Quantcast
Connect with us

Once again, Donald Trump caters to the white racists who helped elect him

Published

on

- Commentary

Since Donald Trump has demonstrated that he lacks the moral gravity which necessitates that the President of the United States should be able to condemn hatred and white nationalist terrorism, we must rather turn to our brothers and sisters and provide our own moral guidance and support. It is our solemn duty to embrace one another, look racist hatred straight in the eye, identify it for what it is, and proclaim that it has no place in America. Indeed to assume that he simply lacks moral gravity is to perhaps give Trump too much of the benefit of the doubt. Rather, what seems increasingly likely is that in refusing to specifically condemn a white supremacist murdering peaceful anti-racist protestors on the streets of Charlottesville, Virginia, that he is sending a not-so-veiled message to his numerous supporters on the far-right. One needs to ask, how can Donald Trump condemn a foreign driver, in a foreign city, killing foreigners in an act of foreign terrorism, but when that exact same method of terrorism is employed in an American city we’re treated to a milquetoast, anodyne, reductionist, and most of all inaccurate banality about “many sides?” Just when will the president use the phrase “radical white supremacist terrorism?”

ADVERTISEMENT

When Trump makes the sickening false equivalence between white supremacists, including members of Neo-Nazi groups and the Ku Klux Klan, with protestors who are there to stand in opposition to racist hate, he is displaying where his true allegiances lay. When he callously says that he is against the “egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides” he is implicitly normalizing fascist violence, and minimizing the death of a young woman who stood in opposition to that fascist violence. Trump, who is so willing to spend so much time talking about so much mere flatulence, apparently became a measured advocate of understanding between what, white supremacists and those whom the white supremacists wish to completely strip of their rights? There are not “many sides” to this issue, not when one woman is dead and the man who did it is charged with her murder. A president should not engage in lame Both-Sidesism or Whataboutism, the fact is that thousands of white supremacists from outside Charlottesville descended on that city with the intent to intimidate, frighten, and threaten, and they did precisely that, and now three people are dead.

Over 400,000 Americans died fighting Adolf Hitler; now angry young men are marching with the swastika in Charlottesville, and the president will not condemn them. Over 750,000 Americans died in the Civil War; now angry young men are marching with the treasonous Confederate battle flag in Virginia, and the president will not condemn them. 5,000 Americans – for whom there is still no national monument – were lynched in the years before the passage of the Civil Rights Act; and now, in Charlottesville, a militia of khaki clad, polo wearing fascists are attempting to make white supremacy respectable again, they who ascended on that city so as to shamelessly celebrate the murder of their fellow Americans. And the president failed to condemn that. History is not always equal, there are not always “many sides.”

Are you awaiting with bated breath for Trump to take to Twitter, or Facebook, or a press conference to say that: “I in no uncertain terms condemn the rise in racist hate speech, and now violence, which my campaign in part unfortunately enabled. I reject the politics of white supremacy, of racist nationalism. In the past, I have sadly not always spoken in a manner that reflected my concerns for all Americans: black, Hispanic, or white; Jewish, Muslim, or Christian; gay, trans, or straight; but I pledge as my solemn duty to contritely go forth working towards the interests of not just white Americans and not just Christian Americans and not just straight Americans, but all Americans.” If you are waiting for that particular speech then you will probably be waiting forever.

Because as the White House has made abundantly clear through both word and action over the past half year, their appearing to not be an administration for all Americans is no mistake. Trump’s remarks were not a gaffe, an accident, a misstatement. His was not impolitic phrasing, or a stumble of the tongue. No, it was very intentional. One must take a man at his word. The White House has been staffed by individuals like Steve Miller, Stephen Bannon, and Sebastian Gorka, all of whom have direct ties to some of the white supremacists who organized the rally and violence in Charlottesville. Trump’s “many sides” statement was no mistake, it was a dog whistle heard loud and clear. At best, it simply doesn’t concern him all that much, and at worst it’s too awful to consider.

