I think the student's observation that Trump's election was more an act of political vandalism rather than a good faith attempt at reform is accurate. But to think that the motivation was purely economic is naive. We've had economic doldrums before and we didn't elect a dangerous buffoon in response. What has been unprecedented these past eight years is that we had a black president, and we made enormous strides forward in gay rights. That explains the white nationalist backlash better than simple economics. After all, by the time the election rolled around, unemployment had dropped to less than 5% and the markets were near all-time highs. But the president was still black, and gays were still getting married.
Unfortunately unemployment numbers don't tell the whole story. Large parts of the country are still suffering, not from the downturn but from technological & trade based upheaval. Someone who used to work at a factory or mine may technically not be unemployed when working at WalMart, but they aren't happy either. I think Democrats will continue to lose elections so long as they care more about rights of immigrants than of a local coal mine closing down. In fact, many would celebrate that, despite the cost to the people who work there or the community.
I think of it this way, I live in a small non-diverse town, and I can pick the guy/gal who says he's going to keep the plant open or the guy/gal who says he will protect gay and immigrant rights and you need to feed your family, who are you going to vote for?
Economic interest, fear (for a threatened ideology), and anger as motives for your aptly labeled "political vandalism" don't seem mutually exclusive. Further more I don't think the author was as naive as you think, as he posits that disruption of traditional state vs federal power distributions economic inequity, and ideological claustrophobia, all contribute to a seemingly nation-wide impulse to endorse the political "wrecking ball", i.e., Donald Trump.
Despite my indoctrination by extreme leftists and irreparably biased current frame of mind (my political views must complement or evolve antithetic to those touted by my parents -- they consist in reaction), the above entreaty for moderation -- for bipartisan, and inter-class sympathy; for an unified effort towards ideological coalescence, or minimally, tolerance -- evokes within me a hitherto repressed indignance, a righteous (and likely apprentice) fury with apparently ubiquitous moral complacence. Our bigotry, borne and exacerbated by exploitative class-stratification turns inwards as shame and anger or outwards--but never with avail towards the those of power--towards equally resentful fellow exploitees. Cornered masses consume themselves in a continuous holocaust of hate, directed at anything and everything but that and those responsible. Such recursive self-sabotage of entire stratospheres isn't novel or even worthy of yet hackneyed indictment. My articulation of anguish illuminates a more recent, poorly noted, dimension of social dysfunction: formerly explicit, oligarchical, tyrannical rule -- that sovereignty -- now condescends subjects with a dissemblance of justice, civil rights, autonomy and benevolent patronage. Dissonance of promise and action ignites further ignorant prejudice. Little frustrates more than inconsistency and contradiction, except for when such absurdity enumerates and bounds the extent and nature of our 'how's and 'why's and 'what's -- that is, when an authoritarian farce further impedes the autonomy of its subjects. As so eloquently stated in the above essay, a mutual effort of moderation and intra/inter-class sympathy may save us yet.
Edit: apologies for such pretentious language. Hemingway would cuss me out and die of apoplexy. I rationalize my fascination with words as a futile, but crucial battle against Zipfs law as it describes the distribution and frequency of vocabulary within the general populace.
4 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 27.1 ms ] threadI think of it this way, I live in a small non-diverse town, and I can pick the guy/gal who says he's going to keep the plant open or the guy/gal who says he will protect gay and immigrant rights and you need to feed your family, who are you going to vote for?
Edit: apologies for such pretentious language. Hemingway would cuss me out and die of apoplexy. I rationalize my fascination with words as a futile, but crucial battle against Zipfs law as it describes the distribution and frequency of vocabulary within the general populace.