By Jonah Goldberg
Saturday, January 14, 2017
I should just say it clearly: I will never fall in love
with Donald Trump. For most of you, this is not a big surprise. But for some,
it’s a kind of betrayal. In much the same way the Left gets furious when you
just don’t care enough about its priorities, many of Trump’s biggest supporters
get bizarrely angry at the fact that I am not emotionally correct when it comes
to the new president.
Monsieur Google tells me that “emotional correctness” is
a term that’s been used before including by — ack! — the constantly
self-parodying Sally Kohn. But fortunately, I don’t mean it the way she does.
In fact, I think I mean something close to the opposite.
There’s a lot of tribalism and romanticism in the water
these days. By tribalism I mean the idea that loyalty to one’s side comes first
and arguments come later, and when they do, they must be bent to fit the needs
of one’s side. By romanticism, I mean the primacy of feelings over facts.
Epistemic Closure
for Thee, But Not for Me
The vexing thing is that a lot of liberals agree with
this observation when it’s framed as a criticism of conservatives. That’s
Obama’s whole shtick these days, decrying “bubbles” and the lack of a “common
baseline of fact.” And by “these days,” I really mean his entire presidency.
Obama has always argued that anyone
who disagrees with him is doing so from a deficit of facts and surplus of
partisanship and ideology. Even when Elizabeth
Warren disagreed with him, he resorted to this lazy arrogance.
But Obama is hardly alone. This has been a theme in
progressivism going back a century, from the progressive obsession with
“disinterestedness” to JFK’s insistence that “political labels and ideological
approaches are irrelevant to the solution” of modern challenges. “Most of the problems
. . . that we now face, are technical problems, are administrative problems,”
he insisted, and these problems “deal with questions which are now beyond the
comprehension of most men.”
The whole ludicrous and yet somehow quaint “epistemic
closure” panic of the last decade and the rise of “explanatory journalism”
illustrated the extent to which liberals believe that confirmation bias is a
uniquely conservative failure. Paul Krugman cut to the epistemological chase
with his claim that “facts have a liberal bias.” Neil deGrasse Tyson’s
fantasies of creating a utopian world called “Rationalia” is in one sense a
great punchline to a joke, but it’s also a perfect example of how liberal
tribalism uses scientism to discredit perspectives it doesn’t like.
Care, Damn It
All of that is annoying, but it can’t hold a candle to
the ugliness of emotional correctness. In recent years, we’ve seen how the real
crime isn’t conservative intellectual or ideological dissent but conservative
emotional dissent. Mozilla’s Brendan Eich being pelted from his job, the
perfidious treason of the wedding-cake bakers, the assaults on Hobby Lobby and
Chick-fil-A, the bonfires of asininity lit every day on college campuses: These
have so much less to do with an ideological argument and more to do with the
new unwritten and unspoken fatwah: “You will be made to care.”
During that idiotic Halloween controversy at Yale, one
student captured the moment beautifully when she complained that an
administrator’s attempts to discuss, explain, and debate the issue were beside
the point. “He doesn’t get it,” she wrote. “And I don’t want to debate. I want
to talk about my pain.” The truth is she didn’t just want to talk about her
pain, she wanted her pain validated and even celebrated.
In the Soviet Union and other totalitarian societies,
displaying overt signs of “insufficient enthusiasm” is a crime:
“Now, if a North Korean university professor is suspected
of insufficient enthusiasm for the system, they will be gone without a trace
very quickly,” Andrei Lankov has written of the Hermit Kingdom. “Even the
memory of the unlucky victim would likely disappear.”
The other day an NPR reporter tweeted:
Marilyn Geewax surely can’t think that Tom Price, a
doctor, is against curing cancer. But she clearly thinks that there’s some
serious problem with Price for not applauding an entirely debatable and typical
rhetorical bauble in a State of the Union Address. My point isn’t to single out
Geewax. I’m sure she’s a perfectly nice person.
My point is simply that in this moment of cultural and
ideological polarization, the refusal to share one’s passions is a sign of
disloyalty.
The Trump Tribe
And that is true on the right as well. In fairness, it’s
surely always been true on the right to one extent or another, because the
phenomenon I’m talking about is a product of human nature not ideology. The
coalitional instinct is a universal human trait that causes people to link up
in tribal bonds. The great evolutionary psychologist John Tooby explains that
the coalitional instinct “explains a number of otherwise puzzling phenomena.”
