To say America is travelling beyond the pale is to repeat yourself. Since Trump stormed the scene, there have been so many weird moments that are like nothing we’ve ever seen before. Fatigue has set in. You are fighting one hell of an uphill battle to get through "you should care about this like nothing you've seen before!" I'd like to ask you to try anyway, to assess two big moments of the last week and what they say.
You might shrug at Taylor Swift endorsing Kamala Harris. All the signs suggested she was a typical liberal celebrity who certainly wouldn't be pro-Trump. But she made the call, as one of the biggest cultural figures in America right now, to come out and endorse Harris. Her well-mannered post was hardly a full-throated endorsement - she didn't attack Trump directly, just trolled his campaign a bit to explain her personal judgement and encouraged everybody to go vote, Democrat or Republican.
But, timed as it was to come on the heels of a good debate for Kamala, it was almost certainly pre-planned in concert with the campaign, to heighten the boost of what may be the only debate between Trump and Harris this year. You could say that Swift's endorsement isn't unique. Kamala's campaign kicked off with a Beyoncé song and debuted an Oprah endorsement at the national Convention. But Beyoncé hasn't endorsed any candidate. And Oprah has been commenting on political subjects for decades - most famously, her endorsement of Barack Obama almost certainly made him President.
No, this was something different. Taylor Swift is somebody whose success, like most cool celebrities, is almost entirely for her cultural fluency and artistic skill, not insightful commentary. She didn't have an established political identity, only implications - firstly her country girl branding, and then her remodel that we might call "childless cat lady".
And yet she's chosen to get involved politically, a decision which will definitely help Harris in a close election, but which is bound to come at a cost with some of her audience. Nothing about Swift's prior choices in life suggests that she sees her mission as deeply evangelical or her life as very politically grounded; I don't think this is the start of Swift embarking on a rolling drumbeat of political commentary like, say, Eminem. However much of a punchline he may be, in sales he served as a musical titan of his day. He chose to enthusiastically frame much of his music and performance around opposition to W. Bush and America’s role abroad.
Even the musical giant of today I'm most familiar with, Kendrick, brings plenty of undertones and explicit messages from police brutality (Alright) to religion and charity in action (How Much A Dollar Cost) to sex work (Keisha's Song (Her Pain)) to why Canada delenda este (Like That, euphoria, 6:16 Meet The Grahams, Not Like Us...but not Swift, whose music is much more personal, oriented around womanhood and relationships and stages of life, rather than a community-based grounding or what is right.
You wouldn’t draft her to run for office, or as a surrogate to give speeches about anything less anodyne than women's rights being human rights. The significance of her endorsement is simply that she's so huge it's bound to matter: a byproduct of her pursuit of artistic and financial success, clearly her driving motive. But there's a famous parallel of the apolitical mega-celebrity to turn to - Michael Jordan. When asked why he wouldn't endorse Democratic candidates, he replied that "Republicans buy sneakers, too”. His success, as a wealthy business partner and as an athlete with cheering crowds, would take a hit if he got involved; he accepted the tradeoff.
Swift has chosen differently. It's not hard to see why; the reasons in her post ring true. Trump creating a fake AI endorsement of her is offensive and concerning, and an endorsement indeed provides clarity. The Republican camp is rife with misogyny that clashes heavily with her brand. But I think, beyond the personal wish to encourage the team she'd like to see win, there's a bit more to this. She wouldn't endorse Harris if she presumed that Harris was doomed - and that Trumpism was on the ascendant, choking off her success amongst her audience predominantly of young women.
It is unsurprising to say that Harris has surged into contention. It is unsurprising to say that young women in the USA lean towards Democrats over Republicans. Swift is not a political mastermind, and her opinion on the way the wind is blowing isn't a tell-all. But I do think it's a unique step that a megasuccess of the American dream, a dominant force in the culture who has gotten very, very rich through smart choices and precise application of skills, has bet that it pays more to be known as having chosen a political side than to remain neutral. Michael Jordan did best financially and culturally when he was known as an athlete who refused to get involved.
Taylor Swift thinks she’ll do best financially and culturally when she’s known as a musician who identifies with the vaguely nice vibes of Democrats - pro-women, pro-environment, pro-immigrant, and let's not talk about anything messy and tricky like the treatment of Native American groups or sending arms abroad. That's a hell of a vibe shift - a Rubicon crossed with one tentative step, but one which other artists may cross with more enthusiasm as the line between politics and the personal blurs more and more amongst young people.
Young people getting more politically engaged and informed is good. I just don't want to see that engagement exploited by wealthy entrepreneurs to expand their audience - least of all when they create art that presents a sense of intimacy and relatability, to be cultivated further by presenting sympathetic political views. This happens with creatives all the time. But not on this scale. If you think I’m overreacting, find something else of this scale and let me know. The last event of this scope I could think of, outside of Oprah endorsing, took place in February 27, 1968, when Walter Cronkite went on TV and candidly confessed his doubts about the Vietnam War. He changed the trajectory of the election, the war, and history. Taylor’s endorsement won’t be nearly as impactful. But it’s a flag in the wind flying at full mast.
