October 31, 2024
From a text I sent to a relative who supports Trump:
| One thing I truly appreciate is the way you have opened my eyes to another view of Trump. I mean, I’ve seen so much of Trump, and, when I’m alone, and with those who think as I do, I can come to no other conclusions than the worst ones. However, you have shown me that there are ways of looking at Trump that lead to other conclusions. When a person as good as you can have such sincere and profound support for him, my faith in 47% of our country is rehabilitated a bit. I won’t go so far as to say my faith is restored, since I’ve also seen a lot of stupid and uninformed and violent and racist and ugly support of Trump too. A lot. But the existence of principled and heartfelt and spiritual support is not something I could have apprehended without you. Next week, one of us is going to be deeply disappointed. But one thing I take away from our exchange is the conviction that both of us will process the results, and emerge ready to make the best of a bad situation. With God, all things are possible. :) |
My family member doesn’t fit any of the categories of Trump supporters that I have studied assiduously, (but indirectly and un-professionally), via the media (a lot of it MSNBC, as a reader of this blog well knows). My family member is a white male boomer, Trump’s bread and butter constituency. While he checks off many Trumpian supporter bona fides (anti-vaxer, deep state critic, anti-Democratic party, and more), he doesn’t quite fit the profile of the white Boomer Trump supporter typically described by liberals. For one, he is intelligent (though not college educated, so he does check off that box) and, while possibly not best described as “spiritual,” he is certainly soulful. He is a quester, a thoughtful pilgrim on a journey to a best life, a thought-out life, a deliberate, intentional life, filled with family and music and craft and conscientiousness, all in well-proportioned measures.
But he is intractable on the topic of Harris. In general, rather than defend Trump, my relative critiques Harris—mercilessly. I could refute most of the claims and counter the assertions. But this election is not about Harris for me; there is just no comparison of the one candidate to the other. The case for (or against) Harris—as for/against any opponent of Trump—is simply irrelevant in light of the massiveness of the case against Trump. The case against Trump blots out the sun; it must be dealt with above and beyond all other considerations.
Does Harris’s messaging matter? Is there anything she could have said, could have been, that might put to rest the critiques of her by Trump world?
From another angle, the success of Harris’s candidacy offers an intriguing study. In some ways, she has been masterful in stepping into her new, unexpected role. Some have said—after she wins—her campaign’s approach will be studied for years for the way she managed to position herself and build her movement. One thing that seems indisputable is that she has not made major missteps. There have been critiques (not giving interviews, not holding press conferences, some indecisiveness in response to questions, etc.)—but nothing that can be identified as a major misstep. In any event, it’s clear that her message is not working—at all—with Trump’s 47%.
She is now engaged in her “closing message,” and in a way that makes good sense: highlight the threat of Trump; mention your plans for the future; emphasize the need for you to “earn” votes; provide a sampling of clear policy plans. It’s all sensible, but I can’t help thinking this approach cannot move the needle for any of 47% who will be voting for Trump. Of course, the argument is that nothing can move that needle. However, my relationship with my relative; my hopes for an ongoing relationship with him; the absence of any public discourse on just what attracts him to Trump—all these thoughts leave me wanting another line of discourse from Harris.
I want her to acknowledge that, aside from Trump qua Trump, a great many millions of people in this country support him. I want Harris to recognize these people, and not simply conclude that they are ignorant, duped, or immoral. A large number of supporters are members of the Christian right; they do not feel they’ve made a “bargain with the devil.” A lot of his supporters are motivated by a distrust of the Democrats—and this group subdivides, on one extreme to Q-Anon conspiracy theorists, and, on another side of the spectrum, to more traditional Republican, small government advocates. There are those who fit into the category described by Reince Pribus when he explained that Trump’s first election was a middle finger of the 47%. Can Trumpism be explained this simply—a rising up of a near majority of Americans who feel angry and powerless (or disempowered) by new developments in our culture and society? So, yes, some are just angry and pushing back … desperately trying to hold onto privilege, to conserve what they had always had.
Then there’s the xenophobia, the anti-trans fixations, the racism—the appeals to all the fears associated with change. These preoccupations and pathologies do explain some of Trump’s appeal. But these darker and more extreme attractions are all that my MSNBC compatriots seem to train their sights on.
I want Harris to make a distinction in her closing argument, maybe along these imagined lines:
| Interviewer: What is your closing statement on Donald Trump? Kamala Harris: We have to get a little more nuanced in our discussions on Trump. While I do believe that Trump is a deficient person—unserious, immoral, mean, and many other disqualifying things (cue the list: a sore loser insurrectionist, a creep, a bully, a criminal, a predator, and on and on)—he nonetheless, has the support of millions of Americans, almost half the country. I have to recognize this fact better. This reality must not only be studied, it must be understood. It must be accounted for in the next presidency, whoever wins. I pledge to take into account that Donald Trump has the respect and admiration and gratitude of so many Americans. I need to understand why he is given a pass on behavior that many of us feel is beyond bad … and almost indescribable. But also: I want us to lower the temperature in our discussions. I need, we need, to lighten up a bit. Trump is a bad person, but the focus in regards to him per se, should rather be on our mercy, our forgiveness, and our commitment to make the best out of our dealings with him. More to the point, our focus should be more on those who support him and why. We have to get our discussions to that starting point. With all the endless analysis and argumentation on all things Trump, we really haven’t started on that task. Next week, either he will win, or I will win. If he wins, we must all work together to offset his most dangerous capacities (and we will, despite the absence of so many guardrails); if I win, we must do the same, and we who have opposed him, must do so in a way that dials down the extremity of our reactions. We must work to understand and respect the best versions of the motives that led so many supporters to his side. [Note to self: this is a different agenda than simply saying, as I often do, “I will focus on those things that unite us, rather than divide us.”] |