Jack Dugan
On Aug. 25 in Reno, Nevada, Hillary Clinton gave perhaps one of the most buzz-inducing speeches of her campaign thus far. It has been described as a “GOP Mafia Kiss,” “something GOP leaders should have said months ago,” and it is being referred to simply as “The Reno Speech.”
She spoke tactfully, viciously, and unapologetically about her opponent, Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, business mogul, and general buffoon. Specifically, she spoke about a certain group of his supporters who exist in the reaches of the internet and on the fringe of Republican ideology. They call themselves the “alt-right.”
The New York Times wrote that “Mrs. Clinton’s speech was intended to link Mr. Trump to a fringe ideology of conspiracy and hate, but for leaders of the alt-right, the attention from the Democratic presidential nominee was a moment in the political spotlight that offered a new level of credibility.” However well-written and much-needed this speech was, there is a problem to be found in this unnecessary politeness to define these individuals on their own terms.
In her speech in Reno, Clinton told the crowd that “the names may have changed. Racists now call themselves ‘racialists.’ White supremacists now call themselves ‘white nationalists.’ The paranoid fringe now calls itself ‘alt-right.’ But the hate burns just as bright.”
Why not just call them what they are: racists, fascist, misogynists. How does defining these groups on their own terms work in any way to combat the racist ideologies Clinton claims to oppose, other than to simply empower these individuals and this community?
By defining them on their own terms, Clinton has recognized not only their sovereignty but also their power. With a political ideology such as this, recognition by the established political front, especially the recognition from a name as prominent as Clinton, works to arm the group with not only more visibility but more ambition.
Later in her speech, Clinton said, “Trump took this fringe bigot with a few dozen followers and spread his message to 11 million people.”
Yet, through this, Clinton has done something similar. She has taken the message of a small group of Trump supporters, visible only to the few, and brought them into the national political spotlight. By utilizing their subversive, wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing vocabulary, she has also provided the tools to those individuals whose ideologies are aligned with those of these hate groups to seek them out.
In her attempt to cheapen the credibility of Trump, she has inadvertently strengthened the credibility of a movement that could be far more dangerous than a rich man’s presidential delusions. Trump is often likened to Barry Goldwater, and just like Goldwater, he will inevitably fail. This ideology, however, will remain in his wake.
That said, it is still wildly important for public figures to publicly denounce racism. Clinton’s speech will do more good than harm for this reason, but I just wish she called an apple an apple,and a racist a racist.
