gunned down in Memphis in 1968?
Or when Bobby Kennedy was gunned down in Los Angeles also in 1968? Or when
Malcolm X was gunned down in the 60s as well? Or when Ronald Reagan, as governor
of California spoke of shooting student protesters? Or when no one was charged
with any crime after the killings of unarmed students at Kent State and Jackson
State? If this is moderation, it is certainly a strange kind of moderation.
Thirdly,
such arguments about “the good old days” imply that moderation and a
willingness to compromise are the “default political position.” That is,
moderation and a willingness to compromise are thought to characterize politics
in its “natural state,” and this state is only upset by the efforts of people
and politicians committed to disruption and chaos. And this is just another
myth and one that is dangerously geared to political passivity. By this view,
people shouldn’t have fight to be heard, to advance their agendas in the
political arena. All people have to do is “start a discussion,” say, about race
and, in the end, people will “see the light,” act moderately and compromise to
advance justice.
Well, as
near as I can tell, this is just poppy cock. It wasn’t a “discussion” that ended,
for a while anyway, the racist apartheid regime that existed in the U.S. since
the end of the Civil War. It wasn’t a “discussion” that led the government,
eventually, to change its policies in Vietnam, to seek “peace with honor”
rather that “victory” over those evil Communists. It wasn’t a “discussion” that
won workers the right to unionize and that led to legislation meant to make
work places safer. It wasn’t a discussion that won women the right to vote in
national elections. None of these phenomena occurred because the nation had “a
discussion.” They occurred as the result of battles, real, bloody battles. As
Plato makes evident in his Republic,
justice does not just appear, is not “self-evident.” Knowing what justice is
requires a struggle, which is what Plato understood to be philosophy. And of course this means that a politics of
justice necessarily involves struggles, even battles as contestants seek to
advance, one way or another, their different versions of justice.
The
argument condemning Trump – and he deserves condemnation as do others as well –
for dividing America based on the idea that in the past, in “the good old days,”
moderation and compromise characterized our political order and society is an
argument that leads to political passivity. As a result, eventually people will
just throw up their hands, giving up when their wishes for a “discussion” about
this or that are thwarted, thinking “what’s the use? Our political activity
doesn’t get us anywhere.”
But as my
mother use to say, “If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.”
Calling for “discussions” of race, of gender, of imperialism
are powerless against the likes of Trump. It was Malcolm X who said a
relatively long time ago, “The ballot or the bullet.” And, indeed, that is
still the choice. It was Malcolm X who also said, “By any means necessary.” Without
intending it, Trump has helped to create a situation where even people who
claim to be “white” can understand, can feel what Malcolm meant.
No comments:
Post a Comment