It's not what we want; it's what we don't want

Looking back on the election, it seems that it was mostly won not on what people wanted, but what they did not want. In order—in my opinion—of the most important, here is a list of what a lot of (I can’t say most, because Hillary Clinton actually got more votes) people voted to reject.

1. Muslims. This would not have been a factor without ISIS because of two reasons. First, ISIS simply believes in killing pretty much everyone—including you and me. Second, and most important, these Middle East conflicts caused an uprooting of people fleeing their homes and attempting to immigrate to other countries, including this one. There were lots of Muslims in the U.S. before the Iraq War and for the most part they existed peacefully alongside other segments of the community. But terrorism plus immigration equals fear. Associated with—but very different from—the Muslim issue is the one villainizing Illegal Mexican emigrants. Without the “Muslim threat,” this would have been a non-issue. With them, they were thrown into the “undesirable” category far more than they had been earlier. And of course, there is always racism associated with  minorities.
2. LGBT equality. I remember when Iran’s then-president Ahmadinejad swore to the U.S. press that there were no gays or lesbians in his country. This is the way most of middle-America feels. And why not? When you're gay in a small town, you probably feel the need to keep your head down. At most they thought of it as an aberration or a sickness. The LGBT marriage law forced them to recognize this as a real thing—and a real threat to their perceived values. Yet I think that it was the transgender bathroom issue that pushed them over the edge. It was a head-exploding issue—one that would have made them vote for a monkey over any candidate that the Dems could have put up.
3. Anything to do with President Obama. His presidency forced previously head-down racists to come out of the woodwork like roaches. To these voters, his legacy must be dismantled. All of it. The vote totals for the last three elections point out greatly that black voters came out in droves for him—he garnered the two highest vote totals in American political history, including an almost ridiculous majority of black registered voters. Clinton? Not so much. Her vote total was over 10 million less than Obama’s.
4. A woman President. Any woman. Some might feel that this should be the number 1 issue rather than number 4, but other countries have women in charge of governments. Any woman candidate supporting high levels of immigration and LGBT equality would have been defeated. Yes, Hillary lost partially because of trumped-up scandals, but any other woman would have had some parts of her past blown up into unrecognizability. Or, failing to find anything, something would have been made up.

A couple of interesting sidebars are that 1. Bernie Sanders, who is very vocal in <I>supporting</i> each of these issues, would probably have lost the election because of it—the first three issues trumping the woman-president one. Looking back, I think that only Joe Biden could have kept the Presidency in Democratic  hands. 2. If Donald Trump had been a woman, espousing the same ideas he voiced on the campaign trail, he would still have won. 

It's not what we want; it's what we don't want

Looking back on the election, it seems that it was mostly won not on what people wanted, but what they did not want. In order—in my opinion—of the most important, here is a list of what a lot of (I can’t say most, because Hillary Clinton actually got more votes) people voted to reject.

1. Muslims. This would not have been a factor without ISIS because of two reasons. First, ISIS simply believes in killing pretty much everyone—including you and me. Second, and most important, these Middle East conflicts caused an uprooting of people fleeing their homes and attempting to immigrate to other countries, including this one. There were lots of Muslims in the U.S. before the Iraq War and for the most part they existed peacefully alongside other segments of the community. Associated with—but very different from—the Muslim issue is the one villainizing Illegal Mexican emigrants. Without the “Muslim threat,” this would have been a non-issue. With them, they were thrown into the “undesirable” category far more than they had been earlier. And of course, there is always racism associated with  minorities.
2. LGBT equality. I remember when Iran’s then-president Ahmadinejad swore to the U.S. press that there were no gays or lesbians in his country. This is the way most of middle-America feels. And why not? When you're gay in a small town, you probably feel the need to keep your head down. At most they thought of it as an aberration or a sickness. The LGBT marriage law forced them to recognize this as a real thing—and a real threat to their perceived values. Yet I think that it was the transgender bathroom issue that pushed them over the edge. It was a head-exploding issue—one that would have made them vote for a monkey over any candidate that the Dems could have put up.
3. Anything to do with President Obama. His presidency forced previously head-down racists to come out of the woodwork like roaches. To these voters, his legacy must be dismantled. All of it. The vote totals for the last three elections point out greatly that black voters came out in droves for him—he garnered the two highest vote totals in American political history, including an almost ridiculous majority of black registered voters. Clinton? Not so much. Her vote total was over 10 million less than Obama’s.
4. A woman President. Any woman. Some might feel that this should be the number 1 issue rather than number 4, but other countries have women in charge of governments. Any woman candidate supporting high levels of immigration and LGBT equality would have been defeated. Yes, Hillary lost partially because of trumped-up scandals, but any other woman would have had some parts of her past blown up into unrecognizability. Or, failing to find anything, something would have been made up.

