Trump’s Win: The Blindness of Republicans and Democrats

Armin Rosen wrote a critique of The New Yorker‘s response to Trump’s election victory in Tablet Magazine (“The New Yorker’s Cavalcade of Ignorance” 11/26/24) which inspired me to read that issue of the New Yorker. I identified with many points of his critique while thinking that he himself was guilty of a similar charge: an utter inability to offer any sympathetic reading of one’s political opponents. The New Yorker featured twelve writers but could not invite one Trump supporter or even one Trump opponent with some appreciation for why people voted for Trump. Surely, promoting critical thinking calls for a bit more diversity.

However, Rosen seems quite guilty of parallel blindness since he does not understand why fears of Trump are entirely rational. Donald Trump is a horrible human being unfit to be president. It all starts with his incredible narcissism; he truly cares only about himself. Thus, he explicitly evaluates other people based on whether or not they praise him. He can give a eulogy about a conservative supporter named Lynette “Diamond” Hardaway and speak about himself for more than forty minutes. His obsession with self engenders a certain cruelty. On the day of 9/11, Trump informed a radio station that he now had the biggest building in Manhattan. His supporters find all their crimes forgiven. Tucker Carlson can play with Holocaust denial and still get invited to speak for Trump and Kanye West espouses antisemitism while remaining Trump’s buddy.

If it will help him get elected, Trump is happy to promote inaccurate and racist notions of immigrants as being overly represented in crime. He could just as easily have opposed illegal immigration without calling the immigrants “rapists.” Nor does he show great sympathy for women when he brags about groping them in their private parts. His personal life reveals a parallel attitude to women as he is unfaithful to his spouses and trades in older versions of his wives for younger and prettier ones.

Trump also has an immature obsession with sounding tough and being among the strong and not the weak, manifest in his praise for tyrants such as Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un. He refers to dead soldiers as “losers” and denies John McCain was a war hero since he was captured. Recall that McCain spent six years in a Vietnamese prison, experienced torture, and turned down an opportunity to jump ahead of other prisoners held longer and receive an early release.

Since his speeches rarely (perhaps never) discuss issues in any depth but consist more of name calling political opponents (“crooked Hillary”) and self-promotion (bragging about getting the biggest crowds), he has significantly lowered the level of political discourse in America. He lacks respect for the democratic process, as evident in his refusal to acknowledge defeat in the 2020 elections and in his doing nothing to stop the mob on January 6^th. He frequently employs violent rhetoric at rallies, including saying that Liz Cheney should face a firing squad.

He has been filling his cabinet with yes-men of dubious qualifications and moral repute. Charlie Kushner, a man who hired a prostitute to blackmail his brother-in-law, was just named American ambassador to France. He wanted Matt Gaetz, a man accused of sleeping with underage girls, to be the Attorney General.

Given all of the above, concern about Trump’s presidency are very much in order. I challenge those who say all politicians are equally corrupt and narcissistic to come up with a similar list about George Bush or Mitt Romney. Others will respond that we do not need or want our politicians to be Gandhi or Mother Teresa. I agree that the presidency need not go to the most moral character but a deep level of corruption certainly hurts. It means someone who can be won over with cash or ego pandering and it creates the dangerous possibility of an authoritarian leader unwilling to brook any opposition.

If Rosen will complain about The New Yorker, he should minimally acknowledge the legitimate sources of worry. Now let us turn to that illustrious magazine (“Concerning the Underlying Disease” 11/18/24). As mentioned, no voices with any sympathy for the Republican Party appear. Moreover, the motivations to vote Republican are usually presented in the worst possible fashion. Jennifer Egan managed to meet only two Trump supporters, one who declared that he would never vote for a Black or a woman. Lorie Moore surmised that Kamala Harris was “too petite and beautiful to be Commander in Chief.” Jelani Cobb says that some portion of the blame for Trump’s victories must be due to the [female] identities of his opponents, Clinton and Harris. Annette Gordon-Reid refers to an “animosity towards immigrants and the determination to control women.” Timothy Snyder writes about the problem of a “woman of color who knows how to laugh.” Jia Tolentino views the entire election as a battle over gender. This discourse portrays Trump voters as a bunch of misogynists and racists, an easy way out, instead of asking if there were substantive reasons (the economy, immigration, defunding the police, fears about Israel, usage of racial politics to condemn whites) why they voted Republican. It also frees Democrats from asking any self-critical questions.

None of the twelve authors mention the possibility that Harris was a weak candidate. She benefitted early in her career from being appointed to significant positions by her then boyfriend, Willie Brown. As Vice President, her popularity ratings were poor and she has a record of inconsistent flip-flops on several policy issues. Perhaps there is a different kind of racial problem in that liberals feel they cannot write critically about a Black woman (unless she is a Republican).

Another common tactic is to associate Trump with other evil politicians in history. Rachel Meadow informs us of the monetary crimes of Huey Long, Charles Coughlin, and Spiro Agnew. Annette Gordon-Reed mentions David Stephenson, Indiana’s Ku Klux Klan’s Grand Dragon in the 1920s. Two writers go so far as to connect Trump with Adolph Hitler. Snyder cites a historian saying that “the Trump phenomenon looks like it has a much more solid social base, which neither Hitler nor Mussolini would have had.” Jane Meyer reminds us that “one of the first things Hitler did when he was elected was to declare abortion a crime against the state.” The Hitler language is way overblown; Trump did nothing in his first candidacy to make us think that concentration camps lurk around the corner. Exaggerated rhetoric does not help convince the undecided.

Though the Republicans now control both the Oval Office and Congress, they do not have a monopoly on sources of influence. Major media outlets (The New York Times, CNN) lean heavily left and the halls of academia are dominated by liberals in a fashion harmful to a balanced educational conversation. Moreover, there are other institutions in the US political system that provide some restraint and balance. States have independent legislative power, the government has a constitution, and even the current far-right Supreme Court has not always supported Trump’s desires (https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us/us-supreme-court-defied-trump-at-key-moments-in-blockbuster-term-idUSKBN24B17F/). In sum, reason for concern yes, reason to anticipate storm troopers no.

In my latest attempt to improve our political discourse, I ask for the following. Perhaps Republicans could admit that Trump is lousy presidential material and a worse human being, while the Democrats could acknowledge that many Trump voters are not simply racists, misogynists and fascists. Media of all kinds could try harder to find a place for voices with which they disagree