Donald Trump's Unearned Privilege
Why Are We Still Willing To Give This Man The Benefit Of The Doubt?
Nine years after Donald Trump descended an escalator at Trump Tower to announce a run for President using the type of campaign rhetoric that would have shocked people a decade earlier, and three years after he refused to concede an election he lost, his antics are still dominating the news.
Trump is poised to be the Republican nominee for president for the third election in a row, and despite losing the last election, inciting a riot aimed at overturning his loss, being impeached twice and indicted on 91 felony counts in four jurisdictions, he’s still being treated by the media as a serious, competent potential Leader of the Free World.
Last weekend, Trump gave another rambling incoherent speech to supporters in Ohio. Focusing on the auto industry, he called for a laughable 100 percent tariffs on imported cars to protect the American auto industry. In the portion of the speech where he talked about his tariff, he went on a bit of a ramble, saying that if he didn’t win, it would be “a bloodbath for the country”
We’re going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you’re not going to be able to sell those cars. If I get elected. Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath, for the whole — that’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country. That’ll be the least of it. But they’re not going to sell those cars.
The quote sparked outrage with many interpreting it as a threat of mass violence if he loses again, which, considering his supporters stormed and ransacked the U.S. Capitol when he lost the last time, seems plausible. Yet some pundits suggested that interpretation was unfair; that he was talking about the auto industry and not political violence.
Now it’s clear Trump was talking about the auto industry before the “bloodbath” comment was uttered, but the idea that it was clear he was talking about a “bloodbath for the auto industry” is absurd. He absolutely could’ve been, but when I first the quote last weekend while scouring social media in my hotel room in Los Angeles, even with the larger context about the auto industry, it rang to me like he was saying “the auto industry is fucked if I don’t win, but that’s the least of it, the country will burn anyway.” That is how a number of people in my social circle, including my parents and my friends, took it in the first few hours.
Then came the punditry.
From across the political spectrum, pundits suggested that anyone who interpreted the “bloodbath” comments to be a call to violence were taking Trump out of context. Even progressive pundits like Ryan Grim of The Intercept and Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks suggested Trump was being misquoted. He clearly meant “a bloodbath for the auto industry,” they argue and suggesting otherwise is just fueling distrust of the media and lessening the impact of the other inflammatory and scary things he said. This “overreacting to this quote will make people think less of serious stuff” reminds me of the same type of punditry surrounding the civil fraud trial in New York, where some have suggested the crimes he committed were so trite and common that nailing him for it reeks of political revenge and that would make the public think less of his other, more serious, trials.
The truth like, like most of the ramblings Trump engages in during his rallies, I have no idea what he meant last weekend, but I do know how his words are taken by his own most rabid supporters, and I know it because we’ve seen how they react to them. If actions speak louder than words, then January 6th was deafening. Did Trump really intend on goading his supporters into attacking the Capitol when he told them "We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore?” I have no idea. He did preface that quote with saying they should march to the Capitol “peacefully and patriotically.” His supporters certainly believe he called for violence, and some of the insurrectionists themselves have openly said his words drove them to do it.
If actions speak louder than words, then January 6th was deafening.
The problem is for all the talk of Biden being senile and gaffe prone, Trump speaks in such incoherent psychobabble that everything he says is up for interpretation based on how you feel about Trump himself. He’s very good at parsing his words to give himself plausible deniability. Whether he does it on purpose, or just happens to do it in the midst of being muddled is anyone’s guess.
Yet despite that, it baffles me that so many people are willing to give him even a crumb of credibility when it comes to his words. After so many years of seeing what his language can lead to, why are so many people still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt? At best, he’s reckless, and after all this time there is no excuse or defense for being careless with his words and actions.
I have my own theories, one of which is that people secretly like Donald Trump and feel a level of empathy towards him being unassailable. They secretly hope he will serve as a catalyst for them to have the same experiences. In a recent piece, I said Donald Trump’s ability to get away with everything due to his status comes across as liberating to many Americans who feel some level of oppression in society, especially in the world of “cancel culture.” The hope is Trump will start a trend where they too could live without accountability.
Another theory is Trump has so much support than every one of us knows and loves a Trump supporter. It is incredibly hard to have family or friends who support him and try to rationalize it and be a bridge between their world and the world he despises. The desire to be the reasonable middle is strong and often leads people to reflexively defend Trump and treat him as a serious person. There is a lot of virtue in being “moderate,” “independent,” and “bipartisan,” and a lot of currency in going around saying “I’m a Democrat, but…” Defending Trump offers a chance to be seen as unbiased and open minded.
In the end all this has done is give Trump far more leeway and more credibility than he deserves and helps keep him relevant and electable.
Despite your lucid answer to the question you posed, my answer is still "it beats me!" Love your writing.
I never underestimate the number of folks in the media/pundit class—even so-called progressives like Grim and Uygur—who want Trump back in power (he drives clicks, and being in the nominal opposition is much easier and simpler than actually leading). That said, I actually found it refreshing that one of Trump’s word salads *finally* broke through and sparked some backlash—I think (hope) that the axiom “If you’re explaining, you’re losing” still applies, even to him.
It’s gonna be a long seven months.