And I wondered: "Surely?" Can we really say "surely?" Would they?
If the tables were turned, truly turned, would I?
If nothing else, this thought experiment has revealed to me that the politics in our country have taken a sincere turn toward the ridiculous.
What follows is a recreation of the thought experiment we devised in order to help me find that answer (would I do what we were asking conservatives to do in voting for Clinton). And what follows that is the update of that thought experiment -- namely, were I in their shoes via these turned tables, what would I do now?
Full disclosure, what follows is ridiculous. Further full disclosure, this ridiculousness really is the closest I was legitimately able to create to give myself the full emotional and cognitive 'turned tables' experience. If nothing else, this thought experiment has revealed to me that the politics in our country have taken a sincere turn toward the ridiculous.
Premise: Were the tables turned, and liberals had a Trump-like figure and Conservatives had a Clinton-like figure, would I vote for the "other side's" Clinton-like figure once it became clear that "our" Trump-like figure was crazy and incompetent and dangerous?
Michael points out that Clinton is a moderate, though she toes the party line on many things as well. Would a Clinton-like figure be someone like Mitt Romney?
And no, Romney wouldn't do it. Not for me, not for this thought experiment. You see, conservatives disagree with many of Clinton's policies, that is true. But it's not just that. Additionally, they have a profound hatred for her, a base-level distrust. To get the full emotional punch of casting that vote, not even rich-dude Romney is sufficient. Not even any of our elected officials whose policies I really, really disagree with. To fill this "Clinton-like" role, I needed someone that I view with profound hatred and a base-level distrust. And for this thought experiment, the answer was clear:
Karl Rove.
Here's the thing about Karl Rove. I have no doubt that he is politically knowledgeable and savvy. The qualifications are obviously there. I have no doubt that I disagree with close to 100% of his policies. Honestly, we may overlap in some places but the very idea of agreeing with Karl Rove on ANYTHING is so odious to me that I have trouble admitting that possibility. I truly believe that Karl Rove is a prime example of what is wrong in politics today. He plays dirty, legally and illegally. He started his career by fake-bugging his own office right before an election just to cast doubt on the other side. He knew he'd get caught, but he knew it'd be too late and people wouldn't care too much after the fact. He was right. And it only got worse from there.
I believe him to be a slimy, untrustworthy person. I believe everything he touches in our nation becomes less honest and less good. You wanna get that vitriolic, visceral, emotional reaction from me... the reaction that seemed to be driving so many conservatives away from Clinton even when, you know, she's kind of a Republican? Karl Rove's your man.
And so I had my Republican, Clinton-like headliner: Karl Rove.
Eugh, even just typing his name that many times has made my heart dirty.
And so what about a Democratic ticket? A liberal Trump-like figure who would be actively dangerous to many people in our country, who says scary things, incites violence and hatred among some of his followers, who makes up ridiculous policies, and who inspires some while making others fear for their literal lives and safety?
We couldn't come up with anyone, not anyone who was charismatic and terrifying in turns. Trump is unprecedented in our country, at least in our modern times.
So what did we do? We made someone up. More accurately, we took a real someone and then fictionalized that someone into something Trump-like. Hear me out on this one, because we're taking that turn toward the ridiculous now. I proposed R. Kelly.
I know, I know. And I apologize to R. Kelly and his family and friends and fans for what I'm about to do. It's not fair and it's not real. But it's the best I could do in this thought experiment.
To stir up the legitimate fear that many Americans have of Trump and his policies, to make the liberal equivalent of those policies and a conservative equivalent of those fears, we had to seriously fictionalize this bid for the Democratic ticket.
Let's start with the reality of R. Kelly. R. Kelly the real person is already Trump-like in the following ways: he's charismatic, he's talented, he's successful, he's got a mainstream following as well as a cult-like following. He's got a problematic personal background. You know, Trump is known as a womanizer, a bigot, and screws people over in his business practices for the purposes of his own success. R. Kelly has peed on minors. Their fans are apparently willing to overlook these things because of the aforementioned charisma and talent and success. People who are not fans but who also don't hate them... kinda don't care about them for the most part. For those folks, R. Kelly and Trump are folks that you mostly ignore while you pay attention to politics or other important things. Periodically they pop up on your radar, but they don't stay there, and they certainly aren't people you would expect to seriously run for President.
But. But. But. It's not enough. Real R. Kelly gives us a baseline candidate walking into the primaries. But to really stir up the legitimate fear that many Americans have of Trump and his policies, to make the liberal equivalent of those policies and a conservative equivalent of those fears, we had to fictionalize R. Kelly and his bid for the Democratic ticket. So let me tell you the story of tRump Kelly's candidacy:
1.
Trump mocked a disabled reporter, which is pretty odious.
tRump Kelly, what?, mocks old people that criticize him? Sure, he does that.
2.
Trump said Mexicans are rapists, criminals and drug dealers, and some, he assumes, are good people.
tRump Kelly says White men are rapists, alcoholics, and drug addicts, and some, he assumes, are good people.
Special note here -- I'm trying to play to a couple of stereotypes here. First, let's say that many conservatives do not actually think that Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers. But we'd also have to say that they're okay voting for someone to be President who says that they are. The equivalent here is the assumption that most liberals do not actually think that White men are rapists, alcoholics, and drug addicts, but perhaps they'd be willing to overlook or minimize that statement as "no big deal" since to seriously consider the weight of that statement would mean we'd have to vote for Karl Rove. Meanwhile, White guys and their allies across the country are screaming, "Did you not hear what tRump Kelly said? How could you vote for that guy? That is a disqualifying statement."
