If America is ripe for Trump as a tyrant what does that say about Obama?

In a provocative essay, Andrew Sullivan suggests America is an extreme democracy ripe for tyranny[1].  America’s multiculturalism, sexual freedom, disrespect for any authority or expertise and intolerance of any inequality—whether earned or natural—characterise its extremism. These characteristics challenge the previous moderate democratic order the result is a descent into public domain dominated by an incoherent mess of views, identities, and demands. From this incoherent public domain, a tyrant emerges with a promise to defend the old order and return stability to the public domain. From this promise or intent, he will find supporters in those who want to protect the old order as well as those dislike the extreme democracy.

Sullivan comes to this conclusion via Plato, the ancient Greek philosopher, who provides his analytical focus. Plato, in his famous dialogue, the Republic, described a process by which an extreme democracy emerges and with it a tyrant to change a democracy into a tyranny. Sullivan relies on this analysis to explain Donald Trump’s emergence as a viable candidate for the presidency. He his analysis rests on three premises. First, he accepts that Trump fits Plato description: a member of the elite who takes his chance to rule by using the mob who support him to his attack rival elites such as the wealthy. Second, Trump, like the tyrant, promises to bring order to the incoherency of the extreme democracy. Third, America is an extreme democracy ripe for tyranny.

OK, OK, we know you don’t like Trump, but why do you hate America?

Sullivan wants us to focus on Trump, for he despises him and what he offers. Despite his prejudice, it provides no lasting insight for his essay remains at this superficial level of personalities. He avoids the difficult questions of why or how democracy changed, what motivates Trump, and why America’s political institutions have seemingly become fragile to the point of collapse.

What marks the change from democracy to extreme democracy? Sullivan describes the characteristics but does not address the causes. To say it changed has to indicate that it had a turning point or a point of departure from when it stopped being a democracy and became an extreme democracy. A democracy and an extreme democracy are both marked by freedoms. How do the freedoms or the extent of the freedom differentiate a democracy from an extreme democracy?

Sullivan does not look within the democracy, or Trump, to find what animates either one. He remains on the surface of symptoms and outcomes where many freedoms and the appearance of political, social, and moral incoherence which has made many people fearful. Perhaps it is what lies beneath the surface that scares him. 

A superficial analysis overlooks what motivates a tyrant or an extreme democracy

If he focused on what animates democracy, and Trump, he might have seen a different, darker, more disturbing message. Trump is only a symptom and is not a symptom of an extreme democracy but a potential harbinger. The deeper problem, and the more difficult problem, is how to reform American democracy, if it can be reformed, to avoid the extreme future that Trump appears to foreshadow. Even if Trump is defeated in this election we will not see America return to a healthy democracy that is less susceptible to the fate of becoming an extreme democracy unless the sources of extremism are addressed. However, such an analysis is problematic if not impossible within his essay for the fundamental problem is within his essay—America is not yet, nor is it close to becoming, an extreme democracy.

America is not an extreme democracy even if Andrew Sullivan wants it to be

Sullivan’s argument is based on the premise that America is an extreme democracy. He believes that the symptoms he describes indicate that extremism. In this analysis, he is mistaken and he is mistaken because he has relied on Plato for his analytical framework and not Aristotle. Had Sullivan relied on Aristotle rather than Plato he would have seen that an extreme democracy is a tyranny that lacks a tyrant. That America is not an extreme democracy, for it is not tyrannical, helps us to understand why it is not waiting for a tyrant. With Aristotle he would have seen an extreme democracy is tyrannical which is why it gives birth to or is receptive to a tyrant. Trump is not a tyrant in waiting, for he can only be a tyrant if he taps into the tyrannical ethos of an extreme democracy. Sullivan confuses great freedoms and great discontent, political incoherence, and political factions for extreme democracy. In other words, the political uncertainty with great freedoms does not indicate that extreme democracy exists. What America appears to suffer from is each of these elements; symptoms of extreme democracy, an apparent tyrant in waiting, oligarchic support for the apparent tyrant, without the necessary ingredient: the extreme democracy or the extreme democracy that has become tyrannical. Aristotle, who lived through extreme democracy, was able to describe its characteristic in his book the Politics.[2]

 

Sullivan has confused social media for what is

If Sullivan had considered Aristotle, he would see that America only has the shadow of extreme democracy, as do all democracies. The extreme democracy is more prevalent on social media than in the public domain. Without these characteristics, it cannot be considered an extreme democracy. If it cannot be considered an extreme democracy, then America is not yet ripe for tyranny. No matter what we may think personally of Trump, he is not a tyrant waiting to emerge from within an extreme democracy. He may be something else, but he is not going to rule as a tyrant nor is he able to draw on extreme democracy.

If we are to accept that America is an extreme democracy and Trump is a tyrant in waiting, what does it say about the incumbent?

