Andrew Sullivan, writing in New York Magazine, thinks so. The rise of Donald Trump has terrified him, as it has most of the intelligentsia. His response is deeply conservative: that’s what happens when you have too much democracy, when you give too much power to the unreasoning, emotional, masses, when the established status order crumbles.
I see it quite differently. First of all, we were much closer to tyranny in 1933: when Roosevelt took office, a delegation of national leaders pleaded with him to take dictatorial powers to manage the crisis. (He refused, though he may have regretted it later!) Second, what is astonishing from a historical perspective is that the Trump backlash, potent as it appears, is really a minority movement; whereas for most of human history appeals to nationalism, tribalism, hostility to immigrants have been pretty reliable ways to rally the population as a whole, now we are deeply split. Sanders' supporters, like Trump’s, feel the system is failing them, but they are almost on the opposite extreme in terms on "the Wall" and anti-immigrant views in general. Global, as opposed to national, identity continues to grow slowly worldwide. My rough estimate from my own research is that around 25% of US citizens are pretty strongly pro-tradition and nationalist, and 30% is pretty strongly "progressive" – supporting feminism, cosmopolitanism, diversity. The rest are uncertain but lean towards the latter.
This is a dangerous moment, of course: a major terrorist attack could rouse the uncertain middle to react by supporting Trump. But otherwise there is perhaps less chance than ever before that the exclusionary view will win, and more chance that we will in the end respond to this ugly reaction by embracing diversity more enthusiastically than ever.
No comments:
Post a Comment