Today is “what I got wrong” day on the New York Times opinion page. Paul Krugman admits to having been wrong about inflation; Michelle Goldberg about Al Franken; David Brooks about capitalism; Zeynep Tufekci about the power of protest; Tom Friedman about Chinese censorship; Gail Collins about Mitt Romney; Farhad Manjoo about Facebook; and, the subject of this post, Brett Stephens about Trump supporters. Here’s the meat of Mr. Stephens’s column:
When I looked at Trump, I saw a bigoted blowhard making one ignorant argument after another. What Trump’s supporters saw was a candidate whose entire being was a proudly raised middle finger at a self-satisfied elite that had produced a failing status quo.
I was blind to this. Though I had spent the years of Barack Obama’s presidency denouncing his policies, my objections were more abstract than personal. I belonged to a social class that my friend Peggy Noonan called “the protected.†My family lived in a safe and pleasant neighborhood. Our kids went to an excellent public school. I was well paid, fully insured, insulated against life’s harsh edges.
Trump’s appeal, according to Noonan, was largely to people she called “the unprotected.†Their neighborhoods weren’t so safe and pleasant. Their schools weren’t so excellent. Their livelihoods weren’t so secure. Their experience of America was often one of cultural and economic decline, sometimes felt in the most personal of ways.
It was an experience compounded by the insult of being treated as losers and racists —clinging, in Obama’s notorious 2008 phrase, to “guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them.â€
No wonder they were angry.
with this as the clincher:
Oh, and then came the great American cultural revolution of the 2010s, in which traditional practices and beliefs — regarding same-sex marriage, sex-segregated bathrooms, personal pronouns, meritocratic ideals, race-blind rules, reverence for patriotic symbols, the rules of romance, the presumption of innocence and the distinction between equality of opportunity and outcome — became, more and more, not just passé, but taboo.
It’s one thing for social mores to evolve over time, aided by respect for differences of opinion. It’s another for them to be abruptly imposed by one side on another, with little democratic input but a great deal of moral bullying.
This was the climate in which Trump’s campaign flourished. I could have thought a little harder about the fact that, in my dripping condescension toward his supporters, I was also confirming their suspicions about people like me — people who talked a good game about the virtues of empathy but practice it only selectively; people unscathed by the country’s problems yet unembarrassed to propound solutions.
What struck me about Mr. Stephens’s column and, indeed, about the others as well was the lack of introspective insight about why they were wrong. Every single one was wrong because to have responded objectively to the evidence of their senses would have required them to turn away from their ideologies and in each case ideology triumphed. And that’s why they’ll be wrong again.
Could a prominent group of writers on the right do this? I dont think so. Deviating from the tribal norms makes you a RINO.
Steve
You attack conservatives because you cannot defend the beliefs of your tribe, Doctor.
A lot of them sound similar to the answers one gives in a job interview when asked, “what is your greatest weakness or mistake?” The response is usually lots of prevarication or humble-bragging.
BTW Dave, I don’t know if you subscribe to Matt Yglesias’ Substack, but he wrote an article on Chicago today. I found it unsatisfying.