How and Why
In a recent episode of Norm Macdonald’s YouTube show, Norm Macdonald Live, guest Stephen Merchant talks about what it’s like to think about Jimmy Savile now, after confirmation that he was a paedophile and “general all around rotten egg” (to put it lightly). The gist is this: in hindsight, you merely have to look at him to realise that it makes perfect sense. Of course he was a pervert, a degenerate of the lowest order. His weirdness was not merely a gimmick — the image of him always being an oddball, a little “off,” turned out to be close to the truth.
With over a week to clear our heads and recover from election fatigue, we can make the same assessment of the Clinton campaign. This is not to actually go into the sexual assault allegations for either party here (important as they are). Rather, we can look at what happened on election night and, with almost no difficulty, realise that all the indicators were there too. Of course it was going to go this way; the surprise is that both campaigns — and the pollsters, the hack journalists, the smart journalists, the public — could overlook the garish, deviant, psychosexual signs of such a pandering and condescending campaign and still think it was going to win. (And here I’m looking at you, “Hillarymen,” Hamilton and HBO alike.) We paid no attention to what was written as bluntly as anything on @realDonaldTrump: “The DNC is running a fucking loser.”
Now, aside from November 9, Trump is by no means a winner. Things are going to get much worse under him, and there are fissures throughout his empire. He will continue to be hated, and rightly so. He’s an abject failure of a man, rich in appearance only, and having as much dignity as a beshitten infant tracking faeces throughout the house. Smugness (of victory or of escaping the crib) won’t protect him from the looks of disgust he’ll always receive. But how did he do it? How did he get to the finish line amid such a crowded field of aspiring GOP nominees, constant scandals, protests and a disaster of a campaign?
The answer is that it was not his work — it was Clinton’s. They did much of the job for him. Here are some examples being floated around (I will only summarise; other writers have done an exemplary job with this already):
- Clinton’s campaign let him have the working class wholesale. He probably didn’t listen to them (and he never will), but at least he spoke to them. Meanwhile, she spent her time pandering to coastal residents through memes — who found the whole spectacle to be largely insufferable anyway.
- The DNC nominated an establishment candidate in an anti-establishment time. Voting for Clinton would be a vote for the status quo, a continuation of the decline of the West, while a vote for Trump would either derail that process or just speed it up and get it done. And this isn’t to say Trump is therefore anti-establishment — he’s still a rich asshole — but he is anti-politician. (Alternatively, he is an anti-politician or his election is anti-politician.) Both his conduct and victory express something that most of world has felt lately: fed up with what we’ve got, and done with those clowns in Congress. Given the chance to shake things up, some people will take it. If they’ve nothing to lose and everything to gain, a risk like Trump can seem worth it.
- While it’s dangerous to make bigotry the primary contributor to Clinton’s loss, it’s certainly a factor. Some people aren’t willing to elect a woman, others (or probably the same ones) support Trump’s racist policies. I would never say that they should have run a man instead (or been more racist), but unfortunately her sex didn’t help in a world that’s still so awful to women.
And all of these can of course be expanded on or broken down into smaller factors — greed, personal unlikeability versus likeability, the problematic practice of trying to make political dynasties within a democracy, irony and trolling, blind trust in polls, and so on. In any case, none of these are the root cause of Trump’s victory. They are contributing factors, winds and pressures in a perfect storm. There remains, at the heart of it, one large sign that we could have heeded, that would’ve told us everything from the start.
Hillary Clinton is a doo doo lady. She has a doo doo for a brain and a puke for a heart. She’s a dumb doo doo and her husband is a rapist. Donald Trump is a doo doo man, but a different kind. He is a diarrhoea doo doo that bursts through the dam: “All aboard the Trump Train bitch! Trump Train has no brakes!” Even a diarrheaphragm would have been useless. Hillary is just a damn doo doo. She’s a doo doo lady.
Hillary is an outdated, boring and annoying doo doo that sucks. She’s a doo doo who sucks and stinks and no one wants it. Donald is an undeniable doo doo that demands attention; it’s forceful and urgent and you’ve got to race to the toilet. Maybe you don’t notice at first, and maybe you try to dismiss it as a fart, but to do so is at your own peril. Because at the end of the race, after creeping up to the finish line and lulling you into a false sense of security, it shoots right past you. You should’ve been paying attention to the churning in your bowels; instead, you were grinning while wiping your doo doo ass of the regular doo doo and being fine with it. But guess what: your doo doo fucking sucked. It may feel good to get it out, but it’s still a damn doo doo. Now wipe your hole please.
Hillary Clinton is a damn doo doo, so of course the campaign was fucked. They ran an outdated doo doo lady against an advanced diarrhoea. In the end, the only one playing with the up-to-date rulebook was Trump. Everyone else was a decade behind, when the rulebooks only accounted for doo doo and diarrhoea was a mere rumour, a later addition in a later edition. I’m not saying there should be a diarrhoea candidate run by the DNC next time, just that you can’t pitch a doo doo into a diarrhoea pool. The doo doo will sink right through while the diarrhoea rises to the top. And that’s just what happened.