"Send Her Back:" Politics as Blood Sport. And Who Cares About Issues Anyway?

Ilhan Omar, official portrait

The “Send Her Back” chants at President Donald Trump’s North Carolina rally helped Trump ignore Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s ideas by substituting personal attacks for argument. That makes no sense if you want good government. It makes more sense when your goal is for your side to win.

Ilhan Omar is one of a group of young congresswomen who come to Washington with bold ideas, social media literacy, and a brash attitude. Many of these congresswomen’s controversial ideas are really just mainstream economics. Conservatives, however, think that mainstream economic ideas threaten their political goals. Never admitting that they could be wrong, they instead lash out. Rarely, if ever, do conservatives attack these congresswomen’s ideas on their merits. Conservatives instead oppose them by spewing out personal attacks, calling names, telling outright lies, and spinning out twisted parodies that amuse no one with a functioning brain.

The “Send Her Back” dustup started with some nasty tweets that Trump posted a few days ago asking Representatives Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, and Rashida Tlaib to leave the country. “Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!” 

Trump evidently overlooked that all of them except Omar were natural-born United States citizens. So, when he spoke at his rally in North Carolina, he corrected his mistake and aimed directly at Omar, a naturalized citizen who immigrated legally as a child. His speech repeated some of the usual right-wing smears against her: “Omar blamed the United States for the crisis in Venezuela,” “Omar has a history of launching vicious anti-Semitic screeds,” and so forth.

The crowd then chanted “Send Her Back” for several seconds. Although Trump later pretended that he had interrupted the chant, the video shows that he scowled happily and silently in that classic Trump scowl.

Now: It had never occurred to me that there was a rhetoric of chants, but it seems that there is. Let’s look at the rhetoric of chants.

First, did Donald Trump’s attack on Ilhan Omar arise from religious and ethnic bigotry? Well, yes. Incredibly, his supporters deny it. I’ll try to write more about that later.

Second, the chant had a sports-arena quality: “kill the umpire,” “Knock ‘em dead,” “so’s your mom,” etc. Sports fans often say awful things like that. Statements that would get you arrested and thrown in jail anywhere else seem okay in the sports stadium. Very unsportsmanlike in my opinion, but there you are. Nasty chants are a time-honored sports ritual.

If we think about what is good for our country, politics should not be a blood sport. But if we think about winning at all costs, that's something else. Many voters think about politics like a blood sport: their goal is for their own side to win. If that involves an occasional dirty hit, well, that’s sports for you. Do hunters root for the quails? Not likely. Football, mixed martial arts, and boxing fans rejoice in the violence. Hockey fans love a good unfair fight. Do sports fans care whether their team is the best? No. Do Notre Dame fans decide that Purdue is the better team and root for them? No. They care whether their team wins. My neighbors in South Carolina who never stepped foot on a college campus except to attend sporting events wanted their side to win. Winning becomes all. Everything else is secondary. When political decisions become a sport, being right makes no difference. Winning makes the difference.

Third, since conservatives are not prepared to engage Representative Omar’s ideas, which they probably don’t understand anyway, they replace argument with content-free conversation stoppers. Trump’s North Carolina crowd did not chant, “Omar is wrong.” They didn’t chant, “Medicare is bad.” They didn’t chant, “We want more tax breaks for billionaires.” Instead, they chanted, “Send Her Back.” The chant helped them dodge the issues.

Good public policy comes from one of two places. 1. Liberals like to form public policy with research and argument. 2. Conservatives base policy on tradition. 

“Send Her Back” doesn’t come from either of those places. It comes from bad sportsmanship. Period. If Ilhan Omar turns out to be right about everything (which is quite possible), Trump’s supporters will just want to send her back sooner. After all, she might win if she’s right, and, if she wins, they lose. Can’t have that!

If you can’t think of a good reason that Ilhan Omar’s policies are wrong, you attack the source. If you don’t have any true personal criticisms, make something up and hope that voters will be stupid enough to believe. That vicious tactic has worked well for Mr. Trump’s presidency, has it not? And it may work again this time. Was “Send Her Back” a step too far for America to tolerate? Time will tell.

It’s all a shame. Conservatives are supposed to support tradition. But today’s conservatives don’t seem to remember.  

P.S.: I'm thinking about more ways in which "Send Her Back" is an interesting, albeit unethical, persuasive tactic. Stay tuned. 

P.P.S.: I’m looking for a gender-neutral substitute for “sportsmanship.” “Fairness” and “goodness” don’t quite capture the meaning. "Sportspersonship" is too long. Any suggestions? Post a comment or email me at wdharpine@hotmail.com.