Preventing Another Donald Trump Presidency

| by Malhar Mali |

I want you to imagine this scene taking place on Wednesday, Oct 19th, 2016: A group of people are gathered around in a room watching the third presidential debate — all attention is on the television. Hillary says something smart, scripted, and laughs off an insult. Trump opens his mouth and a bumbling mess of words eject themselves in what could be otherwise construed as projectile vomit. A person in the room says, “Oh my god! I can’t believe this. I can’t believe that anyone would actually consider voting for this idiot. I mean, how stupid do you have to be? You have to be literally worse than Hitler to vote for him; you have to be a sexist, misogynist, racist piece of shit.” Everyone laughs; but, three people in the room laugh uncomfortably — without the same zeal. They have many family members who have aired, in their minds, legitimate grievances and are considering voting for Trump. They know they’re not rampantly hateful, bigoted individuals. They’ve even voted for Obama in the past. They just feel they’ve been left behind. Unable to cope in a changing world. Those who don’t laugh dislike the blanket statements; the sneering condescension. The person who makes this joke looks around the room assessing everyone’s reactions; searching for anyone to step out of line and posit a rebuke; checking out of the corner of their eye if someone will mount a rebuttal.

Nothing is said, of course.

After all, entertaining the notion that you could consider someone else for president for reasons other than being misogynistic is unacceptable. It’s a crime. A thought crime, don’t you know?

The candidates argue on.


We Lefties have a habit of blaming ourselves for the terrible things in the world. One only needs to listen to the croaky voice of Noam Chomsky eviscerating the West for it’s part to play in the fractured area that is the Middle East [1] or skim through the socialist elite thought of Jacobin Magazine to find the ways we blame ourselves [2].

Well, on November 9th, America awoke with Donald J. Trump as president of the United States. And now is a time for bitter congratulations. We’ve put into the White House an idiotic, blithering, misogynist buffoon. A president elect who looked so timid and unsure of himself  when he spoke to Barack Obama — a sharp contrast to his braggadocious self — that he could not even look the President in his eyes when they shook hands.


And we have done it because — and sorry to adopt the Lefty tradition here (though I know Chomsky would be proud) — it’s our fault, too.

Four years is going to be difficult; slanderous to the Office of the President; a disgrace to a position that should be withheld for the most morally upright of American citizens (we can hope). But, you would think after such a loss we’d realize we’d done something wrong. Will we accept this — any form of responsibility? Will we change our minds?

From the reactions I’ve seen — mostly no.

We’ve only clutched at our pearls and doubled, or even tripled down with our Lefty adherence to Identity Politics, we’ve insisted that this was just a “white-lash” against Muslims, minorities, LGBTQ+ communities, and women. We’ve barricaded ourselves inside the echo chambers of quivering “journalists” and media personalities who have the tendency — and temerity — to reduce everything to race, sex. As Salon’s  enlightened Chauncey DeVega wrote,

“Racism and sexism combined to defeat Clinton. This outcome is as much a backlash against President Barack Obama as it is against a woman being elected to the top office of the United States of America. America is a country divided against itself where political ideology and polarization are deeply intertwined with racial animus, sexism and hostility to the Other.” [3]

As if creating a straw-man to poke with plastic forks wasn’t enough, then, take Dylan Marron of Seriously.TV (the next hyper-virulent form of the BuzzFeed virus, transmuted into something far more condescending and smug) who patronizingly apologized in a video after Trump’s victory, saying:

“Trump supporters: I’m sorry. I love you. I’m sorry that you’ve been led to believe your problems have been caused by women, immigrants, Muslims, people of color, LGBT folks, and P.C. culture.”[4]

Other than being laughably predictable (everything is racist, bigoted, and sexist to these people — as if anyone who disagrees with them cannot have ulterior motives for their decisions), one only needs to look at the polling data to disprove this “racism theory” (though I’m sure it’s going to be echoed for many years to come by those who’ve been swayed too much by the writings of the likes of Ta-Nehisi Coates). Ramesh Ponnuru of Bloomberg points out:

“Against that (racism) theory, I’d note, first, that Trump won several states that voted twice for our first black president… claims that bigotry are a major motivation for Trump voters have a thin evidentiary basis: They classify conservative views that aren’t necessarily rooted in racial hostility as “racial resentment,” they ignore the decline in bigotry over time, and they overgeneralize about a very large and in some ways diverse group of people.” [5]

Ponnuru’s point, in particular of “classifying conservative views that aren’t necessarily rooted in racial hostility as ‘racial resentment'” rings true to me. I’ve heard many times people accused of being racists and xenophobes for straying outside of the progressive lane.

