Most Americans Find President’s Tweets Un-American And Racist
Two new polls show that the President's recent racist tweetstorms have not gone over well with Americans as a whole, but that's unlikely to cause the President to walk them back.
A new poll finds that a majority of Americans find the President’s racist tweets and comments about four Democratic Congresswomen, telling them to ‘go back where they came from’ are un-American:
WASHINGTON – A clear majority of Americans say President Donald Trump’s tweets targeting four minority congresswomen were “un-American,” according to a new USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll. But most Republicans say they agreed with his comments, an illustration of the nation’s sharp partisan divide on issues of patriotism and race.
More than two-thirds of those aware of the controversy, 68%, call Trump’s tweets offensive. Among Republicans alone, 57% say they agree with tweets that told the congresswomen to go back to the countries “from which they came,” and a third “strongly” agree with them. All four lawmakers are American citizens; three were born in the USA.
That finding may help explain the reluctance of GOP leaders and most GOP members of Congress to castigate the president for tweets and comments targeting the congresswomen, liberals who are among his sharpest critics on Capitol Hill. Only four Republicans joined House Democrats on Tuesday in passing a resolution condemning Trump’s comments as “racist.”
That said, the dispute could be costly for Trump among key voters in his bid for a second term. Three-fourths of the women polled call his tweets offensive. Independents, by more than 2-1, say the comments are “un-American.”
Overall, 59% call the president’s tweets “un-American.”
A new CBS News poll found similar results:
The controversy around President Trump’s tweets last week comes at a time when nearly nine in 10 Americans see a nation divided along racial lines, and most believe the parties each hold different ideas about what makes a person an American.
A majority of Americans (59%) disagree with what the president said in his tweets last week about four Democratic congresswomen of color, including 44% who disagree strongly with what he said. But 40% of the country agrees with what Mr. Trump said. “‘Progressive’ Democratic Congresswomen” should “go back” to their countries, he tweeted last Sunday.
And in a nation which nine in 10 Americans believe is divided along racial lines, sharp partisan and racial differences define their views. Among Democrats, disagreement with what the president said runs high, at 88%. Most of those in agreement with the president are from his party, with 82% of Republicans agreeing, including 47% who strongly agree with the statements. Independents mirror the country overall — 58% disagree, including 41% who strongly disagree.
Most Republicans like the fact that the president tweeted those statements in the first place, and on this view, they stand apart from other Americans. While only 26% of Americans like Mr. Trump’s tweeting of the statements about the Democratic congresswomen, 57% of Republicans somewhat or strongly like that he did so, and only 18% say they dislike it. Most Republicans feel the ideas expressed in the tweets were pro-American, and 70% feel they were not racist.
Republicans are, however, comparatively less likely to call the tweets presidential (43%). Seventy-seven percent of Republicans feel the media has given the tweets too much attention.
Democrats call the tweets racist (84%), un-American (78%) and unpresidential (87%).
Most independents also call them unpresidential (55%) and unnecessary (54%).
What both of these polls show, of course, is the fact that, while Americans as a whole oppose the President’s tweets and consider them to be racist and un-American, the story is quite different when one looks solely at what self-identified Republicans think. Looking solely at that demographic group, it’s clear that the President’s tweets are generally speaking very highly supported and that his claims about the “the squad” being un-American are widely accepted. These numbers are likely to be far more important to the White House than the issue of what the public as a whole thinks since the Trump 2020 campaign’s entire strategy appears to be aimed at energizing the same base that got him elected in 2016 and which has steadily supported him throughout his time in office to rally behind the President. Indeed, the more that Democrats and the media promote the President’s tweets, no matter how outrageous and obnoxious they become, the more this segment of the public seems to be eating it up. Given that, one can presume that we’ll see more of this from the President over the coming weeks and months, and well into 2020 itself. Whether that amounts to a winning strategy remains to be seen.
Let’s be a little more blunt.
