To the editor:
Nine days post-election is all it took for Professor David Carlson (“The Wave: Trump rides fear, racism to White House,” Nov. 17) to return to the pulpit of the Op/Ed page of the Daily Journal to deliver yet another of his tired sermons; this time demonizing anyone who might disagree with him and who may have committed the ultimate sin of voting for President-elect Donald Trump.
And Mr. Carlson’s sin? Well, he underestimated the “wave” fueled by ignorance, irrationality, confusion, racism, sexism, xenophobia (I probably left out an “ism” or a “phobia”) of the electorate voting for Trump.
Mr. Carlson fails to provide any thoughtful analysis of election results leaving this reader to view Carlson’s work as nothing more than a pompous and unsupported tirade.
By clear inference in his argument, the unsavory characteristics of the electorate who fueled this wave must too be assigned to the 42 percent of women (New York Times), 29 percent of Latinos (NBC exit polling), 8 percent of African-Americans (USA Today), 49 percent of whites with college degrees (Pew Research Center), 67 percent of whites without a college degrees (ABC News), 62 percent of residents in rural America (Pew Research Center), and 50 percent of suburbanites (Pew Research Center) who voted for Trump. Managing to insult and marginalize 60,000,000-plus voters is no small achievement.
Carlson conveniently picks selected events and issues (which, I agree with him, no doubt played a part in some of the Trump vote) to support his premise. Carlson proves unable or unwilling to comprehend that perhaps Trump voters took into consideration, too, other events or issues, for example, Benghazi, emails, Obamacare, FBI investigations or nefarious dealings of The Clinton Foundation (Haiti, Uranium One or Qatar).
Or, maybe an under-performing economy was a voter’s primary concern. Secretary Hillary Clinton in an August speech spoke of making “our economy work for everyone,” of “rural areas ravaged by addiction and lost jobs,” of “industrial regions hollowed out when factories closed,” and of “past trade deals (that) have been sold to the American people with rosy scenarios that didn’t pan out.” In his lone concession, Carlson acknowledges that future appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court may have driven some to vote for Trump.
Perhaps Professor Carlson can free himself from the liberal bastion of academia long enough to engage in self-examination for this writing, and others of his, show him to be a learned person who views the world through a lens that robotically labels people along racial, gender, ethnic, religious, educational or socio-economic lines.
He has proven skilled at taking a page from Republican and Democratic playbooks to personally attack anyone who disagrees with him thus avoiding the inconvenience of a serious discussion on issues facing us today. Respect and civility are the casualties of Carlson’s condescending approach.
Change is undoubtedly upon us just as it was in 2008 with the election of President Obama. Whether the change demanded Nov. 8 is ultimately for the good remains to be seen.
However, broad and unsubstantiated generalizations wrapped in an arrogant and insulting sermon-like writing does nothing to advance the inclusion and acceptance Mr. Carlson claims to champion.
Stephen LePage
Center Grove area
