The truth about us elitists: You might say that we the liberals got tea-bagged last Tuesday night.
The people Rachel mocked with such glee came back to take us down.
(Night after night, she kept pretending that she was embarrassed to do it. How we loved what she did!)
Only a fool would say we didn't deserve and earn what we got. But then, what fools we pseudo-liberals turn out to be!
Starting Monday, we'll be spending a week or two exploring the ways we liberals worked for what we received this week. That said, this morning's Washington Post provides a stunning example of the way we "think."
Let's be clear. The Washington Post's Colbert King isn't a standard issue liberal. As far as we know, he doesn't identify as a liberal at all.
That said, he is a major insider elite. From 1976-1979, he was Deputy Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury Department. For the next two years, he was U.S. executive director to the World Bank.
From 1980 through 1990, he was executive vice president of the Middle East and Africa at one of the nation's big banks. A fiery liberal can't help wondering what he might have been paid.
By October 2000, King was so well entrenched at the Washington Post that he wrote several ridiculous columns excoriating Candidate Gore in the run-up to Election Day. It was the kind of ridiculous work which, maintained by the guild over two solid years, allowed Candidate Bush to end up in the White House.
(It can't be discussed today.)
In fairness, King's service paid off. In 2003, he was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in commentary "for his against the grain columns that speak to people in power with ferocity and wisdom."
(Eventually, everyone within the guild ends up winning the Pulitzer Prize. Something lofty is always said. This is a marketing practice.)
In our view, King's columns sometimes make excellent sense. On other occasions, they don't. That said, Colbert King isn't a standard-issue liberal. Within the taxonomy of modern PseudoThink, he would probably be listed as a black centrist.
That said, his column today helps showcase the mammoth limitations of us in the pseudo-liberal world. It also helps showcase the fact that we earned everything we got.
As he starts, King makes a winsome statement. He says God may have used Tuesday's result to teach us something "about ourselves."
But as he continues, a point becomes clear. Though King pretends to be discussing Us, he's really referring to Them:
KING (11/12/16): God must have a sense of humor to put up with what we do to ourselves."White people made Trump president?"
Or maybe the election was used to teach us some lessons—about ourselves.
We learned election night, if we didn’t already know it in our heart of hearts, that we are not the inclusive, multiracial and multicultural country we make ourselves out to be. Despite projecting the image of a United States embodying a kumbaya-like spirit of human unity, our identities are rooted in race, religion and ideology. That showed up in the election returns. It could be seen in the faces of Trump’s core constituencies.
And don’t think of them as only old, Rust Belt, blue-collar supporters.
White people made Trump president.
According to the exit polls, so did 29 percent of Hispanic voters; 29 percent of Asian-American voters; and 8 percent of black voters. But when the privileged start to vent, few bother keeping score.
King goes on to further describe the way white people made Trump president. In the mindless way our tribe adores, he casts Us as the forces of light after limning the forces of darkness:
KING (continuing directly): He ran the table in virtually all categories, including college- and non-college-educated white men, and whites 18 to 29 years old.Candidate Trump was supported by Goofus. Clinton was backed by Gallant.
Hillary Clinton’s camp, in contrast, consisted of a polyglot of colors, religions, sexual orientations and college-educated white women.
King's column is exceptionally stupid work. Like so many in our world, he offers a single explanation for roughly 60 million votes. He offers a single explanation—the ugliest one he can find.
As he offers his explanation, he blows past Trump's Hispanic, black and Asian-American voters. This is a type of privilege We often bestow on Ourselves.
King couldn't have made it any more clear—"Those People" elected Trump. His messaging is perfectly clear. Clinton's camp contained the good people. You could tell because they were polyglot.
Trump's camp contained the bad people. Don't waste your time looking for further explanations of their behavior. Within our profoundly unintelligent world, there can be only one.
Throughout this campaign, it's been stunning to see the limited way our liberal world often "reasons." With amazing regularity, we favor the sweeping single explanation, preferably the most demonic one we can find.
We drop our R-, B-, M-, N-, X- and I-bombs and pretty much call it a day. King is quite explicit today. No other explanation need apply:
KING: The Post described voters drawn to Trump as “Americans alienated by the forces of globalization and multiculturalism and deeply frustrated with the inability of Washington to address their needs.”Let us translate that for you:
They were depicted this way in the New York Times: “A largely overlooked coalition of mostly blue-collar white and working-class voters who felt that the promise of the United States had slipped their grasp amid decades of globalization and multiculturalism.”
Drop the “globalization and multiculturalism” genteelism.
Call it what it is.
It’s low-skilled brown people from Mexico showing up in the job market and competing with low-education white folks. It’s non-Christian immigrants—yes, those Muslims—and illegal immigrants who have “our people” fearfully looking over their shoulders and, in some cases, down their noses.
There is no chance that low-skilled immigrants will "show up in the job market" and interrupt the flow of money and status which goes to Emperor King. From the safety and comfort of that situation, he's happy to demonize "low-education folks" whose situations are thus affected.
He sticks the word "brown" into that passage to make his demonology plain. In such ways, we who got tea-bagged Tuesday night have earned everything we got.
King's column is stunningly unintelligent, but in a familiar old way. It takes a special kind of stupid to adopt these single explanations for the actions of sixty million souls, including quite a few million who form that "polyglot of colors, religions, sexual orientations and college-educated white women" which King is so eager to praise.
It takes a special kind of stupid to do that—a kind of stupid we the liberals have shown we possess in spades. Even more so, it takes a special kind of indifference—a contempt for "low education" people who haven't siphoned their financial status from big banks and from deference to standard insider press scripts.
It takes a giant contempt for The Others to engage in behavior like that. In all honesty, you have to inhabit a near suburb of the world we've always attributed to "bigots."
We liberals got tea-bagged Tuesday night. Truthfully, we earned what we got, every step of the way.
The babies being born today will pay the price for our relentless pitiful conduct. They will pay the price for Us! We'll start on that topic next week.
The headline on King's column: In hard-copy, the headline on King's column doesn't quite capture its contents.
On-line, the headline makes a better fit:
"Spare me the euphemisms. White people made Trump president."
Truly, what a remarkable headline! We the liberals have earned what we got every step of the way.