PROOF OF LIFE: "Racist," the one observer said!

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2026

The other said something different: We can't exactly say he's wrong. We also can't swear that he's right.

For those of us in Blue America, we may be inclined to love the claim he makes. The accuracy of the claim is frequently, for better or worse, devoutly to be wished. 

We're speaking here of Jamelle Bouie's recent assessment of the sitting president. He gave voice to that assessment in a New York Times newsletter column which started exactly like this:

This Is Just Who Trump Is

What motivates President Trump?

Not what motivates Trumpism, whatever that is. Not what motivates his MAGA supporters. Not what motivates the infrequent and marginal voters who delivered him his victories in 2016 and 2024.

No. What specifically motivates Donald J. Trump? What brought him into national politics? What drives him as a national political figure?

Who in the world is President Trump? It's an outstanding question! Over the course of the past fifteen years, the sitting president has rather plainly turned American political culture on its head. 

Even if his party loses this year's midterm election—there's still no proof that the GOP will—he will remain in the Oval Office and he'll still be commander in chief. Some things he's done as president have actually made sense—but his doctorate-wielding therapist niece has described him as "the most dangerous man in the world," and we can't exactly say she was wrong in making that assessment.

Bouie was asking an excellent question, and Bouie is very sharp. For our taste, he may sometimes know too much American history—but we say that only because we're looking for voices which can explain our failing society in a helpful way, without leaving too many of our fellow citizens behind.

Bouie is a good, decent person. In the wake of an infamous Truth Social post, he was asking an excellent question—but we can't really say we exactly agree with where his rumination took him.

In the passage shown below, we're omitting some of Bouie's reasoning process. We'll suggest that you try to read his whole essay, but here's where he ended up:

The best way to understand the president’s motivations is to find him at his most unfiltered, which is to say, on social media, late at night. And Thursday night, Trump posted a video to his Truth Social account that depicted President Barack Obama and Michelle Obama as apes. The clip, which runs for roughly a minute and shows the Obamas at the end, is set to “The Lion Sleeps Tonight.”

I try to avoid superlatives in my writing, but there is simply no question that this is the most flagrant display of presidential racism since Woodrow Wilson screened D.W. Griffith’s “The Birth of a Nation” in the White House in 1915. And for a sense of the racism of Griffith’s film, recall that it both reinvigorated the Ku Klux Klan and gave the organization its modern iconography.

[...]

Let’s walk back to where we started. What motivates Trump? The answer is simple: racism. You might also say ego and raw self-interest, but the two are connected. Racism, among other things, is a kind of chauvinism, a belief in one’s inherent superiority, based on nothing other than a meaningless accident of birth. It’s an ideology that papers over feelings of inadequacy, that tells you that—no matter what you have or have not accomplished in your life—you’re still better than someone, some group.

We apologize for posting, once again, that account of the visual which appeared at the end of that Truth Social post. At any rate, so the Times columnist said.

Centuries of gruesome human suffering are entangled with the imagery which appeared at the end of that post. In his essay, Bouie correctly says that the visual in question "uses an old white supremacist trope to denigrate the Obamas and, by extension, every American who shares their racial background."

Without question, that statement is accurate. But is there a "simple answer" to Bouie's question? And if there is a simple answer, is it the answer Bouie provided? 

Is that "just who Donald Trump is?" Is that a correct simple answer?

Maybe yes, but maybe no. In all honesty, we can't necessarily say that Bouie's assessment is necessarily correct.

Is the president motivated by racism, full and complete total stop? For just the briefest of tribal moments, we think the following ought to be said:

Over here in Blue America, we love directing our bombs against the others—and "racist" and "bigot" are two of the bombs we deliver at moments like this.

Without any question, some such impulse is fully understandable. But does it lead us to assessments which are actually correct? And if we're actually trying to create a more humane world, does it lead us to presentations which are actually helpful?

We're going to say that it probably doesn't. Just for today, let's describe this as A Tale of Two Explanations:

Who or what is the sitting president? It's an important question!

The columnist's explanation is "racist." The niece's explanation is "mentally ill," though that may be an obsolete term.

For ourselves, we'll tell you this:

We know of no reason to assume that the most dangerous man in the world knew that a bit of soul-draining imagery was sitting there at the end of his Truth Social post. He may have known that the visual was there, but we know of no reason to assume that.

He was on one of his frenzied reposting sprees on the evening in question. He had stumbled upon a lunatic post asserting that Campaign 2020 was rigged—that the presidential election was stolen from him that year as part of history's greatest known hoax.

He came upon that braindead post; inevitably, he reposted it. Are we supposed to assume that he read that post all the way to the end? Given the mania with which he presents, why should we think that?

The president's conduct that night was insane—but then again, what else is new? Through whatever process of cultural evolution, we Blues know how to lash out at racism now, but we don't know how to lash out at the kind of insanity which has prevailed in the past five years as President Ahab continues to chase the claim that he won that election.

It's easier to call him a bigot. It's harder to name-call that.

The president's craziness didn't end with that crazy repost that night. The other reports kept coming in—for example, about his desire to rename Penn Station and Dulles Airport after himself, to align them with the renamed Kennedy Center.

That was one of quite a few other strange behaviors—but what did racism have to do with that? Or with the way he tore the East Wing down? Or with the giant ballroom he plans to build—like the giant arch he's now planning to build, a giant Ozmandias-style monument to his unparalleled self?

The list of this person's disordered behaviors goes on and on and on. Some of this conduct seems to be entangled with matters of race and ethnicity.

A lot of this conduct just isn't.

Is racism the simple answer—the answer which lies at the heart of it all? Bouie also mentions "ego and raw self-interest," and in her book about her uncle, the niece describes the process by which the uncle was raised to be the person who crazily believes that he aced an extremely simple cognitive test in a way no other human has done.

She explains how he ended up being, to use an outmoded term, many varieties of "mentally ill."

Joe Scarborough was trashing the racists and the bigots at the start of the week. For those of us in Blue America, it's easy and pleasing to do that.

On Wednesday, his bosses told him to stay home and rest. We'll only offer this passing thought—his conduct on Monday and Tuesday was neither helpful nor smart.

Unfortunate name-calling by Candidate Clinton helped President Trump reach the Oval the first time around. He squeaked by in 2024 thanks to some of the dumbest conduct ever put on display by either major party.

Even then, he barely managed to squeeze by (Replacement) Candidate Harris, who had agreed, in the Biden years, to be the one who went out and said the southern border was locked up tight as a drum.

Jamelle Bouie is plenty sharp. On the whole, we humans quite frequently aren't.

That even includes us self-impressed Blues. We love to call the others names. Meanwhile, our journalists agree that we'll never discuss the most important diagnosis in the world.

Did the president know that the visual was there? Maybe yes and maybe no, but we know of no reason to assume that he did.

Meanwhile, we Blues, as brilliant as we are, greased his skid back into the White House all through 2024. He'll remain there for two more years, even if his party loses the mid-term elections:

What might this person do then?

What might this person perhaps do then? There is no possible way to know. This is the tribal pleasure we've chosen, and our unhelpful political conduct isn't going to stop.

We've been searching for proof of life this week—for proof of intelligent life. Also, for proof of empathy-driven life, but let's not get totally crazy.

We've been looking for proof of intelligent life. New (anthropological) rule:

Our species is skilled at building tall structures. It tends to go downhill from there.

"Racist," the one observer said. The other said something different.

Jamelle Bouie is very sharp. His answer emerges from the horrors of a brutal past, but we think his assessment is too simple and we think it ain't totally helpful.