I have known several politically opposite to me who admitted when they were wrong, although rarely and usually long after it was impossible to deny. And I personally do it as often as I am shown I am wrong. I’ve even done it on this board.
There’s no shame in learning something new! Facts is facts.
During the election, my mother would not admit that she intended to vote for Trump, but said she thought it was “funny” he was running. I recently took no satisfaction in asking her, “Still think it’s funny?” Her reply: A sober, “No.”
One of my relatives has always impressed me for how kind she is. She is very religious, and I thought this kindness was an expression of her religious beliefs. In fact, as a person who has no interest in religion, I thought she stood as an example of why it might be a good thing to be religious. Yet over the years, I learned this sweetness and kindness doesn’t extend to people who are gay and want to be married, or people who need abortions in the third trimester, or people who are Muslim. This is also an expression of her religious beliefs. She’s not actually kind at all. She’s religious. It’s my naivete that mistook the kindness she shows is rooted in the kindness I show. It isn’t for the most part. They’re not the same. The kindness I show has a basis to it far more independent of circumstances than hers. So that’s one thing I think, don’t assume the identical outward expression of behavior in a particular circumstance is rooted in the same motivations for two people.
The reason for her support for Trump may not map onto the support for Trump upper-middle-class self-made success stories are showing. I imagine my relative’s support for Trump may be rooted in religious belief given the trend. Yet both groups share a lack of empathy and even antipathy for all those who will be hurt by the Trump administration. And both groups will get something personally beneficial out of the Trump administration. There is nothing really surprising about this except that Trump’s campaign has forced many people to explicitly embrace this apathy and antipathy because of how blunt it’s message has been and the history of Trump’s behavior.
If that happens, lit could easily have nothing to do with Trump. It could be that the ability of any president to affect the lives of random individual citizens is limited, for better or worse.
My personal contempt for Trump notwithstanding, this was generally my view when Trump was elected, and continues to my view, and probably will be my view until the country descends into fiery chaos. He’s just one guy. The bulk of the damage to this country will likely come from the typical Republican slash-and-burn policies, assuming they’ll ever be able to agree on anything. And even then the damage probably won’t be worse than say, GW. I’m not hiding my copy of A People’s History quite yet.
Heck, my eyes were opened by the memoirs of U.E. Baughman, who’d been Secret Service Chief from 1944-62. His book was cornball and (in light of what we later learned and what he must have known but neglected to mention about JFK’s hookers) sanitized, but the chapter about mentally-ill Americans who view the President as the principal character in their delusions of persecution was chilling. The lessonly I walked away with is blaming the president personally forc things is something crazy people do, so if you’re going to go that route, you better be prepared to bring evidence.
Personally, I think it’s fair to blame a president for economic problems that can be linked directly to his policies. For example, the recent Trump travel ban seems to have had a multi-billion-dollar depressing effect on tourism to the United States. I’m happy to lay THAT at his feet, though it represents a fairly small impact on the American economy overall.