If you thought our Opinion piece by Tyler Collins was overly one-sided in his assessment of the American election, take a look at this from the respected editorial board of the New York Times: The Case Against Donald Trump. In its storied history, the New York Times has never taken such a clear position or called out such a danger to American democracy or the world.
Given the onslaught of anti-Trump discourses, rants, screeds and diatribes to which we are subjected daily, it might be hard to understand why Trump still has the support of roughly 4 in 10 American voters. This opinion piece aims to shed some light on that.
What it means to be a “Republican” in America
Library of Congress
Donald Trump
Donald Trump leads the Republican party. This is the party of Ronald Reagan and of George Bush Sr. and Jr.
Ideologically it treasures American exceptionalism: the idea that the unhindered pursuit of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness has created the most successful and prosperous society in human history.
Central to this ethos is individual freedom.
Its organizing principle is that of the self-made man, who earns his success through talent and hard work. (This has been extended to include women, but it is fair to say that the tradition has been and remains patriarchal. More on this later.)
Everything possible should be done to avoid getting in the way of the creative energy for progress which comes from individuals pursuing their own self-interest by innovating, harnessing innovation, seizing opportunity, and meeting the wants and needs of others in as free a market as possible. That means as little tax and regulatory burden as possible: the strong should not be obligated by government to carry the burden of the weak.
Success cannot happen unless failure is also possible.
To the extent those who fail need help, voluntary charity and generosity rather than mandated social programmes are to be preferred: freedom means the individual is free to help or not to help others, not obligated to do so by government. The novels of Ayn Rand, widely read by right-libertarian Republican elites, give narrative life to these beliefs.
This survival of the fittest ethos may seem at odds with mainstream Canadian values, but it is a legitimate choice of how to run a country which Americans have the right to make. They have a democratic system which means everyone, at least in theory, has a voice on what balance of individual interest versus community interests will be reflected in government.
Republican issues today
Subscribers to the Republican philosophy of self-reliance, individual freedom and small government are feeling very threatened in today’s America.
They believe that more Americans now get more government aid (even before Covid) in one way or another than are net contributors to society and the economy: that those who are beneficiaries of the social safety net and government programmes like Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, or public education outnumber those who are the net funders of the social infrastructure. They therefore are very concerned that individual freedom and small government are at risk as the majority benefit from bigger government, higher taxes on the productive, and more regulation.
There are of course selfish motivations at work, but there is also a very strong belief that unleashing individual desire for self-improvement and prosperity is the reason for America’s success: why it has the highest wealth per person and why more ambitious people want to come to the United States than to any other country. Individual freedom and small government are, they believe, in the long term better for everyone.
They believe that an overly coddling state will weaken America’s moral fibre and lead to it become just another mediocre nation. (Along with this is an unacknowledged sense that nurturing is feminine: in Michael Adams’ survey of American and Canadian values, Fire and Ice, a majority of Americans answered the question, “Should the father be the master of the house”, in the affirmative, while a majority of Canadians said no: over the time of the survey, the gap between the countries on this issue widened significantly.)
Into this environment comes Donald Trump. Overtly masculine to the point of treating women largely as accessories, and an apparent embodiment of survival of the fittest, too tough even to worry about the coronavirus: Trump’s win-at-all-costs mentality, in which the ends justify any means at all, is not in perfect alignment with the traditions of the Republican party.
Historically, Republicans have believed in personal sacrifice for the good of the country, particularly militarily. Honour, character and trustworthiness are esteemed values in this group. Reagan-Bush Republicans would not for the most part cheat at golf…or fail to pay their suppliers in a business deal. These Republicans supported John McCain.
However, the idea that winners should be free to seek their chosen rewards, and everyone should fend for themselves, underlies the philosophical defence to what Republicans see as the greatest threat to American exceptionalism: creeping socialism and the sapping of the personal freedom and accountability that made America great.
The political reality they face is that as society has become more complex and for many the systemic barriers to achievement are simply too high to climb, more state intervention has been seen as the right answer by more Americans.
Democrats’ belief that government should engineer society to create a level playing field and equality of opportunity, to counteract the accident of birth, is anathema to Republicans, who believe you create your own opportunities and that you do that for your children and their children. All of this, in their view, is part of allowing the market and natural selection to work.
Republicans believe they are outnumbered. Their values are threatened by socialism which they see as the gateway drug to totalitarian communism and the end of the American experiment in individual freedom and democracy. At this point, the route to success they have seized on is to choose someone who takes the winner versus loser ethos to an extreme: Donald Trump.
