The Stories We Tell Ourselves

Aug. 01, 2016

Stories are the lifeblood of politics. Not only stories almost candidates, merely stories that sit at the intersection of candidates and the historical moment. To succeed on the national stage, your story has to connect with how voters view their own personal stories at this moment in time and how they view their future.

Indeed politics is, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, an statement over the future. And the stories that emerged from our 2 national conventions posed remarkably contrasting visions for our futurity, built on dramatically different personal stories and dramatically different notions near the state of the nation.

Donald Trump in Cleveland

Trump'south Cleveland convention painted a national story of crisis: Illegal immigration, jihadist terrorism, a weakened military, elevated law-breaking, police killings, closed factories, the absence of public competence, and a rigged system that favors global elites to the detriment of national interests.

The story was, every bit many commentators have noted, nighttime, even dystopian. Perhaps. But in a radically populist era, when there is so much suspicion of establishment politics, the story resonates with many Americans. This is especially true because the story is being told past an outsider to conventional politics.

At its core, the Trump story about America and his role inside that story is a elementary narrative that has been replayed for centuries. Information technology has a familiar semantic cadency: lost greatness, social crisis, heroic recognition, and hereafter redemption.

There is not much dash to the story. There is non supposed to be. That is its appeal. It is easily understood and provides an emotional connectedness for those who feel the past was amend than the present, and the futurity looks bleak. When people talk well-nigh its Rust Chugalug appeal, for instance, they are referring to places where large numbers of mostly-white industrial workers have been displaced. And where changing national demographics (at least in their minds) are marginalizing them from the broader cultural narrative.

Will the Clinton story about America work in support of someone who is seen equally the ultimate insider, someone who both Trump and (in a different fashion) Sanders railed confronting? Difficult to say. In the historic period of Brexit, Hillary is even so the stay vote.

The Trump story uses bright lines to separate by, present, and time to come. At one end of the story is nostalgia—with obvious nativist appeal—for an unspecified lost fourth dimension. In the middle is an awakening by a potent, if reluctant leader, who calls for a radical, only ill-defined change. At the outer edge is a vision of restored greatness. All such stories take deeply authoritarian possibilities in that they posit a savior figure whose will becomes the essential counterweight to the crisis.

The Trump story has three bug, which may define its political limits.

First, while there is indeed a dandy bargain of economic and political turmoil in America and throughout the earth, it is difficult to foursquare Trump'south crisis story with the facts on the ground: crime (despite a ane year rise in many cities) has trended dramatically downward for several decades; unemployment is downwardly to pre-recession levels with many employers having problem filling skilled jobs; and no matter what you retrieve of foreign policy during the past few decades, the American military machine is the dominant force in the world. There are simply no close seconds.

Secondly, many of the changes brought about by clearing, technology, global contest, and a civilisation that extends rights to people outside its traditional domain—women, LGBTQ community, people with disabilities—are not going to be reversed. There is ample evidence of a vigorous cosmopolitan culture in America: Rates of interracial marriages are skyrocketing, immigrant small businesses take become engines of growth, there is more than, not less, tolerance of lifestyle differences, and the cyberspace economic system has changed the meaning of local versus global.

Thirdly, there is the problem of the salesman himself, Trump. He is a political savior whose life story shows a remarkable absence of public purpose. He has as well many flaws to fit the archetype hero-redeemer function. Not the flaws of a business failure here and there, like his bankruptcies or even an extramarital affair. Those are forgivable as part of a redemption odyssey. No, the trouble is deeper. Too much of his biography is characterized past trying to put something over on people, from minor contractors on building sites to, allegedly, students at Trump University. Likewise much of his sales pitch is bullying; there are too many enemies, too little impulse control, and no evidence of personal growth.

At the moment, Trump's support has topped out in the low 40 percentage range of the national electorate. He got a bounce from the period of Hillary Clinton'southward FBI ordeal through the Cleveland convention. But can that trajectory go along in the face of the structural limits of his story and the DNC'southward ain convention bounciness?

Hillary Clinton in Philadelphia

As the last of the Bernie Bros cleared from Dilworth Plaza outside Philadelphia'south City Hall, and equally the city breathed a collective sigh of relief that there were no major problems during the DNC, the question was whether Clinton's story could opposite Trump's momentum and turn the tide back to the political insider.

Hillary Clinton's Philadelphia convention wanted to attain six things:

1. Integrate the Bernie Sanders opposition into the Clinton military camp.
2. Give a nod to the political center while simultaneously keeping the left happy.
3. Define the need for modify while staying loyal to President Obama's legacy.
4. Re-introduce herself to a nation wary of her trustworthiness.
5. Define the Trump candidacy as beyond the pale of American democracy.
6. Offer a dissimilar narrative of America at a time of modify and incertitude.

