Saturday, September 17, 2016

Trump Voters: Totally #NotRacist

It's bad enough that Russia is meddling in our election; now Canada has to get into the act. Okay, not Canada as such--just a Canadian magazine. On Thursday Maclean's published a super-softball, vaseline-on-the-journalistic lens look at a handful of Trump supporters:
These are Donald Trump’s “deplorables,” as Hillary Clinton calls them—11 unashamed Trump-train riders from across the United States, writing in their own words.

To Clinton, they—or at least “half of them,” as the Democratic nominee chuckled last weekend in a stunning display of contempt before hurriedly apologizing­—can be lumped together as “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic­­—you name it.”

Our contributors would disagree. The Trump supporters who volunteered to write for Maclean’s this week are collegians and golden agers, whites and non-whites, retirees and working people. One studies bioterrorism; one teaches Grade 7. They hail from locales as variegated as Boynton Beach, Mayfield Heights, Wichita Falls, and Punxsutawney. (One of them is this writer’s first cousin.)
What follows is the Trump voters describing, in their own words, why they're voting for Trump. In other words, they're allowed to put the maximum positive spin on their own motivations. Results are...not entirely successful.

Here's one respondent*:
This is why I support Donald Trump—he is pro legal immigration. He wants to stop the massive influx of illegal immigrants coming across our southern border to steal jobs and resources from those who are where my father was not too long ago.
Well, the "massive influx of illegal immigrants" is imaginary, and it's a misperception that's likely to be a product of racial animosity--as is the perception that certain people working for a living is "stealing jobs".

Here's another:
American politics needs Donald Trump’s unorthodox approach to the atmosphere of entitlement and political correctness that has taken over common sense in this country. He connects with those of us that get up every day, go to work, raise families, pay taxes, give to and support our local churches and non-profits.
And the coded racial language is just bursting out all over the place here, from "political correctness" (racial or other sensitivity is Public Enemy Number One to Trump supporters) and "entitlement" (lazy moochers) on one side of the divide to working taxpayers (the opposite of lazy moochers) who go to church (as opposed to, say, a mosque) on the other. In the geography of language, this is Lee Atwater country.

And another:
What I have observed is that both parties have separated themselves from the Constitution because of political correctness...Now I live in a country where I am considered a terrorist, because I am a Christian, a veteran, a white conservative, law-abiding, born-in-America citizen....

I almost support all of [Trump's] statements, because they are not polictically [sic] correct, they are mostly the honest truth....I believe that God anointed Trump to be the agent of change necessary to defeat the so-called wise politically correct crowd that presently stands in the position of power and authority.
Here's a guy who hates political correctness so much he mentions it three times in his little spiel. But hey, no racial resentment there, right?

And another:
Another left-leaning Supreme Court member will ...increase the already declining moral structure of America.

[Trump] is a businessman/entertainer—not a politician at all. He, therefore, makes remarks that could be considered offensive to some.
"Declining moral structure" is deliberately ambiguous gobbledygook that could cover anything--from godless secularists attacking the Constitution Jesus gave us, to lazy moochers stealing our jobs. "Could be considered offensive" is obviously a slightly less direct way of calling out political correctness.

Yet another:
In Donald Trump, and his blatant outbursts of truth and honesty, I see a refreshing change from the “talk the talk” politically correct banter; a change from the lies and illegalities that are rampant and commonplace.
"Politically correct"--everybody drink!

And another:
He says the truth without worrying about the feelings of our enemies.
And yet another variation on the theme of political correctness.

Now, that's a sampling of people trying to justify themselves, presenting themselves in the best possible light, and the coded language is still there--sometimes ambiguous, but certainly (at least) suggestive.

I'd love to see some follow-up questions. The ones who emphasize "God" and "Christian"--how do they feel about Muslims? The ones who hate political correctness--what are some examples that particularly bug them? The "hard-working" people--who exactly is it who isn't working hard?

What I'd have to see before I believe the premise of the story is these people answering questions for some non-trivial amount of time without slipping into overt racial resentment. Most of them? Not gonna happen, I'm guessing. But hey, maybe Macleans could do some follow-up interviews so we can find out.

*In all of these, the emphasis is added.


Andrew Johnston said...

American politics needs Donald Trump’s unorthodox approach to the atmosphere of entitlement and political correctness that has taken over common sense in this country.

I really wonder about people who say things like this, because I'm at a loss as to what they think an elected official is supposed to do about their cultural bugaboos. Is he going to make safe spaces illegal? Criminalize gender-neutral pronouns? Mandate that newsrooms use the term "illegal" a certain number of times a day? Or are they envisioning some polestar scenario where the yuge orange radiance is going to bend the youth of the nation until you start hearing things like "I can't believe I ever had time to worry about police profiling when all of these Mexicans keep stabbing our womenfolk"?

It's almost as though none of them have thought this through, and instead allowed their decision making to be guided by spite and knee-jerk reactions. But David Brooks tells me that's wrong.

Unknown said...

Macleans is a hack mag. It has pushed conservative tropes since the 80's. Don't expect anything of any value from them. I am a Canadian, and once a reader of Macleans, for the record.

KenRight said...

Trump wants no part of Syria, evidently Obama is killing Muslims againm destroying secular Arab regimes to implant takfiris doing Israel's bidding. Who is the Islamophobe? Who is the racist? Reckless drone bombing, helping takfiris destroy Yemen, oh, yes the peace price president and Russophobe Clinton, destroyer of Libya, they cannot be 'racists.'

KenRight said...

Authentic leftist Moon of Alabama depicts as Obama regieme directs US/Israel in more war crimes against secular Arab threats to Zionist oppression of Palestinians.

