If we're to accuse President Trump of being a "racist," perhaps we need a bit more than the word of a disenchanted White House aide who stands to gain financially. But does racism really matter as long as it isn't a part of White House policy, if it does not hinder or intends to restrain disadvantaged people? If racism were measured by a president's economic success, Trump would shine in comparison to his predecessors in the category of minorities and those groups of the workforce that traditionally suffer higher unemployment.
A classic case of the intolerance of the tolerant? Mr. Harris writes, "Donald Trump and his followers have openly disrespected minorities and it will continue." That kind of language is offensive pure and simple but don't take my word, such categorization (Trumps followers a basket of irredeemable deplorables) hurt Hillary's presidential campaign and may have cost her the election.
Why the obsession with racism? Racial intolerance has significantly diminished during my lifetime. Democrats were in charge of racism (Jim Crow) in the Old South according to my own experience. It was first and foremost a leverage for social division in the interest of political power. It worked well then and a form of it still exists today; back then, blacks were accused of being inferior and blamed for every imaginable evil. Today, it's the Republicans who have been so demonized. It's a thing of political convenience. As Sen. Harry Reid said in defense of his blatant lie about presidential candidate Mitt Romney evading taxes, "It worked didn't it?" Whatever works at the moment, one supposes. It has come to this.