The article is an extract from the full essay which can be found here: https://lawrenceserewicz.wordpress.com/2016/06/19/andrew-sullivan-trump-and-extreme-democracy/

---

[1] http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny-donald-trump.html

[2] Politics, Book 5: 1312b 30 -1314b 18 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0058%3Abook%3D5

Peter Thiel and the post-modern “death squads” that hunt the truth.

Recently we learned that Peter Thiel, the tech billionaire, spent $10 million to fund a lawsuit against Gawker Media. He claimed he was doing this because he was interested in the case, he believed the media has become too intrusive, and he wanted to extract a measure of revenge for a previous story, in 2007, which he claimed had disclosed his sexuality.

 On the surface, we find what we want to see.

On the surface, it appears he has a case since Gawker media did publish Terry Bollea’s (Hulk Hogan) sex-tap and they did publish the story about Mr Thiel’s sexuality. If we look closer at the case, his story starts to fragment if not dissolve. First, his sexuality was well known within the community.[1] To put it bluntly, if Gawker heard about it, then it was common knowledge within the relevant communities by that point. Second, his belief in the public interest seem slight since he selects cases where he can punish the media outlets who he finds objectionable. Were he to be doing this on a public interest, rather than his private interest,  he would take cases against the giant media companies, such as 21^st Century Fox, NBC, CBS, or ABC instead of relatively small internet based news organisation.

 Lawsuits, suppressed news, and digital denial of service the new threats to truth

What he has done is to extract revenge against a company so that he can silence them. More to the point, he wants to send a message or teach a lesson to other journalists that if they write anything that he disagrees with or finds personally offensive, he can launch an expensive legal assault either on his own behalf or on the “victim’s” behalf. In effect, we are witnesses in Silicon Valley the birth of a post-modern death squad. Whereas Putin uses assassins, political thugs, or the judicial system to silence his political opponents, Thiel has used a squad of lawyers for the same effect. What remains to be seen is whether he supplements that legal hit squad with a technological one that would harass and disrupt the computer systems, networks, and data of media organisations and individual journalists. 

 In Silicon Valley the powerful take care of each other at the public and the law's expense.

We know that Facebook routinely altered its “trending” list to remove stories from conservative political news sources.[2] Mr Thiel is on Facebook’s board of directors.[3] Who can be assured that specific news sources or even journalists will not be vetted from Facebook timelines at the request of Facebook friends like Mr Thiel. If we consider that Google and Apple led a cartel of companies who colluded to fix wages within Silicon Valley, it does seem possible that they would cooperate against media targets this dislike or find overly intrusive in their business affairs.[4] As for targeting individual journalist, it is important to note that Steve Jobs demanded that Google fire an employee and Google fired them.[5] Their attitude to rules, morals, and ethics is not surprising. The powerful often believe they should be beyond the rules and the Silicon Valley elite do not like to be challenged nor held to account in ways that they cannot control.[6] Or, in the words of Friedrich Nietzsche Beyond Good and Evil for they write the rules for themselves.

 Does it matter who finances the lawsuit if the verdict is guilty? Yes it does.

Now some would argue that it does not matter who finances the case against Gawker. The only question is whether they are guilty or innocent. Such an approach appears deeply, almost dangerously, naïve if not disingenuous.[7] The issue has not been resolved since Gawker still has to appeal yet they have already faced expensive legal bills to defend the case and their appeal. The approach is naïve since it forgets what happened to Arthur Anderson. They were found guilty of fraud for having shredded documents, which lead to the company dissolving overnight. The reality, though, was that Arthur Andersen won their appeal as the conviction was overturned and retrial ordered.

On June 15, 2002, Andersen was convicted of obstruction of justice for shredding documents related to its audit of Enron, resulting in the Enron scandal. Although the conviction was later reversed by the Supreme Court, the impact of the scandal combined with the findings of criminal complicity ultimately destroyed the firm.[8] [emphasis added]

The only problem was that the company was dead so there was nothing left to sustain. The damage was done and we will never know if the charge would have been sustained in a retrial.[9] Gawker, and any media company, faces the same problem. By the time they appeal, the damage is done and they cannot recover even if their case is overturned on appeal. 

 Can you speak the truth if it upsets the powerful? Apparently not if you work in Silicon Valley.

What is at stake is the ability to speak the truth. Peter Thiel and other technology billionaires want to destroy this ability.[10] Thiel has no time for the possibility of truth. He is too powerful to allow the truth to be spoken so if he says that X is not X but is to be said as Y, then he expects, and will enforce, that X is Y or that X is not to be spoken of, it will not be spoken of. In this desire, he is no different from any tyrant such as Kim Jong-un who also wants to be “free” of the truth or anything that limits his life. Hannah Arendt, in her essay Truth and Politics, warned of such a threat.

