I was cautioned, recently, to be sure not to let confirmation bias infiltrate my writing.
I didn’t ask the commentor if they felt it had (I guess I both should have and should). If you have been reading “Liz’s Luncheonette,” it might seem like politics is an overarching theme of the blog. It isn’t.
“Liz’s Luncheonette” is meant to inspire people to ignite or reignite their care and concern for others. Politics is not the theme, but the catalyst. I strongly believe the devotion to our President is toxic to our country. More importantly, though, it is toxic to us as a society and as individuals.
Anyway, I thought it was a legitimate point. I do believe the President has a cult following, that no matter what he does, this base will stick with him. But those voters alone weren’t enough to get him elected.
So, I decided to do something I don’t often do – try to understand the other side.
I read a New York Times opinion piece in which a deputy Opinion editor interviewed four opinion columnists who lean conservative. (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/21/opinion/trump-administration-polling.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=g&pvid=775D8C84-4AC2-460E-9EA1-A44BBE9DD670) Here is some of what I came to understand of why people voted for/are still behind the President:
- People like that he is doing stuff. It doesn’t so much matter if it is right or wrong. Government moves far to slow. It is nice to see action.
- Trump is succeeding in some areas.
- Our system of government is broken. We need a rule breaker to fix it.
- He is a Republican.
- Liberal politics have left Republicans feeling excluded, without a voice.
The columnists offer rebuttals here and there, and even a few sharp rebukes.
So, how has this reshaped my thinking. Or, has it?
I’ll admit, I was more drawn to their rebuttals and rebukes than their reasonings for people being Trump followers. I was also more focused on their reasonings to which I took exception.
So, where do I go from here?
I’ll start with a quote by one columnist: “A second part — and this is especially important for Trump critics like me to acknowledge — is that at least some of what he’s doing is succeeding.”
The columnist cites a few of what he considers successes: taking control of our borders, abolishing DEI programs, forcing Columbia University to make changes in regard to Pro-Palestinian protesters in order to continue to receive government funding, the elimination of the Department of Education.
First, Maybe DEI wasn’t working. But, DEI wasn’t simply abolished. The accomplishments of women, people of color are being erased from websites, museums, etc. Not because they didn’t accomplish something important, but because they are women and people of color. So, acknowledging them must mean we are practicing DEI. That sounds a lot like discrimination to me.
Not only that, but organizations can be punished, and severely, if they choose to use any type of DEI in their organizations. The President has gone so far as to remove the explicit ban on segregated bathrooms. What do segregated bathrooms have to do with DEI?
I don’t consider any of this a success.
What it seems like to me is a blatant attempt to hold down people of color and women.
OK. I get it. People are upset because they feel like women and minorities are taking over through an unfair advantage by virtue of the color of their skin or sex. Well, people, how does it feel not to get a job because of your race or sex? How does it feel to be ignored, treated condescendingly in a place of business because of your race or sex? How does it feel to be paid less money for the exact same job/work as a colleague because of your race or sex?
It sucks to high heaven, doesn’t it?
Well, people, welcome to the real world for millions of Americans.
I honestly don’t know enough about DEI to know how effective or ineffective it was. But, let’s face it, folks, even with all the mandates we have seen (e.g., Civil Rights Act, Affirmative Action, DEI), the earnings of women and minorities still lag hideously behind their white non-Hispanic, male counterparts.
If DEI was wrong, instead of just throwing in the towel, how about asking the question “What is right?” Because, people, the diminished opportunity and earnings power of women and minorities due to their race/sex is a fact and it is not right. And, we have failed to make it right.
Wow, I really went off on a tangent. That is not at all the direction I had intended on going in. I just started writing and couldn’t stop.
To get back on track . . . I actually do see some of what these columnists are saying. I agree that the government moves agonizingly slow. I understand wanting your party to do what they stand for.
To this, though, I say be careful of using the mistaken idea that the end justifies the means. Two wrong don’t make a right. (But, three rights make a left. Sorry. Just kidding. I needed a bit of levity.)
Firing people indiscriminately (and possibly illegally) to make good on a promise to cut government is not only foolish, it is cruel. These are real people with real lives, with real families to house and feed.
Threatening law firms with punitive orders unless they do his bidding sounds rather like extortion to me.
There are reasons we have rules in place.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. The ends don’t justify the means.
As I mentioned above, one columnist stated the need to acknowledge Trump is doing some things right. Another columnist takes a similar stance regarding USAID. He points out the bureaucratic nightmare it was but also notes that Trump followers don’t understand why it was important. He also states, “Trump policies are not 100 percent wrong; they are just overreactions.”
That seems a rather tepid, if not cavalier, attitude since the columnist also expected that millions of people will die without USAID. I would guess not being 100% wrong, but simply “an overreaction” does little to comfort families of children who will die, and it certainly won’t bring those children back.
As the columnist states, it would have been better to fix USAID rather than destroy it. Millions of people will die. Ya think?
Yes, American livelihoods have been upended due to Trump’s policies/Executive Orders but, as of yet, no American lives have been lost – only the lives of someone else’s children.
We have lost our way as human beings if we think this is good. I can’t see any way to attach a “right” to this.
I asked at the beginning how trying to understand the other side has reshaped my thinking. Or, has it?
I don’t know. I can see some points made and, if I tried, I could probably find some success(es) in the current administration. Yet, I get bogged down everytime, not just by what I see as failures, but the inhumanity that accompanied those failures. I cannot see how anyone can justify the ends when the means cost real lives and real livelihoods.