What both of these polls show is that while most Americans find the President’s comments to be hateful and anti-American, those Americans are not Republicans. Most Republicans believe that America is for white people, and that a nonwhite nation cannot be the America they love. When they say “America”, they mean “white America”. They also get really angry when this view is characterized as ‘racist’.
In much the same way a poll of Germans in 1939 would have found that non-Nazis thought der Fuhrer’s remarks were anti-semitic, while members of the Nazi Party that they were just fine.
2 things:
#1: I don’t think any one, left or right, has the right to decide who or what is or is not American.
#2 Racism is part and parcel of who and what this country is. It has been with us from the very beginning. It’s as American as apple pie and will remain a part of America for some time to come. The problem now is that we have one political party who doesn’t even give lip service to dog whistles, they just wield it as a weapon for electoral gain.
For some reason I was thinking about this moment from the 2008 campaign this morn:
@OzarkHillbilly:
No wonder Trump hates McCain. McCain for all his faults was a man, not a pig.
Trump has said specifically that he’s playing to his base, and his base loves these tweets.
Shhh!!!! You can’t say that, that’s America-hating…we can’t have that…what are you, a communist or something…
@michael reynolds: Nor a coward like his little lost puppy dog Lindsey.
Typical behaviour of people who haven’t accomplished much in their own lives: “I’m a piece of trash, but having a chip on my shoulder because I’m white provides me with excuses as to why I haven’t gotten anywhere.”
(Trust me, this has relevance)
Raymond Smullyan, while trying to describe the futility of trying to reach the Zen state of Revelation merely by studying it gave an anaolgy: What if only a small percentage of people had a sense of humor? The rest of the humanity would divide up into groups. Some would doubt the very existence of humor and belittle the practitioners, some would accept that it exists but merely think it an oddity, some would be curious and try to develop a sense of humor in themselves, and so on. One group is of interest here. This is the group who became obsessed with humor and studied it deeply. They practiced until they could identify the things that triggered laughter, and they practiced until they could mimic a chuckle, a belly laugh or a roar of laughter. Having achieved this level they declared that they now had a sense of humor. After a time they started to question the bona fides of those who actually had a sense of humor and critique where they came up short.
Substitute “morality” and “honor” for “humor” and you can find the vast majority of self declared Republicans and Evangelicals in this last group.
What this tells us is that “most Americans” are NOT Republicans, as much they like to portray themselves as the “silent majority” and “real Americans”. This point needs to be hammered over and over again – Republicans are NOT the majority, they do NOT speak for most of this country and are therefore NOT the norm.
One of the core concepts conservatives like to cling to is that they represent the true America and their norms are what society should consider to be righteous and proper because they are the quiet backbone of the country. Yet we see in polls over and over again is that the Republican viewpoint differs sharply from the overall viewpoints of the nation and they are out of touch with the vast majority of the people that make up this nation. Instead of representing an unspoken consensus, they’re really that guy at the party with really loud, irritating opinions who takes everyone’s embarrassed silence and averted glance for assent.
Republicans don’t speak for this nation. Hell, they don’t even really speak for themselves anymore, just their nutty fringe. And yet somehow, bothsiderism is going to kick in and it will be the Dem’s fault for enabling this behavior or something.
@KM: Though the phrase “silent majority” is attributed to Nixon, it was Goldwater (or, rather, his ghostwriter Brent Bozell) who wrote the following words:
Of course, in 1964 Goldwater learned just how conservative the nation really was.
As I’ve noted before, the silent-majority myth isn’t simply a delusion. Republicans frequently engage in bad-faith arguments to prove it (as when they were constantly citing polls during the Obama years of the ACA’s unpopularity, but stopped doing so after the law became popular), and there are distinct racial overtones in their attempt to define who’s a “real American.” Even when Democratic voters are a numerical majority, Republicans often think a lot of those voters don’t truly count.
