Is Donald Trump Telling the Truth?

There are many things Donald Trump has said in the course of his presidential campaign; indeed, in the course of his life.  Each of those things can and should be examined for truthfulness.  But, one of the most famous things he said was about Mexican immigrants to the United States.  So, I will begin by examining those statements.

In his speech announcing that he would run for president of the United States, he said:

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best.  They’re not sending you.  They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us.  They’re bringing drugs.  They’re bringing crime.  They’re rapists.  And some, I assume, are good people.

“It’s coming from more than Mexico … .  It’s coming from all over South and Latin America … .”

Is this statement true?  I will examine the truthfulness both of his literal words and of his apparent (and generally accepted) meaning.  The reason it is necessary to examine the truthfulness of what he says and what people think he means is that those are often quite different.  For example, in this announcement speech, he didn’t say that all illegal Mexican immigrants were drug users or dealers, criminals, or rapists.  In fact, he didn’t even say that most of them were drug users or dealers, criminals, or rapists.  But, that’s what most people assumed he meant.  This assumption comes from both the context and the tone of what he said, not from his exact words.

So, I will start by examining the truth of the statement based on the actual words, not the generally assumed meaning.

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best.”  It is impossible to know if this statement is literally true.  For one thing, there can only be one “best,” so Mr. Trump could not have literally meant that the Mexican government did not send their “best” citizen, since he clearly refers to “best” in the plural.  Second, the only people who Mexico verifiably sends are its diplomats.  There is no evidence, at least none that I have been able to find, that Mexico sends anyone other than its diplomats.  So, literally, the question becomes “Are the Mexican diplomats to the United States among Mexico’s best?”

The most obvious Mexican diplomat is the ambassador from Mexico to the United States.  According to Wikipedia, the current ambassador from Mexico to the United States is Miguel Basáñez-Ebergenyi.  The Mexican government pays him $12,114.43 per month for his services.

Again according to Wikipedia, Dr. Basáñez-Ebergenyi holds a Ph.D. in Political Sociology from the London School of Economics in England.  According to the website wes.org, the enrollment rate in college in Mexico in 2011-12 was 32.8%.  I could not find statistics on the number of Mexicans who hold Ph.D.s or those who hold Ph.D.s from foreign universities, but it is safe to assume it is a lot less than 32.8%.  He is married to Tatiana Beltran, who also holds a Ph.D.

“Prior to his appointment as ambassador, Dr. Basáñez-Ebergenyi was an academic who taught classes at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.”  According to their website, Tufts University was established in 1852 and has three campuses in Massachusetts and one in France.  It has 11,767 students, of which 5,847 are graduate students and 1,246 are international.  It has a faculty of 1,423, giving it a faculty to student ratio of approximately 1 to 8.

“Dr. Basáñez-Ebergenyi's career includes work directing public opinion polls both for private firms and for the Mexican government. He is a former President of the World Association for Public Opinion Research and he has also held several positions in the state and federal government in Mexico.

“Additionally, Dr. Basáñez-Ebergenyi has authored, co-authored, and edited 13 books on values, public opinion, and politics.”

Of course, we cannot tell whether Dr. Basáñez-Ebergenyi is literally Mexico’s “best,” but it would be hard to imagine by what standard he would not be considered one of Mexico’s best.

I was unable to find any statistics or data on the characteristics of the other diplomats Mexico sends to the United States, so I was unable to verify whether they were among Mexico’s “best.”  But, I think it is safe to say that Mexico does not intentionally send its “worst” citizens to staff its embassies and consulates in the United States.

So, it is safe to conclude that Mr. Trump’s statement, “[w]hen Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best … ,” is, at the very least, literally misleading.  It is safe to conclude that when Mexico sends its people, they are sending those who they consider to be among their best.

Of course, I don’t believe that’s what he meant, but that’s what he literally said.  It was not literally true.  I believe he knew at the time he said it that it was not literally true.  If he said it intending that people should believe it, it was a lie.

