By Jonah Goldberg
Friday, July 21, 2017
There is a riddle before us. Back in that simpler time,
i.e., the GOP primaries, many people assured me that conservatives could trust
Donald Trump because Senator Jeff Sessions trusted him. With varying degrees of
rage, snark, and dudgeon (which I think is the official law firm of Hogwarts),
these people would say to me: “Do you think Jeff Sessions isn’t a real
conservative?”
On at least one occasion, I recall a finger being poked
in my chest to fortify the point in ways reason could not.
My response isn’t really relevant (but it was something
along the lines of “Sure, but even conservatives make mistakes”). What I find
fascinating, however, is how the transitive property now runs the other way. A
year ago, I was supposed to trust Trump because Sessions trusted Trump. Now,
I’m supposed to distrust Sessions because Trump distrusts Sessions. Okay, then.
The Mind of the
EverTrumper
I am not a big fan of psychologizing. But since I am
subjected every day to a barrage of claims based upon what people think my thinking is, I feel compelled
to turn the tables and offer a bit of mind-reading of my own.
This Jeff Sessions conundrum is all part of a larger
trend unfolding right before our eyes. I wrote about it a bit on the Corner
earlier this week. The Grand Old Party, at least for some, is now a New Party
of One. When conservatives criticize Trump, the common response is “support
your party!” or “RINO!” But when the interests of the party and the personality
diverge, the same people tend to lambaste the party on the “principle” that
Trump demands the greater loyalty.
I’ve been using the phrase “Cult of Personality” a lot
because that’s what this dynamic often seems like. But, the more I think about
it, a Cult of Personality is a far grander thing than what we have here. That
concept enlists phrases like “divinization” and “secular religion,” and we could
spend years talking about Marx and Weber and what they had to say, never mind
all that Stalin stuff. People forget that the actual title of Khrushchev’s
“secret speech” exposing Stalin was actually “On the Cult of Personality and
Its Consequences.” Moreover, contrary to what some of Trump’s biggest critics
on the left and his biggest fans on the swampier right may think, Trump is no
Stalin.
While it’s certainly true that there are people
sufficiently enthralled with Trump to open themselves up to the charge of being
cultists, I don’t think the blind worship of “Cult 45” explains as much as it
once did. I mean, sure, if you’re still convinced that everything Trump has
done has been brilliant and farsighted, if you can read the president’s New York Times interview and push back
from the table with the deep satisfaction that once again the master has
out-thought his foes, if you still think his “I alone can fix it!” vow was
anything other than the kind of bluster that traditionally leaves you with
cider in your ear, then you might as well lead your herd of 50 bulls down to
Trump Tower and sacrifice them to your Latter Day Baal.
But let’s be honest, the chances that Donald Trump will
be a great president — never mind capital-G Great in the historical sense — are
now only slightly better than my chances of getting a Super Bowl ring. I say
“slightly better” because he is president after all, and historical greatness
shares some things in common with the real-estate business and show business:
Location and simply showing up matter a lot.
Who knows what events might bring? Perhaps we will be
visited by orange-hued hostile aliens who speak the language of condo salesmen?
Rationalization Be
My Guide
Anyway, I think there’s a different dynamic at work, at
least for some people. I wrote about it in a column last March, after Trump
gave a good speech before a joint session of Congress.
For those Republicans who are not
sold on Trump the man and are nervous about all the distractions and unforced
political errors of his first weeks in office, the address was a massive
relief. Finally, one heard from nearly all quarters of the
skeptical-but-hopeful right, he’s getting his act together.
It’s a bit like when a loved one
has a drinking problem or some other pathology. When they get their act
together, even for a day or two, parents and siblings take heart and say, “This
is the first day of the rest of his life.” Or “Now things are going to be
different.”
It’s an understandable response.
But both the head-in-the-sand denial from the left and the “We’re cooking with
gas now!” cheerleading from the right encourage people to ignore the substance.
That I could have written the exact same thing in the
wake of the president’s speeches in Warsaw or Riyadh simply underscores that
this has become something of a permanent dynamic of the Trump presidency.
But note: The father who doesn’t want to see his son’s
faults or the wife who can’t bring herself to see that her husband’s
abusiveness isn’t a bug but a feature aren’t worshipful. They’re guilt-ridden
and in denial. And in the process, they rationalize vices into virtues.
Rationalization, explains professor Wikipedia,
encourages irrational or
unacceptable behavior, motives, or feelings and often involves ad hoc hypothesizing.
This process ranges from fully conscious (e.g. to present an external defense
against ridicule from others) to mostly unconscious (e.g. to create a block
against internal feelings of guilt or shame). People rationalize for various
reasons — sometimes when we think we know ourselves better than we do.
Put on your hip boots and wade into the swampier recesses
of Twitter, Facebook, online comment sections, or Sean Hannity’s oeuvre and
you’ll see riots of rationalization. Trump’s lying is celebrated. His petty
vindictiveness is redefined as leadership. Cheating is strength.
Ben Shapiro argues that Trump has liberated some people
who deep down have felt this way all along:
All of which suggests that Trump
isn’t the engine, he’s the hood ornament for a certain movement that now feels
liberated from traditional rules of decent behavior. Trump allows us to indulge
our id and feel righteous while doing it. We grew up believing that decent
behavior made you a decent person — but then we realized that breaking the
rules not only makes victory easier, it’s more fun than having to struggle with
the moral qualms of using moral means to achieve moral ends. So we’ve
constructed a backwards logic to absolve ourselves of moral responsibility. The
first premise: The other side, which wants bad things, cheats and lies and acts
in egregious ways.
I’m sure that’s true for some. But I think for many more
the dynamic works the other way around. Otherwise — or formerly — decent people
find it so unthinkable to admit that Trump is in over his head and not a good
person that they simply engage in the fallacy of ad hoc hypothesizing. Again
Dr. Wikipedia:
In science and philosophy, an ad hoc hypothesis is a hypothesis added
to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. Often, ad hoc hypothesizing is employed to
compensate for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form.
This trait is hardly unique to Trump. When it’s
unseasonably cold in summer, when it rains too much or too little in
California, never mind when satellite data refuse to cooperate, global-warming
alarmists race to bend the facts to the theory by modifying the theory. When
George W. Bush would butcher syntax like it was a wayward traveler in a Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie, his
defenders — who once worshipped the Gipper’s skill as The Great Communicator —
would leap to explain he was “speaking American.” And don’t even get me started
with the rationalizations that sustained the Obama presidency.
A year ago, Donald Trump was the only man who could beat
the dishonest Left and the unfair media at their own game because he was a
media-master and genius dealmaker. He could appeal to Democrats and independents
because his vaunted “flexibility” wasn’t locked into True Conservatism or
Conservatism, Inc. Now his failures to make deals, his inability to break out
of a base-only strategy that is only embraced by the very conservatives he
scorned, and his Kelvin-range approval among independents and Democrats all
invite a cascade of new hypotheses to place blame everywhere but on the man
who, according to the original theory, was supposed to be the one leader
capable of overcoming all that. Much of the writing at the blog American Greatness seems to be dedicated
to the crafting of new hypotheses to keep the myth of the original theory
alive.
Even now, you can hear the wheels turning to explain that
with poor Sean Spicer now securely under the bus, the true Trump will emerge.
You F’d Up, You
Trusted Him
It’s always hard to admit you were wrong about something
in which you invested a lot of energy and emotion. And for some people,
admitting that Mr. Only I Can Fix It really had no idea what he was talking
about most of the time is too bitter a pill to swallow. It’s even harder when
you were warned at the time that you were being conned. As Kevin Williamson
wrote in May of 2016:
Americans and Republicans,
remember: You asked for this. Given the choice between a dozen solid
conservatives and one Clinton-supporting con artist and game-show host, you
chose the con artist. You chose him freely. Nobody made you do it.
Of course, there are conventional political reasons why
many people don’t want to admit the error of their ways. Pragmatically, what
good would it do? You only have one president at a time. “Of course he’s a hot
mess. But he is getting some important things done,” goes this argument, “and
if Republicans and conservatives support him, he can get so many more important
things done.” This is the argument I hear most from readers, congressmen,
denizens of the Fox News green room, and fellow conservative journalists. And
it has some merit, particularly when liberals screech that agreeing with Trump
on conservative policies is a kind of appeasement.
For instance, James Fallows heaps scorn on Senator Ben
Sasse because “he leads all senators in his thoughtful, scholarly ‘concern’
about the norms Donald Trump is breaking — and then lines up and votes with
Trump 95 percent of the time.” As Ramesh demonstrates with his typically Vulcan
economy of language, this is absurd. Ramesh writes:
Take that 95 percent figure
mentioned by Fallows. Was Senator Lindsey Graham really supposed to vote to
keep regulations he considered unwise on the books because he opposes Vladimir
Putin? Was Senator John McCain really supposed to vote against confirming Alex
Acosta as Labor secretary because the president tweets like a maladjusted
12-year-old?
Fallows’s position is a mirror image of the Trump
cultists. For the member of Cult 45, Trump is a demigod and whatever he says
must be right. For the anti-Trump cultist, Trump is a demon, and whatever Trump
does or says must be evil and wrong. Both positions are delusional. This points
to why I have such admiration for National
Review and other traditional conservative outlets which have managed to
keep their heads. For instance, David French and Andy McCarthy have offered
full-throated praise of Trump when they thought he deserved it and they have
offered full-throated criticism when they felt it warranted. That this approach
is denounced by the Manichean extremists on both sides tells you how deep the
fever of tribalism has become.
Trump, Party of
One
I have few illusions about my ability to talk anyone out
of their delusions, particularly liberals. But it is part of my job description
to try, particularly with conservatives. To say I have failed — largely true —
is not an argument against making the effort.
If you’re a cultist, the only thing that will snap you
out of it is Trump himself. At some point, he will do something that will cause
the worshippers — or at least most of them — to recognize he was a false god
all along. It will be like that scene in The
Man Who Would be King, when the girl bites Sean Connery on the cheek. When
he bleeds, the faithful realize he is but a mortal.
But in the meantime, horrible damage is being done,
because the rationalizations and tribalism are being institutionalized. Clicks-from-cultists media outlets strive to
justify and rationalize every failure as a success and every setback as part of
the master plan. If you don’t see it, you’re part of the establishment, a
globalist, or an elitist. The RNC is reportedly refusing to support Republican
candidates who criticized Donald Trump in the wake of the Access Hollywood video. “[The president] is unhappy with anyone who
neglected him in his hour of need,” an anonymous RNC insider explained.
This is sickening madness. If this is true, then the
logical inference is that the GOP as a party believes that there was nothing
wrong with the president’s conduct, even though he was a Democrat at the time.
Or, perhaps, that there is nothing so wrong with what he said — and what he claimed
he did — that it can justify breaking faith in the Leader.
That is moral rot on an institutional scale and the
people aiding and abetting it should be ashamed of themselves. The party needs
to support the president, to be sure. But it must support other things —
decency, principles, truth — even more. When it ceases to do that, it ceases to
be the Grand Old Party and becomes a Venal New Party.
No comments:
Post a Comment