By Jonah Goldberg
Friday, November 08, 2024
I completely understand why some folks are so upset about
Donald Trump winning. But that’s really no reason to trash-talk democracy,
America, or the Americans who democratically voted for Trump. I am not
backsliding or changing course here; I still think Trump is unfit for office.
That doesn’t mean, though, that everyone who voted for the guy is a fascist,
sexist, racist, or idiot.
There are many reasons this kind of talk is objectionable
and ill-advised, but I’m going to focus on the one that matters the most: It’s
not true.
Let’s start with the claim that everyone who voted for
Trump is an idiot.
Did some idiots vote for Trump? Of course. But I
guarantee you that Harris got her share of the idiot vote, too. Idiots are
pretty well distributed across the political spectrum. And you know what? So
are smart people. Lots of smart people voted for Trump. And lots of smart
people voted for Harris. I find the tendency of people—smart and dumb ones
alike—to think that “smart” and “right” and “dumb” and “wrong” are
interchangeable terms to be one of the most exhausting analytical errors out
there.
In fact, it’s almost as exhausting as thinking that
“wrong” is synonymous with “fascist” or “bigot.” Fascism and bigotry are wrong,
but not all wrong people are fascists and bigots. Are some Trump voters
fascists and bigots? Yeah, sure. But I don’t think he cornered that market
either.
More importantly, for every voter who wants Trump
to be a “fascist”—or racist, or authoritarian, etc. the labels here really
don’t matter—there are probably dozens, or hundreds, or, most likely, tens of
thousands of Trump voters who think it’s unfair to call him an authoritarian,
never mind a fascist. Why? Because they don’t think he is one and don’t want
him to be one. Those people might be wrong (I have opinions!), but that doesn’t
mean they’re idiots or fascists themselves. It just means they’re wrong. And
convincing them they’re wrong doesn’t get easier by calling them idiots and
fascists.
And that, in a nutshell, is the grave error people are
making. People vote for candidates—any candidate—for lots of different reasons.
If you think Trump is a fascist, fine. We can talk
about that. But just because you think he’s a fascist doesn’t mean
someone who voted for him agrees with you and voted for him anyway. I know
dozens of people who voted for Trump. None of them are idiots or fascists or
fascist idiots.
This argument works every bit as much in the other
direction. You may think Kamala Harris is a “communist” or “Marxist,” etc.
Whether she is or not is a debatable proposition in the sense that it can be
debated. But if you want people to agree with you, you need to make the
argument, not just hurl the accusation. If you’re sure she is a
communist, no one can deny you the right to say so—but saying so doesn’t mean
everyone has to agree with you. Very few of the 68 million people who voted for
Harris did so because they thought she was a Marxist or a
communist.
For argument’s sake, let’s say Trump is a fascist. But
let’s also imagine that we didn’t have inflation, that the economy was roaring,
that Biden hadn’t governed from the left, and that Harris was a much better
candidate. The fascists out there would have still voted for Trump, but
millions upon millions of other people who did vote for Trump this week
probably wouldn’t have. Assuming that all Americans share precisely
your understanding of Trump—or any candidate—and voted for him anyway is just
wrong, factually and, I would say, morally. Saying that a Latino mechanic in
Philly who voted for Trump magically became a fascist the moment he filled the
oval for someone you think is a fascist is magical thinking. And if
you’re a Democrat who wants to win back that mechanic in 2028, calling him a
fascist isn’t going to get you very far. Persuading him that he was wrong is a
much more fruitful avenue.
Or look at it this way. Lots of liberals are telling
themselves that Harris lost because she’s a black woman. There may be some
truth to this at the margins, but we can’t rerun the experiment with a white
male liberal candidate. Moreover, sometimes voters do things for subconscious
reasons. The taller candidate usually wins, but very few voters consciously
make their decision based on height.
Regardless, it’s not true that everyone who voted against
Harris (or Hillary Clinton in 2016) did so for sexist reasons. Just because you
think that her race or gender was a compelling reason to vote for her doesn’t
mean that everyone who voted against her did so for the opposite reason.
If Nikki Haley had run this year, most Democrats would have voted against her
and most Republicans would have voted for her. That wouldn’t have suddenly
meant that the Democrats were sexist or bigoted against Indian-Americans. Monocausal
thinking makes idiots of geniuses and morons alike.
