Saturday, November 12, 2016

- The Twin Pillars Of Liberalism Begin To Crumble

Personally, I found this piece on Slate regarding Donald Trumps ‘obvious racism and misongyny’ very instructive, and I think it takes the discussion in a useful direction:

People like me—members of a desperate and discombobulated coastal elite—have floated a number of different explanations for this outcome. Maybe Americans don’t mind that Trump is racist because we’re racist, too. We live in a racist, sexist country, and Trump has given the racists and the sexists the chance to vote their true beliefs. But what about all the counties and states that went for Trump after having voted Barack Obama into office? Maybe Americans are more sexist than they are racist, in the end, and their votes for Trump were really votes against Hillary Clinton. A third explanation blames white women for the outcome, given that a majority of them voted for Trump in spite of his misogyny. Or perhaps it’s the case that millions of people—including, for example, the third of Latino voters who lined up for Trump—are living in a world built from outright lies and fake news reports from Macedonia. Perhaps these people didn’t know, or would not believe, the truth of what Trump has said and done. They failed to understand that he’s a racist pig, and so they elected him.

Here’s my theory: Tuesday’s surprise had less to do with dueling facts than rival definitions. I suspect that many Americans—an electoral college victory’s worth, at least—would agree that we shouldn’t elect a racist to the presidency. By that logic, Trump should have been defeated easily; he failed a basic moral test. But if racist is to be a decisive and disqualifying label then we need to have consensus on its meaning—my understanding of what it is to be a racist must be the same as everybody else’s. What happened Tuesday tells me that it’s not.

He’s right of course. The definition of racist and misogynist are very much not a consensus. I think the author correctly identifies the problem, and I commend him for his relatively honest take on it.

But the reason that’s so is because leftist’s have been using those subjective terms in a blatantly opportunistic way. Bit by bit, they have expanded the definition of both ‘racist’ and ‘misogynist’ to include… well … everyone. Or at the very least everyone who doesn’t agree with them about the solutions to these ‘problems’. And to paraphrase the great animated movie “The Incredibles”, when everyone is a racist and misogynist, no one is.

I’ve been saying this in part for decades, and very very specifically for a year or two. We need a hard definition of what these words actually mean. But Liberalism doesn’t dare give us one because the minute they do it will be judged as either overly broad and politically self serving, or overly specific because it doesn’t deliver the demonization they want.

None the less, admitting the problem is an excellent step. Now maybe we can begin the discussion about what ‘racism’ and ‘misogyny’ really are, and in the process bring some ‘facts’ into the conversation. Facts that detail the very real and obvious behavioral difference between blacks and whites, men and women. Facts about biology, genetics and thought. Facts which are objective, and will therefore be much more persuasive to most people, than all the subjective nonsense the left has been trying to sell.

These won’t be easy circles for the left to square, but if they were ever going to start thinking rationally about what they really believe or ever seriously engage in honest introspection, this would be the time. They have suffered a crushing and … let’s be frank… utterly humiliating defeat to the twin pillars of leftist ideology. And that’s the kind of thing that fosters genuine self examination. The entire movement to demonize and marginalize white heterosexual men has been mugged by reality.

More than that, it was mugged, beaten, brutalized, and left naked and bleeding on the front lawn of its parent’s house. Trump was such an extreme example of everything they despised, that even the establishment right bought into their thoughtless characterizations of him, even though they subscribe to only the absolute minimum of the leftist pillars of ‘thought’.

This is a good, and healthy step for American liberals, and I’d like to once again commend Slate’s “Daniel Engber” for being so honest and thoughtful about it. When the rest of the girls are ready to put down their ridiculous signs and start talking instead of screaming and crying, I hope they begin to listen to him.

6 comments:

Muzzlethemuz said...

I see in this story that the Left's preoccupation with racism, misogyny, etc., constitutes a pathology, and has for some time. Pathology can be defined as mental, social or linguistic abnormality or dysfunction. Abnormal in this case defined as deviating from what is normal and usual. The great majority of the US adult population is probably straight, respectful of women's rights and certainly not Muslim.

