 |
 |
If Bernie Sanders wants to say that Fidel Castro occasionally did something good, while acknowledging that he often did things that were very bad, I think that’s a reasonable position. (It might also be reasonable to say that Adolf Hitler occasionally did something good, though offhand I can’t think of a good example.)
But surely — surely — if it’s reasonable to say this about Castro, then it’s enormously more reasonable to say that there were good people among the protestors in Charlottesville, Virginia, while acknowledging that there were also some very bad people. Because I have not the slightest shred of a doubt that the fraction of people on either side of that Charlottesville protest who were basically good is enormously greater than the fraction of Castro’s policies that were basically good.
You might want to argue that it’s not okay to acknowledge any goodness at all in a Hitler or a Castro or a large crowd of people that includes some number of violent neo-Nazis. I wouldn’t agree with you, because I think it’s always okay to acknowledge anything that happens to be true. But if that’s your position, you have to decide where to draw the line, and if you draw the line in a way that puts Trump beyond the pale, then Sanders is way beyond the pale.
In other words, I see how you can excommunicate both of them, I see how you can excommunicate just Sanders, and I see how you can excommunicate neither. My preference is neither. If your preference is otherwise, we can cheerfully disagree. But if you want to excommunicate just Trump, I’m very skeptical that you’re applying anything like a consistent standard. Feel free to prove me wrong in comments.
Nazi Germany significantly expanded the autobahn, does that count?
I recall that one of Hitler’s first acts as chancellor was to clean up the factories, especially to rid them of rats. This apparently positive act was followed by unfortunate generalizations, of course.
” then it’s enormously more reasonable to say that there were good people among the protestors in Charlottesville, ”
This is your mistake.
First, Trump specifically referred to news reports from “the night before.” Pretty much the only thing reported was the Tiki torch march, where there were very few “good people” shouting “blood and soil” and “Jews will not replace us.” The only good people were the small group of counter-protesters who had linked arms around a statue of Jefferson.
There were not that many good people the next day. It was an alt-right march and heavily populated by racists and neo-Nazis. There were not that many “ordinary” protesters, as had been seen at other Confederate statue protests.
Trump did not just say that some people who oppose removing monuments were “good people.” He was specifically and pointedly refusing to condemn neo-Nazis, one of whom had just murdered someone, because those that oppose them were, in his opinion, just as bad.
Context is very important. It changes the message you send by choosing what not to say. If, say Castro had just killed several dissidents and Sanders said when asked to condemn him for this said “he also does good things.” I would think he was defending Castro against the criticism and dismally failing to condemn him for those actions. He would be sending a message that Castro does not need to be challenged so much for his murders because he does good things as well.
If he comments, after Castro has been dead for years, that he did good things, that is not sending the same message. He can also specifically name the good things – literacy and healthcare, which are almost universally agreed to be good things. Is he defending Castro? Yes, in part. Is it as bad as refusing to condemn Nazi murderers the day after? Nowhere near.
Your use of Hitler in this context is telling. He is the poster child for someone you cannot praise. Yet I think you could now say he did some nice paintings without universal condemnation. If you as President had been asked the day after the Liberation of Bergen-Belsen what you thought of Hitler and you said “I think he did some nice paintings”, well, I think you can see the problem. Context matters.
This isn’t just a Republican/Democrat thing. The Republican National Committee managed to do it. They said they were “unified in revulsion at the abhorrent white supremacists demonstration in Charlottesville … We urge swift and certain justice be meted out to domestic terrorists and groups aiding and abetting through the propagation of hateful ideology.”
The racists were certainly very pleased by Trump’s comments. They felt they had been supported, which a statement like the the National Committee’s would not have done.
Harold: Trump did not just say that some people who oppose removing monuments were “good people.” He was specifically and pointedly refusing to condemn neo-Nazis…
Which part of “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally” did you not understand?
IIRC the Nazis also instituted some animal rights reforms. I also find their anti-smoking stance to be a good one, but YMMV.
Just because Mark Anthony said he came to bury Caesar, not to praise him did not stop him praising Caesar, with significant (if fictionalized) consequences.
Steve, he says one thing at one time and another thing another time. Even if those times are only seconds apart. The fact that he contradicts himself should not come as a surprise. Consistency is not something to expect from Trump.
People who don’t like racism have no problem at all in condemning the Charlottesville rally. It was branded as a racist, white nationalist rally well before it took place. One of the organisers (Andrew Anglin) said of it:
“Although the rally was initially planned in support of the Lee Monument, which the Jew Mayor and his Negroid Deputy have marked for destruction, it has become something much bigger than that. It is now an historic rally, which will serve as a rallying point and battle cry for the rising Alt-Right movement.”
