To make sense of Donald Trump’s emerging presidency, it helps to understand the social and economic discontent that put him in office. Harvard Professor Michael Sandel took a hard look at those concerns during a Tuesday afternoon lecture called “Why Trump? What Now?” Sandel argued that Trump’s rise, whatever some people may think of it, was based on legitimate public concerns that weren’t otherwise being addressed.
Addressing a full house at Harvard Law School’s Langdell Hall, Sandel first acknowledged the concerns of many of his listeners. “Many people around the world worry that the American republic is tilting toward tyranny. Many Americans worry too.” Trump’s presidency, Sandel suggested, is most comparable to Richard Nixon’s because both referred to the news media as enemies of the American people. “That phrase has a long and dark provenance,” he said. “It’s been used by Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao — big-league tyrants, as Mr. Trump would call them.”
Yet it’s a mistake, said Sandel, the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Government, to see Trump’s win as just the product of bigotry, or even of economic concerns. “Donald Trump tapped into a wellspring of anxiety and legitimate grievance, to which the mainstream parties have no legitimate answer. The upheavals of 2016 were a political response to a political failure of historic proportions.”
The roots of that failure, he said, go back to the Clinton years, when Democrats did too little to address growing inequality and the influence of money on politics. And though President Barack Obama “showed that progressive politics can carry the language of moral and spiritual purpose,” Sandel thought that wasn’t reflected in his presidency. “He appointed economic advisers who had promoted financial deregulation in the Clinton years. He bailed out the banks in ways that didn’t help the ordinary citizens who lost their homes. This prompted the Occupy movement and the candidacy of Bernie Sanders. And on the right, it prompted the Tea Party movement and the election of Trump.”
Going forward, said Sandel, the author of “Democracy’s Discontent,” progressive movements have a few lessons to process. “They should learn from the populism that has displaced them — not by replicating the xenophobia and nationalism, but by looking at the legitimate concerns with which they are coupled.” In particular, he said, there are four points that need to be examined: income inequality, meritocratic hubris, the dignity of work, and patriotism in the national community.
The first two points, he said, are coupled. Income inequality is now so widespread that the traditional wisdom — that those who work hard and play by the rules will succeed — no longer seems to apply. “This now rings hollow. Americans born to poor families tend to stay poor as adults. Progressives should reconsider the assumption that mobility can compensate for inequality, and reckon more directly with the prospect of inequality and wealth,” said Sandel.
This is tied with the notion of a meritocracy, the sense that winners and losers are both deserving of their status. “The idea that the system rewards hard work encourages the winners to take credit for their merit and virtue, and to look down on those who are not successful,” he said. “Those who are not successful feel that their failure is their own doing. Such attitudes are at the heart of the populist backlash, and Trump’s victory.”
This led in turn to his third point, that society now accords less respect to the work that the working class does. “Society has lavished outsized rewards on hedge fund managers, and the esteem of work in the traditional sense has become fragile and uncertain,” he said. “New technologies may erode the dignity of work, rendering many of today’s jobs obsolete. Political parties need to grapple with the meaning of work and its place in life.”
Finally, he examined the issue of patriotism, specifically the populist fury that immigration has stirred in some. “Workers who feel that their country cares more for cheap goods and labor than the job prospects of its own people feel betrayed,” he said. “This finds intolerant expression: hatred of immigrants and the rhetoric of taking back our country. Liberals reply against the rhetoric, but fail to address the questions: What is the moral significance of a national border? Do we owe more to our citizens than to immigrants? And in a global age, should we aspire to a national identity or a cosmopolitan culture?”
Those questions, he allowed, are not easily answered. “They may seem daunting, but the Trumpian moment underlines the need to rejuvenate our public discourse. Understanding these grievances and responding to them is the most important political challenge of our time.”
When a student asked what Sandel thought was in store for the next four years, he replied that it’s really up to each of us. Yet he warned that protest movements, while often admirable, carry unique risks in this era. One reason is cable news, which conflates crucial issues with trivial ones. “If you watch cable news, you may think that the Trump travel ban, and the Russian involvement in the election, are somehow equivalent to a Trump aide flogging Ivanka’s products.”
A bigger problem, he said, is that protests contribute to an overall sense of chaos that suits Trump’s politics. “The tumult actually strengthens his agents. We saw that happen with the travel ban. The protests there were laudable and admirable. And in previous presidencies, having a rollout beset by chaos has weakened the president’s agenda. For Trump, it doesn’t work that way.”