In the immediate fallout of the Trump victory, we’re already seeing much of the left do what it does best – refuse to accept reality in the most sanctimonious way possible.
Harris’s concession speech was bizarre. She came out laughing. There were cheers, chants. Her focus on ‘continuing the fight’ was somewhat surreal. She spoke about stars at one point and she lost me. There was no sense of contrition, or an acceptance that the party she had led had done anything wrong. That won’t help the next person campaigning for the votes she didn’t get.
And then there are the other even-less-helpful-in-winning votes responses came out from the left. ‘West Wing’ star Bradley Whitford labelled the country ‘racist and sexist’ after Trump’s victory. Closer to home Zarah Sultana chalked it up to Gaza because – of course she did. James O’Brian got dangerously close to an earnest attempt to understand people by saying people cared more about ‘gas prices’ than democracy but lost the thread with a tone of condescension.
Similar takes were echoed all over my feeds. America is racist, America is misogynist, America is a white supremacy, America is brainwashed, America is stupid – and I’ve no doubt there are some reading this that will reach for those familiar and easy answers of intellectual and moral superiority.
Firstly – sour grapes much? We all hate that bloke at the bar who hits on a woman, gets rejected, then says something along the lines of “Well I didn’t want you anyway because you’re ugly.” Bradley Whitford was literally asking the people he’s now calling racist and sexist to vote for his team less than 72 hours ago. It’s a bad look, and people won’t forget being called racist and sexist. Way to double down on a loss.
Secondly, you’re revealing what you actually think about people and politics – and it’s part of the reason the left often loses. You think you’re better than those people who vote for populists. In some left-leaning minds there is a spectrum like this:
Now I know there are some of you that see all western civilisation as a white supremacist, colonial, racist, sexist project – and to those people, I guess this chart is pretty helpful, so feel free to screenshot it. You’re welcome. But guess what? There’s a load of people at the other end of the spectrum who see it the exact opposite way, that see the world as a woke, politically correct, morally declining, fall of civilisation and see you as ignorant, stupid, and decadent. Two can play that game. I believe neither.
There are many of us in the middle, who know that civilisation is a back-and-forth plod forward from left to right. But even within that non-insane centre there of those who, while they don’t necessarily condemn our civilisation as fundamentally broken, still believe there is a right and wrong answer in voting.
If you view voting as a ‘if only the other side knew what I knew, if only they’d read what I’d read, experienced what I’d experienced, if only they were intelligent or informed enough, they would agree with me’ then you’re probably part of the problem. It’s a very small set of issues and topics that thought process applies too. Nuclear physics being one. Baking, probably. If you see the other side as solely more racist, sexist, ignorant, stupid or brainwashed… then I’ve got news for you, buddy. You’re being sanctimonious, vein, and superior. Get off your high horse.
It’s such a juvenile view of the world to immediately dismiss others who disagree with you and label them in some horrid way. As a young man, I was not just atheist but, on reflection, anti-theist. To my shame, I occasionally thought less of people who believed in God, I thought they were misled, brainwashed. And on occasion I let them know that. That’s a shameful view of the world – it’s condescending and superior. What I’ve come to realise is that even if you don’t agree with the conclusions or beliefs, you must try to respect a person’s ability to make a conclusion, you must generally respect their intelligence and integrity, and respect that they may have different values leading to that decision – not immediately dismiss them as bigoted, brainwashed, or both. At the very least, it’s lazy. I don’t think 71 million Americans are bigots. Some? Probably. All? Unlikely.
Democracy is a contest of ideas. A huge of part of that is having a base level of respect for your fellow citizens. You should assume that they aren’t brainwashed bigots or idiots, that they are rational actors who may see things differently depending on their values and lives. And you should assume they might know or be experiencing something you don’t know about.
But if you don’t agree with that principled take, let’s approach it pragmatically: you win almost zero arguments by rashly or lazily labelling your opponent’s stupid, racist etc. particularly in the wake of an election. People don’t forget being called names. Especially these names. And yes, if you call the person someone votes for racist, you’re effectively calling the voter racist. Guilt by association. Look at how damaging the ‘deplorable’ and ‘garbage’ comments were with Trump voters. Remember the Gordon Brown ‘bigoted woman’ moment. And, what’s more, you’ll lose those votes for a very long time.
If you want to be less sanctimonious, you must do the work in genuinely understanding and empathising why someone acts in a certain way, and steel-man their thought process. I’m less dismissive of religion now because I have earnestly done the work to empathise what would motivate someone to believe in it, to properly empathise with it. I try to ask myself ‘Honestly, what would it take for me to do X or Y?’ and that helps me better empathise with the people – people you must convince sometimes in a democracy to get your way.
If someone believes in or votes for someone different to me, if they say they supported Reform or Trump for example, I approach it with curiosity, ‘Why did you do that? Tell me the thought process?’ I try to get myself to the point where I can say in the conversation, ‘Ok, I don’t agree with it, but I definitely can see why you did that. I understand.’ Because it’s only at that point can you convince people to get on board your side ‘Ok so you thought this, I get it, I see the reasons for why you voted for X, but moving forward have you considered Y? Can I share my thoughts? Can we at least agree on Z?’
At the very least, you avoid the sunk cost or scam artist fallacies that will keep people tribal. If these people are brainwashed, ignorant or uniformed – which as I say, I try to avoid thinking in the first place – but if they are, then the last thing you should do is reveal you think that about them. That accusation will only entrench them further.
But, Ben, what if the person or party they are voting for is actually one of these terrible things? What if they are a racist and a fascist? Tough one, I get it.
Firstly, set a very high bar for those labels. A distant relation makes a slightly off-colour joke or professes they like J.K. Rowling, assume the best hey? Don’t immediately consign them to the Nazi pile. The same goes more broadly. People are approaching life with different values and priorities, and you should be cautious throwing labels out there, even in your own mind.
Similarly, if you do have a low bar, the labels become overused and they lose power. If everything and everyone is racist, nothing is. Bad news, you’re now Chicken Little or the Boy Who Cried Wolf and people won’t pay attention. Use the labels sparingly so that when you do use it people will say “Damn, that guy thinks that’s racist… maybe I should listen.” The left just loves to throw a label out there in order to ostracise or villainise someone and those labels now leave many people cold. ‘Heard it before… that’s what they always say’. The left love it so much they love making up new ones. Terf. Great work. That’s going to win over the working class Stoke / Pennsylvania voter. Look how ineffective the Nazi accusations were in this campaign. Kelly’s interview should have been the end for Trump. Trump very easily could be labelled a fascist, but because swing voters have heard the same or similar before from the far-left about people who definitely weren’t (see Mitt Romney, John McCain), so when the wolf finally came to the door, no one listened.
Secondly, if someone is racist etc, then you need to do a lot of work justifying the label before ascribing it, particularly to the people who might be voting or support that party or candidate. If you were prosecuting this as a court case, you’d have to lead with evidence, you lead with proof, you lead the jury to your conclusion. They must have a good sense of your evidence and proof in their mind before you pose your closing argument. Lead the horse to the racist-label-water before making them drink. Leading with labels really doesn’t work.
So, my best advice in the wake of this loss is for all left-leaning supporters across the board to learn to genuinely listen to the motivations and thoughts of the people who don’t vote your way, don’t dismiss or label them, and don’t make up your own conclusions that conveniently line up with the way you already view the world. Go out and learn something. Set high bars and be less sanctimonious. That’s the only way to win.
Gin Lane 