the current election<u+2014>regardless of its outcome<u+2014>reveals something tragic in the way modern conservatism sits in american life. as an ideology<u+2014>and certainly as a political identity<u+2014>conservatism is less popular than the very principles and values it stands for. there is a presumption in the culture that heartlessness and bigotry are somehow endemic to conservatism, that the rigors of freedom and capitalism literally require exploitation and inequality<u+2014>this despite the fact that so many liberal policies since the 1960s have only worsened the inequalities they sought to overcome. in the broader american culture<u+2014>the mainstream media, the world of the arts and entertainment, the high-tech world, and the entire enterprise of public and private education<u+2014>conservatism suffers a decided ill repute. why? the answer begins in a certain fact of american life. as the late writer william styron once put it, slavery was <u+201c>the great transforming circumstance of american history.<u+201d> slavery, and also the diminishment of women and all minorities, was especially tragic because america was otherwise the most enlightened nation in the world. here, in this instance of profound hypocrisy, began the idea of america as a victimizing nation. and then came the inevitable corollary: the nation<u+2019>s moral indebtedness to its former victims: blacks especially but all other put-upon peoples as well. this indebtedness became a cultural imperative, what styron might call a <u+201c>transforming circumstance.<u+201d> today america must honor this indebtedness or lose much of its moral authority and legitimacy as a democracy. america must show itself redeemed of its oppressive past. how to do this? in a word: deference. since the 1960s, when america finally became fully accountable for its past, deference toward all groups with any claim to past or present victimization became mandatory. the great society and the war on poverty were some of the first truly deferential policies. since then deference has become an almost universal marker of simple human decency that asserts one<u+2019>s innocence of the american past. deference is, above all else, an apology. one thing this means is that deference toward victimization has evolved into a means to power. as deference acknowledges america<u+2019>s indebtedness, it seems to redeem the nation and to validate its exceptional status in the world. this brings real power<u+2014>the kind of power that puts people into office and that gives a special shine to commercial ventures it attaches to. since the <u+2019>60s the democratic party, and liberalism generally, have thrived on the power of deference. when hillary clinton speaks of a <u+201c>basket of deplorables,<u+201c> she follows with a basket of isms and phobias<u+2014>racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and islamaphobia. each ism and phobia is an opportunity for her to show deference toward a victimized group and to cast herself as america<u+2019>s redeemer. and, by implication, conservatism is bereft of deference. donald trump supporters are cast as small grudging people, as haters who blindly love america and long for its exclusionary past. against this she is the very archetype of american redemption. the term <u+201c>progressive<u+201d> is code for redemption from a hate-driven america. so deference is a power to muscle with. and it works by stigmatization, by threatening to label people as regressive bigots. mrs. clinton, democrats and liberals generally practice combat by stigma. and they have been fairly successful in this so that many conservatives are at least a little embarrassed to <u+201c>come out<u+201d> as it were. conservatism is an insurgent point of view, while liberalism is mainstream. and this is oppressive for conservatives because it puts them in the position of being a bit embarrassed by who they really are and what they really believe. deference has been codified in american life as political correctness. and political correctness functions like a despotic regime. it is an oppressiveness that spreads its edicts further and further into the crevices of everyday life. we resent it, yet for the most part we at least tolerate its demands. but it means that we live in a society that is ever willing to cast judgment on us, to shame us in the name of a politics we don<u+2019>t really believe in. it means our decency requires a degree of self-betrayal. and into all this steps mr. trump, a fundamentally limited man but a man with overwhelming charisma, a man impossible to ignore. the moment he entered the presidential contest america<u+2019>s long simmering culture war rose to full boil. mr. trump was a non-deferential candidate. he seemed at odds with every code of decency. he invoked every possible stigma, and screechingly argued against them all. he did much of the dirty work that millions of americans wanted to do but lacked the platform to do. thus mr. trump<u+2019>s extraordinary charisma has been far more about what he represents than what he might actually do as the president. he stands to alter the culture of deference itself. after all, the problem with deference is that it is never more than superficial. we are polite. we don<u+2019>t offend. but we don<u+2019>t ever transform people either. out of deference we refuse to ask those we seek to help to be primarily responsible for their own advancement. yet only this level of responsibility transforms people, no matter past or even present injustice. some 3,000 shootings in chicago this year alone is the result of deference camouflaging a lapse of personal responsibility with empty claims of systemic racism. as a society we are so captive to our historical shame that we thoughtlessly rush to deference simply to relieve the pressure. and yet every deferential gesture<u+2014>the war on poverty, affirmative action, obamacare, every kind of <u+201c>diversity<u+201d> scheme<u+2014>only weakens those who still suffer the legacy of our shameful history. deference is now the great enemy of those toward whom it gushes compassion. societies, like individuals, have intuitions. donald trump is an intuition. at least on the level of symbol, maybe he would push back against the hegemony of deference<u+2014>if not as a liberator then possibly as a reformer. possibly he could lift the word responsibility out of its somnambulant stigmatization as a judgmental and bigoted request to make of people. this, added to a fundamental respect for the capacity of people to lift themselves up, could go a long way toward a fairer and better america. mr. steele, a senior fellow at stanford university<u+2019>s hoover institution, is the author of <u+201c>shame: how america<u+2019>s past sins have polarized our country<u+201d> (basic books, 2015).
trump, clinton and the culture of deference - wsj
noauthor