Angry White Men. Understanding Donald Trump's Supporters with the Insights of Michael Kimmel.

Angry White Men was published in 2013; two years before Donald Trump announced his candidacy for the presidential nomination of the Republican Party. Though author Michael Kimmel could not have anticipated the announcement, his book is surprisingly insightful regarding the people who support this anger-spewing media figure. Few sources will better explain Trump’s popularity among white males, or his unpopularity among women and minorities.

Kimmel states that there has been a change in American society. “I’m not chronicling a change that is coming. I’m describing a change that has, in most respects, already happened…the era of unquestioned and unchallenged [white] male entitlement is over.” (Kimmel, pp. xi-xii). He explains “it’s probably never been better to be a person of color, a woman,  or LGBT in the United States…whether by race, gender, or sexuality, America has never been more equal…I’m thrilled that I’ve lived long enough to see a black man in the White House, women heading national governments and major corporations, lesbians and gay men proclaiming their love for the world to see…I am not saying we have ‘arrived’ at some postracial, postfeminist, post-civil rights utopia..I’m simply saying that women are safer today than they have ever been in our society, that LGBT are more accepted and freer to love whom they love, and that racial and ethnic minorities confront fewer obstacles in their  efforts to  fully integrate.” (Kimmel, p. xi).

In this environment of greater equality, Kimmel’s book is about “those men who refuse to even be dragged kicking and screaming into that inevitable future. They are white men who aren’t at all happy about the way the tides have turned.” (Kimmel, p. xii). White men who counted on benefitting from the “dramatic inequality,” who thought of themselves as “entitled to occupy the leadership positions.” (Kimmel, pp. xiii).

These are the men to whom Donald Trump appeals. His verbal attacks against women like Megan Kelly (“You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever”*), and Carly Fiorina (“Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that?”**), mirror the anger of his supporters concerning the waning of male privilege. His comments on Mexicans (“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best…They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people”***), and his unconstitutional plan to prevent Muslims from entering the country for a period of time****, resonate with white men who have seen non-whites coming closer to equality.

Kimmel continues “It is a world of diminished expectations for all white men, who have benefitted from an unequal system for so long. There are still many in this generation of men who feel cheated by the end of entitlement. They still feel entitled, and thus they identify socially and politically with those above them, even as they have economically joined the ranks of those who have historically been below them…those angry white men…who experience a sense of …’aggrieved entitlement’—that sense of  entitlement that can no longer be assumed and that is  unlikely to be fulfilled. It’s about rear-guard actions, of bitterness and rage…trying, futilely to hold back the surging tide of greater equality and greater justice.” (Kimmel, p. xiv).

Trump is that man who is economically “above them.” His invective speaks directly to their own rage. This is why they flock to him despite the disparity between their incomes and his. The irony is that it’s moguls like Trump who are largely responsible for the anger of his minions in the first place. Large corporations shipped most of the well-paying unionized industrial jobs overseas, drove individual farmers off of their land with agribusiness and drove small stores into bankruptcy with Walmarts. Much of this constituency’s anger stems from unemployment and decreased economic possibilities. Valued work has always been a source of self-esteem for men. Its loss has made them angry. “It’s largely the downwardly mobile middle and lower middle classes…native born, white, middle class—that had bought most deeply into the American Dream of upward mobility, or at least of holding the line. And now they feel that they’re treading water at best, and more likely drowning.” (Kimmel, p. 22). But, if those voting for Trump think that he is going to support their interests once he’s in the White House, and not the interests of the wealthy business elite to which he belongs, they are deluding themselves.

“Angry white men are genuinely floundering—confused and often demoralized…But their anger is often…given shape and directed at targets that serve other interests.” (Kimmel, p. 36). Those interests benefit Donald Trump and his cronies. A Trump presidency will harm not only women and minorities, but also the economic standing of angry white men themselves. Unfortunately, these supporters are blinded by their anger and are about to give Trump all the support he needs. This is the consequence of having a Republican Party political discussion degenerate from a cool, reasoned approach to political solutions. Instead, we are confronted with a festival of rage, accusation and emotionalism, which has brought-out the worst in our candidates and voters. 

