By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a recent New York Times essay, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar criticized President Trump for his bigoted attacks against Somali Americans, claiming his behavior is a result of his administration’s failings. Trump dismissed Somali Americans as “garbage” and called for Omar’s removal from the country, following similar remarks against other minority groups throughout his presidency. Omar emphasized the resilience of the Somali American community while expressing concern about the potential consequences of Trump’s rhetoric, noting that his promises of economic prosperity have not materialized. She concluded by stating that the community will not be intimidated by Trump’s words.
Read the original article here
Ilhan Omar’s assertion that Donald Trump’s anti-Somali comments stem from his awareness of his political struggles is a key point to unpack. It suggests a strategic use of racism as a diversionary tactic. The core idea is that, faced with criticism or declining approval, Trump resorts to the familiar ground of bigotry to rally his base and shift the narrative.
The notion that Trump is “failing” is a long-standing critique. For years, commentators have predicted the downfall of his political movement. Yet, despite these predictions, his influence remains. This raises a crucial question: is Trump’s behavior driven solely by political desperation, or is there a deeper issue at play?
One prevailing sentiment is that Trump’s racism is not merely a tactic but a fundamental aspect of his character. Many see him as a bigot at his core, and believe that his comments reflect a genuine disdain for non-white people. The argument here is that even when politically successful, Trump has exhibited racist tendencies. This viewpoint emphasizes that his behavior is consistent, regardless of his political standing.
The “Browning of America” is also mentioned, referring to the increasing diversity of the country and that Trump’s remarks might also be a response to this shift. This perspective positions Trump’s comments within a broader context of anxieties about changing demographics. It suggests that Trump’s words are not just about individual failures but are part of a larger ideological battle.
The specific case of Ilhan Omar adds another layer of complexity. She is a Somali-born congresswoman, and Trump’s remarks directly targeted her community. Some suggest that accusations of financial misconduct surrounding Somali communities are being used as a wedge issue. There are some claims that she was involved in facilitating the bill and received donations from those convicted.
However, the counterargument is that his behavior is driven by other factors. Some claim Trump is simply reverting to his true nature: racist, and failing.
Others suggest Trump’s actions might be a consequence of his deteriorating cognitive state. The theory is that his inhibitions are lower, leading to more unfiltered expressions of racism. This view paints a picture of a man whose actions are influenced by both political strategy and potential cognitive decline.
There is also the recurring theme of Trump’s personal failings. He has experienced setbacks in business, relationships, and other aspects of life. In this context, his racism may be a way of externalizing blame and creating an “us versus them” narrative.
The discussion also explores how a combination of these elements might be at play. It’s a complex interplay of political strategy, ingrained bigotry, and potential personal struggles. There is mention that this behavior is used to appeal to a certain base, and to distract from larger issues.
The debate also delves into how Trump’s rhetoric can be damaging. Some perceive the rhetoric as encouraging division, while others feel that it is just Trump using his tactics, and it is something that should be expected.
The article then questions whether Trump’s remarks are part of a broader political strategy of deflection. And again, this raises the question of whether Trump’s racism is purely strategic or also deeply rooted.
Overall, the discussion presents a nuanced perspective, touching upon the complexity of the situation and the various factors that might influence Trump’s comments. It highlights the importance of understanding the motives behind the words, whether they are driven by political maneuvering, personal prejudice, or a combination of both.