How rhetoric and far-right tactics normalize fear and tribalism
Hundreds of Guelph high school students walked out of class last Friday, Sept. 21 to protest the provincial government’s rollbacks of the 2015 sex education curriculum. The transportation back to the 1998 curriculum was quickly followed up with the cancellation of Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) curriculum writing sessions to improve Indigenous education. Thousands more walked out across the province to protest the Premier of Ontario’s decisions.
It was a hopeful and uplifting grassroots march that saw hundreds of teenagers getting involved in the political process. Students rose to the call for action, engaged as political citizens committed to the democratic project. If the personal is political then these students found what is personal, and in the process, found their voices.
And while these students showed a maturity beyond their years, it was made all the more noticeable by the contrast: the guys in Make America Great Again (MAGA) hats manning a black, raised pickup truck tricked out with thick wheels, roll cage, flood lights, and the fear mongering, politically inciting touch of the blue Trump flag. The Guelph Mercury Tribune reports that the Trump supporters were giving protestors the middle finger.
The truck revved up Carden Street intimidating and inciting the protestors. On the next lap a student stole the flag causing the Trump supporter to leave the vehicle, but the police intervened to return the flag and told the Trump supporters to go home. They did.
In beginning to make sense of this, we at The Ontarion want to first denounce the actions of the Trump counter protestors. Denounce firstly because this is Canada, not America, so the hats make no sense (we recommend buying some Ford Nation merch or something that is at least relevant to the discourse).
Denounce secondly because these are fear-mongering tactics. To be in a raised, intimidating vehicle bent on fear-mongering symbolic gestures, implicitly looking to incite progressive-leaning students, rather than seeking an informed, rational debate on policy — it should be noted that three Ford supporters sat at a collapsible table willing to debate fellow students — creates factions in a ever-siloing world.
These tactics, particularly after tragedies like Charlottesville (and we are not equating the two, Charlottesville is simply the end of the road; the off-the-cliff manifestation of what happens if we take these political conflicts to their farthest extreme, well not the farthest, see the Second World War), incites a division that predicates a war-bent tribalism.
What are we to make of this? These two rogue anomalies, two soldiers representing a global trend towards a racist, divisive stance wearing the mask of populism, that is, “the will of the people.”
Of course these two men could just be two unreasonable people trying to stir up something — what that is remains unknown to me and the rest of the editorial team. This seemingly transnational feeling is rooted in xenophobia, racism, hate, and general discomfort with progressive policies.
In 1995, Umberto Eco wrote an essay gifting us a list on the modes and commonalities of fascist movements. Eco was a boy within Mussolini’s Italy and was raised as a fascist. He wrote school papers on whether he “should die for the glory of Mussolini and the immortal destiny of Italy.” He notes that his answer was “positive” because he was a “smart boy.”
Towards the end of his essay, Eco lists 14 commonalities of fascism. The first is the cult of tradition, that the past are the glory days that must be redeemed and reinstated. The second is a rejection of modernism, of enlightenment ideals that uplift, above all else, rationalism. Which leads Eco to his third point: Ur-Facism (his catch-all term for fascist movements) depends on an irrationalist “cult of action for action’s sake.” Can we equate the Trump supporters of this seemingly unorganized and impulsive drive-by-flag-waving-middle-finger-raising actions to Eco’s theory? I’ll let the reader decide.
Eco’s ninth point, which I believe to be most pertinent, is that for Ur-Fascism “life is [a] permanent warfare.”
In our era, it seems that in all political conflict, whether online or within protests, warfare is explicit. Tribal lines are drawn. Us versus them has been instituted, always, regardless of the discourse on policy. Rhetoric is king, not policy or rationality.
Eco states that “freedom of speech means freedom from rhetoric.” Let that marinate. To speak freely, and to be heard earnestly, divisive rhetoric grounded in irrationalism must be transformed into respectful and open debate held in good faith and for the goal of the common good. If common ground is to be found, there cannot be permanent warfare embodied by Trumpian tactics, but perhaps a collapsible table.
Photos by Barbara Salsberg Matthews and Photo Courtesy of Guelph-Mercury Tribune