Protecting America at all costs: the Republican alliance with Trump
The political calculus is that as a minority, they need to build a coalition to achieve electoral victory. They need someone with the marketing talent to persuade even some of those who benefit from government to embrace the Republican cause. And they need someone who will stop at nothing to win, even outnumbered and fighting an antagonistic media: the essence of America as they see it is at stake, and the end justifies the means.
This is how we get to the point where they turn a blind eye to the Constitutional protections of checks and balances that have preserved the American body politic for more than two centuries. Where the separation of powers is threatened. Where political interference in the judiciary is tolerated. Where clear corruption like the pardoning of Roger Stone is not a bridge too far even for men (they are nearly all men) for whom honour and character were once cherished values. These morally motivated (and usually successful) Republicans are essentially willing to make a pact with the Devil to do what they see as God’s work.
Whether the ends ever justify the means has been debated in every philosophical school the world has ever known.
Without the support of white supremacists, conspiracy theorists, potential domestic terrorists, those who equate assault rifle ownership with freedom, those who believe their religious beliefs should be imposed on others, those who believe the state should be able to legislate whom you love, and without gerrymandering and voter suppression, Republicans would simply not be able to get enough votes to prevail on November 3rd.
Most Republicans are not white supremacists, and most don’t believe the state should legislate your sexual preferences: indeed, many see that as in contradiction with the individual freedom they so value. Nevertheless, they understand that to win they cannot alienate these groups and they see in Donald Trump the champion they need.
Electoral calculus requires they live with contradictions, as every political party always has to do.
The Canadian Perspective and the value of preserving democracy over the unbridled “pursuit of happiness”
The Republican world view of self-reliance and winners and losers may not be yours, but it cannot be dismissed, and a country has a right to choose how it should be organized and governed. It is a defensible position, worthy of debate and argument. For myself, the Canadian compromise where the talented, hard-working, determined and innovative can freely seek success, economic and otherwise, in an open market, but where they recognize the need to preserve and improve the ladders they climbed to that success, so that everyone has a chance to achieve their potential, is preferable. Besides, I think better wealth distribution means more sustainable freedom by promoting greater social cohesion.
In my view the unforgiving win-lose mentality that underpins the more purist or libertarian forms of Republicanism leads to insecurity and fear. It leads to crime and gated communities and personal arsenals for the wealthy. This insecurity also leads to the attraction for a dominant strong authoritarian patriarchal leader for many others: paradoxically contrary to the very sense of individual responsibility and self-determination, government by the people, the American experiment initially placed its trust in.
But the issue in this election is not really, for me, where I stand on the political spectrum. Even if I were an Ayn Rand Republican philosophically (and obviously I am not), I would see this last issue as the critical reason why I could not support the re-election of Donald Trump.
If my beliefs can be defended, they should stand on their own merits in a free and fair election. I should make the case for them and win or lose by my principles, rather than undermining the Constitution and the norms of government that have been the bedrock of protection for my freedoms. I believe the price of empowering white supremacist movements and tacitly endorsing conspiracy theories, and having the judiciary subservient to politicians, is too high: better to lose an election and have the means to make my case again in the future than to lose my democracy.
For some Republicans, democracy is an inconvenience to be manipulated out of the way so that they can be free to succeed and to gain more money and power. These can even justify the delegitimizing of the voting process Trump is engaging in case the ballot count goes against him, setting up to contest it in the courts and even in the streets. For others, Trump is a necessary evil, a means to an end, that must be tolerated. But for some, like Mitt Romney, Donald Trump’s four years in office have become a bridge too far, as decency and respect for the American people, even his own supporters, including those who have served, have been the casualty.
The litany of issues addressed in the New York Times article, all undeniable, are not lost on these Republicans. Some of them will vote for Joe Biden. Some of them will not vote. For all that, they will remain conservatives, believers in small government and individual freedom and accountability. If Trump loses, it will fall to these Republicans to remake their party as a voice for their philosophy, to make their case to the American people in argument and debate, and to build a new coalition that does not need to pander to or empower the worst and most anti-democratic elements of American society.
For Canadians, for Oakvilleans, the outcome of this election will of course determine in the short term some minor differences in how taxes are collected, and social programmes are designed and delivered for people in another country. (It will also have a non-trivial impact on the progress the world will make on climate change, though in this area the United States is only one country and many States are acting independently of the Federal government.)
The issue is not in the end which political philosophy wins: in a democracy that is never permanent. It is whether our big and powerful neighbour chooses to prioritize means or ends, a choice with much greater and longer-term consequences, for democracy itself, and for the whole world.
