- There is no evidence that Donald Trump is more racist than any past Republican candidate (or any other 70 year old white guy, for that matter). All this stuff about how he’s “the candidate of the KKK” and “the vanguard of a new white supremacist movement” is made up. It’s a catastrophic distraction from the dozens of other undeniable problems with Trump that could have convinced voters to abandon him. That it came to dominate the election cycle should be considered a horrifying indictment of our political discourse, in the same way that it would be a horrifying indictment of our political discourse if the entire Republican campaign had been based around the theory that Hillary Clinton was a secret Satanist. Yes, calling Romney a racist was crying wolf. But you are still crying wolf.
The discourse and analysis during and following this election has been garbage and with so many words spent, most of what I have read hasn't had much value. The outrage is exhausting . I think there really is much to be concerned about over the next 4 years, but what I've been thinking about the most over the past week is the state of "news" and the direction of public discourse.
I'd like to get the opinion of others more eloquent than I on the thesis of this blog post because lately, his conclusion sums up how I've been feeling regarding Donald Trump and coverage him, particularly opposition to him and his supporters:
- Stop centering criticism of Donald Trump around this sort of stuff, and switch to literally anything else. Here is an incompetent thin-skinned ignorant boorish fraudulent omnihypocritical demagogue with no idea how to run a country, whose philosophy of governance basically boils down to “I’m going to win and not lose, details to be filled in later”, and all you can do is repeat, again and again, how he seems popular among weird Internet teenagers who post frog memes. In the middle of an emotionally incontinent reality TV show host getting his hand on the nuclear button, your chief complaint is that in the middle of a few dozen denunciations of the KKK, he once delayed denouncing the KKK for an entire 24 hours before going back to denouncing it again. When a guy who says outright that he won’t respect elections unless he wins them does, somehow, win an election, the headlines are how he once said he didn’t like globalists which means he must be anti-Semitic.
And yet... I still feel like racism, or more generally, identity politics, is a huge factor. Have I just been inundated with articles and news claiming that to be so? Is this author going too far in sweeping it under the rug?
I was with Scott's explanation until the Mexican immigrants statement. He had to twist himself into such contortions to explain why saying that Mexican immigrants coming into the U.S. illegally were rapists and murderers isn't a statement about Mexican people that the rest of it lost a lot of persuasiveness. I mean, he literally says that Trump saying that "Mexico isn't sending us their best" means that Trump thinks that Mexicans are some of the best people (completely ignoring what "their" means in this context). Talk about starting with your conclusion and then twisting the evidence to fit it. I also think that while it's not the same as actively supporting the KKK, if the KKK is supporting you then it's important to at least explore why. But at the end of the day, I don't actually think Trump is truly a racist, and I think Scott totally and completely misreads who Trump is as a person. The thing is, I almost wish Trump were a true racist. As the great Walter Sobchak said, "I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos." As the saying goes, hate is not the opposite of love. The opposite of love is indifference. Trump doesn't hate Mexicans, black people, Jews, women, whomever. He simply does not give even a single fuck about any of them (or any of the rest us). As David Brooks wrote in early October: Your only rest comes when you are insulting somebody, when you are threatening to throw your opponent in jail, when you are looming over her menacingly like a mafioso thug on the precipice of a hit, when you are bellowing that she has “tremendous hate in her heart” when it is clear to everyone you are only projecting what is in your own. Trump’s emotional makeup means he can hit only a few notes: fury and aggression. In some ways, his debate performances look like primate dominance displays — filled with chest beating and looming growls. But at least primates have bands to connect with, whereas Trump is so alone, if a tree fell in his emotional forest, it would not make a sound. Trump doesn't insult people because he feels anything about them, he insults people because he literally feels nothing. He didn't say the judge hearing the Trump University case is biased because he's Mexican because Trump actually believes this to be true, it was just the first insult that came to mind, and one that would get him attention. I don't remember if I ever said it here, but the underlying feeling I kept getting through the campaign was that Trump wanted to be elected president, but that he doesn't want to be president. Sure, he has ideas (or gets them from other people), but they're not tethered to anything. That's why he keeps changing