It seems to me that your argument is straying here.
Because the question was not whether Ms. Harris has emphasized one side of her heritage or not, it was whether Trump believes that she benefited from her black heritage. Now it appears that he thinks she did not, because according to his answer, he had no idea of her black heritage until…
It seems to me that your argument is straying here.
Because the question was not whether Ms. Harris has emphasized one side of her heritage or not, it was whether Trump believes that she benefited from her black heritage. Now it appears that he thinks she did not, because according to his answer, he had no idea of her black heritage until recently. Because, as he said (you know, the part Reuters had trouble with) that she’s NEVER acknowledged her black heritage until recently.
So, 1. What he said was untrue (as you pointed out, she has emphasized both sides of her parents’ ethnicity at different times) and 2. He avoided the original question.
What exactly were you arguing? I got lost…
I like what you do pointing out bias in mainstream media, but I guess it’s also important to check your own.
First, yes, I am on the Trump train. I made a post to that effect previously for exactly that reason.
No, Trump was not 100% accurate about Kamala Harris' self identification.
However, much of not most of the media coverage of her racial identification has selected one or the other. Very rarely has it fused them into a "mixed race" rubric, and that only in an offhand fashion.
There's no rule saying she has to do that, but there's a disingenuousness in selecting "Black" now and pretending she hasn't selected "Indian-American" in the past.
There's a certain cynicism in emphasizing one or the other depending on the political audience and the political moment.
There's an even more obnoxious cynicism in the corporate media playing "gotcha" journalism with the issue of race.
Did Trump call her and the media out for that cynicism? Yes, I think he did.
Was that a substantive answer? Given the tenor of the question and the obvious hostility of the questioner, it was the best answer he could give. It's not the answer many people wanted, but interviews are like that; sometimes the answers are not to our liking.
Consider this hypothetical: Rachel Scott could have addressed the "DEI Candidate" attack by focusing on Harris record, both as Vice President and prior. She could have taken the tack that the Trump team was belittling Harris' accomplishments with that labelling. That would have addressed the charge in a substantive way that also called attention to her accomplishments.
Instead, Harris and the media want to have this discussion about race, only it's a discussion where Harris and the media have done more flip flops than John Kerry.
This is the door they opened. It's rather silly of them to cry about what comes through it now.
You see, your bias comes out when you say that this was the best answer he could have given. Really? Because he didn’t directly answer at all. I can infer a particular answer, but he completely sidestepped the question. As usual.
I understand that I’m an idealist, and we’re talking about politics.
However, is there something wrong with wanting a political candidate to answer a question, even if it’s a hostile audience (he chose to go there)?
It seems to me that the best answer he could have given would have been something along the lines of, “I can’t say whether KH has succeeded only because of her DEI status… [side note: wouldn’t Indian-American also qualify as DEI, and thus, his argument regarding her ‘blackness’ becomes even more moot?]…, however, her work with the Biden administration and its obvious failures speaks for itself…” blah blah blah (to be clear, I don’t agree with this position, but it seems like it would be his general sentiment). He could even bring up the fact that he thinks she’s flip flopped about this and taken advantage of her race/sex as long as he answers the question—which he did not. And not only did he evade the question, he told untruths while doing so.
How is this the best answer possible. Your bar has truly been set very low
I also look at these things from a perspective of tactics and strategy. Political journalism—and political interviews especially—are best apprehended as a form of rhetorical combat.
Politicians are not going to answer questions directly and substantively if they can help it, because it’s not in their best interest to do so. Boilerplate and jingoism have been the politician’s best friend since the days of Demosthenes in ancient Athens.
Ronald Reagan gives a good exemplar of this. In 1977 he was asked about what he thought America’s Cold War strategy and policies towards the Soviet Union should be. His response was epic and ultimately non-responsive:
My idea of American policy toward the Soviet Union is simple, and some would say simplistic. It is this: We win, and they lose.
If one is expecting a Nixonian level of policy analysis, Reagan’s response is going to be highly unsatisfactory. However, it was a powerful soundbite that set out a theme that Ronald Reagan very much wanted to set.
Does it answer the policy question? No.
Is it a tactically effective response to a question? Yes.
