Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts

Monday, July 30, 2018

A New Shade of Orange

"The serious threat to our society is not the existence of foreign totalitarian states. It is our own personal attitudes and within our own institutions..." John Dewy

Ever since the USA election and BREXIT, I’ve been watching my Facebook news-feed closely. In particular, I have watched with interest, the third party voters in the Presidential election, aka Hillary-haters. Many hated Clinton with particular spiteful rhetoric highlighting their misogyny. Self-proclaimed liberals were among them. Despite their claim of liberalism, or political “independence”, they voted third party even though they knew the high-risk of Donald J. Trump being elected as president and the consequences that his presidency would carry in regard to the supreme court. There was a deep grievance among them for Bernie Saunders not getting the democratic nominee. Their protest votes helped Trump. The third party Jill Stein voters contributed to the Hillary losses in swing states. This, my friends, is partly why we ended up with the alt-Conservatives’ wet dream in the White House. Even those liberals voting third party just could not abide the thought of "crooked Hillary" being in the White House. Trump, an abuser of women, a pathological liar, corrupt businessman, and narcissist conned his way into the White House with lies, regarding immigration, crime, and jobs. The older white woman could not even trump those characteristics. The residing president has denigrated the very office of President with his twitter-storms attacking the press and opposing party and in turn, making the USA the laughing stock of the Western world. The Hillary-haters helped put him there.

Unlike “The Apprentice” that just concerned the contestants, and mere passive viewers, this reality TV show is being aired live to everywhere. Its affects, and effects are felt and experienced by everyone because we are contestants and observers. We find ourselves unable to switch this show off from a remote control. The ramifications of the onslaught on the Environmental Protection Agency, the conservative Supreme Court Justice appointment(s), and the looming death of Roe v Wade lurk overhead. This farce of a presidency has already tipped the balance of the supreme court and will have another chance to get another appointee to the court.

On the other side of the Atlantic, the Brexiteers are still crowing about “sovereignty”, and how they’ve “got their country back”. From what they've got their country back from is not quite clear. What has materialized is that the racists and other bigots are emboldened to abuse people on buses, and trains “to go home.” Somehow they think that is really British. Somehow hurtling themselves back to a 1970s backwater country crippled by tariffs, and brain-draining is more British than being a part of something larger and stronger -- a united Europe.

Now back to the USA side of the pond. Most recently, I have watched the third-party people in response to the separating of undocumented immigrant children from their parents who cross the border illegally proclaiming how, “Obama separated children too”. Note the cognitive dissonance here: they hated Hillary that much, so they justify, or explain Trump, and commit the false equivalence that, democrats and republicans “ are all the same”...

Obama never separated undocumented immigrant children from their parents upon arrival. There was no law mandating such action. The third-party people; AKA (they-are-all-the-same camp) are enablers propagating such nonsense. That makes them no better than the Trump supporters who they imagine they despise. Little do they realize that they share more commonalities than differences with the Trump supporters who sport their MAGA baseball caps while shaking a "Lock her up" sign like a medieval warrior rattling his saber. The difference between them is a shade of orange. The shade of orange people are the third-party, Brexiteers and of course Trump-supporters.

The degrees of magnitude on how the current and previous administration differ are unprecedentedly cruel in terms of vindictiveness, and building adversarial relationships with allies such as the European Union. Other clear examples are children dragged from their parents upon crossing the border undocumented, bans of entry into the USA based on cultural identity (Muslims), publicly mocking disabled people, and referring to a free-press as “fake news” because they speak out against the narrative of the alt-right, or question it. Those illustrations are not characteristic of a healthy thriving democratic country, but that of a near banana republic. The list is endless. I do not recall other republican administrations in very recent decades ever being vitriolic towards pillars of democracy, or hostile towards asylum seekers, refugees, and other undocumented immigrants.

Daniel Jonah Goldhagen explained in his book “Hitler’s Willing Executioners” how ordinary people came to believe that a single agent (the Jews) were responsible for what ailed Germany at that time. Hitler was able to tap into what belief system which was already there. That believe system was in an exceptionalism of the German people. That exceptionalism enabled the Nazis, and much of the population to dehumanize what they did not consider German. Those were groups who they believed to be the source of their country’s problems — the Jews, along with other groups that they deemed deviant, or unworthy of being a member of their cult of a master race.

What was particularly striking about Goldhagen's book (outside of the horrific descriptions of the persecutions during those times), were the similarities between Third-party supporters, Trump supporters, and the Brexiteers and those ordinary citizens in 1930s Germany. The shades of orange people are those “ordinary people” who Goldhagen describes. These “ordinary” shades of orange people maybe your neighbor, some of your colleagues, or your life-long friend from high-school. They might not emerge right away, but I have observed over the last two years, how these people slowly shed their veneer revealing all. Believe it when you see it.

Trump managed to tap into that same near-mystical concept of superiority (exceptionalism), that plagues the USA. Nigel Farage did the same thing across the pond in the United Kingdom by manufacturing the need to leave the European Union through lies and spreading fear about immigration, the NHS, and a disruption of sovereignty. The belief in the British Empire as virtuous, and an almost mystical belief in superiority and the good ol’ days runs deep in the same way as exceptionalism runs deep in America.

The USA and the UK have many things in common one of which is the inherent belief in exceptionalism. Exceptionalism is powerful, and a dangerous belief system because we can justify anything in the name of being superior. Being superior allows us to dehumanize groups, and become authoritarian. The historical outline in Goldhagen’s book shows how ideas are spread like a virus throughout a culture, and passed down from generation to generation.

