Good article Billy.  It rings true.

Chris 

 

From: BILROJ via Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
[mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 8:44 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [RC] Liberals gave Trump victory -Thomas Frank, from The Guardiuan

 

 

The Guardian

November 9, 2016

 

 


Donald Trump is moving to the White House, and liberals put him there


  
<https://i.guim.co.uk/img/uploads/2016/04/14/Thomas-Frank,-L_-_Copy.png?w=300&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=ab55026fd723dd9a699d58f51fc7c566>
 

 <https://www.theguardian.com/profile/thomas-frank> Thomas Frank


A month ago I tried to write a column proposing mean nicknames for 
president-elect  <https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/donaldtrump> Donald 
Trump, on the basis that it would be funny to turn the tables on him for the 
cruel diminutives he applied to others.

 

I couldn’t pull it off. There is a darkness about Trump that negates that sort 
of humor: a folly so bewildering, an incompetence so profound that no insult 
could plumb its depths.

He has run one of the lousiest presidential campaigns ever. In saying so I am 
not referring to his  
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/02/donald-trump-atlantic-city-casinos-taj-mahal-plaza-bankruptcy>
 much-criticized business practices or his vulgar  
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/10/sexual-assault-definition-trump-comments>
 remarks about women. I mean this in a purely technical sense: this man 
fractured his own party. His convention was a fiasco. He had no ground game to 
speak of. The list of celebrities and pundits and surrogates taking his side on 
the campaign trail was extremely short. He needlessly offended countless groups 
of people: women, Hispanics, Muslims, disabled people, mothers of crying 
babies, the Bush family, and George Will-style conservatives, among others. He 
even lost Glenn Beck, for pete’s sake.

 

 

And now he is going to be president of the United States. The woman we were 
constantly assured was the  
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/04/bill-clinton-new-hampshire-campaign-trail-hillary>
 best-qualified candidate of all time has lost to the least qualified candidate 
of all time. Everyone who was anyone  
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/05/im-with-her-beyonce-and-jay-z-back-hillary-clinton-in-battleground-state-of-ohio>
 rallied around her, and it didn’t make any difference. The man too incompetent 
to insult is now going to sit in the Oval Office, whence he will hand down his 
beauty-contest verdicts on the grandees and sages of the old order.

Maybe there is a bright side to a Trump victory. After all, there was a reason 
that tens of millions of good people voted for him yesterday, and maybe he will 
live up to their high regard for him. He has pledged to “drain the swamp” of DC 
corruption, and maybe he will sincerely tackle that task. He has promised to 
renegotiate Nafta, and maybe that, too, will finally come to pass. Maybe he’ll 
win so much for us (as he once predicted in a campaign speech) that we’ll get 
sick of winning.

But let’s not deceive ourselves. We aren’t going to win anything. What happened 
on Tuesday is a disaster, both for liberalism and for the world. As President 
Trump goes about settling scores with his former rivals, picking fights with 
other countries, and unleashing his special deportation police on this group 
and that, we will all soon have cause to regret his ascension to the 
presidential throne.

What we need to focus on now is the obvious question: what the hell went wrong? 
What species of cluelessness guided our Democratic leaders as they went about 
losing what they told us was the most important election of our lifetimes?

Start at the top. Why, oh why, did it have to be  
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/hillary-clinton> Hillary Clinton? Yes, she 
has an impressive resume; yes, she worked hard on the campaign trail. But she 
was exactly the wrong candidate for this angry, populist moment. An insider 
when the country was screaming for an outsider. A technocrat who offered 
fine-tuning when the country wanted to take a sledgehammer to the machine.

 

She was the Democratic candidate because it was her turn and because a Clinton 
victory would have moved every Democrat in Washington up a notch. Whether or 
not she would win was always a secondary matter, something that was taken for 
granted. Had winning been the party’s number one concern, several more suitable 
candidates were ready to go. There was Joe Biden, with his powerful plainspoken 
style, and there was Bernie Sanders, an inspiring and largely scandal-free 
figure. Each of them would probably have beaten Trump, but neither of them 
would really have served the interests of the party insiders.

