Tom Friedman has an interesting column in today's New York Times. It's about the politics of humiliation. And it goes a long way to explaining Donald Trump's supporters -- and people in general:
Humiliation, in my view, is the most underestimated force in politics and international relations. The poverty of dignity explains so much more behavior than the poverty of money.
People will absorb hardship, hunger and pain. They will be grateful for jobs, cars and benefits. But if you make people feel humiliated, they will respond with a ferocity unlike any other emotion, or just refuse to lift a finger for you. As Nelson Mandela once observed, “There is nobody more dangerous than one who has been humiliated.”
By contrast, if you show people respect, if you affirm their dignity, it is amazing what they will let you say to them or ask of them. Sometimes it just takes listening to them, but deep listening — not just waiting for them to stop talking. Because listening is the ultimate sign of respect. What you say when you listen speaks more than any words.
Harvard professor Michael Sandel understands this crucial dynamic:
In a much talked-about new book, “The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good?” Harvard political philosopher Michael Sandel (disclosure: he is a close friend) says “the politics of humiliation” is also at the heart of Trump’s appeal.
Trump was elected by tapping a wellspring of anxieties, frustrations and legitimate grievances to which the mainstream parties had no compelling answer,” Sandel notes. These grievances “are not only economic but also moral and cultural; they are not only about wages and jobs but also about social esteem.”
How should Biden counter Trump's argument?
Sandel and I put our heads together and thought, well, maybe Biden should go on a tour of Trump country, focusing on rural counties and towns in the Midwest, and just listen to Trump’s base, both to learn and as a sign of respect.
Then, at the first presidential debate, Biden should ignore Trump and his buffoonery and speak about what he had learned by talking to likely Trump voters.
Biden could talk about where he agrees with them and where he disagrees with them and why — the ultimate sign of respect. That is how Biden can get at least some Trump devotees to see that “working-class Joe from Scranton” — not “Billionaire Don, born with a silver spoon in his mouth”— is the one who really hails from their side of the tracks and can be trusted (a very important word) to look out for them.
And Friedman's final point is really important:
When it comes to politics, a lot of people don’t listen through their ears. They listen through their gut, and Biden, more than any other Democratic leader today, has the ability to connect there.
The lesson here is an old one. But it is crucially important when it comes to dealing with people.
Image: talmudology.com
6 comments:
How I hate columns like this! It’s all about salving the fragile ego of white conservative men. No thought given to the humiliation suffered daily by blacks and other minorities in their interactions with police. Nothing about women being treated in a humiliating fashion by the President who sees them as little more than a piece of ass if they’re attractive and worthless otherwise. Where is the column about how Trump should moderate his tone to stop making those folks feel humiliated?
I mean, can you even imagine Friedman writing a column offering this kind of advice to any Republican presidential candidate, let alone Trump? How they should go on a tour through Dem country, focusing on the urban, coastal communities and colleges and just listen to what those people have to say? As a sign of respect? To the party whose base motivating ideology is basically “own the libs” and little else?
Of course not! Republicans and their voters just exist in reaction to Democrats! Because only the Dems have agency! If it weren’t for the fact that some of those liberal Dems keep making the racist, sexist bigots feel bad about their bigotry, they’d surely vote for the Democrats and not the man who stumps about sharing their sexist and racist worldview! It’s up to the Dems to make those (white, male) people feel comfortable, not the Republicans to moderate or change their message. And if that means ignoring everybody else who might also have feelings of some sort, well, we’ve ignored them all so far, surely it can’t hurt to continue letting them be humiliated?
Or, you know, maybe somebody should take a look at all of those protests happening and consider that there is some possibility that it isn’t just conservative white people who don’t like being humiliated, and that making conservative white people comfortable isn’t actually a good way to make those people in the streets turn out to vote for you.
Respect goes two ways. Or at least it should, and it says far more about the columnists who only ever advocate for the left to reach out and respect the folks on the right, while the right can carry on making it clear they don’t even see some of the folks on the left as deserving of basic human rights. How’s that for humiliating?
You're obviously pretty ticked at Mr. Friedman, BJ. All I can add is, after all of those years in a classroom, I learned that humiliation rarely works. What works is letting people -- students or adults -- know that you're on their side.
But you really have to be on their side. Trump claimed he was on the side of the forgotten. But he never was.
What ticks me off is that it is always a one-way racket. Biden (and Democratic/liberal politicians in general) needs to reach out and respect Trump/Republican voters. Trump (and Republicans in general) are rarely if ever asked to do the reverse.
And does Friedman offer any examples of Biden or other Democratic politicians going out of their way to humiliate Republican voters? Again, Trump does the reverse almost daily, but outside of the conservative bent to make everything about them being the victims, is Biden routinely going around calling Trump voters terrorists? Leeches? Ungrateful losers? Anything?
But still, Biden needs to tiptoe around the fact that some of Trump’s supporters are really white supremacists and domestic terrorists, because calling that out might make more mainstream Republicans feel bad. Trump and the Republicans face no such limitation. It’s like unilateral disarmament. Republicans can be as nasty as they want, knowing that the media folks like Friedman will continue to make it about how Democrats need to be more civil.
I take your point, BJ. It's not about being civil. It's about being respectful. Hilary Clinton sealed her fate when she called Trump's supporters "deplorables."
Exactly! Clinton, who got 3 million more votes than her opponent, sealed her fate by mentioning some of Trump’s supporters were “deplorable”, like Obama nearly sealed his fate by pointing out some people “cling to guns and religion”. Democrats can’t make any generalizations about their opponents because to disrespect them will force them to vote Republican (like they wouldn’t anyway).
Trump, on the other hand, can openly mock a disabled reporter, call Mexicans rapists and drug runners, say the radical left is insane, mock veterans’ service and call them losers and suckers, amongst a whole litany of abusive and vile comments (the NYTimes had a list of nearly 600 such insults in 2016 alone), and … let’s talk about whether the Democratic candidate is being respectful enough.
A one-way racket.
(Note, I’m not arguing that being respectful isn’t a better way to go, just that people like Friedman tilt the scale overwhelmingly in the right’s favour by excusing their disrespect with, “Well, what are you going to do? They’re Republicans and that’s just how they are. Now let’s talk about the Democrats and how they can appeal to Republican voters and shouldn’t be disrespectful to them in any way or form.”)
Mr. Trump believes there's only one way, BJ -- his way.
Post a Comment