Doyle McManus of the L.A. Times titled his last week’s column rather ominously:
Democrats beware: Donald Trump is finding success well outside the Republican fringe
Of course, the title is more clickbait than anything else. It tells us nothing we don’t already know: Trump is rounding up lots of independent voters, lots of people who have never engaged in the political process before, and that lots of rank-and-file Republicans are still likely to vote for him in November, however begrudgingly, to keep Clinton out of the White House. And though I don’t much care for anecdotal evidence, this part did surprise me probably more than it should have:
“He’s saying a lot of things that we’re thinking,” said Gil Brown, 54, an African American businessman from Lakeland. “It’s so refreshing to hear somebody say things clearly.”
(Brown said he wasn’t worried about Trump’s views on race. “I’ve been on the receiving end of racism. I know what it’s like,” he said. “I’m not hearing it from him.”)
Okay. I’m a white guy, so I don’t experience racism the way Brown does; I’m an observer, not a receiver. Still, I’m curious whether Brown knows about Trump’s initial reluctance to denounce David Duke’s endorsement on television, or about the black protesters at Trump rallies that Trump supporters manhandle. And if he does, I wonder what his reaction to things like that are—does he buy the excuse that Trump’s earpiece wasn’t working, or that those protesters got what they deserved? What does he make of Trump’s comments regarding Mexican immigrants?
I ask this for a few reasons. One is that people on Twitter or people who leave comments in comments sections on news sites either express support for whatever Trump says and does or denounces media criticism as being biased; they either like what he says or, if they don’t, claim the media is conspiring against him.
Another is anecdotal (which, like I said, I hate). I was at dinner last night and Trump inevitably came up in conversation. Everyone agreed that they despised him, and they spoke confidently about why he will or won’t succeed. But it became very clear to me very quickly that they weren’t as tuned in to political minutiae the way I am (for better or worse) because they were unaware of many things he’s said, and these are people who consider themselves well-informed—at least more well-informed than Trump supporters.
I bring this up because it feeds my suspicion about a lot of media talk around Trump. There was a time when pundits believed his comments about Megyn Kelly or John McCain were sure to tank his campaign, and they obviously didn’t. That’s because the people who were tuned in and supported him either A) agreed, or B) could excuse his behavior by blaming the media. The rest of his supporters? I don’t think they pay attention all that much to the 24/7 news cycle, the same way a lot of Rubio or Cruz or Kasich supporters probably don’t. Sure, they see stuff online, and they have the TV switched to Fox or CNN on occasion, but a lot of people just aren’t all that in-the-know.
None of this is revelatory in the same way McManus’s piece isn’t. But it’s worth saying.
American Orthodox 
“Still, I’m curious whether Brown knows about Trump’s initial reluctance to denounce David Duke’s endorsement on television,”
I hear this talking point a lot, and truthfully, I have no idea what the deal was with that interview. Trump obviously denounced Duke both before and after that interview. Why not simply denounce him during? That was a really weird incident.
“about the black protesters at Trump rallies that Trump supporters manhandle.”
I’m pretty sure that protesters get manhandled irregardless of race. If a white man or white woman or a purple being were to start shouting stuff, that person – or being – would be handled roughly. I think it’s legit to say that that is violent, but I don’t see racism there.
“What does he make of Trump’s comments regarding Mexican immigrants?”
Which statements exactly? That we should get to choose which people enter the US instead of letting just anyone cross illegally? That’s what I heard. Trump is horrible at stating anything in a coherent, much less elegant, manner, but I didn’t hear racism in his remarks. I think that, if you’re searching everywhere for racism, you find it wherever you look.
LikeLike
It’s bold to state there’s no racial element to violence when there are black victims at the hands of predominantly (and I mean really predominantly) white crowds. So when black students are kicked out of a rally for no reason, when white men shove a black woman protesting and reportedly shout slurs at her, when a Black Lives Matter protester is beaten, well. How someone looks at a series of events and believes these are isolated incidents rather than a coherent pattern (especially since we know white supremacists are drawn to Trump) is beyond me.
And ‘which statements’? When he says ‘Someone’s doing to raping’ and is referring to Mexican immigrants, how much more explicit does it need to be? Sure, there are people on the internet who spend their time looking under every rock for hints of racism, but I’m not one of them. I don’t have to be going out of my way to look for racism to respond that way to Trump’s rhetoric. I’d turn that critique—‘looking for racism everywhere’—around. I think it’s pretty easy to deny racism, however subtle or pronounced, when the perpetrator doesn’t drop slurs and simply says “I’m not a racist.”
