I can hear you screaming, "How in God's name can you possibly expect us, or at least me, to respect 'those people.' Just look at what they say, how they act, and what they profess to believe."

You must mean, you think after you have stopped screaming, that we should act respectfully, as in show good manners, be polite, be gracious, that sort of thing. But no, that's not what I mean at all. I am actually saying something quite like what you are screaming is so impossible to imagine. We need a new attitude, but one that we feel sincerely, that isn't phony. A pretend shift in attitude wouldn't do much good anyway, because "the other side" would see right through it, and it would only make them even angrier.

I'm going to suggest in what follows that we aren't quite as good, quite as superior, quite as different as we think we are. And then, to the extent the virtues we think we possess are real, I'm going to contend that we take too much credit for them anyway.

On their side of the equation, I'm going to assert that they aren't all the same, and that many aren't nearly as bad as we sometimes think they are. And then, to the extent their faults are real, I'm going to propose that we assign too much blame for them anyway.

So, if we bring our sense of superiority down, and temper our view of their faults to something not so bad, does that mean we are alike? That we are in fact no "better" than they are? I'm going to argue that clinging to that question as if it matters a lot is mostly about holding on to our sense of superiority, and that we would be better off moving on to more important questions. So, let's go piece by piece, and take all this apart.

We Aren't as Good as We Think We Are

It's in our nature to think that it is the other guy who's biased, who has blind spots. But modern cognitive science has demolished this self-serving view. We are all subject to innumerable cognitive biases, and thinking otherwise is just evidence that we aren't as smart as we think. And we can't overcome our biases just by knowing we have them. The greatest thinkers on this subject readily admit that much as they have tried, bias distorts their perceptions and opinions too.

OK, we counter, but we are much better informed and much more rational in deciding what opinions to hold. But consider this. We know very little of the world by direct observation. Almost all of what we think about the world is mediated by experts, journalists, scientists, and so on. Since we know very little directly, mostly what we "know" is a function of who we have decided to believe. But the mediators we choose to believe are biased too, so perhaps we aren't quite as different as we think.

Oh, but we do cling to our feeling of superiority. The confirmation bias, compounded by the reporting biases of liberal media, allow us to assemble a powerful narrative about how stupid, racist, sexist, and so on the other side is. But do we even recognize the ad hominem nature of this narrative when it comes into our brains and out of our mouths? Ad hominem arguments, otherwise known popularly as name calling, are pervasive amongst us "intelligent" folks. It is one of the most basic of the logical fallacies, and still, it pervades our thinking. So, what are we supposed to make of that?

Perhaps our grip on intellectual superiority might loosen a bit considering all this, but we think, we are of better character. After all, we are more empathetic, care more about the suffering of others, and so on. These claims hold up even less than those about our superior brainpower.

We are, remember, the privileged elite. We have most of the income and enjoy most of the wealth in the United States. The bottom half of our society owns only 2.5 percent of the wealth and enjoys less than 15 percent of the income. They struggle to get by. What, exactly, have we personally done for them lately? Many of the red states are relatively poor. Do we feel for their pain, for their struggles? Or does the fact that those states have often voted for Trump erase any actual sympathy we might feel? Tribalism anyone?

When we are honest about it, we must admit that as a group, we mostly coastal and mostly college educated people have been quite good at holding on to our privileges. We work, legally, usually, to claim every tax break we can figure out how to qualify for. We have "wealth advisors" to help us figure out how to do that. We often donate less to charities than lower income groups. Where is the empathy, where is the compassion for suffering, in all that?

But to be very clear, a lot of our selfishness consists of holding on to our sense of superiority. Our egos are greedy. Our prideful arrogance is perhaps the most significant evidence of that. How can we feel so superior if our inner defense is often that we are just doing what everyone does?

