Will Bunch’s recent column in the Philadelphia Inquirer has stayed with me, because it weaves various threads of history and politics into a clear and compelling tapestry with which ordinary people can act. 

From its attacks on the trans community to its sabotage of programs for diversity, equity and inclusion; from its re-stigmatizing of autism and mental illness to its weird obsession with beaded men in the armed forces — one thing binds the madness of the Trump regime, Will said.

“Our authoritarian government is waging war to flatten any differences, to make America great again with a forced monochrome lens.”

Will sketches out what “normal” means to an authoritarian government: a rigid social hierarchy structured according to race, sex, class and “fitness,” with rich, white, straight, Christian men possessing the exclusive power to determine whose rights count and whose don’t.

Deviations from this “norm” – whether it’s a child with autism or a Black leader or an opinionated woman or just some guy with a beard – are seen as aberrations, perhaps perversions, that justify a reaction by the state. As Will said, this is key to understanding the regime’s motives. 

“I think we vastly underrate how central this contempt for anyone who looks or acts differently from an idealized pre-1960 vision of America is to the entire fascist enterprise that we have too kindly branded ‘Trumpism,’” Will wrote.

By bringing our attention to the regime’s desire to flatten the differences, Will underscores the fact that totalizing conformity is its goal. Ultimately, Americans must look the same, talk the same, act the same, think the same – and if you can’t or won’t, on account of being some kind of “deviant” from the “norm” then you get what you deserve.

Such totalizing conformity, even the concept of it, used to be taboo in the American mainstream. From the social struggles of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s arose the transformational idea that everyone has the right to be who they are, free of coercion and control by the government. In contrast to the origins of one’s birth, America was the one place in the world where anyone could become who they were destined to be. 

Daring to be different was daring to be free.

Conformity isn’t taboo anymore thanks in part to its proponents hiding their real intentions. They have lied so much, so hard and for so long that they have duped mainstream Americans into thinking groupthink is rugged individualism. Here, I’m thinking of Joe Rogan, who once said: 

“The rebels are Republicans now. They’re like, you want to be a rebel? You want to be punk rock? You want to, like, buck the system? You’re a conservative now. That’s how crazy. And then the liberals are now pro-silencing criticism. They’re pro-censorship online. They’re talking about regulating free speech and regulating the First Amendment.”

In reality, it’s the illiberals on the right that want to take your liberty, your rights and control over your body and mind. It is not the left, not the true champions of the leftist politics, by which I mean liberals. (Liberals, of course, are not immune to their own kind of corruption.)

While the right aims to flatten the immutable differences between and among individuals, in order to make them virtually indistinguishable in relation to the state, liberals aim to flatten the hierarchies of organized power – especially within the state – in order to liberate individuals.

Trump’s war on difference is a war on freedom. 

We need to understand that, Will said, “because we need to defeat it.”

“Boomers of my generation were born into the world of stigmatization and conformity that Trump wants to bring back, erasing the liberation movements that have been the victory of our lifetime,” Will said. “Sure, I want the next president to care about affordable healthcare and lowering egg prices, but America also needs leaders who will celebrate and defend our fundamental human right simply to be different.”

Will’s column was a memorable reminder that liberalism is the original fighting faith. I got in touch with him to flesh out a few more ideas. 

Here’s what Will said.

---

I think your latest piece about the president’s war against difference is one of the most important I have read. What inspired you?

Some of it was personal. Some people I’m close to have been thinking a lot recently about living undiagnosed somewhere on the spectrum with high IQ-autism, so I’ve been following the recent autism debate, and some of the pleas from parents for more understanding. 

And I was outraged by Trump and RFK Jr’s description of autism as a “tragedy” and that someone born on the spectrum can never live a “normal life,” when our actual goal should be helping people who are often unique in good and special ways to thrive. 

This got me thinking about how much of the maga agenda is about enforcing a narrow conformity, best illustrated on the transgender community, but also in other ways. This all became my column.

---

Individualism used to be a defining feature of American culture. Individual liberty used to mean something. An obvious conformist like Trump used to signify oppression. What happened?

One reason why the 1960s are such a pivotal point in American history is that you had a movement like The New Left and its architects, like Tom Hayden, who put forth a new idea that postwar affluence could reinvent liberalism by stressing personal freedom, from civil rights to men growing long hair! 

The modern conservative movement has coalesced as a reaction to this. The positive changes that sprung from the 1960s weren’t just civil rights and women’s liberation but also LGBTQ rights and even things like disability rights and empathy for the mentally ill or the homeless. 

For the right, crushing the “woke” left that’s based in the 1960s matters more than whatever self-delusions about libertarianism and “personal liberty” that they cling to.

---

I think liberals get caught up in debates over details, like whether RFK Jr is anti-science or not. (He is.) Your column seems to me a reminder that liberals need to relearn the language of liberation. To what extent do you agree and what’s your advice to liberals?

Absolutely. That struggle to be able to live differently – whether to grow long hair and listen to rock or to live openly as a gay or trans person – was the core of what was good about the 1960s and 1970s, and predictably the detours into narrowing that debate into cliches like “identity politics” or “wokeness” or whatever has helped us forget what that was all about. 

It’s been a long strange trip over the last 60 years, so maybe defining what Trump wants as a push for conformity — white, male, cisgender, Christian, suburban, etc, etc — can help the silent majority who’ve benefitted from a generation of liberation to reconnect with that. 

---

To me, Pete Hegseth’s beard comments were pathetic and weak. Being different requires courage and strength, especially these days, whereas surrendering to the demands of a top-down white conservative hierarchy does not. There seems to be an opportunity in there for an enterprising Democratic leader, no?

For sure. Remember (as many commenters reminded me after my column was published) that the ban on beards is also an attack specifically on Black troops, because many Black men have skin conditions that prevent them from shaving. 

But more broadly, the “no beardos” push is a handy way for Hegseth to frame the military he wants as clean-shaven white men, which of course is an insult to a military that in the 21st century has become a leader in elevating Black and brown and women commanders. 

That ought to be a slam-dunk for Democrats, especially as former women soldiers like [US Senator Tammy] Duckworth, [New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Mikie] Sherrill, etc, become more prominent.

---

In essence, Trumpism is about control — forcing individuals to do “what they’re supposed to do.” And that begins with policing our speech. Why isn’t this more obvious, especially to those of us who depend for our livelihoods on the freedom to say what we want to?

I think the problem is that we’ve created a society that’s too easy to control. Most elites – including elite journalists – place the highest value on not jeopardizing their jobs or their status. Why? 

My own life in the upper-middle class has taught me that no value matters more than making sure your kids can afford “the right college,” so who wants to get fired for voicing a controversial opinion. 

We live in an age where many news organizations, like the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times or now CBS, have made it clear that’s what will happen for speaking out. We’ve seen the cowing of elites – the media, law firms, college presidents – is central to dictatorship. 

It’s been somewhat reassuring to see everyday Americans – on grand juries or in the streets – aren’t as corrupted. Whether the masses can be similarly controlled is the struggle of the next three years.