Opinion | When Trump Says ‘People,’ He Means ‘His People’
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Fifty years ago, reviewing Toni Morrison's novel "Sula" in this newspaper, a critic wrote that Morrison was "far too talented to remain only a marvelous recorder of the Black side of provincial American life"; that to "maintain the large and serious audience she deserves" and transcend the "limiting classification 'Black woman writer"' she had to "address a riskier contemporary reality."
Morrison, who would go on to win Pulitzer and Nobel Prizes, bristled at reviews like that, which seemed to suggest that she needed to write about white people. She chafed at the notion that writing primarily about Black people was a limitation rather than a liberation. In a 1981 New Republic interview, Morrison put a point on it: "From my perspective, there are only Black people. When I say 'people,' that's what I mean."
This idea, that the parameters of the word "people" can be defined by a speaker or writer, came rushing back to me recently as I was reviewing the increasingly erratic posts and comments of Donald Trump.
Intellectually and creatively, Trump is the antithesis of Morrison, but if I come to understand that when Trump says "people," it is confined to his people, then his inane utterances make more sense to me. In fact, the whole of the MAGA universe begins to make more sense to me.
On Sunday, Trump posted on Truth Social, claiming Comcast, MSNBC's owner, and "others of the LameStream Media" will be "thoroughly scrutinized" because they are "THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE" who should pay "for what they have done to our once great Country."
"The people" here means his people, the only worthy and legitimate people, the only ones worth defending because they are the only ones defending him. When he says "our once great country," he means the country when it most benefited those most devoted to him, at a time when the racial hierarchy was more fixed, the patriarchy was more entrenched, immigrant communities were often whiter and gender identities were more rigid.
There's a reason Trump never attempted to govern as a unifier and isn't running for re-election as one. Instead, he's deepening his attachment with loyalists. He wants to reshape America into a nation where his will rules, the law is his tool to punish others and he is exempt from punishment -- where his throngs are rewarded for their adoration.
It isn't as simple as saying that Trump wants to drag the country backward. He wants to do something far more destructive: He wants to marry the country's more intolerant past to a more autocratic future. He wants to bend his brand of straight white male nationalism into a kind of totalitarianism. That his definition of "the people" is implicit, not overt, only helps him. The fact that there are women, people of color and L.G.B.T.Q. Americans who support him doesn't alter the fundamental nature of his appeal.
And I believe that many of his most ardent followers understand this intuitively. They idolize Trump because his craven desire for power, and the protection from prosecution that he believes it will provide, would also offer them a ride on his coattails.
A Trump autocracy would redound to their credit and they would be rewarded for it.
So they overlook Trump's manifold legal jeopardies, such as the ruling on Tuesday by a New York judge that Trump committed fraud for years by intentionally misvaluing his properties for personal financial benefit.
Trump lashed out at the ruling in a statement posted on Truth Social regurgitating many of his familiar attack lines: calling the judge "DERANGED," undermining the credibility of the prosecutor and claiming that attempts to hold him accountable are all part of an election interference scheme to prevent him from retaking the presidency.
But part of his complaint, which has become a cliché at this point, was that his civil rights are being violated and "If they can do this to me, they can do this to YOU!"
He and his people, the true people, are the new civil rights victims, in need of a defensive mobilization to prevent continued injury. Trump defense becomes self-defense.
And this works. Trump enjoys a commanding lead among Republicans competing for their party's presidential nomination. In part that's because he has the advantage of having already held the presidency, creating an aura of incumbency around him, lifting him and legitimizing him.
But his Republican primary standing is also because he is making a political militia of the Republican Party itself, with its core voters activated to defend him no matter what. The person who gave voice to the party's most base instincts is the hero of the Republican base. He didn't try to restrict them; he unleashed them.
He spoke to and for "the people." He tailored a particular form of populism, one aimed at xenophobes and subversives.
This is, I believe, why Trump maintains strong support even as his legal troubles grow: He has been unflinchingly loyal to one portion of the body politic, and his followers are simply reciprocating.
They don't worry about Trump torching the country if he's re-elected, because they believe that they will frolic in the ashes. They believe that whatever benefits Trump will eventually benefit them. Trump has deceived his people into believing in trickle-down tyranny.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We'd like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here's our email: letters@nytimes.com .
Listen to selectionFollow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion) , and Instagram .
Tags
Who is online
104 visitors
There arent enough "Trump loyalists" to get him elected. So why is he doing so well in polls? That for the non-"Trump loyalists" to explain.
