Donald J. Trump received some improbable news. He won the US Presidency. The aftereffects are still rocking the country, and will probably ramp up the divisiveness that started with Bush (43) and continued through Obama’s terms. Déjà vu Department: When I worked in the oil industry, everything in our Mexico City factory had to be boarded up during that country’s elections because of the riots that inevitably followed. I wonder how far we’re away from that? I’m not counting as riots the marching tantrums that followed Trump’s election, although the Portland whiners did destroy property. The postelection hate speech remains unrelenting with many of Hillary’s supporters referring to ANYONE (an absolute word) who voted for Trump as racist, woman-hating, gay-hating, etc. I even heard a Hollywood elitist say as much over NPR. The host cluck-clucked sympathetically. It could be emotion of the moment, but I wonder how they think that kind of rhetoric helps win hearts-and-minds to their cause?
We have Black Lives Matter chanting, “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!” Illegals pore over our southern border at will. We have Islamic terrorists such as ISIS setting off bombs killing thousands. Muslims kill gays, beat and kill women—who have no rights by the way. (I’ve lived in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia; studied the Qur’an, and know the doctrine.) In the face of all this, guilty, wealthy, white liberals sit over wine and cheese in their New York and DC townhouses, and declare that the major problem with our society is white Christians—mainly men. That kind of thinking just does not resonate with the American mainstream. Of course the elites think of anyone living in the “fly over” states as ignorant rubes who deserve to be ruled by an enlightened proletariat. That attitude provided the butterfly wings that started the perfect storm that allowed a guy like Donald J. Trump to gain the Whitehouse. Further, the Democrats have abandoned the group their party was built upon: the white working class. They have turned to upper-crust, white, educated university intellectuals, and pander to minorities. Trump picked-up that forgotten cohort, and now the Democrats are in disarray. Cause-and-effect, pure and simple. Kurt Cobain predicted Trump’s ascension in 1993, as weird as that sounds.
Enter two powerful psychological processes: Denial and Projection.
Still, they don’t get it. These elite, holier-the-thou, toadies staunchly deny that they and their chosen candidate have ever done anything wrong. Most of the lapdog media agrees, and so they project reasons for any reported wrong-doings onto their old standby scapegoats: sexists, racists, homophobes, Islamophobia, Christians, white males, and Republicans. That’s not to say there isn’t a smidgen of truth with their perception. The problem is they paint all who disagree with them by one or more of those labels. That causes anger. Anger can cause a storm. Anyway, the old leftwing, bomb-thrower playbook is old and tired. It alienates them from much of the populace. Of course, when one is in denial little will change, and they will project blame onto those who disagree with their worldview. Witness Senator Warren’s (she the fake Native American) latest rant to keep doing the same thing. Oh, well…
I offer an analysis how such a storm became “perfect”. Again, this is just my take. Give it a read and offer your own. Let’s look at the premise that Trump and (mainly) his voters are sexist, which Clinton’s supporters claim was a primary reason why she was not elected. I disagree. The problem was not “women”; the problem was Hillary herself. Like Trump, the woman is a polarizing lightning rod. She has no—and I mean zero—charisma. The Democrats figured out the value of that attribute with JFK who had to overcome his Catholicism. Detractors said he’d take orders from the Pope. But, Kennedy was attractive, witty, and engaging. Voters loved him. Yet, in spite of rolling up 303 electoral votes, the popular vote with good ol’ Tricky Dick Nixon was a virtual tie. It was JFK’s charisma that won the day. The same with Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama. Voters were attracted to those candidates—even Bill’s opponent, Bush (41), said he dug the guy. Hillary? Not so much. From exit polling, 54 percent of her voters said they didn’t like her; 60 percent of Trump voters didn’t like him. Also, 90 percent (both sides) said their vote was a vote against the other candidate not support for their own, and many who may have voted for Clinton stayed home. If the Democrats would have run almost anyone else, they probably would have won given that Trump is the Bobby Knight of politics—no filter; no dimmer switch.