Regarding Trump and his inability (or unwillingness, it’s hard to tell) to form a coherent sentence, that seems to be just a different version of what seasoned politicians do: whereas the seasoned politician usually gives a calculated line with vague enough terms that can be walked back if they are interpreted in an undesired way, Trump says any damn thing and then challenges reporters on his *exact* wording. So when he insulted McCain, he immediately responded by saying “but I did say he was a war hero!” even though anyone capable of detecting tone could tell all he said regarding McCain was intended as insult.
Phew. Anyway, thanks for commenting.
LikeLike
“It’s bold to state there’s no racial element to violence when there are black victims at the hands of predominantly (and I mean really predominantly) white crowds. So when black students are kicked out of a rally for no reason, when white men shove a black woman protesting and reportedly shout slurs at her, when a Black Lives Matter protester is beaten, well. How someone looks at a series of events and believes these are isolated incidents rather than a coherent pattern (especially since we know white supremacists are drawn to Trump) is beyond me.”
It’s only racial if a white protester performing the same action wouldn’t be treated the same way. I happen to believe that, if a white guy got up and started shouting at Trump, he’d be treated exactly the same as a black guy.
Do you disagree?
“‘Someone’s doing to raping’ and is referring to Mexican immigrants, how much more explicit does it need to be?”
Have there not been illegal Mexican immigrants convicted of rape? I’m pretty sure their have been.
My perception of the context of the remarks, however, was that America has the right to choose who we let in. It’s in our best interest to pick immigrants who serve some need. People who choose to enter illegally aren’t necessarily the people who we’d choose let in. I fail to see how that’s racist. He’s not saying, “Don’t let any Mexican in.” He’s saying, “Hey, the Mexicans who are coming in illegally aren’t necessarily the ones we want.”
LikeLike
“It’s only racial if a white protester performing the same action wouldn’t be treated the same way.”
So, for example, during the Civil Rights Movement there were plenty of white protesters who marched alongside black protesters, and they were beaten and hosed and arrested the same way black protesters were. Because they were treated the same way, would you say there was no racial element to this?
“My perception of the context of the remarks, however, was that America has the right to choose who we let in.”
We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one, because it’s not a matter of Trump having suggested the obvious fact that some Mexican immigrants have been convicted of rape—it’s that when he says something like ‘Who’s doing the raping?’ the question implies that there’s no one else who could be responsible.
And such inflammatory statements appeal to some rather vulgar beliefs among his base, none of them good.
LikeLike
“So, for example, during the Civil Rights Movement there were plenty of white protesters who marched alongside black protesters, and they were beaten and hosed and arrested the same way black protesters were.”
People who were beating Civil Right protesters were clearly, obviously, racists, and there was a racist component. In the case of a Trump rally, the people are in favor of a person they believe will help their economic status, not because of any racial component. If you see everything as racial, as you seem to, then you’ll see all those people as racists. I don’t believe that is the case.
“it’s that when he says something like ‘Who’s doing the raping?’ the question implies that there’s no one else who could be responsible.”
Huh? There are rapists of every race, creed, color, religion, stripe, age, and probably gender locked up in prison. No one anywhere has implied that only Mexicans can be rapists. That’s your own bias speaking, not his.
LikeLike
“In the case of a Trump rally, the people are in favor of a person they believe will help their economic status, not because of any racial component. If you see everything as racial, as you seem to, then you’ll see all those people as racists. I don’t believe that is the case.”
I don’t think everyone who attends a Trump rally is a racist, and I haven’t said that. You said “It’s only racial if a white protester performing the same action wouldn’t be treated the same way,” and I provided the example of Civil Rights protesters, and that there were (some) white protesters who were also beaten, hosed, etc. This fit the criteria you described.
This is the second time you’ve accused me of seeing ‘everything as racial.’ First, this blog is proof enough that that’s not true—I’ve written about plenty of things without breaching the subject of race. A perfect example would be my posts on the SCOTUS nomination process, where if I saw ‘everything as racial,’ I’d say the Republican senate is being racist for denying a black president his nominee, etc. etc., but I don’t because a) I don’t believe that’s true, and b) I doubt I could find much in the way of evidence to support it.
Second, even if I, or anyone, saw ‘everything as racial,’ that wouldn’t delegitamize the critique. Rather, the accusation of seeing ‘everything as racial’ sounds like a dismissal of the very real power dynamics regarding race and everyday life.
“Huh? There are rapists of every race, creed, color, religion, stripe, age, and probably gender locked up in prison.”
Yes, that’s exactly my point.
“No one anywhere has implied that only Mexicans can be rapists.”
If you can explain what you take away from the quote I provided, maybe it’d help me understand why you don’t interpret it the same way I do.
LikeLike