Teaching in the Time of Trump

https://www.socialstudies.org/system/files/publications/articles/se_80011636.pdf

On March 4, 1801, President Thomas Jefferson delivered one of the nation’s finest inaugural addresses, after participating in one of its most politically divisive election cycles. Seeking
common ground in an inherently unstable democratic republic, the author of the Declaration of Independence urged his audience:

Let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which
mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political
intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions….
Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names
brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists.1

What were the necessary principles of American government that transcended the vast diversity of American life? The first on Jefferson’s list—and on the list of most democratic theorists ever since—was political equality: “Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or
persuasion, religious or political,” he explained. Not yet equality for those whose brutal enslavement powered the economy (and his own personal fortune), nor yet for women, or the poor, or countless others, but nevertheless a principled equality that allowed for reasoned deliberation among citizens.

Even today, when the logic of democracy has propelled our society to a more inclusive (and still yet unjust and unequal) place, we take for granted that first, fundamental principle: that
democracy can flourish only when democratic deliberation is guided by a norm of reasonableness. To be reasonable in one’s conduct towards others is not the same as being guided by the facts (although facts are certainly important). It is rather about being open
to other perspectives, the perspectives of one’s co-citizens.

The norm of reasonableness has a long history in democratic political thought. The best known contemporary formulation is that of John Rawls, who maintains that people are reasonable
when they propose standards for cooperation that are reasonable and justifiable for everyone to accept. Reasonable people are also ready to discuss the fair terms that others propose, and abide by the results of reasonable deliberation. Reasonableness requires respect for the
opinions of others and a willingness to discuss them. 2

Policy designed to apply fairly to everyone requires deliberation that takes everyone’s perspective into account. Jefferson’s point is that the stability of democracy as a system depends upon a well constituted state, one in which the people are not sealed off from
the perspectives of their co-citizens by fear, panic, or hatred. A general belief that Jews are out to deceive will undermine reasonable public discourse, for example, because it will lead citizens to discount the actual perspective of their Jewish co-citizens. In such a society, it would be no surprise to discover anti-Semitic policies.

We now face an election in which one of the leading candidates, Donald Trump, is using fear, panic, and division to attract support. A CNN/ORC poll from May 29–31 registered Trump at 3
percent support. In his speech on June 16 announcing his candidacy, Trump made the following, now infamous, statement: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

Instead of being punished for such divisive and offensive speech, however, Trump was rewarded. The next CNN/ORC poll, from June 26–28, had Trump at 12 percent, behind Jeb
Bush (19 percent). A poll conducted from July 22–25 had Trump leading the GOP pack with 18 percent, and subsequent polls established him as the frontrunner. Trump’s lead became
commanding after his suggestion that Muslims be banned from visiting the United States.

Trump’s campaign is notable not only for its messages, but for its media. With over 5.5 million Twitter followers and 4.5 million Facebook fans, his campaign is unmatched in its mastery
of social media. He has sidestepped more traditional vehicles, eschewing expensive television advertising, for example, for low-cost, low-production videos on Instagram, Vine, Youtube and
Periscope. His messages reach followers instantly and are then rebroadcasted in seconds by a devoted phalanx of followers. Aggressive tweets reach millions of followers unfiltered, contributing to the speed with which his words attract attention and shift the polls. He is out-
pacing Republican rivals while paying a fraction of their costs. 3

Despite the appearance of showmanship, however, his constant real-time use of these
media is systematic and coordinated.4 His pioneering use of these new communications media has been compared by many commentators to FDR’s use of radio in his fireside chats and JFK’s television charisma. 5

The medium and the message are fully integrated, and this integration is critical to Trump’s rejection of reason giving and reason taking. He keeps up a steady stream of boasts, insults, and policy assertions almost entirely insulated from thoughtful public analysis. 6 The self-proclaimed “Hemingway of 140 characters” has fully occupied and fortified his position in the social media landscape, a place where sober, idea-driven conservative rivals flounder.7

When he is caught making false statements, he either denies or doubles down, and is held to
no account within his media platform. 8 His statements in televised debates thus far have been extensions of his Twitter persona; challengers are fended off not for the quality of their ideas, but through invective. While traditional media such as network television and newspapers
have always had political agendas, Trump has broken the rules that tethered candidates to at least moderate claims of public reason.9

For a while, commentators chalked up Trump’s campaign to “sideshow” political theater, in which the un-serious entertainer provokes rather than promises...