THE WAGES OF OTHERIZATION: Are we possibly helping the Others win?

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2022

Megan McArdle wonders: Long ago and far away, David French offered some good sound advice.

Actually, it happened on September 30, in this essay for The Atlantic.

Trust but verify, French basically said. Intriguingly, he was prescribing the way we blue tribe or red tribe voters should assess our own reactions and beliefs:

FRENCH (9/30/22): We’re all vulnerable to our own animosities. We’re all far more prone to believe allegations against opponents than we are to believe allegations against allies. What must we do to counter this temptation? I like a rule established by a person who follows me on Twitter: “The more I emotionally like the vibe or content of a tweet,” they wrote, “the less I should trust its veracity.”

This is good practice. Be skeptical of your instincts and desires; they’re tainted by bias... 

"Hatred Makes Fools of Us All," French's headline said. We'll replace "hatred" with a gentler term: 

Strongly-held tribal belief.

Can "strongly-held tribal belief" perhaps make fools of us all? Even after making that adjustment, it seems to us that the answer is yes.

For that reason, we should inspect and question our own reactions, not just those of the Others! French offered that theory at The Atlantic. We'd call it good sound advice.

It's certainly true that our own strong beliefs can blind us to basic realities. We expect to return to Jemele Hill's recent essay for The Atlantic with that basic premise in mind. 

In her own essay for The Atlantic, Hill said she found Herschel Walker's candidacy for the Senate to be "insulting." In yesterday's report, we asked if it's possible that such reactions—however understandable they might be—might even help Walker gain votes.

Why the heck would we think such a thing? In today's Washington Post, Megan McArdle explores a similar possibility.

McArdle had watched Arizona's gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake at a recent rally. After seeing Lake express the ardor of her support for Donald J. Trump, McArdle had this reaction:

MCARDLE (10/12/22): It’s such a fascinating moment, and not just because it so neatly encapsulates the evolution of Republican politics in the Trump era. It also suggests a reason for why that politics is so effective—and why mainstream Washington’s frantic attempts to anathematize the Trumpian style might paradoxically have increased its appeal.

Say what? Had mainstream Washington's frantic attempts to anathematize Trump actually increased his appeal? 

For the record, that's not a new idea. As she continued, McArdle counted herself as a possible part of that possible problem:

MCARDLE (continuing directly): I was part of those mainstream efforts; I spent years arguing that Trump’s impulsivity and his savage attacks on everyone from Gold Star parents to the physically disabled ought to have disqualified him from higher office. Like most of my colleagues in the media, I was astonished to find that this only made his voters love him more. Many observers concluded that this must be because Trump’s voters were simply awful bigots who loved meanness for its own sake. (“The cruelty is the point,” Adam Serwer wrote in 2018 for the Atlantic.)

According to McArdle, "many observers" came to believe—and to express—the worst about Trump's (ten of millions of) voters. 

"Presumably, they’re right in some cases," McArdle said as she continued. "There are bad apples in any large political movement."

That said, are there any "bad apples" within our own tribe's political movement? 

We'd be inclined to stay away from such moral denunciations, but in recent days, the news from Los Angeles has made it clear that people can make mistakes, and betray imperfect attitudes, across the political spectrum.

As she continued, McArdle developed a thesis which strikes us as being perhaps too complex by half. That said, she ended with a sensible assessment of where certain aspects of Blue Tribe Tribal Judgment can only enhance the appeal of candidates like Walker or Trump:

MCARDLE: Trump’s norm violations functioned as what game theorists call a “credible commitment,” enabling voters to trust him even if he wasn’t particularly trustworthy. And ironically, the establishment boosted that signal by proving that we considered him utterly anathema, absolutely beyond the pale. We thought we were helping to minimize the threats Trump posed to the system, but the very vehemence of our rejection might actually have increased his power.

In McArdle's assessment, the vehemence of [blue tribe] rejection might actually have heightened Trump's power and his appeal. Again, this isn't a new speculation. But at this point, as disaster approaches, it's probably worth considering all over again.

The vehemence of [blue tribe] rejection of Trump might have increased his appeal? So it may be with certain types of rejection of Candidate Walker. 

When we read Hill's essay in The Atlantic, we had that very thought about Hill's reaction to the fact that Walker may actually end up winning his Senate race. Her reaction may be perfectly understandable, but that doesn't mean that it helps.

Along the way, we've sometimes suggested that liberal partisans should "try a little tenderness" on the rare occasion. Maybe we should even stop assuming, and even saying or suggesting, that the Others are a gang of howling racists / misogynists / homophobes / and everything else that's bad.

Maybe we should try imagining a somewhat different possibility—the possibility that someone can disagree with our own reactions and views without being a howling bigot.

Let's be clear! Hill, a good and decent person, didn't make such unfortunate claims in her recent essay. Still, her essay made us think back to what French had said. 

Especially at tribalized times like these, we're all inclined to have certain instant reactions. We should examine our own beliefs and reactions first, French somewhat wisely said.

Tomorrow: The prophet Maddow's return