The 2016 U.S. Election as Seen Back Then

Below there is a summary of my posts to the Rene Girard Facebook group concerning the 2016 US election. Their dates are also shown – two of them preceded the election, while two others followed it closely. The first post elicited a vigorous debate between a fellow Girardian, George Dunn, and myself. Echoes of this argument are also contained here, George’s interventions are shown in quotation marks.

My last post in the series is moved to the top position, while the others are in chronological order. Quotations from sources other than George appear with attributions. Slight additions made to the texts are signaled with brackets.

Nov.20, 2016

We ain’t seen nothing yet as regards rivalrous mimetism or mimetic rivalry. Here’s Girard’s model configuration of what’s in store (if not already happening):

“Above all we are going to have reciprocal fighting that will be endless, because we’ll probably be evenly matched. The more alike we are with our enemies, and usually we are evenly matched, the more we will fight forever. We persecute ourselves pretty efficiently in the sense that we make our enemies so similar to us that they have equal strength, until we mutually wipe each other out.” (Reading the Bible with Rene Girard: Conversations with Steven E. Berry, Location 2502, Kindle Edition.) – words spoken by Girard in the context of our present post-Christian “apocalyptic” times, where “hatred without a cause” is the norm, rounding out any hatred that might be viewed as having “legitimate” causes.

This scenario has been in the making for several decades now, with social media playing an increasingly significant role over time.

In this model Girardian situation it must be obvious that what temporarily makes for humanity’s survival is the equal strength of any opposing sides – whatever those sides might be. Unless, that is, people fall back on models of loving mimesis, [and, equally importantly, are able to engage them in modes other than internal mediation of desire. Which would be either external mediation, or, much more powerfully, innermost – kenotic – mediation.]

Nov.3, 2016

It is shaping up again as a 50-50 contest – as always recently, as far as I am concerned. It’s what liberal democracy is predicated upon. It’s actually a functioning liberal democracy at work, man’s naturally mimetic, naturally rivalrous instinct playing out in the least harmful way. Which does not change the fact that it is totally un-Christian, totally un-loving. Love, Christian agape, is not natural, it is a lofty project man mostly fails at.

Yet I think we as Christians shouldn’t be dismayed by what underlies it all. Rather, while aspiring to be loving, we should be acknowledging this ritual’s katechon-like work. And though its effective homeostasis at times seems unpalatable and it also is only tentative, the alternative is a Hutu-Tutsi (85-15)-like situation, where we feel strong enough to carry our huge advantage to its “logical” conclusion. Then, with no “other” within our own bounds anymore we again either “miraculously” find or otherwise designate one as such, or we turn on an outside enemy, after the fashion of a “unanimous” Nazi Germany.

As opposed to this instability, near the other end of the political spectrum we can find another example of precarious political equilibrium, one worked out by the communist countries of the recent past: a ritual whereby so-called people’s democratic elections would invariably return results around 99-1 percentagewise. Now to Girardians this symbolic figure and its context might uncannily evoke images of scapegoating, of an all against one horror.

But this ritual was also katechonic in a sense; a scapegoat was there: the one (percent) malevolent figure (minority) preventing the 99 (percent) righteous ones (majority) from experiencing societal unanimity, societal bliss. And though the class struggle was never-ending, a vigilant party was there to track down and eventually flush out the hideous, cowardly and secretive figure(s). In fact the party was continually busy doing that, from time to time turning the screw on them and announcing their – variously designated as people’s enemies, kulaks, traitors, etc. – successful apprehension and elimination. With a premeditated 99-1 split, it could have been but a ritual officiated by party apparatchiks, and in fact it was most of the time, now rather brutal now less so.

It’s good to realize that neither of those three real-life scenarios has anything to do with Christian charity. Politics is always a-Christian and very often totally un-Christian. Jesus’ parable of the good shepherd also uses a 99-1 figure. But instead of abandoning the one lost sheep or scapegoating it, the good shepherd lovingly searches it out in order to return it to the fold, to reunite it with the remaining ninety-nine. That’s the direction for our attempts to overcome our mimetic limitations.

DISCUSSION

“The effectiveness of the electoral katechon depends on each side accepting the outcome as fair – not necessarily welcome, to be sure, but at least something that we can live with. Or, to put it another way, it depends on the willingness of political adversaries to regard each other at the end of the day as fellow citizens and not as evil enemies or as a blight that must be expelled from the body politic. Less and less is that an accurate description of our political culture.”