This is why I’ve been carping about how much I hate the
whole “who are you going to vote for?!” drumbeats. Everything you believe can’t
be summed up in a vote. Voting isn’t magic and it’s not window
into the soul either. But a lot of people have a magical view of voting.
They also have a magical view of the presidency. The way countless
people—again, idiots and geniuses alike—talk about the presidency often takes
the form of premodern idolatry. A strong king means we will have good crops! A
strong president means we will have a strong economy. The economy in Trump’s
first term was good—it wasn’t as fantastic as many claim—but it was good, and
Trump’s policies had something to do with it. But so did a lot of other things.
If you think Trump single-handedly ran the economy you have a flimsy
understanding of how a $27 trillion economy works. And if you think that simply
by virtue of being president again, we’ll get the same economy again, you’re in
for some surprises. I’m not saying Trump will tank the economy, though that’s
certainly possible. All I’m saying is that things are different now and no
president has the power to simply will the economy he wants into existence.
If, as
bond markets seem to think, inflation surges under Trump, it would be
ridiculous to say that the people who voted for him to fight inflation really
voted for higher inflation. The same goes for countless other things that will
happen over the next four years. The people who voted for him to protect
democracy or defend the Constitution will be angry if he undermines either.
That won’t be proof that Trump voters hate democracy; it will be proof that
they were wrong about Trump.
Trump’s superfans are making the same mistake Trump’s
super-foes make. The people who insist that Trump has a sweeping mandate to be
and do whatever he wants will be in for a shock if—when—he follows that advice.
If he imposes massive across-the-board tariffs and we get a huge spike in
consumer prices, layoffs, and supply chain debacles, millions of people will
say “this isn’t what I voted for” in the same way millions of people said the
same thing when Biden screwed up withdrawing from Afghanistan or got shellacked
by inflation. If Trump drags 10-15 million people into detention centers before
shipping them off in cattle cars and cargo ships, a lot of the people who voted
for him will walk away from him. And others will cheer. Elections are snapshots
of popular sentiment at a given moment in time, and they happen on a schedule.
Politics, on the other hand, happens 24-7.
But one of the weirdest delusions in American politics is
the assumption that electorates become a kind of identity group once the
returns come in. They think that if you voted for a candidate once, you belong
to that candidate for all time. That’s not how it works. If it worked that way,
presidential approval ratings would never change.
Presidential electorates are like a pop-up event. People
show up at a specific time, make a choice for various reasons, and then they
disperse. People who see a movie on opening day have one thing in common: They
all saw the movie on opening day. Some liked it. Some hated it. But the point
is, once they leave the theater, they go on about their different lives. They
aren’t a meaningful bloc of Americans with locked-in views and attitudes, even
about the movie they just saw. Electorates are a more meaningful group than
people who see a Transformers movie on opening day, but they aren’t a
hardwired identity either.
There are people who voted for Trump believing that he
was lying about some things just to get elected. There are other people who
voted for him believing that he was telling the truth about that stuff but
definitely lying about other stuff. Now that he’ll be president, we’ll find out
which things were lies and which weren’t. If he pardons all of the January 6
rioters, some people who voted for him will be very happy, others will be
disgusted, and many others will fall somewhere in between. If he puts RFK Jr.
in charge of health care, some will be horrified, some will be happy, and
others just won’t care—at least not until their kids start getting measles.
We’ll just have to wait and see.
But treating fellow Americans like they are “enemies
within” is wrong and destructive when Donald Trump does it. And it’s wrong and
destructive when his enemies do it. Wait for the facts. Have arguments over the
facts. That’s what politics and democracy are for, no matter who wins an
election. And if you win the argument, you’ll win the next
election.
I have one last point to make: Don’t act like your vote
is an oath of loyalty.
If you don’t like what Trump does, don’t be afraid to say
so. If you do like what Trump does, don’t be afraid to say so. This goes for
everybody, but especially for people in my line of work. If you believe
something to be true, you should believe it until proven otherwise. Don’t
outsource your intellect, your principles, or conscience to one man or one
party. When you do that, you are making your partisan identity your actual
identity. This goes equally for the people who love Trump—or simply love how much
his enemies hate him—as it goes for people who hate Trump. It’s fine to root
for his success or failure, but not at the expense of the more permanent things
you believe. And certainly not at the expense of your country or
democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment