Doug:
To many people---especially during this week celebrating Martin Luther King, Jr. Day---Trump represents some of the most repugnant aspects of society, including racism, sexism, nationalism, and chest-beating machismo. How should we (and the media) deal with him?
David:
This is not the first time that a Donald Trumpian candidate has risen on the national scene. Back in the 1850's, there was the rise of an aptly-named splinter group called the "Know Nothings". They arrived on the scene and rose to some degree of prominence on the premise that immigrants, specifically Germans and Catholics, were destroying the country. In an ironic twist, their actual party name was originally the Native-American Party, and then became the American Party. By 1855, they held around 50 seats in Congress.
Doug:
We should be careful about what we mean when we turn Trump into an adjective. He is so vague on so many topics, that "Trumpian" could be taken by a good many people to mean a host of properties. But if you mean the racist part of his rhetoric, then, yes I can see the "Know Nothings" as being an apt analogical movement. Also, George Wallace's movement in the 1950's and 1960's. But the Know Nothings won many seats, and had support over a vast swath of the country.
David:
They were not called the Know Nothings because they knew nothing. (That would be Sargent Schultz from Hogan's Heroes.) They acquired the name because they were initially a somewhat secretive organization. When anyone asked what they were up to, their answer was, "I don't know what you're talking about". Hence, they became the Know Nothings.
But, as quickly as they rose, they disappeared from the scene, due to a split over whether or not to support slavery, the ultimate cause of the greatest rift this country has ever experienced. When the split occurred, half of the members went to the anti-slavery Republicans, and half went to the slavery-supporting Democratic party. This illustrates that the nativism of the Know Nothings was not a Conservative or Liberal ideal, but found a home in both parties at that time.
This Know Nothing flag, ironically, got it oh-so right....
Doug:
I'm not a historian, but I'd hesitant to say that just because one party or the other supports something, then that makes it one of their ideals. For example, over the last decade, there have been many ideas supported by Republican Party, but then abandoned by them once it was adopted by the Democratic Party. But yes, I agree that racism permeates our culture and political parties even today.
David:
In this instance, I'm saying that nativism was not exclusive to either major party. And nativism should not be equated with racism. They may share some components, but are not the same.
Doug:
If one believes that "that immigrants, specifically Germans and Catholics, were destroying the country" then that sounds firmly racist to me.
David:
Maybe that's your problem. You believe Catholicism is a race.
Doug:
I'd describe the Nazis as being racist against the Jews in the same way. I use the word "racism" for those that have arbitrary discrimination against any people, based on any criteria. After all, "race" is not a scientific idea. But the Catholics weren't just Catholics---they were Irish Catholics, and the majority of Irish were Catholics. So, we could easily say the Know Nothings discriminated against Germans and the Irish, which are categories much more in agreement with the common ideas of race.
David:
You could say that, but then, you'd be wrong. It doesn't follow that saying because the Nazis were racist, then someone who is opposed to German immigrants is therefore racist. And, being against Catholics doesn't mean you hate the Irish, just because many Irish are Catholic. You are against any Catholic from immigrating, no matter where they are from. Sheesh!
Doug:
No, you have the analogy and causation mixed up:
David:
And that is why you throw around the word, racism, so carelessly. Racism is discrimination based on race. You water it down when you expand it to mean discrimination against any one for any reason.
I think we can see some of these same ideas today expressed in the rise of both Bernie Sanders and of Donald Trump. If you Google "Know Nothing Party", you'll find a litany of recent articles from both the right and the left diagramming the parallels between the Know Nothings and either the Democrats (from the conservative blogs) or the Republicans (from left-leaning authors). It's fairly easy to see the Know Nothing platform alive and well in the Trump rhetoric.
Doug:
In what way could Bernie Sanders be seen as being like the Know Nothings?
David:
Not just Bernie, but the Democrats as a whole, have adopted a strategy of opposing free trade. The deal that was supposed to be President Obama's "pivot" to Asia, has instead come under harsh criticism fro all of the Democratic candidates (including Hillary, who helped to author the original agreement).
Doug:
I think one could have some issues with some of the recent trade agreements without being compared to the Know Nothings.
David:
It was one of their rallying cries.
In addition, one of the Know Nothing ideals was that we should not engage ourselves in a robust foreign policy, but should be more isolationist. Bernie, Hillary, and Donald all support these moves.
