Whatchamacolumn: Polarization continues as a threat to America

I had to re-read the Oct. 18 column in this space to ask myself if, as suggested, it was an endorsement of Donald Trump to be elected president again. It wasn’t.

The article began with carefully accurate statistics about political polarization in Yamhill County, Oregon and the country; it continued with speculation on reasons why half the U.S. electorate polls in support of someone with “so many personal and moral flaws.”

It struck a few nerves, particularly in suggesting that “liberal overreach” is one of those reasons. That’s an old lesson that we started expressing here nine years ago in a column entitled “Trump’s campaign uncovers deep pool.” To quote a few lines from that 2015 missive:

“Here’s how it works: Trump spews out another outrage of thinly veiled racism, sexism or insultism. Each time, the media and political elite respond with ‘gotcha’ statements, hoping to convince people that Trump is inappropriate and hateful. And his polls rise.

((script_author-jeb-bladine))

“Those repulsed by Trump’s ego and irresponsible bluster don’t need the media updates. As Larry Wilmore of television’s ‘The Nightly Show’ so aptly tweeted, ‘Trump had me at Mexican rapists.’

“But those who support Donald Trump don’t care about his specific exaggerations, insults and inanities. They stay connected to him because he panders to biases on gut-level issues that plague many Americans. They look past his unfiltered mouth because he offers them an alternative to the polarized politics that prevent our system from resolving core American problems … Trump uncovered a deep American pool of frustration, resentment and anger. The ripples he created have echoed back a level of support that continues to baffle the media and his opponents.”

Just to recap: Trump will lose in Oregon to Kamala Harris, and no newspaper editorial will have any impact on that fact of life. Better, perhaps, to focus on how to dissolve some of the polarization.

We know something about business boycotts based on long-held opposition to Trump expressed in newspaper editorials; we can only guess how many boycotts from the other side would follow an actual endorsement of Trump for president; and now it’s suggested that failing to offer a formal institutional endorsement to either side of the presidential campaign is cause for reprisal.

Some major American newspapers are being vigorously reproached for failing to publish a presidential endorsement, with suggestions that they fear retribution by Donald Trump. More likely, their thinking ponders retribution by readers toward the institution of journalism and, even more unfortunate, retribution toward each other.

Newspaper editorials have long been intended to spark debate about important issues, and sometimes to move that debate in one direction or another. In the midst of today’s polarized politics, editorials have become lightning rods for many to claim general bias in the newspaper’s coverage of community news. More to come on this topic.

Meanwhile, on a lighter side, this week in a deciding contest, the California Candidate overcame a huge early deficit to the New York Candidate; pulled into a tie; briefly fell behind once again; and pulled out an historic eleventh-hour victory. It was a nice respite from politics to watch the end of the Dodgers-Yankees World Series.

Jeb Bladine can be reached at jbladine@newsregister.com or 503-687-1223.