Now listen to progressive pariah Michael Moore on MSNBC’s Morning Joe speaking against the accusations that these elections are the result of some deep racial animus. Moore said:

“You have to accept that millions of people who voted for Barack Obama, some of them once — some of them twice, changed their minds this time. They’re not racists. They twice voted for a man whose middle name is ‘Hussein.’ That’s the America you live in.” [6]

Even Nate Cohn of The New York Times confirmed this, writing:

“In the end, the bastions of industrial-era Democratic strength among white working-class voters fell to Mr. Trump. So did many of the areas where Mr. Obama fared best in 2008 and 2012. In the end, the linchpin of Mr. Obama’s winning coalition broke hard to the Republicans.

The Wyoming River Valley of Pennsylvania — which includes Scranton and Wilkes-Barre — voted for Mr. Trump. It had voted for Mr. Obama by double digits.

Youngstown, Ohio, where Mr. Obama won by more than 20 points in 2012, was basically a draw. Mr. Trump swept the string of traditionally Democratic and old industrial towns along Lake Erie. Counties that supported Mr. Obama in 2012 voted for Mr. Trump by 20 points.” [7]

So, could it be that there were other reasons besides hatred that fueled a large voting bloc to come out and vote the way they did? I am sure putting this into words will be seen by some of you as the ultimate betrayal, a blasphemy worthy of socially ostracizing me. Because if there’s one thing I’ve come to realize: as Christopher Hitchens has previously said,

“I learned that very often the most intolerant and narrow-minded people are the ones who congratulate themselves on tolerance and open mindedness.” [8]

Meaning, surprisingly and sadly, those on the Left.

The Democrats picked a candidate that was so cozied up with the establishment — Hillary Clinton –, a woman who advocated for a personal and public stance on matters, a person who called half the country “a basket of deplorables” as if that was some way of winning them over to her side; inspired Robert DeNiro to ramble at Trump as if that was some way of winning over supporters; courted numerous celebrities — Lady Gaga, Beyonce, Jay-Z, Katie Perry, Leonardo DiCaprio — as if this would encourage a vast middle to lower class demographic to go out and vote, took part in her own mannequin challenge, as if voters would not see how desperate she was to appear relevant, and probably jacked the nomination from Bernie Sanders in an obviously corrupt super-delegate process powered by the DNC. Her stances and how her campaign behaved did not go remiss to many. Michael Sainato wrote in Observer:

“… Because Clinton would have easily lost to a moderate Republican, her campaign coordinated with the DNC to elevate Trump as a legitimate candidate, and declared war on anyone who opposed Clinton’s coronation.

Bernie Sanders, the most popular politician in the United States, would have easily defeated Trump. But the Democratic Party, with super delegates rallying behind Clinton and corrupt DNC staff working for Clinton behind the scenes, ensured Sanders came up short in the Democratic primaries.

Hillary Clinton’s performance-enhancing steroids were Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donna Brazile, and an army of Clinton partisans more than willing to forgo their autonomy as journalists to propel Clinton’s candidacy. The only problem with this strategy was it could only work in the Democratic primaries—not the general election.” [9]


But then to place a cherry on the terrible cake that was the Hillary Clinton campaign, progressives — and nearly all left-leaning news outlets — had the sanctimonious gall to tell those who saw her flaws that they were sexists for not voting for her, that all they cared about was that she was a woman and hence that is why they didn’t want her in the office. Have you considered that voting for someone just because they’re a woman is sexist, too? Clive Crook in Bloomberg acknowledges as well that Hillary Clinton was a terrible choice for the Democratic nomination:

“There’s no single reason… First, that Hillary Clinton was an objectively bad candidate. Second, that having chosen so poorly, Democrats came up with yet more ways to repel a large segment of the electorate. If I’d been asked to advise them on how to lose an election to a manifestly unqualified opponent, I’m not sure I could have been much help: They had it covered… many voters were clearly fed up with Washington and all its works. Up and down the country, the political establishment was cordially detested. Step forward, Hillary Clinton, wife of an ex-president, champion of the downtrodden, somehow wealthy, trailing scandals, friends in all the right places, anointed after a rigged nomination — in short, the complete representative of politics as usual.” [10]

The cultural elite (the Left) failed to note that force-feeding a candidate they deemed fit would not go down well with large demographic within this country. They had no idea or inclination of what the people really wanted. Back in July 2016, Sarah Silverman had the cheek to tell the thousands chanting for Bernie Sanders during the DNC,

“To the Bernie or bust people — you’re being ridiculous.” [11]

In hindsight, I wonder who those that were chastised voted for? Or rather, they probably didn’t vote. After all, ~ 43% of the country passed up on the opportunity to cast their ballots [12].

Yes, Trump is  atrocious; worse in many disgusting ways. But we discounted that Lefties are the dominant tribe in America. We own nearly all influential media, radio, television — other than the likes of conspiracy pushing commentators and websites like Alex Jones, Info Wars, and Brietbart — and what did we do with that power? We used it to mock, ridicule, excoriate, and diminish every class concern someone had just because they were “white.” We used it to ceaselessly “destroy” the working class on Facebook, Twitter while the likes of Trevor Noah, John Oliver, and Samantha Bee preached from their soap boxes and openly lambasted anyone who dared to hold a different opinion as toothless, inbred, xenophobic scum. What did we expect? We embraced Identity Politics, disregarded the losses, the very real sufferings of a group of people and now we only have ourselves to thank. You thought that just because of their phenotype — that they had white skin — this enabled them some superiority over others, some “privilege.”

How out of touch do we have to be? In a piece titled, News Outlets Wonder Where the Predictions Went Wrong in the New York Times, Jim Rutenberg reported Dean Baquet, the executive editor of The New York Times, saying:

“If I have a mea culpa for journalists and journalism, it’s that we’ve got to do a much better job of being on the road, out in the country, talking to different kinds of people than the people we talk to — especially if you happen to be a New York-based news organization — and remind ourselves that New York is not the real world.” [13]

Further solidifying the idea that the New York and D.C. elite were locked in their own bubbles, in a Deadline article former New York Times Reporter Michael Cieply relayed his experience of working at the Times for over a decade — in particular the moments that stuck out for him:

“The bigger shock came on being told, at least twice, by Times editors who were describing the paper’s daily Page One meeting: ‘We set the agenda for the country in that room’… Having lived at one time or another in small-town Pennsylvania, some lower-rung Detroit suburbs, San Francisco, Oakland, Tulsa and, now, Santa Monica, I could only think, well, ‘Wow.’ This is a very large country. I couldn’t even find a copy of the Times on a stop in college town Durham, N.C. To believe the national agenda was being set in a conference room in a headquarters on Manhattan’s Times Square required a very special mind-set indeed.” [14]

Disbelief at a Trump presidency is what happens when you laugh at those who glue themselves to Fox News but then placidly zone out in front of MSNBC, CNN, and read a copy of the Times. But yet, it seems that progressives are unable to change their minds. I am still seeing pieces flying out of publications that are asserting that this Donald Trump victory can be solely placed on racism and sexism. In an odious piece by Liv. V. Anderson in Slate, titled White Women Sold Out the Sisterhood and the World by Voting for Trump (as if clutching onto Identity Politics is the way to move forward and change the path of the country), the author asserts:

“… the biggest and saddest reason white women chose Trump over Clinton is simple: racism. Trump tried to pit straight white men against everyone else—women, people of color, people in the LGBTQ community, immigrants—and white women decided they didn’t want to vote on the side of ‘everyone else.’ They wanted to vote on the side of white men. White women decided that defending their position of power as white people was more important than defending their reproductive rights, their sexual autonomy, their access to health care, family leave, and child care.” [15]

Are these commentators unable to develop any other plausible hypotheses? By focusing on only gender, race (the hallmarks of a good Identity Politician), Anderson overlooks the deeper problems that are plaguing large swaths of the country. This line of thinking, as I’ve mentioned before, is far from isolated. Additionally, this constant bashing effectively made an entire population resistant to being called racists, bigots, and misogynists,  and diminished the cultural capital of very real, disturbing words for very real, disturbing ways that people actually do think. Writing in the Boston Globe, Professor David McWhorter of Colombia University opines:

” The Martian anthropologist would recognize no difference between the way those accused of being witches were treated in 17th-century Salem, Mass., and the way many innocent people are being accused of ‘racism’ today. Those appalled by the way people were tarred with the Communist label in the 1940s and 1950s must recognize that America has blundered into the same censorious mob mentality in assailing as ‘racists,’ just recently, people such as Ellen DeGeneres — for Photoshopping herself riding on Jamaican gold medal sprinter Usain Bolt’s back in celebration of his win — and Hillary Clinton — for referring to the black men terrorizing poor black neighborhoods as ‘superpredators’ in describing plans for protecting people in those neighborhoods from such crime… The way we use the word ‘racism’ has become so imprecise, abusive, and even antithetical to genuine activism that change is worth addressing. More to the point, it widens the cultural divide between the elites and the people too often breezily termed the ones ‘out there.'” [16]

