If you prefer to listen rather than read, this blog is available as a podcast here. Or if you want to listen to just this post:
I.
If you’ve been following along for any length of time, you know that I live in Utah, a state which has a number of interesting qualities, particularly when it comes to politics. To begin with, as you’re all probably aware, Utah is not a swing state, its electoral votes have gone to the Republican Presidential candidate in every election since 1968. Now, Trump may change all of that (though based on the current crop of democractic nominees I’m guessing that he won’t) but Trump’s standing in Utah is a topic for another time. As an additional peculiarity, and something that most people don’t know, Utah is the only state where Clinton came in third place to Perot in 1992. But of all the political oddities peculiar to Utah, the one I want to focus on is lawn signs.
If I’ve done my job right, you are now overcome with curiosity and wondering what possible peculiarity there might be when it comes to Utah and lawn signs. Well to begin with, after considering everything I’ve already said, one would naturally assume that if there was any place where you would expect to see lawn signs for the Republican Presidential Candidate it would be in Utah. And yet, at least in Salt Lake, I not only don’t remember any signs for Trump in 2016. I very clearly remember there being no signs for McCain in 2008 when he was running against Obama. Why, in one of the most reliably Republican states in the country, would there be no lawn signs for the Republican Nominee?
One possibility is that I’m just wrong, there were lawn signs and I just didn’t see them or don’t remember them.
Or perhaps, knowing how solidly Republican Utah was, the campaign didn’t bother to send any lawn signs to Utah. But if that’s the case why were there plenty of Obama and Clinton lawn signs? Wouldn’t the same not-worth-fighting-over logic apply?
Maybe it’s the fact that I’m in Salt Lake, which is actually pretty blue. Sure, the state is pretty Republican, but perhaps Salt Lake City might as well be San Francisco. Well, if we look at the actual numbers we find that Obama did in fact win Salt Lake County, by the massive margin of 0.1%, 49.2% to 49.1%. In 2016 the margin was greater, 41.99% to 32.96% but that’s still a fair amount of Trump supporters, for there to not be a single yard sign.
As you can tell, none of these three theories seems very compelling, at least to me, but there is another theory that I like better. A theory which combines signalling, with what it’s acceptable to signal. If we start from a very naive view of things, we might expect that the number of yard signs would be proportional to the percentage of eventual voters, but this is obviously not the case. In San Francisco, of those who voted for either Clinton or Trump, one in ten voted for Trump, but I would be willing to bet a very large sum of money that one in ten election signs in San Francisco were not similarly in support of Trump.
If visible signs of support are not proportional to eventual vote totals what does determine people’s desire to signal and the acceptability of such signalling? You might think that if each candidate will eventually get a roughly equal number of votes, that the visible signs of support would also be equal, and that from this point of rough equilibrium, visible support would drop off faster than actual support as one candidate ended up in the minority. That basically, as one candidate’s majority becomes greater and greater, signalling support for the minority candidate has less and less utility. But in the example I just gave from Salt Lake City, McCain and Obama’s eventual support was as close to even as you can get, and yet I would swear that I didn’t see a single McCain campaign sign. Is it possible that it’s disproportionately beneficial to signal support for a Democratic candidate and disproportionately harmful to signal support for a Republican candidate?
I’m well aware that this is mostly based on a single observation, so one point of this post is to see if anyone else has a similar experience to mine, where you live in a city with lots of Republican voters, but very little visible evidence of these voters? I suspect there are a lot of examples of this. I would even go so far as to say that I’d be surprised if anyone’s experiences didn’t match my own. That is, the percentage of visible support being less than the percentage of actual support given as votes. Beyond the reluctance of people on the right to visibly signal, even while in the majority, as I described above, I have also noticed the opposite situation with those on the left, actual eagerness to signal, even while in the minority, and I would be curious to hear about other people’s experiences. Assuming that all of the foregoing is correct, why might this be?
II.