So if you’re waiting for any kind of moral leadership from this administration, prepare to wait awhile. In the meantime, it’s our task to find that missing moral leadership where we can, in each other. Perhaps even from those whom we vehemently disagree with on other issues. Senator Ted Cruz, a man with whom I agree on almost nothing politically, tweeted Saturday: “I urge the Department of Justice to immediately investigate and prosecute this grotesque act of domestic terrorism.” I never thought I’d say this, but I agree with Ted Cruz. I hope, pray, and believe that there are many decent men and women on all sides of the political fence who can identify fascist violence for fascist violence, who know that when a car plows into a crowd of peaceful protestors, that there are not “many sides” of that issue to consider. And, if we’re in need of moral guidance, let’s turn not to the White House, but Harlem Renaissance poet Claude McKay’s poem “The White House,” which condemned the racism he faced as a black man in no uncertain terms: “I must keep my heart inviolate/Against the potent poison of your hate.” This is not an issue with “many sides.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Ed Simon is a senior editor at The Marginalia Review of Books, a channel of The Los Angeles Review of Books. A regular contributor at several different sites, he holds a PhD in English from Lehigh University, and can be followed at his website, or on Twitter @WithEdSimon

This article was originally published at History News Network

Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Trump embraces a poisonous view of the Jewish people as the world sees a startling rise in anti-Semitism

Published

on

It’s the 75th anniversary of the end of the Second World War. When Japan signed the instruments of surrender on Sept. 2, 1945, it was the last of a series of notable events that took place that year.

The first was the liberation, on Jan. 27, 1945, of Auschwitz-Birkenau, the most notorious of the extermination camps operated by Nazi Germany, imperial Japan’s Axis ally.

Post-Holocaust, the fervent credo of a Jewish community that witnessed approximately six million of its numbers perish in under five years — half of all European Jews and more than a third of Jews worldwide — has been “Never again!”

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Ignorant mask opponents keep using one of the worst analogies imaginable as COVID-19 sweeps across America

Published

on

Earlier this year, my college students and I joined our chaplain and a graduate student in traveling to the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC. The insensitive treatment many attendees gave the terrors that the museum was trying to educate people about are being repeated in a new way: weaponizing the Holocaust against any mask mandates, social distancing, or other health regulations designed to combat the deadly spread of COVID-19.  Amazingly, some of their targets are Jewish.

About a week ago, a couple went into a Minnesota Wal-Mart with swastika masks over their faces.  The Minnesota GOP apologized this month for a Washaba County Republican Party meme comparing mask mandates to Jews having to wear yellow stars.

Continue Reading
 

2020 Election

Trump feared ‘extreme backlash’ for conducting war on Chicago — but in a second term, he won’t care about that

Published

on

Donald Trump isn't the first president to fail on a grand scale, and he certainly isn't the first to test the boundaries of the system to see what he can get away with. But he is unique in certain respects. The full panoply of grotesque personality defects and openly corrupt behaviors is something we've never seen before in someone who ascended to the most powerful office in the land. People will study this era for a very long time to try to figure out just what cultural conditions allowed such an advanced, wealthy nation to end up with such an ignorant, unqualified leader.But that's actually less interesting in some ways that how party officials came to support him so unquestioningly and why so few career bureaucrats and civil servants have publicly stood up to him. What kind of system produces that kind of loyalty for a man who never had the support of more than 45% of the country, and who won by virtue of an anachronistic electoral system that allowed him to take office with nearly 3 million fewer votes than his opponent?Trump may be a uniquely unfit leader, but the party that has backed him without question is not unique. In fact, the last Republican administration showed many of the same characteristics. Robert Draper's new book "To Start a War: How the Bush Administration Took America Into Iraq" reminds us that just 17 years ago, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the George W. Bush administration used propaganda and disinformation to persuade the American people to go along with a war that made no logical sense on its face.
Continue Reading
 
 
You need honest news coverage. Help us deliver it. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1. Go ad-free.
close-image