Since announcing his campaign on June 16th 2015 Donald Trump has maintained one key narrative: the idea that he, alone, can make America great again. The phrase has sustained vacuity since it’s inception, as he’s yet to establish a point of reference for America’s greatness or even effectively communicate what America will look like when it’s great once again.
One idea that must be put to bed at the start of this section is the misconstrual of criticism of Trump as being biased or ad hominem. Here are some facts about The Donald: he’s a con man, he’s sexist, he’s racist, he’s xenophobic and he is in fact a bigot. This is not biased, this is an accurate observation. And if he’s yet to tick the homophobic box in the game of discriminatory bingo, then his Vice-president Pence certainly does, having previously opposed a law that would prohibit discrimination against LGBTQ people in work.
If these statements strike you as controversial then either you haven’t been paying attention or you’re blinded to his indiscretions by the brim of your red cap. Allow me articulate my specific concerns in each of these variations of discrimination and ineptitude:
Con-man: He has declared bankruptcy four times and on countless occasions refused to pay workers after they have completed jobs in his hotels.
Sexist: He implied that Megyn Kelly’s tough line of questioning must be a result of her being on her period.
Racist: His ex-employees have claimed that when he showed up to gamble at his casino’s he always made sure there were no black croupiers.
Xenophobic: He has described Mexicans as “rapists and drug dealers”.
Bigoted: He called for a “complete shutdown of muslims entering the United States”.
Furthermore, his labyrinthine lies should have condemned his campaign to failure but instead redounded support among his faithfuls, following him into the oval office as staple of his administration. His inflation of the English language, which has left every statement devoid of meaning should be problematic for the president of the United States. The issue is he’s willing to sacrifice all credibility with one community, in order to achieve unqualified support in another. And perhaps the most concerning fact is that Trump supporters are unwilling to recognise any of his wrongdoings. It’s not biased to say he’s not qualified to be president, that’s an objective fact. People conflate fair criticism with partiality. They are vastly different and we must remember that saying Trump is not the best man for the job is a statement of fact. It’s simply true to say he’s the first president without political or military experience. Hilary wasn’t a good candidate but you can’t doubt her qualifications. Why is president of the United States seemingly the only job that requires no relevant experience? If you needed a triple heart bypass, and were presented with two potential candidates, the first has 30 years experience as a cardiothoracic surgeon and has made a couple of mistakes throughout the decades but is as qualified as anyone else on the planet. The second is a really confident pensioner who’d like to try his hand at heart surgery before he dies but he’d be picking up the scalpel for the first time, aged 70. Who would you choose? Yet, very few people thought to analyse this basic fact in the domain of politics. Trump is a walking Dunning-Kruger effect. He knows so little about politics, economics, international relations, ethics, cultural differences and even the english language that he doesn’t even know what he doesn’t know. Without too much debate he is the laughing stock of international politics, an incomparably incompetent ignoramus. Just because Clinton was a bad candidate, it doesn’t mean Trump was a good one. There are thousands of people better suited to the job than he is, but those who are best qualified simply aren’t narcissistic enough. You can have genuine concerns about the capability of the president without being biased about his diplomatic proficiency. If you don’t take issue with his incompetence or the ideas occupying the leader of the free-world’s headspace then there’s nothing he or I could say to demonstrate this problematic truth, and thus, I feel it’s time to move on to the other issues that plagued the 2016 Presidential election.
In the Democratic Party Hillary Clinton had far more political experience, and yet equally questionable credentials as a Presidential nominee. The only mandate you need to be a valid party nominee is the support of your own party members, Clinton didn’t even legitimately have that. It is abundantly clear that the Democratic National Committee had chosen her as their nominee long before the primaries were concluded. Bernie Sanders never stood a chance, not because he didn’t have the support of the American people but because he didn’t support the agenda of the DNC and therefore was never likely to obtain campaign funds or support from superdelegate voters. The best explanation I have for Clinton’s capitulation derives from an ancient Chinese proverb which states “The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the second best time is now”. 20 years before this extraordinary election Bill Clinton was in charge, now 2 decades on nothing had changed. America was still being ruled by the elites: for the elites. People wanted change, and rightly so, it’s just a shame that change had to come in the shape of a profane, orange vulgarian. America has had years to correct these issues and yet the Government has continued to follow the financial warpath into fatal destruction and an undying adulation for the freedom to be incarcerated. While other facets of American society have been moving forward at an unprecedented pace, the political system has been stagnant for some time, and in many respects has gone into retrograde. Clinton wasn’t trusted with power because she’s an uninspiring, political ever-present, whose beliefs are so whimsical and fleeting that her legacy is nearly a verbatim copy of the politically popular opinion of the moment. Much like her husband, she stands not for her country, not for her party, but for herself. We can only hope that losing the presidency to a senile rabble rouser, who appears to endure a series of small strokes every time he speaks, may just be the breeze required to blow her out of the political picture. Ultimately, it cannot be denied that Clinton’s campaign was one of the most remarkable feats of incompetence in political history.
