“Squaring the circle” is an allusion to a task that seems straightforward but is actually impossible: Drawing a square that has the exact same area as a circle. The explanation has to do with irrational numbers and quickly gets all nerdy sounding. But “squaring the circle” is a metaphor, and it’s one that came to mind as I read Booman’s piece about a dangerous electoral realignment and readers’ responses to his blog post. The theme of Booman’s piece and those responses was how to bring back those white working class Rustbelt voters who flipped and went for Trump in 2016. There was a lot of discussion about approaching this task on the basis of policy. Sounds fair enough, right? Of course, this approach is predicated on the assumption that people calmly and dispassionately size up the policy positions of opposing candidates, opposing parties, and then mark their ballots. But of course there’s another line of argument: that those white working class Rustbelt voters flipped to Trump as an expression of their resentments: resentment about rapid cultural change; resentment about race; resentment about “press 1 for English; para español, marque el número 2”; and especially, a general desire to poke liberals in the eye. We all know folks whose political stance seems to boil down to “if that smart-ass liberal likes it, then I’m against it”, even if taking that stance is objectively self-defeating.
Here’s the question, then: Is it plausible–it is rational?–to pitch policy proposals to people who don’t give a damn about policy? Who are seething with resentments? I believe Booman is saying that we either do that or yield the territory to neo-fascist manipulators like Trump.
I don’t know how to square this circle. I’ve taken the personal decision to try to be very mindful of how I talk and write about the folks whose votes seem to be about resentment, however. I don’t know about you, but I’ve never met anyone who responded positively to be told he’s a ignorant, bigoted fool.