What more needs to be said about this? Spend some time around the most prestigious college campuses today and you only see a culture of constant self-checking, silencing, over-reacting, calling for intellectual safe spaces, encroaching on the idea of free expression and speech, and a coddling of the american mind. Tied to this, Robby Soave of The Daily Beast and Reason Magazine makes an alternate and analogous case for the success of Trump:

“Trump won because of a cultural issue that flies under the radar and remains stubbornly difficult to define, but is nevertheless hugely important to a great number of Americans: political correctness…The segment of the electorate who flocked to Trump because he positioned himself as “an icon of irreverent resistance to political correctness” think it means this: smug, entitled, elitist, privileged leftists jumping down the throats of ordinary folks who aren’t up-to-date on the latest requirements of progressive society.” [17]

I partly agree with Soave on this. We can certainly attribute a part of this Trump movement to the furious folks who’ve had enough of being dictated to, when most of what they’re engaging in isn’t even remotely racist, sexist, or bigoted. When I’ve tried to bring this up to my progressive friends, they’ve laughed me off or often told me it’s all just right-wing hype and these things are not really happening on campuses. What was disturbing about hearing this was that the values of free expression and speech — once progressive-liberal values and praised in the 60’s and 70’s in places like UC Berkeley [18] — have somehow come to be championed by those on the right hand side of the aisle. Charles Murray in The Wall Street Journal even made the case for differentiating progressives from liberals. He states, recounting the liberals of the past:

“They gave money to the ACLU in 1978 when the organization’s absolutism on free speech led it to defend the right of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Ill. They still believe that the individual should not be sacrificed to the collective and that people who achieve honest success should be celebrated for what they have built. I’m not happy that they like the idea of a “living Constitution”—one that can be subjected to interpretations according to changing times—but they still believe in the separation of powers, checks and balances, and the president’s duty to execute the laws faithfully.

These Democrats should get exclusive possession of the word ‘liberal.'” [19]

Today, you’d be hard pressed to find those on the left side of the aisle who are free-speech absolutists and willing to stand up for the right to speak of those they don’t agree with. While I think demonizing those who don’t think running a country the same way as you as “evil” certainly played a part in a Trump presidency, I believe class dynamics also factors into this equation. A lot of the New York, D.C. population — mostly progressives — who were shocked by this are so profoundly disconnected from the working class, the midwest and other parts of the country where fellow citizens live, that a Trump victory was worthy of hysterics and came as a figurative slap in the face. In a Harvard Business Review piece, Professor Joan C. Williams of the University of California notes the milieu that made a Clinton backing unlikely and pushed the support towards Trump:

” Hillary Clinton, by contrast, epitomizes the dorky arrogance and smugness of the professional elite. The dorkiness: the pantsuits. The arrogance: the email server. The smugness: the basket of deplorables. Worse, her mere presence rubs it in that even women from her class can treat working-class men with disrespect. Look at how she condescends to Trump as unfit to hold the office of the presidency and dismisses his supporters as racist, sexist, homophobic, or xenophobic… Trump’s blunt talk taps into another blue-collar value: straight talk. “Directness is a working-class norm,” notes Lubrano. As one blue-collar guy told him, “If you have a problem with me, come talk to me. If you have a way you want something done, come talk to me. I don’t like people who play these two-faced games.” [20]

There is an important distinction that I will make here: to deny that there were some sexist underpinnings as to why the elections went the way they did would be a mistake. I think sexism, especially in the way Hillary was assigned to follow gender norms of how “a woman should behave” did play a part. But not as heavily as the dominant narrative would have you believe. Joan C. Williams puts it best:

” It is unfair that Clinton is called a ‘nasty woman’ while Trump is seen as a real man. It’s unfair that Clinton only did so well in the first debate because she wrapped her candidacy in a shimmy of femininity. When she returned to attack mode, it was the right thing for a presidential candidate to do but the wrong thing for a woman to do. The election shows that sexism retains a deeper hold than most imagined. But women don’t stand together: white working class women voted for Trump over Clinton by a whopping 28-point margin — 62% to 34%. If they’d split 50-50, she would have won.