From a meme I ran across yesterday: Racism is so American, that when it gets criticized, people think you’re criticizing America.
@Kylopod:
And then do everything in their power to see to it that they don’t.
One of the thing that a poll like this tells me is that this election should be in large part about Trumpism. The Democrats have to define Trumpism as negatively as possible, and ask Americans the question “how do we want America to be”. Have some ads showing the rage of Trump’s supporters at his rallies. Show his unacceptable behavior (grabbing them by the pussy), and show his unacceptable policies (children in a cage). Remind people about his complete lack of morality and ethics. As Thomas Friedman wrote the week before the 2016 election, Donald Trump is a disgusting human being. Build a case for this, and ask people if this is what you want for America.
And as much as possible, don’t normalize him.
Most Americans can tell right from wrong, try and be dignified, and try to get along with each other without it being a business deal or a favor.
Trump embodies none of these things. He has shown himself, and when someone does that. You believe them.
Trump is a racist, ignorant, greedy, egomaniac. He is a child rapist, a narcissist, and has absolutely zero morals. He is selling this country out for his own gain. And the people whom he wishes to make money off of now and after he is voted out next year. People who will help him avoid jail, and possibly harbor him out of country if things get to bad.
@OzarkHillbilly:
I’ll just note that McCain lost. Also, this:
McCain chose Palin, I think provably, in acknowledgement that the Republican base wasn’t as interested in being respectful or honorable as he was. Yet, Palin was “subtle” compared to Trump. Trump released the Kraken.
82% of self-identified Republicans are aligning with a racist, because that’s what they want. But, as KM notes, Republicans don’t want what most Americans want. That’s the point that needs to be made over and over.
@SenyorDave:
When one attacks, one still has to watch for the counter-attack, and we on the Left have a giant, glaring hole in our defenses: immigration. We could lose on that one issue alone because what we have on immigration is a non-position. As Henry V might explain, with hindsight: don’t leave the baggage train unprotected.
Abortion? We win.
Health Care? We win.
The yawning gap between rich and working class: we win.
Where we lose is where we are evasive or pandering. The single biggest danger is immigration where we are evasive and pandering.
@Scott F.:
I think he chose Palin because he knew his campaign was flagging and needed something, anything, to boost it and out of desperation or under the delusion of bad advice from some people (looking at you Bill Kristol) he picked her, not knowing who she really was.
As to his losing, my reflections on that moment are of 2 things: Mainly that when it came to racism, he was personally against it and well remembered the pain it caused when the Bush campaign wielded it against him in 2000 and secondly, that he was way out of step with his party even then.
trump didn’t turn the GOP electorate into rabid racists in 2016, he recognized the latent racism residing there and the festering resentment that was it’s companion and fed it the red meat they had been crying for for some time.
@Scott F.:
FWIW, the conventional wisdom is that the reason McCain chose Palin was because he saw the polls and realized he was going to lose unless he did something big. He decided to pick a woman as a running mate, and then asked for a list of candidates. He picked Palin by gut instinct and directed his minions to go ahead without ever really vetting her, no doubt at least in part because he was raised during the time when the VP was considered a nonentity. And, although he never quite came out and said this, he quickly realized that she was a disaster and that far from helping him she would actually hurt him substantially.
The real window into McCain’s personality here is that in all his long life he never got over his impatience with process and preparation and his instinct to go with his gut, which had been proven so disastrously wrong in the past.
@SenyorDave:
It depends. What you describe was more or less the strategy adopted by Hillary in 2016: emphasize Trump’s awful personality above all else. A recent study found that 90% of Hillary’s negative ads went after Trump as a person, and only 10% talked about policy. Instead of talking almost exclusively about how terrible Trump was, she should have spent more time talking about the terrible things Trump would do as president–and why her own proposals were better.
