In this article called "Donald Trump and the politics of the middle finger", author and opinion writer for The Washington Post - Michael Gerson, takes a stab at Donald Trump. For one of my favorite and h so obvious reasons, he is kind of in general just a terrible person?
"The political philosophy of the middle finger — captured by Trump in all its vulgar, taunting, divisive glory — requires an ethical leap"
That is basically the gist of Gerson's article. I think that the intended audience for this article is someone who believes these four statements... "We give our neighbor the benefit of the doubt. We stand up for the little guy. We are grateful for our flawed and wonderful country. And we know our flag stands for shared ideals, not someone’s idea of shared bloodlines." He is saying these things as examples as to what Trump is not. And I believe that lots of people who don't like him, like to read stuff about why he is not a good fit. He causes drama, he is brash, he is RUDE, and the man knows how to get attention...Whether that's because he is "ridiculing a war hero, employing misogynist humor, mocking a disabled reporter, displaying ignorance on basic policy matters [or] slandering the last Republican president" (those are links y'all....links).
I feel differently than the author on some statements he makes outside of Trump, like when he writes, "Many Trump supporters believe that Obama has changed the country in destructive ways — which I believe is true". This shows me that the writer might not have been a full on Obama supporter, or is at least not excited about his presidency.
Even though I do not agree with everything the writer says, I feel like he is credible. He has written many other articles that I have sifted through, 8 even just this month. He seems to try to get multiple sides of an argument. These are opinion pieces too, so it is really easy to just take one side of it and go. But when writers at least attempt to go outside their comfort zone and see different angles and view points, there is a higher level of trust that we tend to give them. Just because someone who is so far one wing or the other, is usually pretty bias, and doesn't like to be persuaded with good evidence.
He is pointing out so many things about Trump in this article that I feel are important and that people should know. He is a character, and he is a bussiness man and reality star. People are drawn to him, but they aren't looking very closely at him as a human being. A human being who has lied and cheated and been so damn rude...it is easy for people like Gerson and I to take note of these things because we are not particularly attached to this candidate.
He points out as many incidences as you would like (with these lists containing links to other articles that he has written about the specific events), so it is clear he passes the test of evidence on his claim. I think that the political significance of this article is actually huge. This is someone telling us that if he wins, “He would (he says) build a Mexican-funded wall across the continent, expel 11 million undocumented immigrants, blow up the global trading order, send Syrian refugees back into a war zone, ban the immigration of Muslims to the United States and consider a Muslim registry.” This is someone people are voting for! To be the president!!! How much more important could this be.