positions and why everything seems so schizoid. He doesn't seem to have the courage of his convictions because he has no convictions. He wanted the validation from the outside, because he's wholly incapable of finding contentment within himself. That's the same reason he's purging his inner circle with a priority on loyalty rather than ability; he has to be the center of adulation. He can brag about groping women or be perfectly comfortable calling his daughter a "piece of ass" because he's never really had an emotional connection with anyone. He wants the approval of those immediately in front of him, so he takes a guess at how to do that and runs with it. He was okay calling his daughter that because he was on the Howard Stern show, and he thought that was the best way to get Stern (and his listeners) to like him. He was Mr. Right Wing Crazypants during the election, because that's how he got his supporters and campaign staff to like him. He got to speak to crowds of thousands who thought he was just the greatest. Why would he change? The more outside criticism hurt him (and I believe that it does), the more he would just shift his focus to those who were worshiping him while lashing out at the outside. The best way to feel like part of one group is to talk about how you're all under attack. Notice how now that his "circle" has expanded, suddenly he's become more moderate? It's because he wants the rest of us to adore him too. So I for one don't hate Trump, and am not angry at Trump for being who he is. I pity Trump. I can feel sorry for all those who will be hurt by his latest round of narcissism, and can only hope that our country and our world are strong enough to survive it (and I think they are). He's like the dog chasing cars, and now he's caught one.Imagine you are Trump. You are trying to bluff your way through a debate. You’re running for an office you’re completely unqualified for. You are chasing some glimmer of validation that recedes ever further from view.
I posted this on Facebook two days ago: Look. I know you're concerned. I know you're afraid. We have legitimate reasons for concern, we have legitimate reasons for fear. But the more hyperbolic your argument, the less compelling your counterpart finds it. Remember back in 2008 when Sarah Palin was talking about "death panels?" Did you find that argument compelling or did you share memes ridiculing her? Did she change your mind or did she cement your resolve? I've seen like three people resort to reductio ad Hitlerum today alone. Hitler wrote this in Mein Kampff eight years before being appointed Chancellor: "If at the beginning of the War and during the War twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas, as happened to hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers in the field, the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain." Donald Trump, by way of comparison, said this eight years before being elected President: "Hillary is smart, tough and a very nice person, so is her husband. Bill Clinton was a great president. They are fine people. Hillary was roughed up by the media, and it was a tough campaign for her, but she's a great trooper. Her history is far from being over." By all means. Be passionate. Be outspoken. Be concerned. But as a matter of rhetorical strategy, the closer you hew to proven facts the more compelling your arguments shall be. Sorry. Had to say it. Carry on. I ditched two friends who reserved their right to call Trump literally Hitler. Wanna see my favorite meme of the week? 1) New Balance said that the TPP was bad for their business, Trump hated the TPP, therefore Trump was good for their business. They never endorsed Trump. 2) The Paypal thing is because of Peter Thiel, who sold Paypal in 2002. 3) The CEO of Papa John's donates to Republicans. This hardly makes him unique. 4) The UFC has no position on Trump. 5) Yuengling? Yup. 6) Hobby lobby? Yup. But I mean, fuck. If you were fond of the Affordable Care Act you've been boycotting Hobby Lobby for years already. Chick-Fil-A? Same deal. The Maloofs (Coors) have been rabid right-wing nutjobs for as long as I can remember and I can remember for a long-ass time. Sheldon Adelson? No surprises there. The Koch brothers, for their part, actually sat this one out on the presidential level. Yet here's your ready-made ball of rage, no insight or thought necessary, ready for you to be all angry and shit. My fucking roommate came home crestfallen because "now he has to boycott New Balance because they came out in support of trump.For my more excitable liberal friends:
You can add Yuengling to that list of precached rage too, I guess. Various people in the labor movement have been calling for boycotting them since 2006, when their union got the boot.But I mean, fuck. If you were fond of the Affordable Care Act you've been boycotting Hobby Lobby for years already. Chick-Fil-A? Same deal. The Maloofs (Coors) have been rabid right-wing nutjobs for as long as I can remember and I can remember for a long-ass time. Sheldon Adelson? No surprises there. The Koch brothers, for their part, actually sat this one out on the presidential level. Yet here's your ready-made ball of rage, no insight or thought necessary, ready for you to be all angry and shit.
