Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Progressive’s Guide to Decoding a Trump Voter
Watching progressives analyze the 2016 election, I couldn’t help but recall the story of the young boy who undertook to experiment on a housefly. After offering the fly part of a cookie crumb, the young man then commanded, “Fly!” Well sir, the fly flew, circling the room and then landing back on the table in front of the boy, who then offered another cookie fragment as a reward. “Fly,” the boy again commanded, and again, the fly took to the air and circled the room before landing in the same location on the table. With a pair of tweezers, the child then pulled the fly’s wings off before again ordering it to “Fly!” But this time, the fly just stood there, prompting the lad to write in his little notepad: “When the fly’s wings are torn off, it goes deaf.”
So it is with a great many progressives who, having seen Republicans respond to their 2008 defeat with a relentless and critical examination of the American right, now respond to their own defeat in the same way — with a relentless and critical examination of the American right. Because win, lose, or draw, most progressives assiduously avoid looking too deeply into the mirror, chiefly for the same reasons the wicked witch avoided water, or the Clintons avoid testifying under oath — the results could be calamitous to the cause.
Some, like Garrison Keillor, whose vicious caricatures of Mr. Trump’s voters range from intuiting their dislike for “chamber music concerts, wine tastings, lectures on Byzantine art and poetry readings” to comparing them to, “people who shoot up movie theaters,” resort rather reflexively to the sort of tawdry and infantile attacks that too often pass for reasoned analysis on the left. Several years ago, I sparred with a guy from the Village Voice following my column on Chief Justice John Roberts’ mental gymnastics in support of Obamacare. Quoting the portion of my piece wherein I mention that I drive an 18-wheeler, author Roy Edroso went on to compare my photo to Larry the Cable Guy, adding his coup de grâce, “Give him liberty or Git-R-Done!” “It is instructive,” I responded, “that when progressives, who fancy themselves as the voice of the working man, are actually confronted with one, they instinctively resort to stereotypical derision.”
There are exceptions, however — an occasional oasis of refreshing sobriety in a landscape parched with malicious scorn and contempt. Take the New York Times, for instance. No, really. I’m serious. Just last Sunday, The Gray Lady published an op-ed by Nicholas Kristof titled, “The Dangers of Echo Chambers on Campus.” “We liberals are adept at pointing out the hypocrisies of Trump, but we should also address our own hypocrisy in terrain we govern, such as most universities,” writes Kristof, adding, “Too often, we embrace diversity of all kinds except for ideological.”
Well, that’s not exactly cutting edge stuff given the fact that Mr. Kristof is advancing arguments that are at least as old as Bill Buckley’s 1951 book, God and Man at Yale, or Buckley’s further observation that, “The largest cultural menace in America is the conformity of the intellectual cliques which, in education as well as the arts, are out to impose upon the nation their modish fads and fallacies, and have nearly succeeded in doing so.” But give Kristof his due. Better to be 65 years late than eternally ignorant, and at least he isn’t indicting half the country of racism, sexism, misogyny, classism, room-temperature IQs, and all the cultural refinement of a loud burp. On the contrary, Kristof approvingly quotes Cass Sunstein as saying that, “The idea that conservative ideas are dumb is so preposterous that you have to live in an echo chamber to think of it.”
What are those ideas, exactly? Kristof doesn’t say, but he closes with a word of warning to his fellow liberals:
It’s ineffably sad that today, “that’s academic” often means, “that’s irrelevant.” One step to correcting that is for us liberals to embrace the diversity we supposedly champion.
Then there’s this remarkable piece by Mark Lilla, appearing in the November 18th edition of the New York Times. I say that it’s remarkable not because Lilla is in the least bit coy regarding his leftward predilections, but rather due to his exceptional candor regarding liberalism’s principal talisman of identity politics:
The media’s newfound, almost anthropological, interest in the angry while male reveals as much about the state of our liberalism as it does about this much maligned, and previously ignored, figure. A convenient liberal interpretation of the recent presidential election would have it that Mr. Trump won in large part because he managed to transform economic disadvantage into racial rage — the “whitelash” thesis. This is convenient because it sanctions a conviction of moral superiority and allows liberals to ignore what those voters said were their overriding concerns.
Here, Mr. Lilla teases out the pivotal question before the house — the “overriding concerns” of a “much maligned” group of voters — but declines to address those concerns. Still, the sincerity demonstrated in the remarks of Messrs. Kristof and Lilla deserve a respectful and honest response, which I provide by paraphrasing from something I wrote in 2012:
- I believe that “all have sinned,” that the condition of mankind is one of inherent imperfection, and that this condition cannot be remedied in this life, and certainly not by the utopian dictates of self-appointed philosopher kings who are no less imperfect just because they happen to hold public office.