Doug:
I would not call any of these candidate's positions "isolationism." Today's economy is a world economy. Any President will have to deal with very different pressures than we did 150 years ago.
David:
To answer your specific question about what we should do about Trump, I say we do nothing. The folks who support Trump and Sanders are fighting against the establishment. They despise the way Washington has messed things up. They look in the news everyday, and see corruption and government foibles (or worse, government abuse), and they want to fight back. They want to cheer for their team, but believe the coaches and owners are ruining the game. So, they're calling for a new coach. When the media and the establishment attack Donald or Bernie, their supporters see that as proof these men are the antidote to what ails us. Otherwise, the power-brokers wouldn't fight against them. The more we complain about them, or try to bring them down, just seems to bolster their support from their own brand of Know Nothings.
Doug:
Doing nothing does not seem to be a good alternative. I wish that the media would make such comparisons between Trump and past racist movements, where appropriate. More people (especially Republicans) should speak up and say that they are not happy having a Know Nothing-like candidate leading their party.
There are other similarities between Trump and Sanders, but they have to do with their populistic approach, not their racial attitudes. I think Sanders would make a fine President.
David:
Sure. Another 15 Trillion in debt, and more government programs and agencies to deal with. What's not to like about that?
Doug:
If you think that you can sum up anyone's entire Presidential platform in a sentence, you may want to study their positions a bit more. There are some real, interesting differences between Saunders and Clinton.
David:
Absolutely! I think he truly believes everything he says, and means what he says. That's the biggest difference between them. I think his prescription for the country is completely wrong, but I believe he is honest and trustworthy. At least as much as a politician can be...
Doug:
I agree that that is the general perception.
David:
You continue to use the word "racist". That's a label that is used too lightly from the left. Any time liberals disagree with someone about a racial issue, they are quick to accuse the other side of having racist motives. Donald Trump is certainly a nativist, and has said we need to build a wall "with a great big, beautiful door". I believe what is he insinuating is we need to have an orderly immigration system, and eliminate illegal immigration. That's a national security issue, not racism.
Doug:
One doesn't have to have "racist motives" to be racist. If you act, say, or behave in a racist manner, then you're a racist. Trump said “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re not sending you, they’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bring crime. They’re rapists… And some, I assume, are good people.” To me, that is racism, pure and simple.
David:
You're saying that the migrant workers coming here illegally are Mexico's best? That seems stereotypically racist.
Doug:
You're saying that anyone coming from Mexico is a migrant worker? And you're saying that Migrant workers are somehow less than others? And claiming that we should treat them all as individuals rather than rapists and drug addicts/dealers is racist? How does that even fit with your definition of racism?
David:
I am definitely saying that the majority of the Immigrants crossing the border illegally are migrant workers, and most are not from Mexico, but from Central America. Check the stats and you'll find that I'm right.
Doug:
I'm arguing that they are not all rapists and drug dealers---many hard-working people looking to start new lives. Finally, the only problem you have with Trump is that he is a nativist? But I don't even know what that means when applied to Trump. He is against Birthright Citizenship:
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/08/trump-on-birthright-citizenship/
If Trump is not referring to Native Americans with his nativism, and he doesn't give a person any credit for being born here, what does calling him a nativist even mean?
David:
We've talked in prior blogs about Donald Trump before, so you know I have many issues with him. He's still only polling at 30-40%, which is more than any other single candidate, but as the crowd thins, and folks actually start voting, we'll see how he does. He may continue to surprise us.
The Constitution doesn't exactly spell out what "birthright" citizenship means, but the courts have weighed in repeatedly over the years, and Donald Trump is just wrong.
Doug:
Finally, Barack Obama can be considered a valid President! Of course, Obama was born in this country to a US citizen, whereas Cruz was born in Canada, and Rubio's parents weren't US citizens when he was born. I think we'll hear more about these cases and whether "Trump is just wrong."
David:
As I said, these issues have already been decided by the courts. I believe he knows that Ted Cruz is an American citizen. In this instance, Trump may be a much better politician than I originally gave him credit for. He comes across as sympathetic to Cruz's plight, and claims he only brings up the issue to prevent poor Ted from coming to grief later on. What he's done is give voters a reason to doubt the viability of Cruz's candidacy. That's smart politics.
Doug:
Sounds slimy to me. I think "smart politics" are those that argue the points and merits of a policy, not that those actions that treat elections like entertainment TV.
