Cynicism and Gullibility: Hanah Arendt and the American Mind

Hannah Arendt

"In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true. The mixture in itself was remarkable enough, because it spelled the end of the illusion that gullibility was a weakness of unsuspecting primitive souls and cynicism the vice of superior and refined minds.
Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow.
The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness."
--Hannah Arendt
[They took Trump seriously, but not literally.]

Mary Astor: Not really an Astor

Consider the cynic:
1 Global trade is, overall good for the economy, moving goods and services from where they are most efficiently produced at lowest cost to markets which desire them.
--Bah, humbug! All that happens is the Chinese steal our jobs!
2. Unemployment in the United States has fallen and the economy is rebounding from the great recession of 2009.
--Ridiculous! I know a guy who's out of work.
3. Medicare is in good shape and Social Security could be secure until 2032 if we simply raised the cap on income taxes from $118,000 to $250,000.
--What rot! Neither will be there for me when I need it.
4. Global Warming is real and caused by human beings.
--Poppycock. It's all junk science. I know because I read it on the internet and President Trump says so.

Consider the gullible:
1. Obama was born on Mars.
2. A wall can keep out those Mexican rapists.
3. Obamacare is a disaster.
4. Those 3 million voters who they say voted for Hillary were all a fraud.

The Problem of Intolerant Immigrants: Geert Wilders

Geert Wilders is a creepy Dutchman who makes no bones about the Netherlands being at war with Islam.

But, the strange thing is, he is for protections for gay rights, Jews, and a whole host of things we generally speaking associate with liberal, tolerant societies.

He calls Islamic refugees a great Trojan Horse.  Sound familiar?

The problem is he has a point.  The episodes in Germany when "Middle Eastern" men groped German women in public squares during Christmas and New Year's celebrations may have been examples of making the exception the rule, of claiming that the action of a few deviants reflect the character of an entire group.

But there is reason to believe Islamic, or Middle Eastern Islamic men view women differently than liberal Western men.  Women, unaccompanied by men in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, elsewhere report groping, rape, sexual aggression, and at what point to do you believe this attitude is a cultural norm which helps define what Islamic men believe?
There is no question that in England and France some Islamic groups, at Mosques, have said they know the word of God and they will not tolerate beliefs which contradict that word. It is a sort of "graph versus host" reaction. 

What do you do with an immigrant group which does not simply refuse to assimilate but which actively strikes out against the society they have moved into? That is, in fact, the Trojan horse, and invasion from a group which has been taken into the city, past the gates, and then explodes, once inside, to destroy the city.

If Islamic immigrants/refugees refuse to accept the basic values of tolerance for opposing points of view, what do we do?

You can say, well, we prosecute each individual case; we do not assume everyone with an Islamic name is guilty. But can you, practically speaking, control the problem if you have to arrest each solider, as he emerges from the belly of the Trojan horse, and only after he has attacked?
The fact is, we have had to deal with the Ku Klux Klan in America. We did not attempt to round up all the Klan members and imprison them because we thought they were, as a group, a threat to security. We had to prosecute them, one by one.

On the other hand, we have Donald Trump engaging in the most racist of all behavior, pointing to the one Mexican rapist and saying, "See? I told you they were all rapists?"

In that case, at least, most of us have experience with the undocumented Mexican bus boy, gardener, construction worker, laborer, who have shown great willingness to work hard, stay out of conflict and we would not harm those who would not harm us.

The fact is, there may in fact be a war of cultures, and the Islamic men who have stirred such passions in France, the Netherlands, Germany and England may share some of the responsibility for this.

Labor in Trump's Pocket

Sean McGarvey and Terry O'Sullivan met with President Trump at the White House today.  They head unions which represent sheet metal workers and laborers. They were delighted with Mr. Trump, who wants to spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure projects which their workers can build with "American steel." They don't care much if that trillion dollars comes from taxpayers or private companies who will then own the roads and bridges and airports. All they care about is their members will get jobs and wages for the next few years. 

They were also moved by Mr. Trump who asked them to round up a working sheet metal worker, a plumber and a pipe fitter after they got off shift and to bring them to the White House so he could meet them and tell them how much he loves them.

The labor union leaders were delighted to hear Mr. Trump nixed the Pacific trade deal and will soon kill NAFTA.  Trade deals make corporations money, increase stock prices, lower prices for goods here in the USA, improve the overall economy, but trade deals send jobs (of some sort, likely manufacturing) overseas, the union leaders believe.

Now, exactly how a car plant in Mexico or a cell phone factory in China costs the sheet metal worker in Washington, DC his job, or costs the pipe fitter in Wilkes Barre his job, is not yet clear, but the unions have clearly drunk the Kool Aide. 