…[N]o human world destined to outlast the short life span of mortals within it will ever be able to survive without men willing to do what Herodotus was the first to undertake consciously – namely, λéγειν τα éoντα, to say what is. No permanence, no perseverance in existence, can even be conceived of without men willing to testify to what is and appears to them because it is.[11] [Emphasis added]

The same inability to tolerate the truth is displayed by Donald Trump. Does it come as a surprise that Thiel supports Trump’s bid for the presidency? Even though commentators may wish to agree with Thiel as they find Gawker and other tabloid news sites as problematic and beneath their dignity, they have to confront a terrible truth. The truth has become fragile in the digital domain for it is not based on nature or the given; it only exists by what is created within the digital domain in men’s’ minds.[12] She was worried about the potential that a lie would rule us. There is no need to lie or defend a lie, when you can create a “truth” and suppress anyone who wants to tell the truth. In this development, what you are seeing, is a new threat, the post-modern “death squads” who will kill the truth since anyone who speaks it will be denied access, harried with lawsuits, and find they are attacked by colleagues who do not wish to suffer their fate.

 The public interest is being used to further a private interest and democracy is at stake

We may wish to believe that this is one public interest, the story and the first amendment, against another, the rule of law. To focus on that level, misses the role of power and the event’s future consequence. The law is only reflecting what the wealthy can pursue in their private interest not in the public interest. A public interest, as such is democratic and we know that Mr Thiel does not like democracy.

“Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.”[13]

Our choice is whether we revise the laws to allow easier redress for such stories, thus pre-empting such lawsuits, or we allow the powerful to decide what is fit for print and in the public interest. In either case, Thiel has achieved what he set out to do, he has made the press hesitant, fearful, and deferential.  

---

[1] Here is how the author of the 2007 story describes it.

“Owen Thomas, the former editor of Valleywag who wrote the article about Mr. Thiel, offered his side of the story in a telephone interview on Wednesday. “As I’ve said before, I did not ‘out’ Peter Thiel,” said Mr. Thomas, now business editor at The San Francisco Chronicle. “I did discuss his sexuality, but it was known to a wide circle who felt that it was not fit for discussion beyond that circle. I thought that attitude was retrograde and homophobic, and that informed my reporting. I believe that he was out and not in the closet.” [emphasis added]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-thiel-tech-billionaire-reveals-secret-war-with-gawker.html?_r=0

So far from being a question of outing him, the article and the underlying issue was the approach within the community to whether public figures need to be open about what is known within the community. In that sense, it was less about an action to harm Thiel by publishing his sexuality than an issue within the community of how high profile figures within the community enjoy the benefits of the community without bearing the responsibility they have from their public stature. If Mr Thiel wanted to extract revenge, perhaps he needed to assess his relationship with the community.

[2] http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006

[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36433860

[4] https://pando.com/2014/03/22/revealed-apple-and-googles-wage-fixing-cartel-involved-dozens-more-companies-over-one-million-employees/

[5] http://time.com/42322/steve-jobs-chilling-response-after-getting-a-google-employee-fired/

[6] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/27/silicon-valley-billionaires-peter-thiel-gawker-first-amendment-journalism

[7] John Podhoretz betrays an almost libertarian belief that it does not matter who funds it or the consequences of the context so long as the apparent logic seems to fit. https://twitter.com/jpodhoretz/status/735876265815769089

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen

[9] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-368.ZS.html

[10] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/27/silicon-valley-billionaires-peter-thiel-gawker-first-amendment-journalism

[11] TRUTH AND POLITICS by Hannah Arendt Originally published in The New Yorker, February 25, 1967, and reprinted with minor changes in Between Past and Future (1968) and The Portable Hannah Arendt edited by Peter Baier (2000) and Truth:Engagements Across Philosophical Traditions edited by Medina and Wood (2005) https://idanlandau.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/arendt-truth-and-politics.pdf p.1

[12] Arendt warned of the modern threat to the truth by suggesting it was what men thought it was.

“The modern age, which believes that truth is neither given to nor disclosed to but produced by

the human mind.” p.2

The post-modern era has become one where it is not so much that truth is only what is in men’s minds it is what is created or presented digitally since it shapes and presents its own reality, as reality, within which men can believe reality that contradicts this is distorted and not the truth. One only has to see how the social media age allows lies to be told and the truth suppressed easily. In effect, the digital domain becomes the new cave beneath the cave for it is not simply in man’s mind, it is his “reality” that shapes his mind that has become distorted.

The digital domain allows the truth to be changed while nature, as given, cannot be changed.

Arendt ends her essay with a positive note and one we have to remember was written before the social media age:

“Conceptually, we may call truth what we cannot change; metaphorically, it is the ground on which we stand and the sky that stretches above us.” p.19

[13] http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian

C.S. Lewis on the tyranny of self-righteous busybodies

"It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

—C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock