 |
| Ilhan Omar, Congressional Portrait |
What’s going on here? Omar is one very junior congresswoman of
the 435 who serve in the House of Representatives. She is not the most liberal
politician; Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has her beat on that score. She is
not the most powerful member of Congress; more like one of the weakest. To
understand why the crowd chanted “Send Her Back,” we need to look at a rhetorical
concept called the flag individual.
The flag individual is a creation of radical rhetoric. Whatever else you think of him or his policies, Donald Trump certainly uses persuasive techniques that radicals have developed over the centuries. I’m not necessarily saying that Trump is a radical on the issues, but rather that he has long used the same persuasive techniques that radicals use.
The idea of the flag individual is this: real social and economic problems are complicated and it is unlikely that any one person or group causes them. The broad social and economic forces that cause middle-class incomes to stagnate, lead to the deterioration of America’s highway system and other infrastructure, and which give the United States the worst healthcare system of any industrialized nation do not have simple causes. But to study complex economic theories defined by analytic geometry graphs or to examine sociological theories interests few people.
Instead, people would rather blame an individual or small group for their problems. The world then seems, not like complex enterprise that it really is, but rather the malicious creation of a small group of evil behind-the-scenes conspirators. The radical speaker spends more time attacking these individuals than talking about practical policies.
Along comes Ilhan Omar, a tiny, friendly, outspoken woman who crops up out of nowhere. She wins election to Congress from Minnesota along with a small group of freshmen congresswomen called “The Squad.” She is everything that Donald Trump stands against: she is politically liberal; she is an immigrant; she has dark skin; she is a Muslim who wears the traditional hijab. She is a woman walking into a man’s world. She exudes optimism and cheer. As with many refugees, some paperwork about her is missing. Her basic ideas, such as expanding healthcare, are quite in line with mainstream public opinion. So why the rage? Why chant “Send Her Back?”
Here's why. Flag individuals simplify things for people. The world is complicated, and people don’t like complicated things. To oppose health care reform requires you to study difficult economic issues. To be angry at Ilhan Omar is much easier. It’s easy to be angry at one person. She becomes a target. Can she stand up to the vitriol lodged against her by the President of the United States and millions of his enraged supporters? If they defeat her, will they have defeated the forces of evil that seek to reform healthcare or who want to tax the rich? Simple.
There is something of the old notion of single combat here. In the Bible, David fought Goliath, each representing his own army. Once David won, the emboldened Israelite army slaughtered the Philistine army. Likewise, if Trump can beat Ilhan Omar one-on-one, conservatives might be emboldened to attack other liberal politicians. That, I think, is their underlying idea.
All of this, of course, enables Donald Trump and his supporters to avoid any and all issues discussion. So what? Most of Ilhan Omar’s enemies probably have no idea what issues she stands for or why they would be good or bad. What they recognize is that she symbolizes what they oppose. The world is changing, and when a young Muslim refugee enters Congress, well, she symbolizes wholesale social change. That is what makes her a flag individual.
Flag individuals suffer enormous personal stress as they receive withering and usually unfair criticism, undergoing personal attacks and even death threats. Omar surely got an emotional boost when she returned home a couple days ago to a crowd chanting, "Welcome home, Ilhan." After Trump's crowd attacked her, her own supporters gathered to support her all the more fervently. That, again, is a typical response to radical rhetoric: as Trump enthused his supporters, he repelled his opponents.
Speaking only for myself, I don’t think that radical rhetoric belongs in a constitutional republic like the United States. We can effect social change by the ballot, public persuasion, peaceful demonstration, and personal action. Although the right to vote is under attack, especially in conservative parts of the country, there is not enough reason for people to unhinge our system. People who don’t like things should vote instead of acting like radicals. Of course, as elderly white people like me become a shrinking part of the electorate, fear of change can lead them to adopt unwise ideas while their leaders, like President Trump, can try to unbalance the system that made our nation great.
The flag individual is a creation of radical rhetoric. Whatever else you think of him or his policies, Donald Trump certainly uses persuasive techniques that radicals have developed over the centuries. I’m not necessarily saying that Trump is a radical on the issues, but rather that he has long used the same persuasive techniques that radicals use.
The idea of the flag individual is this: real social and economic problems are complicated and it is unlikely that any one person or group causes them. The broad social and economic forces that cause middle-class incomes to stagnate, lead to the deterioration of America’s highway system and other infrastructure, and which give the United States the worst healthcare system of any industrialized nation do not have simple causes. But to study complex economic theories defined by analytic geometry graphs or to examine sociological theories interests few people.
Instead, people would rather blame an individual or small group for their problems. The world then seems, not like complex enterprise that it really is, but rather the malicious creation of a small group of evil behind-the-scenes conspirators. The radical speaker spends more time attacking these individuals than talking about practical policies.
Along comes Ilhan Omar, a tiny, friendly, outspoken woman who crops up out of nowhere. She wins election to Congress from Minnesota along with a small group of freshmen congresswomen called “The Squad.” She is everything that Donald Trump stands against: she is politically liberal; she is an immigrant; she has dark skin; she is a Muslim who wears the traditional hijab. She is a woman walking into a man’s world. She exudes optimism and cheer. As with many refugees, some paperwork about her is missing. Her basic ideas, such as expanding healthcare, are quite in line with mainstream public opinion. So why the rage? Why chant “Send Her Back?”
Here's why. Flag individuals simplify things for people. The world is complicated, and people don’t like complicated things. To oppose health care reform requires you to study difficult economic issues. To be angry at Ilhan Omar is much easier. It’s easy to be angry at one person. She becomes a target. Can she stand up to the vitriol lodged against her by the President of the United States and millions of his enraged supporters? If they defeat her, will they have defeated the forces of evil that seek to reform healthcare or who want to tax the rich? Simple.
There is something of the old notion of single combat here. In the Bible, David fought Goliath, each representing his own army. Once David won, the emboldened Israelite army slaughtered the Philistine army. Likewise, if Trump can beat Ilhan Omar one-on-one, conservatives might be emboldened to attack other liberal politicians. That, I think, is their underlying idea.
All of this, of course, enables Donald Trump and his supporters to avoid any and all issues discussion. So what? Most of Ilhan Omar’s enemies probably have no idea what issues she stands for or why they would be good or bad. What they recognize is that she symbolizes what they oppose. The world is changing, and when a young Muslim refugee enters Congress, well, she symbolizes wholesale social change. That is what makes her a flag individual.
Flag individuals suffer enormous personal stress as they receive withering and usually unfair criticism, undergoing personal attacks and even death threats. Omar surely got an emotional boost when she returned home a couple days ago to a crowd chanting, "Welcome home, Ilhan." After Trump's crowd attacked her, her own supporters gathered to support her all the more fervently. That, again, is a typical response to radical rhetoric: as Trump enthused his supporters, he repelled his opponents.
Speaking only for myself, I don’t think that radical rhetoric belongs in a constitutional republic like the United States. We can effect social change by the ballot, public persuasion, peaceful demonstration, and personal action. Although the right to vote is under attack, especially in conservative parts of the country, there is not enough reason for people to unhinge our system. People who don’t like things should vote instead of acting like radicals. Of course, as elderly white people like me become a shrinking part of the electorate, fear of change can lead them to adopt unwise ideas while their leaders, like President Trump, can try to unbalance the system that made our nation great.
For more information
about flag individuals, the best source is a very good short book by John Waite
Bowers, Donovan Ochs, Richard J. Jensen and David P. Schulz, The
Rhetoric of Agitation and Control. Radical organizer Saul Alinsky discusses
some similar ideas in his handbook, Rules
for Radicals.
No comments:
Post a Comment