Donald Trump and the new Prophets of Deceit
Leo Lowenthal's Prophets of Deceit (co-authored with Norman Guterman) is one of the most significant pieces of social research done by the Frankfurt School in America. Along with Adorno's work on anti Semitism, it considers the role of the (generally right wing) agitator in American society beginning in the New Deal. These have of course close links to the Frankfurt School's analysis of the Authoritarian personality, It traces the psychological tropes and social context of the anti semitic and anti communist themes of the agitators of the 1930's and early 40's
Lowenthal's work still has resonance today. It is important first of all for its prescience, For what was once the domain of marginal thinkers, the "agitator." has gone mainstream, Since Reagan (and probably Nixon) at the least, the mainstream of the republican party has run on the backs of classical scapegoats, the welfare mother, the African American criminal (Willie Horton), and now the immigrant, It apes the fire and brimstone rhetoric of the preacher with it's moral pieties. Lowenthal and later Marcuse in his 1970 introduction broaches the question of whether the agitator who works on the margins will enter the mainstream. Lowenthal argues that we are at a turning point in the analysis of social movements. He wonders whether the agitator will become more prevalent as late capitalism develops, Marcuse writing 20 years later said:
“If we compare or contrast the agitator of the thirties or forties whom this book examines with the political leaders of today, the shift in the target, tone, vocabulary seemed slight, , , , What has happened on this road is the introjection of the agitator into the legitimate political machine/”(v)
Writing about the tension in late capitalism, the phony mobilization of the Vietnam war and the Nixon era Southern Strategy Marcuse notes that the difference between the agitator and the political mainstream has become blurred. As Lowenthal and Marcuse predicted, this situation has become worse today. The recent rise of the Donald Trump candidacy, whatever it’s ultimate success, seems to be a harbinger of things to come. In the future we may well see more Donald Trumps as a reflection of a political party system that no longer can maintain the loyalty of the populace. Still Trump is not sui generis, The Trump phenomenon is the result of longstanding problems in American life.
The second reason we should re-examine Lowenthal's work has to do with the kind of explanation that he gives for the rise of the "agitator" Many contemporary analysts wonder why the middle and working classes vote against their "true interests" They look with some justification and the dumbing down of America, Others take a more value oriented approach, They reject the idea that individuals are motivated by strictly economic interests, and claim that many seek the communitarian values he see missing in liberal ideology. However Lowenthal following Horkheimer's (and to an extent Adorno;s) in looking for the latent or unconscious motives involved in the agitator's appeal. It is not that people are inherently stupid, (although it might be fair to say the level of discourse has no doubt declined) or longing for a unified community as much as they are alienated by their condition and situation. When we look at the appeal of the agitator or today the mainstream politics we should not look at the manifest content or the explicit message , We should instead look at the implicit message, the one which create a psychological bond between the speaker and his audience.
Horkheimer’s diagnosis
Lowenthal follows Max Horkheimer discussion of the rise and decline of bourgeois culture in late capitalism, The bourgeois idea of the individual was being superseded by the mass man of late capitalism, Horkheimer spoke of the end of the individual in late capitalism. He thought that advanced capital was eliminating democratic possibilities and becoming more like the authoritarian state. It was becoming completely controlled by big business and cartels who had allied with welfare state to replace the free market and rules though collusion. With this change the idea of the autonomous individual was lost. Unlike Marcuse or later Habermas, he saw no possibilities for democratization or social movements in this transition. To the contrary the end of the high bourgeois era, meant the end of the autonomous individual bereft of the capacity to use his own reason or make free decisions, and instead shaped by the mass media. Of course Horkheimer's does not believe that the bourgeois actually realized individuality en masse, but it did remain a possibility for some. In his view the state control of socialization through schools and mass media means that independent subjectivity is absorbed into the repressive whole/ (say more) Marcuse had earlier taken a similar position in his essay on fascism. He saw liberalism in its classical sense as being superseded by fascism. Certainly in retrospect Horkheimer and Adorno both underestimated the counter tendencies of late capitalism, yet certain parts of theory analysis ring true. Certainly late capitalism put stresses on the individual which have increased as neo-liberalism intensifies
Lowenthal does not explicitly employ Horkheimer’s analysis of advanced industrial society but follows conclusions regarding the decline of the individual. He analyzes the latent content of the agitators appeal in terms of the alienated powerless individual who is because of his psychological state is open to manipulation.
Lowenthal thinks that the results of these social and economic changes and the decline of the individual. is the rise of a kind of “social malaise.” an alienated individual who can not make sense of her situaltion:
“the modern individual’s sense of isolation, his so-called spiritual homelessness,his bewilderment in the face of the seemingly impersonal forces of which he finds himself a helpless victim, his weakening sense of values . . . This malaise reflects the stresses imposed on the individual by the profound transformations taking place in our economic and social structure” (15)
Elements such as the atomization and depersonalization of mass society, the breakdown of personal bonds and changes in family structures have had an effect on the individual. They continue to intensify and put pressure on the individual. “Malaise” he claims, “is a consequence of the depersonalization and permanent insecurity of modern life.” But these are according to Lowenthal only indirectly related to grievances. Nonetheless, these feeling are there:usly of oppression .
