After Democratic U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois and Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina indicated that President Donald Trump had referred to Haiti, El Salvador and nations in Africa as “shithole countries” during a White House meeting to discuss the future of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program or DACA on Ja. 11, a firestorm of criticism erupted. Civil rights veteran Rep. John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, declared that Trump was “a racist,” The United Nations, the African Union and dozens of other officials across the U.S. and around the world followed with their own condemnation.
Two Republicans who were also present at the meeting, Sens. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia, changed their earlier accounts of not remembering the president’s comments to denials that the comments were made, a flip-flop labeled by some observers as an obvious lie.
The president’s denigration of poor nations populated by people of color and his advocacy for increased immigration from white nations, specifically Norway, left in the minds of many, little doubt as to Trump’s embrace of white supremacy. Courts last year used the president’s verbal attacks against Muslims to block implementation of his so-called Muslim ban travel restrictions. Now a federal judge who temporarily reinstated the DACA said it was “plausible” that Trump acted for racial reasons when he ended the Obama-era initiative. Between The Lines’ Scott Harris spoke with John Nichols, national affairs correspondent with the Nation magazine, who assesses the most recent racist comments from President Trump, and the link to what many consider his administration’s racist public policy.
JOHN NICHOLS: I don’t think there’s been much question for a very, very long time about Donald Trump’s racism. I think it was on display decades ago. In fact, maybe even longer than that. We know about the deeply troublesome practices of the Trump real estate empire apparently going back to his father. We know about his agitation as regards to the Central Park Five, a tragic case in New York City. We know what he said and did during his campaign. So Trump, I think is a settled case. I was impressed that one of Dr. King’s children said that we still must work on his heart and his soul. And I believe in that. I do know that the people who practice and embrace racism have, in the history of this country, been brought into the light, brought to a better place.
But at this point, I think it’s fair to say that we have a racist president. So then, the place to place our attention is on those who surround him. Those who have the power to check and balance his presidency, to direct it in a better way. Or, if necessary, to initiate the steps that must be taken to remove him from office. And I was profoundly troubled by the changing stories of Republicans who were in the meeting with the president, who initially suggested they did not recall what he said, and then as the pressure rose, as the controversy expanded, suggested that he didn’t say what all evidence suggests he did say.
Now,you can quibble about words, whether he’s talking about a “hole” or a “house,” whether he said a precise word or set of words. But there seems to be general agreement about that meeting, that he was troubled by having immigrants come from countries like El Salvador or Haiti (or) from countries in Africa. And at the same time, he was enthusiastic about getting more immigrants from Norway. I don’t think anybody misses the resurfacing of one of the aspects of American history there, which is the desire to deny people access to this country – immigration rights – because of their race, their ethnicity. This is an old story. But it’s one that’s deplorable to have it coming from the White House, coming from the president himself. And it should it be called out by Republicans. They shouldn’t be twisting their stories with regard to it. That helps Trump in many ways, even if most people don’t believe the lie, because there has to be a lie in there someplace.
BETWEEN THE LINES: Beyond the rhetoric, it seems quite clear that President Trump’s policies, from issues such as immigration, healthcare, social services budget, etc., etc. are a product of his bigotry and racism. And that may come into play in future court cases because it already has in terms of his statements against Muslims as being the rationale for his Muslim ban in terms of disallowing certain citizens of nations to enter our country. John, maybe you could point up a bit about the connection between the rhetoric and the policies because this is not about rhetoric alone.
JOHN NICHOLS: In fact, it’s really not about rhetoric at all. You know, the truth of the matter is, we have had presidents in the history of this country who have pretty foul mouths. And some of them ended up doing some OK policies. Remember, it was Harry Truman, imperfect as he was, who integrated the military. And it was Lyndon Baines Johnson – no delicate flower he, who signed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act and declared a “war on poverty.” This isn’t to make Truman and Johnson into perfect players – they weren’t. Their militarism in both cases was very troublesome. But it is to suggest that we’ve had people who spoke in language we didn’t always like, that sometimes offended us or some of us. But they often they got to do some of the right things. With Trump, I wouldn’t mind if he said that stuff – although I think when he says bad stuff that is hurtful and harmful and strategically damaging, as was the case the other day – I think it does call into question his judgment and his stability, frankly. And it is damaging. But you know, a guy uses a word I don’t like in another context, I’ll live with that.
It’s the policies that matter. They always matter the most. And in this case, his references to these countries are profoundly offensive and they do suggest an attitude, a dismissal of whole regions of the world. And also a profound ignorance. Frankly, it’s the balances that are struck; it’s the final thing that’s important to understand. When a president is in charge of the whole of our foreign policy, the whole of our military policy, the whole of our domestic policy – I mean they obviously emphasize and de-emphasize certain things. With Trump, I see the imbalance at its worst and I also see an erratic, irregular approach that does not serve any kind of smart foreign policy.
And finally, a diminishing of the State Department under Trump and Tillerson that is horrifying. So, you’re right. It’s a much deeper thing. It’s not about the use of a bad word. It’s about everything that precedes that, and that extends from it. And what extends from it is most important – the policies, the appointments, and they’re very, very troublesome.
For more information, visit The Nation Magazine at thenation.com/authors/john-nichols.