More later.

How It Begins

Hitler did not begin his political career "suggesting" that Germany kill all its Jews.

He began his political career "suggesting" that Germany deport all its Jews.

A conversation with a Trumpeter

True conversation with a Trumpeter (a Donald Trump supporter):

"So, you support Donald Trump?"

"Yes."

"Why?"

"Because he's an outsider."

"But, you know he's lying to you, right?"

"Yeah, but so are all the rest."

"So, you'd rather have an outsider lie to you than an insider?"

"Yes."

Donald Trump is dangerous

Donald Trump is dangerous.

I don't mean that he is dangerous to the Republican Party, though he is.  I don't even mean that he is dangerous to the United States, though he is.  I mean that he is dangerous to the world.

In the same way that Adolf Hitler was dangerous to the world.

Some of my readers may be thinking, "Oh, there he goes!  Playing the 'Nazi card.'"

There are striking similarities between Adolf Hitler and Donald Trump.

Consider this:  Adolf Hitler did not begin his political career by suggesting that all Jews should be exterminated.  He began his political career by telling Germans what my father, who was alive during Hitler's rise to power, called the "big lie."

At the time of Hitler's rise to power, the Germans were suffering economically.  Germany had lost the first world war, and the victors had imposed very strong provisions against them.  Those provisions were hurting Germany economically.  To make things worse, there was the world-wide "Great Depression."  Germans were hurting.

There were a group of people in Germany and Europe in general against whom there was historic prejudice:  the Jews.  They practiced a "different" religion.  They were often identifiable, or, at least, many Germans believed they were identifiable, by their names or their appearance.  Worse, many of them had kept themselves separate from the "Christian" population for more than a thousand years.

Part of the evidence of this historic German and European prejudice against Jews was the fact that, over the centuries, the Jews had been expelled from country after country, often to be allowed to return years or generations later, and had suffered periodic pogroms - attacks - by the "Christian" population for centuries.

Finally, there was a politician - Adolf Hitler - who was willing to take advantage of these two things - the economic hardship of Germans and their historic prejudice against this often-identifiable population - for purely political gain.

The way that Hitler took advantage of these two things was to tell the German people that their suffering was not their fault.  Rather, it was the fault of an international conspiracy by Jews.

This was the "big lie."

It was not true.  Hitler must have known - I am convinced that Hitler knew - it was not true.  If the German people had examined the "big lie" very closely, they would have seen that it was not true, could not have been true.  But, they didn't examine it closely, because they wanted to believe it was true.  They didn't want to have accept that they were to blame for their suffering.  And, it was easy to believe the "big lie," because they didn't examine it too closely and because they were only too happy to believe that this group of people against whom they harbored a long-standing, historic prejudice, was to blame.

So, they believed the "big lie."

Hitler rose to power, gradually the "big lie" morphed into extermination of all the Jews - which seemed good to the average German, since the Jews were to blame for the average German's problems - and the world was plunged into war.

When I was younger, I read extensively about the Holocaust; so much so that I began to feel a little guilty, as if I were reading because I gained some vicarious pleasure from the Jews suffering.  But, that wasn't it.

Many people, at least back then, were asking, "How could an entire race of people go so passively to their certain death?"  I wasn't trying to answer that question.  To me, the answer seemed obvious.  The question I was trying to answer with all my reading was, "How could one of the most civilized populations on the face of the earth - the Germans - almost unanimously subscribe to the extermination of an entire race?"  That was the question I couldn't understand and all my reading about the Holocaust failed to answer it.

The answer came when I read a biography of Adolph Hitler.  It struck me that, according to that author, Hitler never said or did anything that could be considered anti-Semitic until he entered politics.  Nothing I've read or heard since reading that autobiography has been contrary.  Apparently, Hitler's anti-Semitism was nothing more than a political ploy designed to gain power for Hitler.  The German people believed Hitler's "big lie" because they were suffering, they didn't want to take the blame for their own suffering, and there was someone who was telling them something that, on the surface, could be true, and they wanted it to be true.