These tasks required smart rhetorical tactics and a nuanced choreography of symbols. Progressives including Bernie Sanders paid homage to Clinton'due south left wing credentials. Others framed her story as a progressive pragmatist who gets things done. Every group that makes upwardly the base of the party—ethnic minorities, union workers, LGBTQ activists, disability rights proponents—had ample presence throughout the convention.

Clinton's husband, daughter, and friends sought to humanize her every bit wife, mother, grandmother, and colleague to counter the calculating and untrustworthy images many hold toward her. Onetime New York City mayor and businessman Mike Bloomberg had the job of explaining why centrists have to vote for Hillary, given the alternative. He and others plowed the convention field with speeches that tried to make the case that this is non a Right-versus-Left or Democrat-versus-Republican selection; this is a normal candidate versus an abnormal candidate who has strayed far from mainstream democratic (with a pocket-sized D) values.

Trump'south story gives us a political savior whose life story shows a remarkable absence of public purpose. Too much of his biography is characterized by trying to put something over on people, from small contractors on building sites to, allegedly, students at Trump University. Too much of his sales pitch is bullying; at that place are likewise many enemies and besides little impulse control.

President Obama pitched Hillary's continuity with his policies while noting her opportunity to intermission the next barrier and continue his 2008 modify theme. And throughout the convention, the shattering of the glass ceiling was a sure symbol of change.

Both the President and Michele Obama introduced the DNC counter-narrative about America. What was that counter-narrative? America has not lost its greatness and exceptionalism; the nation has experienced greater crises in the past; the present crises volition exist met and conquered; the expansion of liberty to marginalized groups expands the boundaries of republic; and fright is not the way to manage modify.

The counter-narrative was bathed in American patriotism. There were soldiers speaking, flags waving, and a number of speeches hearkening back to a couple of other conventions held in Philadelphia, like the one for independence in 1776 and the one to build our Constitution in 1787. By Th night, on the evening of Hillary Clinton's oral communication, the Wells Fargo Center's embrace of American symbols and identity was Republican-light.

Why? Because the DNC wanted to non just claim the disruptive anti-institution moment in America that has been defined past both Sanders and Trump, but fuse it with an American story where past, present, and futurity were non dramatically severed, equally with Trump's hero-redemption story. This American story could summon its own traditions to run across present mean solar day challenges. It was withal on course.

Will the Clinton story also be held down by the national anxiety over her character, merely as the Trump story has the burden of existence pitched by a bad salesman? That is possible. Could a few more terrorist attacks across the globe bring Trump more back up, because fear really is a pregnant motivator? Likewise possible. Or will Trump's mean-spirited approach, as with his back and forth with the Khan family, finally become too disqualifying fifty-fifty for someone who has instilled such loyalty with his base of operations? And will the Clinton story about America work in support of someone who is seen as the ultimate insider, someone who both Trump and (in a different fashion) Sanders railed against? Hard to say. In the age of Brexit, Hillary is notwithstanding the stay vote. She is the establishment.

How volition the election play out from here?

We have two different stories about America to chose from in this election. Ane driven by someone without any regime experience, another driven by someone without much not-regime feel. The facts and policies that make up or contradict those stories may never receive vetting in an ballot so mired in personal assail, with two candidates whose favorability ratings are and so depression.

And that is too bad. Because underneath those two stories there are lots of problems that deserve real debate, something virtually impossible in this election. The debates volition exist closer to World Wrestling Entertainment shows than studied exchanges. Trump will have no choice because he has shown little willingness to deeply sympathise policies, focusing instead on his hero drama and national fearfulness.

Nonetheless the very bug that are beingness brought upwards in an well-nigh cartoonish mode require answers and conversation. What is American foreign policy today given the state of the Center East and the crises in Europe, from Brexit to Putin? What domestic policies should be pursued to deal with dislocation in a global economy and expanded levels of income inequality?

The trans-pacific partnership (TPP) trade deal represents nations that business relationship for about forty percentage of global Gross domestic product and nonetheless has been reduced to ballot audio bites in both parties. Take either of the two candidates read the details of the proposed deal?

In those areas where there is actually some understanding—infrastructure investment and maintaining the wellness of Social Security and Medicare—how practice their approaches differ? Could we actually debate the future of manufacturing (which is showing some re-shoring rebound in the United states of america) in a fact driven manner? What are nosotros best positioned to achieve as an economy and how does our educational activity organisation support or hamper that progress?

In the age of anti-establishment politics, will a significant plenty number of people care about Trump'due south grapheme flaws if they are in "change at whatever price" fashion? How does the Hillary Clinton campaign become a alter campaign while too projecting her equally the steady mitt in dissimilarity to Trump'southward reliance on policy not sequiturs?

A lot remains to be seen. But what'southward clear is that, in an electoral rumble, we volition non go much chance to talk over those issues substantively. Nosotros deserve better.

Photo header:Flickr/Laurie Shaull

guidrybrith1943.blogspot.com

Source: https://thephiladelphiacitizen.org/the-stories-we-tell-ourselves/

Share this post