Maybe it's the same thing that got Biden elected. Maybe people are ready to vote against something?
Even if it means voting for a traitor (and, possibly, a convicted felon by that time).
To consider the character of either individual at this point is a bit obtuse.
Joe Biden instituted policies that have had an impact on most Americans. To cast a vote based on anything else would be like putting blinders on to everything happening in this country.
There is no comparing a traitor to a non-traitor. A traitor should never even be considered for the presidency. There is no comparing anyone with the only PotUS in our history who has tried to steal a US presidential election through abuse of his office, violation of the CotUS, coercion, subornation, lying, fraud, and inciting his supporters.
How can someone who took money from our enemies be called a "non-traitor?"
If Biden accepted bribes from our enemies in return for political favors using the influence of his office then that justifies the label traitor.
Vic and Just Jim, if you are going to deem Biden guilty based on circumstantial evidence then how can you even entertain the notion of you or anyone else voting for Trump?
Biden never would have money wired to him directly. Nobody would do that. TiG knows that, yet that is the standard of guilt TiG demands.
Do you not care to get this right? It is not a high standard of evidence to go beyond circumstantial. Do you think any court in the land would find Biden guilty of treason (taking bribes from enemies) based on what they have to work with?
Just amazing that you think I am asking for a lot when I seek evidence sufficient to warrant an indictment.
Do you think that I have concluded "nothing happened at all"?
Asking for evidence that would warrant an indictment ... something beyond circumstantial is about as fair and objective as one can be.
If you were in a grand jury right now, would you vote to indict Biden on treason: taking bribes from enemies in return for favors delivered by virtue of his office?
Or would you need better evidence?
An independent investigation could have done that rather easily.
Do YOU care to get this right? Do YOU care to have evidence sufficient to cause a grand jury to recommend an indictment?
If this evidence was against Trump, would YOU be deeming him guilty of treason? Would YOU still promise to vote for him?
How do we pry evidence out of the DOJ.
Tell us TiG WHERE IS THE LAPTOP?
Curious how you deflect from my questions.
What do you think the answers to your questions are? As long as it's Biden, he's guilty. Put the same evidence out there and trmp is innocent.
It's all partisan hackery bullshit. They know it. We know it. They just won't admit it.
Who thinks Hunter is totally innocent?
And who is arguing that Joe Biden is totally innocent? There is an outstanding question of wrongdoing on Joe Biden's part that needs to be answered. It is a question that should be answered methodically, not based on blind partisan bias.
Trump's situation is profoundly worse, much more detailed, heavily evidenced, and formal indictments issued. Any level of wrongdoing one can project onto Biden circumstantially is already there (and substantially more) for Trump.
So given your concern about Biden's wrongdoing, are you going to vote for Trump?
Trump's situation is profoundly worse, much more detailed, heavily evidenced, and formal indictments issued. Any level of wrongdoing one can project onto Biden circumstantially is already there (and substantially more) for Trump.
So given your concern about Biden's wrongdoing, are you going to vote for Trump?
Why dont you go into specifics instead of all these right wing talking points? Oh yeah , you cant.
Exactly! Why has Biden not been criminally charged yet for wielding his political power as Vice President to help his son in 2017, 2018 and 2019? And while he is at it maybe Biden can finally answer why he and Obama were not even in the White House on 9-11? Biden must answer your serious questions and he must answer up now!
???????? /S...
President and Jill Biden's taxes are public going back for decades. Joe Biden has never gotten an illicit dollar in his whole life...
Read down a few posts...
This seed is about Trump so he is absolutely ON topic. If you did not want to discuss Trump then why are you here?
You have been asked a fundamental question about objective reasoning dealing with evidence.
You refuse to answer. Understandably, doing so would require that you hold Trump accountable for far worse than the allegations against Biden.
This is a case where refusing to answer a question is answer enough.
You will do the GOP members targeting Biden a great service if you can now make a material tie to Joe Biden — clear evidence that shows he accepted bribes in return to favors based on his office.
Does not need to be proof, just evidence that would be sufficient for a reasonable grand jury to recommend an indictment.
Think of it this way, if this were Trump as a D instead of Biden, what evidence would you need for you to write posts accusing him of treason?
Predictable deflection.
No, it isn't me who refuses to see the most obvious of facts...
Joe Biden held no political office from January 2017 until January of 2021. Biden had no political office to wielded any political influence over for those four years. There is zero evidence Joe participated in any political graft. He was free to earn a living. He did and he reported ever dollar he earned!
