As I interpret the OP’s thesis, it’s a rejection of the idea that those who voted for HRC or against President Elect Trump[sup]1[/sup] must, as good citizens, embrace and understand those who enthusiastically elected Mr. Trump and Mr. Pence and put them into office with a cooperative Republican Congress.
If my interpretation is correct, I endorse that thesis. However, I will offer some thoughts on how to work with those Trump voters (for lack of a better term, and to avoid permanent sounding labels) and maybe get saner electoral results next time.
There are a lot of centrist and left of center pundits and their echoers on social media calling for empathy and understanding from ‘progressives’ for the angry and disaffected “middle” or rural American voters who overwhelmingly voted for Mr. Trump.[sup]2[/sup] There’s a little bit of finger pointing on our side, bemoaning the “condescension”, “elitism” and “disdain” which the finger pointers blame for our failure to convince those voters to our way of thinking.
That’s all well meaning advice, and earnestly given, but quite misguided. Most progressives have had those empathetic conversations, and we know what happens. Most of us have also seen the approach of conservative pundits and keyboard warriors who cannot speak about liberalism without a rhetorical sneer and who are now quivering with schadenfreude over the chagrin of “smug libtards” and even now claiming a mandate because of the EV majority their champion just accrued. Hilariously, some of these charming people are also joining in on the blame assignment, claiming to have been compelled by that liberal smugness to vote for Mr. Trump.
Rhetorical show of hands here, who thinks even the most charismatic progressive stands a hope in hell of convincing Bill Kristol, or Sean Hannity or OMG A Black Conservative or **Clothahump **that any leftist ideal or policy has value? I won’t wait for the count, because I know there’ll be some on our side who’ll raise their rhetoricals and sing their kumbaya’s. We’re full of idealists by design, us. It’s a feature, not a bug. But we’re even fuller of realists and pragmatists. So I know most of us have our hands in our laps. Or our typing fingers relaxed.
Those social media warriors and professional media influencers are out of our reach. Write them off. And think back to the months after 9/11, when most of us were still in shock, frightened and confused, and giving sober respectful consideration[sup]3[/sup] to the most hateful, revenge-porn laden proposals coming from our fellows across the ideological aisle who were also in shock and frightened and confused. We gave them empathy, hell we felt the same way ourselves. We didn’t endorse the fearful and hateful proposals, but through our sober and respectful treatment of these extreme responses, we helped to normalize torture. We helped to construct the “Bush Doctrine” and establish “preventive war” as a viable precedent. Some of us worked damned hard on that, because we’re the empathetic and understanding ones. Good for us, eh?
I’m going on at length here, I know, but I want to be absolutely emphatic. Empathy and understanding are improper responses to most of the “concerns” driving people to vote with the Kristols and O’Reillys and the OMGABC’s and Clothahumps. And I mean “improper” in the strict sense. Not “not proper” or “ineffective”. I mean it’s intellectually unseemly and piss-poor moral leadership.
And I’m not saying, as the OP is, to call these people racist because they voted for a racist candidate with a racist platform. It’s not relevant to why they voted that way, and many of those voters will cry out against attempts to enact the racist or misogynistic or xenophobic elements of that platform. And if the racist charge is technically true for those voters, it’s also technically true of everyone who chooses to stay in this country despite the electoral results, and who will choose to stay when that platform begins to be enacted by a compliant Congress.
But those voters did fuck up. We know it, and soon many of them might. And what those people need, the ones influenced and misinformed by the Hannities & Fox Friends, what they respond to (and let’s take them at their word here) is Straight Talk. Ask any of them what they think of Mr. Trump, and most will have some negative things to say, but the most common thing they’ll say they like is “he tells it like it is.” Which is of course untrue, as Mr. Trump is a serial and congenital liar, but that is the Trump Voters’ general perception and it is what they connect with.
So let’s (us progressives who care enough to put ourselves in an unpopular position with our families and coworkers and acquaintances) give them that. When they express an unrealistic concern based on an incorrect understanding of cause & effect, or a lie about a particular law or regulation, or a conspiracy theory or scientific quackery, we need to answer bluntly and truthfully. I may understand why it scratches a particular itch for a guy who used to have a good factory job and now works at Walmart to blame NAFTA and “welfare”, but it doesn’t do him or me any fucking good to validate that thought.
I’m not saying tell him he’s stupid, in fact I caution against any kind of recrimination, and abuse, name calling and ridicule sadly[sup]4[/sup] don’t seem to work. But you owe it to yourself and those who believe ridiculous or dangerous things to tell them, calmly and respectfully that those things are ridiculous or dangerous, and why that’s so. Don’t tell them they’re ridiculous or dangerous, but be clear about what they’re pushing. Most will reject your refutation, but they have to keep hearing the refutations from us, because they’ll damned sure keep hearing the ridiculousness from their usual sources. -WE have to become informational sources ourselves. (This means fighting back against left side ridiculousness too, by the way. Stop it with the enabling and understanding of the anti-GMO crowd. Stop saying “no one knows what’s in the TPP because it was all done in seeeeecrecy!” Be fucking credible and learn your shit. Ask on this MB, people will help you.)
So that’s my thought here. Stop coddling and “understanding” people who believe nonsense. Give them some sense to take its place. And let’s check our own preconceptions on a regular basis too. Do it publicly, do it through dialogue with people who don’t share our ideology. Let’s allow ourselves to be convinced by new facts or arguments wherever it’s warranted. That might be rarely, or depending on respective assumptions maybe not so rarely. Let’s be better examples. -That’s the real way to influence people. And we influence enough people (including our nominal allies who sit out elections), we’ll start winning at the polls again.
[sup]1[/sup] I am forcing myself to refer to these elected officials respectfully and by their proper titles. I think if we’re going to deal with conditions realistically and pragmatically, we have to recognize the legitimacy of the processes which put these people there and of the offices they now will hold. And we should give those offices the respect their positional authority warrants. I choose not to be like those who began disrespecting President Obama before he even took the oath of office. I hope never to hear a Democratic congressperson interrupt President Trump during a SOTU address. (Even with a good pussy-grabbing joke.) I’ve done that sort of thing in the past, certainly used slurs against G. W. Bush, and hours after the 2016 election results were clear I said “Not my President!” while commiserating with my wife. But I now think I was wrong to say or post those things, in the sense that it was unrealistic, counterproductive and rhetorically ineffective. And it was poor citizenship.
[sup]2[/sup] “Overwhelmingly” as a percentage of rural voters, not as some sort of wave. This was a low turnout election from the demographic groups which tend Republican, and even lower turnout from the Democratic tending demographics. The “Trump wave” did not occur and does not exist. Keep that in mind, depressed progressives. It’s only apathy and lack of focus from progressives that allows extremists to be elected. If enough of ‘us’ vote, we win elections. Because there are more of ‘us’.
[sup]3[/sup] Full disclosure: I was not one of the sober and respectful considers of torture and invasion. But a lot of you were, and a lot more of you just didn’t speak out, so I still get to yell at you over it.
[sup]4[/sup] I use to push the idea of derision and ridicule. I thought at the time they were effective rhetorical devices which could be used to persuade people away from risible ideas. Well, they’re effective devices in many cases, but they suck as persuasion techniques. You end up entertaining fence sitters, and sometimes your ideological opponents, but you don’t move or shame anyone into changing their mind or their heart. Only if you become very popular can you exert that kind of influence, and I’ll face it, that’s not in my future.
