WHAT IS IT LIKE TO BE A SUPPORTER OF TRUMP?

      I found myself wondering, not for the first time, what makes it possible for Trump supporters to think and feel as they do about this grotesque political anthropoid.  Which led me to re-read Thomas Nagel’s famous philosophical paper "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?” (1974).  My training in linguistic philosophy a decade-and-a half earlier did not prepare me for this discussion, and the passage of time has not increased my ability to understand its arguments.  The gist of it seems to be that there is neither an objective nor a subjective way of understanding, much less experiencing, the experience of a bat.  (This conclusion means no more to philosophers than it means to others—that is, almost nothing; to them, it is the arguments establishing this conclusion which matter.) 

The experiential distance between man and bat is, of course, much greater than that between man and man.  Nevertheless, I have no first-hand way to explore, much less experience, the compound of thoughts and feelings which support the visceral bond of Trump supporters to this political animal.  Those thoughts and feelings differ in their nature and their intensity, from the extremists of the kind who attacked Congress, many dressed and acting as if in computer action games, to the moderates who have reflexively voted Republican or have doubts about Kamala Harris (and Tim Walz).

 

I puzzle about these matters because, as a former consultant and teacher, my work required me to understand and communicate with those whose thoughts and feelings were quite different from my own.  In today’s political environment, understanding and communicating are almost impossible or quite rare for two major reasons (I ignore the reluctance or refusal of most people to engage in political discussion "across the aisle”).

 

One reason is that some words used in political discourse, even when their dictionary definition is accepted, carry different emotive or moral values.  For example, the word "bigot.”  Some people regard the label as a badge of shame; some, with indifference; some, as a badge of honor.  If so, attaching labels of moral opprobrium to, say, white supremacists can have little or no constructive effect; they cannot be shamed into abandoning their allegiances or their convictions.  Other words are transmuted or transvalued; Republicans (not Democrats) are "real Americans,” insurrectionists are patriots, compromise is treachery, moderation is weakness, etc.

 

Another reason is the now-common quarrel about what the facts are or whether they are relevant to a political preference or policy.  There are now, apparently, not only facts, but also "alternative facts,” many of which constitute stories of conspiracies.  In the quotidian world of everyday living, the proliferation and acceptance of non-truths threatens not only rational discussion, but also and more importantly sensible decisions.

 

Trump and Vance campaign according to an anti-factual rhetorical doctrine: a lie really big no one will believe is rigged, so it will be believed.  Their campaign presents a fact-free, dystopian vision of an America in decline; their falsehoods pronounced on social media, at rallies, in friendly interviews, even in a presidential debate enter the informational mainstream.  For example, Trump has repeatedly bad-mouthed the American economy.  A Harris poll in late May for The Guardian reports that 56% of Americans thought the country was in a recession (it was not), 49% believed the stock market was down for the year (it was way up), and, 49% said unemployment was near a 50-year high (it was near a 50-year low).  Thus, 58% believe that mismanagement by the Biden administration had worsened the economy.

 

Most Americans’ eyes glaze over when they see macroeconomic numbers, but their ears perk up when they are told about someone’s bad news.  Even so, it is hard to believe that they accept racist Big Lies about immigrants raping (white) women, murdering (white) people, and eating (white) peoples’ pets.  For many of them live in or near cities and towns with immigrants; can stop, look, or listen; yet learn nothing of the sort.  So the question is why they believe such stuff as fear campaigns are made of when the real world of their quotidian experience refutes it.

 

Whatever the answer, clearly, Trump’s true believers do not acquire the facts and accept the truth about the economy or immigrants and just about anything, everything, else.  They are naïve or needy in accepting whatever Trump presents to them; insensitive or indifferent to his falsehoods, distortions, or contradictions; and incapable of critical thinking.  Bad at dealing with the realities of the outer world, they are worse at dealing with the realities of their inner world.  Their illusions about the outer world parallel the delusions of their inner world.  They are incapable of introspection because they lack the detachment to observe, examine, and understand their thoughts and feelings.  Without self-awareness, they are also without mental or emotional self-control; ignorance and impulse prevail.  Morality and ethics are transactional; they have no conscience.  Their propensity for bigotry, cruelty, and violence reflects their anger and resentment at their frustrations in education, in employment, or of aspirations to popularity, power, or prestige.  (A notable electoral cohort is socially inept and sexually frustrated young males known as incels, for involuntary celibate; for them, it is no longer a man’s world, so misogyny prevails.)