David:
And again, you would be sadly and unfortunately wrong. Smart politics are the maneuvers that get you elected. It may be why we all think so poorly of politicians, but it remains that you cannot accomplish any legislative goals if you don't first win the election. Political Science studies prove the point. Negative ads work.
Doug:
I think you mean that I am sadly and unfortunately correct.
David:
Which brings us back to this discussion. Apparently, there is a sizable number of Americans who are experiencing enough angst and anxiety about the continued sputtering economy, that an argument to protect America for Americans has some weight. When folks are scared, they tend to hold on tighter to what they've got, lest they lose it. Nationalism, nativism, protectionism, and isolationism are all in play for the middle class. Trump has played, and continues to play, the anxiety card very well. Sanders touches on those same themes, but with very different policies of course.
Doug:
I agree, except on the why. The economy isn't sputtering, but some people feel/pretend that it is. And the perception causes the anxiety.
David:
Perception is reality. (And, reality is also reality.) Both of these candidates are telling people, "I will take care of you. I will protect you. I will make your life better financially." They have chosen different villains, but the underlying message is the same.
Frankly, I don't believe candidates like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders could even exist, if not for all of the groundwork laid by Barack Obama. The country has seen an explosion of debt, a sluggish recovery (from a recession that was present before he took office) that is more anemic because of his policies, more partisanship than ever before, and open contempt for both Congress and the Supreme court. The majority of Americans have had their health insurance costs rise, when they were promised to go down. Incomes have flat-lined. And scandals plague multiple agencies. Outsiders who would never have had a chance before, are now leading the packs.
Doug:
Blaming Trump on Obama? No, I think we have to blame ourselves. We need to call out the racist carnival barker every chance we get.
David:
So far, that strategy has only served to make him more popular. Why? For all the issues listed above. But then again, What do we "Know"?
To many people---especially during this week celebrating Martin Luther King, Jr. Day---Trump represents some of the most repugnant aspects of society, including racism, sexism, nationalism, and chest-beating machismo. How should we (and the media) deal with him?
David:
This is not the first time that a Donald Trumpian candidate has risen on the national scene. Back in the 1850's, there was the rise of an aptly-named splinter group called the "Know Nothings". They arrived on the scene and rose to some degree of prominence on the premise that immigrants, specifically Germans and Catholics, were destroying the country. In an ironic twist, their actual party name was originally the Native-American Party, and then became the American Party. By 1855, they held around 50 seats in Congress.
Doug:
We should be careful about what we mean when we turn Trump into an adjective. He is so vague on so many topics, that "Trumpian" could be taken by a good many people to mean a host of properties. But if you mean the racist part of his rhetoric, then, yes I can see the "Know Nothings" as being an apt analogical movement. Also, George Wallace's movement in the 1950's and 1960's. But the Know Nothings won many seats, and had support over a vast swath of the country.
David:
They were not called the Know Nothings because they knew nothing. (That would be Sargent Schultz from Hogan's Heroes.) They acquired the name because they were initially a somewhat secretive organization. When anyone asked what they were up to, their answer was, "I don't know what you're talking about". Hence, they became the Know Nothings.
But, as quickly as they rose, they disappeared from the scene, due to a split over whether or not to support slavery, the ultimate cause of the greatest rift this country has ever experienced. When the split occurred, half of the members went to the anti-slavery Republicans, and half went to the slavery-supporting Democratic party. This illustrates that the nativism of the Know Nothings was not a Conservative or Liberal ideal, but found a home in both parties at that time.
This Know Nothing flag, ironically, got it oh-so right....
Doug:
I'm not a historian, but I'd hesitant to say that just because one party or the other supports something, then that makes it one of their ideals. For example, over the last decade, there have been many ideas supported by Republican Party, but then abandoned by them once it was adopted by the Democratic Party. But yes, I agree that racism permeates our culture and political parties even today.
David:
In this instance, I'm saying that nativism was not exclusive to either major party. And nativism should not be equated with racism. They may share some components, but are not the same.
Doug:
If one believes that "that immigrants, specifically Germans and Catholics, were destroying the country" then that sounds firmly racist to me.
David:
Maybe that's your problem. You believe Catholicism is a race.
