Patheos

BuddhistCatholicContemplativeEvangelicalGeneral ChristianHinduJewishLatter-day SaintMuslimNew VisionsProgressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Patheos

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube

slacktivist

‘Don’t you agree?’

Last updated on: January 15, 2018 at 3:06 pm   by Fred Clark

‘Don’t you agree?’ 2018-01-15T15:06:28-05:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

John Cassidy’s “A Racist in the Oval Office,” in The New Yorker, revisits the long history of Donald Trump’s racist statements. He cites one awful example recounted by “veteran casino executive” John R. O’Donnell, recorded in the 1991 book Trumped! The Inside Story of the Real Donald Trump,* which details Trump’s disastrous oversight of the Trump Plaza casino in Atlantic City. O’Donnell was working for Trump and his boss started sounding off about “an employee in the Plaza’s finance department who happened to be African-American.”

This is from the book:

“Yeah, I never liked the guy. I don’t think he knows what the fuck he’s doing. My accountants in New York are always complaining about him. He’s not responsive. And it isn’t funny. I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. Those are the kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else.”

I couldn’t believe I was hearing this. But Donald went on, “Besides that, I’ve got to tell you something else. I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is. I believe that. It’s not anything they can control. . . . Don’t you agree?” He looked at me straight in the eye and waited for my reply.

O’Donnell’s reply wasn’t inaccurate, but it was woefully incomplete:

“Donald, you really shouldn’t say things like that to me or anybody else,” I said. “That is not the kind of image you want to project. We shouldn’t even be having this conversation, even if it’s the way you feel.”

“Yeah, you’re right,” he said. “If anybody ever heard me say that … holy shit … I’d be in a lot of trouble. But I have to tell you, that’s the way I feel.”

One cheer for O’Donnell for not silently embracing Trump’s rant, a la Billy Bush, but his response focusing on the shallow, surface-level concern of “the kind of image you want to project” is still light-years from what needed to be said. The problem with Trump’s “laziness is a trait in blacks” statement isn’t simply that it projects a poor image or that it might get him “in a lot of trouble.”

The problem is that it’s a lie. It’s not true.

DSDJT

Believing such lies doesn’t only make Trump racist, it makes him stupid — it makes him more ignorant, more irrational, more detached from reality.

At some level, Trump seems to know that “the way I feel” isn’t true or good or real. This is why, like everyone trying to live within a lie they partly recognize is unreal, he seeks support and confirmation from others. This is why it was so important for him to say, “Don’t you agree?” The unreality of the lie can appear more real-ish to him if he can persuade others to join him in the fantasy of it.

This question is always present, although usually unspoken, whenever bigoted lies are expressed. It’s the question silently accompanying every racist, misogynist, or homophobic “joke,” every disparaging generalization. This is the constant, perpetual question exchanged among bigots: Don’t you agree?

Agreement, here, entails not just sharing the sentiment, but endorsing the underlying notion that such sentiments can — if broadly shared — come to outweigh reality itself. If we agree, then our opinions can outvote the truth. We can join together in the pretense of a world shaped by our preferences, rather than the world as it is.

Agreement, in other words, entails self-deception in the third person.

This desperately sought agreement will serve to reaffirm and to strengthen the speaker’s commitment to the lie, but denying them such agreement — confronting them with firm, substantial disagreement — will have the opposite effect.

This isn’t a magic remedy for bigotry — a single such instance of disagreement won’t sweep away the years of training and practice that this person has devoted themselves to in order to achieve their status as a reality-defying bigot. Challenging them by refusing them the agreement they seek won’t, by itself, change their minds. But it will support the part of their mind that knows, or at least strongly suspects, that the lie is a lie. And that means their ongoing self-deception is going to be more difficult, more taxing, and harder to sustain.

O’Donnell’s image-focused disagreement can’t be effective in this way. It allowed Trump to walk away hearing only that he should be more careful not to say such things around the “wrong” people, and thus letting him reclassify the problem as having to do with what he can say out loud in particular settings, rather than having to do with his rejection of reality.

