Supporters of Hillary Clinton are understandably devastated by the election results. So are those of us to her left, who voted for Dr. Jill Stein or who chose to observe the voter boycott. But it’s important to consider what today would feel like if Donald Trump had lost and Hillary Clinton had won.
The mainstream media and many Americans would be patting themselves on the back. First woman president! And we held off Trump the fascist! USA! USA!
Which would not have been a good thing.
A Hillary Clinton victory would have told American politicians that it’s OK to sell influence to transnational corporations for millions of dollars, transform a nominal foundation into a money laundry that finance is your daughter’s wedding, endorse NSA spying on ordinary Americans, back “free trade” agreements that put millions of people out of work in order to line the pockets of the super wealthy, start wars for no reason whatsoever and provoke possible wars with adversaries like Russia, endorse CIA torture, all while failing to stand up for the interests of the poor and downtrodden whose party you claim to represent. She was a disgusting person and she deserved to lose.
It would have told Trump’s supporters that their interests don’t matter. Does anyone seriously doubt that Hillary Clinton would sign more free trade deals? Encourage more globalization? Knock down more borders?
There are many problems with Trump, which I have documented in my book, cartoons, and columns. And I will continue to do so, obviously. As we look with a gimlet eye into the future, however, at a time that feels like Germany in 1933, it’s important to note that the alternative wasn’t much better.
At least Donald Trump offers clarity: United States is a vicious, thuggish empire. Many of its citizens are breathtakingly ignorant and uneducated and contemptuous of those who are intelligent and make an effort to inform themselves. Many of its citizens are overtly or covertly racist.
And yes, sexism is still a huge problem. And yes, sexism is definitely part of the reason that Hillary Clinton is not president-elect today.
Any system that is impervious to internal reform is doomed to external attack and, eventually, ruin. Ross Perot, a far more reasonable man than Trump, was rejected by the system. As was Howard Dean. And Bernie Sanders. Most Trumpists would have preferred one of those.
For whatever it’s worth, Donald Trump exposes the United States for the monster that most people around the world already know it to be. Make America great again? We’ve always been assholes. Now, with an asshole in the White House, what we are is super clear. Which gives us the ability to get to work in order to clean up our rancid political culture.
28 Comments.
I just hope someone can break through the wall that “The Donald” built around Chris Matthews over at MSDNC. It’s so painful and sad watching him flail around for answers in a sea of Hillary butt kissers … maybe you can send him a copy of your article above — printed on a life preserver ? And while you’re at it, please tell Chris Hayes that the “Twilight of the Elites” I’m worried about is his own engineered departure that will likely occur subsequent to Keith O., Alex W., Ed S., etc., etc., etc. …
Watching Maddow and Matthews on election night after a few drinks was quite simply a pleasure.
For a long time I would have agreed with you — but then Bernie ran for President, at which time it became clear that Chris and Rachel oftentimes seem closer to Goldwater than F.D.R. (just like Hillary). Probably has something to do with their pretty paychecks … I think Ted Rall has more than a few cartoons about our sold-out media …
Did you misunderstand me? I enjoyed their squirming and anguish and denial and rationalizing.
Goldwater was all about freedom, something Hillary could not care less about. And after her short stint as a “Goldwater girl” (something everyone here never tires of mentioning), she studied Saul Alinsky. There’s her real roots.
Replying to your 2:12 p.m. “squirming and rationalizing” comment:
So are you a paid or unpaid Koch Brothers troll ?
Jane Mayer’s book “Dark Money” is a good read, by the way, if you want to know how their money got Trump elected …
Sorry–I only read books written by men.
«Sorry–I only read books written by men.» The crisis of K-12 education in the United States in a nut (I use the term advisedly) shell….
Henri
Piggybacking off what newportbob said, getting from here (a corporatist dominated Clinton Machine Democratic Party) to there (a more open, vibrant, free wheeling, ideas oriented Democratic Party) is going to be tough with the entrenched compliant media that is uniquely incapable of self reflection due to the masters it serves. Ted gives this media monstrosity just the escape hatch it needs and will/ is already using to carry on as business as usual: Hillary lost because of sexism. I think it is patently untrue that is the reason she lost. Ted even contradicts this by saying she was a uniquely disgusting person who deserved to lose. Isn’t that the true reason for the apathy toward her campaign? The only way to get from here to there though is to fundamentally change the media. The internet provides a solid solution to get unfiltered information but it is still mostly controlled by the media gate keepers. I can only hope that after this loss, some of the more honest, progressive types in Silicon Valley and other parts of the new tech economy like possibly Elon Musk can use their power, monet and influence and totally revamp the media. I know Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post and could be one of those people but he seems to be a thoroughly despicable person who runs a near slave labor operation in Amazon.com. So maybe this hope in tech giant saviors is futile.