Doug:
I'd describe the Nazis as being racist against the Jews in the same way. I use the word "racism" for those that have arbitrary discrimination against any people, based on any criteria. After all, "race" is not a scientific idea. But the Catholics weren't just Catholics---they were Irish Catholics, and the majority of Irish were Catholics. So, we could easily say the Know Nothings discriminated against Germans and the Irish, which are categories much more in agreement with the common ideas of race.
David:
You could say that, but then, you'd be wrong. It doesn't follow that saying because the Nazis were racist, then someone who is opposed to German immigrants is therefore racist. And, being against Catholics doesn't mean you hate the Irish, just because many Irish are Catholic. You are against any Catholic from immigrating, no matter where they are from. Sheesh!
Doug:
No, you have the analogy and causation mixed up:
- The Nazis despised the Jews, and that makes them racist.
- The Know Nothings despised the Catholics, and that makes them racist.
David:
And that is why you throw around the word, racism, so carelessly. Racism is discrimination based on race. You water it down when you expand it to mean discrimination against any one for any reason.
I think we can see some of these same ideas today expressed in the rise of both Bernie Sanders and of Donald Trump. If you Google "Know Nothing Party", you'll find a litany of recent articles from both the right and the left diagramming the parallels between the Know Nothings and either the Democrats (from the conservative blogs) or the Republicans (from left-leaning authors). It's fairly easy to see the Know Nothing platform alive and well in the Trump rhetoric.
Doug:
In what way could Bernie Sanders be seen as being like the Know Nothings?
David:
Not just Bernie, but the Democrats as a whole, have adopted a strategy of opposing free trade. The deal that was supposed to be President Obama's "pivot" to Asia, has instead come under harsh criticism fro all of the Democratic candidates (including Hillary, who helped to author the original agreement).
Doug:
I think one could have some issues with some of the recent trade agreements without being compared to the Know Nothings.
David:
It was one of their rallying cries.
In addition, one of the Know Nothing ideals was that we should not engage ourselves in a robust foreign policy, but should be more isolationist. Bernie, Hillary, and Donald all support these moves.
Doug:
I would not call any of these candidate's positions "isolationism." Today's economy is a world economy. Any President will have to deal with very different pressures than we did 150 years ago.
David:
To answer your specific question about what we should do about Trump, I say we do nothing. The folks who support Trump and Sanders are fighting against the establishment. They despise the way Washington has messed things up. They look in the news everyday, and see corruption and government foibles (or worse, government abuse), and they want to fight back. They want to cheer for their team, but believe the coaches and owners are ruining the game. So, they're calling for a new coach. When the media and the establishment attack Donald or Bernie, their supporters see that as proof these men are the antidote to what ails us. Otherwise, the power-brokers wouldn't fight against them. The more we complain about them, or try to bring them down, just seems to bolster their support from their own brand of Know Nothings.
Doug:
Doing nothing does not seem to be a good alternative. I wish that the media would make such comparisons between Trump and past racist movements, where appropriate. More people (especially Republicans) should speak up and say that they are not happy having a Know Nothing-like candidate leading their party.
There are other similarities between Trump and Sanders, but they have to do with their populistic approach, not their racial attitudes. I think Sanders would make a fine President.
David:
Sure. Another 15 Trillion in debt, and more government programs and agencies to deal with. What's not to like about that?
Doug:
If you think that you can sum up anyone's entire Presidential platform in a sentence, you may want to study their positions a bit more. There are some real, interesting differences between Saunders and Clinton.
David:
Absolutely! I think he truly believes everything he says, and means what he says. That's the biggest difference between them. I think his prescription for the country is completely wrong, but I believe he is honest and trustworthy. At least as much as a politician can be...
Doug:
I agree that that is the general perception.
David:
You continue to use the word "racist". That's a label that is used too lightly from the left. Any time liberals disagree with someone about a racial issue, they are quick to accuse the other side of having racist motives. Donald Trump is certainly a nativist, and has said we need to build a wall "with a great big, beautiful door". I believe what is he insinuating is we need to have an orderly immigration system, and eliminate illegal immigration. That's a national security issue, not racism.
Doug:
One doesn't have to have "racist motives" to be racist. If you act, say, or behave in a racist manner, then you're a racist. Trump said “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re not sending you, they’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bring crime. They’re rapists… And some, I assume, are good people.” To me, that is racism, pure and simple.
David:
You're saying that the migrant workers coming here illegally are Mexico's best? That seems stereotypically racist.