Individuals in mass soceity share a sense of economic political moral and cultural grievances that have become if anything more prevalent today. Immigrants are taking jobs, our nations has become morally and culturally bankrupt, losing our patriotic spiritual and christian roots. As a result of which groups of people feel distrustful disillusioned and have sense of deprivation. Others are taking the resources and money that they deserve.
The problem with the malaise of the late capitalist era is that it does not lead the individual to a clear sense of what is wrong. People felt distrustful or delusions, as he they felt their lives were not under their own control.
For Lowenthal then it is not the manifest content of the “agitators” message that counts that is the specifics of his message, it is his appeal to the latent content of the discontent of atomized mass society that is crucial. The agitator crystallizes discontents by providing a vehicle for the malaise of individuals. It is not really what he says but that he supplies an emotional vehicle. We have to remember however that emotions are not just raw feels, but express our relation to the world, When we are anxious or fearful or resentful, these sensibilities are not just a reflection of the individual but her position in the world what she expects to happen or a sense of what is possible. The person who feels victimized or threatened by social and economic condition is as Lowenthal argues often oppressed to some extent, Without a reflexive understanding of the situation they tend to Their understanding tends to be unfocused The agitator appeals to the sense of the world that is vaguely shared. However, the agitator unlike the reformer or the revolutionary does not attempt to make sense of suffering and malaise but uses it to reinforce the dominant power, Instead of looking at the role of business, agitators in the 1930’s and 1940’s blamed the jews or the foreigners, Today we see a sustained hostility toward immigrants especially undocumented ones, and against immoral liberals who don't follow “christian values. Where today’s agitators address economic issues they blame the foreigners like the Chinese or the Mexicans as we see in Donald Trump,
Of course the current situation presents a more serious challenge, Clearly the mainstreaming of the agitator as shown in the rise of Donald Trump as a potential republican candidate has illustrated how powerful the agitator can become, I think that in neo-liberal capitalism the pressure on the individual has increased, The declining fortunes of the middle class and he poor, and the difficulties of adapting to a multicultural world has increased the sense of unease of many Americans. Still I think that Jodi Dean’s analysis of the trump phenomenon In these Times misses the mark in some respects. She thinks that Trump is the only “honest” politician “Where other candidates appeal to a fictitious unity or pretense of moral integrity, he displays the power of inequality.” Trump does not hide his power he flaunts it and revels in it. Trump according to Dean expresses all the racism sexism, and the sense of superiority and entitlement of the wealthy that exempt them from ordinary morality. The notion of manners and morality are really only the facade for an unbridled will to power. The “truth” then of American politics is the reality of the wealthy that can and will do whatever it wants without remorse or guilt. Rather than rejecting this lack of remorse, Dean thinks that individuals identify with Trumps flaunting of convention and with the desire to rule over others and clean out or sweep away the vermin. She thinks it is a pure form of jouissance, Lacan’s term for a kind of primary pleausre. But doesn’t she leave out the sadistic element in the equation,
No doubt the sadism of the leader or agitator is an important in the attachment of the follower. And i think against Dean that it is more a matter of sadim than jouissance. To reduce the issue of sadism to a kind of transgressive pleasure really misses the key point: transgression can apply to any rejection or norms for good or bad, but the sadism of the agitator really does not attempt a change of power but the reinforcement of existing power. Sadistic pleasure in punishing others is distinct from the happiness one might obtain in rejecting an oppressive norm or freeing oneself if only partially from domination. Thus it is not the just happiness at rejecting a norm but the disgust toward the other that is part of what the agitator expresses. I don't think Dean’s notion of pleasure in transgression gets at this point which she acknowledges in her analysis.
When one says that Trump is the only honest politician it mean using the term honest in a restricted sense. Surely it can’t be honest to play on the racism and fears of others without regard for the consequences. He is no more authentic than others glitters throughout our history. No doubt we can argue as Christopher Lasch argued some time ago that this era represents the of the elite rather than the revolt of the masses. The elite have withdrawn from contact and engagement with the urban poor and and no doubt the elite have come to devalue the ordinary citizen, but we ought to be careful not to fall back on the Manichean view of our situation that Dean seems to construct. The capitalist class becomes the embodiment of pure evil. Even Marx did not go that far. The sadism that Trump expresses is not really as new as Dean thinks, After all as I noted above, Reagan expressed the same type of sadism against the “welfare queens” who live high off the hog on the government dole, while ordinary people have work long and hard for their daily bread. The poor and downtrodden and the outsider are the targets of this sadism. Trump’s version ramps up the nativism and the agitator performance.This growth of American politics, was already well known for a while -- and it has been effectively harnessed to maintain the status quo and even to support deregulation and,greater inequality and the transfer of wealth.
It seems to me what is different in the further mainstreaming of the agitator is the growing distrust among a segment of the population and growing malaise which doubts not only government but the leaders of the republican party. Where Reagan especially had the trust of the conservative and fearful elements of the population the growing economic and social disquiet has lead to a greater distrust in established authority and the yearning for a “leader” to come in and clean up. In short it is a more radically anti democratic sentiment. Of course 9/11 initiated a new sensibility in many but it has not been mitigated over time but had fused with economic and social malaise.
