Jennifer Carole

Let’s start with the true story of Fred Korematsu, a Japanese-American who refused to go to the internment camps during World War II. Korematsu believed that the forced relocation and internment of Japanese Americans was unjust and a violation of his civil rights. In 1942, after the U.S. government issued Executive Order 9066, he disobeyed the order and was arrested and convicted of evading internment.

Korematsu’s case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled against him in a 6-3 decision, arguing that the internment was a “military necessity” during wartime. Decades later, the decision was widely criticized as an egregious violation of civil liberties, and in 1983, his conviction was overturned in a landmark decision. Korematsu’s story not only reflects the cruelty of internment but also shows how the failure to protect individual rights weakens the fabric of democracy.

To explore the role of cruelty in American norms and democracy, it’s essential to understand how cruelty has both shaped and fractured the principles this country claims to stand for. Whether through slavery, the death penalty, or more recent political strategies, cruelty has been rationalized in various ways. It has always left deep scars on American society, undermining the core tenets of democracy.

American Norms Around Cruelty

Historically, cruelty has been justified by those in power to maintain control.

Slavery, for instance, was economically beneficial to the Southern plantation economy, and this cruelty was rationalized through racist ideologies that dehumanized Black people. The horrors of slavery were not just in the forced labor but in the violent physical punishments, separation of families, and systemic denial of freedom and rights. These justifications attacked the very heart of democracy by treating human beings as property, eroding the notion of equality under the law.

Similarly, the death penalty has persisted in America, often rationalized as a form of retribution or deterrence. Yet, this practice disproportionately affects marginalized communities, raising questions about fairness and justice. Studies suggest the death penalty fails to deter crime, and cases of wrongful convictions undermine trust in the judicial system, revealing how cruelty distorts democratic principles by reinforcing inequality and institutional bias.

The colonization of Indigenous people is another historical example of cruelty being used to assert dominance. The policy of forced removal and violent displacement, rationalized by Manifest Destiny, was intended to spread “civilization.” This ideology justified genocide and the systematic erasure of Indigenous cultures. Such policies undermined democracy by marginalizing entire populations and stripping them of their rights, land, and culture.

The Role of Cruelty in Democracy

Cruelty stands in direct opposition to the democratic ideals of fairness, equality, and individual rights. In a democracy, the state’s legitimacy comes from protecting its citizens, yet cruelty is used to maintain power when that legitimacy is threatened. Instead of unifying people through shared principles, cruelty divides them, creating an “us vs. them” dynamic that destroys the sense of collective good.

During Trump’s presidency, the phrase “the cruelty is the point” reflected how cruel policies—like family separations at the border—became central to his strategy. The intent wasn’t merely to deter immigration and rally his base through spectacle. By inflicting cruelty on marginalized groups, Trump reinforced a sense of strength and dominance, appealing to those who felt threatened by social and demographic change.

However, this cruelty fractured the social fabric of democracy, driving deeper wedges between citizens and eroding trust in government institutions. When cruelty becomes acceptable or even celebrated, democracy suffers because its fundamental promise of justice and equality is violated.

Rationalizing Broken Norms and Choosing Cruelty Over Alternatives

When norms around cruelty are broken, they are often rationalized with dangerous consequences:

1. Slavery: Rationalized through economic necessity and racial superiority, slavery destroyed the democratic ideal of equality, cementing racial hierarchies that continue to influence American society.
   
   Slavery was one of the most overt examples of cruelty institutionalized in early American society. Justified on economic grounds—plantation economies in the South were built on enslaved labor, making the system appear “necessary” to those in power. White supremacist ideologies rationalized slavery, claiming Black people were inferior and required domination.
   
   The cruelty of slavery wasn’t simply in forced labor but in the dehumanization, physical punishment, and destruction of family structures. Although there were alternatives—such as developing a wage labor system or redistributing wealth—the cruelty was perpetuated to earn profit and hold power. The consequences of slavery, like racial inequality and systemic racism, are still felt today.
   