I often had the sense she was trying to convey the idea that “Even if you disagree with my policies, Trump is such an abomination that if you have any decency you have no choice but to vote for me.” This may have even swayed some voters. I personally know hardcore conservatives who voted for her simply because they were so appalled by Trump. The problem is, that isn’t a particularly good way to motivate voters. (Try to imagine if the shoe were on the other foot: the Dems nominated a total pig, and the Republican seemed like a much better person. Would you vote for the Republican? Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn’t–but if you did, I’d hazard to guess it wouldn’t be enthusiastically.) In a way I think it was a reflection of Hillary’s risk-averse nature. She feared if she talked more about policy it would risk pushing away some of those voters who were turned off by Trump on a personal level. It probably would have even been successful if she hadn’t been so widely hated herself. But it was still was not the most fruitful strategy.
This isn’t an either-or. Like I said the other day, we shouldn’t hesitate to point out that Trump is racist, sexist, and corrupt. But we can’t let that be the ultimate message. Voters are more responsive to a message about what’s in it for them than what’s bad about who they’re voting for.
Does this run the risk of normalizing Trump? Yes. It’s somewhat of a balancing act, since some of the things Dems are running on are “normal” policies they would be running on against any Republican. But that just brings out the importance of reminding everyone that Trump isn’t the problem with the GOP, he’s the embodiment of it. When Dems complained about racism and plutocracy in the pre-Trump GOP, they weren’t crying wolf, they were warning about what was to come.
@Kylopod:
What’s so ironic about this is it is exactly the strategy adopted by her Republican challengers when she was running for her Senate seat.
@Kylopod: I’d love it if people voted on policy. but I have never seen evidence in my lifetime that convinces me that they do. IMO the only advantages Trump has coming into 2020 are the election and incumbency. He won last time because of a perfect storm of events. I think he has to be well defined by the Democrats, and in particular, the candidate. I’m not suggesting policy should be ignored, bt at the same time remind people what a corrupt, racist, amoral pig he is. As far as motivating voters, I think it will largely take care of itself. The only thing Trump has at his rallies is hate, and that should motivate those who are not his supporters.
@michael reynolds:
I really want a Democratic candidate to start saying that the key to cutting illegal immigration is to go after the employers.
It’s simple, it would fit on a very long bumper sticker, and it frames the issue as good American workers vs. unethical employers.
@michael reynolds: I can’t disagree. I know you have been beating this drum for a long time, and you have been proven right. And I think immigration policy is tougher than most areas because it is less binary. Abortion – you are either for or against. Health care – it is now pretty much defined as being pro-Obamacare or against, and the Obamacare is socialism argument isn’t working very well anymore.
Trump is the first major politician in my lifetime to make immigration policy binary – he is against all forms, both illegal and legal (I guess he wouldn’t mind if a bunch of Norwegians came here, but that’s not happening as long as he is POTUS). I do think it is hard to have a policy on immigration with 20 candidates in the race. I’m assuming that by fall that number will at least be cut in half, and we will start to see more specifics in terms of policy. But the party needs to get some type of unity around a set of specific policies when it comes to immigration.
@SenyorDave:
Here’s some evidence: in 2018 exit polls the #1 answer for the most important issue facing the country was health care. This was also the subject of half of the Democratic campaign ads.
When I say “policy,” I’m not talking about wonky position papers, I’m talking simply about the candidates taking a clear stand on what they intend to do if elected. When Trump had his crowds chanting “build the wall,” did that constitute running on policy? I believe it did–not because his supporters necessarily expected or cared that a physical wall would be built, but because he clearly signaled he was going to do things to make immigrants unwelcome and to terrorize and attempt to rid the country of those who are already here. When he appeared (pretended) to deviate from GOP orthodoxy on such issues as trade, Medicare, Social Security, and LGBT rights, did that help peel away certain voters who normally vote Democrat? I think the evidence is that it did (and that many of those same voters returned to the Democratic fold in 2018).
