Civil Discourse and Political Reality

I’ve never understood why Donald Trump seems to attract such a level of hatred and vitriol. There is nothing unusual about political candidates being vilified by opponents, but after an election or a term in office, the level of animosity usually subsides, and attacks focus on policy decisions and not as much on personality.

I experienced some hostilities when I was a Republican presidential elector in 2016. It was my fourth time to be an elector from Alabama, so it was out of the ordinary when a few weeks before the electoral college convened, my mailbox started to fill up with cards and letters imploring me to change my vote. My mailbox became so inundated with Trump hate-mail that my postman, Mr. Meriwether, would leave a large box of mail beside my mailbox, only days later to leave a card that I had to go by the post office to retrieve additional boxes.

Most of the letters were the same, some even with the same typo. But they were all mean-spirited and attacked Trump’s character and recited all the damage he would do to the country. The hyperbole was amusing and some letters were laced with various conspiracy theories that defied all logic, as well as rational sentence structure. Though I did save the almost 4,000 letters, I ignored them, except to show them to friends. When I moved offices, I’m sure they were discarded.

If the letters were annoying and inconvenient to retrieve, the phone calls bordered on flat earth society members arguing against the marketing of circular globes in schools. The calls started when we were about 10 days out from the electoral tally. After I fielded a couple and realized what was going on, I stopped answering my phone and let these seminar callers leave a voicemail. Once my voicemail filled up, I never deleted the messages lest I provide an electronic forum for disgruntled Hillary voters to vent their angst.

I did listen to several of the calls and was surprised at their tenor and wild accusations about Donald Trump. One call in particular stood out. It was from a young mother who explained that I had a sacred duty to her children, not to start World War III by doing my duty as an elector. The more she advocated her position about Trump blowing up the world, the faster and more hyperventilated her voice became, until she sobbed hysterically and begged me not to kill her children. Thankfully, the time to record a message was limited and she was cut off before she could take another breath.

There was also a caller who told me that he had retained a law professor who could explain how I could void my commitment to the Republican Party and vote for Hillary. It was, of course a complicated process, but the good professor would explain this path to me. The message reminded me of the public service ads I heard as a child about the dangers of sniffing airplane glue. Apparently, my caller missed the ads and sniffed anyway.

All of this was surreal. Until recently, the electoral college in general and presidential electors in particular were one of those below-the-radar political events that only party loyalists knew about and participated in. In 2016, all electors pledged to Donald Trump were targeted and mildly harassed until the vote was over. While I never felt personally threatened, the whole experience was my introduction to what some have called Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Instead of getting better it has gotten worse. While 2016 was my last time to serve as an elector, the rhetoric has not subsided. If anything, the volume has increased and the character assassinations have become more juvenile and fantastic.

The idea that any one candidate is a threat to democracy is ridiculous, and anyone making such claims was never taught about our Constitution and the checks and balances within our three co-equal branches of government. To believe that any candidate would implement a fascist regime is equally as uninformed as it is impossible. Worse, to compare someone to Hitler or any other autocrat shows not only a lack of civics education but a total failure to understand the depths of depravity Hitler and his ilk possessed. The despots of the last century were murderous thieves and there is no place in our public discourse to use such a comparison for political purposes.

It is one thing to dislike someone’s policies and argue against them in a civil discourse, discussing the merits and consequences of their proposals. But there is no place to demonize and so diminish the character of a candidate that outliers receive the message, whether unintended or not, to physically harm a candidate to prevent a hyped-up disaster they see as existential. In reality, it is merely actionable political rhetoric.

The incidents of this past weekend reminded me of the inflamed rhetoric I experienced almost eight years ago. It was just as silly and misguided then as it is now. Political leaders need to learn the lesson of Henry II to realize that their followers listen and might not distinguish hyperbole from hinted instructional direction. Ridding the World of a Saxon priest might be a cathartic statement said under breath in frustration, but retainers seeking future benefits might take it to heart and commit a deed with profound, but unintended consequences.