If Mr. Trump can get his Republican Congress to spend a trillion dollars on a stimulus package like this, he will certainly have accomplished something Barack Obama could never do.  He will likely also insure his own re election.

It may not matter he throws 30 million people to the wolves without health insurance if he can put 5 million people to work on roads, bridges and railroads and airport construction. 

I'm not actually sure the numbers add up that way. But, I supposed, it's conceivable, if all those construction workers get jobs, they may get health insurance with those jobs and so the loss of Obamacare may matter less to them.

It took Nixon to go to China. Maybe it takes Trump to get the government spending money again. 

Of course, while he's promising to protect Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid,  his appointed officials are busy killing those programs, but we are building things again, so who cares?

Of course, Mussolini made the trains run on time, Mayor Daley plowed the snow off the Chicago streets and Hitler built the Autobahn and the Volkswagen, so sometimes these guys show a flare for knowing what matters to the masses.

As long as people are happy by 2018, President Trump will be well on his way.

The Popular Vote Vs The People's Will

Sick of all the whining about Hillary Clinton having "won the popular vote." The implication is that the "people" really wanted Hillary, not Trump.


Of course, this presumes we know the mind of the people by counting the votes of those who went to the polls.

The fact is, as we are all aware, voters in "safe states" may not go to the polls because they know how their state is going to go, so voters in South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana who were all for Trump will say, "I'll go hunting" that day, rather than vote. Or a Trump voter in Massachusetts may say, "What's the use?" and go fishing rather than cast a meaningless vote for Trump in a state he's got no hope of winning.


This is all about psychology, not simple counting.  If you throw open the bank vault on Main Street and wait for a day and not a single dollar has been taken from the vault, that doesn't mean people don't want the money. It may have something to do with those two big guards holding their big guns which discouraged people from taking the action and expressing their desire.


When you have the electoral college standing there, it affects the behavior of people, and they may not act on their desire.


Knowing this we have to agree there is no way to know what the majority of our countrymen really wanted.

What Is a Country?

Thinking about the marches in all the cities this past weekend, I began to ask myself: Are they marching in all those rural counties that flipped for Trump and put him in the White House?

Counties that flipped for Trump (from Obama)

The answer, of course is: No, they love him in the rural parts of America, in Idaho, rural Pennsylvania, the empty places where few people live. When David Brooks roamed about Idaho, all the people he met were sure Trump would win because everywhere they looked were Trump signs and Trump voters. When Mark Shields drove across the open spaces from Maine to Georgia, all he saw along the highways through the open spaces were Trump signs. But Brooks and Shields thought: Well, but in the densely populated cities, in the large metropolitan area, they cannot abide Trump. 

Turned out, those ragged people now are in control. All those cities where the marches occurred over the weekend--those masses don't control their own destiny. The crazy people in those counties where people don't read newspapers, they are in the driver's seat. 

But are they the nation, those dimwits out there?  If Hillary Clinton got 3 million more votes than Trump--is that the nation which chose its leader, or something else?

So if the masses of people, who live in or around the cities are marching against Trump, who voted to put him in in the first place?

And why should a state, which is, after all nothing but land defined by borders, get two Senators?  Do grassy prairies need health insurance?  Do the deserts of Arizona need free trade?  Do the Great Lakes need to be protected against sexual harassment?  

I've lived in rural parts. I spent a year on a potato farm, after leaving New York City and I looked around at my neighbors and thought, "Wow, these people are here for a reason."  

There are plenty of people living in those empty places who simply could not make it in New York. They had that strange blend Hannah Arendt talked about, a blend of cynicism and gullibility which characterizes certain populations: so there are people who  would not believe in evolution, or global warming or science or in data which shows that the crime rate has fallen, that employment has risen to high levels, but they will believe that most Mexicans living in America are rapists and that Muslims want to behead every American and all the non believers. 

So my question is this: What is America, if it is not its people? 

Well, you will say, it's a people living in a geographic area defined by agreed upon borders. But if geography is part of the definition of a nation, then you can say the land itself is part of what constitutes a nation. And if you agree to that then you agree that that vast chunk of land called Montana is entitled to two Senators. And those two Senators should be able to tell people living in Baltimore they cannot limit gun ownership, because in Montana, people love their guns, even if in Baltimore, guns are destroying neighborhoods.  And Congressmen from the wide open spaces of Texas can tell women living in inner city Philadelphia they cannot have abortions because in Texas life begins at conception and Praise the Lord, we don't like abortions none in Texas. 

