Dan Cloak

US Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene and George Santos showed up in NYC, outside Donald Trump’s arraignment, on this day, April 4, which happens to be the 55^th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King.

Here is the key fact that most people on our side—the side for democracy and against authoritarianism—will miss about the spectacle.

I could start by saying “The lying is the point,” which is to say that Trump and Greene and Santos and their supporters don’t really believe what they claim to believe. They know it’s all a lie, that Trump is a liar, and what they are defending, there on the streets, is not so much the content of the lie, it is the act of lying itself.

I believe I know this from having grown up in the 1960s south, where everything that white southerners had to say about Black people—most of it horrendously racist, of course—was not really a matter of belief, but a matter of saying, like a school song or an incantation. The act was to repeat the lies; the purpose of the act was to have the power to be gained by repeating the lies. The falsity of what was being repeated gave the act more power, not less, because it takes a commitment to tell a lie, and the power derived from telling the same lie all together is what has held their version of America together since before its founding. The point of repeating the lie is not to express a mistaken belief, nor to convince anyone that the lie is truth but—much more effectively—to entice and browbeat others to join them in repeating a lie known to be false. This is a necessary feature of a truly brutal society.

That is why the small but dedicated crowd of pro-Trumpers gathered outside the arraignment was yelling “USA! USA!” It is a contentless chant, signifying nothing, and the phrase is equally available to either side, except that in context, as it is chanted at rallies and in stadiums, this is what “USA! USA!” means: We uphold the lie of white racial supremacy, even when we know that it is a lie, because we know the lie, and this group repetition of the lie, is what maintains our political power.

By the way, this is why those who don the trappings of red-staters—such as guys who equip their pickup truck with a gun rack and confederate flag sticker and listen to country music and speak with a drawl—this is why those guys come off as authentic. Almost everything they believe is a lie, and they know that what they believe is a lie. But they are genuine in the sense that they are fully committed to upholding their lies, to the point of never showing any doubt, which is easy for them, because their deeply held emotional commitment to lying effectively crowds out any other thoughts they might have about this subject, or just about any other subject for that matter.

Compare this to the painful-to-witness inauthenticity of characters like David Brooks. Brooks knows, just as well as any gun-toting Trumper does, that the ideology of white supremacy is a lie, but instead repeating this lie in a simple and earnest way, endeavors to find some way to make it palatable—to top the lie with enough refined sugar to make it pass for the truth. For example, when the extreme right targeted “wokeness,”— known and defined by both sides as “…the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them” (to quote an aide to DeSantis)—Brooks recharacterized and redefined “woke” as a tool of elite Democrats. In this way he aims for a middle ground, neither too far left nor too far right, where he can enjoy the power of the lie and the mantle of the truth at the same time. This inauthenticity is why the so called “moderate” right has no political traction at present.

Which brings me to lessons for our side, the side for democracy and against authoritarianism. The Trumpers are making a last stand, or feel they are making a last stand, for the cause of white supremacy and against the cause of equality. Fact is, no one really knows what a post-white America will look like or be like. This uncertainty can make us falter, hedge our bets, step back when we should stand up. And I see it in my cohort, among progressives generally: a desire to return to some kind of imagined normalcy, sometimes a personal flight to safety, or a dismissal of politics or political possibilities.

But we can win only by finding truths and advancing those truths together, and with common fervor. It’s a hard job, but not impossible. Perhaps we can start by each looking at our own fears, our own individual hesitation to be bold and radical in asserting a social justice agenda, and by reassessing our strategy toward most white Americans, who continue to stand firmly for lying and for the lie of white supremacy.

It does no good to tell the truth to a knowing liar. Instead, it is necessary to convince them of the futility of continuing to repeat what they know is a lie.

Republicans: Really, ban gas stoves? Outrageous! Intrusive!

Democrats: We’re not really proposing to ban gas stoves. Well, at least not right away.

The Republicans’ outrage is performative. The Democrats’ response is weak, unconvincing, entrapped.

What causes this? It’s not just the Democrats’ messaging, as bad as it’s been. We’re working from a bad paradigm, an outdated framework for our understanding.

The paradigm for environmental health, and environmental protection, posits an ideal, “healthy” condition. The news is almost always about a departure from the ideal.

Like the effect of gas stoves on asthma. The story? One in eight cases of childhood asthma are caused by gas stoves.

Start with the Democrats’ well-meaning initiative. Yes, gas stoves contribute to indoor air pollution. Indoor air pollution disproportionately affects children in disadvantaged households and disadvantaged communities, because they are also affected by other sources of air pollution and respiratory stress. Facts.

But the narrative is based in grievance. Children ought to be protected from harm. They are not protected, and something must be done.

