Me/We/Them
/
olitical scientists are always searching for the “secret” that reveals who’ll be elected President. Traditional speculations are repeated: which way is Ohio going to go? Who’s taller? Which one would you most “like to have a beer with?” It happens every election.
This time around, of course the virus makes everything different. But even so, I think there’s a better way to read the electorate. Think of the presidential choice not in terms of rivals or opposing positions. Instead, I contend it all comes down to voters and pronouns.
Yep, the choice between three little words will determine not just the winner in November, but also the direction of the country. This is a choice between “me”, “we” and “them”. And it will tell everything.
I’ll take them in reverse order to show you what I mean…
THEM
Psychologists argue whether there are six, seven or nine basic human emotions. But “fear” and “anger” make everyone’s list. These feelings are hard-wired into every psyche. If you combine their considerable force, you can create the witch’s brew called hatred.
And we all know who’s perfected that recipe.
No American President has had the audacity to identify supposed threats the way Donald Trump reflexively does. He is truly a maestro of evil. He teaches who to hate; and you already know his litany: immigrants, liberals, Muslims, the mainstream media, Democrats, left-leaning college professors, socialists, the Clintons, the Bushes, all fired former loyalists, anyone in San Francisco or Baltimore, and finally, the authors of the “Chinese virus.”
To those announced foes, you can also add his thinly veiled spite for all minorities and women. Everything is binary: there is no such thing as a good liberal or a bad soldier or police officer.
He has deliberately unleashed the Trumpavirus of hatred.
But in the interest of fairness, he hasn’t been alone in painting all members of certain groups with a single brush. The other leading “populist” this time around—Bernie Sanders—used the technique to good advantage (for a while) in branding every billionaire, giant corporation and members of the “establishment” as evil…even though many people in those classes have done great good.
“Them” is an equal opportunity cudgel.
WE
This word used to be the mandatory play for any aspiring President— “we, the people”, and all that. In any set of campaign messaging, a candidate would always identify the hopes and fears that act to bind the whole country; and then try to convince voters that he or she was the best option to create that consensus.
It’s not working so well anymore—and I’ve got evidence. Leaving aside your own personal preferences for a minute, consider the candidacies of both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. Were they best equipped to bring “we the people” together?
It is indisputable that in terms of both demonstrated experience and operating temperament, each lapped the field they faced. Didn’t matter whether the pivotal issues were foreign or domestic. Hillary wrote and spearheaded her own national health care plan more than a quarter century ago; Biden orchestrated passage of Obamacare alongside Nancy Pelosi. Biden led America’s successful campaigns to neutralize the Iranian nuclear threat as well as organizing the joint Paris Agreement to fight global warming. Clinton was Secretary of State, and watched her husband do the unthinkable—turning national fiscal deficits into surpluses. Biden and Obama joined forces to formulate and pass legislation to cure America’s financial crisis in 2008.
Hillary lost. Biden may win. But each shared a demonstrated mastery of “we”. They succeeded in serving “we, the people”…and voters responded.
ME
Novelist Tom Wolfe first called the 1970’s the “me decade”. Historian Christopher Lasch added an aura of intellectualism to the claim with his The Culture of Narcissism in 1979. Each identified a supposed moral decline among Baby Boomers who moved from revolting against social and political norms in the 1960’s…by retreating into self-absorption a decade or so later. Whatever the merits of the argument, there was a clear distinction between those Boomers and their parents and grandparents, who had no choice but to think on a scale of “we” during both the Great Depression and World War II.
In 2013, Time magazine revived this idea with a cover story called “the Me Me Me Generation”—this time, in reference to millennials. The piece wasn’t a simple screed; the author offered an impressive list of research findings (e.g., three times as many middle school girls would prefer to become a personal assistant to a famous person than become a U.S. Senator).
“…during the pre-virus campaign season, much of what roused millennial voters were promises of things that will benefit them personally; what’s in it for me?”
But let’s be honest. Every generation of older people thinks younger people are slackers. Maybe the prevalence today of social media and smartphones offer more tangible evidence. But there’s an underlying condition that fueled the “me” claims of both the 70’s and today: economic opportunity is going backwards for millions of young people. For them, a perceived aversion to “ambition” or “responsibility” is a simple statement of their reality. And of course, novel coronavirus puts a huge exclamation point on that fear.
Thus, during the pre-virus campaign season, much of what roused millennial voters were promises of things that would benefit them personally; “what’s in it for me?” Free college. Free forgiveness of student loans. Free income. Free health care. Free pre-school care for their yet-to-be born children.
And to be clear, I’m not picking on anybody. To many voters in every demographic group, nearly every challenge today comes with an answer that ends in “me”.
or most of Trump’s presidency, the power of his “them” campaign has been waning in the eyes of everyone except those wearing the red MAGA hats. It isn’t working like it used to; to more and more people, he’s looked like a fool. The more strident and divisive he became, the more people turned away. It’s been more almost 30 years since Rodney King plaintively asked, “Can’t we all just get along?” With Trump, that began to seem more resonant than ever.
In the meantime, Biden’s “we” message convincingly won over the Democratic party primary voters. It seemed poised to prevail in November, as well.
Then the virus arrived. Now Trump is using his daily virus briefings as stand-ins for his manic arena rallies. And in the process, he’s reaching far more people than he ever could in person. Many networks seem obligated to transmit his every word.
By those words, he hollowly mutters “we”—as in, “we’ve got to get through this together.” But he can’t help himself. He attacks. “We” could be a powerful message for him. But from his mouth, the word doesn’t ring true.
Unfortunately, he’s got that last pronoun at his disposal. He’s ready to use the “me” option in the most cynical of ways. Not “me” in reference to himself—although there’s no shortage of self-praise for his own efforts.
As the crisis continues to build, citizens logically are left to wonder, “what am I going to do?” Who gets the test kits to “me”? Who sends the checks to “me”? People would be crazy not to worry about these things. Sure, we want the best for everyone; but most of all, we want safety and security for our own families; for “me”.
And there you’ll find Donald Trump, behind that podium bearing the presidential seal. When voters ask, “who’s there to help me?”…Trump will stand with a Cheshire cat smile, his litany of lies, and an offering palm. The virus is the calamity that might save his presidency.
The unenviable task for Biden and all Democrats will be forging and transmitting a more convincing version of “we” than what Trump is cynically teasing every day.
Unfortunately, in terms of appeal to voters, the tactical shift by Trump from “them” to “me” gets even more attractive in a time of crisis.
And it only makes him stronger.
Have a comment or thought on this? Just hit the Your Turn tab here or email us at mailbox@cascadereview.net to have your say.