In the 70’s and 80’s American Government initiated a war on drugs, incarcerating hundreds of thousands, mostly blacks. In the 90’s and early 2000’s they initiated a war on terror, hegemonising millions, mostly arabs. Now Trump is initiating a war on fact, subjugating hundreds of millions, mostly white Americans. Finally, majority citizens are also getting fucked over by their Governments illusory self-serving policies, and despite Trump’s claims that he would “drain the swamp”, he has instead flooded it with nepotistic refuse and a pay-per-seat cabinet. Though it’s a depressing thought that with hundreds of millions of eligible candidates he was deemed the best fit for the job description, I’m not surprised that the people of America elected Trump. Since 9/11 occurred there has been an ongoing narrative perpetuating the notion that by even recognising the link between Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism you must be a heartless bigot, eager to reestablish bygone days of white-Christian supremacy. The irresponsibility in disregarding this issue, and many others like it, has been the catalyst for the alt-right movement. Much like Brexit, Trump supporters were motivated by the new-found fear of conversation that prompted people, at every turn, to walk on eggshells around the beliefs of others in case they were labelled a bigot. Now let’s examine a few points of “liberal” hypocrisy that may well have prompted such a movement. Feminism, LGBTQ, Black Lives Matter and Islam are four hot-button topics that have been stalled by in-fighting and persisting befuddlement. I am a supporter of wholesale equality, but I simply don’t see the merit in many methods of approach from these oppressed communities and people who profess to campaign on their behalf. Make no mistake, the Trump campaign centred around these issues and almost nothing else, he successfully peddled the fear of a changing country, but in a country that was genuinely changing that was no hard task.
Conservatives were being silenced on college campuses, the police was branded as institutionally racist for the incompetence of a few officers, and many public figures were readying themselves each day to obfuscate the way in which Islamism and Jihad may contribute to the internal justification of terrorists. This was the zenith of identity politics. On the morning after Trump’s victory a left wing activist by the name of Van Jones went viral for his repudiation of this result as a “whitelash” but I don’t buy this thesis. There are people who turned up to the polls twice to vote for Obama who were quite comfortable electing Trump as President. Though he had white supremacists and bigots fighting his corner the message can’t just have been one of discrimination or he wouldn’t have obtained 63 million votes. The truth is he’s the only candidate who spoke honestly, not just about the failures of society, but also the way in which politics had fallen into disrepair and though his solutions were nothing short of terrible in many instances, he was granted a monopoly on issues that needed to be addressed by candidates who, for decades, had skirted around them at the risk of losing votes or campaign contributions. For years, people on both sides have been advocating a political revolution, I think we’re all just surprised by the nature of it.
Trump brought the picture of a changing country into focus and came to the lectern armed with solutions. What cannot be stressed enough is that these solutions were not clever, insightful or, at times even intelligible but Hillary Clinton offered nothing at all on the issues of Islamism or immigration, and thus, Trump monopolised the predominant concerns. By making ludicrous claims about building walls and rejecting muslims from entering the U.S he showed a misguided desire to tackle these issues while Clinton simply ignored them. In the wake of the Pulse nightclub shooting President Obama and Hillary Clinton both engaged in the propagation of a frighteningly spurious narrative rooted in the claim “Islam is a religion of peace”. The antithetical reality to this supposition can be demonstrated through the simple realisation that every time a news story breaks about a terror attack, before we know the identity of the perpetrator, we can converse safely in the knowledge that such violence was motivated by Islamic extremism and to deny this is to ignore a clear and consistent pattern.