We could correct these harmful excesses in the general election, with a more rational debate about the issues. But honestly, that scenario is unlikely. Trump is going to continue with what has thus far been a successful strategy: stoking the rage. He will attack the Democrat's candidate with the same narcissistic tantrum that he used to bombarded competitors in his own party. Angry white men will continue to follow the sound of his jarring tune. 

There remains the chance that the rest of America will oppose the man, his name-calling and his manipulative hate-message. It's up to us, without the support of leadership, to stop emoting and start thinking. When an individual's adrenaline is pumping, the antidote is to step back from the source of incitement, take a deep breath and calm down, so that one may coolly observe the cause with a more detached intellect. We can only hope that there is enough time for the nation to take its' deep breath before some news anchor is heralding the next four years with "President Trump."

Kimmel, Michael. Angry White Men. American Masculinity at the End of an Era. New York: Nation Books, 2013.

*https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/07/trump-says-foxs-megyn-kelly-had-blood-coming-out-of-her-wherever/

**http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/watch-carly-fiorina-respond-to-trumps-look-at-that-face-insult-20150910

***http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/9-outrageous-things-donald-trump-has-said-about-latinos_us_55e483a1e4b0c818f618904b

****http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/

And Then All Hell Broke Loose. By Richard Engel.

Richard Engel is the Chief Foreign Correspondent for NBC News. He earned this position by covering various conflicts in the Middle East over the last 20 years. This book is a record of that coverage along with political histories describing events that led up to each flashpoint. Since it was just released on February 9, 2016, its observations are fairly current.

The conflicts reported by Richard Engel have been among the most important of our time: the Palestinian-Israeli deadlock, the post-9/11 War in Iraq, Arab Spring and the rise of ISIS. Engel’s interviews are numerous and varied. He spoke with political leaders on both sides of each conflagration, and civilians caught-up in the struggles. As a result, his perspective is free of patriotic jingoism or western one-sidedness. He understands the grievances of the people in the Middle East, why they fight, and what they wish to achieve.

As with any reporter’s account, a reader must be aware of the author’s self-promotion. Most correspondents do not write simply to inform. Television reporting is as much acting as it is journalism.  Motivations of media personalities are a complex blend of aspirations. They may wish to inform; but they also want to acquire fame and improved employment in their field. Engel is no different. His stories are full of bravado, but he knows his audience is composed on non-fiction readers. So the bravado is intentionally off-hand and muted. You won’t read any bathos-laden scenes where the cub reporter says “I have to go through the hell of enemy fire so that the public gets the story,” while an alarmed bureau chief cries “No! Don’t do it! Its suicide!” Instead, this reporter says things like “Whenever we thought we had a way in, our editors back in New York thought it wasn’t safe enough” (Engel, p. 164) and “Not a lot of hands went up when I asked who was game for the trip” (Engel, p. 158). Engel’s references to his gambling winnings will leave one with the impression that James Bond had switched to journalism. To be fair, the situations were dangerous. Reporting under fire was how the author became Chief Foreign Correspondent. The audience will witness scenes of immense destruction and loss of life. Just don’t expect Engel to be self-effacing in his descriptions.

And Then All Hell Broke Loose is a useful, colorful account of Mid-East chronology and current issues. While the history it offers is a tad simplistic, and the focus on action a bit distracting, one will finish this book with a fair synopsis that is up-to-date. Engel’s twenty years of living and working in that violent storm have not resulted in an inability to see beyond the whirlwind. He offers cogent explanations of occurrences that have led us to where we are now. He depicts the present with unvarnished realism. A reader seeking to round-out their understanding of this strife-ridden area would benefit from his version of where it stands in 2016.

Engel, Richard. And Then All Hell Broke Loose. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2016.

A Brief History of Peru, by Christine Hunefeldt.

Peru is a country with a rich, ancient and diverse history. Whether one is exploring Peruvian history to prepare for travel there, or to become more acquainted with one’s world, A Brief History of Peru is worth considering as a reading option. Examining a foreign culture will expand a reader’s understanding and empathy, as well as illuminating one’s own culture by revealing similarities and differences.

