The difference between ‘prejudiced’ and ‘deplorable’

Trump rally in New Hampshire
Trump supporters at rally in Nashua, New Hampshire, December 28, 2015. Photo: Marc Nozell

J.D. Vance, a very hot writer these days with his timely memoir “Hillbilly Elegy,” writes in Thursday’s New York Times why he thinks Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” remark was out of line: Because polls show that most everyone, not just Trump voters, have some sort of prejudice toward one group and/or other, and though the prejudice is terrible, it shouldn’t brand them as “social outcasts.”

“In that basket is the black preacher who may view homosexuality as a little icky even as he lovingly ministers to struggling gay members of his church. The adoptive parent of a child born in Asia, who pours her heart and soul into her child’s well-being even as she tells a pollster that she doesn’t much care about America’s experience with Japanese internment. And in that basket is a white grandmother who speaks ill of black people even as she gives her beloved African-American grandson the emotional support and love that enable him to become the president of all Americans.”

Yes, we all have our prejudices, and that does not make us all deplorable. But we are not all prejudiced to the same degree, and the difference in quantity can and does become so great among people that it turns into a difference in quality. Some people are prejudiced in a way that’s recessive and basically harmless, others in a way that’s malignant, such that it’s entirely fair to call them deplorable as people.

And I’d say one indication of whether a person is garden-variety, routinely prejudiced or, on the other hand, poisoned with it, is whether he supports Trump. (While it’s not true, as Hillary pointed out, that all of Trump’s voters are “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it,” I would say that about 90% of the “you name its” who are voting in this election are voting Trump.)

It’s one thing to say America needs to reduce the number of illegal immigrants coming in from Mexico and Latin America, or to more closely vet the refugees and immigrants from the Muslim Middle East. Believing such things (as I do) does not make you a racist, nativist or Islamophobe.

But when a candidate only speaks of Latinos and Muslims as rapists, murderers, terrorists, leeches, aliens, as nothing but a collective menace, and shouts it with maximum fury and malevolence – if you are one of the people in the crowd baying in response, you are fucking well deplorable. You’re not one of the “about 90 percent of us [who] possess some implicit prejudices,” according to J.D. Vance’s data-based estimate. No, you’re one of the roughly 20 percent of Americans (extrapolating from Hillary’s reference to “half” of Trump’s supporters) who are out-and-out bigots.

And even if you haven’t been to any of Trump’s rallies, if you support him knowing (as you damn well do by now) his views toward Muslims, Latinos, women, blacks and the handicapped, and your socioeconomic situation is good enough so you’re not clinging to him out of personal desperation (and desperate people probably make up a smaller portion of Trump’s electorate than the “half” suggested by Hillary; see links below) – then on the slim chance that you are not an out-and-out bigot yourself, you are raising one up to take over America, which is enough to make you deplorable.

No apologies, Hillary. No defending the indefensibles, J.D.

———————————-

Further reading:

“When it comes to baskets, we’re all deplorable,” J.D. Vance, NY Times, September 22, 2016.

“Voices from Donald Trump’s rallies, uncensored,” NY Times, August 3, 2016.

“Clinton expresses regret for saying ‘half’ of Trump’s supporters are ‘deplorables,” CNN, September 12, 2016.

“The mythology of Trump’s ‘working class’ support,” Nate Silver, FiveThirtyEight, May 3, 2016.

“Typical Trump voter earns above average income, study finds,” NBC News, August 13, 2016.

 

Message to Jill Stein and her supporters: ‘Lunatics, get down off the roof!’

Jill Stein at Occupy Wall Street, September 27, 2011.
Jill Stein at Occupy Wall Street, September 27, 2011.

Toward the end of the 2000 U.S. presidential election campaign, when George W. Bush and Al Gore were running neck and neck, an ad hoc group calling themselves “Nader’s Raiders for Gore” asked their former candidate of choice, the Green Party’s Ralph Nader, to withdraw from the race. “It is now clear that you might well give the White House to Bush. … We urge you to ask your supporters, as we do now, to honor your ideas and to vote for the man who is most likely to put them into action – Al Gore,” read their open letter.