As part of my answer I’d like to start by relating yet another observation, this one much more recent. As I mentioned in the post just before this one I spent the first few days of August at a gaming convention. (Which convention is probably easy enough to figure out, but I shall leave it unnamed for a variety of reasons.) I’ve been attending the same convention for many years, and for as long as I can remember people have been attaching ribbons to the bottoms of their badges. Generally these ribbons represented one or the other niches at the convention. As an example, a fan of Settlers of Catan might have a ribbon each for brick, lumber, wool, grain, and ore. Last year I noticed some new, rainbow colored ribbons. (You can probably already guess the nature of the ribbons.) One said “Gaymer”, and for those who weren’t actually gay, there was an “Ally” ribbon. Somewhat subconsciously I added these as another niche. There were fans of Settlers of Catan and there were people who wanted to combine LGBT advocacy with their gaming.
When I attended this year, I quickly realized that I had been wrong. Last year, I saw just a few people wearing these ribbons and while I hesitate to put forth any hard numbers, my guess would be that, at most, 5% of badges had one of these ribbons last year. And, as I said, I subconsciously added it as another niche.
This year, the number was much higher, again I’m reluctant to put forth a hard number, but it could have easily been 25%, and perhaps higher. Also this year a new variety of ribbon had been added which allowed people to announce their preferred pronouns. (I was surprised by the number of They/Them ribbons I saw.) Once again I’m dealing with only a small amount of data, but at a minimum I’m already curious about what this percentage is going to look like next year.
All of this is to say that it seems unlikely that the actual number of gay gamers and their allies has quintipled since last year. No it’s more likely that the phenomenon of rainbow ribbon badges and republican candidate lawn signs are actually similar, that both come down to signalling, and what it’s acceptable to signal, or more accurately what it’s unacceptable to signal. As an example of what I mean, imagine that I printed up some ribbons that said “Straight” or “Not an Ally” or “Gamers opposed to Same Sex Marriage”. (That last one wouldn’t fit on a badge, and I think the difficulty of signalling opposition illustrates my point.) But to return to my point can you imagine how unacceptable it would be to signal opposition to LGBT tolerance? And, in fact, I think this leads to the point I’ve already noted, that not only would it be entirely unacceptable to wear any of the ribbons just mentioned, that it’s becoming increasingly unacceptable to not have an “Ally” ribbon showing your support.
It’s not hard to imagine that this might happen at a gaming convention which mostly skews younger and “woker”, but I believe it’s happening more widely, and that’s why I started out by talking about the lawn signs. This is not only, I would submit, an example of the same thing, but furthermore an example illustrating how long this has been going on for and in places you wouldn’t expect. To be clear, what I’m arguing is that just as it is becoming increasingly unacceptable to not signal support for LGBT issues, that it was already unacceptable for many years, even in very conservative states to visibly signal support for Republican Presidential Candidates. Once again, why might this be?
III.
On one level the answer to this question is that both stories are just examples of the ongoing social progress that has been happening for decades if not centuries, but I find that particular answer lacking. In the first example, it’s not that people are changing how they vote it’s that they’re changing what they’re willing to visibly signal. In the second example, we see a trend (which to be fair, may or may not continue) where once again people expect certain signalling above and beyond someone’s actual behavior. In other words, in both cases, we’re not seeing “progress” in behaviors or progress in what’s allowed, in part because both of these have just about topped out, we’re seeing “progress” through an increasingly unified idea of what attitudes and beliefs it’s acceptable to display openly. That most individuals have moved beyond expecting to be allowed to do and believe certain things, to fashioning a set of attitudes and beliefs which they expect everyone to adopt.
Thus far none of this is particularly new or surprising. Conservatives and other people worried about overactive political correctness have long warned about this transition from allowing people to do certain, previously taboo, things to demanding that everyone enthusiastically support people doing these certain things. But I want to go beyond just identifying the trend, or expressing short-term alarm to categorizing the trend as something specific, consequential and long-term.
