Trump is Ramping-Up for the 2020 Election and Its Getting Very Racist

You can definitely expect a lot of this kind of “presidential” rhetoric over the course of the next fifteen months as Donald Trump ramps up his re-election campaign.  He won on white nationalism in 2016 and he will try to do it again.  Trump is a racist and a xenophobe.

It is also worth noting that Robert Mueller will be testifying soon and Trump needs a distraction.

And let’s not forget this:

According to Trump, the members of “The Squad” do not just disagree with him politically, but they are also racially inferior because they come from the wrong countries.   Wow!  It almost sounds like these congresswomen came from Germany (18th-century), Ireland (19th-century) or Italy and China (20th-century). “Go back to where you came from.”

Read more at The Washington Post.

27 thoughts on “Trump is Ramping-Up for the 2020 Election and Its Getting Very Racist

  1. What came up in conversation this weekend was “Trump’s a New Yorker. New York City all the way. Have you ever run into a New Yorker? Rude, Crude, and Loud.”

    Plus he came out of the big-money NYC Real Estate whirl, which is as corrupt as Chicago Politics.

    Like

  2. This ties in with something I read in Time (yeah, Fake News Disinformation Source) a couple weeks ago:

    Trump’s 2020 strategy is to whip The Base into a bigger frenzy of fanaticism and ignore everyone else.

    Risky, but lends itself to a Second Amendment Solution(TM) to a Conspiracy-rigged Election fallback if it fails.

    Like

  3. Commenters: We have come to a point where we have commentators on this blog who want to defend the idea that what Trump said about these four congresswomen is not racist. In fact, we have people on this blog who actually want to defend the president and essentially see nothing wrong with what he said. In my view, as the proprietor of this blog, I have spent too long studying and teaching American history (including U.S. immigrant history) to not see Trump’s comments as anything but deeply racist and nativist.

    I am happy to have people defend Trump’s policies here, and my blog has always been a place for diverse voices, but this racist tweet (and Trump’s doubling-down on the tweet today) is not politics as usual. It is not a point of debate. If you want to defend Trump’s racist tweets or any other appeals he has made to the racism of many in his base, I can no longer approve your comments.

    Like

  4. James: This response is ignorant on so many levels. How do you interpret a president telling four women of color to “go back to where you came from?” James, you seem to claim to know something about American history. Well, this “go back to your country” has been used over and over again throughout U.S. history to keep people who were not white out of this country. The Irish (which the Anglos did not believe were white); the Chinese, the Italians (especially Southern Italians), Muslims, Hispanics, etc… These comments by Trump are nativist and racist. For you to suggest that this is just about politics tells that you have your head in the sand. How far you will go to defend this president, James?

    Like

  5. Again, Alex: you know how to reach me. If you’re genuinely interested in a discussion, I’m game. If you want to keep sniping at me on John’s blog, feel free, but most back and forths with you are unproductive in this setting. Have a good evening.

    Like

  6. That accusation seems a little tone deaf considering how much grace you’ve used in interpreting Trump’s comments about minorities.

    Like

  7. James, you ARE aware of the history of phrases about “going back to where you came from” aren’t you?
    How it’s been directed at African Americans for instance even if their family had been here for many generations.
    What does it mean to speak to a person who was born in the USA and tell them to go back to where they came from if it’s not based on a racial identity?

    Like

  8. It was a pugilistic racist rant then. Maybe it was pugilistic politics but certainly not “simply” about pugilistic politics.

    Like

  9. Trump’s message used a strongly historically racist phrase. He either does have a racist bone or two or is ignorant of the history of racist attitudes and language used to convey racists attitudes. (and just happened to state a racist sentiment somehow by mistake without meaning it!). Since Trump is not much of a reader and doesn’t seem very knowledgeable about much of the history of the country he claims to love, both options are possible.
    But with Trump, somehow his followers find a way to defend the indefensible. Why must it be so?

    Like

  10. Alex: do I detect just a hint, a tinge, a scintilla of sarcasm? I’d be more than happy to discuss this with you off line.

    Like

  11. We’re starting to see numerous leaders from the GOP condemning Trump’s comments. Can you keep track of how many court evangelicals condemn Trump’s comments? And maybe how many defend it or try to rationalize it away?

    Like

  12. Tony,

    Those were great examples of the promiscuous use of racial terminology used in lieu of genuine and honest dialogue. Old school New Deal liberals used to be able to hold their own rhetorically in their efforts to advance their cause. This current crop of left wing activists, however, either are unable to debate their views or are too lazy to do the requisite supporting research. It is much easier to label opponents as racists and then blithely go on to the next speaking engagement.

    James

    Like

  13. Oh, I’m surprised. You seem to have such an interest in the topic of race. And the elders were all asked to consider it. I just assumed you’d have jumped at the opportunity.

    Like

  14. Not a trainee. Had I been, depending on the topic under discussion, I certainly would have raised those points, and perhaps many others.

    Like

  15. “Why single out these Congresswomen in particular?”

    They have singled themselves out. The media endlessly promote them as a “young, charismatic, visionary” crew. They are the Four Exceptionally Woke Musketeers. (I suspect musketeers is now sexist.) They are stridently and radically left wing. So much so that they are now embroiled in an intra-party fight with that noted moderate from San Fran, Nancy Pelosi, who is desperately trying to keep middle America from associating the D party with the views of these ladies, because that way lies electoral disaster. In fact, AOC has called Pelosi a, wait for it … racist. Omar and Tlaib have the additional appeal of being open anti-Semites. And what did they call critics who dared to point this out? You get one guess: racists.

