Thursday, November 10, 2016

To my left-wing friends


I have many friends, acquaintances and colleagues who consider themselves left of center.  They range from 'blue dog Democrats', to liberals, to socialists.  I've even been on speaking terms with at least one all-out, proud, unashamed Trotskyist!  Their political views don't stop me being on at least neutral terms with them, and often better than that, because they're fundamentally honest people who truly believe the philosophies and values they proclaim.  I may disagree with their perspective, but it's their right to have it.  As long as they're willing to let me have my own views, and treat them with at least tolerance, if not respect, then I'm willing to do the same to and for them.  The Golden Rule applies in politics as much as it does anywhere else.

However, it's truly appalling to see some of the left-wing, progressive reactions to the election of Donald Trump.  Clearly, to at least some of them, the Golden Rule is something theoretical, deserving only lip service.  It doesn't apply in real life.  "Not my president!" chanted demonstrators in several US cities yesterday.  Well, if that's the case, why should President Obama have been my president?  I could have done as they did, and rejected him utterly . . . yet I was living in his country, where he was elected by the majority of those who bothered to vote in that country's last two elections.  That made him my president, whether I liked it or not.  To pretend otherwise would have made me unworthy to be an American.  If I can put up with a president whose policies I rejected and whose political objectives were abhorrent to me, why can't those who supported him do likewise now that they're in the same situation?  Sauce, goose, gander.  Some assembly required.

I can understand anger, disappointment, and disbelief at Hillary Clinton's failure on the part of those who supported her and/or the liberal, left-wing, progressive agenda she espoused.  (Dave McClure's epic meltdown is a classic example.)  It's their right to have those feelings, and to express them.  However, it's not their right to turn on those of us who rejected her in favor of Donald Trump or anyone else.  If they claim that it is, why should we not do the same when our turn comes around - as it undoubtedly will?  Sauce, goose, gander.  Some assembly required.

In particular, I've yet to hear an honest answer to a simple question from any of my left-wing friends and acquaintances.  It's this.  Given Hillary Clinton's very, very long list of scandals, ethically dubious conduct, and plain downright dishonesty, how can you expect anyone adhering to even the most basic Christian values to vote for her?  She's clearly so morally corrupt that she isn't fit for any public office.  She's so manifestly (or should that be womanifestly?) untrustworthy that if she assured me, in person, that Monday was the day after Sunday, I'd instantly fact-check her against the nearest calendar.  If the calendar agreed with her, I'd probably distrust the calendar, too!

If even one-quarter of that list of scandals is true, I defy anyone to deny that it disqualifies her from elected office . . . yet her supporters appear to dismiss it as irrelevant.  No, it's not irrelevant.  If Mr. Trump's prior conduct makes him ineligible for the Oval Office on ethical or moral grounds, that makes Mrs. Clinton at least ten times less eligible than he is!  How can you not see that?  How can you fail to understand that?  As my left-wing, liberal, progressive blogbuddy Earthbound Misfit put it:

How good a candidate was Clinton? She had more baggage than the Queen Mary 2. Vilified by the Right since the 1980s, Clinton's reputation was of one of the most secretive and untrustworthy politicians since Richard Nixon. Two years before the election, it was clear to the most casual observer that she had more negatives than the Life Magazine photo archive. But no, the party couldn't see that. Led by Debbie Wasserman Schulz, a hardcore Clinton ally, the party did everything possible to ensure that Clinton would not see any competition for the nomination. When a challenger did arise, the party elites did everything possible to hamstring him.

Earthbound Misfit is absolutely right (and her honesty is one of the reasons I respect her, despite our differing views on many issues).  I'd have no problem voting for an honest, moral, ethical Democrat instead of a less honest, less moral, less ethical Republican . . . but there wasn't one on the ticket.  If you don't nominate someone I can honestly, ethically, morally support, don't blame me when I don't do so.

I'd also like to remind some of those most upset over President-elect Trump's victory that those of us who objected to President Obama's policies had to suck them up, whether we liked it or not.  As he said after his first electoral victory, "I won".  He had no compunction about using his victory to ram through his policies.  When Republicans objected, Harry Reid rode roughshod over their resistance.  If Republicans now demonstrate the same attitude and adopt the same tactics, I don't want to hear one single word of complaint from those who supported President Obama and Harry Reid when they did so.  Sauce, goose, gander.  Some assembly required.

