The Hedgehog and the Fox: Lessons for the Trump Era

When I was an undergraduate at George Washington University in the second half of the 1960s, a big deal was made about a lecture on campus by British philosopher Sir Isaiah Berlin.  It sounded interesting, and I attended.  He spoke about his most famous essay, The Hedgehog and the Fox.  It left a great impression upon me, because it so fit in with my understanding of much 20th Century history up to that point.  As The Guardian noted in a 2016 article, "Berlin explored the fundamental distinction that exists between those who are fascinated by the infinite variety of things (foxes) and those who relate everything to a central, all-embracing system (hedgehogs)."
  

Trying to sort through what had happened in revolutionary movement of the first third of the century, and having read a fair amount about Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky, it occurred to me back then that Lenin and Stalin were classic Hedgehogs, and that Trotsky was something of a Fox.  And that struggle did not turn out well for the Fox, who died from a hatchet to his skull in Mexico, placed there by a Stalin agent in 1940.  As I did some googling on that point, I discovered, not to my surprise, that my insight was not unique:  "Both Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin fit Isaiah Berlin’s classic definition of the hedgehog, who knows 'one big thing.' Leon Trotsky, on the other hand, exemplifies the fox, who knows many things."

Hitler also was a Hedgehog.  Yet, FDR, the Fox, prevailed.  Mao was a Hedgehog -- and his ideological heirs preserved power by adopting Fox-like understandings, while still ruling as Hedgehogs. 

Our presidents in the first 35 years of the Post-World War II era were Foxes, but their electoral opponents were not Hedgehogs (except for Barry Goldwater, who had the disadvantage of running against a wave of optimism engendered by increasing economic prosperity and optimism in many places that we were about to turn the corner on American racism.)  That changed with Reagan, who was a relatively (as compared to the horrors of the 1930s and '40s) benign Hedgehog.  Bush I was more Fox than Hedgehog, although his first opponent, Michael Dukakis, was pure Fox. Bill Clinton was a policy Fox, who was able to be just enough Hedgehog to win twice (albeit with only pluralities of the popular vote).  Bush II was an odd mixture of both Hedgehog and Fox, but his election opponents were almost as pure Fox as Dukakis.  Obama was a classic Fox, who somehow was able to synthesize the streams of the best of the American experience in a way that resonated with a majority of voters -- twice.  (I believe that Robert Kennedy was in the same mold.)

In national politics, the Hedgehogs generally have had the advantage, because so many people do not have the time or inclination to ruminate over the subtleties of governance and the human condition.  Yet, Hedgehogs' success in great clashes is not inevitable, as the 1964 Johnson/Goldwater race demonstrated.  But we need to recognize that Obama -- the quintessential Fox -- ran against opponents at the top of the ticket who tried to run as Hedgehogs, but had enough Fox-like characteristics that they were not able to run as pure demagogues.  

Which brings us to 2016.  Some, but not many, commentators in 2016 explicitly saw the Donald Trump/Hillary Clinton face-off as one between a Hedgehog and a Fox.  Trump supporter Newt Gingrich saw it that way: "Clinton is a fox who knows many things you can fact check. Trump is a hedgehog who knows one very big thing: We need change."  

John Cassidy of The New Yorker agreed with the analogy, while hoping that Clinton could be an effective Fox: "If the late philosopher Isaiah Berlin were alive to watch Monday night’s Presidential debate, he would surely recognize the ways in which the two candidates on the stage personify his famous metaphor of hedgehogs and foxes. In Berlin’s terms, Donald Trump is a classic hedgehog. He knows, or claims to know, one big thing: the United States and the world are going to hell in a handbasket, and they need a strong man like him to fix things. Hillary Clinton, by contrast, is one of Berlin’s foxes. She knows many things."

Hillary Clinton did win a plurality of the popular vote, and I suspect that the seven percent who voted for neither Clinton nor Trump would not have voted for Trump if they had been presented with the binary choice. (A lot of those people would not have voted for Clinton, either.)  Still, Trump is the duly elected President, and incumbent Presidents have the opportunity to expand their support.

What is different in the Trump Era, as opposed to previous Hedgehog/Fox face-offs going back a century, is that the Trump Hedgehog is not, at bottom, tied to an ideology.  Much of his base -- those who do not like his self-centeredness and self-regard, but will go along with him because he advances their ideological beliefs -- at the end of the day would not be sad if he disappeared tomorrow.  The Cult of the Personality is so much of Trump's current appeal, that it may not be sustainable if too many people tire of the cult.  

And, more to the question of where we go from here, Trump only has sustained support from between 1/3 and 2/5 of the electorate (as defined by those who voted in 2016).  What this suggests is that continued success of this Hedgehog is not inevitable. This does say a lot about how deeply rooted the best vision of America is in most people, and we should not forget that.   But it is essential to oppose Trump with candidates who are able to synthesize the sensibilities of the Fox with enough Hedgehog tactics, and personal emotional attractiveness, that the 60% percent of the electorate who are, at minimum, extremely uncomfortable with Trump, will vote for the alternative proxies in 2018 and actual alternative candidate in 2020.  

Post-script:  This 2015 piece by financial journalist Felix Salmon suggested that Bernie Sanders would have been an effective Hedgehog in 2016.  Maybe.  But we not only need to win elections.  To protect progress, we need to be able to govern effectively, which is why, although I like  much about Bernie, I do not think he has enough of the Fox in him to be an effective President.