Reactionaries come in different stripes but share a similar mentality: There was once a golden age, when people knew their place and lived in harmony. But then that golden age was betrayed by the elites. “The betrayal of elites is the linchpin of every reactionary story,” Lilla writes.
If you listen to the PBS pundits what is one of the central complaints about the Clinton candidacy. “She is not defining any large vision for America. She may be a program wonk but what is the big picture?”
They make this complaint because she’s mostly running a negative campaign. This makes sense of course because most people don’t either candidate so their hopes of winning are tied to putting the spotlight on the other and letting the spotlight illuminate what is scornful about their rival.
In a CNN post debate focus group of undecideds the members of the group who could make up their minds on the basis of this debate were all women. Their comments did not focus on any policy statement but mostly on “disrespect” that Trump showed for Clinton.
This of course was as everyone knew the set-up. Clinton’s job was to help Donald be Donald. Right away Donald tried to keep to his game “Secretary Clinton…” but Hillary right from the start kept to “Donald”.
Trump could only hold his composure for the first half hour but then had to become himself, thin skinned, bullying, interrupting, etc. and she had him. So much for “stamina”.
The Irony of the Clinton Moral High Ground
Almost towards the end of the debate Trump tried to play a moral high ground card.
“I could have said some very nasty things but I didn’t…” of course implying that he would go where everyone from the beginning of the campaign would go, to Bill Clinton’s famous Trump like sexual exploits. Here’s the irony. When Trump does this he reminds us that Hillary is married to a Donald of sorts. Every time Trump brings up Bill at a deep level Hillary is seen in the light of a victim of a moral degenerate. Hillary becomes in the eyes of some a figure of old-moral-virtue, someone who stays in a marriage in suffering. In the eyes of the new-moral-virtue, however, she’s a victim of old morality that says you should stay in a bad marriage. We then wonder if she is a ruthlessly ambitious woman who will sacrifice her personal life for craven political and economic success?
Moral Model for President
This morning NYMag crowed about the new Kahn moment in the debate, Alicia Machado. This, for the crowd of the church of the new civil religion is the closing argument. Trump is a bigot, a misogynist, a racist who is disqualified for consideration to the office because of his moral fiber. This is a working political strategy because it seems the only demographic group Trump can win are white men, the less educated the better. It is important that it is the wife of Bill that is making this argument. It is important that the religious right in the 90s used Bill’s sexual escapades as justification for their moral argument against him. Many of those same voices are now supporting Donald while others on the Christian right are denouncing those voices as hypocritical.
From the other side many in the media can’t seem to figure out how so many want Trump.
I overhead a conversation with someone I know to be a deeply committed conservative Christian. He is from the fundamentalist church, no drinking, no smoking, very traditional on sexual issues. If there could be a poster-senior for American Christian fundamentalism this would be it. He was pitching his pro-Trump message.
Ben Carson will serve in the cabinet
I like his family
I like him on abortion
I like him on the economy
Ben Carson has of course been a popular among white Christian fundamentalists for a long time. Carson is Bill Cosby before Cosby’s fall to this group.
The other three statements are of course jaw droppers. Trump is on this third marriage with a history of women worse than Bill Clinton. His family looks like Stepford families having the money that will buy the clothing and plastic surgery available. Trump is an icon of family values? What was he doing on the Howard Stern show again?
Abortion? Trump was outspoken for it before he was against it. Don’t expect any progress on the culture war front. Trump said he’ll let Caitlyn use the any potty she wants at Trump tower.
Economy? Well at least we’re talking about politics now again.
The love for Trump has always been the most obvious thing. Trump is a candidate who is promising to “Make America Great AGAIN”. He is an authoritarian who promises to use American power to bring back jobs, bring in money, plunder defeated countries. It is, a version of a moral vision. It isn’t a Christian moral vision, but it is a moral vision.
The Changing of the Moral Guard
After the conventions it was noted that in terms of obvious moral appeal the Democrats are now the party of moralists. The moral polarity of the nation has flipped. The old alignments are gone. The election has again, as it was in 1976, 1980, 1988, 2008 become a referendum on a vision of morality.
I think this likely a substantial underestimate unless something is done for a number of reasons. First everything we hear and see regarding technology suggests the rate of job destruction will pick up. Think of theelimination of drivers, and of those who work behind cash registers. Second, the gains in average education and health of the workforce over the last 50 years are unlikely to be repeated. Third, to the extent that non-work is contagious, it is likely to grow exponentially rather than at a linear rate. Fourth, declining marriage rates are likely to raise rates of labor force withdrawal given that non-work is much more common for unmarried than married men.
