Morality, Stupidity, Selfishness, and Suffering

Last week, I wrote that if the country has any hope of surviving, even as an imperfect democracy, Donald Trump “needs to fail. And he needs to fail spectacularly.”

That has not changed. Anyone who was dumb enough, greedy enough, and cruel enough to vote for a combination of P.T. Barnum and Nero “needs to find out what it is like to be on the other end of the bully’s cudgel.”

Make no mistake. These were the voters who said, “Sure, send trans women to men’s jails where they will incessantly raped. Uproot children who were born here, lived here all their lives here, work hard, pay taxes, and maybe even served in our military, and ship them to countries they have never known and in which they may not even speak the language. Why not? Fire tens of thousands of diligent government employees and leave them adrift, unable to pay mortgages or afford car payments. They’re just waste. Denude programs that the feed the hungry and treat the sick. Sure, go ahead. Let them suffer…just as long as I don’t.”

For these people, I wrote, since “the harm, the pain, the injustice, the heartlessness that Trump will happily inflict on others was not enough to dissuade them, the only thing that will work is when real pain and injustice are inflicted on them.”

All that remains true, but there is another side to the story. Sometimes the innocent victims of Trump’s misanthropy are in the same household, and depend on, those who need to be taught an empathy lesson. Most are either very young or very old. Many are ill.

The Washington Post recently ran an article detailing how some Trump voters “were still waiting” for the lower cost of living Trump promised, which included “bringing down prices on Day 1,” which, to their utter amazement, has not happened. One of those interviewed was a “former veterinary assistant and new mother from Locust, North Carolina,” who “considers herself a feminist whose politics lean left.”

Ignoring the misery Trump promised to foist on others, to say nothing of his felony convictions, other indictments, and his firm belief that, as Jonathan Swift is reputed to have once said, “promises are like pie crusts; made to be broken,” this woman voted for him “hoping for a better economic outlook.” She felt justified in ignoring Trump’s history because she and her fiancé “recently closed on a house and plan to move in this month with their 4-month-old daughter.”

Imagine her chagrin when, “Two months into Trump’s second term, looking at a growing pile of bills, she feels ‘bamboozled’ about what the president promised to deliver.” Prices have gone up, not down, and she realizes she might be forced “to put her baby in day care and get a job to help cover the mortgage and bills.” In addition, it has finally dawned on her that Trump and his band of congressional toadies intend to do exactly what they said they would do and cut food stamps and other government entitlements, including—perhaps especially—Medicaid. Hey, wait a minute! Those cuts were only supposed to be for other people.

Here is where the picture gets complicated.

This woman’s daughter suffers from acid reflux and needs to drink special formula, which is extremely expensive—$44 per can—and the child currently finishes seven cans a month, a number that is sure to increase rapidly as she grows. Without Medicaid or other government assistance, the woman is “worried about being able to feed my baby.”

While there is plenty of justification to say, “you should have thought of that before you voted for a man and a party who bragged about inflicting these very hardships on others,” the baby is a totally innocent victim of Trump’s perfidy and this woman’s blind stupidity. There are many thousands of society’s most vulnerable in a similar position and this does not include the millions who will suffer although they vehemently opposed both Trump and his sadistic vision of America.

That leads into a moral and ethical maze for which there is no simple solution or right answer.

Is it more important to try to save the country, knowing that in the long term that is the only way the vulnerable can have any guarantee of care or consideration, or to do the best to help those most at risk immediately?

In a macro sense, Senate Democrats were faced with the same dilemma with the funding resolution—give in to Trump or shut down the government. In this case, however, the solution is clearer. Not only does giving in to Trump further the very injustices that Democrats claim to be unwilling to abide, but it reinforces his conviction that he can bully anyone into anything with threats alone and will thus lead to greater abuses down the road. In addition, shutting down the government is a discreet action that will likely be short-term, as these shutdowns have always been in the past. In any case, the government will at some point re-open and if Democrats do not give in to Trump’s threats, it will do so in marginally better shape than it is now.*

The same cannot be said of the children and the elderly reliant on Trump’s voters. If they do not get the care they need, even in the short term, many will suffer irreparable damage. Some may die.

It is disgusting that Donald Trump is so devoid of compassion and basic human decency that he would place Americans of good will in such a wrenching position. (Congressional Republicans, especially “Christians” like Mike Johnson are right in there with him). We should instead be choosing an alternative that will be good for the few and for the many.

But we are not. Just another example of the depths into which this one man has pushed a country that once prided itself on the very virtues he so grievously lacks.

*Predictably, the Democrats seem ready to once again make the easier, short-sighted, and totally wrong choice.