One of my classmates from long time ago, a Trump supporter, forwarded me an article in London Times written by Mathew Parris who used to be a Conservative Member of Parliament in UK. In it, Mr. Parris defended Trump by saying that his ways may be crude, but he tells it the way it is and the end justifies the means. Here is the response I wrote to my classmate:
“Let me state upfront that there are some issues that Trump is focusing on that indeed need to be addressed. That list includes, for example, illegal immigration, crumbling infrastructure, our trade imbalances, and the presence of American troops overseas.
I also understand that sometimes the end justifies the means, as the article in London Times says. For example, if you find that one of your friends or family members is becoming dependent on alcohol or drugs, and gentle reminders don’t work, you should take away the offending substances even though it may seem rude. In that case the end does justify means.
However, the way Trump has gone about addressing some of the justifiable “ends” has been outrageous for most parts. For example, branding all illegal immigrants as “rapists and murders” and blaming them for increase in crime, when all evidence is to the contrary, is unacceptable, even though something needs to be done about illegal immigration. The collateral damage he has caused by raising the level of hatred toward minorities has grave and devastating consequences. It does not take a leap of faith to expect that a white supremacist who is not stopped when he goes after Mexicans will go after Indians, or any other non-white person someday.
Similarly addressing trade balances or overseas troops in a civilized manner is all right, but going in like a gangster, threatening and bullying our allies and friends is not justified. Would you like to live in a country that has no friends and is hated? Do you think our friends (or ex-friends) will take these punches today and not return the favor tomorrow when we need them?
Then there are situations where the only “end” I can think of is preserving his monumental ego or wealth. The actions being taken cannot be justified because the country derives no benefits. The feud he creates with whoever says anything against him falls in this category. If he has thin skins, he should not be in business of running this country. Calling every news item that does not pamper his ego as “fake news” or insulting everyone, including women, handicapped persons or war heroes is not a sign of a mature person but a pampered child who has not grown up. It poisons the well and threatens the civility that is the foundation of any society.”
What do you think of my response? Does it make sense?