Within the space of 300 pages, Christine Hunefeldt takes her reader from the period of Inca Civilization’s predominance, through Spain’s conquest and colonization, into the post-imperialist present with all the conflict and turmoil associated with independence. A “brief history” indeed. This exploration is punctuated by the nation’s history of racial injustice against native Quechua- and Aimara-speaking indigenous populations. Like most places in the world, economic injustice accompanies racism. In Peru, this combined injustice is fostered by the nation’s oligarchy, which composes 1% of the population. Most of the wealthy are of Spanish descent. The composition of this racial/economic group stands in contrast to Peru’s majority, 50% of whom lived below poverty level as of 2005. The author, who has a well-developed sense of injustice, is certainly up to the task of displaying these characteristics of regional history. She is of a liberal-progressive bent. The last section of the last chapter in the book is a two-page political screed on new indigenous movements which include new agendas like “the redefinition of territory; the defense of indigenous languages…defense of cultural values, collective rights and ways of living” (Hunefeldt, p. 288). These truly legitimate issues appear alongside some questionable issues like “the defense of biodiversity and nature” (Hunefeldt, p. 288). Environmental defense is usually imposed by privileged white westerners on indigenous populations. It is true that some individuals within native cultures are concerned with industrial misuse of the land on which they live. However, the majority of indigenous peoples want the material goods and prosperity that westerners have and are even less inhibited than we around destroying the environment to get it.

Christine Hunefeldt is an able historian. She marshals the facts into an understandable chronology and writes comprehensibly. She is not a theorist with the sophistication of Jurgen Habermas. She does not discern patterns with the analytical originality of Eric Hobsbawm. She does not write a compelling narrative with the skill of Dena Goodman. In fact, there are periods in the book that drag like those middle school social studies classes which made many hate history. Her accounts of colonial bureaucracy, or early Twentieth Century import/export differentials, are civics hell. Skim such areas to avoid drudgery. But in less than 300 pages, one will obtain a plethora of information and a basic grasp of Peruvian history. If this is your goal, A Brief History of Peru will not disappoint.

Hunefeldt, Christine. A Brief History of Peru. New York: Lexington Associates, 2010.

Classical Liberalism. From Levin.

Classical Liberalism, (the set of ideas promoting liberty, equality and free markets), was developed in Europe during the eighteenth and nineteenth century. This political philosophy was a response to feudal European monarchy and aristocracy. Its goal was to support the aims of a rising middle class by extending voting rights, political representation, economic latitude and freedom of speech to that class. Political agitation favoring Classical Liberalism produced the intended result of eventually creating representative governments in Europe, and the unintended result of inspiring working class peoples to advocate for their inclusion in the political process.

When this political philosophy crossed the Atlantic to the British Colonies, the results were different in form. Classical Liberalism inspired the American Revolution’s opposition to monarchy. Its outcome was the United States. This is where European and US paths diverge. Europe continued to have an adversary to Classical Liberalism, in the form of its dwindling aristocracy and entrenched monarchy, both of whom surrendered their grip on government only by having their tenacious, resistant fingers slowly pried from the wheel. Conversely, the United States after the Revolution had no such opposition. In the words of Murray Levin, “the absence of a genuine aristocracy and a reactionary medieval Catholic church advocating traditional European conservative ideology of the brand of Burke or of De Maistre is a fundamental fact of American history. The absence of a conservative tradition hastened the triumph of liberalism and contributed to the totality of its victory. The absence of Conservatism denied to Americans an alternative model to liberalism…The speed and the sweep of that triumph fixed the liberal mold so that the unfolding of American history is the unfolding of liberalism” (Levin, p.  242).

