Over the past three years, everyone has come to know aspects of Trump voters and Republican supporters who either believe every lie and live in a fantasy land which might as well have unicorns and a chapter of elves for Jesus, or know it’s all bullshit but go along because they love tax cuts and judges willing to deprive women of their rights more than they love their country. Both versions of modern conservatism are a big ole’ ball of white resentment in service of a repugnant viewpoint, but I can wrap my head around it. Some of these people actually in their hearts believe the fantasy, and others are partisans willing to bend their beliefs to fit their partisanship. I get it.
But there are others who serve the same master without accepting it. Because the hottest places in hell are reserved for the people who are indifferent, or outwardly disdainful of discussing just how fucked up things are in the world. These triangulating assholes are either like rebelling emo teenagers who sees themselves as better than everyone else by being above it all and not giving a damn about things they know jack shit about, or they’re people who care more about the etiquette of things than the suffering of things. Somehow the truth of things is not important if it’s not said in a “civil” way.
Author Bret Easton Ellis, no stranger to saying stupid things, made his name by writing fiction about 1980s upper-class angst, amorality, and materialism with Less than Zero, Rules of Attraction, and American Psycho. He has a new work of non-fiction, a series of interlocking essays titled White. Ellis’ book decries liberals for labeling Donald Trump and his supporters as racist when they say and do racist things, defends Roseanne Barr and Kanye West, and finds an “overreaction epidemic” among anyone who just doesn’t get over Trump’s election to the presidency. It’s basically “both sides-ism” in long form, coupled with Ellis simultaneously being annoyed by Michelle Obama being “breathlessly condescending” while diminishing the impact of every racist thing Trump has done.
Things became interesting when Isaac Chotiner of The New Yorker interviewed Ellis and wanted the author to defend his assertions. The result is a horror show, where it becomes clear Ellis can’t explain why he thinks liberals are overreacting. He just does. And besides, he doesn’t care because he’s “not interested in politics,” even though he’s publishing a book about political reactions.
Isaac Chotiner: You have a section in your book where you talk about President Trump’s comment about Mexicans being rapists. And then you have another section where you talk about Michelle Obama being “breathlessly condescending” when she said, “When they go low, we go high.” I am trying to understand why one of those things sets you off and the other you seem kind of neutral about.
Bret Easton Ellis: You know, I think “sets me off” suggests that I am enraged, and I think the voice in the book is pretty chill and neutral. And what I am talking about is all in context. With the Trump thing, that is true. He said that once, in his very first speech, and didn’t say it again, and there were people who had picked up on it and were still repeating it a year or two years later. Without putting that in context, yeah, I guess that bothered me.
O.K., but Trump says lots of racist things. We can all agree on that, right?
[Pauses.] Sure.
So he says lots of racist things. This thing was only said once. Why does people being upset about it, or people being upset about the fact that we have a President who regularly says bigoted things, bother you?
No, no, no, no, no. That just twisted up what I meant.
Tell me what you meant.
You think I am defending a racist.
No, I asked why liberals repeating Trump’s remark about Mexican immigrants being rapists bothers you so much.
Because it didn’t seem to be truthful, and it seemed to be exaggerated and said over and over again. You think I am defending Trump somehow? I am bothered by people using that one thing two years later.
A common feature in listening to arguments about political correctness is a perceived victimization, wherein good ol’ traditional values are under assault by everything from red cups at Starbucks to the accommodations for public bathrooms, and betrayed by the inability of leadership to say things about the Mexicans coming over the border who want to “rape” and take jobs, and the radical Muslims trying to kill us. In their minds, the victims are not the people of color afraid of being shot by cops during a traffic stop, or the women afraid of being raped on a college campus, or the transgender kids who can’t use the bathroom in public places, or the families separated at the border. The true victims are those asked to respect others, consider the grievances of people who have a history of being on the short end of the stick, and at a bare minimum just don’t say ridiculous shit if they don’t want to be the ridiculed.
Because when we break the political correctness argument down, it’s really about idiots wanting to say stupid things and do it without anyone pointing out their stupidity. This is not a situation where people are being silenced from expressing an opinion. These are cases where stupid opinions are being called stupid and the stupid people who said them don’t want to own up to their stupidity, or confront the implications of what they actually believe.
The animating feature of the book is that you are frustrated and annoyed with the liberal consensus, which is “shrilly” and “condescendingly” looks down on Trump voters. Would that be a fair way of putting it?
I would say that’s a fair way to put it, sure.
Is it that you think there are terrible things going on but we should all take a deep breath, or is it that you don’t think there are a lot of terrible things going on?
I just think that there is a man that got elected President. He is in the White House. He has vast support from his base. He was elected fairly and legally. And I think what happened is that the left is so hurt by this that they have overreacted to the Presidency. Now, look, I live with a Democratic, socialist-bordering-on-communist millennial. I hear it every day.
He’s a character in the book.
He is in the next room right now. And I do put myself in his shoes, and I do look at the world through his lens, because I have to. I live with him, and I love him. And I do hear this, and some of it changes my mind, and some of it doesn’t. I am certainly much more of a centrist than he is. I do listen, and I think that [lack of a] sense of neutrality—of standing in the other side’s shoes and looking at this from the other side—has bothered me among a lot of my friends and from the media.
What would looking at some of the issues that we have been facing from the perspective of Trump voters look like in practice?
I don’t know. I am not that interested in politics. I am not that interested in policy. What I was interested in was the coverage. Especially in Hollywood, there was an immense overreaction. I don’t care really about Trump that much, and I don’t care about politics. I was forced to care based on how it was covered and how people have reacted. Sure, you can be hysterical, or you can wait and vote him out of office.
The sad thing is I think Ellis represents a type of voter who has always been around and always been part of the problem when someone somewhere was begging for help. They are the people who would never think of themselves as racist or sexist, don’t realize their privilege, and may even believe they’re progressive, but they care about what the Jem’Hadar would call “the order of things” more than changing anything to something better. And they may even “care" in the abstract, but only if it doesn’t make anyone—especially themselves—uncomfortable.
These are the same types of people who nodded their heads to Dr. King but probably told African Americans to not cause too much trouble, and be patient about sitting at the back of the bus. Or maybe they counseled the LGBTQ community about how “it gets better,” but warned against being “too gay.” They may even believe in progress, but they only want it on their terms.
And if it’s not on their terms, these people might as well put on a MAGA hat to symbolize their disdain for any attempt to speak out or resist.
When you think back to these couple of years, is your large takeaway that the left was too critical of Trump?
It’s not just the left. There seems to have been this hysterical overreaction that can be solved with voting him out of office. And I don’t know whether this pain and turmoil people have inflicted on themselves have gotten them anything. I just see a lot of people who have turned themselves inside out.
It seems to have caused a lot of people self-harm, and I don’t know where it gets anybody.
You are a novelist. You write about the human condition. Do you worry about the self-harm of people who see things like child separation and have no emotional response?
I think I am an absurdist. I think politics are ridiculous.
Maybe don’t write a book about it. Would that be the solution?
I think the problem is that I don’t necessarily see this as interesting as fiction.
Yeah, I could tell.
Read the full interview here.