HOW EVERYBODY WINS WHILE EVERYBODY LOSES
In the post just previous we suggested that people, unable to reduce internal conflict in their own small world, will project anger and/or love onto symbols. That has the effect of at least partially freeing them from the discomfort of being angry with or being rejected by those directly around them.
Politicians can win over supporters (and make themselves love symbols) by consciously creating symbols for people to hate or to love. This last week Donald Trump did us the service of providing a perfect example. He very loudly suggested that four young female members of congress hated America and should “go back where they came from”. Going back where they came from for three would be short trip. They were born here (Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib). The fourth (Ilhan Omar) was a refugee from war torn Somalia whose family came here when she was ten!
People motivated to project anger onto symbols seldom target just one symbol. The drain of anger they experience is magnified if the symbols are multiplied. So, two of these women are dangerous because they are Muslims. And, they all are dangerous because they are socialists. Socialism has functioned in this country as a symbolic danger at least since the nineteen thirties (Republicans back then were opposed to social security because it was “socialist”). Very few of the people who are most fixated on it know what socialism is (they couldn’t actually explain it) but they believe it poses a terrible danger. None of these four young women are really socialists but to people looking for anger targets whether they actually are socialists will not be questioned.
Still, these four women have flaws as symbols. They have very little ability to bring about change. With time it may become clear to far more people how little real substantive power four newly elected members of the four hundred and thirty five in the House actually have. However bright and energetic, and however famous on Twitter, the four still have only four votes. The desire to punish four youthful minority women may fade (Alexandra Ocasio-Lopez is 29). It may also come to bother some of the president’s supporters that he is picking on these four because they are women. The base may move on to other symbols.
It may seem rather odd that, in a country flooded with information where literacy is almost universal, that elected politicians would even feel a need to win over voters by manipulating their anger. That assumes that those elected are actively working for the benefit of those citizens. It also assumes that the citizenry is actively interested in what the elected are doing. As we approach the 2020 election, for the Trump “base” neither of those things is true.
Although in a democracy the voters should be holding the president accountable there is little evidence that that is happening. Other than its widely panned “tax reform” the Trump administration has produced almost nothing for all those people who came out to all those Trump rallies. At the same time it has been widely reported that the taxpayers have spent one hundred and eight million dollars so that Donald Trump can play golf almost every weekend (because he only plays on courses he owns, a good deal of that money goes to him). There is little negative reaction from those same rally supporters.
For political candidates and office holders dealing in symbolism is an economical use of political energy. For members of both major parties but most particularly for Republicans the use of symbols is critical. Republican leadership is really oriented to businesses and corporations rather than the working classes they have come to depend on to be elected. To win over those people without actually doing anything for them makes the use of symbols necessary (enter four dangerous Muslim-Socialist women). Critics might argue that Republican voters should have caught on long ago that they were being conned. In fact, once adopted, anger and love symbols so overwhelm the consciousness that the involved voters simply may not be able to see what seems clear to others.
Many working class voters face real difficulties. They may live in parts of the country where, with the best will in the world, it is difficult to achieve a satisfying existence. It is not unreasonable to be angry and to be frustrated. Political candidates win by supplying those people with something to be angry with. For their trouble the candidates can win office without having to do the real work required to improve the lives of their voters. The voters get to feel less turmoil because they can join with others in hating the common enemy. And, they get to avoid yet again having to deal with the real causes of their discontent.
Everybody wins/Everybody loses!
H.J. Rishel
7/27/2019