But it did no good; Bush won the election by 537 votes in Florida, where nearly 100,000 votes were cast for Nader. Diehard Naderites still refuse to take responsibility, blaming the Supreme Court and pointing out that there were a lot more Democrats who didn’t vote, or who voted for Bush, than there were who voted for Nader. Fine. The Supreme Court was to blame. And the Democrats who didn’t vote, or who voted for Bush, were to blame. AND the 97,421 Floridians who voted for Nader were to blame.

But what makes the Nader voters (or anyway the huge chunk of them who knew in their hearts that Gore was the better choice than Bush) more galling than these other culprits is precisely that: They knew that by voting for the candidate they considered the best, even though he had no chance of winning, they risked actually electing the one they considered the worst. Which is what they did.

This brings me, naturally, to Jill Stein, the Green Party’s candidate in the current presidential campaign. With less than two months to go before the election, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump aren’t running as closely as Bush and Gore did, but that’s the direction they’re headed. Clinton’s lead is narrowing by the day. On Friday, the benchmark RealClearPolitics average of polls shows Clinton ahead in the popular vote by 1.1% over Trump in the four-way race that includes the Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson and Stein.

The Stein effect 

But what counts, of course, is the winner-take-all statewide contests for electoral votes, with 270 needed to win – and here the RCP average of polls shows Clinton leading Trump 200 to 164 in the states where one or the other has a clear lead. Among the “toss-up” states, there are four – Florida (29 electoral votes), Ohio (18), Georgia (16) and Nevada (6) – in which Trump is leading Clinton by tiny percentages that are smaller than the percentages supporting Stein. In Arizona (11), Trump’s percentage lead and Stein’s percentage of support are the same – 2.2%.

In North Carolina (15), RCP showed no poll results for Stein, but Clinton’s lead there is only 0.6%.

Stein’s name is on the ballot in 45 states including Washington DC, and in three other states her name can be written in. Here’s my proposal (and I’m sure it’s not just mine): She doesn’t have to drop out of the race nationally, she just has to drop out in the “battleground states” mentioned above (and any others that turn into battleground states) where her candidacy could mean the difference between Clinton and Trump winning the state and, very possibly, the White House. And in those battleground states, she has to throw her support to Hillary.

Ralph Nader on campaign trail in 2008.
Ralph Nader, independent candidate for president in 2008, speaking at campaign stop in Waterbury, Connecticut. Photo: Sage Ross

If Stein doesn’t do that, and if she and her supporters end up nuking this election like Nader and the Greens did the one in 2000, it will be so much more of a malicious act than the one before. Sixteen years ago, 9/11 hadn’t happened yet, there was no war in Iraq, no “war on terror.” Plus, Bush was running as a moderate Republican, a “compassionate conservative,” so it wasn’t entirely irrational to think that the difference between him and Gore wasn’t so tremendous, and to see that election as an opportune one to vote for “the best,” as Naderites saw their man, even if he couldn’t win.

But today, between Clinton and Trump? I’m not going to go into the differences between them, or how large they are, or how much larger they are than the ones between Bush and Gore in 2000; it’s not a serious subject.

One other thing I don’t get about Stein’s supporters is why they would risk a Trump victory for the sake of voting for a third party. What have third parties accomplished in modern America except to distort a presidential election or two? What was the lasting effect of George Wallace’s third party? Or John Anderson’s? Or Ross Perot’s? Or Ralph Nader’s? Zero. After the election’s over these parties have nothing to do; their causes may continue, but they’re pushed forward by other movements. A third party exists to run a glorious, hopeless electoral campaign, and that’s it. America has a two-party system, plain and simple, and third parties have no useful place in it.

The horror

In July, Stein told Truthdig.com, “I will be horrified if Donald Trump is elected. And I will be horrified if Hillary Clinton is elected. And I think the greatest terror of all is that we have a political system that says to us, here are two deadly choices: Now pick one.” But that was before, when people on the Left didn’t take seriously the possibility of Trump getting elected president. Everybody takes it seriously today.

