Photo Credit: SUKIFLI.D / Shutterstock.com
There are copiousness of reasons to bristle at President Trump’s tweets on Puerto Rico, which is pang horribly from Hurricane Maria, not slightest of which is the extremist thought that Hispanics there don’t merit the same diagnosis as mainland white Americans. But in all his fuming, Trump did make another point, and it is worth examining: The bad people of Puerto Rico, he said, should stop angry and start assisting themselves rather than rest on supervision assistance, intimating that their wretchedness was their own fault. He combined for good measure, but with no distinct logic, that the island was servile in financial disaster, as if Maria were some boundless atonement for profligacy. In short, they were losers.
(And Trump didn’t even consider they were the winners of the biggest losers contest, calling Katrina a “real catastrophe” by comparison.)
Why is this worth examining? Because of all the groups that stick America today, the singular many critical one may be not racial, religious, domestic or economic. It may be cultural. America is deeply divided between those who are deliberate (and consider themselves) winners, and those who, like the Puerto Ricans, are deliberate by the winners to be losers. Losers are informative pariahs — the American homogeneous of India’s untouchables. Not insignificantly, of all the many epithets Trump hurls, the many slicing is “loser.”
In this as in many things, Trump is the divider-in-chief. He is not only the many distinguished proponent of a multitude lease between winners and losers; he is its personification: the man who was innate on third bottom and thinks he hit a triple, while sneering at those who onslaught and always strike out.
But distinct so much of what Trump says, this terrible taxonomy isn’t just bloviating. It cuts opposite all the other divisions. It cooking at the fiber of America. It undermines us psychologically and even physically. It creates a cove so far-reaching that it is unbridgeable. And it does so while justifying the repairs it inflicts, permitting the ostensible winners and their associate travelers to repudiate assistance to the needy, as Trump is doubt assistance to Puerto Rico. After all, never forget that losers merit what they get.
Of course, Trump didn’t invent the winner/loser dichotomy. He simply exploited it. This country prolonged had a self-promoting, get-ahead-at-all-costs, dog-eat-dog mentality. It was many bred into us as a new multitude with un-European, egalitarian pretensions where everybody was ostensible to arise as high as his (and it was only his, not her) efforts would take him. The expansion of a blurb enlightenment only strong these impulses. To a incomparable border than Europe, where social bounds were aloft and typical folk had to find other sources of standing than wealth, Americans imputed reduction standing to egghead or artistic achievements than to trading ones. We applaud wealth.
But there used to be, even in Jay Gatsby, the quintessential celebrated consumer, a countervailing subtext. Money couldn’t buy happiness. The best things in life are free. One of the many iconic cinema is Frank Capra’s It’s a Wonderful Life, that Christmas perennial, whose hero, George Bailey, lives a smashing life not since of element success but since of his devout success. He loses income only to learn the cache of the adore of his friends.
This Capraesque thought of success has survived, but it has been increasingly embattled. In the high-flying, greed-is-good ’80s, Ronald Reagan managed to sell the country a poisonous mix of “personal responsibility” and materialism that done the latter the magnitude of success and the former its source, which meant that those who didn’t attain had only themselves to blame. In many ways, Reagan done this feeling to “losers” the very basement of complicated conservatism, however one competence dress it up with fancy, philosophical mumbo jumbo, so the cruelty isn’t utterly as evident. Republicans opt to serve heighten the abounding and serve commission the absolute because, as we have created in an progressing post, the abounding and absolute are prima facie honourable while the bad and unable are not. Just demeanour at them!
A recent Pew survey shows the sheer contrariety between the attitudes of rank-and-file Republicans and Democrats toward the causes of resources and misery in America. Predictably, Republicans charge financial success to operative harder (66 percent) rather than to advantages one competence have (21 percent). Democrats pennyless 29 percent for tough work, 60 percent for advantages. As for poverty, Republicans blamed a miss of bid (56 percent) while Democrats blamed resources generally over one’s control (71 percent). The opening between the parties’ attitudes, by the way, is widening.
But Democrats may be fighting a losing battle. Capraesque values seem superannuated now in a hypercompetitive, hypermaterialistic multitude where the importance on financial success seems to decorate us. Even in renouned culture, it is not homespun cinema like Capra’s that enthuse us, but the Hollywood penumbra around the cinema — the ostensible accessibility of stardom and the apparition of the apparition that we can find luminary in the own lives if we strive the appetite to do so. There is a immeasurable new novel of success, but distinct the self-improvement primers of progressing decades, Dale Carnegie et al., the doctrine isn’t to favour the social skills, but the anti-social ones: to be alpha dogs or masters of the universe. Either that or be, God forbid, losers. Those Capraesque compensations aren’t adequate anymore. You have to be a leader to have any respect, including self-respect.
This is Trump’s message, but it is also increasingly America’s, and a case can be done that his husky populism may have played a smaller role in his election than his picture as a leader — someone whose billions make him defence from his transgressions. In that sense, he was aspirational — an trading luminary who luxuriated in his resources not only privately for his advantage but also culturally for ours. We are, as economist Robert Frank argued in his book of that title, a “winner-take-all” multitude where even the penetrating rewards go to a comparatively tiny shred and the rest are disdained. That is Trump’s society.
But there is a problem with this over the apparent one that a multitude that measures its value in financial terms is a tiny one. The bigger problem is that the winner/loser typology has taken hold at the very time when social immobility has never been aloft in America, where the chances of evading one’s social tier is terribly small. By Trump’s reckoning, many of us are unfailing to be losers. More, we are literally innate losers.
And the bigger problem still is that this seems to have contributed to a massive clarity of inhabitant misery that, we believe, is a cause in all from the opioid difficulty to mental health issues to the decrease in earthy health among a vast shred of Americans. A Harris Poll finds that reduction than a third of Americans call themselves happy, in some measure, reports an analyst, since they feel impotent: Losers.
And a recent UN consult on inhabitant happiness ranks the United States 19th, down from third among OCED countries in 2007. One competence interpretation that Americans are increasingly unfortunate not in annoy of the relations element abundance, but since of it and of the groups that upsurge from it. As the report states: “America’s difficulty is, in short, a social crisis, not an trading crisis.” And the report creates clear, income won’t fix it. Only repair America’s exploding social structure will. We need to stop meditative in terms of a multitude of winners and losers and start meditative in terms of a village formed on other social factors like trust and larger equality. How likely is that?
Whether they are responsive of it or not, Americans compensate a high cost for fixation a winner/loser support on success. It is not that “winners” like Trump censure “losers” for their predicament, bad as that may be. And it is not that some “losers” bay deep, sour resentments against those whom they charge with undermining them, customarily minorities and immigrants in the same leaky boat. It is that the “losers,” in a nifty bit of brainwashing, have schooled to censure themselves. We can only theory how this saps the inhabitant will. Unfortunately, we don’t have to theory how it affects domestic power.
But Donald Trump, who helped create the divide, has a pill for it. In another remarkable act of tone-deaf symbolism, the boss last Sunday dedicated a golf trophy, the President’s Cup, to the victims of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria, including the unfortunates in Puerto Rico. It was accurately what they indispensable in their despair: a winner’s prize for a base-born garland of losers.
Neal Gabler is an author of 5 books and the target of two LA Times Book Prizes, Timemagazine’s non-fiction book of the year, USA Today‘s autobiography of the year and other awards. He is also a comparison associate at The Norman Lear Center at the University of Southern California, and is now essay a autobiography of Sen. Edward Kennedy.