When Trump does something that most Americans regard as racist, he typically uses a two-part strategy. First, he will simply deny that he is racist. His defenders must often pretend that they do not understand how language works and they must ignore key parts of history. Second, which is what I am interested in here, is that he accuses his critics of being racists. This is analogous to how he handled the Kavanaugh situation: it is not women who are the victims of sexism on the part of powerful men; men and boys are the victims of the sexism of women and girls. This strategy is commonly used to “refute” those critical of sexism and racism. But does it have any merit as an argument? To assess it, I will follow the principle of charity and try to make the best version of the argument.
One common opening move in the argument is to deny or downplay discrimination against minorities. Since I am trying to make the most plausible version of this argument, this version will not deny that discrimination and racism did exist: one need only point to slavery and past laws that explicitly reference race. It would obviously be absurd to deny that these existed in the past—and the current argument is consistent with accepting this. After all, the claim is not that racism and discrimination never existed, just that it either does not exist now or is far less bad than the critics claim.
When making this case, the most plausible way is to point to civil rights, anti-discrimination laws and that there are no laws that explicitly discriminate against minorities by referencing these minorities in the text of the law. And, of course, one must point to President Obama. When critics point to cases of discrimination and racism, the counter is that these cases do exist, but they are rare. For example, one might acknowledge that there are racist police, but they are “a few bad apples.” One might accept that there are racists who say and do racist things, but they are a small number and when they discriminate or use violence, their actions are illegal. Because of this, one would argue, it is fair and just to be critical of that specific racist cop or condemn that particular white supremacist who committed murder. But to speak of systematic racism would be to speak of something that no longer exists.
So, if there is no systematic racism, then those who criticize it are criticizing an illusion. Worse, the argument goes, those who speak of systematic racism involving whites are unfairly and wrongly accusing white people of crimes they are not committing. To illustrate, to speak of white privilege is to claim that white people enjoy advantages over minorities—to accuse white people of being up to something nefarious—engaged in systematic racism. But since there is no systematic racism on the part of whites, the accuser must be the real racist. After all, they are acting on an unfounded prejudice and attacking people based on their being white. Thus, those who accuse white people of being bigots and racists are the bigots and racists.
One weak point of this version is that holding that racism is just limited to a “few bad apples” is that there is considerable evidence that discrimination exists and is more than just a few people being bad. But this more plausible version can be incorporated into the argument. In this version, it is accepted that racism against minorities does exist and is a problem, but that racism and discrimination against white people is on par with this racism. Roughly put, if it is implausible to deny the existence of racism against minorities, one can instead argue that whites are now equal (or greater) victims.
On this revised version, a white person could accept that there is racism, but insist they are not a racist and that they are a victim of racism against whites. They would be victims, one infers, because they have been accused of being racist because they are white—not because there is evidence that they are among the racists. If they wished to go beyond defending themselves, they could also contend that whites in general are not racist and hence the critics of racism against minorities are bigoted against whites by condemning all whites because of some racist whites.
At this point I must make an aside on quality of reasoning and the truth of claims. When assessing any argument, there are two basic questions. The first is: “is the reasoning good?” The second is: “are the premises true or at least plausible?” One can reason well with untrue claims, reason badly with true claims and so on. Such, we need to assess the above reasoning both in terms of quality of the logic and the plausibility of the claims.
On the face of it, the logic of the argument mirrors good arguments about racism and discrimination:
Premise 1: Person P is accused of being X by person Q.
Premise 2: The only evidence given by Q for P being X is that they are of race R.
Premise 3: P’s being R is irrelevant to proving P is X.
Conclusion: Q is being a racist.
As an example:
Premise 1: Barry is accused of being a racist by Karen.
Premise 2: The only evidence given by Karen for Barry being a racist is that Barry is white.
Premise 3: Barry’s being white is irrelevant to proving Barry is a racist.
Conclusion: Karen is being a racist.
But what if someone presents evidence that P is X that is not just based on race?