Dont ask for miracles.
Circumstantial. Not enough to cause an indictment.
All that you have mentioned is the circumstantial evidence that I referred to.
If this were Trump, would you be of the opinion that Trump accepted bribes in return for favors based on his office?
You know, Texan, in a discussion it is normal to introduce scenarios and questions. You do not have to make a claim about indictments for me to formulate a hypothetical question and pose it to you.
As JR noted, and as I expected, you will just continue to deflect from my probative questions.
Replying to a comment does not ipso facto mean that you answered the question therein.
Most recent case in point:
[Deleted]
Well, the non-Trumpers who got Biden elected after he promised to be a moderate unifier have disappeared after he has turned out to be a puppet and pawn of the far left extremists who has taken the country in the wrong direction. Biden's stupid malfeasance and deception, not to mention his progressive dementia and frail condition have given the advantage to Trump.
Apparently, at this early point in the campaign, the electorate has come to believe that Trump is the lesser of two evils.
I think Trump would accept any voter as part of his "people". He does not care about their race, gender, politics, wealth, morals, ethics, intelligence, etc. All he wants is loyalty to him, donations, and their vote. Since many (in the past I would have written 'most') people vote for politicians based on merits rather than loyalty, his base is naturally limited to those with an emotional loyalty to him.
So why is he leading in the polls?
The answer is plurality. He has a strong enough base of loyalists to tilt the scales in his favor. Early polling of favorability causes Trump to look strong due to his loyalists while other candidates have to start (essentially) from zero. And Trump clearly has excellent name-recognition. Thus Trump gained early momentum. In US politics, momentum is critical because too many voters use bandwagon logic (if others indicate support for a candidate then they 'must have' good reasons to do so). Momentum alone attracts more support.
But why is he leading in the polls in spite of all that he has done?
I cannot wrap my head around the twisted thinking that would cause someone to support / vote-for a traitor who is the only PotUS in our history who has tried to steal a US presidential election through abuse of his office, violation of the CotUS, coercion, subornation, lying, fraud, and inciting his supporters.
Those who would vote for Trump given all we know claim that the other guy is worse. Irrational: Trump is a traitor. They claim that voting for any D is worse. Blind partisanship: voting based on party in spite of merits. They claim that they like his policies. Confusion: Trump's policies were core GOP ... easy to find an alternative with Trump's policies.
Not sure how anyone could vote for Trump at this stage, but IMO such an act is irrational, irresponsible and unpatriotic.
Imagine a democratic supporter of joe “jim crow 2.0” Biden arguing this….
"IMO such an act is irrational, irresponsible and unpatriotic."
Well Tig, many, perhaps millions of the voters, feel that reelecting Biden would be irrational, irresponsible and unpatriotic.
You might believe that Trump is a traitor and an all-around scoundrel, but a great number of the electorate seemingly doesn't share that view and consider Biden to be a worse choice at this point. The Dems are trying to ignore this reality and have circled the wagons to protect him, rather than come up with an alternative candidate...if they can find one.
There is that 'the other guy is worse' crap. For all his faults, Biden is not a traitor. Biden did not throw the nation under the bus due to his ego. Biden did not scheme against the CotUS that he had sworn to protect and defend and engage in a plot to steal a US presidential election through abuse of his office, violation of the CotUS, coercion, subornation, lying, fraud, and inciting his supporters.
Trump is the only PotUS in our history who has tried to unconstitutionally and illegally steal a US presidential election and you would vote to put him back in the most powerful office on the planet.
Mr G and I were discussing trmp and Biden the other night. trmp was at one of his rallies bashing Biden he said he was bashing the worst POTUS in history. I said that's rich considering trmp is the second worse*
*I said that to him to make a joke but we all know Biden is not worse than trmp
None of this has been proven to be true, especially in a court of law. Many citizens believe the Dems stole the 2020 election, although I am not one of them. I consider Biden to be a traitor for the allowing millions of illegal unvetted aliens into this country for purely political purposes. Where's the fuss about the classified documents Biden stole and kept. What about the credible accusations of bribery, influence peddling, and money laundering on the part of the Biden family?
You write that in spite of mountains of evidence (much we can view ourselves directly) against Trump and then immediately turn to Biden without a hint of concern for evidence. You demand proof against Trump but are content with mere circumstantial allegations against Biden.
Just amazing.
Way more than circumstantial evidence, but hey, keep up the denial of reality and insults if it makes you happy.
He is absurd