10/3/16: in defense of the undecided

I’ve seen the following David Sedaris quote about his contempt for Undecided voters cycling around for the last week or so, which I find hilarious, since it was originally written for Obama v. Romney (10/27/08):

To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?” To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.

I understand the joke, but I think it’s a dangerous oversimplification and not everything should be reduced to a bon mot, no matter how appetizingly it might jive with your personal opinion. Choosing who you vote for shouldn’t be an easy decision. If I have contempt for anyone, it’s for the so-called yellow dog Democrats who will always vote their party’s ticket without doing a single ounce of research or soul-searching. (I obviously feel the same for those on the right.) Yes, in this particular election, Trump’s prideful ignorance represents a clear and present danger, and an endorsement of him would be an endorsement of so many backward ideas (i.e., racism, sexism) that we almost *have* to vote for anyone who can defeat him.

But there’s another reason people might still be undecided. Continue reading

Advertisements

In trying to understand why smart Establishment-conservative commentators…so uniformly underestimated Trump’s appeal among Republican voters for so long, you have to start by assuming that they were in denial…about how his baser instincts might appeal to some in their party’s angry base. But insularity may have played as big a role as denial. Most Republicans are not racists, and race is hardly the whole Trump story, yet it’s not clear that the elites got any of the story.

This is Frank Rich, writing in New York‘s 3/21-4/3 issue, but I have to wonder how he reaches the assertion that “most” Republicans are not racists. If you’re willing to support Trump–a man who cannot immediately denounce the KKK, lazily stereotypes and targets Mexicans and immigrants, and calls for protestors to be beaten as they once were in the good old days of the openly racist ’60s–then you are a racist. That’s the entire story. It doesn’t matter what else Trump might stand for (and that’s hard to tell); this one issue should be enough to disqualify him. No matter how much the Republicans might want to sweep all three branches, to appoint new Supreme Court justices, to push through legislation, if they’re willing to even temporarily support a racist to make it happen, then they, themselves, are racists.

One of the great things about Trump’s campaign–really, the only great thing–is that it strips Republicans of their ability to feign ignorance or insularity, to suggest that their hands are tied when it comes to abortion reform (because of Roe v. Wade) or that they’re being stymied by those elitist bastards on the other side, smeared unjustly by the media. They’ll still try to play the victim–many Republicans could benefit from a second career playing soccer–but it should be nakedly apparent that in supporting Trump, they’re condoning racism. And those who don’t see that? Well, they’re racists.

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: