So, there’s an idea that has been circulating since the election that has recently gotten even more steam about why this president won the election–it’s because liberals were mean to the base of the Republicans, and if only we were nicer, then they wouldn’t have had to lash out like that. This is not a new idea as it’s repeated every time the Democrats lose. Funnily enough, when Dems win, then the mantra is, “This doesn’t give you a mandate to skew left; you have to govern all of America.” It would be hilarious if it didn’t have such dire consequence, the underlying thesis that no matter what, we have to be concerned about disenfranchised white people’s feelings. It’s something I’ve heard before, but it’s redoubled after this president’s was elected. If liberals had been nicer to Trump supporters, so the story goes, then they wouldn’t have been forced to vote for a fearful, narcissistic, ignorant, childish, and spiteful asswipe like Trump. This narrative continues as a cautionary tale against the protests–be careful. You’re pissing off Trump supporters, therefore, making them more likely to support Trump.
If you’re a member of a minority group, you hear this rhetoric all the time. “Bring up your concerns in a polite and considerate way lest you upset the people you’re talking to.” It’s always baffled me how the main concern is for the comfort of the oppressor. I do understand that it’s hard to change someone’s mind by yelling at them, but that doesn’t mean you should swallow your anger and acquiesce to whatever bullshit is heaped upon your head. In addition, one of my problems with the angst over someone like Richard Spencer, the white supremacist, getting punched is that he gets portrayed as the victim who has been punched unprovoked. I won’t tread that ground again, but I would like to expand on it in the light of this meme.
Conservatives like to think of themselves as victims or martyrs. You can see it in their belief that Christians are being persecuted in this country because someone has the audacity to say ‘Happy Holidays’ to them instead of ‘Merry Christmas’ or because they can’t refuse to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple. They think it’s persecution if someone calls them a bigot for not supporting marriage equality, and nothing anyone can say to the contrary can move them from their self-righteousness. I understand as it’s human nature to get defensive when you perceive something as an attack, but it’s also the tactic a tyrant/dictator/bully uses in order to keep their victims in line. A certain type of abuser abuses their victim repeatedly until the victim snaps and fights back. Then, the abuser reacts as if they’re the one who has been victimized, which further keeps the victim under their thumb.
There’s the assumption that all actions are equal. Before I explain what I mean, I need to talk about Milo Yiannopoulos, a gay white supremacist British troll who has made a lot of money by pissing off liberals. He was involved in GamerGate, which I definitely do not want to talk about, but then branched out into dumping off all sorts of minority groups, including transpeople, feminists, Leslie Jones, and anyone else who he decided would be a fun victim. He’s a dime a dozen, but for some reason, he’s risen in the ranks in the white supremacist world (so-called alt-right, but I refuse to dignify them with that name) and is famous for being a troll. What’s really frustrating is that he’s a horrid speaker who is clearly saying shit just to offend people. Any time I watch him speak, I can tell he’s thinking, “Oooh, I’m so edgy and anti-liberal and saying all the things they’ll hate!” I can’t even get mad at what he’s saying because he’s fucking ignorant and can’t put together a coherent sentence. The first time I saw him, I thought he was in his early twenties or younger because he was so immature. When I found out he’s in his thirties (now thirty-three), I couldn’t believe it. It didn’t help that he was treated like a precocious but maladjusted kid who just had some growing up to do.
Tangential but still pertinent: Trayvon Martin was a seventeen-year old kid who was treated as a grownup responsible for his own murder. Same with twelve-year-old Tamir Rice. Black kids are often viewed as older and scarier than they are, whereas white kids are kept kids for as long as possible. I bring this up because Milo is not a kid, even if he has the emotional maturity of one. He is a grown-ass man who knows exactly what he’s doing. That doesn’t mean he won’t change one day and grow the fuck up, but it does mean that he should be held accountable for what he says and does.
Anyway, he was slated to speak at CPAC this week. Remember, he’s not a politician, and he doesn’t even really talk much about politics. His only claim to fame, remember, is that he pisses off liberals. Now, we all know that’s what CPAC is about, but they’re usually not this blatant about it. In addition, they’re nominally pro-Christian values, blah, blah, blah, and that’s not something Milo has any interest in at all. Some conservatives were unhappy he was invited to speak, supposedly because he’s gay*, and they unearthed an interview in which he was talking about being sexually abused by a priest and appeared to be supporting molestation of minors. Suddenly, all the people who supported him or weren’t perturbed by his other egregious bullshit drew the line. The one that really stuck out in my mind was this one by Kurt Eichenwald:
I found Milo amusing, provocative, w/ some good points (some were nuts.) But conservs defending what he said on yung teens are frigging evil
— Kurt Eichenwald (@kurteichenwald) February 20, 2017
Kurt Eichenwald is a renowned journalist and writer, and I’m not trying to pick on him because others have echoed the sentiment, but it’s just a prime example of being laissez-faire about someone’s horribleness if it doesn’t directly affect you. Eichenwald found Milo amusing and provocative, which isn’t exactly how you describe someone who’s dangerous to others–which Milo is. In talking about sexual harassment on campus, he said rape claims are made up and that if a woman talks about getting her breast grabbed, she’s really bragging about being sexually attractive. He said it’s rude, but it’s not a reason to ruin a man’s life. When the horrified radio host pointed out it’s assault, Milo got indignant and said it wasn’t. I don’t even want to get into what he’s said about transwomen or Leslie Jones. He’s doxed people and encouraged his followers to do the same. In other words, he’s been a piece of shit and dangerous to people for many years.
With the pushback, CPAC has rescinded their invitation. Simon & Schuster has canceled his book. And there are some people who are clicking their tongues that denying him these platforms will only embolden him and his ilk further. To which I say, who the fuck cares if it does? I’m not disagreeing that it might. I’m also not disagreeing that people who support this president are probably hunkering down because of all the opposition to this president and the protests. The thing is, they are the ones who chose to support a dangerous demagogue, and it’s not my responsibility to coddle them out of their delusions.
Back to my point about equal actions. Some people who are mad about the backlash to Milo or the punching of Richard Spencer think that to deny them their platforms is akin to bullying them. It’s the old, “Do you want to become the thing you hate?” conundrum, except, it isn’t. Milo and his ilk have been espousing white supremacy, anti-feminist rhetoric, anti-transpeople rhetoric, PUA bullshit, and other unsavory and sometimes illegal ideas/behavior for years across various platforms. It’s a violence in and of itself, and it’s understandable if a violent reaction is evoked. Add to that the iniquity of power between white (mostly straight) men and, well, everyone they’re harming, and it’s easier to understand why I’m not too concerned about Milo being denied a platform for his manufactured hatred or Richard Spencer being punched. Things do not happen in a vacuum, and actions (and words) have consequences.
This can also apply to my intro paragraph about how the liberals are making Trump supporters have to double-down–these are not equal actions. For many reasons, the Republicans are seen as the normal Americans whereas Democrats are considered the freaks and the geeks. So, no matter if the Republicans are in charge or the Democrats are, the Dems are ordered to make nice with the Republicans. Can you imagine if we had just as many articles telling rural conservatives to have dinner parties with liberals and to try to win US over? Yeah, no, me, either. In part it’s because Republicans vote in lock-step whereas Democrats are more flaky (in general), but it’s more because even in 2017, the working class white guy is still the mythical middle American.
I don’t think the way to win in 2020 or even 2018 is to skew more to the right. I think it would be better if Democrats offered a clear alternative to the nightmare that is the current Republican Party and to demonstrate to the people on the fringes that they (the Dems) are going to fight for the underdog. I don’t feel responsible for the election of this president, and I bristle at the idea that the reason he was elected is because I didn’t coddle the bigots in their bigotry. I’ve put up with the isms of America for forty-plus years so far and will probably have to do it for the rest of my life. Do not ask me to do it with a smile on my face or to make nice with the ones doing it–that’s a bridge too fucking far.
*It’s hard to be a gay white supremacist out there, amirite?