Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Roger Scruton on Brexit — and (if inadvertently) Trump
On Radio4, the BBC has posted a 15-minute reflection on the Brexit vote by the great English philosopher Roger Scruton. Scruton’s talk is an astonishing thing: for the sheer calm rationality with which it lays out its argument, for its insistence on championing the humble and traditional and unfashionable–and, I was struck again and again, for its applicability to our own country.
Consider this passage:
In modern conditions, in which governments rarely enjoy a majority vote, most of us are living under governments of which we don’t approve. We accept to be ruled by laws and decisions made by politicians with whom we disagree and whom we perhaps deeply dislike. How is that possible? Why don’t democracies constantly collapse, as people refuse to be governed by those they never voted for? Clearly, a democracy has to be held together by something stronger than politics. There has to be a first-person plural, a pre-political loyalty, which causes neighbors who voted in opposing ways to treat each other as fellow citizens, for whom the government is not “mine” or “yours” but “ours,” whether or not we approve of it.
It is true that a country’s stability depends to a great extent on economic growth. But it also depends upon social trust—the sense that we belong together, and that we will stand by each other in the real emergencies. Social trust comes from shared language, shared customs, instinctive law-abidingness, procedures for resolving disputes and grievances, public spirit, and the ability of the people to change their own government by a process that is transparent to them all.
Urban elites build trust through career moves, joint projects, cooperation across borders, and what the philosopher John Stuart Mill called “experiments of living.” Like the aristocrats of old, they form their networks without reference to national boundaries. They do not, on the whole, depend on a particular place, a particular faith, or a particular routine for their sense of membership….
However, even in modern conditions, this modern elite depends upon others who do not belong to it. The farmers, manufacturers, clothiers, mechanics, soldiers and administrators, for whom attachment to place and its customs is implicit in all that they do. It is surely not difficult to imagine that in a question of identity these people will vote in another way from the urban elite….
An inclusive, first-person plural [a “we”] is the residue of cooperation and trust over generations. Those who have inspired and guided the European project have tried to create such a first-person plural by using gimmicks and subsidies while suppressing the national loyalties of the European people. But it is nationality, the home country and its shared culture, that define the true European identity. It astonishes me that so many people fail to see this, or to understand that democracy, and national identity, in the end, depend on each other.
Take that last paragraph, edit it lightly, and Scruton is speaking directly to us:
Those who have inspired and guided the expansion of the vast administrative state in Washington, DC have tried to create a new American consciousness, teaching the American people to become dependent on the federal government, while suppressing their natural loyalties to their families, their schools, their churches and synagogues, and their neighborhoods. But it is love of country–not some vague loyalty to the globe, but love of the specific and particular, love of this country and its shared culture–that define the American character.
Our democracy, and our national character, in the end, depend on each other.
If Donald Trump stands for anything good and noble, then surely it is this: the freedoms and loyalties of ordinary American. “I am your voice,” Trump said at the convention last week. If that is to mean anything, then surely he must defy the new ruling class, opposing its efforts to use the federal government to remake this country.
Donald Trump is onto something–if only the candidate himself could see it!–and it is not division or racism or hatred but simply this: love of country.
Published in General
Just to be clear, Midge, I was citing Ethiopian food as an example of a kind of virtue signaling of a certain sort of Leftist, not commenting on Ethiopians themselves who had emigrated to the US or how they are fairing–a perfectly worthy topic to discuss in its own right.
My comments are also not exactly directed toward the rank and file, or toward immigrants of any kind, but rather to Leftist intellectuals and their hangers on.
I am a very reluctant supporter of Trump. But to me it’s a choice between a certainty of disaster vs a probability of disaster. I can’t vote for a certainty of disaster and I can’t fail to negate someone else’s vote for a certainty of disaster by casting no vote or a third party/write-in vote.
Its a principled position and I respect it.
I’m sure you’re right. But, unfortunately, you can elevate a ‘bully’ to a position of power, but you can’t control him or how he’ll use his power.
I think his supporters* will have some unpleasant surprises should he win.
*I refer to his primary supporters, not to the people who’ve decided to vote Trump as the anti-Hillary
I’ve read thousands of articles and posts here – but this is the first I write. I was really moved by Roger Scruton’s words and Peter’s analysis. I think if Scruton were talking to us, he would compare the Trump phenomena to Brexit. Our parties and the factions in them have strong ideologies. Most voters are not moved by ideology but by emotion. Trump’s range of ideologies is so incomprehensible that no serious ideologue can fully support him. But I’d be surprised if anyone who votes issues can’t find at least one of his they like (eg. Scotus picks for conservatives or trade policies for Bernie supporters). I think the number of people who don’t cast a vote strictly because of policy may be small.
So as Trump says, he is speaking to those who feel they don’t have a voice. That we have lost the cultural glue that makes our country “ours” not “mine” or “yours”. When we are dealing with the social, economic and security issues that Trump discussed in his acceptance speech, people need the “ours’ and “us” to deal with the fear they feel. That’s why England voted “Leave” and I believe the US will vote Trump.
Why does anyone not understand why Ted Cruz refused to endorse Trump? If anyone stops for a minute and considers how they would feel about someone attacking their family members with vile lies the way Trump went after Cruz’s wife and father, they might understand that you cannot forgive that. Foregivness follows contrition, not bluster. Trump has not even owned up but has instead doubled down on his vicious attacks. Even the Mafia doesn’t go after the wives and fathers of their enemies.
Trump is telling Cruz supporters he doesn’t need or want their votes. This is hubris, on stilts. If the election is close, and only a fool believes it won’t be, he may regret that decision. So will the rest of us when we are stuck with crooked Hillary.