Board index ‹ Government and Politics

[jimwalton]

No doubt about it, Ma Moy: "His campaign rhetoric undeniably appealed to racist sentiments." Agreed.

[Josh W]

I agree regarding the reckless language, but to me even more disturbing is his unwillingness to later go and clarify or modify these statements and remove himself from the extremist views he encourages (either intentionally or unintentionally). Most of his quotes that show ethnocentrism you have likely heard already, such as "They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people" regarding Mexicans, Regarding Syrian refugees he has claimed "Not only the danger of it all – this isn’t only a matter of terrorism, but also a matter of quality of life. We want to make sure we’re only admitting those into our country who support our values and love – and I mean love – our people." Particularly the assumption that foreigners degrade "his" or "our" quality of life is ethnocentric rhetoric. While not downplaying the need for improvement in certain urban areas, DT's claims that "Our African-American communities are absolutely in the worst shape that they’ve ever been in before, ever, ever, ever. You take a look at the inner cities, you get no education, you get no jobs, you get shot walking down the street" are not only inaccurate, but play into ideals of the "white savior" and imply that African American communities are somehow inferior, or unable to lift themselves out of regressive violence, ideas that are inherently ethnocentric. You can take your pick of well publicized demeaning quotes regarding women and his objectification of them as further examples of his attempts to maintain historical dominance of white males in positions of political and economic power. One could easily link his support of the birther movement against Obama as another example of this type of thinking. In this sense, DT's ethnocentrism also contributes to his characterization as xenophobic, since the two viewpoints are often related (often sub-consciously). Whereas DTs tendency to speak carelessly is very disturbing to me, the fact that even in the face of criticism that his words may be and are being used to empower or support racist, xenophobic, or supremacist ideals he refuses to consistently remove himself from these ideologies suggests to me that he does not these viewpoints as fundamentally problematic. In this case, I find discussions whether he himself can be accurately characterized by any of these terms as slightly academic. Consistently delivered and strongly worded clarifications of his reckless rhetoric should not be too much to ask from the White House. Distancing himself from extremist views does not seem to be a high priority, much to the disappointment of myself along with many Americans, and opening up DT to speculation regarding his stances on these matters. If he spoke as passionately and vehemently against the KKK, Neo-Nazis and Supremacists as he does against the media, democrats, or Islam such accusations would go away.

[jimwalton]

BINGO!! You've hit the nail on the HEAD, Josh. I have so many times wished he would just go to the podium, and in straight, clear, and forceful language clarify what he said before (that was also in forceful language, but not so straight or clear). But he never seems to do that. He leaves others to try to spin, clarify, and explain, but he could just do it himself if (1) he wouldn't be so careless in the first place, and (2) if he sensed the great trauma over his words and made them clear for us all. Instead, all this violence dredges up, and he walks away and does another reckless speech.

I also strongly agree that his words are being used to empower all the proponents of anti-ideals you mentioned (racism, xenophobia, supremacism, etc.), and yet he still doesn't step up to the plate to speak passionately and vehemently against them.

Everybody needs to read what Josh W said above this that I am responding to.

[jimwalton]

BINGO!! You've hit the nail on the HEAD, Josh. I have so many times wished he would just go to the podium, and in straight, clear, and forceful language clarify what he said before (that was also in forceful language, but not so straight or clear). But he never seems to do that. He leaves others to try to spin, clarify, and explain, but he could just do it himself if (1) he wouldn't be so careless in the first place, and (2) if he sensed the great trauma over his words and made them clear for us all. Instead, all this violence dredges up, and he walks away and does another reckless speech.

I also strongly agree that his words are being used to empower all the proponents of anti-ideals you mentioned (racism, xenophobia, supremacism, etc.), and yet he still doesn't step up to the plate to speak passionately and vehemently against them.

Everybody needs to read what Josh W said above this that I am responding to.

[Incor]

I completely agree. And a year in, my response is to simply believe that he is what he represents. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, do we then debate the definition of a duck?

[jimwalton]

Yeah, I hear you, Nicholas Incorvaia. I get it. I just wonder if he's really a racist and white supremacist (which I'm still not sure of), or if he's just too irresponsible to even clear up the mess coming from his irresponsible speech. You know what I mean? Is he a bigot, or tragically thoughtless?

[Josh W]

I guess I am just less convinced than you are that the distinction between tragically and irresponsibly thoughtless and bigoted is meaningful. If he isn't a racist or supremacist, he certainly doesn't seem to care that he empowers them, and doesn't hate their despicable agenda enough to attack it (we have seen what it looks like when he encounters agendas with which he strongly disagrees). In my mind (and I think in the mind of many of his detractors), this response is just as bad. And whether he is most accurately labeled as a bigot, an enabler, or an irresponsible big-mouth is an entirely academic exercise based on differing definitions and criteria. In my opinion, the evils espoused by Neo-Nazis, KKK, and similar hate groups cannot be confronted with apathy, and I am supremely disappointed that our president does not seem to share this position.

[Neera]

I often wonder if (hope?) DT is tragically neglectful, because this would alleviate my strong fear that he is at core a hateful man with hateful intentions. Wouldn't it be nice to learn that he's just a bad communicator? The problem here is that he has a full staff of the "best people" (his words) standing by him to advise and craft messages. Surely he has had plenty of time, advice, and feedback to help him understand the affect his words (and silence) has had to embolden hate and to make marginalized people feel unsafe and further marginalized. How can we possibly give him, the most powerful person in the world, the benefit of the doubt that he didn't intend this outcome? Certainly if he did not intend this he has had ample opportunity to inform us otherwise. Instead what I have observed is continued speech that serves to foment chaos, distrust, anger, and violence. At what point do we finally take his words, actions, and inaction at face value?

[jimwalton]

Neera, it's indubitable and unarguable that he has had plenty of time, advice, and feedback about his words and their effect. It's also obvious that he seems to specialize in marginalizing people with whom he disagrees or upon which he looks down. "Certainly if he did not intend this he has had ample opportunity to inform us otherwise." Agreed. How can it possibly be otherwise, because he has had both time and occasion, and if he didn't have an occasion, he could easily create one. He is, after all, Le Presidente. You're also right that, despite some people hoping that he would become more "presidential" with time in office, to guard his words more carefully, and to speak with more reasoned and seasoned thought, that has most assuredly not happened. Where I falter, then, is at your "face value." At face value, he has never spoken words of white supremacism, racism, or xenophobia. It is only in trying to guess at the attitude behind the words and to look at the effect that his irresponsible expressions have cause that people conclude, "Well, then, he must be..." But that's not face value. That's interpolation and interpretation. His inaction, though, is inexcusable. He has had SO many chances to make it right, and he just DOESN'T.

Thanks for your comments.

[Mill Gregitello]

Ultimately my thought is that we do not have a smoking gun pointing to Trump being a literal supremacist. But from what I have seen of his character, I do not see him as a leader I want to follow. He's not particularly moral, no one I know of believes he's truthful, he has no filter between his brain and mouth and appears to be unable to accept being wrong in the past.

He did not have my vote before, and he has done nothing to win me over since.