Raymond Smith said...

I am a veteran and as a veteran I swore an oath to protect the Constitution. Thus, as many times that Trump has spoken against the Constitution and what it stands for. Any sl called veteran that supports Trump has shown to the world that the oath they took to protect the Constitution means absolutely nothing to them.

Ken_L said...

OK guys, you've convinced me. Donald Trump is a terrible person and his supporters are equally awful. In fact I was convinced of that 18 months ago, so I haven't really needed the 26,439 repetitive posts on various liberal websites since March last year to confirm it.

What I do know is that unless her supporters start persuading undecided voters soon that Hillary Clinton is a good person who will actually improve the lives of ordinary Americans, the terrible person and his awful supporters will be celebrating like crazy on November 9.

W. Hackwhacker said...

KenRightbot strikes again!

Mark Steyn is a columnist for Macleans. 'Nuff said.

Marc McKenzie said...

Well, they just can't say, "I hate that n**ger in the White House and I don't want that c**t winning the election. Too many n**gers and spics and Jews running everything."

Honestly, reading these passages were saddening, the f**k could people believe this nonsense? Is it due to lack of education, the media, or just outright racism?

Oh, and Ken_L--piss off. Sure you were convinced. So nice to drop in the slam on Hillary too.

Feud Turgidson said...

Canada just last year voted out of government Harper and the Conservatives, after 8 years of some minority and more recently bare majority power. Now Canada's parliament is 75% center left Liberals to decidedly left "New Democrat", voted in by 63% of the total Canadian voting electorate.

But for Harper to retain power for that long suggests that Canada, despite a population that's less than California spread over a geography that's larger in total area than the U.S. (albeit the vast majority seem to live within a couple of hours drive at most of their border with the U.S.) has had, and likely still has, more or less the sort of media we have here. That means a decided majority of what passes for Big Media in Canada is likely center right to right wing.

The biggest newspaper chains in Canada are decidedly right wing: the form CP group can in most of the few large population centers in Canada the particular market's dominant if not SOLE dead tree daily news org, and the 3 biggest nation-wide orgs in that category are respectively a center right broadsheet, a populist right tabloid, and a hard right Canadian version of the WSJ.

What all that tells me is there's a pretty substantial gap between the political alignment of the dominant Canadian news media orgs and that of Canadians in general - larger even than we have here.

At the same time, the fastest growing news org in Canada is Vice News (a west coast Canadian based 'new age journalism' org), and the 'most trusted' brand in news remains the government-owned nation-wide TV and radio market-based Canadian Broadcasting Corp. The latter is center left to liberal, and the former is farther left than any American news org.

Moreover, the vast majority of Canadian TV and cable watchers have pretty much full access to all U.S.-based major and medium market news orgs, and according to polling going back to 2008, Obama's been way more enthusiastically popular with both the Canadian electorate and even the broader Canadian adult population than not just in the U.S. but almost anywhere in the world.

Moreover, the Canadian population is more hooked into the internet than here, and more indeed than almost anywhere other than Denmark and Norway.

So if the concern being raised by this post is that the Canadian electorate is buying into the picture that Maclean's magazine is painting, I really don't see how that's even remotely likely.

Yastreblyansky said...

@Ken_Hoopster I don't like to argue with you over the classification of everybody but Moon of Alabama, which I believe sometimes has some useful information has never to my knowledge expressed any interest in the working class and does not qualify as leftist.

Ms. L.B. said...

Unfortunately, people, it will be President Trump. Get used to it. I've been yelling this at the top of my voice for the past year, when everybody was telling me to lighten up, that it was impossible, that he was a joke.

Some joke.

Orthodox said...

I don't really know how you combat stuff like this. Their reasons probably sound perfectly reasonable to a lot of regular people who don't hear dog whistles and aren't prone to recognize them even when they're explained.

Diane Rehm had an alt-right guy on her program a couple weeks ago, and while he was terrifying, the relatively normal people who called in to express mild support or their general bewilderment at all the talk concerning Trump's racism. I mean, if listening to a radio program where they explain it to you still leaves you scratching your head, I don't know what can be done.

KenRight said...

Ex Special Forces Green Beret commentary on the Clinton-approved (yet even more hawkish) Syrian policy.

"And then there is the performance of Ambassador Samantha Power at the UN last night and today. Last night she threw a hissy fit for the cameras outside the chamber in which the Security Council was meeting. She seemed outraged to have had her Saturday Night interrupted for something as trivial as the Deir al-Zor attacks. One can envisage her snuggled up with a good book in her apartment in the Waldorf Towers only to be be ripped away for this meeting. And then, today she made a longer statement on Tee Vee in which she first expressed the regret of the US government for the devastation we had wrought, and then set forth her bill of particulars against the Syrian government, a statement so fulsome in its loaded up R2P/Borgist assertions (routine Chemical attacks on THE PEOPLE, etc.) that it is obvious that for her the SAA are as much the enemy as IS. I conclude that she must think that bombing the evil SAA was a good thing. She does not exist in a vacuum. SECDEF Carter is a thoroughgoing Russophobe. General Votel, the US commander in Iraq and eastern Syria has expressed doubt about the wisdom of cooperating with the Russians."

IMO it is an open question as to whether these air strikes on the SAA were accidental. pl

gocart mozart said...

Trump wants to nuke Syria before he wants nothing to do with it.

Anonymous said...

I find it grimly hilarious that a Trump supporter would think that a lifelong grifter would better our "declining moral structure".

I am less amused to hear "political correctness" all the time. I thought "civility" was a perfectly fine term.