There are two eternally contending forces that have generated enormous contending social pressures that will be released soon in the US, hopefully in a non explosive manner - fear and (non-romantic) love. The French Revolution (as a historic example) went all fear - deeply into fear. The American Revolution (for a happier example) ended up with scattered love (if not for everyone involved), and the promise of more love to come (the more perfect union).
This is a really big moment. This discordant confluence of social forces in the USA has been seen in human affairs throughout history, to varying degrees, and it is unclear which path, fear or love, the resolution of this confluence will travel this time. The most peaceful resolution depends on a single bill, already passed in the House, and waiting for action in the Senate. H.R.1.
So far it can still be a peaceful, political outcome, but blood might yet be spilled. This is one of those pivotal moments of human history...for real. In the context of the ongoing climate crisis, it could be the biggest one in human history...for real.
The first arm of this confluence can be summarised as per the US constitution, as movement towards that ‘more perfect union’ - perfection defined, again using the preamble to the US constitution, by the ideals of inalienable rights - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (since this confluence is primarily being resolved in the US, I’ll use their terms). It’s all about Love...for real.
The other arm, the second arm...isn’t that. It drives movement towards a more tribal, transactional view of society - a ‘what’s in it for me’ tribalism - with many small tribes. For any taxes or governmental policy, I should explicitly get something tangible for every cost I incur. Why should I help anyone too ‘lazy’ to help themselves. As the American society is increasingly defining cost and benefit in material terms, for most people supportive of this arm, that explicit reward should be cash or at least be material in nature. Here be Fear.
The Second Arm - Fear
We’ll start this examination with a focus on the second arm, cus it’s (in my moral universe) the icky arm, and I want to finish on a happier note. It is an unfortunate reality that the human animal reacts to a perceived threat with one of the strongest emotions, Fear. Fear is the most reactive emotion, and the one least open to cognitive pressure. All our emotions are pretty stupid, but Fear takes the award for peak stupidity - by a significant margin. The human mind on Fear is activated to direct and immediate action. Fight or flight - not think, no time for thinking. Fear is increasingly selfish in proportion to intensity.
This second arm, the fear arm, is activated widely in America right now by a perceived threat, and it is intensified by deliberate emotional political action (fake threat), economic hardship (real threat), Climate (existential threat, that some people hope is a fake threat) and this whole Covid thing (real threat, that some people hope is a fake threat). It gets reinforced by a society that fetishizes the individual as the most important social component, with space for an individual’s family, but mostly as an extension of the individual, in their own identity.
The activation is because Fear shrinks the size of any individual’s ‘tribe’. When everything is going swimmingly for an individual, it is easier for them to consider themself part of the tribe of humanity, or even Gaia (in it’s expression as all life on earth. That tribe may grow to include other planets if we find life ‘out there’, but for now, we’ll limit it to earth). Learning to trust in a fearless world is relatively simple. The more fear, the less trust. There is an offset for needier people (in the material sense) - the shared fear builds community and trust locally, because they need each other - but that will detach them from the leadership class if the leaders don’t help. (Shared hatred of the leadership class can lead to widespread community, but there be torches and guillotines and pitchforks and the French revolution or Boxer revolution - it doesn’t usually end well for anyone). For more powerful folks, when they get scared, their tribe just shrinks. No offset.
A tribe (in the social sense, not the blood relative sense, although the two tend to overlap quite a bit) can be defined based on trust - your tribes are people around you that have some level of implicit trust. It usually includes blood relatives (or at least the ones that person respects), but human tribal connections are complicated and overlapping and may include outside groupings, ranging by context from sports fans, to professional organisations/unions, to alma maters, to neighbourhoods, to political parties, to state or national groupings, to whatevs, but people focus on smaller and more intimate groups as fear increases. A people that are extremely scared will have a tribe that includes only themselves - until their terror eases, at least.
An obvious difference, such as skin colour, is an easy identifier of difference that is more likely to result in elimination from various tribal groups as fear increases. Racism is all down to a fear response. It’s not necessarily that an individual fears someone that is different, but rather they are scared, so are rejecting anything that isn’t tightly connected to themselves.
