We Blew It, Bigly
Even Big Data lost.
Before I tune into the circular firing squad and find out how we are going to explain this away, I just wanted to note what a colossal failure this is — at least politically, that seems undeniable — for liberalism. (Not neoliberalism, which won either way, but comfortable, white-color, DNC, cosmopolitan liberalism.)
It is such a blow to that worldview that, Christ, even Big Data lost. Not even our clever fake news send ups could save us. Last time around, Mitt Romney’s people were deluded. This time, we were.
Here, I think, is why.
Character is all the resources that inhere in the individual, while Privilege is all the circumstances provided to the individual by society. At the edges of American politics, we have two reductionist — and thus satisfying — positions, neither of which can be literally true.
1. All is Character, and anyone from any strata of Privilege can attain any Circumstances. This is Conservatism.
2. All is Privilege, and it delivers better or worse Circumstances to individuals, regardless of their character. This is Liberalism, or — to be precise — Radicalism.
Now, the truth is that all we know is that Character + Privilege = Circumstances, but cannot and will never be able to agree on the proportion each contributes, either generally or in a particular case, though the entire internet is consumed with arguing about it.
Now, here is the explanatory part. What makes Liberals so annoying to non-Liberals? They believe that their own Circumstances are the result of Character, like Conservatives, but they do not — like Conservatives — ascribe bad Circumstances to bad Character. Instead, they attribute bad Circumstances to lack of Privilege, which — when combined with the belief in one’s own Character as determinate of one’s Circumstances — is really just pity.
This framework also makes sense of the other side of the coin, the tension between Black Lives Matter and Liberalism. BLM asserts that all is Privilege, and Liberals respond, “Of course. We know that. We’ve always said that.” But they’re getting called out on their inconsistency because they have only acknowledged it in the formulation “underprivileged,” which is not sufficient — BLM contends — when Liberals should interrogate the sources of their own Privileged Circumstances.
The Trump people were angry, and Liberals came in and forgave them by explaining that their anger is only a reaction to the Privilege situation on the ground. But the WORST thing you can say to them is that they don’t have agency. These are the underground men who will deny 1+1=2 just to prove they are free, so the conciliatory move from Liberals is experienced as a further affront.
Look they’re doing it again! I’m not a victim! I’m angry, goddamit!
As Lauren Berlant persuasively argued earlier this year — in an analysis that has proved more durable than Nate Silver’s — “People would like to feel free.”
Voting Trump delivered that feeling. We’ll see what it delivers next.