Oh, and then the richest man in the world chose to sexually harass her (in a reduction of women to childbearing) on his own public platform. There couldn’t be a simpler summary for why she got involved.
Think that doesn't matter enough? What about the claim advanced by leading Republican politicians, up to and including Trump in the presidential debate, that Haitian immigrants in small Ohio towns are stealing locals' pets to eat them?
Trump said lots of stupid, unbelievable things in the debate, like he always does. But I think people get a bit caught up in his no-holds-barred style of delivery and struggle to distinguish what’s substantially SUPER whack. As I noted in my live feed, “Transgender operations on illegal aliens in prisons” SOUNDS very silly, but when you boil it down the actual ideas involved - “should we provide healthcare, even gender-affirming healthcare, to prisoners” and “should we provide healthcare, even gender-affirming healthcare, to illegal immigrants” are real debates about hypothetical policies, even if they’re not actually active in the USA and engaging in them tends to place you as a hard-right crank.
Haitian immigrants kidnapping and eating pets? Thoroughly batshit on every level. Let’s walk through them all:
Source of the claim? The conspiratorial right-wing media ecosystem. As Trump said, “I saw it on the TV”. The same level of veracity as when the ad man tells you buying this funky-looking exercise machine will cure all your ills, make your wife love you again and part the Red Sea.
Verification of the claim? The local police department and local government investigated these allegations and found no evidentiary basis. These are institutions critical to the Republican and the Trumpian ideal of America - law enforcement need support to do their difficult jobs and keep law-abiders safe, and local government know better than Washington, which is why, for instance, Trump was arguing in the debate that they should be able to decide abortion laws for themselves, like locking up doctors who prevent children having to bear children. But because they disagreed with Republicans, their value vanished.
Consequence of the claim? Haitian immigrants not only are likely to consider cat a cultural cuisine - as we know, plenty of people eat meats other cultures consider objectionable, from horse over history to the fading practice of eating dog in Korea. No, Republicans allege that, when there's a hankering for a meal, like when true red-blooded Americans hanker for a steak, Haitian immigrants:
a) scope out backyards (where else are you going to snatch a pet without being spotted by the public?),
b) take the risk in Springfield, Ohio of trespassing while black,
c) somehow manage to snatch up a cat without the thing escaping
d) Or scratching their arms to ribbons
e) Or howling up a storm,
f) Escorting their captive across town to their accommodation (which they simultaneously possess while being too poor to purchase food),
g) Kill a cat,
h) Skin a cat,
i) Cook a cat,
j) And enjoy the…limited nutritional value and tastiness of a cat.
Or they could just go buy and fry a chicken breast.
4. What to do about the claim? The Mexican border must be shut down, because otherwise people from the incredibly poor country of Haiti who decide to take a boat or a flight well west of Haiti to Mexico, walk north to face the dangers of the border, make it into the country, reach Ohio, and find reliable residence and income in the area might steal your pet.
5. Side effects of responding to this claim? Biden will be voted out because he can’t pass a border bill (which is why Trump instructed Republicans not to pass a border bill). Once Trump is President again, the American government will plunge billions more dollars into completing a wall that Trump falsely promised he could deliver in his first term, falsely promising Mexico would pay for it. This will create unnecessary hardship and danger for thousands more illegal immigrants, causing more deaths on the border.
6. Impact of responding to the claim? Most illegal immigrants will continue coming to America, because Trump will not shut down airports or stop giving out visas that can be overstayed on. Haitians will continue immigrating to Springfield, Ohio, because they are doing so legally, attracted by the promise of stable industrial jobs that many white working-class people chose to turn their backs on.
7. End result of pursuing the claim? Even in Republican dreamland, they won’t have fixed anything. Black people, as well as Hispanic people, Arab people, and other people from all around the world, will continue to immigrate to America, just like they did in Trump’s first term. People who already immigrated will continue to live in America. Children of people who already immigrated will continue to live in America. Grandchildren of people who already immigrated will continue to live in America. Some Republicans will conclude, after the failed mess of attempting to implement door-to-door mass deportations, that the only way to get less Haitians in America is if Haitians start dying.
What will be the next claim of this ilk about a minority group? Who knows. The point is that we now know not only the right-wing media ecosystem, but the political infrastructure up to and including the presidential ticket, are happy to go public with straight-up, indefensible, virulent racism. This is a lie. It’s a lie that only exists because they’re Haitians. It taps into the worst racist caricatures of black people - that they’re poor and hungry, that they have not yet internalised the lessons of civilisation, and that, therefore, they will cross borders and property boundaries and take your stuff because they want your stuff. And Trump, and Vance, and Cruz, and all the rest of them, see more political upside than downside (or just plain personal satisfaction) in dehumanising other human beings, and endangering them. A good chunk of the American public - the people giving interviews alleging cat-eating, while calling Haitians “fucking sand monkeys” and whining about how they don’t work, get government assistance, and should go back where they came from - respond when the call is put out. The Batshit-Signal, if you will.