- I believe that I am, by moral and Biblical precepts, my brother’s keeper — not his slave, and I believe that charity, properly understood, is a voluntary act of compassion, not an involuntary act of confiscation by the IRS.
- I believe that any government which requires me to enter into a contract or to purchase a good or service from another private entity by virtue of my very existence has overstepped its limits and attacked the sovereignty of the individual as understood and defined by the Constitution.
- I believe that since there is an unequal distribution of ability and talent (which is why I don’t sing opera or play for the NFL), there will be a resulting and unavoidable inequality of income. Coercively “spreading the wealth around” might make the masterminds feel good, but in the end everyone loses because plunder robs all involved of the incentive to fully realize their God-given gifts.
- I believe that legitimate rights exist in harmony with one another and that any ostensible “right” which makes demands on the time, property, or freedom of another person is not really a “right,” but is instead an infringement.
- I believe that the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not favors bestowed by imperfect yet benevolent mortals in government and are therefore not the government’s to take away (excepting due process of law).
- I do not believe that our forebears fought and bled during the American Revolution in order to secure the blessings of a centralized and omnipotent state which mandates or regulates nearly everything we touch or do, which tramples on religious freedom and dictates everything from the plumbing in our homes to the light bulbs in our lamps and the nutritional content of the lunches we prepare for our children. I believe our forebears were fighting against intrusive government, not for it.
- I believe in the Good Book’s admonishment to turn the other cheek — but when both cheeks are bloody, there’s going to be trouble. My right to defend myself, my family, and my property is absolute. While I don’t go looking for trouble, if it insists on harassing me, I will respond decisively. Similarly, I believe this would be a sound approach to American foreign policy.
- I believe that a nation has the right and duty to control its borders and protect its citizens, even as a family has the right to secure home and hearth, and decide who is and who is not welcome onto their property.
- I believe, to paraphrase the late Justice Antonin Scalia, that the Constitution is a dead document, not a living one. I believe it is a contract between the government and its citizens and that its terms are no more changing than the terms any other legally binding document. Further, I believe it is intellectually dishonest to categorize the Constitution as a system of “negative rights,” in order to justify its abrogation on the silly notion that, “it doesn’t say what the government must do for its citizens.”
Many years ago, Prof. Willmoore Kendall was sitting in on a meeting of Yale’s political science department, where for two hours he listened as his colleagues compiled a list of grievances in protest against the incarceration of leaders of the Communist Party for violating the Smith Act (a 1940 law making it a criminal offense to advocate for the violent overthrow of the United States government). Finally, Professor Kendall raised his hand and told Yale’s best and brightest of the conversation he had had with the janitor that very morning.
“Is it true, professor, that there’s people in New York City who want to … destroy the government of the United States?” asked the janitor. “Yes, Oliver, that is true,” answered Kendall. “Well, why don’t we lock ‘em up?” the janitor replied. Professor Kendall then told his colleagues that the janitor’s comments contained more political wisdom than anything he had heard that morning from anyone on the Yale faculty.
As a trucker, there are days when I identify more than a little with that janitor. Still, I strive always to order my civic life according to the above listed tenets while striving (mostly unsuccessfully) to order my personal life according to the Gospels. To suggest that the above principles are in any way motivated by racial animus, misogyny, sexism or bigotry is to either betray utter ignorance of those terms, or to engage in crude and reprehensible dishonesty. If progressives will take a closer look they will see, like the little boy observing the fly and writing in his notepad, that the wings are still there, and we aren’t deaf after all. We just aren’t taking orders anymore.
Published in General
I am pleased to announce the creation of Trump Trucks.
They’re gonna be yuuge!
Another wonderful article, Dave. Bravo.
This first point spoke to me, Dave. I think that the idealism of the Left, its belief in perfectibility, that they can fix men to meet their expectations and principles is foolish and irresponsible. But I don’t see anything that will change those beliefs. They truly believe that they have a calling; it is their goal in life to teach us their wisdom, and they will keep trying into perpetuity. When we don’t, or refuse to, they just figure we are evil or are idiotic or that they’ll have to try harder. I wish I could see this changing, but I don’t. Enjoyed your post!
bravo.
So when is your meeting with Mr. Trump, Dave? I think he still needs a Press Secretary.
If this were written anywhere other than Ricochet it would have to be flagged for invoking common sense.
Thanks for stating clearly what I don’t have the eloquence to express.
AKA (HT William F. Buckley): “immanentizing the eschaton.”
