From Arse To Outhouse: Spinning Trump’s Shit-Hole Comment

On Thursday January 11th, President Trump met with a small, bipartisan group of lawmakers to discuss immigration. In that meeting, during a discussion of the merits of the country-quota based system currently in place, POTUS reportedly asked why the US allows immigration “from shit-hole countries’ like Haiti and those in Africa.

And the blowback began. Celebrities, activists, senators, congresspeople, heads of state, as well as unions of countries have condemned the statement, calling it racist in one way or another. Many have gone further and demanded an apology, as well. 

Worse yet for Donald Trump, the story won’t go away. It’s been on top of the news for 8 days. For contrast, within the past five years, former President Obama called Libya a “shit-show”, and Senator Lindsay Graham called Mexico a “hell-hole”. Both were in the news for a day (and most people don’t remember either comment at this point).

The waxing of this conflict, and his paper-thin skin, have unsurprisingly prompted Mr. Trump to respond, albeit in an unusually coordinated fashion. Four days after the remarks, the White House AND the two Trump supporters at the meeting (Senators David Purdue and Tom Cotton) simultaneously began suggesting that the other attendees misheard the President, who actually called the countries “shit-houses”. [This is an old slang word for out-houses.]

But, what was the calculation behind switching from holes to houses? Why make this distinction? Here’s my fantasy about what the Trump team considered as it mulled over potential responses to the blowback from his shitty commentary.

Option A: Deny the original comment.

Option B: Respond generally to the topic but don’t actively deny the comment. (Sarah Sanders would be an excellent point person for this approach.)

Option C: Act as if the words shithole and shithouse are synonyms. This would accomplish two things. First, changing the initial readout would create a distraction from the original comment. There would be a good deal of media attention paid to the seemingly baseless switch, but not necessarily to the comment itself. Second, and at the same time, it would dial down the intensity of the comment and, therefore, the reaction to it. Simply put, likening a country to an anus is a more highly charged declaration than making the same comparison to an out-house.

There is evidence that this strategy is working. The redefinition was endorsed by none other than former President Obama's National Security Council Spokesperson, Tommy Vietor, who is by no account Trump friendly. And this is but one of many examples.

We’re watching to see what happens, and what else POTUS has to say about Shit-Hole Gate, on Twitter...

The Confederacy Versus Political Iconoclasm

I started to write this piece several months ago, during a previous dust up over the very same issue. At that point, the foci were confederate monuments in New Orleans and confederate flags in South Carolina. Of late we've been talking about the statue of General Robert E. Lee in Virginia's Charlottesville.

Kind of. While there has been substantive discussion of the relative merits of removing, modifying, or allowing the monument, the argument has also been hijacked to serve as the latest Antifa ~ Alt-Right battleground. Exclusive of all things proxy, this post endeavors to examine the merit issues alone. 

It is safe to say that, over time, conservatives have opposed the removal of  Civil War monuments. All of the Right's rationales for this can be reduced to one or more of the following. The demolition is defined as an assault on Southern: history, preservation, culture, or autonomy.

Owning the racism and oppression in the states' rights arguments made by the Confederacy in the 1860's, some conservative southerners view allowing Civil War monuments to stand as providing a vehicle for teaching tolerance, perhaps thereby also acquiring absolution for the sins of their fathers. In other words, they assert, these icons should be used to facilitate education about the related historical events, and about their existential and cultural impacts, in order to promote inclusivity in young people.

The Left's perspective is persuasive, too: The naked, chilling truth is that the Confederacy advocated continuing the practice of

capturing Africans, selling them into slavery, and controlling them with violence and death. Simply put, progressives argue that these are monuments to the basest of human instincts, to subjugate and to kill. They ask, what descent society would pay homage to those who fought to continue such an abomination? Or, would endorse the racism inherent in these icons by letting them stand? Or, would allow the direct descendants of slaves to be unceasingly insulted by the presence of statues honoring their forbearers' oppressors?

Relatedly, this view begs the oft-heard liberal argument that conservatives are racists, evidenced by their veneration of historic oppressors. For the Left, this has long been a fruitful accusation to make. In the 1960s, for instance, the Democrat Party began to use the very same argument to successfully disown slavery and the ensuing Jim Crow era. [Consequently, most now erroneously ascribe both the Republican Party.]

What To Do

I advocate using a slightly modified utilitarianism to solve this problem. Here, utilitarianism means selecting the solutions that will provide the most satisfaction to the most constituencies (as opposed to individuals). These constituencies are comprised of individuals concerned with Southern history, preservation, culture, and autonomy. Here are my ideas. 

Government should continue to consign the highly charged confederate flag to museums. This assures the preservation of the icon and its history. Further, large confederate monuments - on pedestals in the public square - should be taken down. 

In my opinion, their centrality and size so strongly suggest a public endorsement of racism, that much of the didactic value they have is obfuscated. Moreover, this removes the most glaring of insults. As for statues of General Lee in particular, it is worth noting that he was explicitly opposed to the erection of monuments to confederate soldiers.

On the other hand, icons at historic sites and battlefields should remain unperturbed. Such places continue to be perfect venues for educating young people about racism and inclusivity. (Nothing drives home a point like a field trip.) Finally, confederate icons at cemeteries should also be preserved. As is the case with keeping monuments on battlefields and the like, cemetery preservation allows individual members of the Confederacy to be honored in the present day.

Assuming that my policy recommendations will not be adopted at any point in the near future, I'll have more to say on the matter very soon.