So we look at the question and the response.
Tactically, Trump would be unwise to answer Rachel Scott’s yes/no question with either a yes or a no. If he answers “yes” he risks alienating voters who don’t view Harris as a “DEI candidate” even if they don’t like her politics. If he answers “no” he opens himself up for questions about why he isn’t taking his supporters to the woodshed on the topic.
This is the essence of the “gotcha” question—one where all of the available direct answers are bad choices.
This means that the one thing Donald Trump is not going to do is answer the question directly. Again, this is the nature of politics, and if Rachel Scott did not anticipate Trump would seek to reframe the question then she was ill-prepared for the interview and shame on her.
How did Trump reframe the question? Again, look to his response. Rather than address Kamala Harris’ status as a black woman/black candidate directly, he mentions that she’s promoted her Indian heritage in the past—the heritage that Rachel Scott carelessly forgot to mention. So he mentions it. And he makes the very obvious point that promoting Indian heritage is by definition not promoting Black heritage.
This is a flaw of identity politics. When Kamala Harris—or any politician—seeks to align with particular ethnic/racial demographics, the moment he or she highlights that alignment, any alignment with any other demographic is automatically diminished.
When I say “I am Scots” I am quite obviously not saying “I am German”. In truth I am of Scots, Irish, and German ancestry, but if I am going to align with the clans from the highlands of Scotland I’m not aligning with the Bohemian Germans from what is now Czechia. I’m not aligning with the Irish.
Am I required to pick Scots or German or Irish? Not at all. Am I allowed to identify with Scots more than German or Irish? Absolutely. But if I identify as Scots in one setting and Irish in another and German in yet another, at what point do these identifications become manipulation and not honest projections of self?
Kamala Harris has identified as black and has identified as Indian-American. By bringing this point to the fore Trump avoided the question which he absolutely did not want to answer and did so in a way that allowed him to acknowledge all her ancestry, which broadened the topic in a way Rachel Scott was not prepared for. He sidestepped the issue and left the matter in a realm Scott was not prepared to address.
Tactically, in that environment and given that context, yes, that was the best response he could give. No, it was not an answer—but answers of the sort you want are never going to happen because it’s not in a politician’s interest to give them.
It seems to me that your argument is straying here.
Because the question was not whether Ms. Harris has emphasized one side of her heritage or not, it was whether Trump believes that she benefited from her black heritage. Now it appears that he thinks she did not, because according to his answer, he had no idea of her black heritage until recently. Because, as he said (you know, the part Reuters had trouble with) that she’s NEVER acknowledged her black heritage until recently.
So, 1. What he said was untrue (as you pointed out, she has emphasized both sides of her parents’ ethnicity at different times) and 2. He avoided the original question.
What exactly were you arguing? I got lost…
I like what you do pointing out bias in mainstream media, but I guess it’s also important to check your own.
First, yes, I am on the Trump train. I made a post to that effect previously for exactly that reason.
No, Trump was not 100% accurate about Kamala Harris' self identification.
However, much of not most of the media coverage of her racial identification has selected one or the other. Very rarely has it fused them into a "mixed race" rubric, and that only in an offhand fashion.
There's no rule saying she has to do that, but there's a disingenuousness in selecting "Black" now and pretending she hasn't selected "Indian-American" in the past.
There's a certain cynicism in emphasizing one or the other depending on the political audience and the political moment.
There's an even more obnoxious cynicism in the corporate media playing "gotcha" journalism with the issue of race.
Did Trump call her and the media out for that cynicism? Yes, I think he did.
Was that a substantive answer? Given the tenor of the question and the obvious hostility of the questioner, it was the best answer he could give. It's not the answer many people wanted, but interviews are like that; sometimes the answers are not to our liking.
Consider this hypothetical: Rachel Scott could have addressed the "DEI Candidate" attack by focusing on Harris record, both as Vice President and prior. She could have taken the tack that the Trump team was belittling Harris' accomplishments with that labelling. That would have addressed the charge in a substantive way that also called attention to her accomplishments.
Instead, Harris and the media want to have this discussion about race, only it's a discussion where Harris and the media have done more flip flops than John Kerry.