Many more of us grew up as the children of working class than not. My kids did not. I still reserve the right to conversationally box their ears if they drop a disdain for the regular folks.
I often wonder whether the divide is inevitable or manufactured.
That’s very kind, but I’m afraid I’d grow weary of having to dumb it all down for the press.
Maybe both?
That’s one way to boost manufacturing.
Back when we were on active duty, friend and fellow military retiree @robertelee, would spring to his feet when a young one or two-striper would walk in the office. He’d “sir” or “ma’am” that poor inoffensive kid half to death leaving them wondering what in the deuce was going on. But let a colonel walk in, and Bob made sure they understood that any respect proffered would be that which was earned. His philosophy? It was the young troops who made the oftentimes ridiculous directives and designs of the colonels successful. The troops were the ones turning wrenches and standing watch at all hours in all kinds of conditions making the boss look good. I don’t believe the divide is inevitable, but it is a real possibility without proper mentoring.
As and old oil-field friend of mine would say: “That’s exactly”.
Perhaps your Cajun alter-ego then. Forgive me, I forget his name.
In a world anywhere close to perfect, you should easily be able to write for a living. Someone please make Dave an offer that he cannot refuse.
Richard Cohen of the Washington Post wrote yesterday:
Cohen’s rant is the other side of the glass. The Left and the media have been moving steadily toward the portrayal of the Right as a weird remnant of racist whites who are being pushed out of relevance. They only see conservatives as if we were exhibits in a zoo behind glass. They can’t see the other half of the country as normal, working people who don’t agree with them.
So while we’re at it, it can’t hurt to remember that for most of our fellow citizens who voted for Hillary are also just normal, working people who don’t agree with us. Let the Olbermann’s rant on, and Cohen’s rant on … most people just want jobs and don’t care about where they come from. And if four years from now, there aren’t any jobs either – I’ll probably vote for another change myself.
Having been raised in a Baptist church in a small town, I’m familiar with nosy, self-righteous, moral busy-bodies who look down on their moral “inferiors” as a matter of course. Take away the Bible, and you get Social Justice Warriors, only unconstrained by the Christian teaching that we’ve all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
I’ve also seen lower and lower-middle class people disparage the wealthy with as much gusto as the coastal elites sneer at Duck Dynasty.
That is to say, I suspect it’s something inherent in human nature, something to be fought against or else overcome with wisdom born of sometimes-bitter experience. But it also seems to feed on group-reinforcement — “I’m better than him” is tempting, but not nearly as tempting as “We’re better than them.”
Who they blame or what they think of Trump voters doesn’t matter so much to me. What matters is that they feel rejected.
Thank you for this. I appreciate it. Would look great on a billboard too. In lights.
I’m envisioning a terrified Dave waking up to see a piston torn from his truck engine laying at the foot of his bed. :)
Thanks, Dave. Always appreciate your honesty and clarity.
The Secret Decoder Ring is a brilliant touch. Appears an ample number of Dems now complain now about who stole the codebook. Epic.
It is one thing to go to college, quite another to get over it.
A M E N .
Very bracing words on a 7 degree morning in NW Ohio. Thanks for keeping the Flame of Freedom burning in our hearts with the wise and powerful statements of your American Credo.
I’m sure Dave could do this from his truck:
Admittedly this is from Reuters, so it’s probably #FakeNews.
It’s like Republican outreach to blacks and hispanics. Whenever they put it that way, you know that the barriers separating us from them are going to be kept in place. Even though there will be armholes for reaching over to the other side, they will be kept at least an arm’s length away.
EXCLUSIVE: Picture of Google Conservative Outreach. Must Credit Ricochet.
A Reality Show? Why didn’t I think of that? Write Trucks – Tales of the Long Haul.
Excellent. And with negative air pressure, too, to keep any conservative cooties from infecting the corporate culture.
Well said Dave. I have a point to add:
11. I believe the wisdom of the American people, while imperfect, in the long run, far exceeds the intelligence of those who would rule. Wisdom will win out over intelligence, in the long run, every time. Speaking as an intelligent man, my wise mid-Western raised Wife, hits this home on a regular basis. Keeps me honest.
I cannot quote one particular passage from this article and say, “You hit it out of the park,” because the whole thing is a home run. Well done, Mr. Carter.
Yes, it’s just another form of tribalism. It makes the world a simpler place to understand (or think you understand) when you don’t have to evaluate individuals by their own character. You can just declare that someone is good or bad depending on if they are part of your group or not. When people hate each other over stupid things like which football or soccer team they support, it’s not a surprise that people look down on or distrust those in a very different income bracket.