A peek beyond the precipice of impending battle

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 26 March 2017

There are forces of good and evil in the world. Today, we are fortunate to eavesdrop on the forces of evil as a senior demon, Authoritarian, provides advice to his nephew, Pootie Poot, on battling the good, Democracy.

“My dear Pootie Poot, we are on the precipice of achieving our goal, the dismantling of the practice of Democracy, an evil that blocks us from our destiny! I know you are anxious, but be patient.”

“Uncle Authoritarian, why not just manipulate vote totals and elect our collaborators and sympathizers?”

“Pootie Poot, be patient. I know you could change vote totals but don’t do that! It is important that the people believe it is their will and decision to vote for Total Authority.” Our prize is the beacon of personal freedom and democracy, the United States. Our efforts must be nuanced and exploit their weaknesses and turn their strength against them. The U.S. press is ‘free’ but lazy. The ‘journalists’ work for people who want to make money and thus they scramble after the sensational, to be first, rather than right. The more sensational the claim, you can trust they will report it. They will report sensation over the real, so spreading those emails from ‘staffers’ will work even better than attacking the leaders themselves.”

“Uncle, that seems to only serve as a distraction a ‘he said, she said’ argument. Nothing seems resolved and the next sensational headline, some entertainer having a baby, distracts them.”

“Pootie, that is all right. As long as the political leaders disagree on even what events are important, it doesn’t matter. What we want is the two political parties to look at the same thing, for example a leak of classified material that exposes us and our collaborators, and have the political parties divide over it. For example, one party focuses on the content of the leaked material and the other on the crime of leaking and seek to identify the leaker. This is perfect for us!”

“Uncle, there are patriots. Americans are a patriotic people, are they not?”

“Many Americans are patriots, but few American political leaders are patriots. See how few of them even serve in the military or any of their children. Do not be confused by the nationalists. Remember, nationalism is a path to isolation and division and thus is good for us. The nationalists will put party above all else and we can paralyze them politically. Oh how stupid they are not to realize this. They beg for Total Authority and do not realize it!”

“Uncle Authoritarian, is this why we do not try to foment a military coup in the United States, because the military is full of patriots?”

“My dear Pootie Poot, Americans are a complicated people. You might think that all military people are patriotic, but many are political and some are just out for themselves. A couple of places you can be sure there are patriots and the one’s we need to be careful of are in the Intelligence community and in law enforcement. They will put country first and already we have seen some of this at work. We thought that Patriot Comey had compromised himself during the 2016 election, but listen to what he just said:  ‘They’ll be back in 2020, … They may be back in 2018 and one of the lessons they may draw from this is that they were successful, because they introduced chaos and division and discord and sowed doubt about the nature of this amazing country of ours and our democratic process.’ ‘One of the lessons’, Patriot Comey says, hahaha, we are already ahead of you!”

“But Uncle, Patriot Comey just revealed our plan!!!”

“Yes, my dear Pootie Poot, he did and what did I say earlier? Rely on the party divisions to call light dark and dark light, just as is happening now with one side focused on identifying the leaker instead of our actions and our collaborators. Relax Pootie and let the Americans do the heavy work of undermining 250 years of constitutional democracy and make way for Total Authority!”

Thanksgiving casualty: post election observations

Watching the aftermath of the election of Donald Trump has been instructive.  As Clinton supporters and those who didn't bother to vote react, whether in the streets of our larger cities, campuses, or in the virtual public but privately owned public square known as social media, and the lazy corporate press covers it with over the top headlines, it seems increasingly clear to me that the discourse, that is the written or spoken words used to debate the topics, are also part of the increasing divide in our country.  I suspect that social media will only worsen it with its short and headline like communication style.  Indeed one of my favorite critics reminds me about stuff I post that "it's a lot to read, ....cuz."

In the last week I've watched a lot of liberals turn into bigots, that is, persons who are intolerant toward those holding different opinions.  Bigotry has been something that liberals have stood good against for a long time.  Yet, now, liberals are calling those who voted for Trump, or for a third party, racists, sexists, misogynists, and of low intelligence, among others.  And the bigotry produces a discourse full of prejudice and stereotypes.  (You could see similar kinds of things aimed at Obama voters from conservatives in 08 and 12.).  

I am not sure of the original source but I see this idea working its way into more thoughtful observations about the most essential difference between Trump voters and Clinton voters.  This was not a campaign waged on policies but on the fitness of the respective candidates to serve as president.  Clinton ran not against conservative or populist policies but Trump’s character and called him racist, sexist, crass, crude, a con man, etc.  And he called Clinton “crooked Hillary,” a “nasty woman” and threatened her with prison.  Perhaps the fundamental difference is that Trump supporters took Trump seriously and ignored what he said while Clinton supporters didn't take Trump seriously but took his utterances seriously.