To the Extent Our Virtues Are Real, We Take Too Much Credit for Them

If you are still reading, it is time to admit that the above narrative is a bit overdrawn. Many who are reading these words are smart, try hard to be honest, and are generous in character. Many have displayed the virtues of hard work, self-discipline, and perseverance. And many have accomplished a great deal, and not just for themselves. But to the extent this is true, why is it so? Some real credit for virtue is often due, but still…

We sometimes take too much personal credit for who we are. Those who have great intelligence largely inherited it. They won the genetic lottery. Where is the personal credit in this? Likewise, many of the most educated and informed came from homes filled with books and had their superior educations paid for by parents, or in some cases, by society. This too should temper the pride that we take to more modest levels.

Overall, people are prone to pridefulness, and taking more personal credit than is due is common, if not nearly universal. A recognition of this would temper our sense of superiority relative to those of average intelligence, and who may have come from homes where the only books came from school.

"They" Aren't as Bad as We Think They Are

Before digging into the various reasons Republican and Republican-leaning voters aren't as bad as we think they are, and why in fact we ought to respect "them," some distinctions will be helpful.

The first and most important is between the knowing liars, those who claim the 2020 election was stolen from Trump but know full well this claim isn't true, and the great mass of Trump followers who seem to sincerely believe the election was stolen. The knowing liars include Trump himself, of course, most of his top staffers, and many right-wing media "personalities" and executives. Everything said below does not apply to these bad-faith actors. They are actual villains, and they richly deserve the vilification we heap upon them. They are every bit as bad as we think they are. They have no place in our politics and should be shunned.

The other critical distinction involves avoiding the trap of painting all Republicans and all Trump voters with the same brush. They are not all alike, and overlooking this reality would be a fatal error. The New York Times breaks the Republican Party into six major groups, and among the Times' key conclusions is that only 37 percent of Republicans count as part of Trump's loyal base. The Party isn't necessarily, the Times observes, "a populist-conservative MAGA monolith." Of course, Trump's base extends beyond the Republican Party itself, but the key point remains the same. Many Trump voters should not be viewed as hard core loyalists, and this opens the door to a much more nuanced view of what Republicans and Republican-leaning voters are truly like and how we ought to think about them as we look to the future. To be very clear, painting them all with the same brush is stereotypical thinking. It is a group bias, and it is not all that different in nature from other group biases we so fulsomely and rightfully condemn.

With these distinctions firmly in mind, we can now move on to consider a new attitude in which respect is both fair minded and appropriate.

Traditional Virtues: Values Worthy of Respect

Conservativism is the traditional or historical source of such values as the rule of law, personal responsibility, family values, moral rectitude, patriotism, loyalty, fiscal responsibility, keeping your word, paying your debts, and preserving personal freedom. While liberals will sometimes disagree with how these values are applied, the wellspring of these values has been traditional conservatism. Do we really want to say that such values are unworthy of respect?

The southern states, the rust belt, and the rural areas and communities of the US have taken the brunt of the job losses from globalization, from mechanization, from business relocation, and from corporate consolidation. Yes, they are angry about this. But residents of these areas have also put forth enormous efforts to cope with these losses, often working long hours and multiple jobs while at the same time foregoing many of the pleasures the more fortunate continue to enjoy. They have displayed grit and determination to support their families despite enormous setbacks and manifest unfairness. Do they not deserve respect for their struggles, efforts made in the face of adversity?

Politically conservative individuals and areas often contribute much more than their share to the ranks of US police forces and the US military. While liberals see clearly that the police sometimes behave badly and that the military is sometimes deployed unwisely or immorally, we should consider where we would be without them. Without the police, we would simply be overrun by predators. The misconduct of some should not lead to disrespecting the many. And without our military equipment and training, where would the Ukrainians be today? Where would the Taiwanese be without the direct threat to use our forces to defend them? If conservatives do more than their share to carry these burdens, should we not respect them for their service?

Sure, some conservatives are white supremacists. And some are male supremacists. But in all honesty, most white people have at least a little racism inside them, and some Democrats are not all that different in racial attitudes from some Republicans. Likewise, most men, regardless of political affiliation, have at least a little sexism inside them. This doesn't mean we should tolerate racism or sexism. Not at all. But it certainly means that we should get the mote out of our own eyes before we start calling names. Many citizens, regardless of party, are traditionalists, culturally conservative with views not much different than those held by the vast majority just a few decades ago.

