Marx was right, modernity is mirrored by the
inherent contradictions in capitalism. Capital moves in ways that both dazzle
and menace, jerking us into complex, often challenging realities to navigate. With
this understanding, Marshall
Berman in his classic All That Is
Solid Melts Into Air correctly raised the question “[h]ow can any lasting
human bonds grow in such loose and shifting soil?” If we are to formulate
meaningful political communities in the Trump era, we must consider this issue.
Nowhere does Berman’s
question ring more true than in the realm of truth. We live in an era wherein our understandings of reality vary
to the extent that we no longer share any sense of basic actualities. Accordingly,
Donald Trump embodies a pathos-heavy truth fueled by rage, disaffection and chauvinism.
Meanwhile, an elitist political class has taken stewardship over a different
kind of truth, one perceived to be cold and objective, reflected in the boom of
purported fact checkers. Jason Hannan correctly notes our
unusual paradigm; as many disregard conventional factuality, others are fixating
over who is fact checking the fact
checkers?
The failures of this self-professing
rational or empirical truth in its universality echoes in the shock many are
feeling after recent successes of reactionary politics. Countless other-wise insightful
people have been rocked by Brexit, the rise of Filipino President Duterte, the
failure of Colombia’s peace referendum and most recently, the election of ignoramus-at-arms,
Donald Trump. The polls were wrong, how
could so many people be irrational enough to support such dangerous jingoism? These
sentiments reflect both a false consensus of an overly technocratic sense of
truth as well as the fractured nature of our (political) communities; for many
Americans this reactionary wave could happen there, not here.
The fallout of disbelief has
resulted in many establishment Democrats accounting for Clinton’s loss by
playing the blame game with a host of actors from Bernie
Bros, to James
Comey to as Politico correctly noted everyone
but themselves. While this certainly reflects the hubris of the Clinton
campaign, how could the Democrats, perceived to be "the
party of facts," have such a poor understanding of the contemporary
political context? It is simple, as a society we are talking at as opposed to each other. This has left many Democrats asking how so many
Americans missed the memo; Hilary, as the first woman to almost be President was inevitably supposed to be next in line, the logical realization of Progress.
The seemingly seismic and
irrational shift towards Trump and his ilk the world over, cannot simply be
explained by its appeal to our worst (and
deeply rooted) sensibilities – chauvinism, racism, misogyny, homophobia, anti-Semitism
or the like. We certainly cannot ignore these elements as they have always
existed in our societies. However, highlighting them as the sole reason for the
recent anti-democratic surge is insufficient and irresponsible; these elements
are energized by pain, rage, suffering and a lack of hope in more traditional
politics.
Centrist leadership has been
ineffective at engaging with and speaking to the struggles of everyday people,
a purported objectivity (which as Fanon taught
us, is never neutral) is a culprit; raising the question, what does a singular
truth look like in a world of “…different
collectivities with different conditions”? In other words, how could the
Clinton machine, with a platform predicated on the professed universality of
rationality and empiricism, conceive of respectable alternative visions for
society other than their own? Embodying a perceived inevitable Progress Clinton
was paradoxically producing truth while intellectually reliant on its independent
nature.
As
efforts to stop the Trumps of the world are failing we must recognize that
orthodoxy in otherwise conventional realms such as truth are destabilised if
not collapsing. As our dominant institutions fail to reflect and produce
consensus, perhaps we should problematize them; to what extent do they (continue to) reflect
foundational tenants of dignity, fairness and justice? Moreover, are they
sustainable, at least in their current forms? Such institutional
inconsistencies generate disaffection, disillusion and rage; reactionary winds
caught by the sails of demagoguery. Meaningful resistance requires that we
address such cleavages.
Sisonke Msimang makes a
compelling argument for the collapse
of compromise in South African politics reflected both in student movements
as well as reactionary politics. Key to Msimang’s argument is that compromise
has vacated political discourse, a trend recognizable in the American political
sphere. Within the polarisation that is American politics, there is a progressive
movement viewed as holding political correctness as the finality juxtaposed with a reactionary right viewed simply to
be jingoistic mouth-breathers. While undoubtedly such actors exist in both
communities and it may be expedient or easy to simply label the other side,
ideologues do not make up the masses. Looking upon large segments of our
societies with condescension reflects that we no longer understand each other
nor do we care to; perversely, we are more isolated in an increasingly
interconnected modern world.
In trying to regain a common
language we must actively seek to understand how competing social actors conceive
of notions we all hold dear; truth, compromise, dignity, agency and prosperity.
For without this, we cannot articulate a coherent alternative to the
reactionary backlash facing us in the age of Trump. Our times are marked by
contradiction, meaning we must accept that our grasps of reality are not the
only ones. If we want to put forward an effective resistance platform, insularism
and a perceived ownership of truth must be abandoned while humility, reflexivity
and empathy must be adopted.
Article was
originally published by Daily
Maverick.