But in the 21st century, there is a good chance that most humans will lose, they are losing, their military and economic value. This is true for the military, it’s done, it’s over. The age of the masses is over. We are no longer in the First World War, where you take millions of soldiers, give each one a rifle and have them run forward. And the same thing perhaps is happening in the economy. Maybe the biggest question of 21st century economics is what will be the need in the economy for most people in the year 2050.
And once most people are no longer really necessary, for the military and for the economy, the idea that you will continue to have mass medicine is not so certain. Could be. It’s not a prophecy, but you should take very seriously the option that people will lose their military and economic value, and medicine will follow.
She must show her submission to the new family: She is not allowed to speak the names of her in-laws, because it is seen as too familiar, and in some places she is not allowed to use words that begin with the same letters as her in-laws’ names, requiring the invention of a large parallel vocabulary. Each morning, before she is allowed to eat, the daughter-in-law must wash the feet of her husband’s parents and then drink the water she has used to wash them.
Trump vs. Clinton as Moral War
If you listen to the PBS pundits what is one of the central complaints about the Clinton candidacy. “She is not defining any large vision for America. She may be a program wonk but what is the big picture?”
They make this complaint because she’s mostly running a negative campaign. This makes sense of course because most people don’t either candidate so their hopes of winning are tied to putting the spotlight on the other and letting the spotlight illuminate what is scornful about their rival.
In a CNN post debate focus group of undecideds the members of the group who could make up their minds on the basis of this debate were all women. Their comments did not focus on any policy statement but mostly on “disrespect” that Trump showed for Clinton.
This of course was as everyone knew the set-up. Clinton’s job was to help Donald be Donald. Right away Donald tried to keep to his game “Secretary Clinton…” but Hillary right from the start kept to “Donald”.
Trump could only hold his composure for the first half hour but then had to become himself, thin skinned, bullying, interrupting, etc. and she had him. So much for “stamina”.
The Irony of the Clinton Moral High Ground
Almost towards the end of the debate Trump tried to play a moral high ground card.
“I could have said some very nasty things but I didn’t…” of course implying that he would go where everyone from the beginning of the campaign would go, to Bill Clinton’s famous Trump like sexual exploits. Here’s the irony. When Trump does this he reminds us that Hillary is married to a Donald of sorts. Every time Trump brings up Bill at a deep level Hillary is seen in the light of a victim of a moral degenerate. Hillary becomes in the eyes of some a figure of old-moral-virtue, someone who stays in a marriage in suffering. In the eyes of the new-moral-virtue, however, she’s a victim of old morality that says you should stay in a bad marriage. We then wonder if she is a ruthlessly ambitious woman who will sacrifice her personal life for craven political and economic success?
Moral Model for President
This morning NYMag crowed about the new Kahn moment in the debate, Alicia Machado. This, for the crowd of the church of the new civil religion is the closing argument. Trump is a bigot, a misogynist, a racist who is disqualified for consideration to the office because of his moral fiber. This is a working political strategy because it seems the only demographic group Trump can win are white men, the less educated the better. It is important that it is the wife of Bill that is making this argument. It is important that the religious right in the 90s used Bill’s sexual escapades as justification for their moral argument against him. Many of those same voices are now supporting Donald while others on the Christian right are denouncing those voices as hypocritical.
From the other side many in the media can’t seem to figure out how so many want Trump.
I overhead a conversation with someone I know to be a deeply committed conservative Christian. He is from the fundamentalist church, no drinking, no smoking, very traditional on sexual issues. If there could be a poster-senior for American Christian fundamentalism this would be it. He was pitching his pro-Trump message.
Ben Carson has of course been a popular among white Christian fundamentalists for a long time. Carson is Bill Cosby before Cosby’s fall to this group.
The other three statements are of course jaw droppers. Trump is on this third marriage with a history of women worse than Bill Clinton. His family looks like Stepford families having the money that will buy the clothing and plastic surgery available. Trump is an icon of family values? What was he doing on the Howard Stern show again?
Abortion? Trump was outspoken for it before he was against it. Don’t expect any progress on the culture war front. Trump said he’ll let Caitlyn use the any potty she wants at Trump tower.
Economy? Well at least we’re talking about politics now again.
The love for Trump has always been the most obvious thing. Trump is a candidate who is promising to “Make America Great AGAIN”. He is an authoritarian who promises to use American power to bring back jobs, bring in money, plunder defeated countries. It is, a version of a moral vision. It isn’t a Christian moral vision, but it is a moral vision.
The Changing of the Moral Guard
After the conventions it was noted that in terms of obvious moral appeal the Democrats are now the party of moralists. The moral polarity of the nation has flipped. The old alignments are gone. The election has again, as it was in 1976, 1980, 1988, 2008 become a referendum on a vision of morality.