Premise 1: Person P is accused of being X by person Q.
Premise 2: The evidence given by Q for P being X is E (which is not based on P’s race).
Premise 3: P denies E.
Conclusion: Q is being a racist.
This is clearly bad logic; although it also does not follow that Q is not being racist—it neither proves nor disproves this. To illustrate:
Premise 1: Barry is accused of being a racist by Karen.
Premise 2: The evidence given by Karen for Barry being a racist consists of an abundance of racist tweets, statements, policies, actions and so on.
Premise 3: Barry denies the evidence, says he is not a racist.
Conclusion: Karen is being a racist.
This is also bad logic; denying the evidence does not prove that Karen is a racist. She could, of course, be a racist—but this bad logic does nothing to prove it.
What Trump as his fellows are doing, it seems, is trying to run the first argument—and that would be smart, since the reasoning seems solid. Those who are critical of Trump would contend that he cannot use the first argument because the second premise is false. Instead, Trump can only use the second argument in which he just denies he is a racist and claims his critics are racist.
The battle, as one would expect, comes down to the truth of the claims rather than the logic. For Trump’s “you’re the racist” defense to be a good argument (good logic and plausible premises), then he would need to establish key claims. The exact claims would depend on which specific strategy is being used. Those who claim that racism against minorities no longer exists would need to prove that. This seems unlikely given the body of existing evidence. Those who claim that it is not as bad as is claimed by expert critics (no straw people, please) would need to prove that. Those who claim that discrimination against whites exists and that it is comparable to racism against minorities would need to prove that. Trump and his fellows would also need to show that the evidence presented that they are racists does not support this claim. Finally, Trump and his fellows would need to show that those accusing them of racism are acting from bigotry against whites. Just showing that he is not a racist would not show those accusing him are—they could be wrong, but it would not follow that they are racist.
In a way, this matter has been resolved: the evidence of Trump’s racism is overwhelming and a majority of Americans now believe Trump is a racist. My point is that people are accepting the evidence; I am not committing the appeal to belief fallacy by asserting that he is racist because most people believe he is. On the other side, Trump’s most dedicated defenders assert that he is not a racist and they are not racists—something they feel obliged to say seemingly every day. They also assert that those accusing them of racism are the real racists and that they are victims of discrimination. The overwhelming evidence is that they are not the victims of racial discrimination, despite this belief. They are, however, often right to see themselves as victims—of Trump’s policies. I will not deny that many white people face difficult challenges. Corporations have moved jobs overseas, wages have been stagnant, health care is expensive, an opioid epidemic has been ravaging America, and the grotesque mismanagement of the pandemic has done incredibly harm. But these are not the result of people being white; these are not the results of the misdeeds of minorities or discrimination against whites. Rather, these are the result of the political, economic and social system that has been crafted over the decades—one that hurts everyone who is not rich enough to fare well in this dystopia.
In another way, the matter is also resolved: the lines are drawn, the hats are on and few are switching teams at this late date.
5 minutes of Google searching and I was able to find articles from major news organizations calling Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr, Mitt Romney, and John McCain, racists.
One may see the pattern.
Yet in Obama’s autobiography, Dreams From my Father, he writes:
“To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.”
and…
“To be black was to be the beneficiary of a great inheritance, a special destiny, glorious burdens that only we were strong enough to bear.”
Special racial destiny? Why, one hearkens to days of 30s Germany to remember books written of glorious burdens and special, racial destinies….
One would almost come to believe, after listening to Democrats, that race exists. Their most ardent leftist academic supporters would say it doesn’t. Yet then go about fomenting discord between the fiction called race.
Only the party of Jefferson Davis could hammer the race issue as hard as it does and get away with it. Maybe its to assuage the guilt of killing, after adjusting for population growth, the equivalent of 5 million people in the US Civil War, and the Democrat’s grisly attempt to continue owning slaves. Lyndon Johnson merely tried to maintain power through other means. His Great Society is teetering toward failed state.
But Johnson was far more honest than the current Democrat disaster.