those wacky deplorables

       AS CHRISTIANS (or at least some of them) say, hate the sin but love the sinner. So when Hillary Clinton during the runup to the 2016 election referred to supporters of Donald Trump as “deplorables,” it’s fair to ask just what she meant by that. I doubt very much that she carried around the notion that those supporters were just deplorable as human beings. Clearly, the term doesn’t work as a blanket characterization of millions of people, many of whom have all kinds of fine qualities, who show love and consideration for others, who engage in acts of generosity and compassion, who want a better, healthier, cleaner world for their children.

     Yet there is much to deplore. Generally good people can make bad mistakes and misjudgments, sometimes with terrible consequences. That is what happened in the 2016 presidential election, as a combination of a lot of bad decisions and a few quirks in the electoral system. How could this have happened?

     I am not going to waste time or space making the point that Trump has been a disaster for this country on so many fronts. This has already been done to excellent effect by many others. He has never risen above what he appeared for years to be to any discerning eye -- a privileged carnival barker who got more mileage out of puffery, a superb sense of public relations, outright lying, skillful financial advisors, and sheer bluff and bluster than anyone has a right to. But the Trump phenomenon (or debacle, as one might prefer to say) cannot readily be understood on its own. When well-meaning people engage in behaviors that are harmful to themselves and others, it helps to look at a broader picture. Thus the reason we have some systematic understanding of why individuals engage in certain deviant behaviors (like exhibitionism, drug abuse, serial rape, or kleptomania) is because we have studies comparing a number of cases of each kind -- personal histories, the economic conditions or subcultural conditions that that give rise to those behaviors. This is how it is with the Trump “movement,” which arose and survives on the deviant decisions and behaviors of its supporters.

     What conditions gave rise to those behaviors? First, we should ask, What are the pertinent comparison cases? What are the conditions where tyranny is most likely to emerge? What happens when charismatic figures, driven by delusions of grandeur, lifelong narcissism, and an outsized personality who will say anything that keeps attention riveted on them -- what happens when such individuals are given a platform for mass communication? 

     We don’t have to look far for other examples. No doubt the most blatant of modern times was Adolf Hitler. After Germany’s defeat in The Great War, the country faced enormous economic challenges, not to mention having to bear the yoke of humility and self-doubt that came from losing a war that the populace had been told they would win. The setting was ripe for a competent and bold demogogue with some oratory skills who would offer simply understood excuses and scapegoats to blame for the calamitous situation. And who fell within Htiler’s crosshairs? Minorities, immigrants, political  leaders who preceded him, and unfair treatment by other European countries. His messaging was loud, clear, and understandable by even the  most simpleminded of listenesr. Need I say more? We see hints of similar situations in the rise of Stalin and his pogroms against the Jews. 

     Certainly, America in the second decade of the 21st century was profoundly different from Germany between the wars. But many of the pundits of our century seem to have underestimated the degree of alienation that was abroad in the land, especially in the blue collar and lower middle class white population Racism ran much deeper than was understood, a fact that has been demonstrated by big data research on search engine terms during the months leading up to the presidential election. The sense of economic injustice by the same people was also underappreciated. Real earnings, employer-provided benefits, and job advancements opportunities had been slipping for years. The groundwork had been laid by conservatives in the Republican Party (especially the Tea Party), and continued to be nurtured by their ilk up to (and since) the election. Into this ripe situation came Trump, bringing a gumbo of bravado, self-certainty, false promises, and rhetoric that fell just short (if it fell short at all) of malignant narcissism. Although it was nauseating or even laughable to many, it was tasty fare to just enough voters to get him elected.

     But at a personal level, the comparison with Hitler, and even Stalin, falls short. Regardless of his success in taking advantage of the socioeconomic situation in Germany and the evil that he consequently visited on the world, Hitler was not a simpleton. Indeed, he was a statesman whose concerns for Germany extended well beyond himself. Trump, in contrast, has one primary concern, one focus to which he returns many times daily: himself. In this critical fact lie the good and the bad that we should anticipate, or at least be prepared for,  from him going forward. On the good side, we can hope that it will restrain him from exercising some of the worst impulses of bullies and tyrants. Because he craves both attention and adoration, he will be reluctant to initiate international hostilities if there is any real risk that he’ll be blamed by the majority of the public. This is not to say that he feels constrained to only do good, as his actions on trade, climate, environmental protection, and a host of other topics make clear, but he will be reluctant to open himself up to charges of initiating a major war or causing mass genocide. So there are limits. Yet there are real risks, including continued vilification of innocent people, continued dismantling of the social safety net that entitled us to be called a developed country,  continued deterioration of the nation’s standing on the world stage and, most of all, the damage he will attempt to inflict if he fails to be re-elected. So these are the safeguards and threats that we must confront because and even though he seeks approbation, and  the major measure of mass approval (in his mind) is continuing in office. 

     So what do we know about Trump when there is risk that anyone might regard him as a failure -- at anything. He lashes out. And you can be sure that will happen if he loses in November. He will claim fraud. He’ll claim subterfuge by the “Deep State” and other agents real and imagined. And he will attempt to foment rebellion -- outright in-the-streets rebellion -- among the real deplorables. Unable to gain the glory that he seeks, he will do whatever he can to make his successor’s life intolerable and to undermine that leader’s legitimacy All of this will be necessary anyway to set things up for Trump’s inevitable talk show.

1.      As they say, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Let’s hope that most of those who were duped in 2016 won’t be fooled again. Caveat emptor.