There’s a famous line spoken in the ‘70s by an Israeli politician trying to talk sense to his intemperate, overly demanding colleagues: “Lunatics, get down off the roof!” This is what left-leaning Democrats and independents ought to be shouting up at Jill Stein and her millions of supporters. Maybe the folks on the ground will be more successful than “Nader’s Raiders for Gore” were in their time. After all, now we know the consequences of the 2000 election. And this time, the man who must be stopped isn’t anyone’s idea of a compassionate conservative.

————————————-

Further reading:

“Truthdig sits down with the Green Party’s Jill Stein,” Truthdig.com, July 11, 2016

“Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2000,” Wikipedia.com

“Nader’s Raiders for Gore,” BlackElectorate.com, October 26, 2000

“Nader elected Bush: Why we shouldn’t forget,” Politico.com, May 31, 2016

The liberal West’s ‘secret’ war against ISIS

U.S. airstrike on ISIS
U.S. fighter jet taking off from aircraft carrier for airstrike on ISIS in Syria. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Alex King/Released)

Since the slaughter in Nice, there seems to be an argument between Western liberals and conservatives over how to deal with ISIS, with the liberals arguing for democracy and conservatives arguing for war. (Here, here, here and here.) I won’t even go into the specifics of the arguments because anybody who hasn’t heard them should be able to predict them by now; what I will say, though, is that it’s a false argument.

The liberal West, led by Obama and Hollande, is at war with ISIS, and in the wake of Nice, Hollande at least is escalating it.  In the last two years the U.S.-led coalition has launched many thousands of airstrikes against ISIS and other jihadist groups in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Yemen, and they’ve killed many thousands of ISIS members and other jihadists.

I’m not hearing liberals say they want this bombing to slow down, or for France to relax its surveillance of terrorist suspects, so why are they arguing?

Because while the West is at war with ISIS, the Western public – left, right and center – doesn’t know it. There are few Western troops on the ground in the war zones, few are getting killed, there’s no military draft, and nobody has the patience to read about the fighting in the Middle East, so the only time Westerners tune into ISIS is when there’s an ISIS-linked terror attack in a Western city. As far as the man on the Western street can see, ISIS is blasting away at him and his side isn’t doing anything.

Fox's Bill O'Reilly and Donald Trump
Fox’s Bill O’Reilly and Donald Trump, April 28, 2016. Photo: From YouTube, screenshot of Fox News.

So when Donald Trump and Fox’s Bill O’Reilly come out now for war, they sound like they’re really onto something bold and new, while Hillary, reminding Americans that they actually are at war, sounds like she’s on the defensive.

In France you get Marine Le Pen saying, “The war against the scourge of fundamentalism hasn’t started. It must now be declared.” Such absolute bullshit. The French are world-beaters when it comes to fighting Islamic terror. Yes, there is still terror in France. There’s also still terror in Israel – does anyone suggest that Israel isn’t at war with terrorists?

No, because Israelis, being conservatives, are always trumpeting how hard they’re fighting the enemy. (But within Israel, the relative liberals like Rabin and Peres were always accused by conservatives like Netanyahu of doing nothing against terror; same bullshit, and it worked every time.) Same thing when Americans were being taken hostage by Iran and Hezbollah; Reagan never made any military move and even gave the Iranians arms, while Carter at least tried a military assault to free them in Iran – yet Reagan was considered tough on terror and Carter was considered a wimp. Why? Because Reagan, being a conservative, knew how to talk shit about war, while Carter, being a liberal, didn’t.

It’s saber-rattling time 

Same with Obama, same with Hollande, and same with Hillary, at least in comparison to that chickenhawk Trump. They have to start rattling sabers against ISIS, they have to tell the public every day about all the bastards they’re killing in the Middle East. This is what the man on the Western street wants to hear – and rightly so. ISIS and its sympathizers are a force of evil, a menace to the Middle East and the West, they’re horrifying people with their killing and people need to know that their side is fighting back. In the absence of that knowledge, people are becoming demoralized and turning into easy prey for the likes of Trump and Le Pen. And if these two take over in America and France, which seems more likely since Nice, they really will turn the fight against ISIS into a fight against all Muslims, which is not how liberal leaders like Obama and Hollande are fighting it now.

All the more reason for liberals to support the war against ISIS, to support escalating it … if they even know there’s a war on.