Comments
IN MY OPINION - One could easily rehearse Trump’s litany of disgraceful and illegal actions – actions which jeopardized the fundamental bedrock of this nation as a democratic republic and forever stained the office of the presidency. Yet, regardless of the folly of political violence, the attempt on Trump’s life was futile inasmuch as ridding America, and the world, of Trump, would by no means rid us of Trumpism, which was and remains a symptom, and not the root cause, of this country’s moral and epistemic decline. How else could so many millions of Americans support this man? No one can claim that they do not know what he stands for (insofar as he stands for anything other than himself) or what his intentions are: he has made it very clear that his second administration will be not only authoritarian, but fascist in rhetoric and deed.
Donald Trump and his allies have made no secret of their intentions to centralize ever more power in the executive office if he is re-elected in 2025; and to oversee “a sweeping expansion of presidential power over the machinery of government… reshaping the structure of the executive branch to concentrate far greater authority directly in his hands.” The New York Times report quotes Russell T. Vought, who ran the Office of Management and Budget in the Trump White House and now runs the Center for Renewing America, as saying: “What we’re trying to do is identify the pockets of independence and seize them.”
The legal theory behind this centralization of power in the Oval Office is essentially “a maximalist version of the so-called unitary executive theory,” which is in turn based on a certain interpretation of Article 2 of the Constitution. Trump publicly declared: "I have an Article 2 where I have the right to do whatever I want as president." One can only conclude that a great many of Americans have lost faith in the idea of America and want to see our current form of government ultimately dismantled and replaced by a quasi-fascist dictatorship. That is the real tragedy: that we’ve embraced the symbol of our disease as if it were the cure.
What I intend to do in the following will strike some as an odd form of analysis. It will seem unfamiliar because my approach will be philosophical in nature. The empirical case against Trump could not be more apparent. The philosophical one is not as easily accessed, but once it is grasped it becomes incontrovertible and no less devastating than reeling off his offenses, which are many. Trump is demonstrative proof that America is facing head on its moral and epistemic downfall. To fully appreciate this however requires a bit of explanation because I am using these terms in a very precise sense. By epistemic decay I mean that we have forgotten, or willfully discarded the nature of truth: truth is no longer a concept to be taken seriously; there are only various perspectives each determined by particular interests, but there is no such thing as a truth in the sense of a universal production which is indifferent to differences of interest, perspective, identity, and so on.
It is no coincidence that we see the good and the true both struggling to remain relevant, to remain a part of our social and political discourse. Where one is in jeopardy the other is sure to be endangered as well. And this is because they share something in common which is absolutely fundamental. Namely the nature of universality – or to put it somewhat differently, the genetic fallacy applies equally to both. What do I mean by the genetic fallacy? The origin (genesis) of a proposition tells us nothing about its truth value. That is, when it comes to truth the genetic fallacy simply reminds us that one cannot determine the truth of a statement, proposition or claim by determining its origin, regardless of whether that origin is internal or external. The truth of an enunciation is independent of the enunciator.
As the philosopher Alain Badiou observes, “A statement is true not because it has been pronounced by a priest, a king, a prophet, or a god. It is true because there is proof of its truth… The subject of the enunciation ought not be a guarantor of the truth of a statement.” Truth does not care if you are rich or poor, native or immigrant, king or slave: we all stand equal before the truth and as human beings we are all equally capable of participating in its universality. This is the first principle that Trump would have us trash. Trump would have us believe that whatever he says should be accepted simply because it came from his mouth – hence, he can shamelessly utter thousands of lies, spew any number of falsehoods and tirelessly unload his idiotic rubbish. It makes no difference because it came from the president. And so, he must also deny his rival’s legitimacy or by extension the same consideration would apply. It is not an accident that Trump’s following has a cultish mentality: there is a slavish devotion to whatever he says no matter how absurd or dehumanizing. The question of proof is irrelevant: if he said it then that is proof enough.