A few posts ago I touched on Scott Alexander’s idea that social justice might be a new civic religion. For this to be the case, if social justice is going to supplant the old civic religion of patriotism, it has to be growing. It has to be vibrant and powerful. It has to be able to sweep the old civic religion away. It has to be able to dominate the “signaling space”. In both of the examples I provided this is what appears to be happening. That what people support has decoupled from what people decide to signal. That these examples illustrate not a change in inner beliefs or behavior, but the rise of a different public dogma or in other words a new civic religion.
Now perhaps you think I’m going to far, and certainly there’s a lot of discussion about what makes something a religion, and wading into that is way beyond the scope of this post, but the expectation that everyone will outwardly display specific beliefs has to be a big part of it, particularly in the case of civic religions.
Pulling everything together, I increasingly agree with Alexander that social justice is a nascent civil religion, that the lawn signs and the badge ribbons should be considered as evidence that something new is dominating the signalling space and that these are examples of the presence and growth of this religion, a different, more extreme, and more cohesive phenomenon than the generic social progress we’ve seen previously.
Before moving on, I should mention that I’m fully aware that just as one swallow does not a summer make, neither does two examples a civic religion make. But my guess is that at this point you’re in one of two categories. Either you can think of a dozen other examples of this and you’re nodding along in agreement, or you’ve completely dismissed my point as conservative paranoia. And in neither case will providing more examples move the needle very much. Assuming that you’re one of the people who’s nodding along, the next question, once we’ve figured out why it’s happening, is to ask what happens next?
IV.
If you are in the “conservative paranoia” camp, and you’ve made it this far. I’ll start off with the possibility you might actually like. It’s possible that what happens next is that, by degrees, we enter a social justice utopia. That all the things people hope for come to pass as people “join” the new religion. That systemic racism is done away with, along with all other forms of bigotry. That gaps in pay and education between minorities and genders vanish. That when everyone is an “Ally” there are no LGBT issues because that distinction no longer makes any sense. That everyone is treated with fairness and kindness and as a result global peace and prosperity will reign. That, in essence, I end up being wrong about everything. This would be great. I could stop writing, buy a nice recliner and finally catch up on all the TV shows people keep recommending to me. Unfortunately, despite my desire to finally watch all six seasons of the Sopranos, nothing about how events are playing out leads me to believe that this possibility has any chance of happening.
Another possibility would be some kind of fusion between the new civic religion and the old, that patriotism and the 4th of July meld with social justice and gay pride to form some hybrid civic religion, better than the old civic religion, or maybe just able to thread whatever needle we’re going through now, and get us to something resembling normality after Trump, but if anything this seems less likely than the previous possibility, given how irreconcilable the differences between the two sides appear to be. Also while I’m not an expert on the rise of new civic religions, I don’t get the sense that “peaceful fusion with the old religion” is something that ever happens. Part of the problem is a relative paucity of examples. I think historically actual religions were the norm and that replacing an actual religion with a civic religion is a relatively new innovation, but insofar as we have examples, most of them have been bloody. Which takes us to the next possibility.
Having talked a lot about possibilities which are unlikely, let’s turn to a possibility that seems more and more likely. Widespread and perhaps even bloody conflict between the two civic religions, old and new. Obviously on some level this is bad, but an argument could be made, that on net, the outcome in its totality might be good. I was having a discussion with a friend recently on this very topic where he made just such an argument. In the course of the discussion, I had brought up previous upheavals which occurred as countries switched civic religions. In particular the decades of revolution that France went through as it, arguably, switched from the civil religion of the monarchy (or the empire) to the civil religion of liberté, égalité, fraternité. Revolutions in which hundreds of thousands of people died (millions if you include the Napoleonic Wars). My friend argued that as bad as all this was that in the long run the French were better off going through all of it than remaining under the monarchy as it stood in 1788. Perhaps this is true, though I’m not the best person to ask. I have a tendency to give fewer points for historical wrongs than other individuals. Also this imagines that there were only those two options, but in reality there were lots of options, and among all the various options I suspect that there were several which would have given them the same amount of liberté, égalité, fraternité with less violence.
