By David French
Tuesday, September 12, 2017
Why must conversations about race inevitably devolve to
the extreme? Why can’t we address human choices in all their individual complexity? Could it be
possible that people have mixed motives, or that the actions of small
minorities can’t and don’t define the whole?
These are the questions that come to mind when I
encounter identity politics, especially identity politics in the age of Trump.
Last week Ta-Nehisi Coates, perhaps the most influential black intellectual in
the United States today, wrote an extended essay about Donald Trump — declaring
that his ideology isn’t nationalism, conservatism, or even self-interest. It’s
“white supremacy, in all its truculent and sanctimonious power.”
Coates is an adherent of the theory that “race is an
idea, not a fact,” and that “essential to the construct of a ‘white race’ is
the idea of not being a nigger.” In other words, white people — historically
and presently — gain power by defining themselves against the other. Here is
Coates’s central contention, that Trump is the white man’s negation of the
first black president:
Before Barack Obama, niggers could
be manufactured out of Sister Souljahs, Willie Hortons, and Dusky Sallys. But
Donald Trump arrived in the wake of something more potent — an entire nigger
presidency with nigger health care, nigger climate accords, and nigger justice
reform, all of which could be targeted for destruction or redemption, thus
reifying the idea of being white. Trump truly is something new — the first
president whose entire political existence hinges on the fact of a black
president. And so it will not suffice to say that Trump is a white man like all
the others who rose to become president. He must be called by his rightful
honorific — America’s first white president.
This statement — and the entire essay — is being treated
as a mic-drop moment. This is the essay that refutes Democrats who urge the
party to concentrate less on identity politics. This is the essay that
demonstrates the essential and unalterable racism of the Republican party. This
is the essay that tells America what is really going on.
Except it’s not. Except it’s wrong. Except one wonders if
Coates or the people who rapturously sing his praises know even a single Trump
voter or understand what drove many millions to vote for a man who — truth be
told — they didn’t much like.
First, let’s deal with a few facts that cloud the
narrative. At the moment that Coates wrote his essay, the most popular recent
president or presidential candidate in America was . . . Barack Obama.
According to an NBC/Wall Street Journal
poll, 51 percent of Americans rated Obama very or somewhat positively, and only
35 percent were very or somewhat negative. Next came George W. Bush with a
45/30 positive rating and then Bernie Sanders at 44/30. Donald Trump was as
disliked as Obama is loved, with his rating an upside-down 36/52. Bringing up
the rear? Hillary Clinton, the most disliked major politician in America. Only
30 percent of Americans viewed her positively. 53 percent are negative. She’s
upside-down by a whopping 23 points.
Indeed, how can anyone write an extended essay about
Donald Trump’s victory and not put
the nomination of Hillary Clinton in a starring role? For a full
quarter-century — since her “co-presidency” with Bill Clinton, through scandal
after scandal, and through bald-faced lie after bald-faced lie — Republicans
have fought her ascent to power. The single most common Republican retort I
faced as a Never Trump conservative had little to do with Obama and everything
to do with Trump’s actual opponent. “You mean, you want Hillary Clinton to be president?” (I did not. I supported neither
unfit major party candidate.)
Too many Democrats have yet to fully grasp what they did.
They suffer from the understandable human urge to place themselves on the side
of the angels. In their narrative, they nominated the “most qualified candidate
in history,” and she lost to a foaming-at-the-mouth racist and sexist, in large
part because so many millions of Americans are racist and sexist themselves.
In reality, however, they nominated a liar. They
nominated a person who helped run a vast pay-to-play operation concealed behind
a charitable foundation. They selected a person who lived by her own rules and
was so careless with classified information that she would have been stripped
of her security clearance, discharged from the military, and possibly
imprisoned if her title had been merely “Captain Clinton” instead of “Secretary
Clinton.” None of Trump’s flaws change these realities. None of Trump’s flaws
make her likable, honest, or competent.
It’s also puzzling for Coates to racialize Obama’s
policies. Is he seriously suggesting that had Clinton won in 2008 that
Republicans wouldn’t have ferociously opposed HillaryCare, Hillary’s climate
accords, or Hillary’s justice reforms? Does he not recall the Clinton
administration, when opposition to HillaryCare helped the GOP win the House?
Does he not remember the Obama
administration, when Republicans hooted at Hillary’s “reset button” and called
for her to resign after the Benghazi disaster?
One gets the feeling that Coates sees America as
essentially static. Coates’s essays always contain devastating and
heartbreaking quotes and facts about America’s historic racial sins. No one can
take a reader, grab them, and force them to face the past quite like Coates.
Read him, for example, and then try to make the “Lost Cause” argument for the
Confederacy. You can’t.
But America changes. It’s not 1861. It’s not 1961. It’s
2017; America elected a black progressive named Barack Hussein Obama to two
consecutive terms in office, and he’s still
one of the most popular politicians in the country.
Arguing against Coates’s central thesis, however, should
not distract us from some disturbing truths. It is absolutely the case that
proud racists were among Trump’s most vocal online supporters. It is absolutely
the case that they targeted Trump’s critics for campaigns in malicious,
organized campaigns of hate and intimidation. It is also the case that Trump himself
has not only refused to distance himself from some of these vile men and women
(“very fine people,” remember?), he’s retweeted them and echoed their talking
points.
Moreover, it’s sad to watch Republicans minimize and
excuse Trump’s sins and ignore the racism of many of his most vocal supporters.
Some of my friends and neighbors have even insisted to me that the alt-right is
just a collection of “Soros plants.” They are not. Others have buried their
heads in the sand, live entirely in their own conservative bubbles, and are
genuinely (and inexcusably) unaware of the actions and words that justifiably
alarm so many black and Hispanic Americans.
There are Republicans with integrity who’ve confronted
and called out the alt-right and who’ve condemned Trump’s racist statements
(such as his insistence that a “Mexican judge” couldn’t hear his Trump
University lawsuit). But too many have gone silent. Too many offer excuses for
Trump that they’d never give for any other politician of either party. They’ve
lowered the bar so much that there are no standards left.
As the saying goes, many things can be true at once. It
can be true that Trump’s election wasn’t a racist backlash against Barack
Obama, who is actually still popular. It can be true that Trump’s coalition was
in fact less white than Mitt Romney’s. It can be true that there would be no
President Trump without a Hillary Clinton nomination. But it can also be true
that Trump says and does inexcusable things. It can also be true that many of
his core supporters polluted the Internet with horrific, vile, and alarming
racism.
America isn’t a monolith of white supremacy but rather a
big, messy nation where individuals make their own choices. Vice lives beside
virtue, and racism does indeed still stalk the land. Donald Trump is an
ambitious, unprincipled, unpopular man who took advantage of unique
circumstances to occupy the Oval Office. Barack Obama would have pounded him
into the electoral dust.
Trump’s political existence doesn’t “hinge on the fact of
a black president.” It depends on the fact that he wasn’t running against that
black president. It hinges on Hillary Clinton and his own staggering celebrity.
It hinges on the fact that Obama was more personally popular than his policies.
It hinges on Trump’s single-minded ambition and his willingness to say or do
anything to win. Race was a part of that mix, but it wasn’t all or even most of
it.
Trump isn’t America’s “first white president.” He’s our
first game-show president. He’s an amoral carnival barker. Reality is bad
enough. Don’t let false narratives make it worse.
No comments:
Post a Comment