Trump says the people were good people, even though they were overwhelmingly white nationalists. Then he says he says he condemns white-nationalists, whilst saying this particular group of them contained fine people. What message do people take away? Everybody can take away a different message if they want.
There are two broad options I can see.
1) Trump is a racist and bigot, or who wishes to appeal to racists and bigots, who knows he can’t quite get away with saying it out loud, so hedges his bets by refusing to do what most other people have done and condemn the fascists clearly and unequivocally.
2) Trump is a cautious and strictly fair person who will always point out both sides of an argument, and only after careful consideration. He is reluctant to broadly condemn, even when most of the fault lies with one side, out of an exaggerated sense of fairness where some innocent people may be wrongly labelled through association.
I mean, it is not that hard. You can interpret his equivocation and “both sides” rhetoric as being strictly true, but it does not make sense with the Trump track record that he is adhering to this particular truth out of respect for truth generally.
Overall, I will withdraw the particular phrasing you quote. He was refusing to condemn these neo-nazis and white supremacists, whilst claiming to condemn them generally.
Harold: He was refusing to condemn these neo-nazis and white supremacists, whilst claiming to condemn them generally.
Actually, he was quite specifically condemning these in particular.
I certainly agree that Trump frequently says things that are reprehensible. I continue to disagree that this was one of those occasions.
You appear to be asserting that virtually all those present were in fact white nationalists (and implicitly asserting that Trump was aware of this fact). I’m not aware that this is true, or known to be true. It certainly seems implausible, as I’m quite sure that there were many people in the area who don’t fit that description but did care about retaining the statue and might plausibly have shown up at a rally to express that preference.
If your point is that President Trump frequently engages in indefensible rhetoric, then I agree with you, and I share your repulsion. But this does not seem to me to have been an occasion that fits that pattern. Quite the opposite, in fact: When I watch the video, he seems to me to be remarkably even-handed and even (as I think Bob Murphy has said) downright presidential. If he could adopt that demeanor more often, I’d feel enormously better about him.
I think this is contrasting apples and oranges.
Imagine this alternative scenario:
Trump2 says about Charlottesville, “Some people on both sides have done some good things.”
Sanders2 says, “Fidel Castro wad a good person.”
I think it’s pretty clear that Trump2 is plausibly correct, while Sanders2 is clearly wrong.
The assessment of whether or not someone is a “good person” is not unrelated to the assessment of whether they have done good things, but it’s not identical to it.
“You appear to be asserting that virtually all those present were in fact white nationalists (and implicitly asserting that Trump was aware of this fact). I’m not aware that this is true, or known to be true. It certainly seems implausible”
Implausible or not, in this case it is true.
Unite the Right was explicitly organized and branded as a far-right, racist, and white supremacist event by far-right racist white supremacists. This was clear for months before the march actually occurred. The organisers and advertised speakers were a list of white nationalists and racists*. This was not a peaceful protest about the statues that somehow got out of hand. It was designed as a demonstration of white nationalist power.
Jason Kessler [the organizer] said before the event “the number one thing is I want to destigmatize Pro-White advocacy. … I want a huge, huge crowd, and that’s what we’re going to have, to come out and support not just the Lee monument but also white people in general, because it is our race which is under attack.”
A police affidavit before the event listed expected attendees, including 150+ Alt Knights and 250-500 Klu Klux Klan.
The Tiki torch march referred to by Trump the night before was not a mixed bag of peaceful marchers with a few extremists. It consisted of people marching and chanting racist stuff loudly. Any very fine person would have got the hell out of that march.
The Daily Stormer created a poster to advertise the march. It said “UNITE THE RIGHT. Join Azzmador and The Daily Stormer to end Jewish influence in America.”
Trump initially said he did not comment sooner because he wanted to get the facts before he did. He specifically referred to “the night before” when the Tiki torch march happened. He described that march as “people protesting very quietly.” He cannot reasonably claim he did not know.
There have been many peaceful protests about the statues by people who may not be racists. This was not one of them. This was a demonstration by the far right that they could gather in public due to the growing support for their cause. That was the stated purpose of the rally.