A couple of interesting sidebars are that 1. Bernie Sanders, who is very vocal in <I>supporting</i> each of these issues, would probably have lost the election because of it—the first three issues trumping the woman-president one. Looking back, I think that only Joe Biden could have kept the Presidency in Democratic  hands. 2. If Donald Trump had been a woman, espousing the same ideas he voiced on the campaign trail, he would still have won. 

Proof in the Polling

Okay, as a progressive, I’m convinced that “news sources” such as Fox, Breitbart, Neva, and the like are deliberately skewing both their news stories and their polls to make it look like Republican candidates are both sensible and winning and that the Democratic candidates are untrustworthy losers. Yet I have observed that those on the right believe that sources I get most of my own information from—New York Times, Washington Post, FactCheck org, Snopes.com, etc., are skewed the other way. They believe that these organizations are tentacles of the liberal propaganda machine.

The media on the right seem to think that everything Hillary Clinton has done since she was born has been blameworthy on a global level and that Donald Trump has the answer for the country’s myriad woes. So that when the Times, Post, etc., give resounding editorial endorsements to Clinton, they, too, must be untrustworthy and unreliable, especially when they use words like “disaster” when referring to Trump.

But here’s the thing, folks. Maybe because I am a progressive, I truly believe in objective reporting. I want the facts and not empty rhetoric or downright falsehoods. In other words, I do not think that my own news sources are skewed—I believe that they are accurate. If not, I wouldn’t study or even read them. I’m not saying that some polls might not be skewed to the left but if so, they are not skewed nearly as severely as right-wing polls. An average of all polls, therefore, is almost meaningless as it will always be skewed to the right.

So here it comes. I saw a poll this morning put out by Neva—a smallish right-wing organization—saying that according to their latest poll, Trump will win by a landslide. Breitbart had a similar story. More cautious and unbiased polls gave Clinton a fairly comfortable lead. Therefore, Republicans are convinced that their man will win. But Democrats also have a plausible reason to think that their woman will come out ahead. 

There is, of course, is a way to tell who is right, but only after the election is over.

If, in fact, the right-wing-skewed polls are just abject garbage, Clinton will probably win. It will be proof that right-wing polls are giving us deliberate misinformation. It can't be both ways; if Clinton wins, the right-wing pollsters are either incompetent or deliberately lying. It will also be telling us that true and unbiased journalism is not dead.

So in a kind of odd way, the polls that turn out to be wrong will prove their biases. And by extension, the news sources that rely on these polls will prove themselves to be at best, out of touch with the facts. At worst, they will be proven to be deliberate purveyors of false information (a.k.a. liars). This is what happened during the last election. The right-wing polls had Romney so far ahead that both he and his handlers had conniptions when he lost.

Too bad people’s memories are so short.

UPDATE: November 12, 2016. This year's election proved that anything goes--even polls. It seems that the right-wing-accented polls were, to my dismay, more accurate than the supposed-unbiased polls. Obviously the numbers they were working from were flawed and it is incumbent on them to find out why.

The Deplorable Party

Inadvertently, Hillary Clinton has given the right wing an opening to outwardly parade their “politically incorrect” views. She stated that half of Trump’s supporters—those who are "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic”—might be labeled "a basket of deplorables." Some people have argued that this number might actually be more or less, but the percentage doesn’t matter.

What is important is that many conservatives have jumped at the opportunity to include themselves in this basket. They are quick to say, “I am a Deplorable and proud of it.” In other words, they are turning a derogatory, almost loathing remark by a woman they hate into a badge of honor. They can now state proudly, “Yes, I do not like black people, queers should be in prison, Muslims should be kept (and thrown) out of the country, women should stay home and shut up.”  By being in the basket, they can admit it without actually having to say it. 

Okay, fair enough. Racism, sexism, and the like have not disappeared from American culture. But not since the Civil Rights Movement over a half century ago have people been socially allowed to admit their prejudices. Although it has been Donald Trump (and to a lesser extent Ted Cruz and his reactionary ilk) that has actually given his followers permission to hate again, the “basket of deplorables” seems to have galvanized them into a homey little group.

It is hard for me to understand how anyone could be proud of disliking and scorning a group of humans because of their skin coloring, sexual preference, country of origin, and the like. It boggles the mind, actually. But these people do exist. They look to a progressive future with a lot of fear—a fear that their beliefs—which they have been hand fed for centuries—may be wrong. And of course, they are wrong. 

When I look to the future I am not saddened or angered—or fearful—that in 50 years, a century, two centuries, whenever, most Americans will be of mixed race. I see this as a good thing, really. Which is fortunate, because I also think that it is inevitable. Trump’s supporters are fighting tooth and nail to prevent this and may see Trump as their last chance. Maybe, hopefully, he is. 