As a person of color I get the anger and the frustration at a Trump presidency, but there comes a point where you have to direct those feelings towards production. The media can go fuck itself too. I feel like at this point they are the ones being racist, sexist, and all the other -ism's. They are peddling this shit as if we are powerless to make change. The only message that the news should be peddling is: "if you don't feel safe, if you feel sad, angry, upset, fuck even disenfranchised go out and fight for your shit. There isn't any time to be sitting around moping, or doing some dumb shit like destroying property. Keep voting, go to a town hall meeting, call your senators, congressman, donate to local organization, volunteer" Instead the general public is being fed heaps of garbage about how the world is over, and we should just give up. Even I was overwhelmed by the election, but after a few days you gotta look at yourself in the mirror and say, "I'm fucking mad" then go do something about changing it. A large part of me is beginning to dislike these protests because I know for a fact this is how people are dealing with their anger, and once this has subsided they will return to the status quo.
A fundamental problem, as I see it: "Trump said this insensitive thing that many are interpreting as racist." = Journalism "Trump hasn't said this obvious, important thing that would allow people to interpret him as prepared for the presidency." = Editorializing I mean, those of us on the "hate Trump already" side recognize that expressing a love for taco salads does not negate a domestic policy with muslim bans and deportations as centerpieces but those who aren't committed to how much he sucks only heard about the muslim bans and deportations when he mentioned them, and he did that infrequently. Stick his foot in his mouth? regularly. Slag on the press? daily. A disinterested observer could readily determine that "the establishment" "had it in" for Trump but only an educated observer could readily list why. My worry is that the Republican party will use Trump to dismantle social programs, balloon deficit spending and do everything to drown government in the bathtub and that kind of wonky shit isn't going to get any attention from anybody because from an external perspective, Trump will be tweeting about Mexicans a lot less so he'll be "moderated" and "evolving" or some shit when in fact he's just a useful idiot for fucktards like Jason Chaffetz to hide behind while they make abortion ever harder across the heartland.
I couldn't quickly find the essay, but someone more insightful than me argued that protests were mostly a ritual at this point. They're tolerated because they can't change anything, the system has learned how to shrug them off or repress them if they become inconvenient, so they're mostly about group identity. But I don't think they're useless; Occupy brought the left back into the mainstream, and now socialism isn't beyond the pale anymore. Bernie Sanders isn't exactly Joe Hill, but you don't have to be very old to remember when "socialist" was a snarl word. Protest is more ritual than something that has a concrete effect at this point, but that doesn't make it useless. At the minimum it lets the participants and people who wish they were there know they aren't alone, and knowing I wasn't alone in being more afraid of Republicans than Al-Qaeda sure kept me sane in the early 00s.
The media went all in on a Clinton Presidency, to the point they became a filter bubble. And I know, I know, there goes francopoli shitting on the media again. But those of us that live out in Redneckistan and don't live in the booming areas of the coasts saw this coming when Sanders was railroaded. We all felt that he was shafted, Wikileaks proved it and provided the evidence. Now Trump gets to call the shots and they are all scrambling; look at the reaction to him 'sneaking' off to go eat a dinner without the media in tow. Time Warner, parent of CNN, was the 7th largest PAC giving cash to Clinton. GE was in the top 15, probably more for her war-hawkish stances over the years but still. There are still retards in town that are writing blogs and letters calling all the Sanders people "misogynists" and "women haters" and saying stuff like "You BernieBros gave us Trump, assholes." There have been a few car vandalism charges against people damaging cars with Bernie bumper stickers as well.
I don't think this will garner me any love, but I have to try anyway. Check myth one. But those of us that live out in Redneckistan and don't live in the booming areas of the coasts saw this coming when Sanders was railroaded.
Reality often sucks. Dealing with the suck in a constructive way makes us better people. I know of at least two people who voted Johnson due to the Wikileaks emails that showed the DNC working to make it harder on Sanders. ABC News Story on the leaks Anecdotal evidence, sure. I wonder how many more did not vote Hillary and sat it out. And yea I am a bitter Sanders supporter. We could have grabbed the Senate at least, IMO, or at least in my hopes. Now we have to hope like hell that 2017 begins the push back and we can take a few of the state houses.I don't think this will garner me any love
Asked whether he would repudiate the endorsement, Trump said “Sure, I would if that would make you feel better.” The next four years are going to be so strange.“I don’t need his endorsement; I certainly wouldn’t want his endorsement,” Trump said during an interview with Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin and John Heilemann. He added: “I don’t need anyone’s endorsement.”