The realization that this was the answer was chilling.  This answer meant that it could happen in America.  All that would be required was a confluence of the same events in the United States that occurred in Germany in the 1930s:  Americans suffering (or believing that they are); Americans not wanting to accept the responsibility for their suffering; a distinct group (or groups) against whom there was long-standing prejudice by other Americans; and a politician willing to lie to Americans about these issues for political gain.

Donald Trump.

Many Americans believe they are suffering.  By comparison with most of the rest of the world, they aren't, but many Americans believe they are.  Many of those Americans who believe they are suffering don't want to accept responsibility for their own suffering.  One may argue that they aren't responsible, but whether that's true or not, they don't want to accept responsibility for their own suffering.  There are identifiable groups against whom many of those same American's have long-standing prejudices - Muslims, illegal immigrants, and foreigners (i.e., the Chinese) in general.  And there is a politician who is willing to lie to those Americans about those groups for purely political gain.

The "big lie" that Donald Trump is telling is that Americans are not responsible for their suffering, Muslims, illegal immigrants, and foreigners are.  He has to know this isn't true.  Whether Americans are suffering or not is debatable.  But, the idea that Muslims, illegal immigrants, and foreigners in general are somehow responsible for the alleged suffering is, when closely examined, obviously not true.

Yet, many Americans believe the "big lie."  Because, without close or careful examination, one can think it might be true, and because many Americans want to believe the "big lie."

Donald Trump is starting exactly where Hitler started.  So, yes, I am playing the "Nazi card."  Intentionally, consciously, and on purpose.

Consider this:  Donald Trump is not starting his political career by telling Americans that all Muslims, illegal immigrants, and foreigners ought to be exterminated.  But, he is starting his political career by telling them the same "big lie" that Hitler told the Germans:  You are not responsible for your own suffering, someone else is.

Whether he ends up where Hitler ended up remains to be seen.  I hope not.

What, exactly, did he expect?

I look as if my ancestors were from northern Europe.  I am sixty-three years old.  I often wear a suit, but I never wear gang-related clothing.  I work in a prosecutor's office.

When I am stopped by the police - and sometimes I am - I am afraid of the police officer.

He wears a uniform and I don't.  He wears a badge and I don't.  He carries a gun and I don't.  He is trained in the use of force and I am not.  He has the power to arrest me and I don't have the power to arrest him.  His story will probably be believed and mine, if it differs from his in any way, probably won't be.  He may lie and I won't.

Of course, I am afraid of him.  I ought to be.  And, so, I treat him with the utmost respect and courtesy, even when I think he's wrong and I'm right.

If I had robbed a store, if I were walking down the middle of the street, if a police officer told me to get out of the street and I refused, if I cursed at the police officer, if I reached into the officer's patrol car, if I struck the officer twice in the face with my fist, if I tried to get control of the officer's gun, I'd expect to get shot.  I would be surprised if the police officer didn't try to shoot me.

I look as if my ancestors were from northern Europe.  I am sixty-three years old.  I often wear a suit, but I never wear gang-related clothing.  I work in a prosecutor's office.  And I would expect to be shot by the police officer if I did all those things.

I'm not saying that the police always treat people who look as if their ancestors were from sub-Saharan Africa properly.  They don't.  They should.  I'm sure there are cases of police violence against people who look like their ancestors came from sub-Saharan Africa that would justify righteous indignation.  But, the shooting of Michael Brown is not one of them.

If I did all the things he did, I'd expect the police officer to try to shoot me, regardless of what I looked like.  What, exactly, did he expect?

Proverbs, Chapter 11, Verse 4

"Riches profit not in the day of wrath, but righteousness delivereth from death."

Proverbs, Chapter 3, verse 28

"Say not unto thy neighbor, Go, and come again, and tomorrow I will give, when thou hast it by thee."