    This is about ideology, not race. But look: in our mad, mad world where talking about Obama golfing was racist, and using the terms “welfare” or “food stamps” is racist, and calling oneself an “owner” of an NBA franchise — when one, in fact, owns the team — is racist, and opposing affirmative action is racist, and wearing an unapproved, culturally appropriating Halloween costume is racist, and supporting deportation of illegal aliens is racist (indeed, even using the words illegal and alien in combination is racist), and trying to prevent someone from shoplifting from your bakery is racist (a jury made clear to Oberlin College what they thought of that argument) and on and on, ad infinitum — well, off course, this has to be racist, too.

    True racism is vile. Calling everything racist trivializes actual instances of racism.

    Like

  16. Dave H.

    Trump did not mention race one time. The media has introduced it into the narrative. Again, these women spend more time advocating causes associated with foreign rather than U.S. interests. In principle they are no different than the late 1930s Bund members, some of whom were born in Germany and some of whom were born in the U.S. They use their podiums to attack American interests. Race is irrelevant. What positive patriotic remarks do they make?

    You asked why Trump does not attack the Democrats as a whole. He does. Just follow his tweets for a week. Come to think of it, he recently had some rather uncomplimentary things to say about Paul Ryan, a white Republican.

    James

    Like

  17. The tweets are clear. Trump specifically says that these Congresswomen “who originally came from” these other countries (which is outright false for most of them, as they were born in America) are guilty of telling the people of the United States how to run their country. Guess what? Every single doggone member of Congress is in the practice of advocating policy and deciding how the country should be run. Why single out these Congresswomen in particular? If he has an issue with their political views, why not attack the whole Democratic party, or the whole subset of it that has the specific views he opposes? but instead he specifically attacked women of minority ethnic heritage and said “they” shouldn’t be telling “us” (the people of the United States, as if these Congresswomen are not themselves people of the United States) how things should be run. Sorry, this is not reading racism into Trump’s tweet. It is as clear as day. You can gloss over it all you want, defend it, accuse everyone criticizing it of playing the race card. But it is what it is.

    I don’t see the comparability to the Bund supporters. The Congresswomen Trump targeted represent various ethnic groups: Puerto Rican (by the way, a US territory), Somali, Palestinian, African-American (if Pressley was one of those being called out). This is a wide swath of very diverse ethnic backgrounds, they are not a single ethnic bloc promoting a specific foreign national government as the German-American Bund supporters were. In Trump’s view, the sin of these Congresswomen is having the unmitigated gall to tell **us* how we should run *our* country.

    Like

  18. Dave: not buying what you are selling on this issue. This concept of “inherent racism” (translation: we can’t really point out the racist language, but we know it’s there, because we know racists and we know what they actually think this means) is not only conveniently malleable, it has been subject to indefinite expansion.

    To be clear: I’m not calling those who assert that this is racist to be engaging in racism. I’m claiming they are engaging in cynical political opportunism.

    Like

  19. Dave H.

    Tony and I cannot comment on your particular community. From my perspective (and I also possibly speak for Tony), it has nothing to do with the color of the vocal left wing Congresswomen and instead has everything to do with their blind ingratitude at the privilege of living in a tolerant democracy rather than the second and third world countries with which they proudly seem to identify.

    Let’s put it another way, Dave. During the late 1930s the German-American Bund was vocally supporting NAZI Germany at rallies within the USA. If patriotic Americans asked these Bund supporters to return to Germany, would that also have been racist? In my opinion, opposition to dangerous foreign ideologies is ideological and not racial.

    Like

  20. Sorry, but I live in an area which has historically been very prone to racism, and when people say of racial minorities that they should “go back to where they came from,” they are ABSOLUTELY stating a racist point of view. I hear people making those statements so often. It always reflects the sentiment that “They” are not *real* Americans like “Us” and don’t belong here, with the “Us/Them” dividing line being ethnicity. As was the case with Trump’s tweet, people who make these statements typically don’t see anything other than the ethnicity of the person (three of the four referenced minority Congresswomen are native-born, so “going back to where they came from” would in fact be back to American towns and cities, not to the foreign countries Trump so detests). The people making these statements see only the ethnicity and say, “not one of Us.”

    If you can’t see the inherent racism in what Trump said (or, even worse, if you are ascribing racism (playing the race card!) to those who do see racism in the tweet), then I don’t even know what to say to you. But I guarantee you that the people around me who harbor racist sentiments read and know EXACTLY what Trump was saying with this tweet, because they themselves say it all the time.

    Like

  21. James: I read Trump’s tweet about 4 times. John claims Trump said the members of the Squad are “racially inferior.” Wut? Was that in an angry footnote that I missed? No, I’m sorry, but the tweet says nothing of the sort. John (and, of course, the media) basically made this up. At this point, it is received wisdom for them: Trump is a racist, ergo, things he says with which we disagree are also racist. What? You expect us to point out precisely what the racist statement is? Why are you defending racism?

    When everything is racism nothing is.

    I happen to think this was a foolish tweet. (First of all, AOC grew up in a leafy NY suburb.) I think many of Trump’s incessant tweets are foolish, petty, ill-informed and needlessly provocative. But to him, that last characteristic is a feature. He knows that the Pavlovian MSM, which exists to hate him, cannot resist responding and almost always with this kind of over-the-top denunciation and outright fabrication that makes them look more foolish and nakedly partisan than Trump. (Remember 4th of July Armageddon? Tanks on the mall! Incipient tyranny! Chill, fascist winds a-blowin’! White supremacist cats and dogs living together! Um, nevermind.)

    Like

  22. True to form Trump’s adversaries introduce race into this story which is simply about pugilistic politics; but it fits the jaded liberal narrative. Mueller failed them so it’s back to the race card. Can’t they be more creative?

    Like

Comments are closed.