The Trump Voters: A Pox on Their Houses?

One of us heard a National Public Radio report of a situation that raised the question of how to look at Trump voters who may suffer because of his polices. We found we couldn’t speak collectively because we see the answer to the question differently.

One doctor lost   
The NPR story involved a hospital in an unnamed rural Georgia county which, well before Trump’s travel ban, hired a doctor from one of the affected, predominately Muslim countries.  Because of the travel ban, the doctor couldn’t get to the United States. With the intervention of the courts, the matter likely got straightened out and no long term harm resulted, but in the situation we found an ethical issue.

The doctor hired might have been the only one available to that rural community for a while. That has political implications because a not insignificant number of the people the doctor would serve likely voted for Trump. After all, he won many rural Georgia counties by 2-1 or better.

Rob, in particular, hasn’t been shy about expressing his disdain for Trump or about casting aspersions on the motives of his voters, believing many voted for him out of mean-spirited hostility toward America’s changing demographics and fear of immigrants, Muslims, and people of color generally. He wants Trump out, and has dared hope some who voted for him experience hardships as a result of his policies and, therefore, turn against him. This reap-what-you-sowed outlook may seem cruel, even unpatriotic, but people opposed to Trump think and say it. That came to mind with the report about the Georgia community that might lose its doctor as a result of this President’s harsh immigration policies.

Woodson and Henry hold similar disdain for Trump and harbor suspicions about the motives of some Trump supporters, particularly self-described Tea Party adherents. Woodson, in particular, believes Trump won partly because the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency so failed to appeal to voters concerned about the threat posed to their jobs by trade agreements and technology. Polls show a number of Trump voters, especially in the decisive states in the upper Midwest, twice supported Barak Obama.  These voters may not have seen a choice between Clinton and Trump in the same stark terms we did, so wishing a pox on their houses seems unfair.        

Ethics, morality, spirituality   At a basic level, is there ever a justification for wishing ill on fellow humans because of political differences? Henry, in particular, finds no justification for that.  Scripture (1 Peter 3:8) reminds us that compassion requires “Not returning evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary blessing, knowing that you were called to this, that you may inherit a blessing.”  

Rob acknowledges the righteousness of that view, but still sees ways in which ethics and morality demand a different response.  If Trump’s policies will ultimately do the nation maximum harm, doesn’t that justify whatever would get rid of them, and him, quickest? Might not more people suffer from continuing Trump’s policies into a second term? If so, the sooner Americans realize their mistake, however they come to that understanding, the sooner the country rids itself of him.

Woodson disdains this view because it operates from an ethically questionable ends-justifies-the-means philosophy and Henry largely shares his concern.  Republicans, they remind us, employed this approach in their unsuccessful effort to assure Barack Obama’s failure as President. Putting party over principle hurt the country and, whatever its political benefit, amounted to a failure of leadership.                           

Senators in Turmoil    Senate Democrats face this dilemma every day in deciding how to vote on confirmation of Trump’s appointees, many of them unqualified advocates of dastardly policies opposed to every value those senators were elected to advance.  A few Trump nominees merit the office they would hold and could do the country good.  But some in the Democratic base want their senators to oppose every Trump nominee on general principle and threaten retaliation against those who don’t take that approach.

So what’s right? Adhere to your political desires and wish ill on Trump supporters, despite ethical, moral, and spiritual qualms or take the high road, knowing that failing to oppose Trump’s policies may result in their continuation to the detriment of even more people?  Vote for the good nominee knowing that person may do well and make it more likely Trump remains in office? Oppose them all on general principle, no matter the individual merits? Woodson and Henry believe Democrats should strongly oppose Trump when they think he’s wrong, but support him when they think he’s right, viewing each nominee and situation individually. They see that as leadership.

Rob ends up conflicted about this. For him, both positions come with high costs and neither satisfies.  The moral high ground runs the risk of making Trump’s path easier. Regressing to pettiness arguably compromises basic values, but perhaps makes an early Trump exit more likely. He thinks Trump may have changed the rules, making dealing with him as a normal political leader with whom one disagrees not possible. In other words, isn’t Trump an outlier requiring an extraordinary response?

Woodson and Henry are not conflicted. They see moral leadership as good politics and point to the moral authority of leaders like King, Gandhi, and Mandela.  The power of their moral authority ultimately led to victory in the struggles they led. They point to King’s often quoted observation that the “moral arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.”

This isn’t an easy issue.  We don’t see it the same way. What do you see?