In 1990, attorney and author Mike Godwin introduced the world to Godwin’s law (now, apparently, an official part of the Oxford English Dictionary). Raised initially as a clever rhetorical instrument to hedge arguments against absurdity, Godwin’s law is boiled down to the inappropriate use of any comparison between anyone and Adolf Hitler. Just last December, Godwin raised the point again because of the hullabaloo over Donald Trump – yes, he might feel like Adolf Hitler sometimes when he speaks but, let’s remember, the real Hitler killed millions upon millions of innocent people. Trump hasn’t done that. Yet.
As I’ve tried to wrap my brain around the appeal of Donald Trump – working my way through all of the social science theories about angst and anger, low income and low education people, etc. – I’m wondering how a hyper-patriotism might explain a few of the reasons why otherwise rational people resonate with Trump.
Surely, eight years of President Obama has sent Republican faithful into fits of rage, stupors of thought, conspiracy theories and, even, surrender. Deeply serious challenges seem to bring out the crazy in people and wonderful national virtues, such as patriotism, often can get caught up in the mix. In this case, you’re not a real patriot unless you oppose the man, Barack Obama, and not just his policies.
Donald Trump is the flip side of that coin. If one side of this hyper-patriotism insists on demonizing a leader, the other side can deify a leader. Donald Trump actually remarked publicly that he is so wildly popular that he could shoot someone and not lose one vote. I saw a Facebook comment the other day saying that the only thing that really matters about Trump is his opposition to immigration – as long as he stood firm on immigration, his numerous other sins would be forgiven.
I think an irrational fear of immigration, or nativism, is driving the modern-day abuse of patriotism – and Donald Trump, and Ted Cruz to some degree, are its political beneficiaries. And I should mention that many leaders of the Tea Party movement oppose Trump. But few, if any, oppose both Trump and Cruz. Immigration is a rallying point for the new hyper-patriotism and, given all of the “solutions” to immigration offered by Trump and Cruz – such as rounding up millions of people, tearing apart mixed families, building walls, tagging and tracking Muslims, etc. – who is surprised that Trump can say anything, no matter how outrageous, unfounded or unworkable, and remain popular?
Likewise, surely Mike Godwin might give some political observers a pass on the Hitler comparisons – at least give us a break when we compare Trump to Benito Mussolini (the ultimate fascist manager who made the trains run on time)!
One of my favorite intellectuals, the late Hugh Nibley, has written instructively on the uses and abuses of patriotism. Nibley writes, “Patriotism is what Aristotle calls a ‘good of first intent,’ a thing good and desirable in itself, such as love, joy, or eternal life, whose value needs no argument. Hence to ‘use’ patriotism, treating it as a tool rather than a precious jewel, is to abuse it…The business of patriotism is to open doors; the abuse of patriotism shuts them.” There is nothing in the immigration rhetoric of either Trump or Cruz to suggest a spirit of welcoming anyone. In fact, in Trump’s case, across a spectrum of comments, he might be the least welcoming public persona I’ve ever witnessed.
Nibley says that patriotism is an “emotional surge,” a “gut feeling,” and “the generous impulse of those ‘who more than self their country love and mercy more than life.’” No wonder Trump can say anything and his supporters don’t care. But in the Trump context, as Nibley points out generally, “the moment [patriotism] becomes calculating and contrived its nature is perverted.”
I believe that the nativist impulse against immigration today is perverted patriotism. And, to the degree that Trump represents that impulse, it’s okay to invoke the names of tyrants past, despite Godwin’s law.
I’m Paul Mero. Thanks for listening.
