The short-lived triumph of white

The current attitude I’m viewing from conservatives in the wake of the election victory has been interesting in its smugness. I guess the cries of “n’yer” were too good to pass up, although I cannot help but feel that they might be a little too over-the-top.

I don’t disagree that the election of Trump was an enormous middle finger to the media. In fact I find it incredibly bemusing that left-wing outlets like The Guardian have spent much of the past four years bemoaning and demonising the demographic of men and white people, and then act suddenly confused when all the men and white people don’t vote for the candidate they’re rimming.

However, conservatives would be doing themselves a disservice to commit to the notion that demonising the white demographic is electoral suicide, especially if we see a continuance of this tactic going forward.

To take a long view of the United States, conservatives would well regard the report that US public schools are, for the very first time, predominantly non-white.

If I understand the current media narrative (and I hate how that word is cropping up so much these days), it’s that people of colour will tend to vote Democrat, whereas white will vote Republican. With the media continuing this narrative and pushing white people to the right (as witnessed with the election of Trump) then in eight very short years, we are going to potentially see an entire generation, and majority, of Democrat voters.

I don’t say this to be alarmist. It doesn’t bother me if the above happens to occur. But it would definitely wipe any smugness that conservatives exhibit at the notion that the current system has rejected the identity politics that has permeated traditionally left-wing media outlets. Conservatives cannot lean on the white demographics winning them elections, and they need to start focussing on how they’ll appeal to this growing segment of non-white voters going forward.

The College collage

tvdwznc

Before the 2016 election got in full swing, I had made a prediction. After the two major parties had their candidates locked and loaded, and when it became apparent that the idiot with the idiot hair would become the Republican shot at the White House, I just knew what the first item on the agenda would be, regardless of who won.

Electoral reform.

I just knew that the powers-that-be would be wondering just how this upstart from outside, ie Trump, even got to where he was. Politics is the realm of the ruling class who have laboured hard in their mansions, hob-jobbing with their equally connected sleazeball neighbours, and only the most polished and hobbed of knobs got to have a shot at historical relevance.

Then Donald Trump came along to one of their parties and shat in the fish tank.

And just like being at a party where someone waltzed in and pinched off a quality loaf in your pet’s house, everyone would be asking, “How the fuck did they get in, anyway?” Sure enough, here we are talking about changing the system, or gaming the college to ensure the Will Of The People is honoured.

Hillary Clinton currently has the lead in the popular vote by the not-insignificant margin of two million votes, and people are starting to scrawl question marks over Trump’s mandate to lead.

Some might think that this is only an issue because Clinton lost. I disagree. This would still be an issue if Clinton won, but only to stop assholes like Trump from getting even remotely close to becoming a candidate, let alone President. The club would be banding together, much like they are now, just to find a way to make sure some schlub from outside don’t go shitting in their tank.

I don’t profess to be an expert on politics. Everything I type in this blog is brain dump of how I view issues, and I have precisely zero credibility or power, so my blog is therefore benign. However, I feel the electoral college, while outdated, is still an imperfect solution that works.

There is a lot of discussion about how some peoples’ votes are worth more than others, because the College ensures that major city centres aren’t given too much clout when it comes to electing a leader. However, the alternative solution of “one person, one vote” only serves to provide the reverse – which is stupid anyway. Or, I have reservations. You can’t just tack on a “one person, one vote” system onto the existing shit pile. I understand that Democrats have only lost the popular vote on very few occasions, and a popular vote system only skews everything toward the cities.

Like it or not, country people should have an influence too. They are a part of your nation and deserve representation, for better or worse.

But electoral reform is on the mind, so let me just add a couple more little caveats to the idea of “one person, one vote”

  • Make polling day a public holiday and/or;
  • Make voting compulsory

I understand the logistical shit-show that second point would create, but it’s the only way to ensure that the popular vote is truly representative. Without giving everyone, everywhere reason and ability to vote, then you won’t get a good snapshot of the electorate’s wishes. At the moment, having voting on a Tuesday, and non-compulsory only leans the system to the wealthier, the white collar and the childless.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want Trump in the White House either. But deal with the symptoms that got him there (ie voter disenfranchisement), and not the system.

Spite vote

The thinkpieces are innumerable. The excuses plentiful. The blaming unstoppable. The amount of blithering and blathering over who’s to blame for the mess that is a Trump presidency is large on smarts and intellectualism, but short on actual, tangible explanation.

I guess this is a follow up to the previous post, which pointed to the media as the one to blame for the current shit fest that’s awaiting to unleash upon the United States come Inauguration Day, but I think it warrants clarification.

