A few comments I recently read about Barry Goldwater and the Civil Rights act reminded me that personal destruction via accusations of racism are a tactic that goes back decades. Goldwater voted against the version of the Civil Rights Act that ultimately became law. His reported reasons had to do with the constitutionality of parts of the Act, reasons I won’t delve into here other than saying that they are fully in line with libertarian and Constitutional thinking. I’ve blogged here in the past that, while I believe the public accommodation principle imposed on private businesses was and remains a violation of individual liberty, I think that the CRA was the right thing to do. This is a less principled position than Goldwater’s, of course, but neither my nor his views would, by any honest assessment, qualify as “racist.” By (again) honest measures, Goldwater wasn’t a racist, but politics can be utterly lacking in nuance in such matters, and a vote against something as momentous as the CRA, no matter how principled, will be seized upon by opportunistic opponents for political leverage.
Trump recently committed a major unforced error in tweeting the four progressive Congresswomen that have been dubbed “the squad” that they should “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.” Gee, imagine that, dumbassery from the Untethered Orange Id’s Twitter feed, and it sparked a well-deserved backlash. The statement is racist on its face, and I don’t care if you parse it otherwise, if you think it a 3D-chess provocation, or if you fear that criticizing it and him will give his foes, people you abhor and have great fear might come to power, ammunition and moral high ground. It was offensive. It’s the rankest “America, love it or leave it!” jingoism.
And, to repeat, it was a major unforced error. This “squad” has been scorching earth and burning bridges, even within its own party, and has created an internecine fight that has been and would be a boon to Trump and the Republicans in the build-up to election season.
Now? It’s a sound bite that whoever gets the Democratic nomination will get to play time and time again, to portray Trump as a racist. Is he a racist? As with all things Trump, there’s evidence to suggest that he is, and evidence to suggest that he isn’t. The statement itself, though… if you’re engaging in pretzel logic to un-racist-ify it, take a step back. This isn’t a Goldwater-esque stance on principle. It’s a firebomb based on either inexcusable error or deliberate deceit – three of the four women were born here, and it’s rotten.
And, he’s paying a price. The House voted to condemn Trump’s “racist comments,” after (or despite) a furor that saw Speaker Nancy Pelosi rebuked for violating the lower chamber’s rules of discourse. The public image of the “women of color” has been bolstered, even though they remain arrogant scolds and carnival barkers, and even though at least one of them has made statements as racist on their face as Trump’s. No, this isn’t whataboutism, this is a recognition that Trump has forfeited a piece on the board for no gain whatsoever, and given his opposition a magic bullet. Now and forever after, all they have to do when they want to inform the voter that Trump is a racist is trot out this tweet. Is he actually a racist? He has less of a defense than Goldwater had, but the fact of it is secondary to the politics of it. He gave his foes, who could themselves be tagged bigots based on their own statements, a giant tinsel and bow-festooned gift, and if they’re smart, they’ll run with it all the way to the election. The “racist” tag can be used over and over and over again, based solely on this one tweet.
I’ve seen high-fives from his ardent supporters, who think this was deliberate and tactical, and who’ve been applauding his ability to provoke an extreme response. One such is Scott Adams’ tweet “There’s no way you can get the Dems to endorse Antifa, Al Qaeda, and Venezuela all in the same week… Checkmate, and he only needed to sacrifice four pawns.” The Atlantic columnist David Frum recognizes that Trump is a baiter, and that the Dems constantly take that bait. I’ve seen memes that “refute” accusations of racism by listing “good” things that Trump has said or done. As I already noted, there’s evidence on both sides. But, such “depth” of analysis is little more than a circle-jerk, unlikely to escape the pro-Trump echo chamber.
The art of the unforced error is not limited to His Orangeness. Proving, yet again, that she’s way too big a fan of herself and her newfound notoriety, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez promptly sought to flush the sympathy she and her cohorts earned from this incident down the toilet. She continues her Godwinesque harangue about the crisis at the southern border, and Rep. Rashida Tlaib played the race card against Pelosi, repeating the “squad’s” previous unforced error (really, you want to call the top person in your own party a racist?). Instead of seizing a golden opportunity to pull folks into their camp, they’re pressing an attack that has served to alienate many and intimidate many in their party into moving leftward, against the grain of the broad populace, and into a weaker position come Election Day. They share a common trait with Trump: double-down rather than back down, never apologize, and always attack.
I don’t buy into the Machiavelli deep-thinker chess-master fantasy (I do believe that Trump has a good instinct for combative politics, though), and I don’t see this tweet as anything “deeper” than a giant cockup on his part, born of the same stream-of-consciousness that has generated some of his other head-scratchers. Yes, he’s got quite a talent for provocation, but it’s reflexive, not calculated, and it has hurt him more than once. Trump may weather this latest gaffe, and might even come out ahead if the Dems overplay the advantage they’ve been handed. Or, it may be a Dean-scream/Dukakis-helmet/Clinton-deplorables moment. The election is a long way off, so it’s foolish to try and predict, and there’ll certainly be new grist for the mill.
What both Trump and the leftist Congresswomen don’t seem to realize is that they’re not competing for the converted. Trump’s loyalists will vote for him no matter what, and Trump’s left-leaning haters will vote against him no matter what. It’s everyone else that matters, and those “everyone else” will have certain options come election day: Vote for Trump, vote for the Democratic candidate, vote for someone else, or stay home. I expect that we have another election of “who’s less horrid,” with the criteria varying widely across the electorate. The grand shame is that things could be so much more amicable, but for all these missteps and errors.
Loading ...
Peter, I see your point but I’m not sure how much of an error it was, if at all. I think it all boils down to the question of whether you can win purely on principle in what has now become an almost entirely marketing battle where the other side doesn’t hesitate to appeal to emotion at any cost, and I mean at any cost as we see with the countless unnecessary deaths of would be immigrants lured by deceitful propaganda.
As far back as 1890 Woodrow Wilson said that “Only a very gross substance of concrete conception can make any impression on the minds of the masses. They must get their ideas very absolutely put, and are much readier to receive a half-truth which they can promptly understand than a whole truth which has too many sides to be seen all at once.”
Where do you draw the line and still hope to win in a marketing battle for the minds of people battle where your opposition is so willing to distort and lie and pretty much controls the channels of communication? How can you sell all of the ins and outs of the American ideal in tweets? I’ve been stumped by this problem for the longest time
I agree it’s a marketing battle, but that goes to my point. Why make a statement that’s so easily deemed racist. Even if the goal is to tweak the other side into excess, it was an unnecessary aspersion. It’s not hard to tag the “squad” as opposed to the nation’s core principles, given how much fodder they provide, without being so (to put it generously) so inartful.
In other words, if the purpose was to a – make a point about the incompatibility of their views with American values, and b – to provoke, it could easily have been done without giving them such a giant opening to counterstrike.
Peter, but it’s precisely the counter strike that keeps it in the news. That’s exactly how he has pretty much controlled the agenda since the day he came down the escalator. Moreover, from the beginning I’ve had the impression that he has been getting some very high powered advise from Madison Ave. gurus just around the corner from Trump Tower. Way back, I think still in 2015, in what was supposed to be an impromptu run-in with reporters in Trump Tower I caught him pouring fuel into the fire by reading an index card which he quickly put in his pocket. It was on video so I was able to double check that he was doing that. This time my instincts—I did marketing once, including with advise from psychological gurus and focus groups—told me that this was all a setup, including the original mistake sending back all four to their country of origin. Maybe I’m paranoid 🙂
It may very well be that this is calculated and planned and a deliberate provocation. I still believe it was a mistake in execution.
Consider what the goal here would be: to goad the Democrats (the “squad” and the rest) into a reaction that would show them out of step with American values of liberty et al. Could he have done so without a giant cloud of racism hanging over it all? Certainly.
I might add that is downright spooky and disheartening that selling a President is now done like selling soap, soap operas and all.
I go with the majority who feel that Trump just couldn’t help breaking the cardinal rule of not interrupting rivals who are destroying themselves and each other. This is clearly reactive and self-destructive behavior. It also shows that he is the most selfish and thoughtless Party Leader ever to hold the Presidency.
Yet, his targets are chronically bigoted and more ridiculous, as is the row of panderers running for their party’s nomination. It will be no mystery if Trump prevails and no mystery, if he does not.
Good article and I enjoyed your comparison of Goldwater’s vote on CRA. It caused me to recall how Rand Paul got into hot water when he suggested that CRA should not be extended after he won his primary and was going into his first Senate general election.
It’s one of the great tragedies of modern politics – you can’t stand on principle any more if there’s a means by which your opponent can use it to paint you as an ogre.
Case in point. Mike Lee and Rand Paul refused to allow unanimous consent passing of the 9/11 victims fund bill, because they want Congress to actually do its job and not simply demand money be printed or borrowed. So, they’re being called names, even by those in the Press that lean conservative.
I don’t think that being criticized for taking an ethical stand is either a tragedy or modern. The honest accountant, parent and any other politician or leader that says “No”, “Stop” or “We can’t afford this” is subject to being “ogreized” (I just made this word up now.)
My wife and I raised seven kids and I’ve been acclaims attorney for 30 years; so, I am quite familiar with this phenomenon.
The problem is that most politicians pander to it and leave constitutionality and common sense in the dustbin. Worse, many give legitimacy to the outrageous and indefensible. The mob bullying, Internet magnification of harassment have fostered these consequences to an unprecedented extreme.
You’re right. It’s not modern. It’s the magnification via technology that’s modern.