During the examination of history, one must be careful in defining the terms “Liberal” and “Conservative” to a contemporary audience: it should be stressed that in western history, “Conservative” only meant upholding the hegemony of monarchy and aristocracy; “Liberal” meant the political ideals that oppose such a Conservatism as elucidated in the opening paragraph. That said, however, there was an evolution that took place. Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Liberalism did evolve into today’s Social Liberalism, based upon the principles of liberty and equality. One could hardly, using the Enlightenment tool of reason, support liberty and equality only for the middle class. A system which claims to support freedom and equality, but does so only for the group that developed the notion, is inconsistent and hypocritical. In a country where women and so many minorities, all recognize that the principle of equality applies to them as well, it is inevitable that notions of Liberalism would evolve to include their demands. Freedom of speech and representation became stepping stones for a variety of social and political perspectives to be heard. Our homegrown Conservatism which arose in reaction to these wholly American developments, was never (at least in word) opposed to the constitutional principles created as a safeguard against monarchy or totalitarianism. When US Conservatives acted to suppress and censor groups seeking freedoms, they never stated an opposition to the Bill of Rights; they just acted in ignorance of its principles based on emotion-based prejudices against the listed groups. The most ironic political occurrence is that American Conservatives have been the most vociferous and repressive forces in favor of the established Liberal doctrines during our two Red Scares in the 1920s and the 1950s. American Conservatives have supported free markets and the Constitution, during Red Scare periods, using the same enthusiasm with which they opposed the aforementioned groups agitating for their rights through constitutional means. Classical Liberalism is such an ingrained part of American Democracy that even those who claim to oppose today’s Social Liberals, support the roots from which Social Liberalism developed. In today’s United States, both Liberals and Conservatives are Classical Liberals.

Levin, Murray B. Political Hysteria in America. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1971.

Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass. An American Slave, by Frederick Douglass.

Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass is the author’s own account of that period of his life between birth in slavery and escape from slavery. Its’ 1845 publication catapulted a recently free dock laborer, from anonymity to national importance. “The Narrative’s initial edition of 5000 copies was sold in four months. Within a year four more editions of 2000 copies each were brought out.” (Douglass, p. xiii). Douglass’s books, his tireless speaking engagements in the US and overseas, and his newspaper (The North Star) which he founded and edited, were among the most eloquent instruments of abolitionism.

The success of the Narrative lay in the author’s prose. They are dignified and highly readable. There is little self-criticism in this autobiography. We readers of the 21^st Century have become accustomed to accounts in which the author honestly reveals personal flaws. But this was not a fashion of the more reserved Nineteenth Century. Besides, this book, like many other slave chronicles, was meant to serve as abolitionist propaganda, by elucidating the horrors of slavery. Showing a noble individual, contending with brutally repressive circumstances, made more sense for the purpose of this writing. Several books written (or ghost written) by slaves had been published prior to Douglass’s effort. But none met with the success enjoyed by this New Bedford dock worker. His style is at its’ best when it is lean; at its’ most awkward when he hangs a literary reference on his lines. Fortunately, there are few such references. He reveals the horrible abuses of slavery and its’ attempts to the crush human spirit, with a largely unembellished, straightforward method.

During his lifetime, Douglas withstood numerous charges that a recent slave could not have produced such a maturely composed book.  Masters routinely attempted to keep slaves from learning any reading, let alone writing. They fully understood that education would lead to a desire for freedom; while ignorance made one more malleable. The Narrative presents a consistent theme that will interest readers of non-fiction, who seek learning of their own accord: it depicts both the slave owner’s attempts to prevent and punish learning, and Douglass’s unquenchable desire to learn. The author employed numerous clandestine, persistent and clever tactics, to educate himself. Readers today, who find themselves with limited time and energy for personal edification, will gain inspiration in these pages, from one who faced greater obstacles.

But the most valuable element in reading The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, is that one is holding in one’s hands a piece of history. The book is a precious artifact of our country’s past, through which one of our ancestors speaks to us directly about freedom and dignity, while revealing a period of our history. The story itself contains the chronicle of an individual who lived though a terrifying, unjust time, and survived to escape with his self respect intact. So many hands have touched this book, and so many minds have shared in its discovery, that it is one of the chief documents which expresses our national character and our aspirations. Given that we continue to strive as a society to overcome racism, these aspirations are both of our past and of our present.

Douglass, Frederick. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass. An American Slave. Cambridge:  The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1988.

The Seattle General Strike by Robert L. Friedheim.

