Sheeple Still Don’t Understand: Clinton Lost Because Trump Was Better
The sheeple of the “liberal” media, the Women’s March on Washington organizers, Madonna, and many others (including Ashley Judd and Rosy O’Donnell) imply that Hillary Clinton, “the most qualified candidate,” was beaten by “the least qualified of all the candidates” because of misogyny. That’s the argument from artist Marilyn Minter. (Source: “Madonna on Trump: “In A Way, I Feel Like It Had To Happen.”,” W Magazine, January 20, 2017.)
Even while I disagree strongly with Minter, I admit that she offers a starting point for a logical discussion. Sheeple seem to reject logical arguments. Madonna offers no such possibilities with her closed-ended and frankly asinine comments—and threats.
Advertisement
The media continues to perpetuate the image of Donald Trump that Hillary Clinton presented during the campaign. However, many people have struggled to adjust to or deal with the reality. Donald Trump is president. Some Twitter users have called for his “assassination” (no joke), while others have mounted a campaign wishing him a barely more tolerable fate.
So much of the sheeple media has tried hard to convince us that Donald Trump’s voters represented a revolt of the “White Males with No College Degree.” But that’s an incomplete picture. No doubt, the Clinton campaign highlighted the fact there is a divide in the United States. But Clinton was the worst candidate, not Trump. It turns out the better candidate did win.
Still, the sheeple have not noticed that the new president has started to soften his image. He hasn’t given up on his program, and he could succeed in turning the paradigm that has dominated the United States for the past 30-odd years on its head. The big question is: Can he succeed?
The list of A-list Hollywood celebrities, reveling in their magnificence and wealth, showed up one after the other at the Democratic Party Convention. They made their appearances on the talk-show circuit—ever more a smugfest—extending their praise for Hillary Clinton for one reason or another.
This parade of stars, who did everything possible to get Clinton elected—and who spoke without thinking at last Saturday’s march—has acted like the proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand. The humanitarian and “liberal” celebrities have not considered the fact that the current divide has nothing to do with Clinton’s gender.
The sheeple who follow the stars didn’t get it. Some, like Lady Gaga, looked distraught in the early hours of November 9, as they drove away from their champagne and caviar parties in “Rolls Royce Phantoms.” The media still doesn’t get it.
The Democratic Party Has Become the Elite Party
The Democrats are more elitist and exclusive than any other political manifestation of wealth and privilege, more than even France under Marie Antoinette (an immigrant herself). Those who used to be what was once known as “liberals” might want to take up archaeology.
They will need their archaeological training to find anything resembling liberal in the Democratic Party these days. It’s not enough to blame lobbyists and money in politics. As Thomas Frank explains in a new book, the Democratic Party elites in the 1970s marginalized labor unions, changing the party of the working class to the party of the professional—technocratic—class. (Source: “Donald Trump is moving to the White House, and liberals put him there,” The Guardian, November 9, 2016.)
In so doing, the Democratic Party lost its way, ignoring social problems, let alone finding solutions. It prefers to dwell in apocalyptic climactic fantasies and politically correct fascism while oddly supporting some of the most abhorrent regimes and ideologies in parts of the world that need the opposite.
It has backed foreign interventions as enthusiastically as the most Republican warmonger—I’m looking at you, Hillary—and has participated in some blood-spilling episodes of its own. No more solidarity with the common man. It’s no longer the party of the New Deal and the middle class; it’s the party of mass inequality.
Many lifelong left-leaning social libertarians would have been tempted to—holding their nose, perhaps—vote for Trump rather than Clinton. There has always been a difference, in general at least, between the two major parties. People generally relied on a compass: Republicans were known for fiscal responsibility and Democrats for fiscal profligacy.
Often, presidents escaped from those pigeonholes, for better or worse. But now, the fracture is greater perhaps within the individual parties. Many Republican leaders backed Clinton and some Democrats backed Trump. Similarly, an analysis of who cast what vote is also surprising. Although we were told that voting for Trump was voting for minority hatred, at least a third of the minority voted for him.
The most logical explanation is that the divide that the recent presidential election unearthed is not one necessarily rooted in ethnic or religious affiliation. Perhaps social class itself played only a small role. Indeed, many poor Americans voted for Trump as did some rich ones, but pundits and protesters have perpetuated the sheeple non-thinking attitude.
The Democrats Have Not Done Their Homework
Democrats must use the next few years to understand America. Indeed, the Democrats must use Hillary Clinton’s defeat as the launchpad for a rebirth. Rather than blame Trump, repeating sheeple clichés, they must strive to understand why they lost to Trump.
They might find more arcane language, but one conclusion is inevitable. Trump’s election reflects not only the anger of the poor and ignored, but also of the middle class, the very source of America’s greatness. So perhaps Trump’s campaign slogan “Make America Great Again” is a battle cry for “Restore the Middle Class!”
While the U.S. press is speculating on the possible appointments of the Trump administration, we can hope that Trump’s business partners might play a role. They might be the ones he can trust best. One of the campaign advisors who could play a big role is not a business executive, however: General Michael T. Flynn.
General Flynn’s a Democrat. He served as principal foreign and defense policy advisor during Trump’s campaign. He has challenged President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, and fellow Generals David Petraeus and John Allen on U.S. foreign policy in Iraq and Syria.
The Hollywood “liberal” millionaires and their billionaire “world-saving” counterparts pontificating at the World Economic Forum in Davos must dry their tears now. While they pull out their handkerchiefs, they might want to think about the hypocrisy of the pacifist rhetoric of the past eight years.
They might consider the many—”humanitarian” by all means—bombs and wars that the media has disguised or muffled, demonizing the wrong parties. Meanwhile, the media, lazy intellectuals, Hollywood actors, and Obama’s European Union (EU) sheeple leaders dare not challenge.
Trump, meanwhile, understood the mood on “main street” U.S.A. His speech might have been pessimistic in a sense. It painted a different picture of the allegedly excellent economy that President Obama has left.
Trump accused—without naming the origins—the economic policies that have betrayed the American people. The statistics may show that unemployment is low at below five percent. Yet, as Trump has suggested throughout his campaign and inauguration speech, many Americans are dissatisfied.
They are either no longer looking for work or they have found low-paying jobs with insufficient security. In other words, Trump has won by understanding that too many Americans have lost the American Dream of enjoying a higher standard of living than their parents.
That is what Donald Trump means by “America First.” Trump wants to relaunch the economy and promote America’s interests at the international level. That’s why Americans of the working and lower middle classes who have chosen to trust Trump rather than the all-too-establishment Hillary Clinton.
