The Politics of Shame

Photo by Kyle Ryan on Unsplash

There’s a lot of handwringing going on over the possibility of a Trump victory in 2024. So much so that one might be forgiven for assuming that everything possible is being done to minimize the likelihood that it actually comes to pass. But this assumption would be a mistake.

Trump, occasionally referred to as “Teflon Don,” has a superpower. He is, as far as we can tell, impervious to shame. As Ezra Klein wrote for Vox in 2017, “You cannot embarrass Donald Trump. You cannot back him down with questions that make other candidates buckle. And the crowd loves him for it. They love him because he does not back down. The fact that Trump doesn't back down is the core of Trumpism.”

At least since these polls came out in early November, we’ve known that the chance Trump is re-elected is real. And the split among Democrats over Biden’s response to Israel probably hasn’t made a Trump victory less likely. Perhaps these factors help explain why major media outlets are seemingly taking this possibility more seriously than before, see here and here for examples. 

Trump’s opponents have consistently tried and failed to find ways to undermine his support. The prevailing strategy has included maligning him, accusing him of dishonesty, and simply calling him names. And yet, Teflon Don has proven to be unsinkable—even in the face of the numerous lawsuits brought against him. So much so that, if a general election were to happen tomorrow, Trump could probably eat Biden’s lunch. 

The problem is that, as Ezra Klein wrote, Trump wins fans because he’s unshameable, not in spite of it. And when it comes to Trump, shame works largely through its effect on hot-button topics. Call it a backlash against political correctness, call it anti-wokeness, call it whatever you want. But it’s pushback against the claim that run-of-the-mill politically conservative opinions and questions are somehow so objectionable that they are worthy of social sanctions. These sanctions include being called racist, homophobic, transphobic, or even, in the case of Covid, being accused of trying to kill people. 

If Trump is a ship sailing to the presidential finish line, the wind is, at least in part, the way these sanctions are deployed. One way to beat him is to try to cut holes in his sail. Another is to simply block the wind itself.

Social sanctions work best when there’s broad-based buy-in. The reason Democrats and Republicans don’t fight about, for instance, whether it’s ok for someone to pick their nose in the produce section of the supermarket is because both sides have tacitly agreed that this is a social norm that serves a valuable purpose.

At the same time, norms can be destructive when they’re split along political lines. And when it comes to some of the worst social consequences we have, we no longer have any shared sense of when they are warranted.

The culture on the left that contributed to Trump’s success is one where people who want to restrict immigration are labeled as racist, as are people who worry about critical race theory in schools. It’s one where people who question the idea that gender is a continuum, or who believe there are only two sexes, are called anti-trans or worse. It’s one where advocating for color-blindness can get you into all kinds of hot water and where questioning Covid restrictions can lead to allegations that you're trying to kill the elderly. To be clear, it’s not that the links described here are impossible, it’s that they’re treated as foregone conclusions.

Worse still, the same culture that gave us these norms has largely failed to own up to any of this. Instead, it’s a culture that has emphatically declared that the real and most important reason for Trump’s unflappable support is resentment, racial and otherwise. In other words, it is conveniently chocked up to a white working class that feels forgotten. While this explanation may have some merit, it’s too often used in place of—rather than in addition to—engagement with genuine underlying concerns. Concerns that also often have merit.

If the left really wants to defang Trump, it will put forth a candidate who cuts straight to heart of his superpower. In other words, it will do everything possible to block the wind and stop trying (in vain) to simply damage the sail. This might include acknowledging, for instance:

• There are reasons people could advocate for colorblindness that aren’t based in racial resentment. 

• We don’t understand the precise link between gender and biological sex and people who point this out aren’t necessarily all motivated by hate.

• Reasonable people could have concerns about Covid-related shutdowns, mask mandates, or vaccine requirements. [While this may seem like ancient history, most people aren’t quick to forget having their character maligned.]

The kind of statements above acknowledge only the possibility of being wrong, but that acknowledgement can change everything. After all, if you might be wrong, on what grounds can you shame someone who disagrees?

The upshot is this: Imperviousness to shame sits at the heart of Trump’s power. So, maybe it’s time for his opponents to try take some of the wind out of his sails. After all, there’s still a lot of open water ahead.