Which is to say, even if conflict is inevitable, it would be nice if we could minimize the actual bloodshed and violence. Given that conflict seems to have already begun this is the course I’m continually advocating for, pointing out that this may require us to end up with two civic religions, which are separated in some fashion. To me this seems markedly better than re-enacting any of the revolutions of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. But in order to do this, I think it’s necessary, first of all, to slow down the pace of change, something the adherents of social justice seem disinclined to consider.
Of course, as I alluded to just now, all conflicts eventually end, and usually (though not always) one side is victorious. What happens if the religion of social justice is eventually victorious? It is certainly possible that conflict, even very violent conflict, could end up being a roundabout way to arrive at the first possibility, the social justice utopia. That in the end, just like the French (if my friend is to be believed) we’ll be better off, despite whatever blood that gets spilt. But we should also consider the possibility that if social justice is triumphant we will end up with something closer to a dystopia instead. Recall that both facism and communism were essentially civic religions. And that communism, at least (but perhaps facism also) promised justice. It wasn’t social justice, it was economic justice, but how sure are we that if the civic religion of social justice ends up triumphing (with or without conflict) that it won’t fail in a similar fashion? In other words, one possibility is that the new religion does wipe out the old one, but that this ends up being a very bad thing.
V.
In the end, the question of whether we’re witnessing the rise of a new civic religion is an important one. Because if we are then the best historical evidence would indicate that such transitions are rarely accomplished without extreme upheaval. Looking back, I probably should have spent more time discussing historical examples of religious transitions, rather than spending so much time on a couple of marginal examples of the current evidence. (Though I find both examples fascinating.) And perhaps I will dive more into the historical record in some future post. Though I can already tell that it will offer very little comfort.
As one final possibility, there is, as always, a very good chance that I’m wrong, that we aren’t currently in the beginnings of a conflict between the old civic religion of patriotism and a new one of social justice. But if I am wrong about things, my guess is that it’s because I’ve vastly undercounted the number of new civic religions, that rather than one new civic religion we might actually end up with dozens, all in competition. Certainly we’ve seen evidence of that happening in the past when the previous civic religion began to run out of steam. Toss in the internet and social media this time around and we might end up with a lot more of it. And while I personally think that one in particular deserves most of the attention, it’s hard to say what will happen.
I guess the one thing I didn’t spend a lot of time was the weakness of the old civic religion, so let me share one brief, final anecdote. On Sunday I happened to be rewatching The Avengers. (Yes, I know I could be watching the Sopranos instead, but I can rewatch The Avengers while doing something else.) And there’s a scene where Agent Coulson mentions to Steve Rogers that they have a new uniform for him, and Rogers responds by asking, “Isn’t the Stars and Stripes a little old fashioned?” I remember being struck by this question, since it gets to the root of the problem. When even Captain America is questioning the power of the flag you know that the current civic religion is getting near the end of its lifespan. And it’s imminent death leaves us with some very important questions to consider, perhaps the most important facing our country right now:
- How will it die?
- Is that death going to be violent?
- And, what comes after? Will it be a utopia or a dystopia?
As you can probably guess, going to gaming conventions to make sweeping predictions about colored ribbons is not cheap. If you’d care to assist me in that endeavor consider donating.
Just finished this podcast. The thing that occurred to me when you were wondering about armed conflict was who is going to bother to fight for the other side? I’m trying to picture this in relation to, say, the French Revolution. Sounds strange to modern ears but there were people who took monarchy seriously and felt restoring the crown was a cause worth giving a life for. Maybe not immediately during the initial Revolution but in the decades since there were a serious counter-revolutionary reaction.
