Great convo! Agree about Trump veering from respectable norms etc—but have to also say there has been a push away from “respectability politics” and “challenging norms” from other sides as well, which I have seen in academia.
I'll skip the throat clearing. Trumpism is not just random norm-destruction; it is a retaliatory politics that became plausible after many people concluded that progressive elites were already breaking norms while calling their own norm breaking morality. A good example is Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard: the cultural message for years was that anti-discrimination was sacred, yet discrimination could suddenly be defended when it served an approved hierarchy of claims. To many people, that looked like a norm being enforced selectively rather than universally; this was among many cracks that surfaced.
That helps explain why Trumpism often presents itself as a counter move to selective moral enforcement. If one side is seen as deciding which groups count, which grievances deserve public reverence, which language is mandatory, and which departures from neutrality are justified by “higher justice,” then the populist response is almost predictable: fine, then when we are in power we will openly decide who matters, whose losses count, and what rules apply. In that sense, Trumpism feels less like a clean break from elite politics than an extension of the same discretionary logic simply from a different point of view.
This seems to be predicted by Pinker’s point. Norms held together by common knowledge can unravel once enough people see that they are not truly binding, only selectively enforced; in Pinker's words, when I know that you know that I know that you don't really believe what you are saying applies to everyone equally (including me when I don't fit in your approved categories) then I'm free to describe the new norm. What happens after that, society does not instantly arrive at better norms; it enters a period of normative drift, where old restraints weaken before new ones are stabilized. Add to that the probability that once every disagreement is rhetorically elevated to slavery, fascism, or existential oppression, that the political system will lose its sense of proportion, then at that point, every side begins to feel licensed to use extraordinary means. That may be one of the most destructive habits of contemporary politics and it's precisely were Pinker's theories would find us. And that is why this conversation was so valuable. Thanks Glenn and team!
Great convo! Agree about Trump veering from respectable norms etc—but have to also say there has been a push away from “respectability politics” and “challenging norms” from other sides as well, which I have seen in academia.
I'll skip the throat clearing. Trumpism is not just random norm-destruction; it is a retaliatory politics that became plausible after many people concluded that progressive elites were already breaking norms while calling their own norm breaking morality. A good example is Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard: the cultural message for years was that anti-discrimination was sacred, yet discrimination could suddenly be defended when it served an approved hierarchy of claims. To many people, that looked like a norm being enforced selectively rather than universally; this was among many cracks that surfaced.
That helps explain why Trumpism often presents itself as a counter move to selective moral enforcement. If one side is seen as deciding which groups count, which grievances deserve public reverence, which language is mandatory, and which departures from neutrality are justified by “higher justice,” then the populist response is almost predictable: fine, then when we are in power we will openly decide who matters, whose losses count, and what rules apply. In that sense, Trumpism feels less like a clean break from elite politics than an extension of the same discretionary logic simply from a different point of view.
This seems to be predicted by Pinker’s point. Norms held together by common knowledge can unravel once enough people see that they are not truly binding, only selectively enforced; in Pinker's words, when I know that you know that I know that you don't really believe what you are saying applies to everyone equally (including me when I don't fit in your approved categories) then I'm free to describe the new norm. What happens after that, society does not instantly arrive at better norms; it enters a period of normative drift, where old restraints weaken before new ones are stabilized. Add to that the probability that once every disagreement is rhetorically elevated to slavery, fascism, or existential oppression, that the political system will lose its sense of proportion, then at that point, every side begins to feel licensed to use extraordinary means. That may be one of the most destructive habits of contemporary politics and it's precisely were Pinker's theories would find us. And that is why this conversation was so valuable. Thanks Glenn and team!