Yet for many who rallied under Harris’ DEI campaign, which centered on threats against human rights issues, the most important thing was voting against Trump himself and the hateful, bigoted rhetoric he gives power to.
On top of being convicted of 34 felonies, denying many sexual-assault accusations and being impeached twice (both of which times he was acquitted), Trump is not shy or shameless when it comes to making heinous remarks concerning marginalized individuals.
As the leader of this country, he sets an example of how it is appropriate to talk about and treat individuals. From claims of him saying that people with disabilities “should just die” because of the expenses required, to saying that immigrants are “monsters” and “rapists,” this attitude inarguably influences and empowers blatant discriminatory rhetoric among devout Trump followers.
Because — make no mistake — this rhetoric undeniably exists and is unacceptable.
While campaigning this year, Trish Carter-Goodheart, Nez Perce Tribe member and Democratic candidate for the Idaho legislature, was told by Sen. Dan Foreman in a public forum to “go back where you came from” after speaking up about Native issues. North Carolina Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson described LGBTQ+ individuals as “filth” at the 2024 Republican National Convention, an event that can set the precedent for public opinion.
On a personal level, just last month while at Skybar here in Auburn, three white, male students directly across the table from me unabashedly used full racial and homophobic slurs while speaking about a queer Black individual. A Black man sat next to me hearing the same things, and when called out, these three men had no remorse, continuing to make vile remarks.
The rhetoric Trump empowers is objectively harmful.
The next term of Trump’s presidency does raise valid concerns for the rights and protections of minority groups. Previously, he supported and enacted regressive policies against members of the LGBTQ+ community, specifically concerning health care and anti-discrimination laws.
His administration uses a blanket “pro-life” platform, appealing to the conservative American, that limits women’s reproductive rights and access to healthcare that goes beyond just abortion.
Trump has also previously taken action that could, going forward, hinder protections of those with disabilities, such as reducing class action lawsuits that help reinforce Americans with Disabilities Act policies, as well as threatening the Affordable Care Act, which provides accessibility for many individuals with disabilities.
However, the exact effects of Trump’s administration on these issues are difficult to predict and fact check, encouraging aggressive fear-mongering that can divert from addressing reality.
While reflecting on the importance of DEI policies for minority groups, one thing that I found particularly enlightening was that out of all demographics polled following the election, the highest concentration of Democratic votes belonged to Black individuals over the age of 65.
It is not a stretch to point out that this group lived through the brunt of the Civil Rights Movement and fought directly for the right to vote. Their experience undoubtably proves how important human rights are to voters, and the very real threats against them.
All this to say: DEI issues matter greatly in politics and do represent the values of many minority individuals. It is minimizing and derisive to say that advocating for these issues is the result of “bleeding hearts” or over-sensitivity.
However, the reality is that Trump’s economic and traditional values campaign won over many other minority Americans. There is much disagreement whether his economic plan will actually benefit those most in need, but the point is that voters held conviction in it.
When some of the more marginalized communities in America speak about economic needs they believe a candidate will better fulfill, I’d argue that it is important to listen.
Many are understandably shocked and angry that people would prioritize economic policy over other issues and vote for a candidate who so openly incites cruel, dehumanizing treatment of marginalized people.
However, I believe some of the outrage from left-leaning, particularly white and middle-class, Americans edges a little too close towards punching down on groups of the same marginalized people who they often claim to advocate for and who, whether you like the outcome or not, deserve to have a say in the matter.
It’s a very complex line to walk when discussing diverse political opinions. It can be conflicting to understand how, in the fraught social discourse surrounding minority issues, some members of those communities chose to vote the way they did. However, vilifying all Trump voters also means throwing blame onto certain minorities and lower economic classes, which is frankly hypocritical and unproductive.
Still, the fight for human rights is necessary, and the American people deserve more than such a polarizing partisan divide in leadership. Empathy towards marginalized people and fighting against violations of their human rights should not be mutually exclusive to policies they deem beneficial. We have done a grave disservice as a society by turning moralizing identity politics into platforms.
This begs a question which I believe is at the heart of every person wrestling with the result of the presidential election: how has a world been created where both do not exist together?
There is no simple explanation, and it is not a question I have license to answer. Instead, I pose a challenge: when politics fail to represent the values of all citizens, which is inevitable in our beautifully diverse country, what is most important is focusing on change and advocation for individual community issues.
Radical liberation of oppressed and marginalized people is a civic privilege and duty, and working to improve people’s quality of life matters greatly.
And don’t let the numbers fool you — while NBC reports that only 34% percent of Native Americans voted blue, this was based on an extremely small sample, none surveyed on actual tribal land. People of Color still face forms of voter suppression, making it difficult for lower-income individuals to be fully represented at the polls.
Things are not always what they seem in the echo chambers of raucous cultural conversation. There is no “Blue Belt”, no monolithic representation of the hearts and needs of American people, no “one policy fits all.”
Instead, it is a collective but diverse voice of individuals, beyond red or blue dots on a map, upholding the values of communities. It is essential to allow these communities to speak loudly, reminding America what its people ultimately demand: liberty, opportunity and equality.
Do you like this story? The Plainsman doesn’t accept money from tuition or student fees, and we don’t charge a subscription fee. But you can donate to support The Plainsman.
Share and discuss “COLUMN | America’s Blue Belt” on social media.
Source link : http://www.bing.com/news/apiclick.aspx?ref=FexRss&aid=&tid=6734724ba83c45c389591cbdd3a78191&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theplainsman.com%2Farticle%2F2024%2F11%2Fcolumn-americas-blue-belt&c=17313672027256285003&mkt=en-us
Author :
Publish date : 2024-11-12 13:21:00
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source.
