Shouldn’t Trump Voters Be Viewed as Traitors?
"The magazine’s Ethicist columnist on whether voters should be held accountable for their chosen candidate’s behavior.
From my perspective, the attack on the Capitol spurred on by Donald Trump on Jan. 6, 2021, the efforts to nullify the results of the 2020 election with false electors and unfounded court cases and the persistent effort to discredit those election results without evidence amounted to an attempt to overthrow a pillar of our democracy. More to the point, 18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 includes crimes against the nation described as treason, misprision of treason, rebellion or insurrection, seditious conspiracy and advocating the overthrow of government. I hold anyone voting for Trump at least morally guilty for the consequences of Jan. 6 and everything that follows the recent election. Would you agree that people who vote for Trump in light of these circumstances are themselves guilty of treasonous acts? — Name Withheld
From the Ethicist:
Something like three-quarters of Americans, surveys over the past year report, think democracy in America is threatened. To go by exit-poll data, those voters supported Trump in about the same proportions as those who thought democracy was secure. In a study published last year, researchers at U.C. Berkeley and M.I.T. provided evidence that democratic back-sliding around the world — with citizens voting for authoritarian leaders — is driven in part by voters who believe in democracy but doubt that the other side does. The researchers found that such voters, once shown the actual levels of support for democracy among their opponents, became less likely to vote for candidates who violated democratic norms. The general point is that not understanding the actual views of people of other parties — and assuming the worst of them — can be dangerous for democracy.
Trump voters, for the most part, don’t think he committed treason. And your position can’t be that unknowingly voting for someone guilty of treason is itself treasonous. Perhaps you think that they should believe him to have been treasonous. Similar issues were aired when Henry Wallace, otherwise a highly dissimilar figure, ran for president in 1948. He had denounced the Marshall Plan, wanted the Soviet Union to play a role in the governance of Germany’s western industrial heartland and — detractors thought — was a Stalin apologist.
Historians can debate whether he was a voice of conscience or a pawn of America’s adversaries. But suppose you were among those who viewed him as a traitor. To have extended the indictment to his supporters would have been to criminalize political disagreement. Besides, if voting for someone who has done bad things makes you guilty of them, most voters are in deep trouble. It’s easy to be inflamed by someone with a habit of making inflammatory statements. But there may be a cost when you deem those who vote for the other side as ‘‘the enemy from within.’’ That’s a term that Trump has freely employed, of course. You’ll want to ask yourself whether protecting democracy is best served by adopting this attitude.
Readers Respond
The previous question was from a reader who disagreed with his friends about political hypocrisy. He wrote: “My Trump-supporter friends understand that he’s a liar and adulterer but adamantly defend him with reasoning like ‘‘Everyone lies — have you not lied before?’’ or ‘‘My dad’s an extremely trustworthy guy even though he cheated on my mom a couple of times — so what?’’ I understand they are rationalizing to feel good about their candidate, but is it ethical to be hypocritical?”
In his response, the Ethicist noted: “Yes, everybody lies. Still, lying about private matters, matters you think are nobody else’s business, may be quite different from lying about public matters in order to manipulate others into doing what you want. … Maybe what your friends really mean is that, though they might have preferred a president who showed greater fidelity to the truth and to his wives, these traits are less important to them than other traits that they actively favor. What they shouldn’t commit themselves to is the position that you can’t criticize someone for doing something you have done yourself. It also seems hard to dispute that, as David Leonhardt, Ian Prasad Philbrick and Stuart A. Thompson have argued in The Times, Trump has lied on a scale that outstrips his presidential predecessors. But we can put aside the tally. Hypocrisy, in Rochefoucauld’s deathless line, is the tribute vice pays to virtue. Society would founder if we had to be blameless to stand up for the values we hold dear.” (Reread the full question and answer here.)
⬥
It is irresponsible to defend Donald Trump by suggesting that his lies are not substantially different than the lies and exaggerations that any of us may be guilty of in our personal lives. His lies cost lives; e.g., knowingly minimizing the potential impact of a pandemic that he knew to be deadly. Individuals who defend Trump in this way are enabling a less stable climate abroad and worsening the trend toward inequality and rejection of science at home. — Joe
⬥
The issue with Trump is not just the lies themselves, or their proportion, but that he is proposing actions or decisions on the basis of those lies. Most of us do not have massive consequences to our lying, or consequences are essentially personal in nature, and impact our personal or perhaps work relationships. Trump’s lies, and any decisions based on those lies, have had, or will have, enormous if not dreadful consequences for some people. The more power I have, the more important I be trustworthy and fair in my dealings. The question is whether Trump has proved himself to be trustworthy or fair on these terms. —Graham
⬥
There are lies, and then there are lies. A lie to protect someone from unwarranted harm would be virtuous; a lie to protect your privacy might be all right. But lies to obscure the truth? Lies to overthrow venerable and noble institutions? Lies that damage the innocent in order to further dishonest goals? Not the same at all. And, frankly, suggesting that they are is, simply put, lying. — Mark H.
⬥
Is it hypocritical to criticize someone for lying if you occasionally yourself? Certainly not if you believe that lying in general is wrong, but there are some occasions when it may be beneficial, such as to not hurt someone’s feelings or to maintain privacy about something. But if you say that “everyone lies” and that makes it OK, that is an issue, as it leads to “alternative facts” and a total disregard for telling the truth. A total disregard for truth is an ethical issue. — Phil
It doesn’t matter. Arguments or even discussions about politics are not worth losing friends. Politics and attitudes will change, but your friendships are supposed to last. — Mark U."
No comments:
Post a Comment