In a tragic aircraft accident, sixty-seven people died. In response to past tragedies, presidents ranging from Reagan to Obama have endeavored to unite and comfort the American people. Trump intentionally decided to take a different approach and used the tragedy as an opportunity to advance his anti-DEI agenda.
While Trump acknowledged that the cause of the crash was unknown, he quickly blamed DEI. When a reporter asked him how he knew this, he asserted it was because he has common sense. He also claimed that the crash was the fault of Biden and Obama and that it might have been caused by hiring people with disabilities.
In one sense, Trump is right to blame past administrations. The federal government has allowed the quality of air traffic safety to decline, and one might trace this back to at least Reagan who famously fired the striking air traffic controllers. As with many areas concerned with the safety of the American people, there is a shortage of staff, chronic underfunding and a problem with obsolete technology. Past administrations (including Trump’s) and congress bear responsibility for this. So, I agree with Trump that past leaders bear some of the blame for the tragedy. But I disagree with his false DEI claim.
As is always the case, rational people spend time and energy trying to debunk and refute Trump’s false claims. While this should be done, there is the question of whether this has any practical effect in terms of changing minds. At this point, it seems certain that America is firmly divided between those who reject Trump’s lies and those who accept them or do not care that he is lying. But I’m all about the desperate fight against impossible odds, so here we go.
Trump’s claim that the crash was caused by diversity hires of people with disabilities is easy to debunk. The FAA has strict requirements for air traffic controllers and someone who was incapable of doing the job would not be hired. After all, being an air traffic controller is not like being a member of Trump’s cabinet. As others will point out, this baseless attack on people with disabilities echoes the Nazis. Trump supporters will presumably respond to this criticism by saying that “liberals” always compare Trump to the Nazis. While some comparisons are overblown, there is a reason why this occurs so often. And that is because Trump and his henchmen are often at least Nazi adjacent. Proud American Nazis know this is true and wish that their fellows had more courage. So, the questions “why do the libs always compare Trump and his henchmen to Nazis?” and “why do Nazis like Trump and his henchmen?” have the same answer. Meanwhile, the “normies” are baffled and the mainstream media generates think pieces debating the obvious. But what about Trump’s DEI claims?
One problem with engaging with these DEI claims is that the engagement provides them with a degree of legitimacy they do not deserve. Doing so can create the impression that there is a meaningful debate with two equally plausible sides. As many others have pointed out, when Trump and his ilk talk about DEI, this is just a dog whistle to the racists and sexists. These bigots know exactly what he means as do the anti-racists; but they disagree about whether bigotry is good. As to why Trump and his ilk bother with dog whistles, there seem to be two reasons.
One is that being openly racist or sexist is seen as crude and impolite. Polite bigots use dog whistles in public, reserving their open racism and sexism for private conversations. People can also convince themselves that they are good because they are not openly using racist or sexist terms.
The other is that there are non-bigots who cannot hear the dog whistle and believe, in good faith ignorance, that DEI might be the cause of these problems. If pressed, they will deny being racist or sexist and will claim that DEI might arise from good intentions but is bad because it puts incompetent people into jobs that are not qualified for. And hence things go wrong. If they are asked about why these people are assumed to be incompetent and whether women, minorities, old people, and people with disabilities can be competent, they will usually grow uncomfortable and want to change to topic. These people are still in play. While the bigots want to recruit them using dog whistles to onboard them into bigotry, they will settle for them remaining cooperatively neutral. If a “normie” expresses doubt about charges of racism or sexism or defends attacks on DEI, this provides cover and support for the bigots, and they are happy to exploit this cover. But “normies” are potential recruits to the side of good, since they have a mild dislike of racism and sexism that can be appealed to. One challenge is convincing them to hear the dog whistles for what they are. This is difficult, since it requires acknowledging their own past complicity in racism and sexism while also facing uncomfortable truths about politicians and pundits they might like and support.
The danger in trying to win over the “normies” is that one must engage with the DEI claims made by Trump and his fellows, which (as mentioned above) runs the risk of lending them legitimacy by creating the appearance that there is something to debate. But it seems that the only way to reveal the truth is to engage with the lies, as risky as that might be.
As a philosopher, my preference is to use good logic and plausible claims when arguing. After all, the goal is truth, and this is the correct approach. However, logic is awful as a means of persuasion and engaging people with facts is challenging because for every fact there seems to be a thousand appealing lies. But there might be some people who can be persuaded by the fact that DEI is not to blame for the crash nor is it to blame for the other things, such as wildfires, that the right likes to blame on it. That said, the core of the fight is one of values.