“So maybe this hope in tech giant saviors is futile.”
Yes, you are correct. It is a futile hope.
Some of us watch the cartoonist Lord haw Haw who regularly does treason by appearing on the Russian Propaganda channel. Unlike the Chinese propaganda channel, which is mostly China’s great achievements, the Russian Propaganda channel has very little about Russia and a LOT about the failures of the US/UK/EU. Not an even-handed approach to the news, but most of the failures are portrayed accurately (at least where I can check).
or one can read Seymour Hersh. Another source of TRVTH, well documented and compelling.
Reagan, Bush, Sr, Clinton, Bush, jr, and Obama have all been killing brown people and getting accolades from the voters, who seem convinced this is keeping America safe.
Trump promises isolationism, which lost him the vote but not the Electoral College. Will he keep that promise, or his other promise to nuke Syria and Iraq to eradicate the Daesh?
Sadly, one cannot predict from words, only from actions (not 100%, but much more reliable than words), and Hillary’s actions prove she’d go to war with Russia, while Trump’s actions prove he’ll fight renewables and try to pass tax breaks that will resuscitate the moribund coal industry.
I figure a vote for Hillary would make her our first and last woman president, with Armageddon in ’17. A vote for Trump means complete disaster from climate change before ’50.
A choice between the frying pan and the fire And we chose being sautéed over being deep-fried..
I read Z Magazine which is a pretty good monthly news source for leftists. It even carries some of Ted’s work (hopefully they pay him for use). But, I don’t think your Average Joe is going to seek out sources like that. It’s much easier for a regular person to either watch the television news, listen to the radio or go to your internet site of choice. The problem is that most of that is so categorically state sponsored propaganda that it does more harm than good.
Again,
It’s non-interventionism. Isolationism is a rank mischaracterization of the position and a slur from the opposition.
Non-interventionism means not sticking our nose where it isn’t wanted but being open to cooperating with other nations. Isolationism means ignoring the world.
The advantage to Trump’s isolationism is that it is, a fortiori, non-interventionism. Hillary was determined to boot Russia out of Syria, kill the Syrian government, and put in a pro-US/UK/EU/Saudi/Qatari ruler. While the ruler’s power over his own people would be absolute, because he would necessarily be a pawn of the US/UK/EU/Saudi/Qatar, he would be a free, democratic leader.
Trump also wants to stop all immigration and international trade, with Smoot-Hawley punitive tariffs. That goes from non-interventionist to isolationist.
Isolationism is bad, but not as bad as the neo-Imperialism we’ve seen under Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, both Bushes, and Obama. And that’s without the Monroe Doctrine, not the one in US grade school history books, but the real Monroe Doctrine, that all of Latin America is a US neo-colony.
Come now. Every time the Left doesn’t get its way we know it’s because of some ‘-ism.’
Most excellent commentary, Ted.
The reason Hillary lost is the Electoral College. She won the popular vote.
And because she is a warmonger, pro-NAFTA, fake feminist.
Oh, those are all obviously true – but if we’d dropped the archaic Electoral College we’d be saying “Madam President” come January. Instead we got the evil of two lessers.
@CH
That’s what the founding fathers wanted and that’s what we got.
That’s why I hold them in so low regard.
Hey Glenn –
I’m not sure exactly what you’re saying, so let’s see if we’re on the same page. The original intent was that the populace didn’t vote for the president. Instead each state would choose electors. Those electors, then, would vote for who *they* thought should be president. (And the runner up would be Vice President – so it should Madam Prez with Trump as VP)
The thing is, it made sense at the time. There was no electronic communication, no national mass media, and unless you lived in a town you probably never saw a newspaper.
The process is much like how we get our laws today – we don’t vote on the laws, we elect crooks to vote on the laws.
CrazyH,
A clarification. HRC didn’t win the popular vote. HRC with the help of:
The current president
The current veep
The current first lady
A former president
and almost all of the media
barely eked out a 200,000 lead from 120 million votes (2/10ths of a percentage point). That’s not a win, that’s a disgrace.
On another thread, I noted that the electoral college makes it look like a landslide when in reality it’s a photo finish. Last time we had one of these we wound up with Bush – and he thought he had a mandate.
Here is a list of presidential elections by popular vote. 2/3 of them won by less than 10% of the popular vote.
