Sentimentalism in American Political Culture Essay

This essay will use two works on sentimentalism in American political culture to analyze a recent event. Saidiya Hartman discusses how an approach to law that emphasizes emotions and feelings can lead to oppression by upholding policies that support potentially unethical practices. Lauren Berlant discusses the other aspect of the approach, where people are led to support positions through empty satisfaction, even if those views ultimately harm them when implemented. Neither effect is beneficial to society as a whole, as it harms either marginalized groups or the entire nation. Combined, these two perspectives form the current perspective on the approach, showing that it is dangerous despite its advantages. The essay will use the inaugural speech of President Donald J. Trump, who is known for his populist platform, as an example to accompany the discussion.

Hartman uses the case of Plessy vs. Ferguson as an example of how the use of sentimentalism by the state harms people. Homer A. Plessy, an African American, took a seat in a white-only coach and refused to leave once questioned by a conductor and informed that he would be arrested otherwise. In the court, the man argued that the segregation laws, which provided for separate but equal accommodations¹, were used to oppress other races. However, the court ruled that the train company’s actions were compliant with the law, claiming that whites did not consent to be near a black person and thus had their rights infringed. In modern politics, segregationist policies are thought of as oppressive and harmful, which shows that Plessy was ultimately correct.

One may assert that Donald J. Trump’s rhetoric on putting America first and reducing its reliance on other countries has a similar segregationist theme. He describes the movement of jobs and facilities to other countries as ravages² and vows to return them home via protectionist policies. However, while his argument may appeal to unemployed Americans, particularly those who blame their status on foreign interference of the type described, it is potentially fallacious. Companies move their business out of the United States to reduce costs and so that they can deliver products to consumers at more competitive prices. Forcing them to stay in the United States could lead to price increases, followed by reduced sales and profits. As such, the use of this sentimentalist rhetoric may lead to the closure of companies and harm both their employees and the general American consumers.

Berlant discusses a later time, near the end of the 20th century when sentimentalism was dominant in American political rhetoric. She claims that feelings can move people quickly due to neither producing pain nor requiring courage³, which makes them dangerous when weaponized. Through quick and undeserved gratification, it is possible to distract a person from their issues and stop their protesting. For example, activists may be offered a solution that appears beneficial on the surface but changes appearances rather than the content of a situation. They will be satisfied, but their goals will remain unachieved, and the suffering ultimately continues.

This type of manipulation is also present in Mr. Trump’s speech, where he discusses issues that have existed for a long time but do not offer a solution. He references poverty, the closure of factories, the expensive American educational system, and gang crime and calls them the nation’s pain⁴. His solution is to stop people from relying on welfare and have them take up jobs so that they can become self-supporting. While the answer sounds gratifying and straightforward, as per Berlant’s rhetoric, it ignores the various factors that constitute these issues. Poverty, for example, has existed throughout many administrations that have used a variety of efforts to address it but failed. Ultimately, Mr. Trump makes empty promises, as he can refer to the impossibility of solving the issue as shown by his predecessors if he fails.

Sentimentality is sometimes necessary to drive people to action, as the success of the civil rights movement shows. Dry logic without consideration for feelings is often insufficient in people’s affairs, as perception is often as important as facts in determining a person’s well-being. However, feelings also cannot be used as the sole determinant in politics because they are easy to manipulate. A movement that is based on emotion will often fail to bring about any change before losing momentum and dissolving. Both of the authors featured in this essay show how the extremes of sentimentalism can lead to continued oppression, whether through disregarding emotion or superficially satisfying it.

Sentimentalism can harm the politician as well as the public, as the example of Mr. Trump shows. His usage of populist rhetoric and appeals to emotion have created a sizable, loyal voter base that secured his victory in the 2016 presidential election. However, he has also earned the enmity of many people, both Republican and Democrat, especially in the media and the Democrat-controlled Congress. As a result, many of the administration’s efforts have been stalled and broadly criticized, reducing its achievements. There have been documented cases of attacks on people who support the President, both physical and reputational. Overall, the refusal to search for a compromise and the appeal to feelings have escalated confrontational attitudes in the nation. These tensions may have been avoided had Mr. Trump relied on other types of rhetoric when appropriate.

The ultimate goal of politics is to achieve goals collectively, and improved overall well-being is one of the most prominent targets in this endeavor. By demonstrating the non-viability of sentimentalism as a primary platform, the authors agree that the correct answer is to use the approach without relying on it. It has advantages that other methods do not have, the ability to move people to action foremost among them. However, it also has fatal flaws, such as the tendency of feelings to weaken over time and the susceptibility to empty changes. Overall, sentimentalism has a place in politics for quick campaigns with clearly defined goals, but one cannot rely on it on a prolonged basis.

Mr. Trump is an excellent demonstration of the point made by Hartman and Berlant, as sentimentalism has created his spectacular political success but also caused many of the issues that confront him. While his proposed policies sound good upon initial inspection, they may have implications that will harm the working class and the United States as a whole. Also, while he has a steady movement of dedicated followers behind him, there is powerful opposition to his person. As such, the benefits of the approach are balanced by significant disadvantages, even when used by a master of sentimentalism such as Mr. Trump. Politicians and other decision-makers should consider using balanced rhetoric to achieve results in both the short and the long term.

Bibliography

Berlant, Lauren. “Poor Eliza.” American Literature 70, no. 3 (1998): 635-668.

Hartman, Saidiya V. Scenes of Subjection: Terror, Slavery, and Self-Making in Nineteenth Century America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

“The Inaugural Address.” The White House. Web.

Footnotes

1. Saidiya V. Hartman, Scenes of Subjection: Terror, Slavery, and Self-Making in Nineteenth-Century America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 193.
2. “The Inaugural Address,” The White House, web.
3. Berlant, 664.
4. “The Inaugural Address”