Doug:
You're saying that anyone coming from Mexico is a migrant worker? And you're saying that Migrant workers are somehow less than others? And claiming that we should treat them all as individuals rather than rapists and drug addicts/dealers is racist? How does that even fit with your definition of racism?
David:
I am definitely saying that the majority of the Immigrants crossing the border illegally are migrant workers, and most are not from Mexico, but from Central America. Check the stats and you'll find that I'm right.
Doug:
I'm arguing that they are not all rapists and drug dealers---many hard-working people looking to start new lives. Finally, the only problem you have with Trump is that he is a nativist? But I don't even know what that means when applied to Trump. He is against Birthright Citizenship:
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/08/trump-on-birthright-citizenship/
If Trump is not referring to Native Americans with his nativism, and he doesn't give a person any credit for being born here, what does calling him a nativist even mean?
David:
We've talked in prior blogs about Donald Trump before, so you know I have many issues with him. He's still only polling at 30-40%, which is more than any other single candidate, but as the crowd thins, and folks actually start voting, we'll see how he does. He may continue to surprise us.
The Constitution doesn't exactly spell out what "birthright" citizenship means, but the courts have weighed in repeatedly over the years, and Donald Trump is just wrong.
Doug:
Finally, Barack Obama can be considered a valid President! Of course, Obama was born in this country to a US citizen, whereas Cruz was born in Canada, and Rubio's parents weren't US citizens when he was born. I think we'll hear more about these cases and whether "Trump is just wrong."
David:
As I said, these issues have already been decided by the courts. I believe he knows that Ted Cruz is an American citizen. In this instance, Trump may be a much better politician than I originally gave him credit for. He comes across as sympathetic to Cruz's plight, and claims he only brings up the issue to prevent poor Ted from coming to grief later on. What he's done is give voters a reason to doubt the viability of Cruz's candidacy. That's smart politics.
Doug:
Sounds slimy to me. I think "smart politics" are those that argue the points and merits of a policy, not that those actions that treat elections like entertainment TV.
David:
And again, you would be sadly and unfortunately wrong. Smart politics are the maneuvers that get you elected. It may be why we all think so poorly of politicians, but it remains that you cannot accomplish any legislative goals if you don't first win the election. Political Science studies prove the point. Negative ads work.
Doug:
I think you mean that I am sadly and unfortunately correct.
David:
Which brings us back to this discussion. Apparently, there is a sizable number of Americans who are experiencing enough angst and anxiety about the continued sputtering economy, that an argument to protect America for Americans has some weight. When folks are scared, they tend to hold on tighter to what they've got, lest they lose it. Nationalism, nativism, protectionism, and isolationism are all in play for the middle class. Trump has played, and continues to play, the anxiety card very well. Sanders touches on those same themes, but with very different policies of course.
Doug:
I agree, except on the why. The economy isn't sputtering, but some people feel/pretend that it is. And the perception causes the anxiety.
David:
Perception is reality. (And, reality is also reality.) Both of these candidates are telling people, "I will take care of you. I will protect you. I will make your life better financially." They have chosen different villains, but the underlying message is the same.
Frankly, I don't believe candidates like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders could even exist, if not for all of the groundwork laid by Barack Obama. The country has seen an explosion of debt, a sluggish recovery (from a recession that was present before he took office) that is more anemic because of his policies, more partisanship than ever before, and open contempt for both Congress and the Supreme court. The majority of Americans have had their health insurance costs rise, when they were promised to go down. Incomes have flat-lined. And scandals plague multiple agencies. Outsiders who would never have had a chance before, are now leading the packs.
Doug:
Blaming Trump on Obama? No, I think we have to blame ourselves. We need to call out the racist carnival barker every chance we get.
David:
So far, that strategy has only served to make him more popular. Why? For all the issues listed above. But then again, What do we "Know"?
I have a question for Doug. Are you at all concerned about the national debt? You seem to dismiss it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI believe that there is a correct level at which the national debt should be. But even if we were seriously off of that mark, fixing that issue would fall behind much more immediate issues on my list of priorities. I think we could fix the dept by having the highest earners (top .01%) pay their fair share.
ReplyDeleteSo Elle, it just goes to show you that a university Computer Science professor doesn't need to be able to understand math or economics. But apparently, they get to decide what's "fair" in the New World Order.
ReplyDelete