And so Democratic leaders made Hillary their candidate even though they knew 
about her closeness to the banks, her fondness for war, and her unique 
vulnerability on the trade issue – each of which Trump exploited to the 
fullest. They chose Hillary even though they knew about her private email 
server. They chose her even though some of those who studied the Clinton 
Foundation suspected it was a  
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/10/hillary-clinton-foundation-donors-hsbc-swiss-bank>
 sketchy proposition.

To try to put over such a nominee while screaming that the Republican is a 
rightwing monster is to court disbelief. If Trump is a fascist, as liberals 
often said, Democrats should have put in their strongest player to stop him, 
not a party hack they’d chosen because it was her turn. Choosing her indicated 
either that Democrats didn’t mean what they said about Trump’s riskiness, that 
their opportunism took precedence over the country’s well-being, or maybe both.

 

Clinton’s supporters among the media didn’t help much, either. It always struck 
me as strange that such an unpopular candidate enjoyed such robust and 
unanimous endorsements from the editorial and opinion pages of the nation’s 
papers, but it was the quality of the media’s enthusiasm that really harmed 
her. With the same arguments repeated over and over, two or three times a day, 
with nuance and contrary views all deleted, the act of opening the newspaper 
started to feel like tuning in to a Cold War propaganda station. Here’s what it 
consisted of:

*       Hillary was virtually without flaws. She was a peerless leader clad in 
saintly white, a 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/us/politics/hillary-clinton-lawyer.html?_r=0>
 super-lawyer, a caring  
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/28/us/politics/how-hillary-clinton-went-undercover-to-examine-race-in-education.html>
 benefactor of women and children, a  
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-women.html> 
warrior for social justice.

*       Her  
<http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/4/13500018/clinton-email-scandal-bullshit>
 scandals  <http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/clinton-rules/> weren’t 
real. 

*       The economy was  
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/05/opinion/donald-trumps-denial-of-economic-reality.html?ref=opinion>
 doing well / America was  
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/opinion/donald-trump-alien-to-all-thats-great.html>
 already great.

*       Working-class people  
<http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/>
 weren’t supporting Trump.

*       And if they were, it was only because they were botched humans.  
<http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/15/13286498/donald-trump-voters-race-economic-anxiety>
 Racism was the only conceivable reason for lining up with the Republican 
candidate.

How did the  
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/business/balance-fairness-and-a-proudly-provocative-presidential-candidate.html>
 journalists’ crusade fail? The fourth estate came together in an unprecedented 
professional consensus. They chose insulting the other side over trying to 
understand what motivated them. They transformed opinion writing into a vehicle 
for high moral boasting. What could possibly have gone wrong with such an 
approach

 

Put this question in slightly more general terms and you are confronting the 
single great mystery of 2016. The American white-collar class just spent the 
year rallying around a super-competent professional (who really wasn’t all that 
competent) and either insulting or silencing everyone who didn’t accept their 
assessment. And then they lost. Maybe it’s time to consider whether there’s 
something about shrill self-righteousness, shouted from a position of high 
social status, that turns people away.

 

The even larger problem is that there is a kind of chronic complacency that has 
been rotting American liberalism for years, a hubris that tells Democrats they 
need do nothing different, they need deliver nothing really to anyone – except 
their friends on the Google jet and those nice people at Goldman. The rest of 
us are treated as though we have nowhere else to go and no role to play except 
to vote enthusiastically on the grounds that these Democrats are the “ 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/magazine/hillary-clinton-campaign-final-weeks.html>
 last thing standing” between us and the end of the world. It is a liberalism 
of the rich, it has failed the middle class, and now it has failed on  
<http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/02/06/electability-2/> its own terms of 
electability. Enough with these comfortable Democrats and their cozy Washington 
system. Enough with Clintonism and its prideful air of professional-class 
virtue. Enough!

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
  • [RC] Li... BILROJ via Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
    • RE... Chris Hahn

Reply via email to