For disagreement to register, it needs to focus on the substance of the false claim. Not “you really shouldn’t say things like that” but as plainly as possible, “That is not true. Your opinion does not correspond with objective reality.”

That last sentence doesn’t sound like typical human speech, but I’ve found that to be effective. The more Vulcan and Spock-like you’re able to be in expressing this disagreement, the more unsettling it tends to be. They want to engage on a purely emotional level. “Don’t you agree?” is, in part, an invitation to elevate their emotional preference over the cold logic and cold facts of the matter. The chillier you can make it, the more chilling it will be.

But then again, I’ve often failed to keep my cool in denying such agreement, and I think a more heated response can work too.

In any case, if you’re white, or male, or straight, then you’re familiar with the kind of situation John R. O’Donnell describes. This is how (some) white people often talk to other white people about non-white people when they’re sure no one else can hear them. And it’s how (some) men talk to other men about women in the absence of women (“locker-room” talk). And how (some) straight folks talk to other straight folks about everybody else when they’re not around.

And it always, always, always ends with this question: Don’t you agree? It always seeks and desires and needs the confirmation of this agreement.

It doesn’t matter if the question has been asked explicitly or implicitly, it requires an explicit response. If you don’t very clearly say “No. No I do not agree because it is not true,” then whatever else you may say or do will be taken as agreement and encouragement. Your voice and your power — however much or however little you may have — will be conscripted in service of that agreement and in service of the lie it prefers to reality.

– – – – – – – – – – – –

* Trump’s devoted defenders reject this book as nothing more than a politically motivated political hit-piece by their savior’s political enemies. This is the Roy Moore Time Traveler Defense — requiring us to believe that Trump’s political enemies somehow knew, back in 1991, that 27 years in the future this man would be their political opponent, so they had the extreme foresight to see the ground decades in advance with smears meant to discredit him.

The truth, of course, is that this 1991 book had nothing at all to do with 21st-century politics and nothing at all to do with the Republican Party now remade in the image of Trump and the tea party and their enablers. At the time it was written, this book had no intention or expectation of ever having anything at all to do with presidential politics. It was simply the profile of a horrifying human being — a reckless, destructive, selfish man who enriched himself by plundering Atlantic City. The notion that this man — a boorish asshole near the top of everyone’s list of Worst People Alive in 1991 — might ever be president was as incomprehensible to the authors and publishers of this book back then as it still is to most of us now.

class warfare

racism

Trump

Previous Post



January 14, 2018

Smart people saying smart things (1.14)

Next Post



January 15, 2018 Postcards from the class and culture wars (1.15)


Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003


Follow Us!

Follow Us on Facebook



TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who baptized Jesus?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Paul Peter James John the Baptist

Related posts from slacktivist

Family

Honk and holler as we go

slacktivist

Family

'For there is nothing hidden that will not...

slacktivist

Family

Bad Bosses are not beloved

slacktivist

Family

Complaint department

slacktivist

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian

Feeling Small, Examining Beliefs, and Getting Bigger

One of my grandfathers, nicknamed “Little Joe,” lived in Lincoln County, Oklahoma,...

What the Guilty Taught Me, and What I...

Guest writer: Pilgrim. A Pilgrim at the Prison Table. Then the Lord...

Pope Leo: "I have Truly Felt Your Support."

Pope Leo walked out of the hospital on his own steam last...

Election Day With Amos: 3 Lessons for Christian...

What can the prophet Amos teach Christians about Election Day? Nearly 2,800...

Adventurous Lectionary - Pentecost 22 - October 25,...

PENTECOST 22 The Adventurous Lectionary – October 25, 2026 - Pentecost 22...

Everything: Learning Hip Hop Theomusicology from Lauryn Hill

"My hold things; they have not distinguished between the hold and unhold,...

view all Progressive Christian blogs

Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Copyright 2008-2026, Patheos. All rights reserved.

Subscription Support Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In

Follow Patheos Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube