Recently, I’ve seen a myriad of articles that are titled some variation of “I’m a Young, Conservative, Trump Supporter and I’m Not Intolerant, I’m Actually Oppressed!” I’ve taken the time to read some of these articles and the more I read, the more I wonder: is this societal condemnation, perceived or actual, really negative?

I do not advocate for the mistreatment of anyone, which is one of the many reasons why I lean left politically, however, one constant thread I’ve noticed in these articles is some form of, “the left is so loving and tolerant until you disagree with them! Admit to having conservative leanings and you’re immediately a pariah!” Personally, when encountering someone who believes differently from me politically, I’m more inclined to ask questions to better understand their views. I’ve found we fundamentally agree on several issues, we just have different ways we wish to address them. Sometimes we reach impasses and sometimes we learn from one another, but neither of us has malicious intent in most cases. Both sides need to stop insisting that the other is out to destroy America. The criticism of ideas is fair game, but the criticism of character and intentions is unbecoming and irresponsible. All of this being said, I do immediately think differently of someone when I learn that they support the president. While I do believe in love, tolerance, and productive communication across the aisle, I also believe that the tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance at all.

Fiscally, I’ll admit I’m out of my depth. I have a basic, broad understanding of both sides’ viewpoints and while the conservative side seems apathetic and careless in my view, it’s not enough to make me doubt someone’s general goodwill. Going beyond economics, however, this is when conservative viewpoints become, as many liberals would say, “problematic.” Let’s take this issue by issue:

Immigration

The month that the president announced his candidacy, the public was hit with what would be one of many inflammatory remarks: -“When Mexico is sending its people, they’re not sending their best- They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume are good people.”- Months later it was followed by, -“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”- It should be obvious that these are gross and impetuous generalizations. I’ll admit, I don’t understand why this issue is so urgent to many people. As far as security is concerned, a wall wouldn’t prevent Mexican immigration and a Muslim ban would only make extremism worse. The US vetting process is already so meticulous that most experts would concur that entering the US as a refugee would be more difficult for terrorists than other methods. To simply halt immigration from any given country is impractical and unnecessary. The United States was founded to be a land of opportunity. Etched into the Statue of Liberty are the words, -“Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”.- While it isn’t the Constitution, it does highlight one of this country’s fundamental values. We are a nation of immigrants; this land was not ours originally. Some came of their own volition and others were brought against their will, but nonetheless, we are all immigrants and descendants of immigrants. People came here seeking religious freedom, economic prosperity, and a general fresh start. Who are we to turn our backs on the principles that made us great the first time around? Most conservatives would resent being called xenophobic, and I’m not here to name-call, but when someone says -“It’s not that I’m against immigration, it’s that I support legal immigration”-, what I, and many others, hear is “I’m not necessarily against immigrants, I just don’t want more to be here than have to be.” And therein lies the prejudice that many liberals denounce.

Women's Rights

The president, on multiple occasions, has shown himself to be no friend to women. Some of his comments include such gems as -“You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her wherever.”- (on Megyn Kelly), -“Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?”- (on Carly Fiorina), and the unforgettable -“You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it, you can do anything. Grab them by the p***y, you can do anything.”- Clearly, this is not a man who views women as equal to him. I’m not sure any defense exists that can reconcile these comments and the idea that he supports women. In the first quote, he crudely accuses Megyn Kelly of being compromised as a result of menstruation simply because he disapproved of how she moderated the first Republican debate. In the second, rather than attacking the policy views of his political opponent, he degrades her appearance like a juvenile. This is how he treats women in his own party too; his comments on figures like Hillary Clinton and Rosie O’Donell are equally if not more despicable. His final remark displays a flagrant disregard for consent. What he’s describing is sexual assault. There is no room for justification or debate. Not only does he do it, but he’s proud of it. What does it say about a man who willfully infringes on someone else’s body and later boasts about it? What does it say about someone who voted to make him the most powerful man in the world?

Race Relations

The president’s racist history begins long before the election. He has been sued twice by the Justice Department for refusing to rent to black people, has been hostile toward black workers in his casinos, and called into question the birthplace of President Obama without any evidence whatsoever. In one of his debates with Hillary Clinton, when asked about police brutality, of which black Americans have largely been targeted, he called for an increase in “law and order”, meaning, in his view, the police ought to be given more power with less supervision. I’ll concede that I struggled to find specific quotes in which he condemns black people. Although -“You’re living in your poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs, 58 percent of your youth is unemployed.”- comes pretty close as, once again, it’s a reckless generalization. However, actions speak louder than words and since assuming the presidency, he’s put a white nationalist in his Cabinet, he’s chosen an attorney general who has a, to put it mildly, tense relationship with the African American community, he’s suggested taking away federal funding from HBCU’s, he’s criticized a black politician for her hairstyle of all things, and he’s disparaged John Lewis, another black politician who many would consider to be a national hero. And no, putting Dr. Ben Carson in his Cabinet doesn't get him any brownie points (pun semi-intended) when Carson has stated in the past, on police brutality, that, -"if you take race out of the issue altogether, and you take a group of young men and you raise them with no respect for authority, not learning to take on personal responsibility, having easy access to drugs and alcohol, they're very likely to end up as victims of violence or incarceration. It has nothing to do with race."- If he did an ounce of research he'd see that this couldn't be further from the truth; several credible studies have shown police are more inclined to shoot black citizens versus white ones. Clearly, he's as uninformed as the rest of this presidential administration and simply offers the White House a mouthpiece that's conveniently the right color. Whether or not the president is a white supremacist may be debatable, but he’s certainly no civil rights advocate. And during a time when race is unfortunately still costing people their lives, indifference, from the highest office in the land at that, is deadly.

The Verdict

At the end of the day, if you support the president, you support a bigot. There is no way around it; there is no room for dissent. You, as a person, may not be a bigot, but at worse, you agree with him on everything, which actually would make you prejudiced as well, and at best you find all the aforementioned points to be negligible and permissible, which would make you apathetic. In the words of Edmund Burke, -“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”- I prefer to avoid words like “good” and “evil” when discussing politics but, when you look at the increase in hateful crimes and demonstrations since the president’s rise to power, what else can you really call it? I absolutely do not feel sympathy for right-wing voters who feel marginalized or ostracized. They gave a man who marginalizes and ostracizes the keys to the White House. What that tells me is society, as a whole, is moving towards acceptance, equality, and diversity. It would logically follow that narrow-minded and unaccepting perspectives become progressively less acceptable. I unconditionally agree with your right to free speech and expression. I am in completely against liberal attempts to silence the right. I don’t believe in giving political agitators like Milo Yiannopoulos, Tomi Lahren, or Alex Jones a legitimate platform from which to spew their vitriol, but I do believe they have the right to say what they want on whatever platform they build for themselves, as do you. I would argue you're mistaking opposition for persecution. It’s your prerogative to be “pro legal immigration”, anti-feminism, and racially unconcerned, and you can share your views to your heart’s desire, but you don’t get to be surprised when your indifference or hostility toward equality is met with opposition or social exclusion. Ultimately, the Constitution protects your right to speech and expression as much as it protects mine. I don’t expect you to be quiet or apologize, I only ask that you extend me the same courtesy.