America is, at present, unusual in that many Americans declare how patriotic they are without a very inclusive view with regard to what fraction of the population exists in their personal definition of ‘America’. They can support loathing of a different racial or class component of their nation, while claiming to love that nation intensely. I’m particularly fascinated by this, but it isn’t a good thing when you are trying to bring people together.
Those ‘patriotic’ individuals are only truly patriotic towards a longed for version of their nation - with the loathed group removed or subjugated. Other countries contain significant populations that think in a parallel way, but those countries, with the exception of China, do not have the international influence America has, so they only matter around the edges.
China is a totally different discussion that isn’t being broached in this essay, but it spends a lot of time using fear to encourage cooperation. It can work pretty well, but isn’t very nice. They are not a fulcrum of social change just now (except from using them as something to fear), so the kind of change the world needs (in my opinion/knowledge) isn’t coming from them - for a while, at least. Luckily, their dominant political forces understand climate change is a real and urgent threat, so they have the most urgent global priority in view.
The related individual freedom, ‘I lifted myself up by my bootstraps’ thinking tends to reduce community (and the tribal associations therein) to other people that have accomplished a similar bootstrapping success. Successful people hang out with other successful people, and the rest can eat cake.
/aside
The original use of lifting oneself up by bootstraps was in the context of that being an impossible act - ie. ‘that achievement is as impossible as lifting yourself up by your own bootstraps’. The irony of its present use is an amusing bon mot to ponder. For more, google has it.
/end aside.
By reducing the most ‘successful’ portion of a nation’s population to viewing their ‘in’ community (tribe) as other ‘successful’ people, the stage is set to not care much about what happens to the ‘unsuccessful’ as they can be categorised as morally and effectively inferior (since they aren’t ‘successful’, of course) and of a different tribe. Many ‘successful’ people that pulled themselves up by their bootstraps don’t empathise with the trials of the ‘unsuccessful’ for that reason. They don’t tend to notice that the trials themselves make success rare.
The few disadvantaged who do ‘succeed’ are respected for pulling themselves up by those old boot straps, and they prove the system works, if rarely. It only makes the less successful all the more disrespected. The ‘once unsuccessful’ might avoid this trap, and not all the ‘successful’ end up here - just too many of them.
At this moment, you have many of the people that have real agency in America (the successful, rich, and powerful ones) having limited interest in helping out most of the country. They are concentrated on holding on to their standing and possessions, and scared of losing them. The right wing media is hyping fear of the other to keep them focused on themselves. It’s bad when that happens.
Now, some people that are ‘successful’ are caring and invest time, capital, and energy towards helping out people of different tribes that are less fortunate - but they don’t tend to vote Republican. Those demonic Bill Gates/George Soros monsters that support all that is bad in a Q-ish world are the sort of people in this group (I don’t pretend to know who either those individuals vote for, but I know something about who they donate to. I’d just as soon have governments control that level of cash/power, but not every rich individual is a horrible person. Many are - see Koch).
That the ‘bootstrap’ community is significantly populated by people who profess to worship a guy who talked about it being easier to push a camel through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get to heaven. It is another surreal manifestation of the social environment in the US (Those people certainly exist in other nations, but they do not tend to have as large an influence on positions of power - and where they do, the country doesn’t have as large an influence on world affairs, thus - whatevs).
In the end, there are three important groups driving America apart through the actions of this arm. Powerful, successful people are scared (for both real and imaginary reasons, and mostly about losing status) and are shrinking their tribe to other powerful people. America never really developed a sense of noblesse oblige towards the people less powerful, and the isolation of this tribal group makes this arm stronger. The Republican Party is actively using fear to increase the size of this group.