 

Of such people, the true believers in Trump, many might want to say that they are bat-shit crazy or their complicity in that man’s imponderable evil is itself imponderable.  I prefer a story, probably apocryphal, instead.  On a day in Auschwitz, one Jew came upon another deep in prayer.  The one asked the other what he was doing; the other answered that he was praying.  The one asked why he was praying; the other answered that he was offering thanks to God.  The one asked what he was thankful for; the other answered that he was thankful that God had not made him like them.

THE RULE OF LAW DOES NOT RULE IN LAS CRUCES

      In this campaign, more than in any other which I can recall over the past 76 years, the rule of law—not “law and order”—is a major, maybe the major, issue.  In considering the issue, I looked back to the earliest continuing law in the Western World, the Ten Commandments.  Notably, they fuse legal requirements and religious guidance, and are not merely associated with, but essential to, Judaism.  Thus, Jewish law has the inherent approval and inalienable support of religion.  So, too, Islam, its sibling; not, Christianity, its offspring, with its different relationship to law.

     Arguably, Christianity offers no legal (and little moral) guidance.  The argument would begin by noting Paul’s repudiation of Jewish law and Christian antipathy to that law ever since.  As a member of a discussion group of members of Peace Lutheran Church who read a book about reforming Christianity in the 21^st century, I observed that Christianity had no code of conduct as Judaism had, with its 613 laws.  That statement of fact prompted an angry response from two members who demanded to know why Jews needed so many laws; surely, the Ten Commandments were sufficient.  Silence for a moment.  So I replied that it was appropriate only for Jews to choose which and how many laws they want for themselves.  The objection to the number of laws likely unread suggests discomfort with submission to the rule of law.

The argument would continue by observing that Jesus’ various urgings—resist not evil, turn the cheek, love your enemy—are not injunctions, are vague, and are reactive in moral situations.  They lack specific directions for righteous living.  It would conclude by admitting the omission of anything about Christ’s mission or message from the Nicene or Apostles Creeds.  Indeed, some might argue that the fact that Christianity is largely devoid of moral content—some years ago, a chain bookstore carried a book entitled Christian Ethics, which consisted of blank pages—is what has given it international appeal; it has no moral requirements and makes no moral demands which might conflict with cultural norms in different societies.  For many, it is sufficient to be a Christian to do your own thing and have faith that Jesus forgives and loves you.

 

One might counter-argue with the example of Jesus’ life and his concern for the poor, the weak, the oppressed, and his indifference to ritualistic precision.  But his example is consistent with Judaism and not distinctively Christian.  Moreover, an example creates no obligation.  Observers might or might not follow his example as they see fit.

 

When Christians want to stress the law and the rule of law they fall back on the foundational laws of Judaism, the Ten Commandments, as the two good Lutherans in the discussion group did.  But the fallback position is rhetorical, not real.  Christians may want the Ten Commandments posted in school rooms for children, but they do not want priests or ministers to address, say, adultery, which about half of their congregations commit.  (We all know the good news/bad news joke about that one.)  In short, in itself, Christianity, unlike Judaism, gives little support to the law or the rule of law.  Render unto Caesar is about as close to support of secular law as Christianity gets.

 

Religion to encourage obedience to the law counters the general reluctance to obey the law, to accept it as a guide ruling one’s conduct.  Absent religion, obedience to the law is necessary for some degree of public safety and social cohesion.  The reason for reluctance in a free society is obvious; it means voluntarily submitting to an external, higher authority—an act requiring humility and self-discipline.  In an individualistic and anti-authoritarian culture like America’s, people do not readily submit to restraints on conduct.  Letting it all hang out is a high virtue; being judgmental, even about oneself (go easy on yourself), is disparaged.  The national motto seems to be “rules are made to be broken.”

 

Most of us as youths pleased ourselves with breaking expectations or the rules in the diverse ways of adolescent rebellion.  Most of us outgrew childish ways as the demands of adult social coexistence required a modicum of self-restraint.  In my day, we regarded as low-lifes those who did not act like adults—thus we expressed it—with manners, decency, and honesty.  Steve Bannon, Rudi Guiliani, and Elon Musk would not be allowed on the White House grounds except as tourists.

 

As the nation’s social fabric frays—it seems nearly in tatters these days—, we recognize that growing numbers of adults are turning away from rules of any kind and especially the rule of law to the rule of powerful people who are vulgar and violent.  So successful are they that their followers revert to delinquency and deification.  Some Republicans associate Donald Trump with the Christian godhead or believe that God saved him from assassination for His special purpose on earth.  Never mind the First Commandment that we shall have no other gods before Him.  In such perverse ways, Christian nationalism is a fraud perpetrated and perpetuated by predominantly white people who use the labels and paraphernalia of Christianity as tribal identifiers, not as signifiers of religious convictions or a moral commitment to the law and the rule of law.

 

What is true about the breakdown of the rule of law at the national level is equally true at the local level.  In many respects, that breakdown is less dramatic but no less corrosive and pernicious.  We already know about my complaints about a police force which made false allegations about code violations; about police chiefs, mayors, and councilors who ignored officer dishonesty, LCPD policy violations, and antisemitism; and about their silent, do-nothing response—no transparency or accountability—to these complaints over a period of 5 years.  In my case, nobody listened, or nobody answered.

 

In other cases, too.  Now we learn about the many complaints of people seeking and not receiving medical attention at Memorial Medical Center, complaints reflecting its likely violations of its legal obligations under its lease with the city, complaints ignored for years by the members of City Council.  Councilor Bencomo implied (Bulletin, 6 Sep) that the members of City Council are too small, too weak, too fearful to deal with serious problems.  Asked why these complaints are only now being addressed,

 

Bencomo said that the government had taken a “disempowered approach” to MMC.  “Truthfully, at one point it used to feel like, ‘what could city council really do about our very broken for-profit healthcare system?’  It all felt too big, and I thought that's what this conversation was about.  But by disempowering our governing body, we disempowered our community, and we disempowered patients’ voices,” Bencomo said.

 

Note her admission “It all felt too big.”  View her talk about “our very broken for-profit healthcare system” as a ploy to use a general problem to distract from a specific problem and a play for sympathy.  Interpret “disempowered approach” to mean a cowardly, problem-dodging approach.  Conclude that members of City Council do not think about the legal implications of issues which come before them.

 

The City government’s disregard of the law is one thing; its active violation of the law is another.  I have blogged that many, deliberate, and costly violations of the Inspection of Public Records Act had the support of the Law Office.  The City claims to process 1800 IPRA requests a year without complaint.  Because I doubt that my complaint was unique, I suspect that the City Clerk has violated IPRA in processing other complaints—violations unknown to or unchallenged by requesters.

 

I have also sketched out some violations not only of City Council’s ordinance creating the Public Safety Select Committee (now apparently inactive), but also of its multiple violations of the Open Meetings Act.  If, after I complete my review of the documents released under my IPRA request, I discover other violations, I shall report them and address the issues raised by City Council’s multi-year violation of the public’s right to know how the City’s government frequently operates in defiance of law.

 

Meanwhile, because City Council might have met in secret sessions and reached decisions by rolling quorums, the New Mexico Attorney General is investigating whether it violated OMA in the process of hiring the current City Manager.

 

At this point, it is fair to infer that City Council, at least in the past half dozen years or so, has operated in disregard of the law or in defiance of the rule of law when it suits its convenience.  It prefers secrecy, even if it involves law-breaking, to avoid the discomfort of addressing problems in public which might risk demonstrating its timidity, its weakness, and its incompetence.  If the City’s elected officials and its ranking officers have no respect for the law which governs the City and its citizens, I think that they deserve no respect in corrupting the rule of law.

DARING TO MAKE DARING ELECTION PREDICTIONS

 Predictions about the outcomes of political campaigns go for about a dime a dozen and are worth even less.  Most of them reflect the wish as the father of the thought.  Still, in a two-candidate competition, there is a fifty-fifty chance of being right.  What matters in judging predictions are the reasons for them.

My original prediction for the outcome of the 2024 election was made in early June, before Biden’s disastrous debate performance.  I told a few friends with an informed interest in politics that the election would see a “Blue wave” return Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to the White House; maintain, if not enlarge, the Democratic majority in the Senate; and turn the House Democratic with a sizable majority.  That prediction was particularly daring because, at the time, Biden was trailing Trump both nationally and locally in the battleground states, and many Democratic candidates for the Senate and House were struggling as well.  It is still daring, perhaps foolhardy, but I stick with it.

 

One reason for my apparently wishful and rash prediction was the closeness of the race at that time.  If President Biden, already showing the wear and tear of his age, a long political career, and over three years as president, was close to his rival, then he had significant support.  Much the same was true of the many close races at the state level for the Senate and the House.  Supporters would stay with Biden and other Democratic candidates, and a majority of independents and many Republicans would vote for the Democratic ticket out of disgust or exhaustion with Trump and his base.

