Good morning,
Several weeks ago, I received a commentary from a conservative friend of mine, taking me to task for pointing out how Donald Trump’s rhetoric, together with his promises for action in his second term, render him unfit for office. I indicated that words matter and provide clear indicators of his authoritarian intent. Here is his message, followed by my response:
THE CLAIM
“Words indeed matter. As with many polarizing subjects, words require nuance, context, historical accuracy and distinctions in policy, about which in today’s Musings you provide none. Moreover, how is calling political opponents “vermin” any different than “deplorables”? Shall we compare Hillary Clinton to Hitler? Calling a return to earlier IRS funding levels a weaponization? Gimme a break. The Obama and Biden administrations have used the IRS, DOJ, FBI and other agencies for rampant weaponization and you offer no criticism.”
MY RESPONSE
My friend, I generally value your comments. When we talk about policy matters, there are points where we agree and issues about which we disagree. But we always find common ground to discuss the social, economic, and practical implications of particular policies. But regarding your desire to compare Trump’s talk and intent with that of Hillary Clinton, or to suggest his open embrace of weaponizing our system of justice is exceeded by the (as yet unproven) arguments that they were weaponized by Presidents Obama and Biden, I’m at a loss.
You claim that words are polarizing subjects, requiring nuance, context, historical accuracy and distinctions in policy. I hear you. Words have meaning. And words must be taken in context, which includes the intended actions of the speaker. In this, Mr. Trump and his supporters have been quite clear with their intent.
VERMIN VERSUS DEPLORABLES
It is the common practice of those seeking to oppress others to dehumanize their targets. Once one can argue one’s adversaries are less than human, all sorts of actions become acceptable. Mr. Trump’s description of others as “vermin” is a crystal clear example of the dehumanization of “the other.”
You try to draw a parallel with Hillary Clinton’s description of some of Mr. Trump’s supporters as “deplorable.” However, this is hardly comparable. First, Ms. Clinton’s characterization did not use this adjective to describe a broad group of people by reference to their ethnic, religious, or legal identity. Rather, as you will recall, Ms. Clinton was referring to particular people in Mr. Trump’s coalition (the racists, antisemites, and skinheads). While Ms. Clinton’s use of the term “deplorable” might be ill-advised and perhaps insensitive, she was not attempting to dehumanize an entire subset of our society. Second, Mr. Clinton’s use of this term was a one-time matter, which she tried to backpedal. Mr. Trump has referred to people as vermin, and utilized other pejoratives repeatedly and without apology. Third, Mr. Trump’s characterization of his adversaries is directly attached to a rejoinder about what he intends to do with regard to these people; no such rejoinder was offered by Ms. Clinton.
To refer to a human being as something other than human is to de-humanize, which is what people tend to do in order to make it easier to act against them. The Nazis were the best at this. Once your enemy becomes a non-human animal, the respect we show to humans no longer is required.
You say that “return to earlier IRS funding,” you are comparing two absolute numbers, but you don’t take into account the diminished spending power of those dollars after the inflation of ensuing years. The IRS is slipping behind. But in any event, there are underlying policy justification for providing increased funding—namely, improving the antiquated technology being utilized by the IRS, hiring more auditors to get tax evaders, increasing compliance, and increasing tax receipts. You presume, through some as-yet undefined metric, that the IRS will be weaponized by going after tax cheats. I don’t see it.
Let’s agree to disagree that there is “rampant weaponization” of the IRS and the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice, in the form of James Comey, basically ensured the election of Donald Trump. The Mueller Report certainly provided ample evidence of misdeeds, yet the DOJ didn’t pursue any action beyond the report. It is not weaponization to do one’s job and enforce the law.
THE DECLINE OF COLLEGE RIVALRIES / MONEY IN SPORTS
After my Musing on the problems with the college football playoffs, Bradley Tabach-Bank offers what is pretty much a consensus view:
“As someone who went to Cal when the soon to be defunct PAC 12 was the PAC 8, I am mystified, disappointed and sickened by its demise. Old rivalries have been cast aside and traditions relegated to the dust bin of greed. Even as the PAC 12 fades into history, it showed the NCAA the wealth of its talent: 2 of the final top ten teams are from the PAC 12, as is one of the final four and two of the four finalists for the Heisman Trophy. Clearly not the record of a failing. All in all, it is a shameful example of everything that is wrong with college sports and the NCAA.”
And another consensus view, as articulated by the articulate Peter Bain:
“I have to say, I don’t think anything will ever match The Granddaddy of Them All, The Rose Bowl, back when it was regularly USC-Ohio State in the mid-‘70’s! To a 14-year-old Cincinnatian, watching those floats in the inconceivably beautiful New Year’s Day Pasadena weather, followed by football in glorious sunshine, well, it was just unimaginably glamorous!”
Some of us have attended a number of these Rose Bowl games over the years (and even a couple of parades—including one sitting beside Lauren, when everyone else bailed for indoor comforts but she insisted on staying), they were, indeed, glamorous. Ah, the good old days…
Have a great day,
Glenn
I agree with your response.
I do not see what 'conservatism' has to do with a mentally unbalanced career criminal being the presumed nominee of the GOP. Trump is not a conservative, as used in the historical sense. He may take some positions that conservatives also hold, such as lower taxes, greater border control, and views upon marriage. But he is a malignant narcissist that is only in it for himself. He does not have the bone of a statesman anywhere in his body.