For right or wrong they've made him a hero. Historically heroes are the sum of one part feats actually accomplished, and one part reputation. This brew is seasoned with hyperbole and naivete: cream and sugar for your mug of hero worship.
For right or wrong there is another caste of our society that have made him a villain. Villains are likewise the sum of their parts, though they are fashioned of less tangible components. The villain is a projection of their creators' insecurities. The villain they have made is the embodiment of fear and loathing; rumor and envy; vanity and shame.
Heroes and villains are both constructs. They are authenticated by acclamation and we are assured that our heroes are based upon "real people". Most often these are specious claims at best, the same as claiming that something is based upon a true story simply because the tale begins with "subject X was born on X date in city X". Everything that follows this opener may be a steaming pile of horse dung, yet with only these few raw facts the author may claim that the tale is at least based upon a "true" story. In an environment where misinformation and half truths are condemned as a "peril to our democracy", it is rather unsettling to see the number of 1/10, 1/100 and even lesser "truths" which are not only given a pass, but are promoted as legitimate news.
Such is the nature of heroes and villains. and so too is the nature of narratives. One narrative supports the hero trope: the faith that one individual alone may prevail over all that justice might be done. It is a matter of messianic projection, supported in large measure by little more than wishful thinking. A cynic might say that faith is little more than wishful thinking armed with a bit of street cred.
If the hero narrative were a photo then the villain narrative would be it's negative. The villain narrative posits that the subject villain is the sole vehicle of all that is wrong with the world. The villain narrative is Jesus Christ in reverse. Christianity is the ultimate in hero narratives, at least in the western world.
As far as societal foundations go one could do much worse. Imagine a society predicated upon a foundation of the villain narrative. It's not so hard really. For the better part of the past decade that is what the so called elites of our corrupted institutions have continually foisted upon us. In such a society there are no positive founding principles as demonstrated and embodied in the hero/savior figure. Rather than being presented an ideal to emulate. one is instead presented with a scapegoat to blame. This offers only the cause for the ills that one may suffer. It suggests only that anything other than the villain is good, or at least tolerable. This offers no solutions or chance at redemption. I suspect that more than anything this narrative provides a distraction from the deeds of it's authors.
I don't imagine that there are many on the left who frequent these pages, as we frequently provide a perspective that most on the left are incapable of digesting. There are likewise those on the right who are unable to reconcile themselves to certain truths that are uttered here. Nevertheless, this is my attempt to address all of you, left or right and points in between. To those who each either revere or revile him, I say to you that he is but a man. He is neither savior nor demon. Donald Trump is a larger than life figure, to be sure, but that has always been part of his pitch. Both sides have merely amplified something that was already present. Even his most bitter detractors must grudgingly admit that he is one hell of a salesman. They may not be buying it themselves, but there is denying that he has succeeded in selling it.
What is "it"? "It" is the brand. In a society where everything and everyone is for sale there should be a common understanding of what branding means. The brand for years was Trump. He put his name to everything he touched and the name was synonymous with the brand. Then, ten years ago, he decided to re-brand. Not something new, but a reboot: USA Inc. It is a re-branding of the idea of America.
MAGA is the registered trademark of this brand. This has proven to be highly effective as concretely evidenced by two phenomena. The first of these are the red ball caps. As of the day after the election it was reported that there were more than two million of these things on the street. That count is only of those associated with the 2024 campaign. Who really knows how many there are? The other manifestation is seen in the extreme reactions provoked at the mere sight of a MAGA hat, or at the simple utterance of the phrase. For a population conditioned to a persistent villain narrative these "trigger" incidents provide an easy guide to who the real villains are.
Speaking objectively, what is one to make of those who are so easily triggered by the phrase "Make America Great Again"? Which part is it that is most objectionable? Well, let's try deconstructing this methodically.
We begin with the word make. Pretty innocuous on it's own, wouldn't you say? To make a thing. Making love is good. Then there is making war, or making a scene. Those are not so good. On the whole one is hard pressed to find anything inherently offensive in the word make. So it must be a context thing...
Our next word is America. I have a strong suspicion that it is this word which is our leading suspect. America is more than just a word or name of a place.. It is a symbol. Symbols may mean different tings to different people. Symbols are subjective. The only party with any legitimate grievance over the use of the word America are the Vespucci heirs. Are they still getting royalties?
What possible objection is there to the word great? Is it bad to make something great? Again we find ourselves in subjective territory. If one is, to say as an example, making a great error..., that would be cause for some apprehension. The word great is generally regarded as a positive, though there remain those fundamental differences in what constitutes greatness. If history is to serve as any guide one should rightly be concerned at the suggestion of making a nation great. Historically those starting this chant (and with a platform from which to launch it), are actually hawking something that will be great. For them, and usually at the expense of others. Perhaps it is this historical model which arouses such suspicions. It is an underlying fear that what may be great for some is something to be feared by others. There is certainly no sin in being wary or skeptical, but it is unwise to allow one's life to be governed by fear. Especially when that fear is demonstrably irrational.
Maybe the source of this trigger is to be found in the final word of the phrase, the word again. Again suggests a return, a repeat, or... a restoration. So in full context what is presumed is an American greatness. If one is preconditioned to the notion that America is not, and never has been great, then it would be understandable that this phrase would cause some upset. At the very least it is placed up for some debate.
When the narratives surrounding MAGA are spun only as an either/or proposition it is only natural that an oppositional dynamic should be formed. This does not allow room for that middle ground which may simultaneously acknowledge that America has been great, just not in it's current iteration. There are undoubtedly some issues that need to be addressed. Our fundamental disagreements are over which issues are a priority and how these ought to be addressed. These disagreements are at least as old as civilization itself. Probably older.
The villain narrative holds that making America great again is some sort of societal regression; a white, Eurocentric Pax Americana, complete with Ward and June Cleaver, Jim Crow laws and a state ban on contraception. I am going to dispel these notions right here. That is complete bull shit and anyone peddling these lies knows it. It is cheap rhetoric that is divisive by design. As a society we are well past all of these things. Our institutions have been infected by poisons far more insidious than these.
The hero narrative is not without fault. MAGA is composed of a pretty broad spectrum. If viewed as a body of water one might observe a very wide lake, quite deep in some parts, but also having many treacherous shallows along it's shores. With ample navigable waters available there is no good reason to paddle into these snags and nettle infested coves. Just be mindful that they are there.
Those shallow waters are inhabited by creatures who are all too familiar to some of us. They are the slobbering brutes, eyes glazed over in rhapsody, falling to worship at the feet of anything in a uniform. There are also the rah-rah, sis boom bah! crowd, who have somehow convinced themselves that the United States military is completely infallible and is the single best means of demonstrating American values. Some of them arrived at this lake reluctantly, but as one by one their sacred cows were given to the slaughter they were left no other options. These are the bitter clingers. Not Obama's bitter clingers. These cling bitterly to their security blankets of the national security apparatus and a false fiscal security vested in the Federal Reserve. These are fair weather patriots; opportunists who, I'd be willing to bet, would sell their own mothers for a bucket of KFC original.
I'll not deny that some of the caricatures do indeed exist. What I do deny is that these people are representative of the mainstream of the MAGA movement. They are not. And the J6ers are not insurrectionists. They are scapegoats. And that is because a scapegoat is the only fruit that a villain narrative can bear.
Both sides would do well to remember that this no longer about the man. It is about our brand, USA Inc. I'll offer this final word of caution. We are advised that we ought to confront our demons. Our villains. We are also advised against meeting our heroes. I'll say that this is pretty sound advice on both counts.
No comments:
Post a Comment