The Deplorables
Hillary Clinton may have disastrously reduced her chances of winning the 2016 presidential election when she labelled Trump supporters as “deplorables,” increasing even further the proportion of voters who viewed her negatively. But this assumes, as seems common, that the nation is “polarized,” divided into two opposing groups. In fact, those who voted for President Trump fall into a number of categories; labeling them as a single group obscures important differences.
Many, including President-Elect Joe Biden, have observed that Americans must begin to listen to one another, to understand and perhaps even accept some of each others’ viewpoints. But this makes sense primarily for certain categories of President Trump’s supporters. Some might be brought back into the mainstream of American political life through dialogue, information, and education. There are, however, others who are not likely to ever become part of “small d” democracy. Consider first those who might respond positively to President-Elect Biden’s efforts to reunite America.
Not All Are Deplorables
Economic Conservatives. Most economic conservatives are not billionaires, or even “mere” millionaires. Many simply consider themselves traditional Republicans and are middle-class business owners and managers who are deeply concerned about the economic health of the US. When asked they express concern that Democrats in general and President-Elect Biden in particular will pursue policies that will hurt economic growth — and harm their own business success. Some believe that socialism is a Democratic Party aim, not so unreasonable considering that Senator Bernie Sanders, a leading challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination, called himself a “democratic socialist.” However, starting with President Clinton and continuing dramatically with Obama and Biden’s successful reversal of the 2008 Great Recession, it has been Democrats rather than Republicans who have built — and restored — a healthy economy. Economic conservatives may interpret facts in ways most consistent with their views, but some may be open to the possibility of modifying their views through dialogue. This involves the sharing of views without criticism, the aim being understanding. Encouraging open dialogue between Democrats and Republicans about economic concerns can develop understanding — if not agreement — and may lead to meaningful compromise, the hallmark of a functioning democracy.
Cognitive Dissidents. These are people who are not aware of or just don’t believe that the corrupt and illegal actions of President Trump and his “enablers” actually occurred. Support for and belief in Republicans’ policy aims, such as reducing government regulations and lowering taxes, all conflict with recognition of some Republicans’ — and President Trump’s — unethical, immoral, and illegal activities. If one was to recognize the reality of those actions the result would be what psychologists call “cognitive dissonance,” that is uncomfortable stress that results from holding two contradictory ideas at the same time. To reduce such stress otherwise reasonable people may simply dismiss as political drama the reports of corrupt or illegal actions on the part of President Trump, his appointees and supporters. Doubt and disbelief are made even easier when one attends only to news sources that ignore or deny the many illegal activities of President Trump, his family and his associates, often referring to such facts as “fake news.”
It’s true that emotion often overrules facts. Even so, it may be possible for some cognitive dissidents to rejoin the democratic process through open dialogue, the sharing of views by each party without criticism of the other. Such interaction, involving presentation of detailed evidence, may create awareness and understanding, and might enable Republicans and supporters of President Trump to work with Democrats and those who opposed President Trump, toward the common goals of democracy. It may also help when legal actions are taken against those who are no longer protected by their government office.
Susceptible Followers. In her classic analysis, “The Origins of Totalitarianism,” Hannah Arendt observes:
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.”
Populist demagogues know how to manipulate such individuals; Hitler and Mussolini did not lead military take-overs of Germany or Italy. They were elected to political positions with the support of people who did not really know how to think and proceeded to manipulate their way to absolute national leadership. Teaching people to think is difficult, to be sure. Some may truly be mentally incapable of telling the difference between reality and made-up stories or between truth and lies, but others may benefit from an educational system that does a better job than ours of teaching critical thinking skills.
Henry Giroux, one of the founding theorists of “critical pedagogy,” points out that the aim of education is to teach agency, that is, the capacity to actively control one’s own life. Effective agency requires critical thinking. While educators speak a lot about developing critical thinking the reality of education in the U.S. today doesn’t support that. Giroux observes that education today is largely aimed at inculcating obedience to authority. This is consistent with the broad basic focus of American education, that is, on the development of work-relevant skills and attitudes.
Critical thinking is crucial if Americans are to deal effectively with potential despots. Giroux cites Hannah Arendt, who understood that fascists realize that critical thinking threatens their control. While some ideas, such as bombing public buildings, are obviously dangerous, a population that is capable of reasoned thinking is dangerous to a government whose primary aim is maintaining control.
True Deplorables
At least three groups of President Trump’s supporters fit this label. None seem likely to become part of a diverse nation consisting of individuals and groups who, despite varied views, share a commitment to a national culture based on democratic ethos.
The Far Right. The first and most obvious of these groups of true deplorables consists of white supremacists, extremists such as neo-Nazis, the “Proud Boys,” and the Ku Klux Klan. These and less well-known factions are appropriately characterized as “hate groups.” Like President Trump, they espouse nationalism, in this case a nationalism based on ethnic “purity.” They are overtly or covertly committed to violence and often incite and encourage violent confrontations with political opponents or minorities. There is evidence that they covertly engage in violent actions, such as destruction of property and looting, in order to blame those actions on Democrats and left-wing groups.