Narcissistic personalities (see Trump) are another big group powered by fear. It often results from a non-ideal resolution of PTSD in a person’s formative years. They were scared shitless when they were figuring out who they were, and they struggle to deal with the consequences. This is a (depressingly large) population that struggles to trust anyone or anything because the people they trusted to keep them safe failed in that traumatic moment. The trauma they lived through was ironclad proof that you can only trust yourself - that you have to control your surroundings to keep yourself safe. No one else will do it - can be trusted to do it. They tend to be more active and open about their beliefs, and more militant. Because Trump thinks like they do, they have learned to trust him somewhat - and they are finding people that think like them in that community. They struggle with community, and these new connections are exciting and empowering.
There is a smaller, but influential group made up from the sociopathic population (anti-social personality disorder for the pedantic). They aren’t truly capable of understanding the concept of trust so join the other groups strengthening this arm, often taking a leadership position because they aren’t that scared, so can think more clearly. The sociopaths often think they are so superior they can manipulate the mob to achieve higher ranks and titles and more powerful positions (social status) to fill the void within themselves where empathy should live. They are lousy manipulators because of that missing empathy thing, so it all ends in tears. See Cruz, Johnson, Hawley.
That collection of groups gains reinforcement through the social structure. That reinforcement can, unfortunately, be illustrated by the efforts of the Republic Party since probably Nixon, and definitely Reagan. The ‘what’s in it for me’ philosophy falls out of Reagan’s ‘joke’ - “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government and I’m here to help.”
The ‘Government’ in that line conflates collective action for mutual benefit, with an observable tendency for any large human organization to be bureaucratic and somewhat inefficient, especially if they are under-resourced (ie. government departments - ask me about wasteful spending by large industrial corporations some time. For bureaucracy, Exxon makes the most bureaucratic of governments look agile and reactive - and they don’t have the excuse of being under resourced). That conflated concept damns any cooperative action through government action as a strictly practical and efficiency based preference. It precludes useful collective action though a democratic government which is usually the best way to organise collective action.
That attitude foments support for people within the American context that can simultaneously consider themselves the most ardently patriotic of Americans while committing an insurrection against the US congress. From the information uncovered in the investigation into that act, so far (see emptywheel.net for a fantastic, granular discussion of that stuff), it is clear the most organised and threatening of those insurrectionist include people that are members of ‘patriotic’ organizations that used their military/police training to maximise the disruption that would occur to their own government of the country that they love. Trump’s big lie let this make sense.
Those ‘most organised insurrectionists’ used the majority of the clueless mob incited to the insurrection to camouflage their actions and intentions and partly succeeded in their goal (delaying the certification if not stopping it). The most dangerous aspect of that partial success is that ‘remember the insurrection’ can be used in place of rallying cries in the form of ‘remember the alamo’ for future activities.
The mobilisation and integration of groups with different end goals (the boogaloo bois, oathkeepers, proud boys, et. al.) to a common action bodes poorly for the near future. Those bonds forged in the insurrection (and associated prison terms), can be put to even more disruptive future actions. Their willingness to hide behind disposable (in their view) newly associated members (both within their organisations, and the stop the steal movement) to commit illegal actions is worrisome. ‘Worrisome’...try ‘terrifying’.
As a proof of concept, both the storming of the Michigan state house, and then, bumping it up a level, the insurrection, were ‘successful‘-ish. The active extreme has learned some do’s and don’ts, and will do a better job at whatever comes next. This is a profoundly dangerous situation for both individual members of opposing government groups, activist groups, and the continued existence of a democratic union - and the well being of the planet - like really. They are pursuing a less perfect union, and having real success.
To a scary extent, the present situation has parallels to the French Revolution. The people in powerful positions that are fomenting unrest and fear for personal advantage are likely to be eaten by that unrest when it explodes into chaos. Those groups all each have different goals, and are certain to consume each other if they succeed in their joint goal of breaking the governance of the US. See Danton, Robespierre, and Marat; or Stalin and Trotsky.
