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.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations