Last week, College Republicans Events Chair Ali Hiestand defended the process that resulted in her organization voting to endorse Donald Trump. Although I am disappointed with this outcome, I agree it would be unreasonable to overturn the results of this vote simply because the outcome is unsatisfying. I implore my fellow liberals to respect this decision and attempt to understand what circumstances would motivate likely voters to support the Republican presidential nominee this November, though I can understand why some would be disappointed by the latter’s decision to do so. Regardless, while many Trump supporters are justifiably upset over the direction the country is headed, this should not justify supporting an individual who threatens the safety and civil liberties of our fellow citizens.
Much of Hiestand’s article is founded upon the notion that Trump’s supporters are motivated by a condescending liberal elite, a notion perhaps best summarized in Emmett Rensin’s “The Smug Style in American Liberalism.” According to Rensin, many liberals overlook moral or policy divergences and instead perceive others who do not share their political viewpoints as foolish or “confused.” While this charge has been leveled against many Democrats in the past, perhaps the most famous instance occurred during a 2008 Democratic fundraiser where then-Sen. Barack Obama accused midwestern blue-collar workers of clinging to “guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them” in lieu of their economic frustrations.
Although Obama’s comment is clearly unbecoming of an individual aspiring to be the country’s next commander-in-chief, it does acknowledge an inconvenient truth. Immediately preceding the aforementioned comment, Obama speculated that many blue-collar workers are apprehensive about the country’s future because “each successive [presidential] administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.” The notion that many Americans long to return to a simpler time succinctly summarizes Trump’s raison d’etre into the presidential race. Far from showing Obama doesn’t understand the average blue-collar voter, Obama’s gaffe may rationalize why68 percent of white voters without a college degree are willing to support Trump — in spite of him accusing Mexico of sending rapists and murders to the United States, speculating that “Islam hates us” and calling for a blanket ban on Muslims entering the country.
But perhaps Trump’s rise is also indicative of the growing divide between working class voters and public policymakers. While the latter may point to 71 consecutive months of positive job growth and a decline in the gender pay gap as evidence of a more fair and opportune economy, the former may point to rising automation and increased competition from foreign workers as evidence to the contrary. Likewise, policymakers might ask how voters expect to both restore a domestic manufacturing industry that pays workers a livable wage and maintain their current level of consumption. Reminders that there are no simple solutions to these issues are of little consolation to blue-collar workers currently undergoing financial hardships. Still, this sort of disenchantment should not justify supporting a candidate who consistently exploits fear and racial tensions for personal gain.
Hiestand is right to say our political system could benefit from a dose of empathy and introspection, especially given the current partisan divide. Yet, the manner in which she addresses this issue is slightly one-sided. Yes, working class voters may feel neglected by what they perceive to be a condescending liberal elite, but what about the interests of women, minorities and other historically marginalized groups? Surely, Mercutio Shouthall must have felt marginalized when Trump suggested “he should have been roughed up” for protesting at a rally. One would imagine that many Muslim Americans felt alienated when Trump proposed they register in a government database. And what of the countless sexual assault victims Trump dismissed when he suggested they simply find another employer? Surely, the interests of these individuals are worthy of some consideration.
Inevitably, there will be those who dismiss the aforementioned antics as a ploy to appeal to voters. In all honesty, I cannot conclude Trump has any inclination to follow through on any of these promises should he be elected to office, and apparently neither can he. Although the College Republicans further legitimized Trump’s presidential run with their endorsement, in light of his reckless proposals, this act should not induce any student — Republican or otherwise — to support his candidacy this November.
Brandon Brooks is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at b.brooks@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Big donors are dominating the Board of Visitors
By Ryan Williams | 2 days agoSuch 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 | 4 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.
