The first five pages of this book had me thinking: "I'm going to agree 100% with what the author says about the Trump phenomenon." The book seemed something within my own echo chamber, which then leads to this question: "Why should I bother reading it?"
Author Douglas Giles, PhD introduced me to a new word: "ressentiment." I'm not sure whether he defined this word for me, but he used it throughout the book. These four quotes give some shape to the word:
Ressentiment is a particular form of hatred that arises from the beliefs that one is lacking recognition and thus is socially impotent.
Acts motivated by ressentiment are movements towards lower values such as spite, vengeance, and malice that inspire negative actions.
The frustration and impotence characteristic of ressentiment are less a reaction to an actual external oppressor and more a self-inflicted of inadequacy over one's own real or imagined limitations.
Many other things have changed since Plato, but the power of ressentiment and ressentiment as power have not.
I went to the dictionary to get a precise definition:
1. any cautious, defeatist, or cynical attitude based on the belief that the individual and human…
2. an oppressive awareness of the futility of trying to improve one's status in life or in society.
To put this in layman's term, this definition can be: "the system is fixed against us." I believe MAGA movement feels this way. But I think there are other groups as well. In the past decade, MAGA has learned how to turn their ressentiment into a political force — and gain political leverage worth more than its numerical votes. And if MAGA can't find its way through politics, it is showing signs of being "revolutionary."
Throughout his book, Dr. Giles makes it clear that Donald Trump is not the leader of MAGA. The movement (under various monikers) was present for the writing of the American constitution. It has ebbed and flowed throughout American history. It will continue whenever and however Mr. Trump leaves politics. He is only the focal point for the moment, albeit a very effective focal point. The movement has overlooked his obvious flaws because he seems to be able to deliver the political objectives they are looking for.
Dr. Giles takes readers through many interesting history lessons and refreshers. From Calvinism to USA's uneasy relationship with immigration to media manipulation to conspiracy theories. All these reasons give us the framework for why there is ressentiment in the USA. Dr. Giles is a great writer, making these lessons easy to understand.
"What were they [the January 6 protesters] trying to accomplish? I put it to you that you will find the core cause and intention was the perpetrators' desire for their desires to be more important than other people's rights."
The Call to Action
Political writers with short-term thinking have no trouble framing a suitable call-to-action to end their commentary. Like "Vote this way, not that way." The recent Democrat convention is a good example of a clear call to action.
Political writers who are trying look past the next election are more vague. Dr. Giles is vague.
From what I can glean from his last section of this book, he calls his readers into two activities:
1) Calling the MAGA crowd various names like "morons, degenerates, easily conned, etc." will not help the reactionary right move away from their ressentiment values.
2) Keep repeating the truth around the issues: civilly, logically, and honestly.
I agree with these two statements. But it's not hard to see the paradox: speaking to the truth mostly reinforces the ressentiment attitudes. The internet has many memes of the many inconsistencies of MAGA logic, yet these memes do not seem to be having much effect on discarding that logic.
And it is hard to discuss issues with people with a ressentiment mindset, as I have my struggles in this regard. It's so much easier to disengage than engage. And maybe that is what the hardened minds want. If they get their way, they get less exposure to the truth.
I also struggle with the fact that our current political system gives ressentiment values too big of a voice in public discussion. If I do my work as an individual to reduce ressentiment in the people around me, and then political figures and political parties are using ressentiment to denigrate their opponents and win elections, then what good has my work accomplished?
There was a lot of Trump bashing at the Democratic convention. While much of this rhetoric may be truthful and help electoral success, it is not clear whether it helps or hinders the reduction of ressentiment.
In other words, western democracy and ressentiment kind of go hand-in- hand. Here are my two proofs:
1) While the USA developed a new system in 1789, it has not been able chase away ressentiment from its society. This 235-year experiment has failed in this regard.
2) When Germany reconstituted itself after WW2, a great deal of effort was expended to quash the thinking that led to Naziism. The political scientists of those days created a new model of governance for Germany. Yet, 78 years later, Germany still struggles with ressentiment in its society.
So these two examples show that western democracy seems less-than-capable to reduce ressentiment.
Tiered Democratic Governance (TDG)
If the reader has come this far in this review, I think we can assume that we agree that we need to consciously and deliberately reduce the forces of ressentiment in our future society. I believe that the recommendations of Dr. Giles are still important, and they must be supplemented with my alternative democracy .
I will quickly outline a few points:
1. When the TDG is first being set up, citizens with ressentiment values will not be interested in this new way. They prefer the current way, which allows them to amplify their thinking, words, and social network and to organize themselves into a political force. Without the ressentiment in the early TDG development, the TDG can develop without this toxic attitude to find its more peaceful culture.
2. As the TDG matures, many "inclusive" citizens will see a more collaborative and effective culture in the TDG. They will like its leaders and the decisions they are making. As societal acceptance grows, a few ressentiment citizens will also be noticing this difference and change their thinking. When they see how the new system can work for everyone, there will be less of a need for them to remain ressentiment. In essence, the TDG teaches by example, not by clever rhetoric.
3. When the TDG assumes responsibility and authority for governance, citizens still holding ressentiment values will be allowed to vote. But they won't be able to unite behind a charismatic figure with their votes.
4. A few citizens of ressentiment values will find their way into the first TDG tier. But it will be hard for them to hold this position and advance higher. Their attitudes are too toxic to reliably sustain their position in TDG governance because most voters will vote for collaborative people. Because the TDG elections are annual, the TDG will try new people out — and cast them aside if they are not working collaboratively.
5. And as TDG decisions take effect, there will be fewer reasons for citizens to adopt ressentiment values.
This explanation may be too short for many readers to convince them that the TDG has the capacity to reduce ressentiment in society. Since this article is a book review, I shall remain brief.
But in the meantime, we should understand that western democracy matured in the 19th century. Other than universal suffrage, it really has not had a serious update since then. Post WW2 Germany might have got a minor update, but it too is still mostly in the 19th century. We are in the 21st century.
Since the 19th century, we have developed a much bigger understanding of psychology, sociology, and anthropology, the sciences that explain why people do the things they do. We really should be building a new system using these sciences in their modern form.
Building the TDG will allow us to bring those sciences into 21st century governance. As the TDG is being built, we can focus on reducing ressentiment, instead of shouting over it.
When ressentiment is not amplified and the benefits of working collaboratively are realized, many citizens with ressentiment values will drift away from those values. They will not spawn more citizens with ressentiment values. And that should be the goal.
Published on Medium 2024
Who Goes to Climate Change Hell?
The Philosophy of Project 2025
