Donald Trump, proving yet again that, just when you think he’s reached the acme of outrage-inducement, gave a “these go to eleven” poke to the political beehive with his immigration ban. I disagree with the ban, for reasons I’ll go into at a later date, but what’s more interesting to me is the form of response from both the Left and the Right.
At its core, Trump’s action is philosophical. It is a prioritization of Americans over non-Americans, no matter the likely innocence of the latter, and no matter the peril which the latter face. As such, it’s fully in line with both specific campaign promises and the general theme he promised in his inaugural address. This doesn’t mean the philosophy is a good one. The divine right of kings is a philosophy, but that doesn’t mean we should deem it moral.
Nevertheless, there’s no excuse for being shocked by the order. A couple theories come to mind for why so many are. The most obvious is virtue-signaling, but there’s peril in thinking that’s all there is. There’s a tendency to see virtue signaling as false outrage, but virtue-signaling is a behavior, not a belief. One can be perfectly sincere and have good reasons for one’s opposition the immigration ban, yet still be derided for putting on a caterwauling performance intended to “show off” for one’s peers. Virtue-signaling is more of a surface phenomenon, and doesn’t tell us about the shock that people felt. That shock is rooted in a failure to come to terms with the current reality and with the obvious. I know people who’ve held onto a hope that Trump would turn out to be a milder, more sober leader now that he’s elected, that his carnie-barker behavior was performance art rather than who he really is. There’s no evidence to support this idea, but people nevertheless choose to ignore the simple, obvious, Occam’s Razor conclusion in favor of projecting their own ideas of what he should be onto what he is. Thus, the shock and outrage at an action that was telegraphed repeatedly over the past months.
And, thus, the “eleven” degree of response: the Right cheering, the Left screaming. The noise has been so deafening and so distorting that it’s been difficult to figure out what’s real, what’s fake, and what’s hyperbole. A couple days have helped clarify things a bit (and have offered the administration a chance to tidy up a bit, e.g. the green card question). A couple days have also allowed the forms of response to coalesce.
Social media is being inundated with quotes and clips of past presidents and leaders making statements about immigration, refugees and immigration bans. Liberals are pulling quotes of Republicans speaking against immigration bans, conservatives are pulling quotes of Democrats speaking in favor of immigration bans. The point that the list of seven countries in the ban was created by the Obama administration is being hammered. The lack of outrage over Obama’s ban is being meme-orialized. Reagan and GWBush speech segments that run counter to Trump’s nativism are being shared. Talking-head utterances from the past are being posted alongside those of the present to demonstrate dissonance and hypocrisy.
The common thread in all this is a blend of tu quoque, guilt-by-association, and appeal-to-authority. The common theme is “gotcha! Your leaders and icons said this and your position contradicts them!” It’s an assertion of hypocrisy and dissonance, intended to declare the opposition has no logical or moral case for its opposition.
It’s also nothing more than logical fallacy. None of these arguments support or rebut the propriety of the immigration ban itself. Yes, there were early objectors who declared “this is not who we are,” “this is immoral,” and the like. Yes, there were early supporters who declared “we should not be inviting terrorists into our country.” These are philosophical positions that can be debated, with a mix of history, data and ideology, but such debates are long-format and involve nuance. Thus, in the sound-bite, shouting-match, virtue-signal environment that we are in today, they get cast aside by the dueling-quotes form of response that we’re witnessing today.
Accusations of hypocrisy are mic-drop declarations. They are considered nail-in-the-coffin conclusions of arguments, and people absolutely love them. They’re personal attacks, and thus slam the door on reasoned conversation. That’s often by design – people don’t have much interest in hearing rebuttals or deconstructions of others’ hypocrisies, real or imagined. This, of course, escalates matters – the accused want to be heard. So, counter-accusations fly, and the volume level increases as people compete on a noisy and crowded field.
It is a reality, however, that just about everyone is, to some degree, a hypocrite. People have tribal and partisan leanings, and their gut-reactions override long-term logical consistency. And, I’m not so sure that hypocrisy is that big a sin to begin with. For one thing, circumstances change, and people should change their minds as they do. For another thing, each situation is unique, and comparisons to others need to be tempered with each one’s uniqueness. For a third, this isn’t a Vulcan, emotionless, logic-based society. How we feel does matter to us. And, as a logical argument, an accusation of hypocrisy isn’t particularly weighty.
So, hypocrisy abounds. It’s born of a dissonance between steadfast loyalty to a particular tribe and actions that a past tribal leader that mirror those taken by the opposition today. The form of response we’re witnessing to Trump’s immigration ban is a repetition of recent responses to recent actions. It’s just louder and more histrionic than the others, with the possible exception of Inauguration Day. And, it’s a repetition of a common theme across Obama’s term. Thus, I feel confident in declaring that we have hit peak dissonance.
Nothing suggests, however, that Trump won’t be able to dial it up to twelve. The peak needn’t necessarily be followed by a valley. Certainly, he’s shown no sign of tempering his style in response to protests and opposition. In fact, I’d suggest he’s emboldened by it. And, in fact, he’s little different than Obama was in the face of Republican opposition, mid-term election losses, Supreme Court rejections and the like.
The political playing field is, at this juncture, an all-out partisan tribal scrum. The Left is signaling to its politicians that they should be overtly obstructionist, that Trump is “not their President,” that he’s illegitimate, and that every means possible should be used to thwart whatever he wants to do. The Right is signaling to its politicians that they’re all-in with the Untethered Orange Id’s actions, that the party better fall in line and follow Trump’s lead, and that he’s proving to be what they hoped for.
Where this will go is hard to fathom. Will the Left be able to sustain its high dudgeon, or will the sheer quantity of outrages dilute its focus and energy to the point of irrelevance? Will the Right stand by Trump no matter what he does, or will they eventually find some actions excessive and call for temperance? Will the parties change their policies and priorities? Will one prevail over the other? It’s anyone’s guess where this is going to end up, but it’s a safe bet that things are going to get messier and messier, and that there is a real peril in the peak dissonance.
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters