I was not going to write this post. Frankly, I read, hear, and talk enough
politics on a day-to-day basis that I don’t usually feel a need to express my
feelings on the matter in an online forum.
But that was before I realized that some people were defending Hillary
Clinton’s deplorables comment.
You can google hillary clinton deplorables comment defense
Not defending in the sense of saying it was a
misspeak, a mistake, a miscalculation, a shorthand phrase meant for the ears of
certain knowledgeable supporters only. Those
are not great defenses, but they are the ones open to most politicians who make
such gaffes. They are the defenses that
supporters of Romney used when he made his forty-seven percent comment, and
Obama supporters when he spoke of bitter clingers to guns and religion. The moments were revelatory of the candidates,
despite the attempted rollback from the blowback; but at the same time the
rollback was good to see. It told voters—undecided,
indifferent, or opposed—that while this candidate might not like or be like
them, the candidate and his supporters at least knew they had made a tactical
error in alienating people whom they ought
to respect, whether or not they actually did. It was comforting to realize that even if one
lost and was despised come November, one would at least be mostly, probably,
left alone: because there were enough other people like you (perhaps as much as
forty-seven percent!) to necessitate the ruling party’s respect.
The fact that Clinton supporters don’t feel as much
of a need to work this sort of rollback of her comments is profoundly troubling
to me. Let me explain, from the point of
view of an English major with a decent grounding in the art of rhetoric, why
precisely that is.
“You know, to just be
grossly generalistic, you could put half of
Trump’s supporters into
what I call the basket of deplorables, right?
The racist, sexist,
homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it.”
Racist. Using the
meter of myself and my friends (i.e., the Facebook circles in which I swim), I
would say that we generally take “racist” to imply a belief that people of a given
race or races are inferior to people of another race or races. This can get tricky when we ask what is meant
by inferior (if Africans run better than Caucasians, is that inferiority? if Asians
are better at Math, does that make them ubermenschen?). But common sense combined with a moderate
knowledge of history tells even the densest of us that “racism” is actually in
play when someone displays a belief that one group is genetically programmed in
virtue of their race to be morally and/or intellectually inferior to another. And that is in fact, my friends and I all
agree, a deplorable position to hold.
I don’t mean to intentionally muddy the waters on
this problem. Racism is a terrible
thing. And that makes it all the more terrible
that its meaning in casual conversation has extended to cover certain things—like
the use of “Redskin” for a sports team—when those things do not in fact meet
the definition of racism at all. It does
a grave disservice to real victims of racism to pretend that Dan Snyder is
obviously one. Practically speaking, it
makes it harder to persuade some people that racism is an actual problem (“Oh,
there’s no real racism around today—it’s all just silly stuff about Indian
names”); psychologically and morally speaking, it puts those offended by a word
some consider a compliment on the same level with those who find themselves
jobless, homeless, or dead because of racial discrimination—and that is deeply
problematic.
Sexist. “Sexist”
can mean almost anything. I may possibly
be sexist, despite being a woman, given the way I
have written about feminism. Once
again the definition should be clear: a sexist believes that people of one sex
are inferior to people of the other sex; more specifically, the term is usually
used to describe one who believes that women are inferior to men. And I would argue (from my position of
strength as a woman) that if someone holds that women are morally or
intellectually inferior to men, this is in fact a problem (also vice
versa). But is one sexist for pointing
out that women are inferior to men in regards to height and strength? For pointing out that men are better at
killing things that women are? For
pointing out that women are better at interpersonal communication? Likeness is not the same as equality, and
observation of dissimilarity is not always a sneer to be bridled at. Or at least, it should not be.
Homophobic. Following
the pattern of the definitions above, a homophobe would be one who believes
that people who feel homosexual inclinations and/or live a homosexual lifestyle
are inferior—morally and/or intellectually—to those who have not felt such inclinations and/or lived
such a lifestyle. Following its
etymology more closely, a homophobe would be one who is afraid of (or feels in
some sense threatened by) people who feel homosexual inclinations and/or live a
homosexual lifestyle.
But the word is certainly used more broadly than
that. Take yours truly, the baking of
cakes, and take my gay friend Taylor to construct some test cases. (Yes, I am thinking of a real person whom I
know moderately well; no, said person’s name is not Taylor.) I decide to put my mad baking skills to use
to sell the occasional coffeecake after Sunday Mass (let’s say only on the
fourth Sunday of the month, because I’m lazy like that) and tell my friends
that by the way, they can order a cake at other times too. Taylor calls me up and orders a birthday cake;
I bake it, and maybe if the party’s big enough, I’m over at his place to eat a
slice of it and help him celebrate another happy return. A month later Taylor calls me up and says he
wants a cake for [insert your favorite holiday]. No problemo; I bake the cake again and once
again find myself invited to Taylor’s party to help polish it off. Then Taylor calls me up and says he wants a
cake to celebrate his friend’s birthday.
I happen to know that the friend is a guy, and to know that he and
Taylor are romantically attached. I
happen to wish that they weren’t (because Catholic stuff), but I bake them the
cake because hey, its purpose is to celebrate a birthday. Then Taylor calls me up and says he wants a
cake to celebrate Valentine’s Day with this same friend. Now things are getting dicey: we’re not
celebrating people or random joyful
occasions anymore; we’re celebrating a day dedicated to romance. Still, plenty of people celebrate Valentine’s
Day in Platonic ways, and perhaps
that is the intention of my customer. I
bake the cake. At last Taylor calls me
up and says that he and his friend are getting married; and could I bake a cake
for their wedding? And because weddings
exist precise to celebrate the physical and romantic union of a couple—a physical
and romantic union which I believe is, in the case of two men or two women,
immoral, impossible, and not conducive to their happiness—I say no, I’m really
sorry, but I can’t bake a cake for this particular
event.
Let me make it very,
very clear that all of these scenarios
ARE hypothetical. I can’t see myself ever opening a bakery,
and “Taylor” is not
actually in a relationship, as far as I know.
In virtue of this last scenario, I suspect I am, by
the standards of many Clinton supporters, a homophobe—despite the fact that (a)
I don’t fit either of the definitions given above; (b) I still count myself
Taylor’s friend; (c) I have baked many cakes for Taylor and am quite happy to
bake many more, just not for this
occasion … And so this label worries me.
I can have all the good will in the world for Taylor and his friend, and
sincerely hope that they will be happy, and continue to spend time with
them. But because I can’t bring myself
in conscience to be involved with a particular one of their activities—I’m a
bad person?
Mutatis mutandis, the same kind of argument can be applied to the
final two terms of Hillary’s now (in)famous comment.
The truly frightening thing for me is that I’m just
not sure how much of the comment applies to me (though I can certainly
guess). With the Romney comment, I knew
that it didn’t apply; the Obama comment probably did.
Though I did not
literally own a gun at the time, I DID have
a certification as a
junior gun instructor, enjoyed shooting recreationally,
and had several family
members who owned guns;
for my religiosity, I
submit this blog as exhibit A.
With the Clinton comment, I suspect that I am convicted
on all or nearly all counts: I suspect I fit what she and those in the crowd at
that speech and perhaps many of her other supporters (but how many?) mean by
those words. But I’m not sure, because
unlike the Romney and Obama descriptions, off-the-cuff and colorful as they
were—
Well, Obama’s was; Romney is not a colorful
man, bless his heart.
—admitted of an obvious literal interpretation. Clinton’s rhetoric does not. I am not trying to be disingenuous. I am sure some of her supporters would happily
tar me with the deplorable brush, and possibly ride me out of town on a rail as
well, for the confessions made here (were it still socially acceptable to
execute such violent acts of ostracism).
I am sure others, reading my explanation, would agree that—funny thing!—they
are pretty nearly as deplorable as I am.
In other words, we have not one but two candidates
this year who aren’t particularly precise with their language. That’s no crime, to be sure. But it is deplorable, from my standpoint at
any rate, that there are at least some of Clinton’s supporters who in all
likelihood not only believe that I am a basket-case, but also see no need to
conciliate me in the event of her possible election. They don’t need me; they don’t want me. And if they win, they won’t listen to me. In the words of Touchstone, “Thou art in a
parlous state, shepherd!”
I know, I know—you were
expecting another deplorable joke.
the word. Shakespeare! the man with the largest ever
English
vocabulary! (It was HUGE, mon frère.) Proof positive,
at least for
your humble servant, that
deplorable ultimately lacks concrete
meaning.