 

Another reason was a belief that a dispirited party still holding its own against an aroused MAGA base would find something or someone to invigorate them with energy and enthusiasm.  I had little faith that Trump, an aging, malignant narcissist, would finally say or do something which would break through what even the mainstream media had normalized about him, and repel those not suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome (which I impute to his devotees, not his detractors).  I had some faith that Biden himself would finally be appreciated for his accomplishments and his character as the campaign made them better understood by the public.  I was wrong to think that Biden would begin this later effort in the first debate, but, then, I had no notion that his advisers would be so door-knob dumb in preparing Biden for debating Trump.

 

Well, that someone has come along and vindicated a theory of mine.  We all know the Peter Principle: the advancement of an individual above his or her level of competence.  (Local instances are most of the members of the Las Cruces City Council and ranking officials in the City administration.)  But the reverse of the Peter Principle is the person who is not well suited to the lower rungs of the ladder, but who by chance rises to the top and finds his or her abilities matched to circumstances.

 

Enter Kamala Harris.  She earned few plaudits for her work as Vice President.  She gave signs of improvement in the months before President Biden withdrew from the campaign, in areas in which she, better than anyone else in the White House, could work, like abortion-related issues.  But once liberated by her elevation as Biden’s replacement as the presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket, she has astonished the world.  Her intelligence, her eloquence, her energy, and her charm, once repressed, now released, have become evident to all.  Like many women of talent whose self-confidence has survived being put down or held back, she has ascended to her proper sphere as a leader.  (No one imagined Dan Quayle or Mike Pence, both Indiana natives, ascending to acknowledged leadership of the Republican Party.  No one can imagine J. D. Vance, GOP nominee for Vice President rising to the occasion.)  Democratic morale has revived, and Democratic chances to win the White House have risen ever since, and, with those rising chances, the chances of many Democratic Senators and Representatives.  I am happy to think her the agent to make my prediction come true.

 

Unquestionably, there will be difficulties.  Of the most highly contested states, the state of Georgia alone will disgrace itself by trying to disallow Democratic votes.  The others—North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, Arizona—may have some kerfuffles but none putting the will of the people in jeopardy.  My prediction—here goes another—is that vote for the Democratic ticket will be so large that the idea of large-scale fraud or manipulation will qualify believers to be pursued by those wielding butterfly nets and providing padded cells.  (Come to think of it, Trump would be well served by incarceration, not in prison, but in a hospital for the criminally insane.)

 

If there is any comfort in the off-chance of being wrong, it is that I shall have a lot of company in the misery of a Trump win.  Still, I shall make another prediction on the assumption that my other predictions come true.  Contrary to the belief that the defeat of Trump will not be the defeat of Trumpism, I believe that a “Blue wave” will cleanse the country of an organized political movement extending his vulgarity and violence except for scattered incidents.  First, no one—certainly not J. D. Vance—will prove capable of assuming the leadership of Trump’s cultish following.  Second, petty pretenders will fall to quarreling among themselves and demoralize the Base.  Third, and most important, most Americans have had enough of what Trump, represented by Project 2025, means for America.  I am surprised that the Democratic National Committee or the Harris/Walz campaign has not resurrected the slogan which Republicans used against Democrats in the 1946 election: “Had Enough?”  The answer is “yes,” a thousand times “yes.”  Not the best of reasons to vote for Harris, but good enough if the many other good reasons fail.

 

If my very limited daily experience tells me anything, it is that the support for Harris is greater than the polls reveal.  Many who mean to vote for Democrats seem frightened of violence from the Base.  Not I.  I have been alternately wearing two long-sleeved t-shirts.  One says, says “Harris for President”; the other, “Dudes for, like, Harris, man.”  People passing me at the supermarket say quietly—they do not want to be overheard—that they like my shirt; some commend me for being brave by declaring myself.  One of my neighbors will not post a Harris/Walz sign in her yard lest nearby Trump supporters berate her.  One is an ultra-patriot, formerly, back in the Vietnam Era, a pot-smoking, draft-dodger; currently, a more-American-than-thou MAGAloid displaying big flags and red, white, and blue bunting.  The threat of vulgarity and violence at the local level is likely widespread and suppresses outward expressions of Democratic sympathies.  No doubt, the final vote will come as a great surprise to them and lead to their tiresome charges of voter fraud.  But the country will leave the refuse which is Trump, his Base, and the remnants of the Republican Party behind, and move on and move forward.