It isn’t very frequently that I agree with remarks of Megan McArdle’s as I did with these paragraphs from her most recent Washington Post column:
Trump’s rhetoric about immigrants and others appalls me. But that’s not in the same category as establishing a fascist dictatorship. Nor is tightening our immigration policy very much like invading other countries and sending millions of citizens to extermination camps. It’s offensive lunacy to suggest that these things are somehow inextricably linked.
And it’s not much more reasonable to claim a direct causal link between Trump’s rhetoric and the monstrous synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh, as is now happening. Jews are not among the groups Trump is known for slandering, and America has a pernicious history of anti-Semitic violence long pre-dating Trump. Sadly, there were deadly attacks at Jewish centers under both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
So, no, friends, I’m not arguing that Trump is Hitler, or even Hitler Lite. I’m entirely confident that even if he wanted to trash the Constitution and impose a racist dictatorship, neither the institutions of the United States nor the people of the United States would permit it.
But one can dislike the president’s unpleasantly evocative phraseology without thinking the dark night of fascism must therefore be almost upon us. One merely needs to ask: Are Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia really the rhetorical company we want to keep? As conservatives, or as a nation?
A “slippery slope” argument is the claim that one step will lead to another step, ultimately culminating in some disastrous outcome. It is a form of proof by consequences. But sometimes an event is just an event, one step does not lead to a greater step, and the feared disastrou outcome is neither inevitable nor even likely. That is what’s called the “slippery slope fallacy”.
I console myself about the rhetorical excesses in reaction to Trump’s rhetorical excesses by believing that they’re just political posturing. Once a politician has engaged in political posturing 1,000 times it’s not too much of a stretch to think that the 1,001st rhetorical excess if probably political posturing, too.
My reaction to somebody who’s yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater first to assess whether there actually is a fire. If there is not I’d tell him not to yell “Fire” and try to calm the crowd. I would also be inclined to wonder why the theater was overcrowded to begin with. My reaction is not to drag a barrel of kerosene into the theater and I have to wonder about anyone who would.
Agree that unless they actually ordered the crime, politicians should not be held directly responsible for crimes committed by others. What they can be held responsible for is the general tenor of our political discourse. We need some leadership on that issue. Unfortunately, to date, that leadership has mostly been poor, and it looks to me as though the bad leadership has mostly been rewarded.
Steve
Who is making these comparisons to Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union? I read a bunch of pieces after these attacks by Jewish people critical of Trump, and they all said the same thing: ‘America was a safe haven and now, because Trump and the GOP are going off on Soros-funded caravans of dark-skinned foreigners, they’re worried about the haven vanishing.’ How troubling!
What does Trump say yesterday? He wouldn’t be surprised if Soros was behind this caravan. Give me a fucking break. That’s indefensible.
I do think a case could be made that Trump voters are in a hole of their own making, and that explaining this or pointing out the situation is the equivalent of yelling ‘Fire’. But this is also how you talk to children who don’t listen or who lack the emotional capacity to accept responsibility. Talking to adults as if they are children is a power-trip for adults. Just watch most CEOs with their executive assistants.
Odd. I’ve had the opportunity to observe the CEOs of dozens, maybe hundreds of companies and I have rarely seen that. That includes CEOs of Fortune 50 companies, Fortune 500 companies, medium size companies, and small companies.
Seriously? The first job I had out of college was at a consulting company where the head liked to treat his executive assistant like she was his mother nagging him to meet with execs at B of A. I’ve seen that dynamic repeated so many times since then it’s not even worth recounting. Look at politicians with their handlers. Hillary was spitting out gum into her assistant’s kleenex, and Trump is essentially a giant wet baby surrounded by people who have to deal with him on his terms.
Basically, paying somebody to pick up your dry cleaning or get a table at a restaurant equals paying somebody to do your duties as an adult.
Your experience differs from mine.
It’s not only my experience. It’s pretty universal. The servant being a wiser adult and the master being an indulged child is the backbone of comedy. Some of it is gentle–think of Wodehouse. Some of it isn’t.
Anyway, the situation with ‘reasonable’ Trump voters reminds me of how people treat bad bosses or their elderly parents. For whatever reason, you have to do the thinking for them in order to guide their minds to the right solution, all while preserving their illusions. With Trump voters, we’ll have to pretend that there is a fire with the caravans and that thinking these people are unthinking racists is worse than flipping out about a few thousand refugees.
I don’t think it’s going to work. Gay marriage was the last gasp of dealing with this type of prejudice.
Please present empirical evidence, i.e. not your experience, that it’s universal.
It’s what anthropologists call interpretive labor, i.e. the idea that a person below another in a hierarchy will spend a great deal of time imagining how they are being perceived by the person above them. Whereas the person above them is doing little to no work doing the same. The result is that the person below knows more about the person above than the person above knows.