What about the press?  I've never in my life seen such naked partisanship among the mainstream media.  Do they now expect us to forget that it happened?  To trust them to bring us the news as it happens, without embellishment, without censorship, without 'interpretation'?  Forget it.  With a very few honorable exceptions, I no longer trust the mainstream media at all.  They have zero credibility - and their post-election conduct is already confirming that.  As Vox cautions:

This ... process of creating a news cycle is presently being utilized in New York and other cities where "anti-Trump protests" are taking place. The purpose is to create the idea that Trump is "unpopular" and he is an "illegitimate, failed President" even before he takes office, and thereby eliminate the traditional honeymoon period enjoyed by a newly inaugurated President and obstruct his initial efforts.

True.  You can see the ongoing bias in the reporting and commentary on those 'protests'.  I won't waste a single cent of my money on the mainstream US media, and I won't trust what they tell me.  I'll use alternative sources to get my news and analyze it.  I know I'm far from alone in that determination.

(I honestly don't know how the media can rebuild public trust.  I don't see it happening unless and until they fire almost every journalist, editor and owner in the business, and start from scratch to build up new teams of ethical, moral, objective, honest people.  If that doesn't happen . . . if they carry on in the same old way with the same old people . . . then they can do unmentionable and anatomically improbable things to themselves, as far as I [and a great many others] are concerned.)

What about the pollsters?  Oh, boy . . . talk about having egg on their faces!  Again, with a very few honorable exceptions, I've lost faith in their prognostications.  From now on, if they tell me that public opinion is for or against anything, my reaction will be to yawn and say, "Oh, yeah?"  Furthermore, I'll support President Trump if he disregards so-called, alleged 'public opinion' in deciding whether or not to proceed with his policy initiatives.  If he builds a wall to keep out illegal aliens, and the opposition screams that he's defying public opinion to do so, my response will be, "No, he isn't - he's defying discredited pollsters."  Big difference.

Finally, I note once more (as I've frequently done in the past) that I'm not a Trump supporter.  I'm neutral towards him.  That won't prevent me from wishing him, very sincerely, every success in the very difficult, demanding, challenging tasks that lie ahead of him, for the sake of this country, my home.  I'll pray for him.

Furthermore, his supporters have won this election. They are to be congratulated on their determination and enthusiasm.  They deserve it.  Therefore, to those liberals and progressives who still regard Trump supporters as their inferiors, or condescend to them, or talk down to them, or regard them with pitying, patronizing superiority . . .  I can only invite them to rearrange the following words into a well-known phrase or saying.
  1. Off.
  2. Piss.

Peter

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Peter,

Reminds me of the difference between left and right of center. The right thinks the left means well but are misguided. The left thinks the right is an evil to be destroyed and that only their view is the only valid belief. I fear we are going to be putting the #2 #1 phrase to good use...

-DJ (@dj19 on gab.ai)

Anonymous said...

The only journalist I saw some objectivity from was CNN's Jake Tapper. His interview with Podesta last week as well as his coverage at the desk of CNN's election night I thought was objective enough. Many of the other's faces told the 'real story' - it was as if they just received the news that their puppy was ran over in the street.

Great post sir - we all have to get over it and keep on keeping on !

B said...

INdeed.

But the left acts childish (except, of course, EB Misfit, (who tries, at least, to be objective).

They won't (or can't) give the same respect they demand.

Lab Guy said...

Leftist will always be vermin to the core. No point in even being nice to vast majority of them. They are oblivious to the suffering their asinine ideas and policies cause and don't care either. It is all about the 'feelz'.

I've told several how about we start with an apology for being called deplorables an irredeemables by your candidate. No takers yet.

Anonymous said...

Most of the "spontaneous" protests aren't organic, they have been planned by the same groups that attack the Trump rallies. The same set of so-called "grass-roots" organizations funded by the Soros. Same signs, same leaders, same buses, same online corroboration.

At what point does funding violence become criminal?

Dirk said...

It was interesting to see reactions on social media. Almost without exception, those who I was following who supported Trump were all "Ok, it's over, let's not have any gloating, let's get on with the business of doing what we can to fix this country." And those who supported Hillary, again, almost without exception were all "OMG!! How could this happen? If you supported Trump, I don't want to know you any more! The criminal wasn't supposed to win!"

I did see some gloating from Trump supporters, and I did see some "Ok, Trump won. Let's move forward and work together" from Hillary supporters. But those instances were notable for their sheer rarity.

Of course, I didn't spend the entire day on social media, getting a wide and diverse sample... this is totally anecdotal, from what a few friends and acquaintances whose posts I read had to say.

I found it interesting that many "celebrities" pledged, during the campaign, that they were leaving the country if Trump was elected. Not that I care about their political opinions in the least, of course - I'm more interested in their acting or musical skills and talents. We'll have to see how many of them actually make good on their pledges. And I can assure you, they won't be missed.

genericviews said...

I honestly don't know how the media can rebuild public trust.

