One Hundred and Ninety Three

I read an article about civility today.  I assume it was written, and published, because so many pundits claim civility has disappeared in the age of Trump.  But as usual plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. 

The difference between Trump and his predecessors is superficial, a change of style rather than substance.  He’s more vulgar, but no more corrupt than they were.  He merely does and says publicly what they did and said privately.  That seems to be what his fans like most about him, and what his critics dislike most.

Trump's fans know he's a con man.  They assume all politicians are con men, that what our superiors call democracy is a con.  They say they like Trump because he “tells it like it is”, by which they apparently mean he doesn’t pretend to be anything other than a con man. 

The article was mostly a summary of Norbert Elias’ The Civilising Process which, if I remember correctly, is mostly about the civilising of France, and how things that were done publicly in medieval France later became private.  It even quotes Elias’ famous description of ancien régime aristocrats who, while conversing in the halls of Versailles would step aside, undo their breeches and urinate or even defecate publicly.  Such behavior was of course possible only for people with servants who clean up their messes, like dogs with owners who follow them about with 'pooper scoopers'.  Not even the most vulgar of Trump’s fans would relieve themselves in public, because they’re the people who have to clean up the messes made by their supposed superiors.

Ancien régime aristocrats were regarded by their underlings, and regarded themselves, as civilised because they lived in the city and had the wealth and education to participate in its culture, unlike the peasants who lived and worked on their country estates.  But they didn't become what Elias regarded as civilised until they began doing privately what they used to do publicly.  

Elias claimed French aristocrats became more circumspect because of the growing power of the king.  After the Fronde, the formerly independent aristocrats accepted that the king was now their master, and became his fawning courtiers.  I suspect the change in their behavior was due as much, if not more, to their growing fear of the canaille.  The philosophes taught the aristocrats that the ancien régime was doomed.  They became fawning courtiers because they hoped the king was powerful enough to protect them from the canaille.

Ancien régime aristocrats didn't treat their underlings with contempt because they were powerful.  They did it because they had become powerless.  Confident people don’t remind their underlings, or themselves, that they’re powerful by treating others with contempt.  On the contrary, they demonstrate their power by being kind to those they regard as their inferiors precisely because they are inferior, and can’t be judged by the same standard as equals.

Most Americans are powerless, and Trump’s fans are the most powerless of all, the canaille whom even the pettiest bourgeois feels entitled to look down on with contempt.  There used to be no one lower than these people, but now they feel superior to everyone else because their supposed champion defeated the American aristocracy to become president.

I don't know what they’ll do when their Lord of Misrule’s presidency is over, but I'm sure they won't rebel.  Trump's success hasn't taught them that change is possible.  On the contrary, it's taught them what Obama's success taught the petit bourgeoisie: plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.