Donald Trump’s ascendancy into the Republican political milieu may result from his candid media interactions. The abrasive entrepreneur has won plaudits from supporters who perceive him to be a Washington outsider who dares to speak his mind and approach topics other politicians do not touch. In a CNN interview, former Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer responded to Trump’s comments linking illegal immigration to crime by saying, “I believe that Mr. Trump is kind of telling it like it really, truly is.” Prominent conservative commentator Pat Buchanan attributes Trump’s lead in the polls to his rejection of political correctness, which has resonated with Americans who are “tired” of politically correct Republicans.
Candid speech, while admirable, is no excuse for a politician’s ideological shortcomings. In the case of Trump, his tendency to “tell it like it is” does not redeem his toxic misogyny, nativism or jingoism, none of which sound better coming from a foghorn than from a dog whistle. What people like Trump and his supporters fail to understand is that political correctness is not some trivial issue manufactured by the left to restrict free speech or thinking. Those who embrace Trump’s lack of a filter might contend that political correctness prevents us from discussing issues that matter such as illegal immigration, but I would argue the restriction of ideas works the other way around. As long as people like Trump continue to reduce political correctness to a matter of hurt feelings, people won’t be able to freely discuss issues such as the problems associated with characterizing Mexican immigrants as rapists. More often than not, political correctness is the avoidance of language that marginalizes. Tackling political issues head on is one thing; using language that harms is another. Trump’s foray into politics and material success reveals a disturbing trend in American politics, one in which unfiltered speech and the rejection of political correctness are increasingly accepted as justifications for harmful beliefs.
Consider Trump’s history of hurling sexist epithets at women, which includes calling women disgusting for breast-feeding a baby and attacking the editor-in-chief of the Huffington post for being “extremely unattractive.” He has also blamed the military’s high rate of sexual assault on the fact that men and women can serve together and live on the same military bases. At the Republican primary debate opener, moderator Megyn Kelly challenged Trump about his statements about women such as Rosie O’Donnell. He replied, “Frankly, I don’t have time for total political correctness. . . . What I say is what I say.”
The fact that some analysts are calling Trump the winner of the night in spite of his disparaging comments illustrates just how effective his no-holds-barred approach to the election is. Candor should not trump common decency and respect for women. In the same way ‘honest’ dialogue about our nation’s freeloaders has brought the myth of the welfare queen into our country’s consciousness, resulting in policy that harms the poor, ‘honest’ insults aimed at women will only legitimize the sexist legislation that Republicans have pushed in Congress. I struggle to think a president who unabashedly attacks women in public will be a president who advocates for equal pay legislation or paid maternity leave. Concerns about Trump’s comments about women are not insignificant political correctness issues. They are legitimate fears about how a president’s ill will toward women will translate into social policy, and no amount of candor can make up for that.
Trump’s demagoguery also extends to immigration and foreign policy, where he has made use of popular prejudices about Mexican immigrants and offered frighteningly hawkish solutions to political instability in the Middle East. His comments characterizing Mexican immigrants as rapists should not be hailed for being unfiltered; they are damaging to the over 31.8 million Mexican-Americans. Additionally, his desire to “bomb the hell” out of Iraq’s oil fields should not be lauded by Republicans who view Trump as a candidate who confronts the realities of ISIS, unlike the ‘spineless’ President Obama. Trump’s remarks concerning foreign policy in the Middle East are imprudent and dangerous considering the importance of oil fields to the infrastructure of a recovering Iraq. Again, the issue is that Trump’s political incorrectness reflects a poor understanding of the realities of immigration and war that will be destructive at the policy level. It’s not a trivial matter of hurt feelings — it reflects the way Trump and his supporters view the rest of the world.
Political candidates who have branded themselves as authentic, such as Ron Paul in 2012 or Bernie Sanders during this election cycle, have had measurable levels of success, though no victories, against other “inauthentic” candidates such as Mitt Romney or Hillary Clinton. Paul’s supporters touted his consistent voting record in Congress during the last Republican primaries. Even many liberals offered support to Paul on the basis of his steadfast commitment to his unpopular ideals. Similarly, Sanders’ supporters have pointed to his unwavering socialist principles as evidence of honesty that differentiates him from less progressive Democrats. With Trump, we are seeing a different brand of honesty, a blunt rejection of political correctness celebrated by Republicans in spite of the damaging consequences of Trump’s ideologies. Whether Trump’s success persists throughout the primaries, one thing is certain: we must put an end to the growing sentiment that it is attractive for a candidate to propagate falsehoods and offensive prejudices under the guise of telling it like it is.
Nazar Aljassar is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at n.aljassar@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Big donors are dominating the Board of Visitors
By Ryan Williams | YesterdaySuch appointments being dictated by connections and donations creates a Board composed of big donors instead of members passionate about University goals.
EDITORIAL: Collectives are a misinterpretation of the mission of NIL
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoA large driver of this inequality comes in the form of collectives, the structures many schools use to organize their NIL payments.
CARTER: Data science without sustainability is insufficient
By Nathaniel Carter | 6 days agoThe University appears committed to a future defined by data, but lacks the dedication to meeting this future’s energy needs in a sustainable way.
