GHALEB CACHALIA: Sometimes even an appalling person breaks a taboo worth fracturing
Can we oppose Trumpism while still asking what parts of the system that he disrupted (intentionally or malevolently) were overdue for interrogation
In the case of Donald Trump or any highly polarising figure, the temptation is strong to adopt a totalising stance: either full support or absolute rejection. But intellectually and morally this can present a problem. The more honest and effective stance is critical discernment — opposing dangerous ideas or actions without closing our eyes to moments of accidental selectivity, structural disruption or necessary provocation.
Of course, assaults on liberty and other religions, nativism and authoritarianism rightly provoke strong opposition. These are not side notes, they’re defining and dangerous. But, on another plane, an argument can be made that acknowledges that trade war rhetoric and certain economic moves may have surfaced legitimate critiques of globalisation’s downsides (like offshoring, industrial hollowing and dependencies) even if the Trump administration’s actions are reckless, malicious or incoherent. ..
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Subscribe now to unlock this article.
Support BusinessLIVE’s award-winning journalism for R129 per month (digital access only).
There’s never been a more important time to support independent journalism in SA. Our subscription packages now offer an ad-free experience for readers.
Cancel anytime.
Questions? Email helpdesk@businesslive.co.za or call 0860 52 52 00. Got a subscription voucher? Redeem it now.