North America’s first general strike was notable for its’ peaceful character and orderliness. For five days in 1919, despite shutting down all of Seattle, “not a single striker or antistrike partisan was arrested on any charge related to the strike. In fact, the usual police docket of about one hundred cases a day fell to about thirty during the strike.” (Friedheim, p. 125). In addition, strike organizers were careful to maintain essential services in the city. “No one starved or lacked heat; no children had to do without milk; no sick or injured were denied hospital care.” (Friedheim, p. 126).

Friedheim’s The Seattle General Strike is a thorough study of this remarkable event. The author makes sure his readers understand the zeitgeist of that time period, the structure of the Seattle American Federation of Labor (AFL) and the issues of the strike. While the reading may be at times ponderous, one will obtain an in-depth understanding acquired through toil over the details.

Surprisingly, in spite of meticulous illustration of the facts, Friedheim ignores the important and glaring issue of racism within the Seattle unions. He mentions racial issues regarding lynching (Friedheim, p. 7) and voting (Friedheim, p. 168). He even discusses participation of Japanese unions (Friedheim, p. 124). These inclusions make his omission more perplexing. The relationship of African American workers to Seattle labor was complex. As noted by Jon Wright, “many African American workers…were barred from entering unions” managed by Seattle’s AFL. Conversely, the International Workers of the World (IWW), who actively participated in the strike, “did not discriminate on the basis of race.” During the strike, 300 self-organized African Americans from the longshoremen’s union participated, while others hoped that the strike would lead to an open (non-union) shop in the shipyards that would permit African American employment.**

Friedheim, while clearly liberal, is not starry-eyed. He criticizes the Seattle AFL’s “unqualified support of the Bolshevik Revolution” as equal to their reactionary “opponents in depth of feeling and lack of objectivity.” (Friedheim, p. 16). National AFL vociferously opposed revolution. Above all, Friedheim is a pragmatist. Statements and actions which he sees as counter-productive to labor’s goals are disapproved. “Leaflets urging workers to confiscate the means of production,” generated independently of the Strike Committee, are represented as frightening the public.  (Friedheim, p. 101). “Radicals,” who generate such literature, are juxtaposed against “Progressives,” presented as the primary organizers who must logistically counter such propaganda.

In his conclusions, Professor Friedheim lists the successes and failures of the strike. While presenting the image of an effective striking organization maintaining peace and order in the city, he patiently delineates their failures in terms of obtaining the $6.00 wage demanded by shipyard workers and losing the propaganda war with the established Seattle business and political machinery. After the strike, 39 workers are rounded-up on sedition charges that do not stick in court. But what does stick is the perception that “the strike was an unsuccessful Bolshevist revolution…Northwest lore that has persisted.” (Friedheim, p. 147). He even claims that “the Seattle general strike helped condition the American people to accept extreme measures against aliens, dissenters and left-wingers, in what would become a year-long Red Scare.” (Friedheim, p. 169).  Here the author fails to put the strike in historical perspective: The US public had begun fearing Bolshevik revolution with the victory of the Russian Red Army in 1917. There is a trajectory from that event to the first Red Scare, which was a direct result of coordinated leftist bombings through the mail on June 2, 1919. The general strike may have minimally reinforced citizen’s fears of Bolshevism. But the Russian Revolution and the 1919 bombings were perceived by the public as far more tangible threats.  It was in this atmosphere that the peacefulness of the first general strike in US history was painted-over as a Bolshevik revolution. Even today, the memory of its positive attributes is resurrected only in the minds of intrepid readers of obscure, dusty books.

Friedheim, Robert L. The Seattle General Strike. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1964.

** Wright, Jon. "Seattle General Strike: Seattle’s African American Community." Seattle General Strike Project. 1999. Web. 14 Nov. 2015. <http://depts.washington.edu/labhist/strike/wright.shtml>.

Intertwined Lives. Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict, and Their Circle. By Lois Banner.

Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict were two of the most important influences on anthropology during their lifetimes. Many know of Mead’s popular writings in this subject area, particularly her Coming of Age in Samoa. She had an important impact on the US populations views during a time when news agencies and popular magazines went to experts for opinions on events and phenomena, rather than using a now more prevalent “man-on-the-street” approach to reporting. Fewer people are familiar with Ruth Benedict, who has been recognized by most academics as the successor of Franz Boas (founder of modern US anthropology), and the first woman president of the American Anthropological Association. The fact that the careers of these two women began before women had the vote, during a time when many of their colleagues thought of women as mentally inferior to men, is a testament to their determination and ability.

