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?             

The List: A Critique of Trump's Proposed Presidential Agenda

Donald Trump took the oath of office last week as the 45^th President of the United States amid pomp and circumstance, celebration by part of America, but trepidation, foreboding, protest, and fear by other parts.  His 40% approval rating represents the lowest ever for a new President, so Trump has his work cut out for him.  We won’t say we wish him well because, frankly, such a platitude from us seems meaningless and insincere given our attitude toward some things Trump has said he wants to do, like dismantling the Affordable Care Act, banning Muslims, giving new tax breaks to billionaires, and getting into bed with Vladimir Putin and the Russians. As patriotic Americans who deeply love this nation, we’ll just say we wish the country well and leave it at that.

A number of thorny issues fill Trump’s plate for the foreseeable future.  Some he put there himself in his zeal, and that of his fellow Republicans, to undo the policies of the previous administration.  Others he campaigned on, meaning the electorate will judge him on how he does with them. Some are there because they’re there for every President. We can think of dozens of things Trump needs to deal with, but we’ll hone in on seven that will likely move front and center during the early weeks and months of his tenure. Most have a domestic tilt, a few fall within the international realm, and some overlap.  All this presupposes Trump doesn’t face an early, unexpected foreign policy crisis or a domestic trauma we can’t now predict. 

Affordable Care Act Repeal   Republicans moved at warp speed in the early days of the current session of Congress to repeal the ACA. What they’re going to replace it with remains a major mystery. People who understand this issue know one thing: keeping the “goodies” in the ACA that even Republicans like, such as coverage for pre-existing conditions and letting young people stay on their parents’ policies until they’re 26, seems exceedingly difficult without the taxes and mandates the GOP hates.

Infrastructure/Jobs   Trump’s promise to bring jobs back to the rust belt may have won him the election. Can he now deliver? During the campaign, he talked about a major infrastructure program to create jobs by rebuilding roads, bridges, airports, water systems, and other public works.  Passing a major infrastructure bill, especially one that puts significant federal dollars, and not just tax credits, into play probably requires Democratic votes in Congress since Republicans usually detest such programs.  Will Trump propose something with real meat that Democrats could vote for? Or will he take the path of least resistance and offer up a tax credit scheme Republicans will support, produces profits for Trump’s wealthy corporate friends, but yields few improvements in the nation’s crumbling infrastructure and even fewer jobs.  

Russian Hacking/Intelligence   The new President will have a hard call once Congressional committees finish their review of the intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia attempted to swing the 2016 election to him through computer hacking of his political opponents. Does he ignore a clear attack on American sovereignty and democracy? Does he reverse course and move to punish the Russians as his predecessor did? Can he repair his relationship with the intelligence agencies?  The questions bear on U.S. national security and our concept of the nation.

Supreme Court   Trump said he’d put up a nominee for the Scalia seat that’s been vacant almost a year about two weeks after he takes office. Does he propose a moderate conservative at least some Democrats could vote for or does he put up a right wing zealot, thereby inviting a bruising Senate confirmation battle? Which way he goes may signal something important about how he plans to govern.

Syria/Middle East   Trump never really said during the campaign what he thought about Syria except that it was a “disaster” and he offered vague, almost incoherent ramblings about Assad and the Russians being better for Syria than ISIS. Does Trump have a Syria policy or doesn’t he?  Maybe we’ll find out soon.

Immigration   Will Trump follow through on three promises he made (at least at times he seemed to promise them) during the campaign: (1) banning Muslims from entering the United States; (2) starting mass deportation of undocumented persons in the country illegally; and (3) building a wall between the U. S. and Mexico that would keep out illegal immigrants.  These ideas have legislative and legal components and Trump may not have the last word on them. 

Criminal Justice Reform   Trump didn’t campaign on this issue and it isn’t a high priority for his core supporters. Many of them, in fact, may oppose efforts to reduce incarceration levels and eliminate race based sentencing disparities. His business allies probably like it that private prison companies reap more and more tax dollars from warehousing inmates.  Communities of color, however, care passionately about this, and that concern presents a potential political opportunity for Trump.  He won’t ever get the lion’s share of black and Latino votes, but he could score major points with those groups, and some moderate to progressive whites, by going against type and taking on an issue outside his natural wheelhouse. It would resemble Richard Nixon, the unrepentant cold warrior, visiting China.

Trump and the country, of course, have things other than these seven issues to worry about, including the President’s business conflicts, ISIS, trade policy, voting rights, and many others.  But these seven issues represent headaches and opportunities. Minefields, and a few safe harbors, lie within this constellation.   Your ideas?