This is the door they opened. It's rather silly of them to cry about what comes through it now.
You see, your bias comes out when you say that this was the best answer he could have given. Really? Because he didn’t directly answer at all. I can infer a particular answer, but he completely sidestepped the question. As usual.
I understand that I’m an idealist, and we’re talking about politics.
However, is there something wrong with wanting a political candidate to answer a question, even if it’s a hostile audience (he chose to go there)?
It seems to me that the best answer he could have given would have been something along the lines of, “I can’t say whether KH has succeeded only because of her DEI status… [side note: wouldn’t Indian-American also qualify as DEI, and thus, his argument regarding her ‘blackness’ becomes even more moot?]…, however, her work with the Biden administration and its obvious failures speaks for itself…” blah blah blah (to be clear, I don’t agree with this position, but it seems like it would be his general sentiment). He could even bring up the fact that he thinks she’s flip flopped about this and taken advantage of her race/sex as long as he answers the question—which he did not. And not only did he evade the question, he told untruths while doing so.
How is this the best answer possible. Your bar has truly been set very low
I am on Trump’s side.
I also look at these things from a perspective of tactics and strategy. Political journalism—and political interviews especially—are best apprehended as a form of rhetorical combat.
Politicians are not going to answer questions directly and substantively if they can help it, because it’s not in their best interest to do so. Boilerplate and jingoism have been the politician’s best friend since the days of Demosthenes in ancient Athens.
Ronald Reagan gives a good exemplar of this. In 1977 he was asked about what he thought America’s Cold War strategy and policies towards the Soviet Union should be. His response was epic and ultimately non-responsive:
My idea of American policy toward the Soviet Union is simple, and some would say simplistic. It is this: We win, and they lose.
If one is expecting a Nixonian level of policy analysis, Reagan’s response is going to be highly unsatisfactory. However, it was a powerful soundbite that set out a theme that Ronald Reagan very much wanted to set.
Does it answer the policy question? No.
Is it a tactically effective response to a question? Yes.
So we look at the question and the response.
Tactically, Trump would be unwise to answer Rachel Scott’s yes/no question with either a yes or a no. If he answers “yes” he risks alienating voters who don’t view Harris as a “DEI candidate” even if they don’t like her politics. If he answers “no” he opens himself up for questions about why he isn’t taking his supporters to the woodshed on the topic.
This is the essence of the “gotcha” question—one where all of the available direct answers are bad choices.
This means that the one thing Donald Trump is not going to do is answer the question directly. Again, this is the nature of politics, and if Rachel Scott did not anticipate Trump would seek to reframe the question then she was ill-prepared for the interview and shame on her.
How did Trump reframe the question? Again, look to his response. Rather than address Kamala Harris’ status as a black woman/black candidate directly, he mentions that she’s promoted her Indian heritage in the past—the heritage that Rachel Scott carelessly forgot to mention. So he mentions it. And he makes the very obvious point that promoting Indian heritage is by definition not promoting Black heritage.
This is a flaw of identity politics. When Kamala Harris—or any politician—seeks to align with particular ethnic/racial demographics, the moment he or she highlights that alignment, any alignment with any other demographic is automatically diminished.
When I say “I am Scots” I am quite obviously not saying “I am German”. In truth I am of Scots, Irish, and German ancestry, but if I am going to align with the clans from the highlands of Scotland I’m not aligning with the Bohemian Germans from what is now Czechia. I’m not aligning with the Irish.
Am I required to pick Scots or German or Irish? Not at all. Am I allowed to identify with Scots more than German or Irish? Absolutely. But if I identify as Scots in one setting and Irish in another and German in yet another, at what point do these identifications become manipulation and not honest projections of self?
Kamala Harris has identified as black and has identified as Indian-American. By bringing this point to the fore Trump avoided the question which he absolutely did not want to answer and did so in a way that allowed him to acknowledge all her ancestry, which broadened the topic in a way Rachel Scott was not prepared for. He sidestepped the issue and left the matter in a realm Scott was not prepared to address.
Tactically, in that environment and given that context, yes, that was the best response he could give. No, it was not an answer—but answers of the sort you want are never going to happen because it’s not in a politician’s interest to give them.