‘Expressive individualism’ has become a buzz word. Or rather a buzz phrase. What does it mean, and where is it from?
Where [Alasdair] MacIntyre used the term emotivism to name our moral predicament, in their classic 1985 study of American society, Habits of the Heart, the sociologist Robert Bellah and his co-writers identified two powerful strands of American thought that in some ways correspond with the managerial and therapeutic types: utilitarian individualism and expressive individualism.
[. . .]
. . . American culture is arguably even more strongly influenced by the second form of individualism, which arose in opposition to the drive toward ever greater efficiency and control. “Expressive individualism holds that each person has a unique core of feeling and intuition that should unfold or be expressed if individuality is to be realized.” The archetypal expressive individualist, according to Bellah, is Walt Whitman, whose most famous work, Leaves of Grass, begins with the words, “I celebrate myself.” For Whitman, in contrast to Franklin, the goal of life is not to maximize efficiency for the sake of material acquisition but rather to luxuriate in sensual and intellectual experiences, to take pleasure in one’s bodily life and sexuality and to express oneself freely, without any concern for social conventions.
The 2018 article from which I am quoting and to which I link below vigorously attacks Donald Trump as the president of expressive individualism. No mention is made, however, of that expressive individualist nonpareil, the sexually insatiable Bill Clinton, who gave his girlfriends copies of Leaves of Grass and who, unlike Trump, went beyond 'grabbing pussy' to actual rape, or so it has been plausibly alleged. If, as Never-Trumpers believe, character is so important, how can they turn a blind eye to the defective characters of the Clintons? And at present Joe Biden, not to mention his son Hunter and his elder-abusing wife, Jill.
Like so many such articles, the article from the Jesuit magazine, America, offers no plan of action, no way forward, no recipe for national renewal. The author hates Trump and mixes in some solid criticisms of the man with some scurrilous ones.
But now let's get practical. You've heard me say more than once that politics is a practical game. It is not just talk or theory. It is not conducted in ideal space but in the recalcitrant and roily real world. It is not about perfect versus imperfect but about better versus worse. Trump is all we conservatives have. He alone has the courage and the ability to punch back effectively against the omni-destructive Left and impede their destruction of our republic. And in the four years he was in office he proved himself and honored his promises. You say that he's an expressive individualist? Suppose I agree. So what? Hillary is not? Were we not better off then than we would have been under Hillary? Obviously we were on so many fronts: abortion, religious liberty, SCOTUS, Israel, the economy, gun rights, enforcement of the border, and on and on. And would we not be much better off now than we are under the morally corrupt and cognitively impaired puppet, Joe Biden?
What would the Never Trumpers have us do? Retreat from politics altogether? There is no retreat from the totalitarian Left precisely because it is totalitarian. Leftists want the whole enchilada. Never Trumpers don't seem to grasp that politics is always about better or worse. Trump may be bad, but he is better than Hillary or any electable Dem. They go on about how he lies. Many of his 'lies' are not lies at all but self-serving exaggerations or self-aggrandizing counterfactual speculations. To paraphrase: Had it not been been for all the illegal votes, I would have won the popular vote too! A self-serving, unverifiable, braggadocious, counterfactual conditional. But because counterfactually conditional, not a lie. A lie is a deliberate misrepresentation of an actual state of affairs. One cannot lie about a merely possible state of affairs. And when the Orange Man does lie, his lies tend to be harmless unlike the egregiously destructive lies of the Clintons, Obama, and recently Nancy Pelosi who lied brazenly and destructively when she said that the invasion of illegals from the south is a "manufactured crisis." Not to mention Alejandro Mayorkas who outdoes Pelosi in brazen and repeated lies about the security of the border.
Members of the "French resistance" will say, "What doth it profit a man to win the culture but suffer the loss of his soul by supporting Trump?" My answer: I don't endorse Trump the man and all of his sybaritic and self-aggrandizing ways; I support his beneficial policies and programs. My allusion, of course, is to David French.
The central stupidity of the Never Trumpers is that they do not grasp that what matters primarily are policies and programs and judicial appointments that will be in effect long after a given president is out of office, not the personal life and shortcomings of the person who serves a term or two. They let the better become the enemy of the good, in violation of the dictum attributed to Voltaire: Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien. They ought to be condemned for what they are: yap-and-scribble do-nothing useful idiots.