Egads. Mein Gott. Oh Lord. The midterm verdicts on America's decadent leadership are coming in from all notches on the political spectrum, and they're strikingly akin to a white flag of surrender. We're in an ironic ditch of prosperity, says one observer, from the Wall Street Journal; we've become hopelessly indifferent to national decline, says another, from the Washington Post; and the third observer — a pole apart from the first; a NY Times pinko — sees not one but two Americas, in which one would defend virtually any corruption from the very highest decadence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
"Many of Mr. Trump’s initiatives lack public support … [and his] disruptive efforts haven’t yielded notable success." So, what's saving him from universal disaffection? asks William Galston, a weekly columnist for the WSJ. He's ready with the answers. "The economy has kicked into higher gear," he notes, and Trump "has kept faith with the 46% of Americans who voted for him in 2016." Much like the old city machines, he has made sure the pilferage has been equitably distributed. "He gave economic conservatives the tax cuts and deregulatory policies" he pledged; he gave "social conservatives … the judicial nominees they were promised"; and he gave "populist conservatives … the nationalist policies — on trade, immigration and putting America first — that energized them during the campaign."
The last and third leg of Trump's enduring support "transcends policy," Galston observes — and without question, it's the most disconcerting. "In Donald Trump, dissatisfied Americans have found a man who resents cultural elites as much as they do, who is as dismissive of convention as they would like to be, and, above all, who fights constantly, retreats rarely, seldom apologizes, and takes every setback as an opportunity to renew the unending struggle." We have always had crackpot politicians such as Trump — the historical difference being that they never achieved more than minimal success. But in 2016, the luck of the deplorable draw triumphed.
WaPo's Christine Emba is more specific, as well as more general. She zeroes in on comedian Sacha Baron Cohen’s television series, "Who Is America?," and she despairs at what he finds. I've not seen the show (it runs on Showtime), but it seems the comedian "disguises himself as a variety of exaggerated figures" — one day he's "a right-wing conspiracy theorist," the next, "an absurdly far-left professor" — and then proceeds to prank deserving victims. For instance "in the first episode, Cohen persuades several current and former Republican lawmakers to endorse an initiative to train preschoolers in the use of military-grade weaponry to prevent school shootings. Current House members Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) and Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) mindlessly mouth endorsements." Are we surprised?
Concludes Emba: "We are uncomfortable with the direction in which our country is headed, but we also feel that it’s too far gone for us to do more than laugh, shrug and sigh…. In essence, we’ve given up…. We have decided that there is nothing to be done." One encounters such resignation daily, usually with no more than a shrug. What can we do? We voted against the demagogic dunce by a decisive majority, and yet, there he sits in the Oval Office, systematically destroying every institutional foundation that made America a model nation for the world. And speaking of irony, he is protected by the very constitution that he's trampling.
Last there is the Times' Frank Bruni, who sensibly broods over Republicans' nearly uniform forgiveness of all the above. "They simply notice that their man is under attack, and they rise to defend him…. It’s one of the most unjust, infuriating aspects of his endurance. His shamelessness is actually his saving grace."
As for those aforementioned two Americas, Bruni cites research that shows "Americans on one side of the political divide don’t just disagree with those on the other. They see them as threats to the country’s well-being…. Forget I’m O.K., you’re O.K. This is: I have problems, you’re repulsive."
All this raises a fascinating question, which political philosopher John Rawls, in his celebrated "veil of ignorance," attempted to answer (successfully, I would add).
This, I must stress, is a crude, personal rendering of Rawls' "theory of justice." Anyway, here it is. Let us posit that you will be dropped into one of two political systems. One is led by a coarse, mendacious, utterly ill-informed president who cares nothing for the rule of law, and he's backed by a political party that overtly favors the white and the wealthy. Minorities in this system are disrespected in both word and deed, as are women. Social programs for the poor are targeted for dismantlement, one way or the other. Reality and truth are disfavored for whatever the ruling regime says is real and truthful. Now, before you are dropped into such a society, you know nothing of yourself; you are oblivious of your color, your talents, your wealth (or lack of it), of your gender.
Would you choose Trump's society or one, for lack of a better term, designed by a center-left team of social engineers?
Forbes magazine's Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry answered in this way: "Rawls, and Ralwsians, believe that the 'veil of ignorance' principle naturally leads us to broadly social-democratic, egalitarian, progressive policies, because once you're behind the veil of ignorance, you will want strong redistribution and generous social welfare policies just in case you end up as one of the poor people in your society."
I'd wager that 100 percent (or damn close to it) of those surveyed would choose the social-democratic, egalitarian, progressive society. And yet, here we are, stuck behind Trump's solid wall of ignorance, reactionaryism and bigotry. Have we surrendered to it as well? From all sides, the mainstream media's commentariat seems to believe we have. I despair a bit less. But theirs, I admit, is tempting.