In my live reactions to the debate, I said "I don't usually go this far, but it's genuine 30s Germany level”. I stand by both parts of that. The first half is pretty evident: I regularly encourage people not to have goldfish memory about the story of the week, and develop rubrics to assess new developments against the wider context. Many outrage stories often fail this standard, and desensitise the undecided audience while reducing partisan credibility. Trump’s terrible, but did America really need breathless coverage of how Trump originates from Drumpf or how his tan and hair is bad? And this leads not only to conspiratorial thinking, like reading obsessive detail into what goes unsaid, but also to nasty people thinking they’re on the team. Two classic examples of this are uni-educated people putting down other people as “clearly you didn’t go to university” - not the flex they think it is - and men saying “this female politician is so bad, I wouldn’t sleep with her”. Or, perhaps worse, “this female politician is so GOOD,” dot dot dot.
Detours of annoyance aside, I do think that the Haitian cat conspiracy theory really should be treated as a four-alarm fire. Even the recent history of political racism in the United States is one of constant dogwhistling and an ability to fall back on deniability. Illegal immigrants poison the blood and weaken the fabric of the country…as euphemisms to say that illegal immigrants are likelier to commit crime and take government resources, so we should keep them out! The bad ones. Some, I assume, are good people.
This blows all that away. We’re not talking anymore about shithole countries over there (dogwhistle defense: well, they are poor, with corrupt, incompetent governments). We’re not talking about an important constituency that can swing national elections like Latinos. A specific minority group with no real recourse are being treated as not just guilty of all the normal domestic violations in the eyes of conservatives - theft, trespass, depleting government resources - but as introducing a kind of wilderness hitherto unknown to the American way of life. Trump, in his useful way, explicitly explained this to us in the debate: it’s a whole new kind of crime - migrant crime.
Let in people who are unready to participate in American civilisation, the thinking goes, and you’ll have to fear crimes you’d never even contemplated before, things that people simply don’t do, on the level of serial killers with their bizarre rituals. Instances like the cat allegations give just a taste and leave the audience rapt, paralyzed with fear, because nothing is scarier than not knowing what a migrant might do, knowing only that their mere existence alongside you means life is slipping out of your control. It’s precisely the kind of feverish environment causing Ohioans without evidence to produce to allege horrible crimes in the first place.
And that’s a new level of dangerous, because garden-variety racism encourages you to discriminate, to intimidate, to get out and vote for Trump, and at its worst, already fuels violence. But once you get to the point where racism attributes unique and unprecedented faults to specific minority groups, where their motives lie beyond human comprehension, what “rational” solution can the racist Republican coalition come to but violence?
I’ve said before and I’ll say again I don’t believe in civil war or any of those fantasies. Botched mass deportation is absolutely possible, but I’m not picturing government camps as likely. America still has all of these factors that stand in the way of that, even as, one by one, they crumble. They’re not going the way of Nazi Germany or Rwanda. Yet the risk of individuals or groups choosing to carry out vigilante violence, instead of simply fearmongering, remains.
America has a long history of lynching black people - a sitting US senator once grabbed a shotgun and jumped in the pickup truck to pursue a black jogger. Mass shootings have previously targeted black people. It doesn’t take an apocalypse for more violence to break out and more lives to be senselessly claimed by racists, sharing responsibility with the ambitious, soulless suits who egged them on.
And Governor Mike DeWine has now sent the troops in. What, exactly, are they meant to achieve? Can anybody lay down their purpose? Again, I’m not insinuating that twenty thousand people are going to be rounded up and shot by the state. It’s simply a very bad idea to make up a problem with no plausible solution, and you don’t want the morons taking things into their own hands.
I’ll leave the last word to Nathan Clark, whose son Aiden died when a Haitian immigrant crashed into his school bus. “I wish that my son, Aiden Clark, was killed by a 60-year-old white man,” he said. “I bet you never thought anyone would say something so blunt, but if that guy killed my 11-year-old son, the incessant group of hate-spewing people would leave us alone…Bernie Moreno, Chip Roy, JD Vance and Donald Trump … have spoken my son’s name and used his death for political gain…my son, Aiden Clark, was not murdered. He was accidentally killed by an immigrant from Haiti.”
If he can see the obvious truth even after such a terrible tragedy, what’s the excuse for the rest of them? Nobody stands to benefit - whites in Springfield are literally just scaring themselves and making their lives worse to no end. Nobody but the politicians.
Comments