So, you elected a fascist
Election hangover blues
If you don't want to hear my thoughts on US and global politics, feel free to skip this one and return to regular posts next time.
And it's with some hesitation that I offer any thoughts in this area. Partly because I'm not interested in turning this substack towards politics in general; partly because I'm not in the least qualified; partly because there's no shortage of other things you could be reading. But that's not going to hold me back from some considered reflections.
The moment
Was watching those results roll in on Wednesday (in Australia. I.e. throughout the US Tuesday evening), and realising that overwhelmingly the USA had voted to elect Trump as President for a second term.
That is not surprising to me, but it is still a kind of shock. That both electorally and by popular vote, Americans elected a man who is a chronic liar, fraud1, financial grifter, bankrupt, a convicted felon2, has sexually assaulted women3, racist, sexist, narcissist, fascist4, who has promised to act as a dictator and happily dismantle democratic institutions; a man who on Jan 6 incited an insurrection that aimed to subvert the 2020 election and self-coup himself into illegal retention of power. That is remarkable. We shouldn't think this is normal or just a choice of policies and platform and two candidates. It was a democratic vote for an anti-democracy authoritarian who has previously attempted, and repeatedly promised, to destroy American democracy.
I don't think this is something people can just shrug their shoulders about and say, "well, they're both bad". They're not both equally bad. One is a threat to American democracy itself. He said so.
Nothing changes
Perhaps the two most useful things I read this week were reminders not to let this moment consume us. That life goes on, and that you will not do much good by spending all your time consuming media content, mainstream or alternative; you will not do much good in the world by making politics all of life; you will not do much good if you abandon the pursuit of the everyday good. Indeed, part of what it means to resist tyranny is to go about the rest of your day refusing to let politics dominate it. Love other people, do good to those who do evil, pray for your enemies, pursue mercy and justice for those in need; write about poetry, art, literature; pursue your vocation; do good in the world and trust that in the long arc of history, Jesus is King.
Everything changes
And yet, at the same time I think everything does change. It's ironic serendipity that very recently my Thucydides class read through the passage where he attempts broad-strokes pre-history for Greece and the 'age of the tyrants'5. I've also been reading Timothy Snyder's short book On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century. It's an attempt to drawn on European history in the 20th century, and the rise of authoritarianism in right-wing and left-wing contexts, and apply those lessons in the wake of Trump's 2016 victory.
Everything is different because America, the leading western nation, and one of only two world super-powers6, elected a wannabe dictator, backed by a post-truth authoritarian extreme-right political movement, and in all likelihood this means (a) a concerted effort over the next 4 years to dismantle democracy in one of the world's leading democracies;7 (b) economic policies designed to benefit the billionaire class at the expense of everyone else; (c) US foreign policies that are likely to lead to thousands of deaths, and to extended war in the middle east, a free hand for Israel, the destruction of Palestine, and (d) millions of lives tilted towards the worse.
The Arc of the Moral Universe
I often think about that famous quote and its uses and abuses. I'm particularly scornful of the way it's used by secular progressives in a "right kind of history way", when secular progressivism has generally no absolute moral compass, tends towards ethical relativism, and has no way to ground the idea that the universe, let alone human history, inevitable and inexorable 'tends towards the moral'. That idea is incoherent for an atheistic leftist. Belief that things will get better is a naïve delusion.
Which is why, when I react with disbelief at Trump's election, I remind myself that there is no reason to expect good outcomes at any particular point in history, that I shouldn't have faith that things will just get better and better, and people will get better, and make better choices. History is littered with bad choices, with worse times, with tyrants and dictators and evil people; and it's not uniform. It's not random either, it's just the outcome of human nature and a million historical forces and moments.
But the history of that phrase it itself worth a moment's pause. Because Obama deployed it as a kind of mantra, "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice". Does it? And how long is "long"? Obama gets it from MLK, and MILK's use of it differs from Obama's sloganeering, because for King it's embedded in a context where he's sustaining a struggle for justice, and counting the cost of that. But MLK himself gets it from an 1853 sermon by Theodore Parker:
I do not pretend to understand the moral universe. The arc is a long one. My eye reaches but little ways. I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by experience of sight. I can divine it by conscience. And from what I see I am sure it bends toward justice.
See how much more complicated that is? It's a statement of both faith and uncertainty. And it brings us, I think, closer to the reality. We do not know the ways of God's sovereignty and providence, do not know how things will turn out this moment or the next or in the course of decades or centuries. Precisely because it's arc is long we cannot see how it bends, and indeed it often bends the other way; And yet it's overall arc bends towards justice, justice on the longest time frame, justice in the end; that's eschatological justice.
Why this long discursive treatment? I don't have any confidence things will get better. Things could get a lot worse on planet earth in the next 1, 2, 5, 10, 50, 100, 500 years. I don't know. I do know there's a judge of all people who reckons with their deeds, and will weigh Trump for everything he's done. And yet I also know that the arc of the present moment bends when you bend it. Providence goes hand in hand with activism. Which means you need to choose to pursue what is right and just and holy and true.
Which doesn't look like concentration camps and attacking the press and echoing Nazi talking points and threatening political opponents and championing racist conspiracy theories.
What about the other side???
I think part of keeping an open mind and not living in an echo chamber means a willingness to hear people that disagree with you, which is why I still read some people who drive me a little crazy and make me want to throw things at my screen or something. It doesn't mean I listen to everyone though, there are some voices I'm simply not willing to entertain.
But, let's recognise that I'm theological conservative and politically left, and there are people out there saying, "Well, Harris and the Democrats would also be a bad choice, an evil choice. What about the left? Aren't they the bigger threat?"
I think that position is intellectually dishonest and morally debased, frankly. I do think Harris would have been a bad choice, and that several elements of Democrat policy would be immoral. And I think that there does exist a danger of leftist authoritarianism and extremism. Snyder's book draws plenty of examples from Czechoslovakia and Soviet Russia. But the US is nowhere near in danger of a left-wing totalitarian society, or progressives pursuing violent hegemony. The threat of a leftist revolution, of left-wing tyranny, is so far absent as to be a dream that the political right deploys to whip up fear and resentment.
The present danger in the US is of a right-wing fascist regime. And the election presented a very marginally 'left' progressive politician, against an immoral fascist who incited insurrection against the USA in an attempt to illegally maintain power after the 2020 election, was probably on-track to be convicted of election interference, and now has been handed all they keys to the kingdom. The US population voted in an anti-democratic want-to-be-dictator. That's the choice they made.
Specifically to Christians who think Trump is the better of two bad options, because at least he'll enact some policies that Christians would prefer. I think that's actually unlikely. Trump's first term made clear that he (a) doesn't understand Christianity, (b) has no interest in it apart from political exploitation, (c) is prepared to give right-wing white evangelicals what they want when it suits him and aligns with a right-wing political agenda, (d) is not consistently pro-life and will not actually deliver on pro-life policies.
Why do we ever think we get good rulers?
The New Testament was written to believers who had all sorts of unjust rulers, who held power by violence, and enacted violence, and left believers with no general expectation that they (= the rulers) would do good in the world. There's precious little expectation in the New Testament that you'll get a decent ruler, but all the hope of that, and no real sense that you'll get to choose political leaders anyway. Very few Christians throughout history have actually lived under a 'good' ruler, let along a Christian one8. Having bad rulers is the statistical norm. So we shouldn't be surprised, disheartened, shocked, dismayed. We should get on with the business of living lives of goodness and light in the world, all the more so when the days get darker. And they are about to get darker.
Not least, the Donald J. Trump Foundation functioned as a scam charity, funnelling money to all sorts of Trump businesses, personal interests, and his 2016 presidential campaign. He is banned from setting up any charities in New York state because of this.
34 counts of falsified business records to conceal hush money payed to porn star Stormy Daniels who alleged she had sex with Trump.
Dozens of allegations, but importantly a jury in 2023 held Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation in a case with E. Jean Carroll.
I'm aware that 'fascist' just seems like an insult. What I mean is that Trump embraces nationalist ideologies, hatred and dehumanisation of minorities and non-white races, is hostile to liberalism and democracy, courts para-military groups, and incited civil violence to hold on to power. In these, and other specific ways, Trump is a 21st century echo of 'classic' 20th century fascists. He’s a fascist by definition, not as a swear word.
Ancient Greek tyrannies are not really a direct analogy for modern ones; you should be cautious of people making endless direct comparisons of the lessons from ancient Greece and Rome for modern politics. Especially me.
I don't think Russia counts anymore as a super-power, and really it’s just the US v China, but we should never discount them, because the oligarchy + dictator over there has nukes. Indeed, Putin remains a highly ‘successful’ dictator and oligarch, and is both an influence on US politics and an idol to Trump and to Elon Musk who both want to be like him at the same time that they pursue courses of action that please him.
To give Trump his due, he is already subverting various things; e.g. seeking to use recess appointments for officials in his administration in order to avoid congressional oversight, or his failure to enter presidential transition agreements, against the law.
I suppose Elizabeth I might be an exception, and that proves just how complicated the matter is.
What do you mean when you say that Trump admitted that he wants to overthrow American democracy?