They can't. They worked too long and hard destroying their own credibility. All that is left for them is going full tabloid to maintain ad revenues. More booby pics (ala page 3 girls), more pictures of sad or goofy animals, more stories about the freak show people, and more stories about guys getting kicked in the balls.

bruce said...

now that Trump has the position I've got to believe he's not so sure he wants it.
Anyone who would feel different is not right in the head.

Anonymous said...

I'm waiting for the media to run this video and make it front page top of the newscast story like they would if the races were reversed:

http://www.infowars.com/shock-video-black-mob-viciously-beats-white-trump-voter/

Yeah it's going to be a long wait.

What this election has shown is that the divisions in the U.S. are so deep, wide and profound that there is no bridging them. Ever. People who think and act so differently, who have such different values, such different beliefs on what is right and wrong, such different life ways simply cannot coexist in a political entity or live amongst one another. Unless we find a way to amicably split from one another the consequences will be violence and eventually civil war. Those, for lack of a better term, heritage Americans, have nowhere to run. The U.S. is the last outpost of freedom and liberty in the world. This country was established by their forefathers for their posterity and not for Somalis, Guatemalans, Iraqis or Syrians to remake in the image of their cultures or to be transformed into an authoritarian social justice warrior wet dream in direct opposition to its founding intent. Those who wish for something other than what America was founded to be need to do as so many celebrities have vowed to do and leave. Renounce your citizenship and move to France, Canada, Hong Kong, Australia, South Africa or wherever. We simply cannot keep inflicting ourselves on each other. It's not fair or healthy for either of us. Most importantly keeping us together will inevitably lead to conflict that is almost too horrific to contemplate.

Uncle Lar said...

A niece, my brother's daughter, flat out told my sister that when the niece's gay son was murdered it would be her aunt's fault for supporting Trump.
I told her that her words were hateful, and that in fact Trump was the first Republican candidate to welcome LGBT participation in the election process in his RNC convention speech. Then I told her that she'd obviously been lied to by left wing politicians and media and needed to wake up and think for herself.
Last I heard from her, so I assume she's blocked me.
Her loss, not mine.

Bibliotheca Servare said...

Thank you for this post, Mr. Grant.
For future reference, in case some of the publications that you linked to (regarding their condescension to and loathing of Trump supporters/voters) try to "disappear" the articles in question, here are some archive links.
HuffPo: http://archive.is/4bTpm
Salon: http://archive.is/8Wd7K
Washington Post: http://archive.is/Sn7Kh
Patheos: http://archive.is/dx42v

Again, thank you, and I'll join you in your praying. God bless you. :-)

trailbee said...

Those that are currently rioting in protest are probably remembering 2008, and are wondering if Conservatives will use the same filthy/lewd language used by liberals that evening when Obama won. I would not want to be on the receiving end of that either. So, it's just better to riot and look stupid. No one says they have to stay here. There are already 23 celebs who are leaving. Maybe they can get a group deal on air fares.

Gail said...

From Arkansas and NEVER voted for the Clintons nor Obama so it was a nice year to win a vote.

I look forward to kept promises and a healthy fair nation once again.

David Lang said...

I thought CNN did a pretty good job Election night.

I tuned in around 7pm pacific and they were obviously in shock that things were not going as expected, but while many other networks were getting insulting and ranting, they seemed to fall back into real journalist mode "I don't know what is happening or why, but I can report on it and dig up interesting things to speculate about"

Shell said...

For even-handed political reporting I recommend Jamie Dupree of Cox Radio. I've listened to Jamie off and on for more than twenty years and can't tell you what his personal political views are because he never touts them.

selkiemaine said...

Well said.

Your point about polsters (and thereby the press) was especially well taken.

In Maine, where Bloomberg tried (and failed) to buy an anti-gun referendum, I know of two polls.

Bloomberg's folks paid for a poll before introducing the referendum, and got the answer that 80% of Mainers were in favor of increased gun control.

After introducing the referendum, one other poll that I know of was taken. That poll showed support for the referendum in excess of 60%. Of course, that poll was taken by, IIRC, a newspaper firmly on board with the ballot measure.

On voting day, the referendum lost 48%-52% - despite Bloomberg outspending his opposition by 10 to 1.

You don't get that kind of differential between polls and actual votes unless your polls are designed solely to procure votes.

Like you, I just don't know how to fix this, but at least the population is beginning to wise up.

Unfortunately, what's gotten lost here is intelligent discourse. It's increasingly difficult, often nearly impossible, to find trustworthy opinions, or even a consistent set of facts. The fact that people are so willing to ignore everything ... the facts, the law, criminal behavior ... to advance their narrative is far scarier than Donald Trump.