For example, ancestrally, if you
had no coalition you were nakedly at the mercy of everyone else, so the
instinct to belong to a coalition has urgency, pre-existing and superseding any
policy-driven basis for membership. This is why group beliefs are free to be so
weird.
I’m writing about this at considerable length in my book,
so I won’t cannibalize myself here. But the coalitional instinct is an
important concept to keep in mind these days.
It certainly helps me understand the barrages of
invective and utterly bizarre psychoanalyzing I’m subjected to every day. For
instance, last night I was on Bret Baier’s Special
Report. On the show, I praised Trump’s appointments and offered a plausibly
favorable interpretation of his disagreements with his cabinet officials. I
also defended Trump’s tweets supporting LL Bean, but I criticized others. The
response, as usual, from the Trump Tribe was an irrational miasma of rage and
projection.
When you cut through the trollery, the basic complaint is
simply that I am guilty of insufficient enthusiasm for Donald Trump. I keep
getting asked in various ways, “When will you get over your Never Trump
obsession?” As I’ve written countless times now, as far as I’m concerned, Never
Trump isn’t a thing anymore. Trump won, he’ll be the next president, so there’s
nothing to be “never” about.
The problem is that “Never Trump” has morphed in the
minds of both liberals and conservatives to mean something very different. For
liberals, it means one must never defend anything Trump does or even nod to his
legitimacy in the slightest way — lest one be guilty of some form of hypocrisy
(this is just another manifestation of the ancient practice of liberals telling
conservatives the right way to be conservative).
On the right, Never Trump has become a convenient
psychological crutch for dismissing inconvenient arguments. Like the
ever-metastasizing phrase “fake news,” it’s waved like a magic wand to make any
threatening claim disappear without having to deal with it on the merits.
Marxists used to use the term “false consciousness” in much the same way: to
head-off threatening facts or arguments by attacking motives. When I point out
that until a few months ago Republicans and conservatives despised crony
capitalism or “picking winners and losers,” the instant reply amounts to: “When
are you going to get over your Never Trump obsessions?”
The upshot of all of these responses is “Get with the
program,” “Get on board the Trump Train,” or “Get on the right side of history.”
I’ve spent the last two decades decrying this form of argumentation from
liberals — twice at book length. I don’t see why I should abandon that position
now. Indeed, the only logically consistent argument for why I should (and one
often whispered or hinted at behind the scenes) is that it’s the safe play for
my career and my income — to which I say, “Meh.”
How to Help Trump
Win
But I’ve dilated on all that many times in this space, so
let me make a different point. I very much want Trump to be a successful conservative president — which is to
say, I don’t want him to be a successful statist president. I understand
all-too-well that many of Trump’s fans do
want him to be a successful statist president. They don’t use the word
“statist,” preferring the rough synonym “nationalist.” They either sincerely
think, or convincingly pretend to think, that there’s a meaningful difference
between a statist and a nationalist. There isn’t.
That’s a worthwhile argument to have, and there will be
many opportunities to have it down the road.
But if Trump is going to be a successful conservative
president, I think his biggest fans will have to recognize their own tribalism.
I’ll give you two examples. Last night I got these responses to my appearance
on Special Report:
And
@BretBaier
@JonahNRO Jonah Goldberg is STILL a NeverTrumper with crow hanging out of his
mouth. We don’t want to see/hear him. WE DON’T!!!
—
Carolinagirl101 (@southernpearle) January 13, 2017
Put aside how much these tweets exemplify the points I
made above.
The most relevant point is the claim that “the voters
want him to tweet.” Trump’s spinners make similar claims ten times a day,
insisting that “the American people” support whatever it is he’s doing at a
given moment.
Donald Trump’s approval ratings are the lowest for any
incoming president in history, by a very, very wide margin. Obama went into his
inauguration with a net favorability rating of +71. George W. Bush and Clinton
had +36 and +50, respectively. Trump? Negative
seven (-7). He’s dropped 13 points in the last month. Quinnipiac has his
favorability rating at 37 percent, a marked drop since November. The internals
are worse. He’s lost ground in almost every category since the election. Only
12 percent of Americans say they think he will be a “great president.” Oh, and
Americans think by a 2–1 margin (64 to 32) that he should stop tweeting.
Looking at these numbers, it is very difficult to see how
the Trump Tribe can claim he has the support of the American people for his
behavior since the election, unless you define “the American people” as the
Americans who unabashedly support Trump. And it seems that a lot of people in
the Always Trump camp believe exactly that.
No comments:
Post a Comment