If you don’t want to believe me, fine. There’s no study. Oblivious people will no doubt testify to the fact that the world has misunderstood them. But I do find it very puzzling that you have gone through not seeing what most do see. Have you ever watched television? Why can The Simpsons can present Smithers as somebody who knows way more about Burns than Burns does about himself? They didn’t dig deep into this. It’s like making fun of lawyers via Lionel Hutz. It’s fairly obvious and explaining the lawyer jokes behind Lionel Hutz would be odd, I think.
Just to clarify, there are actually studies that say rich people have less empathy than poor people and are worse at reading emotions than poor people. These studies paint the world with a very broad brush. But it backs up a basic observation: which is that power does allow you to pass of your duties to others without acknowledging the cost.
MM,
I had to look up “interpretive labor” and it seems this term comes from a single anthropologist named David Graeber and is found nowhere else in Anthropology.
“If you don’t want to believe me, fine. There’s no study. Oblivious people will no doubt testify to the fact that the world has misunderstood them.”
I much prefer empiricism to belief. I’m not inclined to believe someone who states that something is universal without providing any evidence beyond the opinions of a fringe academic and a satirical TV show – particularly when the contention contradicts my own experience, the experience of everyone I know and the quite extensive existing academic research on leadership, management, interpersonal relationships, and hierarchies.
So no, I don’t believe you on this point, but if you can produce some evidence then I, for one, would be happy to consider it.
“Why can The Simpsons can present Smithers as somebody who knows way more about Burns than Burns does about himself?”
Because the genius of that show is their ability to exploit and riff off of stereotypes. Stereotypes usually have a kernel of truth to them or they play off of false perceptions – they are not true, much less common or universal.
My favorite of that stereotype remains Radar. He always knew exactly what the Colonel needed and wanted.
Steve
Andy,
Graeber is far from fringe. Look him up. He’s the real deal. I have no idea what the current field of anthropology thinks. I’ve Levi-Strauss and Michael Taussig and Graeber, but if he’s proposing a theory, it’s serious.
Are there decent execs who make good decisions and treat people well? Sure. Why not. But it’s a cult, like politics or academia. I’ve never worked at an organized company where what Graeber describes was not deeply embedded into the way things worked. I know executive assistants who would definitely back me up. And they aren’t at Conde Nast under the thumb of Anna Wintour. They like the people they work for. But they treat their employers as if they were indulgent children, and their employers like that treatment. I don’t think I’ve ever been anywhere where that’s not a default assumption made about power. Sometimes it’s not true.
But here’s the thing: most people don’t really care for their jobs.
Quantifying it can be ridiculous, but this is from 2017:
Of the country’s approximately 100 million full-time employees, 51 percent aren’t engaged at work — meaning they feel no real connection to their jobs, and thus they tend to do the bare minimum.
Another 16 percent are “actively disengaged†— they resent their jobs, tend to gripe to co-workers and drag down office morale as a result.
…
As it turns out, if you’re unhappy at work, your boss may be mostly to blame. Through no fault of their own, many supervisors are ill-equipped to manage people and all their idiosyncrasies, said Harter. That’s because of the way employees typically rise to positions of power within organizations.
Companies tend to hire people for supervisory roles based on tenure and success in previous jobs, which may not have entailed managing people, said Harder. Engineers, for instance, may shine at what they do, but may be lacking in the leadership department. The solution for many employers is to rethink their hiring and promotion practices and offer management-training programs, said Harter.
Leadership sounds like something people read about on jets going one way and then bother their employees via email on the return trip. There’s like a Soviet-like appeal to leadership or management, as if you can make the system through bullshit. If 50% of employees are alienated and another 15% are ready to blow this place up, it’s not leadership or management that’s the problem.
MM,
Except your subjective experience and Graeber’s viewpoint is contrary to what the relevant research says on the topic. Dave and I have already said our experience is quite different from what you’re describing. Note that I’m not denying your experience, but I am denying it is universal or is somehow baked-in to organizational social structures.
What industry do you work in? If it’s as bad as you say, I’d like to avoid it.
I’m really curious what the relevant research which sheds light on alienation.
I’ve worked in finance and tech. People deal there with alienation by getting hammered and moonlighting with second careers. Witness the fact that new head of Goldman (while his collection of DRC was being abducted by his personal assistant) doubles as an EDM DJ.
I’ve also worked in the non-profit sector. It’s better except at the high level. I’m a misfit, though, and never expect to fit in. And I work in a city where acting poorly can be considered an interesting quirk. If I was unhappy you could lay the blame on me. But most people aren’t me and they seem to be unhappy.