Are we a deeply
divided nation? Maybe. But if we are divided the cause of that division comes
squarely from the left, not the right. In virtually every case, the people who
are cancelling reunions and refusing to talk to their friends and family
members are Hillary supporters. The Times reported not
a single instance of a Trump voter shun. What’s the cause of all this? I think
it is identity politics.
Remember, the two
candidates ran completely different campaigns. Trump’s campaign was an issues
campaign, mainly economic issues. In every speech he gave, he complained about
abandoned factories, lost jobs and low wages. Even if he was completely wrong
about the cause of those problems (bad trade deals), his was still campaigning
on issues.
Hillary Clinton, by
contrast, ran a largely issueless campaign. Do you know what her position was
on international trade? Of course not. What she said in private was the
opposite of what she said in public. On the Pacific trade deal, as a candidate
she contradicted everything she said while she was Secretary of State. Her confidants
quietly advised worried Wall Street backers that they could safely ignore what
was being said publicly on the campaign trail. But none of that matters because
Hillary wasn’t asking people to vote for her because of differences with Donald
Trump over trade policy anyway. Or on corporate tax reform. Or school choice.
Or safe neighborhoods. Or environmental policy. Or any other policy.
Hillary’ s entire
campaign, and the Democratic Party’s approach to elections in general, is based
on appeals to people as members of racial, ethnic and sociological groups.
Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, the Democratic Party has approached
people as groups, pitted group against group, and promised each to protect them
from outsiders. In the Roosevelt era, the appeal was almost exclusively to
economic groups.
Today the
Democratic party has largely abandoned economic appeals in favor of identity
politics. For example, they ask blacks to vote for them because they are black,
not because of any policy differences they have with their opponents. And their
appeals carry with them an assault on the opposition, either express or
implied: The Republican candidate is anti-black. The same approach is used with
Hispanics, women, the LGBT community, etc.
For example, here
is Michelle Obama telling a black audience they had a duty to vote
Democrat, no matter who is on the ticket. (And by implication, no matter what
the candidate stands for or what he or she would do once in office.) Her
husband was even worse. But you can check it out for yourself. Just Google the
words “Obama” and “race baiting” and see how many links pop up.
Now if the election
were covered fairly, it would be obvious that one side is talking about issues
and the other is not. Even the mainstream media viewed the entire election the
same way Hillary Clinton did. Even the “Fair and Balanced” Fox News spent
almost the entirety of election night talking about how many blacks were voting
versus whites, or women versus men – as if demography were destiny at the
polls.
Identity politics works on some voters. I have heard stories,
seen on news broadcasts, and were told by readers of my blog that women were
actually breaking down crying at the mere mention of the election results. Are
they crying because NAFTA may be renegotiated? Or the pipeline may be built? Of
course not. If elections are about identity, then elections are about you in a
very personal way. If the other candidate wins, you have been personally
rejected. I would probably cry too if I were naïve enough to believe all that.
As I have stated in past posts, Donald Trump uttered not one word during the
election that was anti-black, anti-Semitic or anti-gay. Although he may have
been insensitive, he really never said anything that was anti-Hispanic. In
fact, it’s just the opposite.
No comments:
Post a Comment