I wrote this in November 2016 and never put it on my blog back then. Somehow, it is strange how this may still be relevant — after EIGHT (!) years. I have just changed 2-3 references — otherwise, this is as I wrote it 11/02/2016. Here we go again…
With just a few months before the US election, it might be a good idea to try to understand what is going on, from an analytical perspective, and what the possible consequences of a possible outcome could be.
There is a feeling, not just within the United States, but within the West in very frightening generality, that those that see themselves as the traditional stewards and benefactors of the land, now face a world that has been changing beyond recognition.
Work, as we used to know it, has changed. You used to be able to get a job when you worked hard, had a decent education, maybe even a college degree. You could start a family, find the dream home, and have arrived in the Middle Class. We have seen all the movies and television shows telling these kinds of stories of prototypical meritocratic achievement.
The stories oftentimes are embellished, of course, and do not reflect reality. But this is not about reality, it is about the perception of reality, and, maybe in turn, about this feeding back into reality after all.
What is left out of the narrative, what has oftentimes been repressed, is now coming back to haunt the true believers: the old narrative was more true for Euro-American men, and tended to exclude representatives of groups usually ignored: Native Americans and Pacific Islanders, African Americans, Latina/o/x Americans, any more recent immigrant group, and, most of all, women. A white male dominated world is facing a kind of change it does not know how to handle. Some, like Michael Moore, proclaim that the 10000-year reign of men is over, which may be on the more extreme end of the fear factor scale. Certainly, America is changing, and the distribution of labor and the possible class of beneficiaries of job placements and benefits are now a much more diverse group than ever before. The result is resentment geared towards representatives from the groups mentioned before. It is a narrative that has fueled Brexit, that is highly productive for what used to be the anti-immigrant Pegida movement (and is now the general alt-right / anti-woke / Q-Anon / Anti-Covid Measures / Pro-Putin / Anti-Democracy movement) and the new Alt-Right party in Germany (the AfD), but also may be laying the groundwork for Marine Le Pen in France (and if a Trump win does not scare you, that one should). In Europe, it is immigrants from poorer European states, plus recent refugees that have become the new scapegoats for all the failures of politics, and casting them out is seen as a winning strategy. Europe has seen such fear(mongering) and vitriol before; but the US is surely no babe in the woods either when it comes to nativism.
A second narrative of resentment is shared by left and right: globalization, an either neoconservative, or somehow “globalist” conspiracy to take a country’s jobs and move them overseas. There is surely some legitimate criticism within parts of the critique of globalization; there are also parts that do not exhibit much understanding of modern economics and business. Yet one critique that probably can sum up the muddle of globalization theory is that ultimately, the economy should benefit the people, and not lead to their impoverishment, nor to the ugliest forms of exploitation.
The main resentment we currently can observe internationally results from the perception that politicians, allegedly, are not doing their job, which would have to be to serve the people that put them into office in the first place. Elites are distrusted, because they, allegedly, have not delivered on their promises.
A typical, but cynical response would point out that you would be stupid to trust a politician’s promises in the first place. To someone who feels hurt or left behind and alone, this is insulting. Why should we not feel that we are right to want to take politicians, those who represent us, by their word?
A more honest response would be that given economic and political parameters, the old jobs are done, and good riddance, but that new jobs will have to be created which, however, will require different training, even higher education, and possible relocation — but in effect, the disappearance if not destruction of traditional locations. But to many people that do not belong to the global and international jet-set, a home is a home, and it is located in its place, a place where generations have lived. A home is oftentimes a sacred space, tied to the town or landscape it has been in, and abandoning it is a notion too frequently filled with dread and fear. Social mobility comes at the price of the loss of the feeling of home. To compensate for that, for the loss of what is seen as old and good, whoever promises a new political home may run into open doors, bigly (even if he had himself outsourced production and employed immigrants — but such things do not seem to count).
These different versions of resentment exist, and they will not simply go away after the election. Neither candidate is magic. So, what is there to do?
It would be hubris on my part to now postulate what to do to fix the problem. A first step, though, would be to listen. Really listen. And try to see whether there can be such a thing as compassionate liberalism, or compassionate conservatism, in all earnest, and with a genuine interest in listening to those people that currently nobody wants to really listen to, or so the story goes.
In my native East Germany, tensions are on the rise, the press is believed to be a lying press, and foreigners are seen as part of a conspiracy to replace the obstinate East German population with a populace more beholden to global financial interests, all allegedly masterminded by then-Chancellor Merkel and now Chancellor Scholz as a vassal of the United States. The only salvation is Putin, who somehow is a great guy — notwithstanding the war against Ukraine. Sounds extreme, but vaguely familiar?
At the core is a lack of trust, of status, of being taken seriously as a human being. I have lived in America for a while now, and what I have always appreciated, above all else, is that Americans seemed to be able to talk with each other, and care for each other. Having grown up in communism, which cares not for individual people but the ideology as maintained by the party, I learned to cherish the social-mindedness and charity and lovable insistence to greet with a “how are you?”, a formulaic question which, nevertheless, can be an invitation to a conversation that assumes you each care to actually ask how the other person is doing, and what we can do to help should help be needed.
If my fairyland version of America, candidates would talk to all constituents, and there would be no opponents, but just fellow Americans. Resentment can only exist if you do not know the other person, and if you can only see them as a caricature. Bill Clinton claimed to feel an other’s pain; if the candidates could show that they can indeed do such a thing, this might help … a lot.
Because after the election, one thing will be clear: Trump will not be able to fulfill his promises, but the resentment remains, and probably grow worse. If Biden wins (or whoever the candidate will be – back then, it was Hillary Clinton), they will have to address the increasing antagonism, and find a way to relate to people the Democratic Party has not been relating to very well recently, it seems.
Erratic Attempts 