There you have the genetic fallacy in its epistemic form. What is notable is that the genetic fallacy also applies to the morality of an action. That is, you cannot say whether an action is right or wrong, morally permissible or impermissible, simply by knowing who the actor was. This is less often recognized but upon a little reflection it becomes equally obvious. Even an awful person is capable of a good deed, and even the best among us can fall. (This is, I take it, one of the fundamental teachings of Christ – when he says, for example, that he came for transgressors: “I have not come to call the righteous but sinners.”) Indeed, it is often the most virtuous who fall the hardest (as Shakespeare knew all too well). It is our virtues more often than our vices that lead us astray, for the simple reason that they create hubris. But notice, Trump is no less guilty of the genetic fallacy as it pertains to morality as well; inasmuch as he claims that his actions are above the law. Or as Nixon put it: “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” As The Atlantic recently stated, the Supreme Court has now “codified Nixon’s infamous statement.”
Trump’s case for immunity ultimately presupposes the fallacious and extremely dangerous idea that the validity of an action can be determined by who performed it. And he applies this negatively to entire groups of people as well: illegal immigrants are thieves and rapists, etc. Their actions must be reprehensible because of who they are. But that is simply wrong, and we know it. The genetic fallacy applies to the Good as well. Trump’s actions, both as president and as a private citizen, have been morally reprehensible, and to grant him immunity because of the office he formally held sets a terrible precedent as numerous legal scholars and jurists have observed.
What we are seeing is a nation in decline having openly embraced a dangerous moral and epistemic relativism, which is philosophically unsustainable, and logically unsound. It is also bringing this country to the brink of collapse as a nation committed, at least in principle, to equality before the law, the inherent worth of every human being as such (for no human being is or can be excluded a priori from the universality of the true and the good). Trump’s fascist, authoritarian rhetoric is not merely for popular consumption – it is not him catering to his extreme base, but a horrifying reflection of ourselves, of what we are becoming: that is, a country which will write off certain people as “vermin” not because of what they’ve done but simply because of where they come from or who they are. A country which will embrace the words of a quasi-despot as truth even when they fly in the face of what is before our very eyes. There is no lie which is beneath Trump, no statement however ridiculous which could make him blush for shame.
Finally, we should point out that the genetic fallacy has one more area of application: namely, beauty. We cannot judge whether a work of art, for example, is beautiful simply by knowing who produced it. The aesthetic merit of a work of art is not nor can it be decided by simply knowing who the artist was. And in principle, a great of work of art can come from anybody. It’s worth noting that Trump also represents the loss of our sense of beauty. Obviously neither he nor any of his followers have any notion of the beauty of truth (since they disown the very concept of truth itself); or moral beauty – say, the beauty of giving shelter to the homeless, or refuge to the stateless. But even when it comes to sheer physical or sensuous beauty Trump has proven himself time and again to be as crude as they come. Hence, his predilection for beauty contests and porn stars. He is the very epitome of philistinism. And he is serving to transform this country precisely into a country of philistines, with no appreciation of the eternal philosophical trinity: the True, the Beautiful and the Good – those three aspects of universality which more than serve as symbols of one another but are indeed three facets of the philosopher’s stone, as it were.
In his decision not to lead the Democratic party and seek a second term in office, President Biden did what is precisely unthinkable coming from Trump – that is, he put the good of the people before his own interests. Trump could not even adhere to the peaceful transfer of power when he had lost the election: that is, he preferred to burn down our democracy rather that forsake his private interests. Biden’s decision not to run – and so renounce power for the good of all – has universal merit and (regardless of the outcome of the election) it will always have value as an example of what true statesmanship looks like, what it means to act from the standpoint of universality. And, for that very reason, it is not without a certain beauty of its own.
If this country disowns truth, goodness and beauty by reinstalling Trump into the executive office, it will have disowned the very things that give life its universal meaning and significance. We will have fallen into a pit of lies, full of ugliness and evil. To conclude then, there is a realm of universality in which we can all participate as rational, embodied beings. It is this universality that gives meaning to an otherwise insignificant mammalian species hurtling through space on a speck of dust in an inconceivably vast and indifferent cosmos. Trump is a symptom that we are losing touch with those very things which make human life genuinely significant and valuable, those things which are of timeless and universal value – to wit, the True, the Beautiful and the Good.
(Sam Ben-Meir is an assistant adjunct professor of philosophy at City University of New York, College of Technology.)