The First Arm
On the other (much more pleasant) hand/arm, (enter the butterflies and rainbows) the first arm of the confluence (and a totally, magnificently huge, cool thing) is far more hopeful and is actually trying to make progress towards a more perfect union. It is animated by an equally strong emotion, love, that also has the advantage of being a bit more open to cognitive intervention than fear - it’s a smarter emotion (It can still be really stupid, just smarter than fear. It’s a really low bar).
There is a component of need here, but that need finds people that help - usually mutual help. That mutual help breeds love. People that are not ‘successful’ make for much tighter communities, because they all need mutual help, and are aware that they have not, all by themselves, achieved everything they have achieved without help. Successful people that started out less successful are more likely to hold on to that realisation and are often allies of the love arm.
That love arm, surprising this particular observer, is made manifest in the Democratic Party led government of the once moderate Biden. The Pandemic Relief Bill, (not a stimulus bill, damnit) is the first wedge in a door that leads to that ‘more perfect’ place. Feel the love in the room.
To maintain the momentum of that progress, and put more wedges in that door, H.R.1 is an absolute requirement. That bill (for people that have lives and don’t follow this stuff closely enough to know the names and contents of various bills) contains common sense federal rules to make elections more accessible and fair nationwide. To be clear, much of the American South - first under the Democrats, and after Nixon, transitioning to the Republicans - have always cheated on elections. The ‘steal’ is a ubiquitous thing in American history.
Most of the South has cheated in the open, and often under the cover of apparently lawful actions. It’s just that they passed morally bankrupt laws that had the effect of making it harder for the disadvantaged, and most obviously, black people, to vote. It is a ribbon that connects the American original sin of slavery (with black people representing ⅔ of a person for congressional districting, but no actual votes - as in the founding documents) through to Jim Crow, to the Georgia bill that just got signed (with lots of other historic wrinkles - too many to mention here). That ribbon, keeping black and disadvantaged people from voting, has been a constant among most people elected from Southern States at a federal level, and even more so, the governing party at the state level - regardless of party.
That is the ‘steal’ that needs to be addressed, not this silly Trumpian nonsense, and H.R.1 attempts to address it. That house bill has exactly zero chance of passing the senate if the filibuster stays in the form it presently inhabits. The tactical error on the part of the Republicans, is that the Democrats will have an exceptionally difficult time winning control of the Senate for the conceivable future if the bill doesn’t pass (because of the sea of bills many of the southern state governments are passing right now. The Georgia bill is the first of many). The Democrats should be very, very motivated to pass this bill.
All Senators, including Munchin and Sinema, prefer to be with the party that has power in the Senate then in opposition. If the Republicans (and no one else) are very lucky, and the public/senate members push too hard, Sinema, or more likely, Munchin could cross the aisle and become a Republican to keep their hands on their Senate seat while preventing the passage of H.R.1. That would amputate this first arm. The Love one. That would be bad.
It looks more likely (Please, please pleasepleaseplease) that those two Democratic Senators will instead support some form of adjustment that will make sustained filibusters impractical going forward - and result in the passage of H.R.1. That will (in a constitutionally acceptable way) federalise a basic threshold access to a ballot across the US and the American Civil War can finally end.
The Republicans have the opposite problem. The Republican Party, as presently constituted, will have an incredibly difficult time regaining control of any federal branch if H.R.1 passes. They will be forced to repudiate Trump and his base to win more moderate voters (like is supposed to happen in a democracy). Those ‘more moderate voters’ lived on the Center/Right side of the ledger until Trump dragged the Republican Party farther Right. By keeping the same set of beliefs, those voters moved from Center/Right to solidly Left with a centrist edge.
That puts the Republicans in a right pickle. Repudiating the endlessly vengeful Trump at this particular moment will ensure Trump’s involvement in the next round of primaries - against the incumbent from his own party. If any sitting Senator for the Republicans speaks ill of Trump they (at present) ensure a significant primary challenge against them, and replacement with an extreme candidate for Senator less likely to be elected.