So here’s an idea. Why don’t the Trump supporters—and Trump himself—create their own political party? They can call it The Deplorable Party. It will certainly save the Republicans (and Democrats, if truth be told) the messy job of weeding them out over the next decade or so. The ironic thing about it is that The Deplorable Party platform will have been written by Hillary Clinton, their most hated enemy, and will consist of the same five simple words that she mentioned in her speech. 

I'm sure there are many conservatives that have negative views on Islam that might be perfectly fine with the LGBT agenda; there may be those that believe Mexican immigrants are lazy bums but also heartily support women's rights. And so on. In other words not all conservatives have exactly the same prejudices. The election may hinge on how many of these are willing to draw the line at allying themselves with the hardened haters who have little use for anyone other than themselves.  I mean, look up the word "deplorable," guys. 

The New Other

It occurs to me that in the 8 years since Barack Obama was elected, a tremendous shift has occurred in this country. Think about it. A black man was elected president. This same president has drafted a policy that illegal immigrants be given a “path to citizenship,” Gays and lesbians are now entitled to legal marriages, Muslims are becoming more visible in communities around the U.S., and a woman is now knocking on he door to the Presidency.

What do these five groups of people have in common? Well, 20 years ago, they were all considered part of The Other. The Other simply refers to people that are not like us. And “us” means those people who would be happier in an all-white, all Christian, all-straight, and all-American world where a man is king and a woman his help-meet, whatever that is.

So far I haven’t said anything new, right? This has been true for 100 years or more; maybe forever, but let’s say at least 100 in the U.S. Heretofore, the traditionalists (at least those who were not Deep South Segregationists) were content to remain relatively quiet, especially after the resounding slap in the face of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and the more moderate wrist slap of Title IX in 1972, which, among other things, gave girls and women equal access to sports in schools. These laws stung, but the traditionalists could take some comfort in the fact that blacks and women were still minorities in the workforce and in politics. The LGBT communities were still there to be despised, beat up, and spat on, and the only Muslims in the news (members of the Nation of Islam) were seen as just another radical African-American  sect.

But then something happened. Obama was elected. A black man had risen above all the whites and was now running things—at least as much as he could given the Old White Traditionalist Establishment in Congress. Then he came out for the LGBT community and a put forward a path to citizenship for illegals. Muslims—who were all now seen as terrorists by the traditionalists, were protected by law. And finally, holy hell, a woman was not only running for president under the banner of a major party, but she was expected to win.

Suddenly, the traditionalists, who for decades or centuries had viewed all Others with suspicion, found themselves in the minority. They have, in fact, become The Other. The New Other. Their attachment to Donald Trump is a simple reaction to this. After all, he has disparaged nearly every minority group there is. In fact, his entire appeal has been in his perceived misogyny, homophobia, racism, Christian superiority, and threats to throw many of these groups out of the country.

I used the word perceived in the last paragraph because nobody really knows where Trump stands on any issue. For instance, although he has promised his supporters that he will appoint a Scalia-like Supreme Court justice that will repeal the LGTB marriage law, the latest name on his short list is gay billionaire Peter Theil. Go figure.

That’s just it; you can’t figure a guy like Trump. The New Others—who are now in his camp—have no other choice. It is obvious that Hillary Clinton will move toward more progress—which will alienate Trump’s supporters even more, cause them to be further marginalized, like they have marginalized so many for so long.

But think of this, in trying to suppress these New Others, we are not trying to suppress an ethnic group, a particular religion (as many New Others protest), or a gender. We are trying to stamp out an idea that one group is more important than another, that a person is less valuable because of being a woman, a Muslim, gay, and the like. And that, I think, is a valuable goal. 

Race War

It has been obvious for some time that this election is little other than a race and gender war. Those that are tired of seeing the successes of women, African Americans, Latinos, the LGBT community, and/or members of religions other than Christianity or Judaism will vote one way. Those who want to see these successes increase will vote the other. I use the fake word and/or because voters don't have to hate all the groups—just one will do, if that one overrides all other considerations. A rural farmer might hate blacks with a passion simply because his father did. Similarly, a gay voter who might dislike the other groups will still vote progressive because of Trump’s vow that he will nominate a Scalia-like judge to the Supreme Court who will take away their hard-fought and well-earned rights.

I can understand this. We all have our prejudices. But Trump has given America the permission, as it were, to start voicing these. And there is nothing wrong with voicing them. It is a good conversation for America—a way of letting us know where our political, economic, and educational policies have taken us.

Trouble is, this permission has had the effect of making us think that what’s best for us is best for America. All of us. Progressives think that more equality at every level of life will allow the U.S. to progress socially, economically, and all the rest. Reactionaries (which is the only word I can think of to describe Trump’s “basket of deplorables”) would rather not have that equality. They would rather have less immigrants, less women in positions of power and with less say over their own reproductive rights, no Muslims, and the LGBT community segregated and despised as they were for just about every decade before the century began.

