5 Bad Questions About Trump, Hate, and the Future

Hi there, fellow coastal elites. Ever since the election we’ve been asking a lot of questions. Some good ones. But here are some bad questions we’ve been asking. Not all the bad questions we’re asking, because I have chores to do; just five of them.

Bad Question #1: Are Trump voters racists?

Racism isn’t a yes-or-no thing. It’s a whole galaxy of ideas, feelings, actions, and outcomes. Some ideas or actions are severely racist, and some are mildly racist. Most Americans don’t consciously embrace or aspire to racism (though a small fringe does); but literally nobody is free of racist thoughts in some degree, whether conscious or subconscious.

That doesn’t mean everyone has the same level of problem; some people have more racism in their thoughts and actions and some people have less. But no person should be reduced to being labeled simply “a racist”. “Racist” is a useful adjective but a terrible noun.

“Racist” as a noun is not just harmfully simplistic (because racism isn’t all-or-nothing) but also provides false comfort to the one wielding the label, letting her believe that she isn’t “a racist” herself and can therefore relax. It also provides no incentive for anyone to work on getting better. Because if you challenge something I said (“That’s a racist stereotype you just said there,”), then we can talk about it. But if you challenge who I am (“You said that? You’re a racist.”) then my only choices are to either get defensive or feel like I’m a completely bad person. Or at least to feel like you think I’m a bad person. And if you’re going to hate or dismiss me whatever I do, why should I even try? (Learn more about this from Jay Smooth and Vu Le.) All of this holds equally true, of course, for “sexist”, “antisemite”, “xenophobe”, etc..

Better questions: How did racist ideas, stories, and feelings contribute to Trump’s victory? What messages could have better countered them? How can we fight racism in our own minds and actions? What actions, messages, and policies have been most successful in lessening racism in society in the past? What kinds of engagement with people has the best chance of changing people’s racist ideas and actions for the better?

Bad Question #2: Should we excuse Trump voters or hate them?

Nobody’s quite asking this one explicitly, just answering it badly by choosing either answer.

You really don’t have to do either one of these things. Nobody’s asking you for clemency and you don’t have to grant it. Nobody’s giving you permission to write off the humanity of other people, either, even when those other people do bad things. “Hate the sin and love the sinner,” as they used to say. Actually they still say it, and they’re right.

Oppose bad ideas and bad actions with passion and vigor. Disagree, protest, obstruct, and even physically fight people when absolutely necessary. But even when physically fighting people, never give in to hate for the person you’re fighting. There is no situation that hate can make better.

Better questions: How can we fight hard to stop evil actions and policies without demonizing the humanity of the people promoting them? How can we find productive common ground with people who believe terribly destructive ideas without giving tacit endorsement to those ideas? How can we do both at the same time?

Bad Question #3: Should we “normalize” Trump?

To argue either side of this question assumes that the media, or politicians, or the public at large, has the power to “normalize” someone. That assumption is both odd and wrong. It’s not up to us whether or not President-elect Trump behaves as a normal political leader. It is certainly up to us to tell the truth about whether or not he is doing so at any given time, and we shouldn’t ever shrink from telling that truth. But it is the objective normalcy, or not, of Mr. Trump’s actions that should determine our response. As of this writing, Mr. Trump has hired an avowed proponent of the Alt-Right as one of his top aides. That is many leagues from normal. But if Mr. Trump suddenly, say, proposed a really sane, sensible budget for 2018, that action would be normal regardless of any separate past or ongoing outrages. I’m not expecting him to actually propose a sane budget, mind you, I’m just making the point that Trump, and Trump alone, determines his own normalcy at any given time.

This isn’t just semantic. It’s about cooperation. Some on the left are arguing against any kind of cooperation with Trump so as not to “normalize” him. Michael Moore has called for obstructing President Trump at every turn, emulating the GOP during the Obama Administration. I understand the reasoning, but it’s a bad idea. Given Trump’s campaign promises and staffing choices, obstruction will probably be the only moral choice in many cases. But blanket obstruction? We must vigorously block any and all damaging policies. I can even understand blocking neutral policies, for the sake of denying Mr. Trump victories. But we must not simply decide ahead of time to obstruct everything President Trump might do, even truly necessary things. Would Mr. Moore advocate, for example, that the Democrats refuse to raise the debt ceiling just as the Republicans have done, risking a US debt default and all the chaos that goes with it, just because it would be President Trump left holding the bag? Arguably the threat of that worked well as politics for the GOP, but at the cost of threatening the stability and sustainability of our government. That’s what made it so illegitimate when Republicans did it, and it would be irresponsible for Democrats to follow suit.

That doesn’t mean Democrats should seek compromise on everything, or even anywhere close to everything. It just means we shouldn’t be robots about it; we have to look at consequences and situations. Democrats should obstruct President Trump whenever he seeks to do evil; we should work with him whenever he seeks to do good.

Better question: What do we do in the situations in between clear good and clear evil? Should we always obstruct in order to win the next election? If so, are we comfortable keeping that precedent going for the other side?

Bad Question #4: Should we be hysterical or optimistic?

Neither. Optimism is naive and dangerous; it leads to complacency. Hysteria is counterproductive; it is the pessimist’s version of complacency.

We need to be clear-eyed realists — vigilant against threats and open to opportunities. To maintain vigilance we will need courage and resolve, and to maintain openness we will need inspiration and hope. (Hope, as people much wiser than I have observed, is not the same thing as optimism.)

Bad Question #5: Will our democracy crumble or endure?

Our democracy isn’t some sentient being with its own will. The answer is unwritten. The answer is nothing but the results of our own actions.

Better question: What will I do today to uphold and strengthen the foundations of liberal democracy?