One thing that I simply knew was going to be on the agenda, whoever won the White House, was Electoral Reform. If Hillary had won, you can be fucking sure that there would  have been steps taken to ensure that the likes of Trump couldn’t come within a whiff of a candidacy, let alone presidency. That is the issue that I now see discussion happening, but it just smacks of business-as-usual with the media.

Audience trust in the media is at an all time low. Even with Trump’s blatantly horrendous views on women, foreigners and KFC cutlery, people still looked beyond that and voted for him. People seem to be done with the classic personal politics and have grown weary of the pretense that politicians need to be these unsullied pillars of virtue, because every politician ever who has suggested they’re perfect has always been far less than. The people now accept that politicians are flawed. People, I believe, don’t give a shit because all they want to see is someone who listens. Someone who will fix things, rather than offer a promise with a smiling face of purity while holding out the public purse to the vested interests with the hand up their ass.

The wealth gap is large. The middle class views itself as under attack, even though they have been promised protection from charismatic people.

Then along comes an election, and the media is telling people “Here! Here is the perfect person for the job! Isn’t she lovely?” and then with the other hand say, “Look at this other buffoon! He’s not a politician. He doesn’t carry himself like a politician. Isn’t he silly?”

The people have dealt with the former candidate for decades, and it has resulted in shit. They are beyond “the devil they know” now, and they want to remind others that the people are in charge. So when the media is clearly promoting one person and mocking the other, is it any surprise that people discarded the character assessments and voted for them anyway?

It wasn’t a protest vote. It was a spite vote. The media and the wealthy clearly wanted Hillary, and people, despite their better judgement and despite Trumps idiocy, said “fuck you for trying to tell us what to do.”

It was spite. And people will continue to spite the media until the media starts earning some trust back, and they can only do that with attempting balance and avoiding the drama.

The fallout of Trump

I’d long abandoned this blog, but considering the recent day’s events, it might be pertinent to revisit the thing.

It’s a strange time for the current powers that be. After a hard fought and extremely bitter 2016 Presidential campaign, the unthinkable happened: the unelectable buffoon took the White House. After all the smears, and all the mocking, and all the stupidity on behalf of the media, Donald Trump has taken the Presidency.

I have long hated the method of debate on the Internet. It’s not so much a method as it is theatre, in where everything is thrown at an opponent in the vague hope that something eventually sticks. It’s not enough for a debate opponent to be bested, but they must be destroyed, humiliated and mocked. It’s a technique I’ve seen applied to political debates, and I hate seeing it being deployed among the rest of us.

Whenever a prominent figure pops up on Youtube or wherever, they have their character questioned, and seldom are their arguments debunked – and even if they are debunked, they’re done is a, “god aren’t they stupid?” way. It’s a method I want to see stopped, because we, as a planet, have seen the method writ large just elect someone to the highest political office who has zero experience in being a politician.

Day after day, week after week, comedians would mock Donald Trump. People on twitter would mercilessly mock him. News outlets would focus on the minor aspects of him in the vain hope of shaming him out, but instead the worst thing possible had happened. He continued to rise.

Trump eating chicken. Newsworthy, apparently.

But has the media learned anything from this? There are some glimpses of reflection, with the Guardian writing about how they misread the public sentiment. I can’t find the article at the moment, but I feel it’s likely summed up by the Jonathan Pie video below.

But there is a pocket of the media who have taken a look at their behaviour over the past 18 months, nay, past four years and decided, “Fuck it. Let’s keep going.”

Yup, white people are to blame. Not the media who have championed the Democrat candidate, Hillary Clinton, but also took swipes at white people while doing so. It’s amazing that these people think they can mock white people, but then get confused as to why white people didn’t vote for the candidate they wanted.

These will be the same people who will laugh mercilessly when Trump is voted out after a single term, despite that it’ll be the same white people who will decide to swing against Trump.

The one thing I fear now, is that the discourse on politics will now distill down to a false dichotomy; Conservative = white people. Democrat = non white. Not only is this reductive and false, it also erases any black conservatives, or liberal whites.

This isn’t to say that the recent result on 9 November 2016 is a declaration that this is the world and this is how it’ll always work forever. A 2014 study indicated that children in public schools are more non-white than white, so it’ll be only a mere decade before we start seeing elections less influenced by the white count. It would be foolish of any political party to solely court the white vote going forward.

But it would still be silly to assume that either demographic will stay Democrat or Republican as well. Political views are elastic for many people, and some might grow more conservative as they age.

I am neither delighted or horrified at the ascension of Trump, but that lies mostly in that I have no skin in the game. I am not a US resident. But I see the politics of old are dead or dying. We can’t approach electorates and demographics as left or right. People, this time, I feel have voted for an end to the establishment.

Politicians would be wise to learn from this. As would the media.