I watched the first Republican National Debate at 2:30 a.m. on an Italian live–streaming portal while abroad last fall. I had begun to consider the pool of Republican presidential candidates beforehand, but afterwards I was embarrassed to admit that, of the participants, I thought Trump clinched the win. Yet in Facetiming my mom the following day, I learned—to my extreme surprise—that she felt the same way. The fact that just one educated human existed who wouldn’t label me a pariah gave me the reassurance I needed to explore Trump’s policies further. And so I arrived at the highly unsettling conclusion that I support Trump above all announced candidates in the 2016 presidential race.
I bet a large share of you have already classified me a racist bigot, and those who know me are probably reevaluating my morals and our friendship. I recognize that Trump’s words have offended much of the American population. Yet because of the tenets on which our political system was founded, I can comfortably overlook Trump’s racism and sexism. The 14th Amendment guarantees the extension of all Constitutional rights to those “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” So long as a person was born an American citizen or has obtained citizenship legally, none of his or her rights may be suppressed. Furthermore, the Senate and House of Representatives together voice the interests of their constituents, so it is unlikely that any racist or sexist legislation will gain the Congressional approval needed for enactment.
Under these pretexts, I ask you to look closer at Trump’s campaign. You may notice that it is underpinned by the common notion that American citizens’ rights must, above all things, be protected. In his words, “A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation.”
Take perhaps the most infamous pass Trump has made: “We’re going to build a wall...we’re going to have people come in, but they’re going to come in legally.” Wall or no wall, Trump unearths an important political issue: the need for stricter border control and stringent immigration reforms. Of all criminal cases initiated by federal prosecutors in 2013, 40 percent were filed in court districts neighboring the Mexican border for drug–related and violent crimes. Ultimately, Trump aims to uphold the endowed safety that the American border provides.
Trump has already shown that he can deliver on his more feasible and commendable promises. Though some discount his decision to withhold from the GOP debate preceding the Iowa caucuses as a loud charade, Trump actually used the time more constructively than his opponents. Rather than squabble for 120 minutes, he raised $5 million for the administrative reforms of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). This figure shows Trump’s commitment to extending healthcare to all veterans, whose suicide levels are double the national average. Thus, Trump calls attention to a neglected political agenda and demonstrates that behind his words lie substantive action. And this quality is the scarcest yet most important that any future leader of the United States can boast.
Even David Axelrod, former Senior Advisor to Barack Obama, argues that we should take Trump and his policies more seriously. In his recent New York Times op–ed he stated: “Relentlessly edgy, confrontational and contemptuous of the niceties of governance and policy making, Trump is the perfect counterpoint to a president whose preternatural cool and deliberate nature drive his critics mad.” In the wake of an eight– year Congressional stalemate, perhaps Trump’s crudeness can garner the same rise it already has from the American public out of Congress. Maybe then we’ll see the laundry list of pending Congressional bills materialize into legislation that advances the interests of the American public.
Rather than consider Trump’s sound policies, however, most media coverage has obsessed over his politically incorrect disposition. Refinery29’s recent article, “The Top 12 Most Insane Things Donald Trump Has Ever Said,” thoughtlessly pandered to the bloc of uninformed readers who believe that Trump is unfit for the Oval Office. Buzzfeed circulated, “Who Said It: Michael Scott or Donald Trump?”, likening the presidential candidate to comedy’s least–capable office manager. Such headlines perpetuate social taboo, equating a nod for Trump to an appeal for social ostracism, and this undermines the basis of a free election.
Vested implicitly in voting rights is the responsibility to become adequately informed on each candidate’s platform. Party lines notwithstanding, this is one of the most meaningful manifestations of our governance and power as American citizens: to take a comprehensive look at all campaigns independent of our peers’ political clout and media bias (Fox, CNN, NYT, WSJ etc.).We can’t tell ourselves that we had an instrumental hand in shaping America’s future if we do not approach the task objectively. It’s under this pretext that I ask you to reconsider what Trump can offer this country, and, more importantly, reconsider why you wrote him off in the first place. And remember, he’s a Quaker too. Hurrah, hurrah.