CrazyH, we are, hardly surprisingly, hearing a great deal about the US Electoral College post US election. Perhaps its wise to keep in mind why that college and the US Senate exist ; after all, the Articles of Confederation provided for a unicameral Congress without a Chief Executive, rather than the bicameral Congress with a Chief Executive (i e, the president) which exists today as a result of the compromises at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia i 1787. Had the institution of the Electoral College, which provides that each state is assigned electors according to its total number of representative and senators, not been accepted by the Convention, less populous states would not have joined the Union, and our discussion here would be mote. Whether or no such an arrangement is «democratic» is, perhaps, a matter of definition ; would it be «democratic» were voters in less populous states to be completely ignored during campaigns to determine who is to be US president ?…
To my mind, the stranglehold of the Democratic and Republican parties on the political system in the United States and the costs involved in mounting a campaign are far graver problems, which require immediate action, when it comes to US «democracy»….
Henri
I don’t think Trump offers clarity. I think Trump’s first act when he gets sworn in will be something to completely mindfuck all of us. I’m betting that he’s going to have Chelsea Manning transferred to a psychiatric hospital where she can actually get counseling and continue her sexual reassignment regimen without being locked up in isolation. He might even pardon her outright.
If he does such a thing:
1. Quite a few of the HRCers will go completely insane. Buh-buh-buh, Hillary wouldn’t have done that, and she’s so much more compassionate that Trump. She respects women, and Trump doesn’t. It must be a trick. Oh, Trump is so evil. He’s worse than Hitler, etc. See how he’s taking a minute to help a very troubled young woman who is clearly in need of help? That monster!
2. Quite a few of Trump’s own supporters will be uncomfortable with it, but they will quickly synthesize it. Why? First, homophobia is going the way of Red-fear. Very few people are running around putting bomb shelters in their backyards. In about another 10 years, the number of people who thing being gay or straight is important is going to be even lower than it is already. It isn’t an effective motivator–and Trump understands how to motivate–for controlling a band of followers. Second, Obama let Manning rot in prison, and HRC didn’t do anything to get her released. Therefore, by doing something that isn’t what Obama/HRC did, Trump is doing good. Thirdly, as it’s only one person, it will also be accepted by the Trump crowd as a one-of-a-kind thing. “He isn’t letting all the trannies out! We can be bigly about this.”
When I thought HRC was going to win, I resolved that I would give her the first three months as a gimme. I wouldn’t complain or criticize about lack of results because I understand that you can’t show up for work on a Monday and revamp the whole damned office in three days. And I’m going to give Trump the same. I will only criticize actions he initiates. If Trump gets up there on Jan. 20 and ACTIVELY does something stupid, yes, I will criticize it. If he hasn’t solved global warming by the 23rd? No, I will not hector him.
> I would give her the first three months as a gimme … I’m going to give Trump the same.
You’re a better man than I am.
> I’m betting that he’s going to have Chelsea Manning transferred to a psychiatric hospital where she can actually get counseling and continue her sexual reassignment regimen without being locked up in isolation.
How much are you betting and what are you smoking and can I have a hit?
😀
One things for certain: the next four years will be “interesting times”
*big league
Gee, Ted, that sure worked great in 2000. Dubya was an ignorant hick that exposed all the bad USA things to us and the world and that clarity made us all able to easily unite, organise and fix it… Thanks for the insight.
And no, the protest movement did not get better from W. The anti-WTO protest was wonderful and powerful. That the corporate media only covered some anomalous vandals trashing Niketown didn’t really matter, the movement was growing and it did grow. But after W. people got apathetic and gave up. And the increasing militarisation of the crowd control response made it harder to be creatively disruptive. Then 9/11 mixed everyone up. We did have a great bunch of Anti-War protests before the Invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Historically big. But none of it was part of a greater whole to make good on that energy. Lots of speeches, but not a lot of idea of how to actually change a system that was moving towards openness about torture…
I can already feel the resignation and apathy. “Thank God the election is over.” “Democracy is too messy” (your recent story complaining about “anyone”???)
All the negativity and pessimism does not pay off. The right wing tea-party had some actually important ideas opposing the bail out of wall street. So did Occupy. But it is so easy for them to take advantage of our pessimism and use it against us. Trump sucked up all that Tea-party energy and even some from Occupy. We’re all isolated, walled off, behind mediated computer screens.
…I think Michael Moore is on the right track. He’s not walled in by partisanship. He is focused on real issues. he is looking for the positive. He is trying to unite. I wish he had released that movie earlier, because he underestimated how long it takes for that kind of message to seep in. And before people saw it Trump was able to spin it as a pro-trump film.
The other thing I like about Moore is he is not overly sophisticated, not trying to be overly clever or ironic. He has his own pitfalls but its pretty ernest. His message resonated with pro-trump people to a certain degree.