Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Green flag

(Please note that the above photo is meant to be a humorous illustration of some of the themes of this post.  I don't care that it is Photoshopped.  This is an opinion blog, not the Washington Post.)

Here's a fun game that you can play while you're waiting for the four NASCAR drivers of the apocalypse to make an appearance at your front door:

Whenever someone says that poor people worried about the economy voted in Donald Trump, you say "I think you mean poor WHITE people."  When they say that working class people felt forgotten by the Democratic Party, you say "I think you mean working class WHITE people."  You do this to anyone in your life who is regurgitating the media's dangerously wrong talking points about how what happened in 2016 was definitely not THEIR fault.  Hell, for bonus points, you could yell corrections at your TV screen too, but damn kittens I recommend you save your screaming voice for when you are sucked into the flaming pools of totalitarian shit that used to be the United States of America.

My point is, take every opportunity to remind everyone you can that what happened in this election was a giant white people takeback of what they think is theirs.  People of color didn't fall for any of Trump's trumpeting about bringing back jobs, or fixing the economy.  They know a carny shill when they see one.  And the only reason white people couldn't see the con is because they didn't want to.

A coworker of mine, who is an engineer, and an escapee from Kansas, lamented to me that his sisters voted for Trump.  They did so, he said, because they're "single issue voters," when it comes to abortion.

Now, clearly he's got his heart in the right place, and I'm not going to talk shit about anyone's sister to their face, but it's always funny to me how people who have multiple degrees and who make a living knowing how shit works are frequently so bad at knowing how shit works.  Because does my coworker really think that, if Trump had been pro-choice - which he was as recently as 2 seconds before he said he wasn't - does my coworker really think that his sisters would not have voted for him?

Because bullshit.  Because of course they would have.  Because their principles are fictitious.  Just like all the principled Evangelicals who we were told might stay home from the polls, and the principled Mormons who we were told might make Utah go 3rd party, and the principled GOP whoevers who denounced Trump the candidate while conveniently neglecting to denounce what he stood for.  All those principled conservatives who, in the end, fell over themselves in their rush to vote for the most embarrassing leader of the free world since George W forgot how doors work.

Yeah, white people showed their true color on Election Day, and now they're acting as if it's 1861, and the Mason-Dixon line is now being drawn at the Canadian border.  And they weren't emboldened by Trump's stance on clean coal and the TPP.  They were emboldened by anger.  They were angry at the black president for being the boss of them.  They were angry that the country, collectively, may have to admit that the police operate under the same bullshit assumptions that they do.  They were angry that immigrants dare ask for the same consideration that their own immigrant predecessors received.  They were angry that theoretical cake bakers might have to bake gay cakes.  And yes, fucking yes, they were angry that a woman dared to think she could raise her hand and say "The most qualified person is me."

For eight years they've been saying that they wanted their country back, and kittens, they just took it.  They took it because Democrats believe in equal rights, and a better life, for people who aren't them.  And we let them do it, we held the door open for them and let them take everything away while we quibbled over which kind of locks to install.

The Republicans won because they were scared shitless that we would enforce our agenda.

The Democrats lost because the Republicans cared more about our agenda than we did.


Pinky said...

Happy to see you resurrecting the blog. Well said, kitten. Well said indeed!

Dad E said...

Unfortunately, Clinton's agenda was to continue Obama's agenda without describing the work to be done moving forward. She didn't deliver anything that moved anyone except the fear of Donald Trump, which we all thought would be sufficient.

vikkitikkitavi said...

Bullshit. That is media narrative bullshit. She did describe the way to move forward. She delivered much more than a fear of Trump. I don't understand how anyone could listen to her stump speech, watch the convention, watch any of the debates, and fail to hear her message about what our path would be.

But white people were so busy casting themselves as victims that they didn't care. Don't blame the Clinton campaign for this. They did everything they could.

Fran said...

This white trope is complete bull. I am often reminded that despots and dictators do their best work when they make sure that those who should be united to depose them are instead divided - and distracted.

vikkitikkitavi said...

What I've written about is based on polling data, is not a "trope," and the people who voted for Trump are unlikely to unite to depose him, so not even sure what you're talking about, Fran.

Larry Jones said...

Actually, according to CNN exit polls Trump got 1% LESS of the white vote than Romney did in 2012. And weirdly, MORE of the black and latino vote than Romney 2012. So, while surely there were many angry white folks with racial motivations in this election, you can't say they are responsible for electing Trump.

vikkitikkitavi said...

Actually, Larry, if you're going to actually come at me with the mansplain, you should actually have something relevant to say about the polling that I actually neglected to consider.
But you have not. Trump won the Electoral College because white voters in swing states came out and voted for him. The end. Your white people-excusing talking points are irrelevant.

Larry Jones said...

Sorry, I wasn't trying to belittle or anger you. The relevance of my comment is this: The right wing has fun with fake news and "facts" that aren't true. I don't think Democrats/liberals should do that. I believe if we are going to be able to recover from what happened November 8th we'll need to know what happened. I don't know where you heard about the white backlash vote, and I'll admit is sounds plausible, but it didn't happen, at least not in the decisive way you say it did.

Please tell me if you don't want me to comment here any more, and I won't.

Larry Jones said...

PS: While you're deciding whether to throw me out I want you to know that I've read your blog and been a fan of your writing for at least ten years, and I was sad the whole time you weren't blogging.

vikkitikkitavi said...

Please don't explain to me that the truth is helpful.

Don't say you don't know "where I heard" something, as if I'm just making shit up.

I have links to data. And more than that, you can Google the assumptions I'm working off of and decide for yourself. If you don't understand why a link informs what I've written, then say so and be specific. Do not come up in here and just piss on my thesis by making vague statements about how did I know that I'm misinformed? I appreciate you being a fan, but your comments are disrespectful, whether you intend it or not.

Larry Jones said...

What I meant to say is that there was no "whitelash" that put Trump over the top. My sources are The Roper Center at Cornell University, Pew Research, and this article by Kevin Drum at Mother Jones, which is based on CNN polling data. These data show voting patterns between whites and blacks were statistically unchanged from 2012 to 2016. Your premise may be correct, but if it is, why isn't Romney president?

I'm sorry for pissing you off, although that's not what I was trying to do. I said I was sorry, and I really am. You assume "mansplaining" and disrespect, which is not true. You owe me an apology.

vikkitikkitavi said...

I owe you an apology? You owe me a fuck off.

vikkitikkitavi said...

Larry's behavior does illustrate another principle that was hard at work in this election: sexism.

He condescended to me, assumed that I didn't know what I was talking about, and assumed I didn't know how, or didn't care to, cite reliable sources for my thesis, even though they were right there in plain sight.

He then explained to me that the truth is important.

Poll numbers can be read in different ways, I do not dispute this. But advancing a theory in opposition to mine requires that you approach the task with respect for what I've done, which Larry did not do. He merely blurted out numbers without context or theory and expected me to bow down to his point of view. He expected me to recognize his thoughts as superior to mine without bothering to offer a thoughtful persuasion.

That is disrespectful and sexist. Clearly he feels that he is the explainer, and I am the one who needs to be explained to. Fuck that noise. Done with the bros.

vikkitikkitavi said...