The presumption of respect toward our fellow citizens should be understood as a basic democratic value, somewhat akin to the presumption of innocence. Many if not most Republican and Republican-leaning voters are deserving of the presumption of respect. They should be accorded that respect until they show by their personal behavior that they are unworthy.

Where Did Our Empathy Go?

Now, when we need it the most, our empathy seems to have deserted us.

How would you feel, all you naturally smart folks, if you'd spent your childhood in meritocratic schools that let you know, relentlessly, that you weren't as smart or capable as the other kids? How would you feel if you were made to feel inferior every day?

So, then you grow up, in one of the southern states let's say, or in the rust belt, or in any one of our thousands of rural communities, and you find that your job opportunities have been gutted by mysterious economic forces you scarcely grasp while our political system has failed to protect you, failed to look after your interests.

How would you feel if you had a family and kids, had worked until you were forty in a well-paying job with benefits, and suddenly that job went away and the best replacement you could get paid $12 an hour for working as a greeter in a superstore? How would you like to come home to your kids and explain to them all the things the other kids had that they could not have, because you could no longer afford to buy them.

And we wonder why so many are angry. And even more lacking in empathy, we wonder why they are so angry at us while we so obviously look down on them. Then Trump says, "I am your retribution." Can we not understand why this resonates, why this generates a bond to a man so clearly unworthy?

Can we not see their hurt? Their pain? Can we not see why the arrogant superiority of those who are much more fortunate than they are is so profoundly insulting? So infuriating? So enraging? There should be no surprise when they overlook transgressions by a politician who says to them, "I am your retribution."

Excuses, Surely, But Less Blameworthy Than We Think

For most of the Trump voters who do believe that the election was stolen, their offense would appear mainly to be gullibility. We may call them names for this, but is that fair?

Again, an exercise in empathy may help us answer this question. Consider the situation many of them find themselves in. They may be surrounded by messages that reinforce their belief that the election was stolen. If they come from communities or live inside social reference groups where Trump supporters far outnumber all others (and this is quite common), they may feel like "everyone" agrees that the election was stolen, and they just don't have the capacity to think otherwise. If their family members, friends, co-workers, local radio, and TV all agree, and if they watch FOX or similar national news, they will be entirely surrounded by reinforcing messages.

Social media seems to be set up to facilitate confirmation bias, feeding us just what we want to hear and little else. So, this too will reinforce the same views.

Keep in mind, as well, that if the individuals we're thinking about are simply of average intelligence, they may never have developed a lot of independent intellectual self-confidence. Our competitive and meritocratic schools often see to that.

Instincts come into play. They are angry, or they see around them others who are angry. They feel a natural sympathy since this anger makes common sense to them. It corresponds with what they have observed directly around them, in their communities and neighborhoods. And so tribal loyalty impulses kick in powerfully to make thinking differently seem disloyal, immoral, like a betrayal.

Finally, Trump is exploiting these impulses, playing them like a master conductor. As The New York Times observes, Trump is "attempting to convince supporters to see themselves in him." To quote from several Trump campaign events: "For those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution… I'm being indicted for you… In the end," Trump says, "they're not coming after me. They're coming after you, and I'm just standing in their way… They want to take away my freedom because I will never let them take away your freedom. They want to silence me because I will never let them silence you."

And so they follow him, profoundly convinced they are doing the right thing, the loyal thing, the thing that will save our democracy from the election-stealing Democrats. This is tragic. This is maddening. But more than anything else, these people are the victims of a masterfully scripted long con. So go ahead and blame them if you must, but mostly we must not let their gullibility in all this obscure the underlying truth. Most of them are decent people, trying to do the "right" thing. They are people who in the rest of their lives are honorable, hard-working, upstanding. Remembering this in the face of Trump's outrageous lies is hard. But this is the truth. We must understand that as evil as Trump is, his followers are not evil. We should respect them as human beings, and fellow citizens, despite everything.

D.C.
Published:September 2023
To Link Or Republish >>

Return To Strengthening Democracy Home >>