Compassion
by tristero
Riffing off Digby’s recent post as well as Frank Rich’s article:
Some of us will suffer sooner, others later but we’re all going to suffer under Trump’s gold-plated heel. That people voted for Trump is utterly deplorable. And no, there’s little point in trying to reach them if that means abandoning our values.
But there were many factors that led to this disaster – sexism, a media that provided billions of dollars in free coverage to a histrionic fascist because doing so sold ad space, a Democratic campaign tone-deaf to the working class, Comey (thanks, man), and America’s original sin (the accommodation of slavery) embodied in the electoral college. There were others.
There is absolutely nothing to be gained, imo, in being furious with people who were woefully misled. And for those angry voters who actually are racists, Islamophobes, sexists, homophobes, and ignorant, there is nothing to be gained by matching their anger with our own. Why? Because to act from anger is to make terrible mistakes – like voting for Trump.
Instead, we should focus laser-like on the main problem: the monstrous, sexist, racist, and viciously anti-democratic behavior of the modern Republican party. To begin, I suggest we start by looking at our rhetoric. Many of the most prominent Democrats, liberals, and independents are really terrible at it.
Need examples? Here, at the height of the media frenzy, is one of the worst campaign op-eds I’ve ever read. A 10-20-30 plan? Now there’s a bunch of numbers America’s voters could sign up for – if only they cared enough to find out what the hell those numbers could possibly mean. Who can blame them for focusing on the easy-to-digest tweets floating around the inter-webs instead?
And the tone-deaf rhetoric is not just historical. Here’s Dianne Feinstein today, quoted in the NY Times on the upcoming Gorsuch hearings:
“This is an important process that needs to be carried out with the kind of dignity and perseverance that it warrants,” Ms. Feinstein said. “Because this is so pivotal, as the decisive vote on the court, this is a huge responsibility. This is complicated by what came before, which was the Republican treatment of Merrick Garland, which I found very disagreeable and unprecedented.”
There are many things that the blocking of Garland’s nomination was. “Disagreeable” was the least of it. If only she’d say something like this:
For years, Republicans have consistently made a mockery of Supreme Court confirmations. Then their immature clowning around escalated into outrageous, unheard-of levels of Republican obstructionism in Merrick Garland’s case. They wouldn’t even deign to meet with him. Rest assured: no Senate Democrat has forgotten.
Of course, decent rhetoric’s not sufficient. But it is necessary and it would be a start. And if you ever want proof that good ideas aren’t enough, well look back to November of ’16, dear friends.