Only Alaska and Utah have Republican Senators in a position to resist Trump. Only if Trump is publicly humiliated, including multiple convictions with continued and strengthening rumours (or even proof) of personal involvement in the insurrection itself (possibly through connections running through a certain Mr. Stone), is Trump defanged. He doesn’t need to be defanged for the first arm to win, but it would make things less dangerous.
Trump’s new dark money organisation is designed primarily to seek vengeance against any Republican who speaks ill of him. Think about that. The most powerful man in the Republican Party isn’t trying to get Republicans elected, he is focused on vengeance against anyone in his own party who speaks ill of him. ‘With such threads the garment rots’, to wax poetic for a moment.
The Republican party is on the verge of a generation in the wilderness if they can’t purge Trump from the party without seeming to act against him. Their best bet to retain power is to kill H.R.1 and for many of the southern states to fix voting (fix, in the ‘predetermined result’ sense - certainly not in the ‘repair’ sense), like they are passing state level legislation to do right now. If they succeed the first arm is in trouble.
Luckily, by shifting senate rules back to what they had before 1975, the Democrats have a real chance to eliminate the Republican Party (as presently constituted) from contention for control of any branch of the federal government for a generation. It will force the Republican party to move left and sort out their internal contradictions in an (overdo) necessary and messy way. It will be more messy if Trump is still in the mix.
In addition, Biden is doing, or at least attempting, big popular things. The Federal reserve is not waiting to take away the punch bowl and the first sign of rising wages, and there are bills that propose a solid lurch towards the (much more humane) kind of safety net the rest of the western world has successfully implemented since WWII. The type of system that keeps Canadian, (some) European, Australian, and New Zealander cities on the top of the ‘best places to live’ lists, despite lower GDP/capita (GDP is a silly measure. The Texas snowstorm will increase Texan GDP significantly. The snowstorm was still a bad thing).
Of the big things Biden is attempting, none are as big as H.R.1. This is a rare moment where one bill signals such a profound implied change. If that bill passes everything changes - and changes dramatically to the left (even more so if Trump remains as a force in the Republican Party), and a much more humane, effective social structure. Modern human success sits on a bedrock of cooperative action. Societies that cooperate better, win (see the blog here). Biden’s follow up policy positions will lead to an America that cooperates better. Because those policy changes are both popular, and effective, it places the Democrats in a position to maintain the changes long enough to respond to climate change and save-ish the planet. Yay!
If Trump is humiliated and convicted of serious crimes, the Republican party has options that can keep them in the game - but only by moving left themselves, and changing the policy Overton window towards a more cooperative structure. No, I’m not talking about socialism/government ownership of the means of production. Yes, a competitive capitalist society cooperates better than a control economy - or the kind of uncompetitive, monopoly-ish, crony economy America is drifting towards - largely by self regulating to a degree, and eliminating management overhead. There’s a bunch of blogs on the site starting at the link above...and here again. Because it’s a weird world, regulated competition can create cooperation in a society. People is weird.
I’m in favour of that ‘convicted’ route for Trump, and a functional opposition party (if anybody cares), but the other option could work out as well or even better. Sure there is a large, heavily armed minority that has the sympathy of a significant portion of the rural US population (thus lots of places to hide) that will not like that path and could mess that route up in horrible ways, but that’s icky and isn’t that likely to happen in a major way (it is almost certain in a minor way but whatevs - just a few more mass shooting events [sob]). At least it’s not boring?
This confluence hinges on H.R.1. Fear vs Love. One moment changes everything. A truly earth shatteringly important moment that needs fifty + VP ayes on a rule change, and fifty + VP ayes on a vote. If H.R.1 is killed, everything gets messy, and it will get worse before it gets better. That rule change also begets useful policy changes and a hopefully adequate response to climate change, if you are only motivated by existential questions, but H.R.1 allows for the kind of sustained effort that is needed for that existential challenge - it all comes together with that H.R.1 vote. If you’re an American, lean on Sinema and Munchin, and encourage them to help this bill pass. It really is a very, very Big Fucking Deal. It’s a very, very Big Fucking Deal even for the rest of the planet that doesn’t get a say. Don’t blow this.