I don’t know who to be more cynical about: Donald Trump, who crosses racist trigger lines like President Obama crosses red lines in Syria; or Hillary Clinton, who shamelessly panders and plays to both racists and racist fears. They are both peddling poison nakedly bereft of any modicum of cure.
The Washington Post took Trump to task, while correcting Clinton’s own rhetoric. “Trump is reinforcing harmful stereotypes and offering a dog whistle to his most hateful supporters.” It’s not a dog whistle if everyone can hear it, says the WaPo editors. They are absolutely correct, a fact not lost on many.
— The Truth (@ivanlbial) August 27, 2016
Trump’s bigotry is a consequence of his strategy to play to conspiracy theories and paranoia. Trump himself does not believe that skin color, or religion, or some biological patent of natural intelligence or ability determines the quality of a person. Anyone who has studied Trump, even at a distance, can see that. Trump is an equal-opportunity conspiracist. If he thought he’d have a better chance peddling his wares as a Democrat, you’d have seen him running as a blue jackass (instead of a red one…of course).
But one can’t get past the fact that many who agree with Trump, who answer the call from his purpose-built bigot-magnets, do actually believe these things.
It reminds me of a story once told to me by a man who was active in the Knights of Columbus. Standing in front of a local grocery store in the South, raising funds for the organization, his group was approached by an elderly lady. Handing them some cash, she remarked, “Isn’t it wonderful to see you boys coming out in public again.” She continued praising the “Knights from Columbus” as a fine group of gentlemen who performed an important public service. Of course, the “Knights” from Columbus, Georgia of whom she spoke was not the group she was addressing.
When it became obvious she was making a fool of herself, my friend gently told her that the Knights of Columbus was a Catholic men’s organization. “Oh,” the lady said, turning crimson, and without another word, she walked away.
People with deeply-buried racism are happy to see Trump emerge in the same way, hoping that he is what they think he is. He isn’t, but he’s not afraid to use them to get what he wants.
That in itself–the ability to use such execrable troglodytes for personal gain–is anti-American, and anti-social in every sense of the word. Nobody should vote for such a person.
Clinton has her own troglodytes, and she marshals them with no less vigor than the Trumpkins. Playing the perpetual victim card is tried and true Democrat demagoguery. But tell me, in regard to African-Americans: what field of endeavor, what achievement, what social taboos in America remain closed to that segment of society?
Every sport, even “country club” tennis and golf have been open to and welcoming. We have a (half) African-American president, along with mayors, governors, and chiefs of police of major cities. Entertainment, movies, television all have major representation of African-Americans.
What the battle now seems to be for is having minorities in every possible position, contrived or qualified, in every movie, in proportion (or greater) to actual demographics. Why should this even be important? Because it’s a false indicator of what they call “institutional racism.”
For example, there are 32 NFL pro football teams. There are almost no black coaches compared to white coaches.
The white coach is 114 percent more likely to become a coordinator. “Black coaches are less likely to be promoted than white ones, independent of their first position, their current position, their employer, their prior experience, their education and their age,” the authors wrote.
And so we’re left with a simple explanation: discrimination.
In the outcome-based liberal world, discrimination is the first cause of every unequal, or underrepresented result, but only when it’s whites doing the discriminating. When blacks make up 68 percent of NFL players (who are paid far more than the coaching staffs), that’s not discrimination.
Even pointing this out is deemed racist by people who defend Clinton and her own brand of racism. In this, we should be thankful to Trump for being the bull in the china shop.
Every negative stereotype imaginable has been played by both these candidates: the white supremacist, the repressed white supremacist, the repressed white supremacist cop, the homophobic Christian bigot, the black gang-banger, the black victim of repressed white supremacists, the rich connected Jew (both sides use this one), the sweaty brown Mexican, the swarthy bearded Muslim, and the unscrupulous Chinese.
We have to hearken back to 1854 and the American Party’s “Know-Nothings” to find a similar period in U.S. history. Then, it was the Irish Catholics who presented the threat to White Anglo Saxon Protestants. Today we have two WASPs running for president. The more things change, the more they’re really the same.
In truth, beyond the awful rhetoric this campaign has generated, one used to have to look pretty deep to find American racism out in public. Now you just have to scratch either candidate’s core supporters and they readily bleed it.
To be sure, racism has been there, even repressed racism. Time itself would have healed those wounds if nobody kept ripping them open (cough, cough, Obama). But since when has it been the government’s responsibility to hunt down and stamp out every ounce of personal bigotry in our society?
Let me answer that: never. It’s only been Mr. Beer Summit’s policy since he took office, and he’s done a pretty crap job of it. As a consequence of Obama’s folly, and partially the consequence of his giving in to Trump in 2012 by producing his birth certificate, we have this bucket of putrescence dumped on us now.
Both Clinton and Trump are horrible. They are examples of the worst America has to offer on race and bigotry, and they play to the worst elements in our country. We would all be better off if neither of them won.