The relationship between these two women is fascinating for their individual brilliance, as well as their intellectual influence on each other. Banner spends a great deal of time discussing how they communicated around their ideas and edited each other’s work. In addition, the author discusses the people, (friends and foes), who surrounded these two women as part of the social circle of international anthropology. The depiction of this circle provides a rich portrait of an expanding field of human exploration and the personalities that molded it.

Prior to Intertwined Lives, there was some controversy concerning whether or not Mead and Benedict had a sexual relationship. While there are still some deniers, Banner’s study is “the first biographical account of the lives of these two women to draw on all their papers.” This author had access to love letters that previous generations of researchers did not. Large portions of their private writing had been “restricted until their close friends and associates had died,” which is a standard practice. (Banner, p. ix). Professor Banner quotes passages of letters like this where Benedict writes “How little the lovemaking solved in our feeling for each other,” which clearly show a sexual component to the relationship. (Banner, p. 272). While the author discusses Mead and Benedict’s five year sexual relationship, she does not present it as the central feature of their bond. It is one element which occurred early in a deep friendship that spanned 24 years, involving a great deal of personal support and impelling mutual scholarly influence.

At times, Banner is too psychoanalytical. She states that Benedict “felt peaceful with Margaret, who rested her “like a padded chair and a fireplace.” Our biographer adds “that image suggests domestic tranquility, but it also suggests domination, for it was fathers who sat in armchairs in front of fireplaces.” (Banner, p. 185). Benedict’s feeling of tranquility is clear. Banner injects her own Freudian gloss which has questionable merit. This over-analysis is not limited to the relationship between the two subjects. Professor Banner later describes a painting in the childhood home of Margaret’s second husband, Gregory Bateson; a watercolor by Blake that shows Eve with the Serpent and Satan: “being an angel, Satan has no genitals of his own. Did Gregory think of himself as a devil with women, as an ambiguous male who was both powerless and all-powerful?” (Banner, p. 346). Okay, Bateson did dream about this watercolor for years, but it would have been a disturbing, memorable image in any child’s home. The author’s interpretation is a reach. Freudian psychoanalysis was a fashion during the lives of these scientists. They spent many hours and letters discussing the psyche with intricate fabrication. But we do not have to. The factual information is enough.

Anyone expecting these independent female leaders in anthropology to have 21^st Century notions concerning women or LGBT people, are in for a disappointment. While neither viewed being lesbian or gay as harmful to society, they both saw this characteristic as abnormal. “In Mead’s cultural scheme, homosexuals are more maladjusted than heterosexuals” because they have given-up “the drive to procreate.” (Banner, p. 356). Benedict saw “homosexuality…as an abnormality shaped by society.” (Banner, p. 274). There were a few individuals who thought that being LGB or T was equal in health to heterosexuality (Magnus Hirschfeld in the 1890s comes to mind), but they were a tiny minority. Mead’s views on women deserve special attention for their controversial nature. While “feminists of the 1970s…claim her as their forerunner,” Betty Friedan “identified her as the architect of the back-to-the-home movement of the 1950s.” (Banner, p. 364). Banner, herself a professor of History, Women’s Studies and Gender Studies, reports both the progressive and regressive opinions of her two anthropologists with the forgiving equanimity of a historian who understands that we are all a product of our times and cultures.

As a responsible biographer, Lois Banner has marshaled a voluminous quantity of material by and about her subjects. It is undoubtedly more demanding to create a dual biography, rather than focusing on one individual, but the rewards are also great. In addition to creating a unique record of a relationship, revealing the immense intellectual spark that they collectively produced, there is the value of comparative research. In the author’s own words, “Benedict and Mead both believed that the comparative anthropology of several societies offered insights into all of them; similarly, comparing the biographies of two individuals can shed light on each of them.” (Banner, p. 11). Banner shares this complexity of information with an elegant style as fluid as conversation, intertwining their stories as these two women intertwined their lives.

Banner, Lois W. Intertwined Lives. Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict, and Their Circle. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003.