But then those two Senators from Idaho can tell all those millions of people living in Philadelphia, Boston, Washington, DC, New York San Francisco, Los Angeles, that they cannot have national health insurance.

But why should a small minority of people living in states where the Aryan nation has its roots, or where people believe in living off the grid, or where people don't believe in vaccination or public schools,  why should those deranged souls living out there in the wind swept plains of Kansas be able to tell the mass of people living along the coasts what is possible for them?

If people living in rural parts of Pennsylvania believe in home schooling, should they be able to tell the citizens of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh they have to home school their kids?

Look at that election map: Those great stretches of "the country" are empty, occupied by half wits, and those half wits rule.

There is something amiss here, and whatever that is, it's what explains President Trump.

Trump Brings the House Down, at the CIA: Wild Applause

Did you watch Trump at the CIA, standing in front of that wall with the names  and stars of dead CIA agents? 

I would have served, but I had these heel spurs.

Did you wonder who was doing all that raucous and enthusiastic cheering, especially when he said the "Media" consists of the world's most dishonest people?
 You could not see more than the tops of a few heads but you could hear the laughing and clapping.

No faces. Just laughing heads. Very Spooky.

And I thought: Wow!
I knew dozens of CIA employees during my years in Washington, and I never knew any who would allow themselves that sort of display.
It's true, I did not know any of the CIA "ops" people--all those I knew were analysts, who tended to be bookish, very analytical, open minded, sophisticated, worldly types who tended to smile faint, economic smiles, to betray moments of private amusement, and you often didn't know what you had said to amuse them.
But belly laughing, raucous types, no. These were more Smiley types than James Bond types. But even Bond would never carry on like that. They sounded like a bunch of drunken Russians who just discovered and washed down the agency's secret stash of Stolichnaya. 
Some FBI agents might be like that. 
FBI agents were more like cops, when they weren't bookish accountant nerd types. 
But CIA?

Our fearless leader.

That scene simply baffled me.
I've read on the internet that crowd standing in front of the podium were a group of Trump's own White House entourage.
That would make sense, although it seemed like a rather large entourage. I suppose a dozen men, amplified with microphones, could sound that thunderous.
This is the first mystery about Mr. Trump's first day I'd like to see resolved. 
Why doesn't the media ask about who those guys were who were stomping and cheering? 
Are there not any crowd shots?
Might not be, of this particular crowd. 
Even the stars on the wall do not always have names attached. 
The Spooks want to remain unseen, unidentified.
But, really, who were those guys?
If they were not CIA employees, but were, in fact Trump stooges and plants, is that not a story? Is this not a bit of manufactured news, Trump style?

Trying to Understand America

We live in a marvelous age, the information age.

Grief and History, Washington, D.C.

So, trying to understand the Trump election, I googled a map of the country which showed a map of the country with counties which "flipped" from Obama to Trump in 2016.






Counties which flipped from Obama to Trump

Then, having some names in hand, I went to each county and entered: Newspapers for ...whatever county.

Counties in Red, for Trump

Scanning through these, I found stories about the annual chili cook off, auto wrecks, bizarre local crimes--one, in Wisconsin, involved a beheading--auto accidents involving police officers or fire department officials, all sorts of local color, but almost no stories about Washington, D.C. and the national news. Trump's name appeared nowhere.

I will have to refine my technique apparently.
But, if I push this more and find there really is little national news in these papers, it might help understood how "low information" voters put Trump into office.
They really do not have information, from newspapers at least.  Where are they getting the opinions which drive decisions in the voting booths?
Does anyone know?
Here are the counties I found:
1/ Fayette County, Iowa
2/ Eaton, Michigan
3/ Shiawassee, Michigan
4/ Juneau, Wisconsin
5/ Itasca, Minnesota
6/ Luzerne, Pennslyvania
7/ Bladen, North Carolina


This is a first step, but I do think we need to think about how to find and learn about our countrymen.
So far, looking at the on line papers from these areas, it is not an encouraging sight.
I understand, my scan was superficial. Had I done the same for the Portsmouth (New Hampshire) Herald, I would have missed the "Daily Police Log" the best thing about that paper. But even the Herald has stories about national politics.


If you are feeling particulary masochistic, go google any of the names on this list , then, as an exercise choose one:  key in "Newspapers for Juneau, Wisconsin" for example, and read what people there are reading.


Looking at the images of Americans in these places is startling. They do not look like New York City people. They do not look like people you see in commercials on TV. They look, well, you go look. Tell me what you see. These are the people who listen to Donald Trump speak, and they are smiling.


It may be few people actually read local newspapers any more. It may be this is the wrong place to look for opinion formation.
Maybe I should simply turn on Fox News.