Some of this is American politics.  There are no safe spaces or trigger warnings in politics.  But there is political correctness and it’s rampant on both sides of the divide.  Political correctness is commonly understood as the avoidance of words, phrases, or even ideas that might be offensive to some groups of people, especially people who have a history of being marginalized in society.   It's a laudable effort but when it squelches speech and those who dare or even inadvertently cross the line, are silenced not with arguments but with epithets, it plants the seeds for its own undermining.  Eventually the epithets weaken in their supposed moral superiority and lose their effectiveness, hence,   liberals' incredulity that anyone could support a racist, sexist, crude Trump.  This is not to say the claims are wrong, but they are dealt with by an attempt to label someone. And those labels have lost much of its sting because too few bother to talk or explain what the labels mean any more. 

Conservatives have their own political correctness.  Beware the socialist, communist, or “un-American” label if you even suggest a tax increase, or that America is not the greatest nation and endowed by God to be exceptional.  Don't question tax cuts for the job creators or even consider talking to the opposition.   Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, are ”communism.”  Add abortion to this mix as well.   Liberal political correctness is about marginalized people, conservative political correctness is about ideas that run counter to the interests of the wealthy.     

The extremists on both sides wield the cleaver of what is politically correct as a means of maintaining power.  In wielding it, there is no conversation, no debate any more.  Only ideological purity.  

If white, not- college educated, voters believe they are not doing as well economically and are discriminated against because of civil rights laws, why is that dismissed?  They are largely wrong but calling them racists is wasting an opportunity to recruit them to a better solution to their issues.  Name-calling turns them away from considering those ideas.  It also makes liberals look intolerant, which is what liberals claim not to be. The current liberal policy seems to be to make college more affordable for the not-college educated.  This shows a major misunderstanding  of the rich occupational cultures that make up much of working class reality and identity.  Trump merely  said, “I'll bring those jobs back”  and while he probably can’t they understand his response as "he gets it" and Clinton doesn’t.  Trump won, Clinton lost.

Tom Steiger:

previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 30 August 2015


What would the ratings be for these early Republican presidential debates without Donald Trump? What are the indirect effects as well? How much more are people reading early presidential primary coverage just because of him? Arguably, no doubt it will be by Trump himself, that he is a job creator just given the coverage he receives.




The political professional class explains his rise to frontrunner among a jammed field because he is “just” tapping the frustrations and anger among a swath of the electorate. That swath appears to be growing then, as his poll numbers continue to rise despite gaffe after gaffe and his insistence on not playing by the “rules.” He’s such a “bad boy” demagogue.

A more sociological explanation would be to think about “authority.” Presidential aspirants campaign on three threads. The first is their qualifications to be president, which is not extensive, only to be a natural-born citizen and at least 35 years old. Taxi drivers have more formal qualifications than that. A traditional qualification for presidential authority is that the candidate be male, white and “successful” (meaning either rich and/or having some power in their life up to the point of running for president). No one questions if we are ready for a successful white male to be president.





Other informal qualifications matter, too. Can a woman be president, is America ready for an African American president, is s/he too old, is s/he too young. Of course, President Obama did not fit one of those traditional qualifications, but this has not led to a groundswell of otherwise racially diverse candidates. Tradition is a powerful force in politics, like going to Iowa.





The last thread is the plan to fix whatever is wrong with America. Funny how candidates never say, “America is great, don’t fix what is not broken, I promise to not change a thing.” One unstated qualification to be president apparently is to think America is not great and needs substantial, fundamental, radical change, that is unless you are the incumbent, then you “stay the course.”





Sometimes It’s not enough that our presidential candidates be people of accomplishment, whether it be deal maker, reality TV star, noted neurosurgeon, governor, senator, former CEO of a tech company, or be a white male natural-born citizen, the candidate that inspires devotion to them and their plan is going to be the candidate to beat. And that candidate must answer the big questions her/his following has. The mundane questions are answered in policy briefings, such as fixing all the programs that are messed up, even the ones that are not. What I am referring to here are the really big questions like “how to make American great again”, or “how to have a political revolution,” “how to achieve the higher ground”, “how to make the new century an American one” (that’s already 15 years old), “how to reignite the promise of America,” “how to create a ‘right to rise,’” among many others.





These three threads match up well to what sociologists see as three societal sources of authority: bureaucratic authority flows from technical qualifications; traditional authority flows from long-standing practices and; charismatic authority flows from devotion to the individual’s exceptional qualities, “heroism” or exemplary character, and the answers the individual provides to important questions. It is charismatic authority that is driving Donald Trump to frontrunner status. I am not a Trump supporter, but I can see that he inspires personal devotion through his acts of “heroism” (making disparaging remarks about women, disrespecting the press [who are only doing their jobs], being crass and crude), and his exemplary character focused on his business exploits and personal flair (reality star). Plus he offers simple fixes (“it’s simple, George, it’s simple”) to the big (political) questions of the day: how to make American great again. Send back the immigrants and make Mexico build a wall to keep its people in, take our jobs back from the Chinese, stop being PC, get tough with the Saudis and force them to pump more oil, seize the oil fields in Iraq, stop taxing rich people (corporations), but tax those corporations that export jobs overseas.





As I finish this essay, Trump’s poll numbers have increased to 32 percent of Republican voters. Trump dominates the news with more vitriol toward Megyn Kelly and throws Univision’s Jorge Ramos out of a press conference. Trump’s growing legion of devoted followers may see these actions as “heroism” and exceptional character, not boorish, racist or misogynist.