3.
Trump says he'll build a wall along the southern border and Mexico will pay for it.
tRump Kelly said that under his Presidency, there would be a hiring freeze on White people until every person of color had a job.
A bit of a leap, I know, but here's my rationale: both of those policies are racist and frankly, economically unsound. The wall is meant to stop Mexicans from ruining the country, which means there is a racist presumption that latinos would ruin the country. It's not about security or drug trafficking, because this is a blanket hatred cast over every latino man, woman, and child no matter who they are. The hiring freeze would be meant to undo white supremacy, cast blanket over every White person without regard to their individual personhood.
Presumably, real conservatives were able to overlook the fact that this racist policy, if implemented, would bankrupt the country because in reality-land, we'd be the ones to pay for it. Maybe they think it's all talk and wouldn't really happen.
Presumable, fictionalized liberals would be able to overlook the fact that this racist policy, if implemented, would drive the economy into the toilet. Maybe they'd think it was all talk and wouldn't really happen.
4.
Trump says he'll create a Muslim registry.
tRump Kelly says that all religious leaders will have to register, and swear an oath of loyalty to the state (à la Mussolini making teachers swear an oath to the state).
Again, here we're trying to find something that most liberals would think was a bad idea, for many, many reasons, but may possibly be willing to overlook or discount or minimize in the right conditions (ahem, alternative is voting for Karl Rove). But a bad idea that specifically strikes fear into the hearts of conservatives, who would never, never overlook it because to them it is so obviously terrifying.
5.
Trump says he'll have the military conduct war crimes, including torture and killing family members of terrorists.
tRump Kelly says he'll imprison Wall Street bankers who created the 2008 financial meltdown in Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib.
Seriously, is there anyone for whom you would really look the other way if they were tortured or killed? There's not for me, but I might not take my fictional candidate seriously if he said this, even if he said it over and over and created sample policy that would make this happen.
6.
Trump brags about sexually assaulting women, and then a dozen women allege he sexual assaulted them.
tRump Kelly, physically assaults men and brags about it.
Would I take these things seriously? Would I trust the checks and balances of our system to temper the crazy?
Eh, I could go on, but I think here is enough for the sake of this thought experiment. In this fictionalized world, we have two major political candidates.
On the Republican ticket, we've got Karl Rove, a man whom I believe to be knowledgeable and politically savvy, but whom I distrust and who makes me feel a visceral, nauseating sort of hatred-suspicion whenever I hear him talk politics.
On the Democratic ticket, we've got tRump Kelly, a charismatic, talented, and successful non-politician with an unsettling personal background who let's say for the sake of argument puts forth a lot of normal Democratic policies, says he'll clean out the corruption of the party and Washington in general, but who also says and does crazy, incompetent, and dangerous things. He doesn't seem to understand the Constitution or how the government works. He says blatantly racist things and talks about policies that would target specific groups of people in ways that would diminish their rights and liberty as protected by the laws of our country and the Geneva Convention. He brags about beating up men, riles up his supporters to attack bankers and white people, to distrust and maybe even attack religious leaders.
Would I take these things seriously? Would I trust the checks and balances of our system to temper the crazy? Would I shrug and think, 'he's all talk, and at least he's not Karl Rove?'
Would I uphold my actual principles and my actual believes in equality and justice... and vote for Karl Rove?
Would I?
To be honest, I never quite figured out an answer to this hypothetical, which maybe makes it a good hypothetical. Maybe. I made up a bunch of far flung, ridiculous possibilities in an attempt to develop a commiserate gravitas in situation and ethics and emotionality. I tried to develop ideas of things that I might be willing to think, "that can't be real; it's all talk." Threats to people I might dismiss as not serious. Proposed policies whose importance I might diminish, or might think "that could never happen; why are people afraid?"
But when it comes down to it, it's all stuff I made up. It's NOT real. It's NOT serious. It's NOT going to happen. And so I could not ever trust myself to make a real decision about this ridiculous thought experiment because it just wasn't real.
Then last week, Trump got elected. And since then, people I know and thousands of others have been threatened, harassed, and made to feel physically unsafe because they are liberal, or women, or people of color, or immigrants, or queer, or multiple of the above. The country has actually become less safe because so many people were galvanized by the victory of Trump, the real Trump, who really did do all of those things linked above, and who really is moving forward with policies and rhetoric designed to stir up hatred and fear and to take away the rights and liberty of Americans.
Many of us have been galvanized to response action -- joining protests, speaking out, attending meetings, donating to advocacy groups, and more.
This led me to The Thought Experiment, Part II: What if tRump Kelly, fictionalized crazy candidate as outlined above, actually won the election? What would I do?
Would I call for everyone to forget the past and come together now?
Would I continue to dismiss the crazy as "just talk," or diminish its importance?
Would I call on folks to give him a chance because not all of the stuff he says is unconstitutional war crimes?
Would I blame his followers, liberals mind you, who are now going out an harassing and threatening priests and bankers and spray paining "Whitie" on people's cars, calling them just a few fringe nuts? -- most of us aren't like that so could you stop saying it's all liberals who supported these things?
Or would I stand up and speak out against the wrong actions, the wrong policies, the crazy, dangerous rhetoric and Cabinet choices and policy agendas?
Would I be able to find a way to say, Okay, I support this policy, but this other one is crazy and does not represent us?
Would I find a way to block the crazy we'd just voted into office before it got even more dangerous?
Would I speak out against the people harassing and threatening others?
Would I do any of these things?
Would you?
No comments:
Post a Comment