One of the things we tell ourselves to make us feel better about the more negative aspects behind the rise of Donald Trump goes like this: At least people are now giving voice to their darker thoughts, rather than suppress them.
I’ve heard several smart people say something similar to this; heck, I’ve probably repeated this pablum myself. It sounds good when you have nothing else to say. But a recent episode of Slate’s “Political Gabfest” got me wrestling with whether this is actually true. Is it really better to get things out in the open? Isn’t there something to be said about keeping things bottled up? It’s a debatable, but legitimate, question.
Now, some of this is being pushed by liberals with an agenda. They secretly believe that conservatism has a racist underbelly, and are gleeful that Trump is using a megaphone instead of a “dog whistle” to finally expose it. And some of this is being pushed by conservatives with an agenda. To them, there’s nothing worse than political correctness. Thus, saying horrible or unnecessarily provocative things is justified, in the name of stamping it out. These people believe that the political parties have been conspiring to give us boring, sterile, and monolithic policies for too long.
But there are other, more intellectually honest brokers, who are seriously debating this larger point. People who might not like some of the unseemly things they see at a Trump (or Bernie Sanders) rally—or from their supporters—comfort themselves by saying: Well, at least this is out in the open, now. But should this really be comforting?
One school of thought says we can’t really confront our anger, frustration, and prejudices until we first cop to them. In this way of thinking, transparency is a necessary stage on the road to recovery. In this paradigm, the worst thing you can be is a phony.
Another school of thought says civilization necessarily requires us all to pretend to be nice, no matter what we think about each other deep down. This is part of the social contract. This theory suggests that actions and habits, not thoughts, are what really matters. As such, cultural norms and rules that cause people to act nice will eventually change behavior, and then hearts. This way of thinking suggests that bad habits do not sate our carnal desires, they actually whet our appetites for destruction.
Who’s right? It’s unclear. Never mind what’s best for society as a whole, we’re still arguing about whether it’s cathartic to embrace our id at the micro level. Does playing violent video games and watching pornography provide a safe outlet for our base urges—or does it encourage (or train!) us to act out these fantasies in real life?
As for me, I’m inclined to prefer a civilization where we all behave politely, even if we harbor some less than noble attitudes under the surface. The guy who vents about his job is probably less likely to have a heart attack than the guy who bottles up his frustration, sure, but I know which one I’d rather have for a neighbor.
Then again, maybe the guy who bottles things up doesn’t have a heart attack. Maybe, instead, he snaps? I’m not sure there’s a “right” answer to this one, but the next time you hear someone drop this trite cliche, be sure to challenge them on it.