They (The Left) will not stop. My suspicion is they have also hit terminal velocity, in a political and demographic sense, as the split we are seeing (blue/red) also correlates along urban/rural lines. Urban areas I would think have lower birthrates (minus Hispanic areas) and rural areas likely have higher birthrates. They may be balancing each other out.

The great majority of the US adult (voting) population will follow biological tendencies before cultural and social convention meaning most people will follow their heterosexual instincts and seek to reproduce and settle down at some point in their twenties. Growing families require regular, steady and good paying wages and that means a strong, vibrant economy which comes back to the Carvel axiom: It's the economy stupid. Most people I know want or are having children and having children requires a stable job with a good income.

This demographic, the "normal people," likely constitutes a majority of the country.

As Americans are so sheltered from events overseas many in this "normal" demographic, wealthy (by historical standards) i.e. the "Middle Class," are protected and inured from an understanding as to what goes on outside the borders of the US. As such this blind spot allows many that would otherwise tend towards a Republican candidate, to pull the lever for the Dems as the Dems promise domestic utopia and hey, who doesn't want a utopia?

The Republicans (historically) are mean, tend to rattle sabers, and speak of scary things like "troop deployments," "boots on the ground," and "Islamic terror," which to most Americans is something ethereal and statistically improbable. They can't imagine that corpses are hanging from bridges in Iraq or just over the US border in Meh-hee-co. That would be mean and scary. Besides, Meh-hee-co is where we like to go on vacation.

Muzzlethemuz said...

But I digress.

As they refuse to accept the legitimate results of this election (exactly what they warned Trump was going to do) we will see an increasingly militant hostility among their fringes, which will slowly trickle down to the wealthy university kids. I don't see any other outlet for them as among other things, this election has solidified our standing as a constitutional republic and once the SCOTUS gets stocked with conservatives, the Left will be f'ed, unless they can recapture the House or Senate before the next election.

If they should choose to dabble in violence, and I see the protests as exactly that, then there should be an immediate and overwhelming use of force in response, to stop the violence - and to ensure that the violence does not continue. That violence is directed at our Constitution and is indicative of a political and philosophical ideology that it is "my way or the highway."

On several occasions in my life I swore to uphold and defend the Constitution and in my mind, the threat posed now by this Leftist infection, is as dangerous and challenging as that posed by Islam and right wing neo-Nazis.

This divide has very little to do with gender issues or LGBT intransigence. This has everything to do with a sizable chunk of the US population believing that the freedoms granted us by the United States Constitution are simply too much and that NO ONE has the right to offend and probably, carry firearms, or a right to know their accuser, etc.

The Left wants license to censor and create a social charter and consensus that is fundamentally regressive, inherent of totalitarian instincts and all pervasive. They want control. Total control.

I pray to God that if that time arrives whereby they are in a position to implement this vision, I am still young enough and strong enough, to participate in what feels to be inevitable, another civil war on US soil.

That is of course if we don't get into a shooting war first with... name the problem... Russia, China, Islam, etc.

Someone tell me how this isn't where it's all going.

Muzzlethemuz said...

The rural/urban divide... as if on cue...http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-rural-idUSKBN13625Q

MikeCLT said...

When the left tarred Bill Clinton as a racist in 2008 for supporting his wife over Obama it was pretty clear that the term had lost all meaning. Bill Clinton has many faults but being a racist is not one of them.

MikeCLT said...

When the left tarred Bill Clinton as a racist in 2008 for supporting his wife over Obama it was pretty clear that the term had lost all meaning. Bill Clinton has many faults but being a racist is not one of them.

Stephen Paul Foster said...

Being a "racist" now is sort of like it was to have “cooties” back when you were in fifth grade. There was no remedy for the mysterious virus of cooties and you were deemed infected because someone decided that they didn’t like you.
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof with no hint of irony recently wrote a column entitled, “Is Everyone a Little Bit Racist?” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/opinion/nicholas-kristof-is-everyone-a-little-bit-racist.html?_r=0 which, unintendedly, confirms the point of this piece.

See: http://fosterspeak.blogspot.com/2016/11/nicholas-kristof-walter-duranty-of-21st.html