What if we placed the facts in a different narrative? Like:

“Technology for cooking at home continues to improve. Not that long ago, houses burned wood or coal for cooking. Piped-in gas was a big improvement: better air quality, fewer fires. Now we have hoods and ventilation and better yet, electric induction stoves that cook better and faster, and are safer and more convenient. Research shows that these technologies are very effective in protecting children’s lungs.

“It’s unfair and concerning that, while many families are investing in new technologies, others are unable to enjoy these benefits to their safety, to their health, and especially children’s health. We are looking for ways to accelerate the transition to healthier indoor air that everyone can enjoy.”

Same facts, but a different story—one that celebrates and motivates progress. And is much harder to oppose.

Why are “progressives” resistant to the narrative of progress and so immersed in our narrative of threat and grievance?

My take: Our privileged intelligentsia, even the most liberal of us, have a class-based bias against progress and change. The epoch of our privilege is waning. The demise of our privilege is hastened with each shift to new modes of producing and living: globalization, automation, and free flow of information. We tend to deny the massive progress in the overall human condition in recent decades, and substitute our own fears, when telling the story.

It’s hard to express how much I admire Nancy Pelosi in this moment.

Her supporters—Democrats—have been divided and unreliable, summer soldiers, the kind of allies that are quick with a savage criticism, and who were often clueless about her accomplishments and what it took to achieve them.

Her detractors—Republicans—are fascists so extreme that, when one of them invaded her home to attack her, and maimed her husband, the others, united in their hatred (and being, as Republicans, quite uniform in personal character and ethics) could not find it in themselves to convincingly condemn the act.

So I regard Ms. Pelosi from that perspective, as a person who found herself called to service, and served, and did so almost solely by drawing on personal strength and commitment. The most public of public figures, she stood alone in the arena, and the least the rest of us can do is to credit her accomplishments fairly.

I will see a doctor when I need to, and she deserves my gratitude for that, as she does for getting me and all of us the aid we needed to survive the pandemic. And for renewing our nation’s infrastructure over the next decade. And for turning the tide in the effort to save the planet from climate disaster.

Go ahead, condition my praise, and criticize. Just take a moment to consider how that reflects on you, rather than her.

Chris Ware’s drawing for the cover of the July 4 edition of the New Yorker promotes a illusory view of our politics. However, the drawing’s title shows the truth–perhaps unwittingly.

The drawing would have it that we are two tribes or subcultures, with our different slogans and clashing preferences in front-yard landscaping. This is illusion.

Consider that Black people, nationally, oppose Republican policies and Republican leaders by about 10 to 1. The divide is not among Americans generally, but among white Americans. The divide is not about slogans or landscaping; it is about whether Black people should have political power.

The drawing’s title, “House Divided” reveals the truth. The reference is to Lincoln:

“A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.”

Indeed. In the coming months or years, we become a multiracial democracy–or regress into an authoritarian state based on white supremacy. That is the divide represented, and hidden, in the drawing.

Biden, at the end of his speech in Warsaw: “For god’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.”

It was so transgressive. There are very good reasons to avoid calling for regime change in another country—reasons like respecting national sovereignty, like avoiding WWIII, like not stirring up recollections of how the U.S. habitually, over its entire history, has dictated to other peoples who should be running their affairs.

But Biden is a master of transgressive speech, and I admire when he uses it.

Remember when passing the Affordable Care Act was a Big Fuckin’ Deal? Biden’s whispered “gaffe” was “accidentally” picked up by the microphones. His F-bomb moved the headlines about the event to above the fold and put then-VP Biden at the center of the news. A very effective “gaffe” indeed.

Biden knows state protocol, and he knows history, and there is no way he didn’t get the import and significance of what he said yesterday in the very moment he was saying it.

So it was deliberate, and to what intended effect?

Well, what’s the point of being transgressive?

One, in attracts attention.

Two, it is a way of protesting business as usual. In this case, it is a way of saying that speechifying and diplomacy and supplying humanitarian aid and even supplying weapons are all together not enough, and we all know it.

Three, it’s doing a threatening dance, and I don’t mean that in a bad sense—this is high-stakes communication. It’s saying I’m a little crazy; I break rules; you don’t know what I might do next. It’s for sure scary to play that game between nuclear powers, but along with the first two points, that’s why it needs to be done. You have to break through the mundane, and more to the point, you have to break through the fear and the self-repression that comes from fear.  

Of course his aides walked it back. They had to, and they needed to play that role. But for the figure in charge, at the center, for the man in the arena, the transgression is a key part of what he needed to do: Hold the world’s attention, convey that he knows what we’re doing isn’t enough, and break through the fear.

I doubt he gave his aides any warning.