And what are the Republican solutions to these problems? Face it, the Democrats are the ones with the middle-of-the-road solutions and every time they try to get Republicans on board, they’re told to go pound sand.
Bigoted? Stupid? You might want to recalibrate yourself and learn to respect and appreciate different perspectives before making such a judgement.
And again, what exactly is, say, a gay person supposed to say when confronted by an administration partially led by someone who believes fervently in reprogramming camps for gay youth? “You don’t believe in my fundamental humanity or my rights, but I respect you and your point of view!”
Even if you think gay people are icky, unless you also think they’re knowing sinners or whatever, doesn’t that strike you as somewhat… absurd?
I tried. I tried for the better part of a year to find a good reason, any good reason, to support Trump. I spent a lot of time talking to Trump supporters.
Stupid and bigoted is the long and short of it.
If you voted for Trump over Clinton, you did so for shitty reasons.
No I don’t.
Furthermore, the implication seems to be, “I’ll support your fundamental human rights, but only as long as you’re nice to me,” which is kinda… creepy.
You’re going a step too far. You just have to learn to respect their right to support him, to respect their right to be wrong. After all, it is you who are wrong from their perspective, aren’t you?
Not really, because the mutual agreement is that they respect your rights.
… Such as the right to demand that the other guy’s be denied? Again, as I asked above, what exactly should a gay person say to the politician who wants to dissolve his marriage and criminalize his behavior based on the gender of person he loves? What about to the voter who supports that politician?
To vote against them and to vigorously campaign against them. It’s democracy: you agree to respect the rule of the majority of the people, even when you disagree and while you campaign to change it. Persuasion has worked wonders in history, especially this past several centuries.
Ah, I see, you believe that basic human rights are subject to majority vote, and that the taking away of those rights is just as legitimate a position to have as any other and not indicative of any animus towards the group or groups involved? And that you don’t expect those who feel victimized to be at all angry, or to suppress their anger, lest the gatekeepers’ feelings get hurt, and they lock the door for good?
I gotta tell you, that doesn’t sound right to me.
Does the fact that a view is widely held make it worthy of respect?
Think about views of race in the not too distant past before you answer.
The narrow, entrenched mindset is difficult to understand, whether on the left or right. Everyone lives in a bubble, to a degree. As a libertarian who dislikes many positions on both sides, and as someone who lives in a rural area, I can tell you that a lot of Trump voters are not bigots and racists. They voted for Trump because of economic, taxation, regulation, second amendment and other issues not even remotely related to race or sexual orientation.
Also, having pampered, overpaid celebrities make commercials, or take over award show presentations with their simple-minded pablum, does not sway people.
Or, the simple answer might be that a backlash or pendulum swing is to be expected after two terms of a divisive presidency. It happened after Nixon/Ford, Clinton and Bush II, if you recall. Bush I winning after Reagan was an exception, but Reagan had broader appeal.
But it’s insulting and condescending, and and very myopic, to equate Trump’s win with bigotry.
“a view is widely held”… you gotta be willing to parse the view and not lump everyone who disagrees with your view/conclusion/solution into one group that is unworthy.
This applies whether you are in a media bubble or the Media who create these bubbles.
Thanks for linking to that article. I just bookmarked it “making sense of the election.” And sent it to some friends who are currently demonizing their family members who voted for Trump.
I really don’t think this is the end of the world. He’s just a man. We live in a democracy. He can go ahead and talk like a dictator during his campaign, but we’re lucky to have checks and balances in place that will not allow him to be a dictator in office.
And who knows what he’ll actually be like in office?
On a personal level, the opportunity I’m seeing here is to push against my own inclination to demonize anyone for voting for Trump and to seek to understand what’s going on for them.
My son sent me that article last week, which is pretty good. It resonated with him because he grew up in a rural area, but attends college in Philadelphia. He is a fiscally conservative / socially liberal libertarian, but is surrounded by urban and suburban liberals who simply don’t understand anything about rural life. They truly live in a liberal urban bubble, and naturally get all of their “news” and “information” from like-minded sources, including mainstream media. And their political views reflect that.
People who haven’t lived in a rural area, or who knee-jerkedly insult rural residents, just don’t get it. A few recent tweets from David Burge IowaHawkBlog pretty well sum up the situation:
As others have said, I think one reason the Democrats were in an echo chamber this year was because they attributed malicious motives to things that didn’t necessarily have malicious motives.
Many people may have voted for Trump because of economic reasons, but they were presumed to support Trump out of bigoted reasons.
Many people may have supported Voter ID because they felt that there wasn’t enough security/verification and wanted an honest election, but they were accused of wanted to disenfranchise minorities.
Many people may genuinely fear that Arab refugees have potential terrorists in their midst, but were called racist or Islamophobic, etc.
Not only does this smearing miss the point, but it creates resentment and makes the other side more likely to come out to vote against the ones accusing of bigotry.