Certainly it’s a different type of katechon, but a katechon nonetheless – if, and as long as, both sides are able to maintain a precarious equilibrium, mutual hatred notwithstanding.

But this new, exacerbated type throws in stark relief what is really needed for modern societal relations to have any semblance of civility – nothing but Christian(-like) love will do now. Politics as usual will not do, it is totally discredited.

“What allows electoral politics to function as a katechon is not the equilibrium or the rough parity of numbers between the opposing parties. Rather, it is the willingness of all parties to accept the outcome as legitimate, but mutual hatred destroys any incentive to do so. Where an underlying spirit of amity is absent, the 50/50 split only exacerbates the likelihood of violence by emboldening the losing side.”

There are examples aplenty of the winning side – one winning decisively, not 50-plus percentagewise – being “emboldened” to the extent of driving their win to its “logical,” undemocratic and often violent conclusion. In light of that, maintaining a hateful equilibrium or parity of numbers shouldn’t be judged as the worse possible scenario.

But the more important issue is, how to overcome this modern societal malaise in a civil manner. I posit that only Christian(-like) love would be able to accomplish that. We need a new breed of public figures that could be positive models of that love.

“If there are examples a plenty of electoral landslides emboldening the winners to set aside democratic norms and persecute the losers, perhaps you can cite some of them. When I think of the most recent totally lopsided elections in American history – 1972, 1964, 1956 – we find that they did not result in violent repression of the losing side. Again, what seems to be decisive is not the margin of victory but the willingness of all parties to respect the procedural rules.”

In terms of persecution the example that would easily come to everybody’s minds would be pre-war Germany, and a slew of other European countries of that time. And I’m afraid the US elections you’re citing are ancient history now, we’re in a different, social-media dominated world today.

Social media is a hotbed of uncivility and hatred. But if mimetic theory is of any value here, it teaches me that it also helps ensure that the electoral split will be roughly equal, no matter what other circumstances might be. So when you’re saying, George, “Where you see a katechon, I see an accelerant,” it is fair, but, paradoxically, the opposite is also true: it’s both a kathechon and an accelerant.

We’re living in a time of a very precarious equilibrium, one that verges on an apocalypse of our own making. And I’m afraid there’s no going back to politics as usual, not with social media around. This double bind of ours, this katechon/accelerant or ever-so-close-to-apocalypse situation can only be resolved by Christian(-like) charity, which begins with not being instantly scandalized by our opponents.

“I don't think that the solution is to ratchet up the hostility between contending parties and hope that they'll achieve a close enough parity to inhibit each other from transgressing the norms of democracy.” It is not a “solution” offered by anybody, in a world of social media it happens as if of itself – both the ratcheting of hostility, and the inhibiting of transgressing the norms. But the latter obviously never is a foregone conclusion.

“Perhaps you could explain why you believe that mimetic theory predicts the 50-50 split that afflicts American politics. One might think that it would predict just the opposite, namely, a movement toward unanimity. And I still don't see why you regard hostile polarization as a katechon. It can't be both katechon and accelerant, can it? Either it's holding back the apocalypse or it's hastening its arrival. It can't do both simultaneously. Finally, you apparently believe that the parity between the hostile parties inhibits any transgression of democratic norms. Yet I presented arguments as to why that isn't so, which you have not bothered to address.”

Mimetic rivalry in a post-Christian world cannot be resolved in a unanimity produced by the scapegoat’s sacrifice – and that is the only unanimity predicted by mimetic theory as far as I am concerned. Instead, with social media enveloping us whole, the exact opposite tends to obtain, namely a 50-50 split. That’s how I see it anyway.

Now hostile polarization is a katechon by virtue of its in fact being the obverse side of the impossibility, in this post-Christian climate, of zeroing in on the scapegoat in order to kill him. But it obviously psychologically seems to be the opposite, an accelerant. And obviously it would be that in a pre- or non-Christian setting.

I see it as a very precarious katechon, one that needs to give way to Christian charity before its power is totally spent. It won’t be able to be effective endlessly.

A physical war of all against all within the bounds of a functioning post-Christian liberal democracy? I posit that the 50-50 split is the modern liberal democratic equivalent, and we’re the better for it, for this modern katechon of ours, as idiosyncratic as it may seem.

Obviously understanding the politics of a place, as it unfolds in its actual setting, requires much more than just mimetic theory. But the latter can shed some light on it, and we do not seem to see eye to eye on what it exactly is.

