A few days ago, I blithely tweeted a warning that US Democrats often sound patronizing when speaking of voters who supported US President Donald Trump. That provoked a vehement reaction.
“Sorry, but if someone is supporting a racist ignoramus who wants to round up brown ppl and steal my money, I’m gonna patronize,” one person said on Twitter in reply.
“This is normalization of a hateful ideology and it’s shameful,” another said.
“My tone isn’t patronizing. It’s hostile. Intentionally. I won’t coddle those who refuse to recognize my humanity,” another said.
“What a great idea! Let’s recruit a whole bunch of bigoted unthinking lizard brains because we could possibly ‘WIN!’” yet another said.
And so the comments went, registering legitimate anxieties about Trump — but also the troubling condescension that worried me in the first place. I fear that the (richly deserved) animus toward Trump is spilling over onto all his supporters.
I understand the vehemence. Trump is a demagogue who vilifies and scapegoats refugees, Muslims, unauthorized immigrants, racial minorities, who strikes me as a danger to our national security. By all means stand up to him, and point out his lies and incompetence, but let us be careful about blanket judgements.
My hometown, Yamhill, Oregon, a farming community, is Trump country, and I have many friends who voted for Trump.
I think they are profoundly wrong, but please do not dismiss them as hateful bigots.
The glove factory closed down. The timber business slimmed. Union jobs disappeared. Good folks found themselves struggling and sometimes self-medicated with methamphetamine or heroin. Too many of my schoolmates died early; one, Stacy Lasslett, died of hypothermia while she was homeless.
This is part of a national trend: Mortality rates for white, middle-aged Americans have risen, reflecting working-class “deaths of despair.” Liberals purport to champion these people, but do not always understand them.
In Yamhill, plenty of well-meaning people were frustrated enough that they took a gamble on a silver-tongued provocateur. It was not because they were “bigoted unthinking lizard brains,” but because they did not know where to turn, and Trump spoke to their fears.
Trump tries to “otherize” Muslims, refugees, unauthorized immigrants and other large groups. It sometimes works when people do not actually know a Muslim or a refugee, and liberals likewise seem more willing to otherize Trump voters when they do not know any.
There are three reasons I think it is shortsighted to direct liberal fury at the entire mass of Trump voters, a complicated (and, yes, diverse) group of 63 million people.
First, stereotyping a huge slice of the US as misogynist bigots is unfair and impairs understanding. Hundreds of thousands of those Trump supporters had voted for former US president Barack Obama. Many are themselves black, Latino or Muslim. Are they all bigots?
Second, demonizing Trump voters feeds the dysfunction of the US political system. One can be passionate about one’s cause, and fight for it, without contributing to political paralysis that risks making the country ungovernable.
Tolerance is a liberal value; name-calling is not. This raises knotty questions about tolerating intolerance, but is it really necessary to start with a blanket judgement writing off 46 percent of voters?
When Trump demonizes journalists as “the enemy of the American people,” that is an outrageous overstep. However, suggesting that Trump voters are enemies of the people is also inappropriate.
The third reason is tactical: It is hard to win over voters who you are insulting.
Many liberals argue that US Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton won the popular vote and that the focus should be on rallying the base and fighting voter suppression efforts. Yes, but Democrats flopped in US Congress, governor races and state legislatures. Republicans now control 68 percent of partisan legislative chambers in the US.
If Democrats want to battle voter suppression, it is crucial to win local races — including in white working-class districts in Ohio, Wisconsin and elsewhere.
Yes, a majority of Trump voters are probably unattainable for Democrats, but millions might be winnable. So do not blithely give up on 63 million people; instead, make arguments directed at them. Fight for their votes, not with race-baiting, but with economic pitches for the working and middle classes.
Clinton calling half of Trump voters “deplorables” achieved nothing and probably cost her critical votes. Why would Democrats repeat that mistake?
Yes, the Trump camp includes some racists and other bigots, but it is a big camp, and let us not be so quick to affix labels on every member of a vast group.
This column might offend everyone, from Trump enthusiasts to liberals who decry them, but my message is simple: Go ahead and denounce Trump’s lies and bigotry. Stand firm against his disastrous policies. However, please do not practice his trick of “otherizing” people into stick figure caricatures, slurring vast groups as hopeless bigots.
We are all complicated and stereotypes are not helpful — including when they are of Trump supporters.
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The stocks of rare earth companies soared on Monday following news that the Trump administration had taken a 10 percent stake in Oklahoma mining and magnet company USA Rare Earth Inc. Such is the visible benefit enjoyed by the growing number of firms that count Uncle Sam as a shareholder. Yet recent events surrounding perhaps what is the most well-known state-picked champion, Intel Corp, exposed a major unseen cost of the federal government’s unprecedented intervention in private business: the distortion of capital markets that have underpinned US growth and innovation since its founding. Prior to Intel’s Jan. 22 call with analysts
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
International debate on Taiwan is obsessed with “invasion countdowns,” framing the cross-strait crisis as a matter of military timetables and political opportunity. However, the seismic political tremors surrounding Central Military Commission (CMC) vice chairman Zhang Youxia (張又俠) suggested that Washington and Taipei are watching the wrong clock. Beijing is constrained not by a lack of capability, but by an acute fear of regime-threatening military failure. The reported sidelining of Zhang — a combat veteran in a largely unbloodied force and long-time loyalist of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — followed a year of purges within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA)
RSS