One last comment about Obama’s charisma. It only works when he’s on the ticket. The Democrats took a beating in the midterm elections of 2010 and 2014 in spite of BO campaigning for congressional candidates. He is an excellent campaigner, but it doesn’t translate to his coattails. Some reporters think his efforts for Clinton mainly showed how he outshined her. Of course, he said acceptance or rejection of her meant the same for his legacy.
What about racism? It seems that charge started mainly with the Latino community in reference to Trump declaring he would build a wall on the southern border to keep out illegally entering Mexicans. Hell, they’ll just tunnel under anyway, some said. A history lesson is in order: Moats were built around medieval castles PRIMARILY to flood potential tunnel-diggers. So, a wall with a moat??? A Mexican-American official in California said we should let them come in at will because the USA needs more diversity. Hey pal, “diversity” DOES NOT mean all Mexicans. Leave some room for Hungarians, Latvians, et. al. Latins already make up 18 percent of the US population. In addition, the left objects to Trump suggesting he would cut-off all immigration from the Middle East until they are properly vetted. Obama and Clinton have vowed to allow thousands of so-called Islamic refugees into the country with a cursory check. I recently spoke with a lady from Amsterdam where such an “invasion” has taken place. She told me housing in Holland is very tight, and home-seekers must often wait years. The relocated Muslims were given priority over natives, who then protested because they didn’t get free television sets. Further, when she walks down the street in shorts and short-sleeved blouses, these new immigrants loudly call her a whore. I do not consider wanting to require immigrants to come in legally, and live according to the prevailing culture as racism. Besides it’s the law of the land. No, says the left snidely, if you want to enforce the law or insist newcomers adapt, you are a racist. Result: More anger from the mainstream. If one disagrees with the left on issues, discussion/dialogue does not ensue—but name calling does. It’s their playbook, and don’t expect the election results to change it. People in denial can be a stubborn lot.
Another element of the perfect storm is that the electorate is angry at snobby, know-it-all, elitists in the media who were the greatest Super-PAC Clinton had going for her. The media is filled with wannabe celebrities not journalists. The electronic and print organizations ignored intellectual honesty, journalistic objectivity, neutrality, and in some cases, openly cheered for their candidate. Emotion trumped objectivity. They took us back to the yellow journalism of Hearst and Pulitzer. (BTW, I’m still amazed that an award was name after the latter.)
We’ve all heard that a definition of insanity is to do the same thing over-and-over again, and expect a different result. With that in mind, what does political experience gain for one except to be a politician? Although we tend to pile on the president-of-the-moment, if you want to observe topnotch buffoonery, simply look at congress. McConnell, Reid, Pelosi—OMG!!! And so another wind generator in the perfect storm is the notion that experience in the political field is valuable. People are anxious for REAL change, change both Bush and Obama promised, but little was realized. Sure congress has to take a huge hit, but the perception of an angry electorate, is that a non-politician and a businessman deserves a shot. With Hillary it would be business-as-usual. Anti-political establishment reaction has stepped-to-the-plate. Also, IMHO the American people are fed up with politicians named Bush and Clinton.
There are probably other factors, but those are the main ones I can identify for such a startling outcome. Other, more cerebral men and women will debate the 2016 election for years, which no doubt will cause additional divisiveness. Hey, it sells air time and papers.
Others will say that in addition to Obama hijacking Hillary’s presidency in 2008, that in 2016 angry racists and sexists did it again. Finally, Hillary supporters are now complaining about what Trump did before the election; i.e., that the system is rigged!
I think they’re still counting votes, but at this point, what difference does it make?
Your working boy, Bluto
Author: Gene Myers
Company: Free Lance Writer
Region: all regions
Memorable Quote 1: I’m just a guy with a dream.
Memorable Quote 2: I’m basking in the glow of unfulfilled potential.
Author Comment / Biography:
Author of four books and two screenplays; frequent magazine contributor. Latest releases: “Songs from Lattys Grove”, PublishAmerica, Baltimore, MD (2010) and “After Hours: Adventures of an International Businessman”, AEG Publishing Group, New York, NY (2009)