Are “the Deplorables” so bad, once you get to know them?
A response to Lou Weiss’ Opinion Piece in the Wall Street Journal
My conservative, Trump supporting uncle (I know, it sounds like a straw man) sent me an article today. It is an opinion piece in the Wall Street journal, written by an apparent carpet salesman, Lou Weiss of Pittsburgh, titled “The Deplorables Aren’t So Bad Once You Get to Know Us.” Looking for well-though-out explainers of a different mind-set, I eagerly read this author’s apology. It was awful, and this is my response. Read the article first if you must.
Before delving into particulars let’s start with the overall theme. Hypocrisy is commonplace throughout the political spectrum, but this piece is particularly annoying. The entire article is basically: you really shouldn’t reduce us to rank stereotypes, you latte-sipping, out-of-touch, hipster liberals who can’t work with their hands. Leaving aside the fact that not every plumber or electrician is a conservative Trump-supporter, even if they are this argument is exactly the kind of paean to identity and emotionalism that conservatives are so often ostensibly angry about. “That person is black, therefore they know what is best for black people and you, a white person, are racist just for disagreeing with any policy they support” is destructive “left wing identity politics.” “That person is a member of the working class, therefore they know what is best for working class people, and you, a latte-sipping etc. etc., are elitist, ignorant, or even un-American for disagreeing with any policy they support,” is a movement. Oddly convenient that such logic is acceptable when the object of derision is a latte-sipping etc. etc. or a black person, or when the policies advanced as a result are supported by the Republican caucus. Now on to particulars.
“Calling people racists, homophobes, bigots and other such labels doesn’t endear the name caller to the recipient. Try descriptors like traditional and hardworking.” First of all, I’m not going to “try” calling racists hardworking. Those aren’t the same thing. Second, I’m not really trying to “endear” myself to a racist, homophobe etc. I do believe that dialogue is actually important, and I do agree that simply calling people racists doesn’t usually work when your goal is to actually start a dialogue (side note, there are other reasons to call people racists besides trying to start a dialogue, like shaming them). I think the best way to do that — to start an actual dialogue — however, is not to give people erroneous compliments for their racism, but instead to look for areas of agreement or common ground, something this author seems to agree with, but is presumably terrible at.
Next: “Rather than going on that ‘fact finding’ trip to Cuba or Venezuela, how about a trip to Iowa or Nebraska?” Nope. But aside from the fact that only someone who doesn’t live in Iowa or Nebraska would suggest that a vacation to Iowa or Nebraska would be more fun than a trip to Cuba, and aside from the interesting questions of what personal sacrifices we should make to bridge political divides (e.g. the “should you move to a red state” “should you marry a conservative” type questions), this again presupposes that liberals just have no idea about what the rest of the country is like. Hillary Clinton got 35% in Nebraska (fun fact: less than 1,000,000 people voted in the entire state in 2016). I will admit some sympathy for a point made by John Dickerson of Political Gabfest (and Face the Nation) fame: that people necessarily go to cities and not vice versa, creating a reality where more people are “aware” of cosmopolitan life than rural life. Still, this is mostly a boring stereotype. The end of that paragraph: “We even have hipster redoubts populated with Brooklyn expats. The beards, the flannel shirts and the abundance of heritage pork dishes will make you feel like you are in Appalachia even before you leave the city.” This is literally one paragraph after the author wrote: “It’s amazing, I know, but people don’t like being reduced to a negative cultural stereotype.”
He continues with helpful tips for meeting “deplorables” when you travel to Lincoln for spring break: “When you travel, attend a church service at least one denomination to the right of your regular church.” I’m Jewish. In fact, you, Mr. Author are named “Lou Weiss”. I don’t want to traffic in “negative stereotypes” but I wouldn’t be shocked if you aren’t a big churchgoer yourself. And if you think this is a particularly nit-picky critique (synagogues can be called “churches” too, jeez!) the rest of this paragraph continues apace with the annoying, very tired, assumptions about conservatives and the liberals-who-know-nothing-about-real-America: “Familiarize yourself with Big 12 football . . . . Maybe watch or rewatch “American Sniper” rather than your usual mumblecore or IFC fare. Also don’t expect people you meet to commiserate over “Hamilton” ticket prices or know what cisgender means.”
On that note, let’s discuss: “Also don’t expect people you meet to commiserate over “Hamilton” ticket prices or know what cisgender means.” The Hamilton jab flies under the radar here given the article’s other more obvious problems, but I will briefly mention that I find the “real conservatives don’t like the arts” meme to be frustrating, and in step with the general anti-intellectualism of the modern conservative movement, which is beyond frustrating and running into “actually kind of scary” territory. There is also the obvious point about, “you have to know about the things we like, we not only don’t need to know about the things you like, we don’t even need to know who you are, and actually it’s dangerous and un-American to suggest I should know such things.” The real gem here, however, is proudly not knowing “what cisgender means.” Congratulations? I guess leaving this opinion piece with that being the only jab at gender politics is probably a blessing, but it still exemplifies how lopsided the argument is surrounding that and so many social policy issues. On one side, X group and their allies want that group to be able to relieve themselves without breaking the law or facing (even more) ridicule and/or (even more) violence. On the other side, it’s a terrible burden for you to even learn literally what that group is saying. I’m fully willing to admit confusion over pronouns, the difference between sex and gender, what the resulting social norms are or should be, when parents should have these discussions with children etc. I’m not a psychologist, a doctor, a social worker, a therapist, or anything that would give me the appropriate level of expertise to understand a lot of this “issue”. But I’ll at least spend literally 30 seconds Googling a word (that means using Google to look up the definition of a word, by the way).