I’m trying to imagine the type of person who would lay down his life for Trump and, well, I’m kind of drawing a blank. Even more odd is to try to imagine calling such a movement ‘Patriotism’. Will any of your most avid Trump loving friends take up arms should a President Warren order that the USS John McCain not drape a tarp over its name and her officers not have to hide their uniforms on the first 4 of July? I’m not quite seeing it. In fact I suspect after Trump quite a few Republicans will adopt the stance many took on Bush Jr. During 2008 and since the most common reaction to Bush by Republicans was something like “I’m not quite sure who approved his membership application”. Ahhh but during those years the story was quite different. Perhaps you might have forgotten the WSJ article comparing President Bush to Batman:
”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB121694247343482821
Gotta love that don’t you? Kind of wish Trump had been reminded of it when he was running against Jeb. When the time comes, the right isn’t going to fight for Trump but will simply ditch him when he ceases to have power. Come to think of it, would behaving any differently be loyal to the type of leadership values Trump exhibits? Hmmm
So I’m coming back again to trying to imagine what banner a ‘patriotism’ could actually be capable of marching into violence under? The only one that might fly is the one the El Paso shooter marched under. Fundamentalism is very simple and direct, if you think you are being invaded then shooting invaders follows logically. But that’s not going to motivate any but a tiny group of people. Opposition to SSM and gay rights and restoring traditional values? Perhaps 20 years ago but then again after going all in for Trump and learning that the only other clients Michael Cohen had besides Trump was Jerry Falwell Jr. and Sean Hannity that boat has more or less sailed.
Even more damming, IMO, is the sense that opposition to these things doesn’t even feel like opposition anymore but simply inertia. No one thinks that Trump cares about any of these things and policy changes like opposing covering trans people in civil rights protections feels like a payoff to his supporters rather than a really held position (and just like his on again off again tariffs, one that could just as easily be forgotten about tomorrow). Again I don’t mean to be harsh but if we are going to talk about violence then we have to think about whose going to think this is a cause worth dying for? There are people who will die for marriage equality, if there are people who will die for marriage inequality one has to ask how they embraced a leader who undermines such highly important values in exchange for a few court appointments and some tax cuts? In fact, no one even argues for marriage inequality anymore. At least in the 90’s you had long winded essays trying to prove there was something essential about opposing SSM.
I think the analogy here is less about a clash of civic cultures or religions. That is kind of presuming an equality between the two which quite frankly isn’t there anymore. Instead I think what we have is a clash between one culture and people who fancy themselves to be outside it but really lack any alternative hence are more trapped by the culture they say they oppose than even those that like it.
The analogy that might be more apt here is capitalism versus self-declared communists circa, say, 1970 or 1980. How might we describe them? We can say they were moderate good at pointing out the flaws of the current system, often had some biting criticisms. But ultimately had no real alternative and became somewhat parodies of themselves (“hey hippie, tell us again about how bad corporations are as you tap away on your iPhone in a Starbucks as you work on your Whole Foods shopping list.”) Absent a real alternative, it’s just good for some occasional self-reflection and that’s about it. Think about gay cakes in bakeshops or fighting against trans bathroom and ask yourself is this really an alternative culture or civic religion or just some nitpicking around the sides? Kind of like saying “gee maybe the malls are too shallow and materialistic” isn’t quite overturning capitalism.
As always I’m wary of saying “This time it’s different” this time we don’t have violent partisans, or this time we don’t have an issue anyone is willing to fight for. None of this is to say that this time might not be different, and I listed that as one of the possibilities.
If I’m going to strenuously object on any point, it’s that you seem to be pinning too much of your argument on Trump, and whether people might be willing to engage in violence specifically for him. Probably not, but most of the future is going to happen in a world without Trump, and there are lots of people out there who might evoke violent passions, even if Trump doesn’t.
Also I’m far more worried (and I know you violently 😉 disagree with me on this) about violence from the other side because the last few opponents of social justice aren’t capitulating fast enough. There are a lot of people who firmly believe that the only thing preventing a utopia isa small group of bigots. No I don’t think they’re ready to lead them to the guillotine just yet, but what does it look like in another 10-20 years?
I do agree it is possible to have partisans who are violent but not on behalf of Trump. Many of the right wing shooters have a point when they view themselves as pre-existing Trump. However they are not dying or spending the rest of their life in prison because they were shooting up places that support SSM, or even shooting up people who oppose those who oppose SSM. At the moment their cause seems to be opposing non-whites in the US. I don’t see that as a cause that’s going to garner legions of partisans to take to the streets with their guns.