The study I linked to in my previous comment didn’t just show that few of Hillary’s ads discussed policy, but that a strong majority of Trump’s ads did do so. You may choose to believe it didn’t make a difference, but it definitely describes what the two campaigns did.
@Kylopod: So basically, create bumper sticker policy positions. Find a way to state policy positions in short and catchy phrases.
Someone on Balloon Juice made a great observation: Warren’s growing appeal isn’t her policy positions per se, but her short, pithy catch-phrase, “I have a plan for that.”
@Monala:
Maybe. Up to now, Dems have generally not done bumper-sticker politics well, not even in the elections they’ve won. Bernie Sanders leans in that direction–Medicare for all, free college, make the rich pay their fair share, etc. My point was that, one way or another, the public does vote based on issues.
She really is trying to make wonkiness her brand, and she speaks with such passion that it may actually be effective in a way it never was for candidates like Dukakis or Gore. We’ll see, anyway.
From our President Who Pals Around With Pedophiles
I think this is a fine time to point out, as our right-wing friends like to remind us, that the Democrats used to be the racist party of the KKK. I’m guessing that’s when he thinks the “Democrat Party” was great.
Trump’s daddy got caught at a KKK rally at least once.
@Kylopod:
That’s the Democratic message right there – with added stress on the fact that GOP policy is racist and plutocratic in intent while the behavior of individual politicians only matters because it reveals the underlying motivations of their policies.
The “crying wolf”/“Republicans can’t criticize a POC without being called a racist” talking points have been distributed, so the Democrats need to be clear in the counter-argument – “It’s not crying wolf when it’s always been true that there is danger. The wolf is just bigger, hungrier and more dangerous now.”
I’m definitely voting for Trump.
You get to call Trump a raciss™ and we get to vote for him. Everyone is happy.
“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,” — Barack Obama
@The Dissident:
Is this sort of like registered sex offenders having to introduce themselves to the neighborhood?
@DrDaveT: I would hope that the sex offenders introducing themselves to their neighbors would be better able to express themselves, but yeah, I sorta think so.
Maybe more Narcotics Anonymous? Alcoholics Anonymous?
The sexual angle or even sexual addiction, that’s a reach for an internet troll, no?
A question for conservatives: what if the left was right on race?
On the right, race and racism, and the possibility that it’s been a big problem all along.
@Teve: regardless of whether liberals were right or not (I think they were), even on its own merit, “the idea that if the left hadn’t been pointing out racism on the right, the right never would have embraced a racist as its leader” is a bizarre and childish argument.
Someone pointed out that Rush Limbaugh has been calling feminists “feminazis” since the ’90s, and that didn’t result is a wave of feminists becoming Nazis. If you truly have principles against something, someone calling you what you supposedly oppose might make you angry, but shouldn’t result in you adopting that thing for anyone who has matured past adolescence.
@Teve: regardless of whether liberals were right or not (I think they were), even on its own merit, “the idea that if the left hadn’t been pointing out racism on the right, the right never would have embraced a racist as its leader” is a bizarre and childish argument.
Someone pointed out that Rush Limbaugh has been calling feminists “feminazis” since the ’90s, and that didn’t result in a wave of feminists becoming Nazis. If you truly have principles against something, someone calling you what you supposedly oppose might make you angry, but shouldn’t result in you adopting that thing for anyone who has matured past adolescence.
@Monala: yeah it’s just whiny privileged white boys not taking responsibility for their shit as usual.
@The Dissident:
I for one am happy for you, but more happy for me. See, all the harsh things I ever said – I mean 100% – about so-called conservatives and evangelical Christians and the rest of your fellow swamp creatures has been validated.
It’s like I gave you people a checklist and said, “Here’s 10 things I know about you, that you deny.” And you went right down the list, checking them off. True. True. True.
So in the end I’m a truth-telling, visionary pundit and you’re exactly the piece of sht I always said you were. You’ve never been anything else. And who knew that? Me! Me, me, me. Hah hah hah.