From an early age we are taught that name-calling is cruel and unfair, but that message fades in the conscience of an adult. Names are the primary ammunition of political campaigns, as we have learned from our President, who names all his opponents to denigrate them. We all remember “crooked Hillary.”
Dana Milbank: Trump is a racist, and Democrats should stop calling him one
In the Washington Post today, Dana Millbank argues that labeling Donald Trump a “racist” is ineffective because polls show that it puts white folks in a defensive posture, more willing to accept the victim of the “racist” label. Ashley Jardina, a Duke professor analyzing popularity polls since 2016, concludes that ” They [whites] hold more strongly the attitudes they have about racial policies, including doubling down on their support for Donald Trump.” (qtd in Millbank, Washington Post, September 16, 2019]. She also compares the name “racist” to “crying wolf,” because it has become a politicized term.
But if Trump rode his name-calling strategy to an election victory, why is the label “racist” ineffective in the current climate? I want to say because it is cruel and unfair (Mom 1: 1), but I know how little that may be considered in a political setting.
I think in this instance crying “racist” is ineffective, because Donald Trump, himself, thrives on victimhood. He revels in the adversarial contest where he is the underdog and gets treated like one. A major theme of his 2016 campaign was how he was treated unfairly by the “dishonest press,” and he returns to that theme every time he is backed into corner.
Then he was the target of a corruption investigation by a special prosecutor, which kept him in the victim role for much of his presidency. He reveled in that, finding ruthless opponents in Robert Mueller, the Justice Department, and again the press. It all made him appear the victim of federal and journalistic assault, and his followers, under siege, rushed to his defense.
With the investigation ended, Trump is searching for other formidable enemies who will give him victim status. By using the “r” word, many of the Democratic candidates have given him the foil he needs for his tirades. Dana Millbank mentioned Cory Booker and Pete Buttigieg from the debates on Thursday, and Kamala Harris can certainly be added to the gang who want to call out “racism.” They are all potential fodder for the victim narrative that the President will employ as the campaign heats up.*
It reminds me of the story of Antaeus who drew his strength from contact with the earth. As soon as he was separated from the ground, he lost all power. Realizing this vulnerability Heracles held Antaeus aloft and crushed him in a bear hug. [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antaeus] For Donald Trump, victimhood is his earth and his power can be sapped by separation from it.
In his column Millbank urges various strategies for calling out Donald Trump without using the “r” word. Turning it into a more generic issue, such as an attack against “American Identity” or “American Institutions,” appears as one alternative.
There are plenty of other names candidates might also avoid, such as “sexist,” “white supremacist,” or even “liar,” as accurate as it may seem. They may want to avoid them because the polls reveal their ineffectiveness or because of the way this opponent takes advantage of victimhood. Or maybe out of regard for their mothers who taught us it was rude and disrespectful. That is a lesson that could always save us some embarrassment from a bully who loves to be a victim.
*https://madison.com/wsj/opinion/column/dana-milbank-trump-is-a-racist-and-democrats-should-stop/article_10fd3069-a4b7-538f-9b65-07cde00a347a.html
President Trump in the Oval Office of the White House on Wednesday. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)