A few more words on katechon in the form of a random quote from a book entitled Thomas Hobbes and Carl Schmitt: The Politics of Order and Myth by the Swedish political scientist Johan Tralau: “Schmitt, by contrast, welcomes a civil war-like state of exception as the katechon of liberal politics responsible for the state’s downfall.”

Here it seems the term katechon takes on yet another, slightly different, signification, yet probably closer to mine than to the orthodox one, if there is such a thing. There seems to be a wide scope to its use in political science these days. Given this you might be right advocating abandoning its referencing in the context of modernity as verging on meaningless. But it is still in use for better or for worse.

To reiterate my position (and still employing the term): in a modern post-Christian liberal democracy mimetic rivalry cannot take on the peace-bestowing form of a unanimity leading to killing a common scapegoat. Unresolved hostility, simmering or erupting, is manifested not as “war of all against all,” but rather as a continuous division within society. It is most pronounced when it splits society almost exactly in half. Paradoxically, the latter also has a katechon-like effect, since doing away with (the rights of) half of a society by the other half is virtually impossible. But if this division shows signs of change in terms of its proportions, or one side becomes less active in expressing their stance, this obviously could happen.

But in an age of social media this reduced vigor on the part of either side is significantly less likely – the social media makes it very easy to be “active”: its users consider themselves active and thus have a stake in the process, and the opposing side is put on notice as to their active involvement.  

“Respect for democratic institutions and human rights can be a katechon, but that in no way requires that the polity be as polarized as it is now.” Of course it does not. But since the polity is polarized, the katechon-like effect comes from this polarization being roughly perfect – for reasons I have already stated and restated several times.

I would agree though that this situation points to a major failure of liberal democracy. Katechon in the form of a near civil war is not only precarious, but also highly detrimental to human psyche. We either close ranks going to an outside war (a horrible prospect; and again this closing ranks today would be very, very iffy), or…?

The only solution is in loving innermost mediation of Jesus Christ, or other figures like Him in other cultural or religious traditions. Weaning ourselves away from scandal would or could be a first step. This might give us back empathy and compassion.

My assertion is that mimetic theory predicts that liberal democracies OF THE MODERN POST-CHRISTIAN SOCIAL-MEDIA-DOMINATED WORLD tend to produce a 50-50 polarization between the major parties and their electorates. This claim cannot be belied by “much history,” because it is a new development.  

“If your argument is only that there's an entire constellation of factors, one of which is the human mimetic propensity, that accounts for the extreme polarization of contemporary American politics, then I would certainly agree.” That is an important part of what I’m saying.

“But doesn't that just amount to saying that this phenomenon has an explanation, one that must necessarily include established facts of human nature? How could it be otherwise?” Yes, again; with a caveat that these “established facts of human nature” for me are first of all and most importantly man’s preponderant mimetic propensity. But it is actually only rarely (or only perfunctorily) enlisted by political scientists in their accounts of what drives man in the political realm. The reason to me is obvious: it might be established, but it is rarely acknowledged as crucial, or is overlooked as to its implications, by many researchers.

“However, unless and until you tell us what that explanation is, you haven't said anything informative.” Now whether it was informative or not, it’s a judgment call. I think that I offer a rather important part of an explanation for the current extreme polarization of modern social-media-dominated liberal democratic societies, something that prevails today not only in America, but one that should be rather obvious for Girardians, not a revelation of any newly-found truth. As such it might not be all that informative. But in my opinion it certainly doesn't obscure anything either.

There are of course other factors contributing to today’s extreme polarization in the West, but I’m not going to delve into them here. As to what they are, that has been addressed on many occasions. Now whether they are more important as compared to man’s rivalrous mimetism in today’s world: we might all benefit if you cared to address that issue yourself.

“Whether what you said was informative depends on whether you've offered a real explanation for our contemporary 50-50 polarization (which would be informative) or whether you're merely saying that mimetic theory can contribute to such an explanation, without telling us what it is (which is not really informative at all). I don't doubt that human mimetic propensities are in play here, as they are in all social phenomena, but they were also in play when our politics was not polarized along a 50-50 split. Why they should split the polity so evenly at this moment in history is precisely the thing that requires an explanation.”

My hypothesis is that what has recently been exacerbating man’s rivalrous mimetism, actually whipping it into a frenzy in the political realm, is the newly ascendant social media. That is the crucial new factor in the mix. As McLuhanites might characterize it, it is a crucial extension of man’s sensorium, one that is making a difference.

