This interesting essay by Columbia University linguist John McWhorter is marred by Trump hatred. McWhorter says, for instance, that “Bias and ignorance remain ‘under the surface,’ from films like Crash to the election of Donald Trump.” I take it that McWhorter thinks President Trump (and, by implication, those who support him) are biased and ignorant. Of what facts are they ignorant? We are not told. As for bias, the only bias on display is McWhorter’s own.
Another example of Trump hatred appears later in the essay, where McWhorter says that Republican “concern for all-but-nonexistent voter fraud” is a “sham.” (Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed concern about voter fraud by Democrats.) McWhorter provides no evidence for the claim that voter fraud is “all-but-nonexistent.” Does McWhorter think that even a single case of voter fraud is acceptable? Is a single case of rape acceptable? Are we to become concerned about voter fraud or rape only when it rises to a certain level?
Still later in the essay, McWhorter implies that President Trump is “a repulsive, bigoted excrescence.” McWhorter gives no reason to think that Trump is bigoted, or even to explain what he means by the term in this context. Nor does he explain what it is about Trump that he finds revolting. Many of us find Trump the opposite of revolting, namely, attractive. We support his agenda; we like him personally; we value his ability and willingness to fight for what he believes in; we admire his courage and selflessness; and we’re proud to have voted for him. We will vote for him again in 2020.
Linguistics is a social science, and McWhorter therefore a social scientist. Social scientists have as their goal getting things right, i.e., understanding the world as it is and not as they wish it to be. The factual claims McWhorter makes in this essay float free of reality. What’s ironic is McWhorter’s pathetic attempt to signal his virtue to readers of the Atlantic. He seems to be saying, “Don’t dismiss me as a Trump supporter or even as a sympathizer; like all right-thinking people, I hate the man!” The point of the essay is to condemn virtue signaling. Can you say “hypocrite”?
(By the way, the essay is badly written, which shows that taking language as the object of one’s study is no guarantee of facility with it.)
