Democracy versus Accuracy
Democracy functions on the basis of opinion sharing. These opinions are perspectives based on life experiences, orientations, and attitudes (lots of Kenneth Burke language here). What makes democracy work well is a swirling of shared opinions with the intent to persuade. We can’t do much else other than file in and vote for who we like without some pressure or pushback on our personal thoughts. Humans came to be what we are today through developing communication not as a tool, but as a place to live. We have to share points of view with one another that are ours. Democracy suffers because we now do not share our views. We share the views of endless media outlets, podcasts, and other consumptive media and repeat those views. So many opinions turn into a few, and those few are amplified through repetition.
The most damaging legacy from Trump, at least rhetorically, is that now anyone who reinforces terrible American policy that was pre-Trump will be viewed as some liberating or open-minded force. The political good has been conflated with the politically expedient, comfortable, and normal, leaving people feeling happy and comfortable that the United States does nothing to help with postcolonial issues of their own making, global market hegemony, militarization, unfair and unjust labor, and so much more.
Herbert Marcuse put out a great warning about this in his book One Dimensional Man where he talked about capitalism and capitalist-oriented authority trying to eliminate the difference between the “ought” and the “is.” The post-Trump legacy is a very seamless conflation of the two. Biden is not the only choice, but a good choice; his election was a good thing not an emergency measure. This kind of thinking is exceedingly dangerous as anyone who is hyper-critical of Joe Biden will be associated with being pro-Trump. I find this to be the case any time I criticize Biden – I am then subjected to hearing about how bad Trump was. This is not a problem, as Trump is easy to critique. However, what’s missing is any sort of political imaginary for a better system. Instead of re-imagining the kind of immigration system we’d want, or the sort of foreign aid we should provide, we endlessly talk about how destructive Trump was to both systems and how happy we are that he is no longer running those systems. This allows us to uncritically praise oppressive capitalist policies that the United States often employs.
It’s hard to find the rhetorical strategy to allow people to imagine. But this is why the Democrats love Donald Trump. They no longer have to defend or justify anything they do – they can just gesture toward Trump. “Would you rather have that?” they ask. It’s a no-brainer. Of course we don’t want someone as thinly-sighted as Trump with that much authority over U.S. policy. But we don’t want Joe Biden either. What is needed is a complete wipe of such incremental politics and a fundamental grappling, and re-imagining of the United States, a coming to terms – possibly new terms – with what role the country should play for itself and others in the world. First we should recognize that much of the current world is an effect or result of American policy in the first place – are we happy with the bed we’ve made?
Returning to a creative approach to the political – what do I believe and how does it relate to everything I’ve heard and seen – is what should be taught as critical thinking, not “evaluate the source so you can repeat the facts.” Such an approach isn’t teaching anything except how to be a passive consumer of thought versus a thinker.