While I was camping in the White
Mountains of New Hampshire, the Republican party hosted its
quadrennial convention. I don't care for these orgies of
self-congratulatory rhetoric or the mob psychosis that accompanies
it: Republican or Democrat. Sometimes someone speaks in a manner
capable of transforming the political landscape, but more often not.
If anything, conventions are useful to highlight the tone of the
campaign to follow, and the RNC displayed a dark, brooding, and
wrathful scene. What a contrast to the Republican hero the sixteen
Republican candidates idolized endlessly during the primary. Can
anyone imagine Donald Trump using this ad?
Or has a convention ever seen anything like Chris Christie egging on
a blood
thirty mob?
There are a number of highlight events
from the whirlwind; Melania
Trump plagiarizing Michelle
Obama's 2008 speech, NeverTrump
trying to use legal maneuvers and being brutally put down,
Ted Cruz's
speech where the audience gradually realized he wouldn't
endorse Trump, and Chris
Christie's mock trial, containing bits of truth, but was
couched in such one sided characterizations and egregious baiting of
the audience's anger it degenerated into farce. In an odd way it was
reminiscent of Clint Eastwood's 2012 attack on a poor empty chair,
but his act elicited laughs and cheers instead of jeers. His speech
is obviously partisan, but as upbeat and positive as such an act can
be. How different the last election seems in comparison.
The penultimate speech by Ivanka
Trump described a man generous, empathetic, and compassionate
person … so Fred Rodgers, I think? It was nearly convincing,
except it demonstrates the problem with trying to keep two ideas of a
person separate but equal at the same time. How many times can
surrogates make claims that clash with reality before two different
members of the public see two entirely different candidates, but only
one of which is real?
The keynote speech was the acceptance
speech. Donald Trump described a pinnacle of dazzling darkness,
depicting a shimmering sinister cloud over the skies of the true
America, descending in doom. A flurry of statistics, able to cause
the most steadfast citizen to quail, fell from his down turned lips.
But then Trump offered a solution to
dissipate the threatening thundercloud. One man, strong enough,
brave enough, fierce enough, himself and only himself would struggle
and defeat the menace. And in ringing tones he proclaimed the
transformed Republicans as the party of Law and Order and Trump, its
candidate.
Parties throughout history have
realized the value of a name whether true or false to convince,
highlight, or deceive about their plans and proposals. Modern
parties include the Justice and Development party of Turkey, and the
Law and Justice party of Poland. Both of these organizations were
mentioned in a previous article on the rise of authoritarianism.
Since then Turkey underwent a coup attempt by officers of the
military concerned with Erdogan's attempts to tear down the secular
state Mustafa Atatürk founded in 1982. Though the coup was
orchestrated by a tiny minority of the military Erdogan has used the
event as a means to consolidate
his power. According to Wikileaks over 60,000 citizens have
been fired or arrested. See the image below:
One of the
features of these modern authoritarian states is their democratic
underpinnings. The prime minister of Turkey and of Poland, along
with Hungary triumphed in fair elections. There was no indication of
voter fraud, as there isn't in the United States, and they govern
with majorities. But democracies need to remember their credibility
requires more than elections. Modern democracies are also founded on
the belief of inalienable rights, a desire to raise the condition of
the poorest, the decency of democratic procedure, and the protection
of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. The ancient
Athenians knew elections provide only a part of the foundation of
democracy. As they learned from their experiences during the
Peloponnesian War, men with strong voices are
able to divert the ship of state into failure with false promises.
Since a democracy elects a person to
lead them they can choose to hand their fate over to a tyrant, a
demagogue, a Caesar. Plato, born during the Peloponnesian war, and
was twenty-four at its conclusion, experienced the deceitfulness
demagogues of Alcabides and Cleon. After the Athenian's loss to
Sparta his mentor, Socrates, was executed for treason. These events
undoubtedly played a part when Plato ranked Democracy as less
desirable than Aristocracy, Timocracy, and Oligarchy in The
Republic. In his opinion Democracy always degenerates into
Tyranny. While this notion may seem antiquated by the modern West,
it is worth considering the kernel of truth within. Democracy, while
it does not necessary fall to Tyranny, is always threatened by it.
The demagogues of Ancient Greece and of
the modern era illustrate the type of person to be wary of. They
appeal to passions, prejudice, and ignorance. Donald Trump speaks to
the fears of “the other”, those who are not quintessentially
American. Democracies
must try to maintain civil procedures and the rule of law (not just
the title). Chris Christie's goading, leading, one sided
trial was the very opposite of civil behavior. As a former U.S.
Attorney Christie knows his act is not a trial, but a show, and any
judge would hold him in contempt of court. He isn't conducting
anything, but a witch hunt. Consider, when he says, “In Iran she
launched the negotiations that brought back the worst nuclear deal.
Let me be clear, America is measurably less safe and less respected.
So, Hillary Clinton, negotiator of the worst nuclear arms deal in
history, guilty or not guilty?” which is answered by screams of
guilty, followed by chants to lock her up.
This method of pandering to peoples'
most base passions and prejudices can only do harm to the entire
country. Look at the quote. Chris claims he is a prosecutor
conducting trial (which in the United States are fair and just), but
all he says is she made the worst deal possible (implying she
intended to harm the United States) and then asks the audience to
render a verdict if she made the worst nuclear deal in the history of
the United States. There's no facts, though he claims there is, its
a few words by him condemning her and then asking the crowd if they
will condemn her as well. It is possible she made the worst deal
ever, but we'll definitely need a discussion which includes a debate
between both parties (and we'll probably need to see the outcome over
the next ten to twenty years. After all, a debate about whether it
is a terrible deal, but whoever wins doesn't matter in the long run:
only the result does). Chris Christie judges her and then asks them
to judge her. The nation needs reason, but instead Christie has
decided all political arguments should be decided by mob trial
instead of a fair one. There are valid criticisms to be made of
Hillary Clinton's decisions (I'll be doing that next Friday after the
Democratic Convention, but the matter in which he does it is
destructive to the political systems of the United States.
In this way a demagogue not only
appeals to the crudest emotions of the majority, but undermines
democratic procedures and the rule of law.
Yet Christie is not as great a
demagogue as Trump. In his speech Trump appealed to the lowest
common denominator, the fear and anger of people who are ignorant of
what causes it.
Demagogues commonly contain within
themselves a number of personal traits. They are either charismatic
or have surpassing oratorical skill. The people must want to follow
them, and because of this they must have prior success. Success
raises them to a position where they are recognized by the public,
and demonstrates a candidate's ability to enact change. It would be
possible to have a limited amount of success, just enough to be
noticed by the public, but suffer severe setbacks of outside forces.
This would encourage the potential demagogue to rail against those
forces and earn sympathy from the people he or she wishes to seduce
to adoration.
Trump has already threatened numerous
rights embedded in the constitution, especially the freedom of the
press, and in every manner appeals to the darkest emotions of the
United States public. They have real grievances but he will not
serve them.
Instead of offering them a diet of
peace and prosperity he fed them a feast as vile as that which
Tantalus served the gods.
Comments
Post a Comment