It's Perfectly Fine to Label Most Trump Voters Racists

Wikimedia Commons

I have heard may people whom I often agree with saying that we should not label all Trump voters as racists.  Maybe not all Trump voters, but most are completely indifferent to racism.  The Trump voters who think racism is disgusting but voted for him anyway are either:

1.  Completely ignorant of who Trump is and politics generally.
2.  View other positions as more important than letting a racist faithfully execute our constitution, in which case...Fuck you.

Voting is not an abstraction.  Voting is not equivalent to speech.  Each vote is the expression of a very small amount of power.  Trump is a man who through both actions and words has left no doubt in my mind that he is a racist.  Therefore, if you voted for a man that was running a campaign based primarily on bigotry, racism, xenophobia, and nationalism, then you have enabled all those things.  I do not care if what was deep in your heart had more to do with tax cuts, the outcome is racist and is having an effect before Trump even assumes office.

Do I think Paul Ryan believes black people are inferior human beings?  No, probably not more than most people, but I also think that does not matter because has helped enable Trump's rise to power.  I was taught that actions speak louder than words...  So guess what?  Voting is an action.  If you voted for Trump for reasons other than bigotry, you are still saying that those other reasons are more important than the freedom and dignity of your fellow humans.

Most of the white people in the era of lynching in the South were normal, as were most of the people in Nazi Germany who looked the other way as Jews were sent to concentration camps.  The fact that lynch-mobs and Nazis were largely normal citizens does not mean that they were not culpable.

It's Time to Start Writing Your Congressional Delegation

I wrote the below letter tonight and I urge everyone to follow suit.  You are free to copy the letter and modify it as needed for yourself, but it would be better for you to deliver the message in your own words.  The coming days, weeks, months, and years will require action and a lot of letter writing.  A few things about contacting your elected officials:

• Snail mail gets way more attention than an email.
• Be courteous but clear.
• Provide contact information.
• It's best if possible to reference legislation that is up for debate.
• Proofread.
• Find members of your congressional delegation here:  https://www.congress.gov/members

 November 12, 2016

Senator Patrick Leahy

87 State Street, Room 338

Montpelier, VT 05602

(802) 229-0569

Dear Senator Leahy,

Like many Americans, I am outraged by the election of Donald Trump as our next president. Republican obstructionism has prevented any meaningful legislation that benefits the middle class in President Obama’s second term and now we have elected a neo-fascist.

I am urging you along with the rest of Vermont’s congressional delegation to return the favor to the Republicans with the same full-throated opposition and obstruction.  I hope you will urge President Obama to make Merrick Garland a recess appointment.  I understand that this may trigger a constitutional crisis, but these are extraordinary circumstances.

I want every piece of legislation favored by the Trump administration and a Paul Ryan led house to be filibustered.  I want investigations whenever there is the slightest hint of wrongdoing.  In short:  No quarter should be offered and no olive branch extended.   

I am 32 years old, I have voted in every election since I was 18, I am a state employee and a taxpayer.  This will be my generation's fight and it will take years to undo the damage that is likely to take place.  Please fight, this is my future. and you will be dead from old age while I am dealing with the consequences of this election.

Sincerely,

Andrew M

Being a Nice Guy Isn't a Qualification for Governor

By all accounts, Phil Scott the Republican candidate for Governor of the State of Vermont, is a fairly moderate Republican.  Scott seems to be pro-choice, pro-LGBT, not adamantly against social programs, and acknowledges the existence of global warming.  There are however, a number of economic issues where Scott more or less tows the line ideologically for national Republicans.  I've read Scott's economic plan several times and a number of things strike me:

• Firstly, despite being 40 pages long the plan contains very little detail.  Scott outlines a number of vague policy proposals, some free-market buzz words, and a number of pictures of Scott and his family, but there is very little in the way of concrete proposals likely to create growth.  There are also a number of proposals that would presumably cost money, but there are no dollar figures attached to these policies nor any mention of how they will be paid for.
• Scott frequently mentions the increased spending that has occurred under outgoing Governor Peter Shumlin, but this spending is mostly the result of increased healthcare costs and increased pension payouts.  Scott hasn't said what he would cut but he has said he won't raise taxes.  This position necessarily demands that cuts take place so he would either have to gut pensions or cut spending in state government.  Cuts to state government would likely have the consequences of shrinking growth further, increasing unemployment, increasing downward pressure on wages, and cause further dysfunction within state government.
• Nowhere in his plan does Scott demand anything of employers.  He opposes increases to the minimum wage under the disproven notion that a higher minimum wage will drive up unemployment (it should also be noted that Vermont has an unemployment rate well below the national average).  He also says paid sick leave should be "voluntary" which it is now and would have no effect on exactly the jobs where there needs to be paid sick leave.
• Oddly, when it comes to the legalization of marijuana, a policy which would at the very least bring in some new revenue, Scott opposes it, saying it's not about money.  The "this isn't about money" standard is something Scott applies to none of his other policies.   The longer we wait on the legalization of marijuana, a policy with relatively few drawbacks and is inevitable at this point, the less economic benefit it will provide the state.

The biggest economic issue Vermont faces is the aging of the workforce and the shrinking of the tax base.  Things like providing a couple years of free community or technical college as Sue Minter is proposing would help bring and keep young people here.  An increased minimum wage would increase economic activity among the part of the workforce where it has the most room to grow and also decrease the pressure on college graduates to immediately find a job that can pay well (most likely out of state).  Scott also initially opposed taking in refugees and then reversed course.  Apart from the morality of this, it makes no sense economically.  These refugees have skills, the desire to work, and where immigration like this has happened like in Lewiston, Maine, it has been a boon to the local economy.

Scott seems like a good guy, but the policies that he is proposing work against the ends he purportedly wants.  I don't care if my governor is a nice guy, I want good policy.