By Ben Shapiro
Wednesday, June 08, 2016
Last week, President Obama became the target of mockery
when he descended into Porky Pig protestations at the divisiveness of
presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump. After tripping over his words
while trying to gain his footing, Obama finally settled on a line of attack:
“If we turn against each other based on divisions of race or religion, if we
fall for a bunch of ‘okey doke’ just because it sounds funny or the tweets are
provocative, then we’re not going to build on the progress we started.”
Meanwhile, across the country, likely Obama supporters
rioted at a Trump event in San Jose, Calif., waving Mexican flags, burning
American ones, assaulting Trump supporters, and generally engaging in mayhem.
The same day, Trump labeled a judge presiding over his
civil trial as unfit for his job. “I’m building a wall,” said Trump. “It’s an
inherent conflict of interest.” What, pray tell, was that inherent conflict of
interest? Trump said that the judge was “Mexican” (he was born in Indiana, to
Mexican parents).
Two days later, Trump told Fox News’s Jeanine Pirro,
“Barack Obama has been a terrible president, but he’s been a tremendous
divider. He has divided this country from rich and poor, black and white — he has
divided this country like no president in my opinion, almost ever . . . I will
bring people together.”
So, who’s right?
They’re both right. Obama, like it or not, leads a
coalition of tribes. Trump, like it or not, leads a competing coalition of tribes.
The Founders weep in their graves.
The Founders were scholars of both Thomas Hobbes and John
Locke. Hobbes argued that the state of nature — primitive society — revolved
around a war of “every man against every man.” In such a state, life was awful:
“No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear and
danger of violent death; and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and
short.” The only solution to such chaos, said Hobbes, was the Leviathan: the
state, which is “but an artificial man; though of greater stature and strength
than the natural, for whose protection and defense it was intended; and in
which, the sovereignty is an artificial soul, as giving life and motion to the
whole body.”
Hobbesian theory has prevailed throughout human history:
Tribal societies either remain in a constant state of war with each other, or
they are overthrown by a powerful government. Jared Diamond writes that “tribal
warfare tends to be chronic, because there are not strong central governments
that can enforce peace.” Those strong central governments often arise, says
Francis Fukuyama, thanks to the advent of religion, which unites tribes across
family boundaries. The rise of powerful leadership leads to both tyranny and to
peace.
But in Western societies, such tyranny cannot last. After
generations of tyranny — after tribalism gives way to Judeo-Christian teachings
enforced through government — citizens begin to question why a tyrant is
necessary. They begin to ask John Locke’s question: In a state of nature, we
had rights from one another; what gives the tyrant power to invade those
rights? Is prevention of violence a rationale for full government control, or
were governments created to protect our rights? Our Founders came down on the side
of Locke; as they stated in the Declaration of Independence, “to secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed.”
But the Founders still feared tribalism. They called it
“faction” in The Federalist Papers,
and were truly worried about the seizure of the mechanism of government in
order to benefit one group over another. They may have agreed with Locke over
Hobbes about the proper extent of government power, but they never believed
that tribalism had disappeared. That is why they attempted to create a
government pitting faction against faction, cutting the Gordian knot of tyranny
and tribalism with checks and balances. As James Madison famously wrote in Federalist No. 51:
If men were angels, no government
would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal
controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to
be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must
first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place
oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the
primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the
necessity of auxiliary precautions.
It was a brilliant solution to an intractable problem —
so long as it worked.
It no longer does. Tribalism has had its revenge.
It began with the decline of American religion in the
1950s. As religion declined, Americans looked for new sources of community —
and in the 1960s, the Marxist Left provided Americans communal meaning in
ethnic and racial solidarity. Even as America began to move beyond its historic
racism, the Left hijacked the conversation around race and divvied Americans up
into subgroups of ethnic haves and have-nots. City governments became
playgrounds for racial factions taking control of government and expanding
their power. Student groups divided along racial and sexual lines. The social
fabric frayed.
The unrest of the 1960s and 1970s provoked a
law-and-order backlash — a desire for a government that would tamp down the
unrest and restore order. For three decades, Americans rejected tribalism as a
mode of politics (Ronald Reagan believed in universal human freedoms, and Bill
Clinton famously rejected Sister Souljah’s race-baiting). Not surprisingly, the
rejection of 1960s tribalism ushered in an era of smaller government dedicated
toward the proposition that constitutional checks and balances were the best
protection against tyranny.
And then came the Obama presidency.
President Obama’s tribal politics have crippled America.
Americans hoped that Obama — after campaigning on the notion that he would
provide the capstone to America’s non-tribalism — would heal our wounds and
move our country beyond racial politics. He, in his own persona, was to be a
racial unifier. He represented the hope that America could reject tribalism in
favor of American universalism.
Instead, Obama has rejected checks and balances as a
matter of principle, and has used tribalism to grow his own power. By cobbling
together a coalition of racial and ethnic interest groups, Obama knew he could
maximize the power of the government to act on their behalf. And so his
Department of Justice has crippled police departments based solely on the race
of police officers. He constantly suggests that America has an inborn,
unfixable problem with racism. He poses as a rejection of the Founding
ideology.
Donald Trump is the counter-reaction. But he is not a
Reaganesque or even Bill Clinton-esque counter-reaction. He, like Obama, is
tribal. His tribalism is the tribalism of Pat Buchanan, who suggested in 2011
what appears to be Donald Trump’s electoral strategy: “to increase the GOP
share of the white Christian vote and increase the turnout of that vote by
specific appeals to social, cultural, and moral issues, and for equal justice
for the emerging white minority.”
“Why should Republicans be ashamed to represent the
progeny of the men who founded, built, and defended America since her birth as
a nation?” Buchanan asked, concluding that “white anger is a legitimate
response to racial injustices done to white people.” Instead of attempting to
set checks and balances to prevent faction, instead of attempting to educate
Americans in our Founding principles, this philosophy focuses on tribalism of a
different sort, making the crucial error of linking skin color to culture.
And so we may have reached the end of the era of small
government. As tribalism rises, Americans look again to the strongman. We begin
the cycle anew. But first, we feel the rage of riots in San Jose and Ferguson,
and the spiteful glee of the white-nationalist alt-right. We watch contests
between tribal figures like Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. We wonder which
tribe will win, even as America disintegrates before us.
No comments:
Post a Comment