   
2. Japanese Internment: During WWII, the internment of Japanese Americans was justified as necessary for national security, even though there was no evidence of disloyalty among those imprisoned. This cruelty shattered the democratic promise of civil liberties for all citizens.
   
   After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, over 120,000 Japanese Americans were forcibly removed from their homes and placed in internment camps. This action was a profound violation of civil liberties and a reflection of racial prejudice.
   
   National security concerns justified the cruelty here. Officials argued that Japanese Americans posed a threat to U.S. safety, though no evidence supported this. The cruelty of internment caused immense psychological, economic, and social harm to Japanese Americans. Decades later, the U.S. government acknowledged this injustice and issued a formal apology and reparations through the Civil Liberties Act of 1988.
   
   
3. Torture Post-9/11: The use of enhanced interrogation techniques was justified as a method to protect national security, but it resulted in false confessions and undermined America’s moral standing in the world. By violating human rights, torture undermined democratic ideals, exposing how easily fear can erode constitutional protections.
   
   Following the attacks of 9/11, the U.S. government used “enhanced interrogation techniques” (widely considered torture) against suspected terrorists. This included methods like waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and sensory overload.
   
   These cruel tactics were rationalized to prevent future attacks and gather intelligence. However, the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on torture revealed that these methods were often ineffective, leading to false confessions or unreliable information. Additionally, the use of torture damaged America’s reputation internationally, leading to a loss of moral authority.
   

In each case, more humane alternatives, such as reconciliation, diplomacy, or justice reforms, were available, but we chose cruelty, damaging the democratic system.

Trump’s Immigration Policies Focus on Cruelty

One of the most notorious examples of Trump’s cruelty in action is the policy of family separation at the U.S.-Mexico border. In 2018, the administration’s “zero tolerance” policy led to thousands of children being separated from their parents, creating a humanitarian crisis.

This policy was cruel not only because of its impact—traumatizing children and parents alike—but also because there were humane alternatives, such as providing asylum processes or addressing the root causes of migration. Trump’s base often saw this cruelty as a sign of strength or as “protecting” America from outsiders, but it damaged America’s global reputation and inflicted lasting harm on vulnerable families.

More recently, Trump continues to stoke fear with xenophobic rhetoric, positioning immigrants as criminals and invaders. His recent remarks about wanting to restart these policies as a campaign promise show how cruelty appeals to a base that sees harshness as a defense of American values.

JD Vance, the Opioid Crisis and His Cruel Contempt

JD Vance rose to fame with his book Hillbilly Elegy, which detailed the struggles of rural, working-class communities devastated by poverty and addiction. However, as a politician, Vance has been criticized for embracing cruel solutions rather than compassionate ones.

Instead of advocating for rehabilitation, healthcare reforms, or tackling the root causes of the opioid crisis (such as poverty and lack of mental health care), Vance has suggested more punitive measures. For example, he has implied that drug use should be addressed through “tough love” approaches, echoing rhetoric that punishes the individual without addressing systemic issues.

Vance’s approach reflects a pattern where cruelty is positioned as “responsibility” or “personal accountability,” but it overlooks the social factors driving addiction. His stance on punishing people with addiction rather than investing in treatment further marginalizes already vulnerable populations.

How Cruelty Wears Down Good People

Cruelty as a political strategy doesn’t just harm the intended targets; it also wears down good people.

When cruelty is normalized, it creates a corrosive environment that erodes empathy, weakens trust in institutions, and fosters division. Those who care about fairness and justice can feel demoralized, their values undermined by a constant barrage of fear and dehumanization.

Over time, cruelty numbs people to the suffering of others, making it harder to stand up against injustice. This exhaustion of compassion is one of the most dangerous consequences of cruelty—it chips away at the very foundations of democracy, leaving a society where empathy and solidarity are replaced by apathy and indifference.

Understanding this shows that cruelty is not just about dividing and conquering. It is about wearing down a community’s moral fabric, making it harder for good people to maintain their principles and fight for what’s right.

Here’s part 2.