Richard Dawkins, in his book, “The Selfish Gene” called ideologies “memes”. Memes are passed down like genes. We inherit ideas like we do genetic traits. Ideas spread like virus and replicate, sometimes mutating and becoming more viral -- intense. For example, “Make America Great Again” is a meme that spread like a virus. Nigel Farage’s UKIP campaign poster of, “Breaking point: the EU has failed us all” with a photo not of Syrian refugees, but migrants crossing the Croatia-Slovenia border in 2015. The meme was a lie to deliberately conflate the Syrian refuge crisis with EU-immigration. The meme spread fear, and galvanized xenophobia. Both worked.

Third-party Hillary-haters who just could not vote for Hillary are a mere shade of orange from the current resident in the White House, and his fan-base. This shade of orange has helped normalize Trump by even suggesting that the Democrats held the same policies as this administration. A friend recently described Trump as a symptom of this country. The shades of orange, are the agents. The agents spread the viruses (lies) contributing to this country’s chronic sickness.

The aforementioned countries never looked in the mirror and examined who they were. No introspection. A population does not look inward when they believe they are the best. When you imagine you are the brightest bulb on the tree, you don’t see how bright the other bulbs are shinning too. We are in trouble; a vortex from which we cannot escape. At least not for decades. Right now, there appears to be no antidote for the disease of exceptionalism that plagues both nations.


A collage of Facebook posts selected from over 200 screen shots that I took from my feed during and immediately after the 2016 presidential elections.

Friday, March 17, 2017

"Words matter..."

The San Francisco Chronicle article, entitled, "Frederick Douglass and Writing the Resistance" by Vanessa Hua conjured up much imagery painting a wonderful portrait of Frederick Douglass, an abolitionist, and a former slave, who up until the very day he died, dedicated his life to fighting for the oppressed. Hua's article coincided with black history month and also takes into account Trump's inauguration and the subsequent Women's marches that took place across the nation and the world on January, 21, 2017.

A hundred years later, America finds itself waging a similar fight for equality under the umbrella of the civil rights' movement. Fast forward to January, 2017. I find myself standing in the pouring rain in one of the most progressive cities in America outside the Town Hall the day after the inauguration of President Trump finding it difficult to believe people are galvanized to such a pitch that they feel yet another march for equality is necessary. Insofar as decades go, things have indeed changed for women and minorities for the better, but the question remains, by how much? The inauguration of Donald Trump as President of the United States is an indicator that we do not have gender equality and may have even lost some equality.

The fact that we have a president who was freely elected by voters who had a knowledge of the existence of a tape-recording of him bragging to a TV host about sexually assaulting women and subsequently dismissing the banter as, "locker room" talk is demonstrative enough that we have not moved very far towards equality at all. The revelation of the tape should have been enough to end his campaign under a cloud of shame and public outrage, but it did not. The fact that Trump was elected president despite the existence of the tape is more than demonstrative of gender inequality. As a matter of fact, it reduced gender equality even further given that Hillary Rodham Clinton, an accomplished politician with a track record of public service failed to win over voters along the political spectrum. Even worse, she was vilified for infractions such as using a private email account for affairs of state, but Trump remains untouched for admitting to sexually assaulting women. Misogyny was rampant throughout voters' expressions online and at rallies, and was a large factor in Clinton's loss of the presidency.

Women who had accused Trump of harassment and rape were also the target of misogyny. They were dismissed as, "Liars", "Why now?" even though the concept of zeitgeist could answer the latter question. Make no mistake that the misogyny was from all along the political spectrum along with misogynistic language used by everyone who disliked Clinton. The language used across social media to describe Clinton were more often than not, very gender specific. Language included words that described negative traits, or labels reserved for females; "Wall Street Whore", "Bitch", "Old hag", "Shillary", and the list goes on. I am left wondering how Frederick Douglass, a champion for equality, including women's suffrage in the 19th Century would feel hearing such terms being used today in the 21st Century? I'm drawn back to Vanessa Hua's description of two women's poster of the "American flag with the inscription “Words Matter” on an eagle with its wings outstretched." Words indeed, do matter.

The words used to describe Hillary Clinton matter because they are dismissive of women. The words dismiss women because they reduce women from being intellectual beings on a par with men to mere objects of ridicule by only referencing them by their gender and sexuality leaving them devoid of any capability, or reliability. The words confine women within a boundary of derogatory gender-specific traits that place them beneath males. For example, the repeated descriptions of Clinton as shrill; "Why does she have to yell?" Yet Trump's calls to his sycophants to, "Lock her up!" went unheeded. Ever heard of a man being described as "Shrill"? Never. And you won't because that is a word reserved for women only. Men can't be shrill, only forthright and direct. Never shrill -- only, "saying how it is."

The fact that Donald Trump is now president demonstrates that his words, tone and inflections were not put up to the same scrutiny as Hillary Clinton's intonations. If anything, the supporters of Trump were galvanized by Trump's yelling. Trump's yelling helped him in contrast to Clinton who was penalized for behaving in a similar way when she described supporters of Trump, as a "Basket of Deplorables." Both sides screened her labeling of predominately white working-class Trump voters with a fine comb and rightly so, but Trump's calls to "Lock her up" and "crooked Hillary" were not put up to the same scrutiny. Clinton lost credibility whereas Trump gained it. A male politician behaving unlike a president became an asset rather than a liability -- it got Trump elected. Words really do matter. Gender-specific words reserved only for women model attitudes. Those attitudes manifested themselves throughout the election and legitimized them. It is precisely why we do not have gender equality and why America does not and most likely will not have a female President in the foreseeable future. Sad!

Link to Vanessa Hua's Article:
Frederick Douglas and Writing the Resistance.