Up next: “You may not know this, but deplorables are all around you — they might even be working in your own home.” This paragraph continues as you might imagine: explaining to us out of touch etc. etc. liberals that anyone who can do anything useful — read: not the people who teach your kids, play music, prepare your will, dance, make the world more beautiful, prepare your fast food, really prepare any food, etc. — they are conservative. The overall point is that you should talk about politics to the Useful People in your life, those who do everything for you while you watch documentaries and listen to free jazz. A short list of problems with that sentiment: 1) don’t assume your plumber is a Trump supporter, that’s rude, 2) if they are, DO NOT talk to them about politics, at least not initially. Talk to them about their family, their interests, all the stuff that actually matters in their life and that probably matters to you. Remember, regardless of what this carpet salesman says we should hold on to what he means: that we should seek common ground.
He goes on to explain more about these Trumpian plumbers and their ilk: “They know your liberal politics by the material posted on your fridge but are way too tolerant to confront you on the topic. They are also too polite to walk out on you” (emphasis added). Apologies for reiterating my first point, but this is quickly becoming my least favorite conservative hypocrisy. Everyone is selective about how “free speech” should operate. Everyone is loudly and proudly in support of the “first amendment” (fun fact: the First Amendment prohibits the federal government from enacting certain laws, does not prohibit people saying mean things about you). Everyone loudly and proudly supports the American ideals of free discourse. So long as that discourse does not cross certain lines. And we certainly disagree about where the lines are. A liberal might think someone should be fired for saying Muslims are inherently barbaric. You might think someone should be fired for suggesting President Obama has experienced racism. A liberal might get mad when forced to say the pledge of allegiance. You might get mad at a Jewish person saying happy holidays, once, somewhere in America. I kid (sort of), but the idea that “conservatives” or “Trump supporters” or “deplorables” are the obviously tolerant bunch is ludicrous, and a conception that either comes from a place of gross partisanship and tunnel-mindedness or from having not watched Fox News for the past eight years (at least).
He ends with: “Deplorables are people too. Their kids make them proud and drive them crazy. They eat kielbasa and even kale. Some laugh at “Seinfeld” and some like opera. Some are atheists and some go to church. Please understand that — just like you — deplorables lead lives that are mysterious and wonderful, tragic and joyful, and invariably complex.” To the extent “deplorables” means “Trump supporters,” I completely agree. This is the penultimate paragraph, and therefore Mr. Weiss officially buried the lede.
I’ll end with a discussion of the conceit that drives this opinion, and so many more: that Hillary Clinton, and by the transitive political principle everyone who voted for her, believe that all Trump supporters are “deplorable.” A word Mrs. Clinton used twice in one speech among thousands of speeches given during a two-year campaign (and Liberals are the ones who police language, right?) But seriously, it’s worth looking at what Clinton actually said:
“We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?”
Quick pause, just to note that she admitted this is “grossly generalistic.” (Sic?). After some “[Laughter/applause]” she continued:
“The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it . . . . Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America. But the other basket . . . . are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from . . . . Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.” Emphasis added.
There is the easy point that Hillary Clinton simply didn’t say that Trump supporters are deplorable or irredeemable, much like Obama didn’t say that American workers don’t build their companies, Rick Perry didn’t name his unfortunately named ranch, and George Herbert Walker Bush actually did know how grocery checkouts worked. Twisting words is part of politics, and it happens on the left and the right.
But there is a much more important point. You switch some words around, and mess with the percentages (instead of half of Trump supporters say “an irrelevant contingent”) and this is exactly what Trump supporters say. It’s probably what Trump himself would say. If we could actually understand his responses to questions about support from David Duke, I think his point was: “look, there are some really bad people who support me and I don’t like it, but what are you going to do?” More succinctly, here’s Milo Yiannopoulos and Allum Bokhari writing at Breitbart on the 1488ers (for those of you mercifully unaware, 1488ers are neo-nazis, essentially):
“Every ideology has them. Humourless ideologues who have no lives beyond their political crusade, and live for the destruction of the great. They can be found on Stormfront and other sites, not just joking about the race war, but eagerly planning it . . . . Based on our research we believe this stands in stark contrast with the rest of the alt-right, who focus more on building communities and lifestyles based around their values than plotting violent revolution. 1488ers are the equivalent of the Black Lives Matter supporters who call for the deaths of policemen, or feminists who unironically want to #KillAllMen.”
Tl;dr: there are minorities in every movement who are, essentially, “deplorable” but they should not be considered the entirety of the movement, and there may be majorities in every movement that we can sympathize with. That is exactly what Hillary Clinton said.
So, as Mr. Weiss suggests, are “the Deplorables” not “so bad” once you get to know them? The consensus among the left and the right seems to be no, they are in fact quite bad. There are nasty, bigoted, awful people among Donald Trump’s supporters, as Milo believes there are in “every ideology,” and while it may still be worth the excruciating work of actually trying to change some of their minds, they probably are “so bad.” There are, however, decent, open-minded, good people across the political spectrum who are just wrong about stuff sometimes, victims of their own upbringing, self-conscious about their identities, and scared for their futures. We should talk to each other. And articles like this are just about the worst way to start that conversation.
