Rationalization of Donald Trump
I’m noticing a predictable and disturbing trend occurring, which started happening even prior to election night: supposedly enlightened and knowledgeable people began to rationalize Donald Trump as a viable candidate (mostly white people, but of all races — see the 13% of black men voting for a demagogue). In the course of FBI Director James Comey’s (questionably partisan) debacle with “new” information regarding former candidate Hillary Clinton’s supposed settled email mishandling case, voters were provided reason to give pause in punching a vote for the Democratic nominee. Regardless of how ridiculous, misdirected, and untrue some of the original reporting was handled — even by mainstream media, who could’ve destroyed the misinformation (and ultimately Trump’s ascendency) on sight — many voters could not, or refused to, trust Clinton, as far as any of them could throw her. In hindsight, the late-hour ordeal at least partially sealed her fate.
And her fate was to lose to Trump, arguably the least qualified major presidential candidate, by any measure, in history. Consider this for a second, if you already haven’t. There’s plenty of stories out, about the various reasons Trump won (“It’s because he’s white,” they say — which is true, in large part) and why Clinton lost (“should’ve paid attention to the marginalized Rust Belt,” they say.) The fact is that most of white (and also religious) America knowingly chose a racist, a sexist, a xenophobe, a business fraud, and quite possibly a sexual assaulter. They decided collectively that being any one of these things — all of them exceedingly deplorable in there own way, especially given our country’s very foundations in racism — was not a barrier to entry. You’re going to have to show me some incredible calculus proving otherwise. But more than that — they decided all of those things were better than having a liar as President. They’ve decided having a racist, and now hiring racists and those likely to reinforce discrimination in various contexts is categorically more agreeable than an untrustworthy person — who, frankly, I didn’t like either but at least would’ve at least kept the “alt-right” stapled to their keyboards, hurling their racial epithets to Brietbart comment pages, and not threatening actual people.
As it stands today, most of us are engaging in some form of reconciliation. Many believe Trump incapable, and look for him to trip over his own feet, thinking the job is too massive in scope and complexity. Many black citizens, myself included, see Trump’s rise as more of the same bigotry we’ve faced — as Dave Chappelle showed us on SNL.
Some black leaders are suggesting a Trump presidency is just what we needed, and others are pushing laughable respectability politics — “well, if you just pray, hold your head up high, carry yourself with class, and arm yourself with ‘yessuh’ and ‘no-suh,’ it’ll be okay.” However, I’d caution against stamping this as a direct continuation of the racial or sexist status quo. Progress was slow, but progress was being made nonetheless, so dismissing Trump (and his growing team of anti-other propagators) as the “same as it ever was” is grotesquely faulty. These people can and will likely do major damage to any policy relating to progress, and will find a way to make their moves and positioning permanent — to including Supreme Court selections — not only halting progress, but rerouting America’s current increasingly progressive orbit. There will be consequences directly effecting the lives of millions — imagine the vision of criminal justice under Trump.
Notice I used rerouting, and not reversing. Most Americans did not want Trump. Even 1 in 5 voters, per some exit polls, actually liked Obama as president — but apparently could not stand the lying woman, Clinton, ascending to presidency. The Electoral College’s process has been called into question, as Clinton’s popular vote lead grows.
Per Rolling Stone: “In this election, Clinton won some of the most populous states in the nation — New York and California — by substantial margins. Texas was the largest state Trump won, but he won that by a much smaller margin. Of course, Trump won the important swing states, but also by very narrow margins. Because of the winner-take-all system, Trump’s narrow advantage in those few swing states mattered much more than Clinton’s massive advantage in the uncontested states.
Second, basic math illustrates the point that all low-population states, not just swing states, are favored in this system. According to the last census (in 2010), Wyoming, the nation’s lowest population state, has just over 560,000 people. Those people get three electoral votes, or one per 186,000 people. California, our most populous state, has more than 37 million people. Those Californians have 55 electoral votes, or one per 670,000 people. Comparatively, people in Wyoming have nearly four times the power in the Electoral College as people in California. Put another way, if California had the same proportion of electoral votes per person as Wyoming, it would have about 200 electoral votes.”
This is all well and good — and I personally agree with Cohen’s assessment that too much weight is giving to the rural areas, which is attributable to the College’s lean into slavery, but was never rightsized — but it only illustrated the massive blind spot shown by progressives. Specifically, white progressives failed greatly in making connections with the rural, white working class wants and needs — perhaps leaning too heavily on the demographics that show this population is shrinking, along with a darker population in the coming decades. Progressives also lost white women, with a white woman as a candidate — go figure. That even the current administration expressed genuine surprise further suggests progressives’ positioning within their now-shattered echo chamber blinded them to what many foretold. This high-stakes game has gotten hyperreal, and what was done in the dark has come to light.
From David Remnick’s great piece in the upcoming edition (Nov. 28) of The New Yorker: ““This is not the apocalypse,” Obama said. History does not move in straight lines; sometimes it goes sideways, sometimes it goes backward. A couple of days later, when I asked the President about that consolation, he offered this: “I don’t believe in apocalyptic — until the apocalypse comes. I think nothing is the end of the world until the end of the world.””
Like Chappelle said the monologue, “we’ve been here before.” I believe we can make it back out. There’s no reason to wait for answers. Rapper turned activist David Banner has said it best: “I see a lot of people asking, ‘Where is our leader?’ You are the leader. Stop looking for somebody else. That’s the problem,” he said. “That’s the reason why we’re in the position that we’re in right now. We’re always looking for somebody else. It’s you — you do it.”— K.S.