For someone to believe that DEI results in the hiring of incompetent people, they must believe that white, straight men have a monopoly on competence and that everyone else is inferior to a degree that they are unsuitable for many jobs. So, one way to engage with a possible “normie” about DEI is to ask them what they have in their hearts: do they feel that only straight, white men are truly competent and that everyone else is inferior and suitable only for race and gender “appropriate” roles? If they do not find this bigotry in their hearts, there is hope for them.
I should clarify that I didn’t mean to imply that the people who died in this plane ‘accident’ were dumb: people who die almost always is a tragic occurring, both for the ones who die and for the ones left behind to deal with the death of others. (For the bad ones, it’s actually a very good thing: they stopped harming others.)
I meant that these people who died could have not died by simply not flying. Not in that instance, but ever. Most things we have and use today, in the past people lived without, and they weren’t any worse for that. Flying should be seen like debt: it’s unwise to get credit and risk your house if you can’t pay it back. But even if I want to buy an Iphone but have no money, I don’t buy it. Simple. Forget it. So you can’t go somewhere without flying: don’t go. Simple as that. Flying is not necessary like having a roof over your head, etc. It’s just a crazy commodity that everybody uses without thinking, ‘what if something happens while, whooooo, I am ‘flying’ ?’. It’s really normalized, collective madness, and the human race is well known for having a very long list of these examples.
I just cannot believe how millions of people just ‘catch a flight’, as if they were going to catch a bus. Don’t they realize that there will ALWAYS be plane accidents? Soon or later another one has to happen. Don’t they watch the documentaries about how even little things like a flock of birds getting into an engine is enough to cause a plane crash? Does everybody thinks that the birds will see a plane approaching and go ‘oh wow, there’s a plane, let’s move out of the way!’.
Does anybody watches the documentaries made by credible sources who show how black market parts have been used in commercial airlines, because, hey, they aren’t flying people around out of love, but for profit. Nothing wrong with profit, unless the customers can die!
But no one seems to think with their head. They seem to ‘fly’ mainly because they think ‘well, everybody else does it!’. Just like smoking, until one gets lung cancer, or eating junk food, until one gets heart disease, etc.
Most people either don’t think at all, or frankly think absolute trash. The cure? Philosophy. I am not a philosopher, just an idiot, just someone who wants to be as little dumb as possible. I have never found a philosopher from whom I didn’t learn something useful. People, read Plato, Schopenhauer, Dr LaBossiere, Sartre, any of these thinkers….not the idiocy found on ‘social media’.
If only Trump had been a philosopher, instead of the dumb dinosaur he is. Sigh. Benjamin Franklin is probably throwing up in his grave. I apologize for the long message and once again feel free not to publish it. Thank you, regardless.
Trump is just an ignoramus with more money than intellect. Sure, mine is a lowly ad hominem, but the facts and evidence for this are simply the many foolish things he says, thinks, and does, the list is out there for all to see. Does this man ever seeks the advice of people who know and understand far more than he is capable?
As for plane ‘accidents’, I think the whole world is dumb: we constantly hear the argument as ‘flying is safe’, but how ‘safe’ can it be to strap myself on a flying bullet? I’ll never forget the story of a guy who flew only once to another country, and the plane disintegrated against a mountain. Once was enough. Then there’s the dumb argument as how driving is supposedly more ‘dangerous’ than flying. Oh yeah? First of all, there’s more driving accidents than plane crashes simply because driving is far more common than flying.
But it really shocks me how people follow the above logic: if I get into a car accident, it doesn’t mean necessarily than I am going to die. Perhaps I’ll only injure my little finger, or just damage the car. But a plane accident, how is anyone going to make it?
As for Trump, well, a majority voted for him. Says as much about him, as for the rest of society. To Dr LaBossiere: please feel free not to publish my comment if you don’t think it is of any use; I can understand how my extremely low opinion of Trump might be unwelcome even here…. Thanks for reading anyways and for your essay.
Yes, this crash and loss of lives was tragic. Things go wrong. We pay a price for conveniences in a world of complexity. This will happen due, in part, to that complexity; in part , equipment failures; and, in part to chance. We must remember that we have choices and Murphy is silently watching all of the time. Maybe we ought to transcend convenience and complexity. That COULD preserve lives, to some effect. But there is little likelihood of such transcendence. We are wrapped into the computer conveniences of complexity. You read it here. You may have already read something like it, somewhere else?
Nicely written. Eloquent.