There is a court case progressing, Sine vs Kessler, alleging a conspiracy to commit violence. This is a high bar to pass, given First Amendment rights to free speech. The plaintiffs are attempting to demonstrate that the records of public comments amount to a conspiracy to commit violence. So far it has not been thrown out, indicating a substantial amount of evidence to back it up. Even if it does not eventually pass the legal hurdle, the evidence is clear that these were not “fine people.”
* The poster for the event said
“march on Charlottesville, VA!
Unite the Right,
August 12th Lee Park
Richard Spencer, Mike Enoch, Jason Kessler, Baked Alaska, Augustus Invictus, Christopher Cantwell, Matt Heimbach, Johnny Monoxide, Pax Dickinson and Michael Hill.
You may not be familiar with these people, but they are basically a list of white supremacists.
Harold: My impression has been that the crowd of protestors was considerably more diverse than what you’re describing, and that the “Unite the Right” crowd showed up partly in hopes that they’d be conflated with the more peaceful protestors, making their numbers appear larger.
If my impression is wrong and yours is right (and if Trump knew this), that puts a very different spin on things.
I am suspicious of getting information from bloggers and Youtubers, but there is an informative video by Shaun on the rally which is worth a look. The Police do not come out looking too good.
Harold, you keep referring to the Unite the Right organizers, but they left the scene when the event was canceled. You say that there were not many ordinary protesters, but there were some, and there would have been more if the event had not been canceled.
Also, you are mixing nationalists, white nationalists, white supremacists, and neo-nazis. It has become common to lump all these together, but there are differences.
Sanders once said, “I don’t mind people coming up and calling me a communist.” He doesn’t do much to disassociate himself from communism.
Personally I don’t find it terribly reasonable or insightful to try to sift out the supposed “good parts” of a *package* that has done so much harm.
In fact before we can even call it “good” don’t we have to ask (as I’ve learned in part from this blog) if the Cuban people were allowed to choose would they rather read or eat? Would they rather have other basic necessities met or have doctors working as cab drivers / exported to other countries?
BTW according to Wiki, Cuba had the 4th highest literacy rate in Latin America and the 11th-highest number of doctors per capita in the world before Castro. Quite plausible that was closer to optimal in the bigger picture. And apparently some participants recalled the real goal of the literacy program being to facilitate brainwashing propaganda. All of which makes me inclined to consider Sanders’ statement as criminally foolish.
“you keep referring to the Unite the Right organizers, but they left the scene when the event was canceled.”
Quite the opposite. They refused a police escort to the rally which would have got them safely in at about 10am. they then attempted to enter the park (through the wrong entry point, but that was the fault of the police) *after* the gathering had been declared unlawful. Video shows at least some of them trying to enter the park at about noon. The assembly was declared unlawful at 11:31.
“You say that there were not many ordinary protesters, but there were some,” I am sure there were some. It does not really change anything.
“Also, you are mixing nationalists, white nationalists, white supremacists, and neo-nazis.” Nor the KKK. You are correct. I have made little attempt to distinguish between them, except I did not mention nationalists which means lots of different things.
“Sanders once said, “I don’t mind people coming up and calling me a communist.” He doesn’t do much to disassociate himself from communism.”
If only Trump were so honest.
iceman (#13): points extremely well taken.
“Never say, ‘he is a thief.’ But, rather, ‘he stole,’ for otherwise you condemn his whole life.” Dorotheus of Gaza a/k/a Abba Dorotheus (505-565 CE), Eastern Christian abbot.
I find little merit in categorizing a person as good or bad, let alone categorizing a group of people. I think this practice typically does more harm than good. I favor the practice of evaluating a person’s actions or attributes.
Sanders talked about the merits of Castro’s actions. I did not understand his remarks as encouraging people to lionize Castro. Rather, I understood him to invite people to distinguish between policies taken by Castro. Castro engaged in political repression and also (allegedly) promoted literacy. Sanders encourages us to resist a known cognitive bias (“halo effect”) of letting our opinion about one action or attribute influence our opinion about the person’s other actions or attributes.
On the other hand, Trump has a regrettable habit of opining on the merits of individuals and groups without reference to specific actions or attributes. I read his remarks as encouraging people to lionize or condemn these individuals or groups.
Sanders is almost 80 years old, and he has been making comments sympathetic to Communists his entire life. Trump has never said anything sympathetic to Nazis or neo-Nazis.
Oh? And what about when Trump tweeted “Covfefe”?
As White House press secretary Sean Spicer remarked, “I think the president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant.” And which small group of people do you suppose he’s talking about, hmmm…?
“As White House press secretary Sean Spicer remarked..” Ah, press briefings. I remember those.