Now Western man is still operating in a post-Christian mental climate, one that has led him to develop liberal democracy. But it is quickly becoming overripe now. Respect for it is dwindling in society. Christian love is almost never even mentioned in political discourse, not in a sincere manner, that is. All that is left to restrain us is our tentative ability to hold each other in check.

I hope that it still is too bleak a characterization of our situation. But for how long?

Nov.6, 2016

We are witnessing now what Rene Girard has called escalation to extremes, referring to man’s rivalrous mimetism. What – on top of all the fair grievances people might have – is whipping man’s mimetic propensity into an ever more conflictual frenzy is something that in itself should not be viewed as bad, let alone pernicious: the ease with which everybody can today participate in public discourse – or so it seems to everybody, with social media at everyone’s fingertips.

But in the West this happens against the background of a culture that inhibits overt violent scapegoating and especially any violent ritual sacrifice. This inhibition still seems impressed on Western man’s moral makeup. It is still a force to be reckoned with, and so rivalrous mimetism is apparently denied here its most effective cyclical remedy.

How can Western society somehow, at least for the time being, be reconciled to being incessantly exposed to contradictory forces pulling its members as they are in opposite directions? I posit that this is accomplished via a veritable “miracle,” one seemingly on a par with that of the scapegoat’s sacrifice, or its ritual repetition. And as much counterintuitive as the latter, or, rather, irrational. But in a sense also much inferior to it in terms of what it bestows.

As Rene Girard was wont to say in his last works, with this escalation to extremes Western society will not be able to be peaceful anymore. It will be in fact teetering on the verge of apocalypse, until...? Our hopes are based on the fact that nothing here is predetermined. 

So this tentative “miracle” must only be of a very inferior sort, one that allows us to preserve physical peace, or a semblance of peace, within our bounds (well, almost), but which “peace” is in fact not “peaceful” at all. The vent of an outside war is used from time to time, if not in fact almost continuously, but that is less and less effective back home.

And what is this “miracle,” inferior as it is? True to form, it is paradoxical: polarization in society that is never far from a perfect 50-50 split, right down the middle, so that we can mutually hold each other in check – since we have to be so angrily divided anyway. Various leaders are and will be appearing from now on to lead the way for their respective tribes – or maybe just to epitomize what is happening, to embody this mutual hatred. And thus also to potentially become scapegoats in a brave new world that would ensue then.

God save us from such a miracle! We need agape, Christian charity. We need political leaders who would embody love, whose model would be a kenotic Jesus Christ, or at least the Jesus of the Gospels, with all that this entails.

Nov.8, 2016

The electoral vote for one side, the popular vote for the other… It’s true that this has happened in the past. But…

If my contention of a mimetically- and technologically-induced escalation to extremes in the form of an entrenched 50-50 polarization in society, of a flattening out of the political scene that might actually feel like an “acceleration” beyond safety limits is true, what we will be seeing is a further deepening of a historical trend (see below a Pew Research Center report) towards lower and lower approval ratings of the new President throughout his Presidency among those who did not vote for him – including hardly any benefit of the doubt at the beginning of the term – regardless of any possible conciliatory messages on his part, or policies introduced subsequently.

Paradoxically, what might work toward breaking this polarization would be his disappointed supporters turning on him, which is not implausible given that making good on their real expectations is a very difficult endeavor to pull off – at least in a civilized manner. But then he might become their scapegoat. I consider this scenario as rather unlikely, though – Trump’s charisma is by no means spent and is bound to work miracles on them.

Plus obviously the simple alternative is the bread and circuses of a Mexican wall or deportation operations, deepening the intensity of the polarization. Then there is the danger of overstepping the bounds of liberal democracy in a systemic manner…

But even in the absence of the latter, which I still think is unlikely, in my opinion the 50-50 polarization is here to stay. So can one safely predict now what Trump’s approval ratings among those that did not vote for him might look like throughout his presidency? You bet!

"Views of the president among members of the opposing party have steadily become more negative over time. Our [Pew Research Center's] 2014 report on political polarization documented this dramatic growth in partisan divisions over views of presidential job performance. Over the course of Obama’s presidency, his average approval rating among Democrats has been 80%, compared with just 14% among Republicans.

During Eisenhower’s two terms, from 1953 to 1960, an average of 49% of Democrats said they approved of the job the Republican president was doing in office. During Ronald Reagan’s presidency, an average of 31% of Democrats approved of his job performance. And just over a quarter (27%) of Republicans offered a positive assessment of Clinton between 1993 and 2000. But the two most recent presidents – George W. Bush and Obama – have not received even this minimal level of support."