Liberalism Cannot Simply Be the Inversion of Trumpism
It has been quite a while since I agreed with an opinion as much as with Ross Douthat’s, when I read “There Will Be No Trump Coup” in the New York Times last Sunday. As a European, I live on a continent where multiple countries are struggling to break the stranglehold by autocrats or authoritarian regimes. So, for me as a citizen of the EU but also as a media scientist, it was evident to agree with this article’s main premise that Donald Trump simply lacks the political capacity to match with, let’s say, Viktor Orbán, Prime Minister of Hungary. Although it would be compelling to have a closer comparative look at this, I want to go in the direction of the one thing I did not agree with in Douthat’s article. Not in the sense that he is wrong about it but rather negligent about something very important. So here is his conclusion I would like to talk about:
But in reality liberalism under Trump has become a more dominant force in our society, with a zealous progressive vanguard and a monopoly in the commanding heights of culture. Its return to power in Washington won’t be the salvation of American pluralism; it will be the unification of cultural and political power under a single banner.
He is correct. The question is, is it a good thing? Wait, what?
First, I am a liberal and I would not want to see anything less than the United States thriving under a liberal leadership. However, in the most likely case of Joe Biden winning the election by a landslide there will still be a significant part of the population that will not get behind the single banner of unified cultural and political power in the name of liberalism. And this is my point: is it advisable to let them know, once and for all, that they have lost their fight against liberalism? I do not mean that they should not lose it. The path of liberalism is the inevitable course of any intelligent species that becomes successful eventually. I am saying that Trumpists should not know they will have lost.
I can only imagine how it must be for any liberal and especially marginalized groups targeted by the Trump administration to live in the U.S. for the past four years. I can feel, when the possibility to overcome this administration is within grasp, how a certain state of euphoria rises in any liberal minded person. So, I can understand this wish for having cultural power teaming up again with its political sibling and to be able to move on after this period of despair, finally. But emotions set aside — what is best for the country? What is the most promising approach to ensure a stable and evolving American society for decades to come?
I must say: it cannot be the end of American pluralism. The idea of pluralism did never mean to only include those you favor. It means to include everyone who acts within the boundaries of the constitution. A task this administration failed spectacularly. Not only by having pushed the most vulnerable of society into a corner but also by associating with hateful extremists. If the next administration has a similar take on pluralism, nothing will get better. It will just be the same picture in different colors. ‘Lead by example’ might sound out of date these times, but what if it is exactly what is needed the most right now? Liberalism cannot simply be the inversion of Trumpism or any other form of authoritarianism on the conservative-right spectrum.
Like Atheism is not the opposite of any given religion. As British comedian Ricky Gervais puts it: “If people didn’t keep inventing supernatural beings, we wouldn’t have to keep denying them”. Atheism is not about denying. It is about asking for proof. Just like liberalism is not about opposing conservatism — it is about asking for the societal benefit of restraining one’s freedom, hence, arguments. Conservatism, in contrast, does not bring up the question for the greater good or arguments for it, it just postulates arbitrary morals. In this sense, ‘defund the police’, for instance, should not be debated in the spirit of opposing the police, but stating arguments how people of color can be protected from police violence. And some have done it that way.
Nevertheless, the term itself is sabotaging the arguments behind it. Because it conceptually opposes the other side. Any uninformed and ill-intended actor can and will misinterpret the term as a counterattack on one of conservatisms core policies: safety. Ironically, ‘defund the police’ is exactly about that. Safety for people of color from systemic racism. So, why not say it like what it actually means? Smartfund the police. Allocating police resources to help them dealing with situations they are not equipped and trained for, supporting them with professional workers in situations an armed officer is not needed — that is not defunding police at all. It is smartfunding. If you call it that, you are taking away the feed of all those pseudo arguments framing defunding as shutting down the police.
Earlier I wrote that the conservatives should not know they will have lost the war against liberalism. When liberalism will have scored that decisive victory for the course of this century on November 3rd, just give the conservatives that one little thing. That they are still in the game. For the sake of American pluralism do not rub their defeat in their faces. Be a good winner. Call it ‘smartfund the police’. Do not say you want to abolish the 2nd amendment, call for upgrading it into a premium membership. You get the idea.