As for the danger coming from those seeking to stamp out the last few opposed to social justice….. Why, then, are the ‘culture war dispatches’ cake shops, pizza places and an overrated chicken franchise? I mean everywhere you go it isn’t hard to find a Catholic Church. All Catholic Churches refuse to do gay marriages and to boot they don’t even do the marriages of people who were previously divorced (which was a cultural battle lost decades ago). I mean if you seriously felt taking down those opposed to SSM, say, is the key to utopia aren’t Catholic Churches all over the place? And yet this battle turns to eccentric bakers and pizza tossers? I know other churches oppose SSM too but I’m making it really, really easy here. I mean from a distance a Baptist Church doesn’t look all that different from a Unitarian so I’m providing your hypothetical violent SJWs the least amount of work possible.
” No I don’t think they’re ready to lead them to the guillotine just yet, but what does it look like in another 10-20 years?”
Yet let us go back and recall it wasn’t all that long ago Rockefeller was denied the Republican nomination because he was divorced. Less than 20 years later a divorced man got that nomination. It was maybe 30 years ago a particular party decried the sloppy morals of a man who had extramarital affairs being in the Oval Office. Now look where we are. I wouldn’t worry about the guillotine coming for the necks here, it appears turtle genes have evolved incredibly quickly in the evolutionary niche.
So I was considering your comments on the absolute absence of Trump signs in Salt Lake City in the lead up to the 2016 election. Specifically, I note that this is at absolute odds with my own personal observations in the months leading to the election. In suburban New Jersey, there were only Trump signs. Clinton signs were nearly absent, I think I saw more Jill Stein yard signs than Clinton yard signs.
My state went for Clinton (obviously), but my county went Trump 51-42.
I’m not sure how to square this circle with your observations in Utah, other than to suspect significant cultural differences play a role?
Fascinating. Though as you point out your county did go for Trump by a fairly significant margin. And it does fit into my overall point that the percentage of yards signs you see does not end up at all reflecting the percentage of the vote. Meaning there’s a signalling tipping point.
In larger sense might it not reflect the dominant civic religion of the area?
Another NJ person here!
My area of NJ tends suburban and GOP registered voters tend to outnumber Democrats ranging from 1.25 to 2 to 1. The more urban counties are strongly Democratic so that creates a dynamic of two machines…Newark, Trenton, Camden, etc. are solid blue machines but larges areas of Morris, Sussex, Warren counties have GOP machines where the same people are elected over and over and people appoint themselves to multiple jobs at once.
Civic religion? There are serious pro-lifers, pro-gun and anti-SSM people among the GOP. Ultimately the party, though, identifies itself as opposed to taxes which it blames on Democrats (despite having decades of uncontested control in many towns and counties with no serious tax relief).
2016 I saw a lot of people with Trump stickers/signs. Granted, though, this was a small minority but they have a habit of standing out so you noticed them. There were some Hilary but not many. There’s also Eastern PA which did go for Trump and has a lot of drivers who go thru Jersey. About 6 months to a year into Trump I noticed many bumper stickers vanished. You still see some but IMO they vanished because many who did go for Trump are not so eager anymore (bumper stickers in particular stick around forever).
I’m wondering in regards to Salt Lake City and Utah, there was a 3rd party attempt to provide right wing voters with a ‘moral’ alternative to Trump. I’m wondering if perhaps the lack of signs is the result of many GOP voters feeling on some level they either made a pack with the devil or accept the lesser evil but regardless. This would be unlike, say, Romney or Reagan, which I suspect many Utah Republicans both voted for and felt reasonably good about.
As for signs, perhaps the dynamic is simply Utahians are inclined not to be too pushy about their politics hence signs are frowned upon (and the party itself probably isn’t keen on flooding a state with lots of resources since it’s a sure thing). Left wing Utahians might simply be more motivated as they are fighting an uphill battle against those who are very comfortable politically.
What was the sign situation earlier when there were 200 Republicans trying to get the nomination and what Utah Republicans did actually made a difference in terms of the race?