I Watched the First Presidential Debate From a Loony Bin
Ajai Raj
6810

Your entire article can be broken down into elements. First, there are the demeaning characterizations, the allusions, the insinuations.

“Clownish tsunami”, “batshit, bonkers and bananas”, “peak crazy”, “sinister forces”, ”where we could regard it with appropriate disdain from a comfortable distance”, “the unthinkable”, “the acrid boxed wine of an impossible Trump presidency”. “mouths of babes”-not wise?, Brexit vote — “an unthinkable possibility” “another unthinkable inevitability”

These I suppose if you include enough of them and scatter them around appropriately are to work on the part of our mind that is vulnerable to suggestion. Perhaps the purpose is to reinforce the readers preexisting beliefs. They are so often delivered in a casual, assumed, force of nature way sort of way.

Next there is the anecdotal element. Here you seem to want to endear us to you. You want to make a connection with the reader and show the human side of yourself. This is an emotional element, the hospital, your father, your time in London and Germany. Somehow I feel you want the reader to say’ “here is a caring and honest person; a person with real world trials and experiences”. Perhaps you are. Perhaps I am. What I want to know; why do you think this is more important to write about than the greatness of Hillary Clinton. Why not show what it is we passed up by not voting for her. Was she a good candidate if you were anti-war? Would she defend us from Wall- street corruption, The central bankers, Was she a Keynesian on economics and what does this mean? Would she act against the forces of global governance or why would global governance be a good thing? Would she protect our constitutional rights? Was she honest?

The next element would be your assumptions. “No one was that enthused about Hillary Clinton”. This seems to make the assumption that “we should be enthused about Hillary Clinton”. Please explain why anyone should be enthused about Hillary Clinton. The Head of DNC resigned in controversy that she was colluding with a particular candidate. What if this had happened in Trumps campaign? Later you quote a lady, “Simply could not get over Hillary’s red pantsuit. “She looks like a giant strawberry!” she cried, with real, baffling exasperation”. Here again; you would lend the reader to assume that the way the candidate dressed was the underlying reason Hillary did not get the vote. Personally I tend to think she was not predisposed to Hillary for other reasons and didn’t like her before the comment. What would those other reasons be and would they be reasonable?

The next element would be your judgements. “Jane was a perfectly nice, completely ignorant and altogether dimwitted person”. “yelled, in response to nothing in particular, “Benghazi, bitch!” He then looked at me like he expected a high five”. You are telling me you have never called someone a “bitch”? You are judging this person how, why, because he didn’t like Hillary? You don’t like Trump, how is this different? Do you judge these people as below you? “cue-ball head, impeccably trimmed mustache, piercing blue eyes that conveyed a familiarity with brutality that his politeness couldn’t quite conceal”.Judging a book by it’s cover? He did say he had tried to turn his life around, right? “At one point he told me I looked like that guy from The Big Bang Theory. I knew the guy, right? The Indian guy? “It’s a compliment!” He said. I thanked him. Sometimes, in the name of self-preservation, you have to grade racism on a curve”. Grade racism on a curve?, He was talking to you yes? He tried to make it clear it was a compliment yes? What is racism anyway? It is a judgement. I see you making many judgements of others.

The next element is close to the last and this is racism. Jane said she had “the towel head.” — “ During another break, I overheard three good ol’ boys” How are the above two phrases any different. What is meant by “good ol’boys”; white, rural, uneducated, selfish, ? They both hold the person in question accountable to their local of upbringing. “Piercing blue eyes”, is the point here piercing eyes or blue eyes? Is this a characterization based on the fact that 99.9% of blue eyed people are white? “The apparently untroubling fact of supporting the candidate with the enthusiastic support of the KKK”. Is Trump a KKK member? Has he endorsed the KKK? Why do you think it is that some KKK members believe and why? Are some racial ideologies and political positions and beliefs mutually inclusive? This is where you and your audience judge the character of almost half the population of the United States as white supremacist. I guess this works better than debating the issues and explaining as above how Hillary supported women and people of color. As she did when she voted for the Iraq war, destabilized Lybia, aided the CIA in arming ISIS, defended a child rapist, hired detectives to follow Bill’s rape accusers. Am I making this all up?

Your conclusion; “I’m sure he’s just fine. After all, his man won”. Insinuation; an indirect or covert suggestion or hint, especially of a derogatory nature. That is what I believe this phrase is. You are insinuating the he is only looking out for his interest. “His man”, is the one who will represent him and you have already identified him as “racist”. So Trump of course is smeared here also.

I suppose I look at this and see a formula of sorts. It is a formula that will appeal to many people who see the world as you do. What is that though? How do you see the world and why? My personal belief is that there are people in the world who navigate the world as “thinkers” and those who navigate it on an emotional and social level. I am not saying you are dumb or don’t think. Actually you are probably very intelligent. The article for what it was, was well written. The best way I can verbalize what I see here is this; have you ever been in a small group and people are for whatever reason a little reluctant to put themselves out there so the group dynamics are just not clicking or functioning as they could. Then, when someone makes a statement everyone is so relieved that they all jump on the bandwagon; even though the thought or idea was really, well subpar. That is where I believe the left is now. No one has the courage to debate his or her peers or disrupt the social fabric of the environment they find supports them. Issues don’t really matter in this context. The important thing that you want to know and feel in you person is that you are good, you are right. When you arrive at this point it is now just second nature to demonize the “other side”. I believe a little more thought and honest reflection, rather than noise and aggression would do the left a service. The Bernie people are there somewhat. My opinion is they see the global dynamics, the global struggle for power and feel this is much more of an issue. As A Trump supporter I see his domestic policies through the lens of global issues. That is all I can say. Well one last thing; what about that religion that treats women as slaves or second class citizens, ruins or kills all types of sexual classes other than man and woman, burns, beheads and tortures those who oppose them. How does this religion represent “progressive” “liberal” ideologies? Thank you for your time.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated cmw’s story.