But remember what I said about that and/or. Someone who is obsessed with illegal immigrants coming into the country and taking away American jobs may not be overly concerned with gays losing their rights, even if they have gay friends. They may hope that women will get their chance later, and may hope that members of other religions are not harassed too much—anything to get rid of those who they see as damned moochers. Conversely, progressives who are in favor of government subsidies to single mothers, the arts, etc., may turn a blind eye to more suspect government spending that is the result of fraud, waste, and incompetence.

But he word progressive comes from the word progress, which means going forward: becoming better educated, more tolerant, more modern, and richer in every sense. Building on what we have with what we have to build with. And generally, progress doesn’t stop. Sure, great civilizations have been destroyed before, but it has always been from the outside. Now we are being faced with having it torn down from within. Perhaps this has always been the case, but the voices haven’t been as loud. The U.S. has often taken a couple of steps forward only to have to take a step back. But we have never taken two steps forward and had to take three steps back. Those who have espoused reactionary policies, like Joe McCarthy, for instance, have never succeeded for long. Progress will happen; it is inevitable.

But it will happen a lot sooner—probably decades sooner—if Democrats win the White House and, hopefully, the Senate. With some form of immigration reform, with LGBT rights solidly in the books, with a woman as President, and with those who respect the beliefs of others back in the forefront, progress will happen and this race and gender war will subside, at least until the next time. 

Hating Hillary

Probably the oddest thing about this year’s presidential race is the number of people who hate Hillary Clinton. Because I have admired the woman for decades, I’ve been trying to figure out where this extreme dislike comes from. So I put out some queries and here are some of the answers I got.

1. She is a criminal, she is untrustworthy, and she is a liar. I lump these in together because they are all simply part of the Republican propaganda machine.  She has never been charged with a crime, she has proven her trustworthiness over and over in her long service to the country, and her speeches have been deemed more factual than any of the other candidates.
2. She is vapid, ignorant, and shrill. Again, I lump these three things together because she is obviously none of these. She is one of the most intelligent, thoughtful, and reasoned candidates I can remember. So the words are simply fill-in-the-blank dismissives for not liking her. But the people who used these and similar words against her are not lying when they say they hate her. There must be a reason, but these ain’t it.
3. She voted for the Iraq War. Okay, here’s a real reason for voting for someone else, but only if that person voted against the Iraq War. It is not, however, a reason for disliking her personally.
4. She’s a fucking dyke. Well, that would be interesting, but she’s probably not, and the person who stated that is obviously someone who hates the entire LGBT community. It is more anti-Hillary propaganda that has hit home for homophobes.
5. She’s not Bernie Sanders. This was and is a stupid reason not to vote for someone in a national election, but not a reason to hate her. Go ahead and hate the system if you want, but not the woman who is probably as close to Bernie in actual philosophy as any other American  politician in history.
6. Benghazi, emails. More Republican talking points. She did nothing illegal and nothing that other people in her position—Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice—had not done previously.  Again, these non-issues are simply excuses for not liking her—not real reasons.
7. Because she’s a woman. Ah, yes. i have read excellent articles showing how sexism has infected the electorate. But I knew this was true even before I started my investigation. Sure, there are going to be a lot of men who won’t vote for a woman. There are also going to be the Phyllis Schlaflys of the country along with people like Michelle Bachmann, who stated that because her own presidential bid failed, God doesn’t want a woman to win.  But that’s just the expected sexist backlash. It’s totally reactionary and moronic, but no reason to hate Hillary personally. 
8. Because she seems so self-satisfied. Now this was the weirdest one of all. I mean, isn’t that what we’re all striving for—to be satisfied in our lives? Why would anyone hate her for that?
9. Monica Lewinsky. At last! Just when I was despairing of ever really finding out what I wanted to know, someone online mentioned—almost in jest—that maybe someone would bring up Monica’s name in a debate. Because, folks, it was always my suspicion that it is the history of Monica and Bill that is behind the whole Hillary-bashing thing. And as it happened, I saw this on that same day that the “self-satisfied” quote surfaced. Boing!

Everything came together. People hate Hillary because her man went astray and not only did she forgive with and stay with him, but she continued to thrive in her own life. I suspect that many people don’t’. Many people lose their spouses in similar circumstances and they become bitter. How could Hillary be satisfied with her own life when her man cheated on her? Isn't she ashamed? She must be a ball-busting bitch, she must be frigid, she must be asexual, she must not be able to please her man.

So it turns out to be sexism at the core of Hillary hating after all, but a particularly virulent and insidious kind—the kind that blames a woman for her husband’s infidelities. It is a kind of sexism that spews from both sexes. It is a great irony that this sexist nonsense is directed at someone who has done as much for women’s rights around the world as anyone else alive.