Eichmann Bureaucrats. This label applies to a second and much less visible category of deplorables. These individuals are described by political philosopher Hannah Arendt in her classic book “Eichmann in Jerusalem” as examples of what she termed “the banality of evil.” Like Adolph Eichmann, the master bureaucrat of the Holocaust, high level US officials such as Stephen Miller designed policies ordering that infants be torn from their mothers, to dissuade “illegal immigrants” from entering the U.S. Lower level bureaucratic operatives might say that in carrying out such policies they are only following legitimate orders. But as Arendt commented, “No one has the right to obey!” Blind obedience, she points out, is an excuse and is never legitimate. Moreover, like Eichmann, these deplorable individuals are not really “blind” in their obedience — they know exactly what they are doing. Like Adolph Eichmann, they must be held accountable.
Evangelicals. The third category of true deplorables consists of those who are convinced of the truth of their beliefs and of the urgent need to require that everyone accept those beliefs, at least in terms of their behavior. (Some of these individuals may actually be mentally ill and believe that they are following directions given them by mysterious voices, aliens from outer space, lizard people who secretly control the world, or God. It is unkind to label such persons as “deplorables,” although their actions often are indeed deplorable.)
The most common type of evangelicals are religious evangelicals. Their views are typically based in what might be called “religious absolutism,” the notion that God-given scripture (or its interpretation) demands of them certain beliefs and, most dangerously, requires believers to force others to behave in conformity with those beliefs. (It is not necessarily the belief that others must adhere to, only the behavior.) Examples include prevention of abortion, limitations on the rights of those who define themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, or queer, and opposition to laws defining the separation of church and state. Some individuals belonging to groups in this category use terror tactics — including murder — to promote acceptance of actions by others consistent with their (the evangelicals’) beliefs.
Although the term “evangelicals” is generally applied to those who demand that others adhere to behaviors required by their religious beliefs, not all evangelicals are religious. Non-religious evangelicals are those who demand that public behavior fit with their political or social beliefs. An example would be those who believe in the unlimited right to possess and carry with them anywhere deadly weapons of various kinds.
Evangelicals support Trump and other politicians who promise to enact as law their behavioral requirements. Any actions unrelated to those requirements are irrelevant, no matter how damaging to individuals, groups, or the country as a whole. Evangelicals give their support with only one condition, that the actions they require of everyone be enacted into law. Thus they are often termed “one-issue voters.”
Persons in the three groups of truly deplorables are not likely to be amenable to dialogue. They are simply not interested in working to develop shared goals or to compromise their views in any way. They must be monitored to prevent actions that physically endanger others. True deplorables should be exposed to society for the dangers they pose.
Reassembling America
In sum, President-Elect Biden’s stated aim of bringing us together is more difficult than one might think. The nation is not simply polarized; the divisions are multiple and complex. It will take a complex approach to recreate the common endeavor of the American experiment, a constitutional representative democracy designed to enable a diversity of groups to work together to attain their own as well as common goals. As a “man of the Senate,” Joe Biden may be able to use his years of collaborative work with others in Congress — as did Presidents (and former Senators) Truman and Johnson — to engage former colleagues in productive efforts.
A useful start may simply be a return to a degree of normality in public life, smoothing over some of the conflicts of the recent past and submerging the most bitter differences, making social and political life somewhat calmer. The gradual passing of the COVID-19 pandemic over the coming year should help in this regard. Basically people want to get on with their lives. They want to have jobs and families. They want a sense of security from violence. They want to be part of a community, however defined. They want to be treated fairly. And while they want freedom from government they also want the protection that can only be provided by government.
It is not at all clear what proportion of President Trump’s supporters fall into each of the categories defined here. Hopefully, the first three groups, consisting of those who might be willing to participate in a diverse democracy, are the largest. It seems likely that the most potentially (and at time actively) violent in these groups are relatively small. It is important, however, to keep in mind that the dangerous actions of those in the three groups of true deplorables speak louder than their numbers. And we must remember that about forty percent of American voters were committed supporters of and in 2020 voted for President Trump, an overtly mentally ill individual who, with the assistance of others whose primary interest was personal gain or the advancement of a particular ideology, has severely damaged our institutions and democracy itself.
Those who believe in the future of democracy in America, who insist that the great American experiment is not yet over, must not adopt the distorted perspectives of the various deplorables. And, in particular, we must not give in to the easy answer offered by deplorables, that is, to hate the “other.” Individuals and groups who rely on hate to achieve their goals cannot be ignored. But they must be watched; the dangers they pose are by no means over. Even so, the way to respond to those who might, through conviction, fear, ignorance, and hate destroy democracy and end the American experiment is not by means of extreme force or government control.
Laugh, sing, and dance. Enjoy nature. Enjoy other people. And be on guard for negative emotions such as hate, anger, or feeling aggrieved. Try to live positive emotions, such as joy, kindness, and compassion. The best way for each of us to help repair the damage to American democracy is to be guided by love, love for one another and for America.
Thanks to Gregory Wilmoth for helpful comments and critique.