Class trumps gender, and it’s driving American politics.” [20]

But, largely, as Professor Williams points out, this was an issue of class — and, in my opinion,  tiredness with condescension. The amount of vitriol I have seen for the lower classes since the election has not abated. Thousands have rioted, threatened to leave the country, and cried while wondering, “How could they? How could they betray us like this?”  So many influential shows, from Saturday Night Live to The Daily Show came out in veiled condescension for those who voted Trump. As Brendan O’Neill noted in his Spectator piece,

“Because those who do politics these days — the political establishment, the media, the academy, the celeb set — are so contemptuous of ordinary people, so hateful of the herd, so convinced that the mass of society cannot be trusted to make political decisions, and now those ordinary people have given their response to such top-down sneering and prejudice.

Oh, the irony of observers denouncing Middle America as a seething hotbed of hatred even as they hatefully libel it a dumb and ugly mob” [21]

It is difficult to disagree with what O’Neill. Living on the East Coast, the sheer disdain I’ve heard for those in the “fly-over” parts of America was a little surprising to swallow at first.

Well, now they’ve played the joke back on you.

Screen Shot 2016-11-12 at 8.39.56 PM.png

I am in no way taking away the autonomy of those who voted Trump. As I pointed out — he is an atrocious choice for president. But in Hillary Clinton they just saw more of the same. The same policies. The same establishment and no palpable change. Trump voters who picked their candidates the way they did will most likely be disappointed by what he can accomplish. He’s been shown to change his mind on many — on at least 10 — of his pivotal policies  [22] and is a true demagogue in this respect, changing along to popular centrist desires.

Another thing to consider: When Omar Mateen burst into the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando and killed 49 citizens Barack Obama and Donald Trump had two very different reactions. Obama engaged in an elaborate, delicate dance and failed to point and say “Islamic inspired terrorism,” and instead spoke eloquently about acceptance, care, and bridging divides [23]. Hillary followed suit, asking for stricter gun laws and calling for compassion and acceptance [24].

This mindset runs amok amongst progressives. I recall a conversation I had with a roommate this summer regarding the Orlando shootings. He asked me, “Ok, how much do you think this had to do with Islam, and with terrible gun laws?” So I answered him with a “70% Islam and 30% Gun Laws,” (His answer, if I was to presume a guess would probably be 90% Gun Laws and 10% Islam). I should have seen his surprised reaction coming.

If you blamed it all on Gun Laws then I invite you to run two parallels in your mind to expose the double-think you’ve been taking part in just to protect a set of ideas — in this case Islam. The first is of a Christian shooter attacking an abortion clinic. Would you not say that their radical beliefs against abortion played a part in enlivening them to attack a place that served abortions? How about the case of Dylan Roof, the white-supremacist that attacked an all-black Church. Would you not say his supremacist beliefs had something — a lot — to do with why he committed his hateful crime?

Month’s later, Obama doubled down on this idea of not naming the beast in a speech that was widely shared [25]. Many perceived Clinton would take the reins of the same narrative.

The alternate to this? Donald Trump’s place-a-pea-on-an-anvil-then-sledgehammer-it approach and the rabid pundits at Fox News and Brietbart actually naming and confronting these issues — albeit in often sensationalist ways. If we, as liberals, don’t engage honestly in this conversation then it’s going to be left only to those who actually are racist and xenophobic to tackle them. And the people are not stupid. Brexit was a sign — but not as the fear-mongers would have you believe — that we need to start addressing issues honestly. All across Europe far right parties are coming into power and the Lefties there have similarly buried their heads in the sand and cried “racism” As I’ve said, progressives are the dominant cultural tribe and wield nearly all discursive and entextualization power in the West. We need to handle these situations honestly, and shouting at anyone who raises serious issues as simply “islamophobic and racist” has gotten us a Trump presidency.  I understand the good intentions behind this. The logic — not so much.

If you haven’t figure it out yet: criticizing Islam does not mean condemning all muslims. You can read in depth about this here.

Because the danger of Donald Trump is very real. Throughout the last year and a half he has shown us how unpredictable he is, how anti-science, reason he is. He has boasted about bursting into women’s locker rooms at pageants, spoke about “grabbing pussys” and then played it off as “locker-room talk.” He has numerous scandals, fraud suits and rape allegations. He is the epitome of the idea of the stupid American. He’s considered appointing Ben Carson as his Secretary of Education [26] an evolution denying surgeon who finds it hard to believe that we came from monkeys but makes the leap easily that we were formed perfect by creators. Sarah Palin — the screeching Alaskan former senator’s name has been aired for some leadership positions. And, he’s recently appointed Steve Bannon of as his Chief strategist — a man who is similarly surrounded in allegations of white-supremacy and anti-semitism and is considered an alt-right favorite [27]. So much so that even Ben Shapiro, a life-long conservative and former Editor in Chief of Brietbart seems concerned about the appointment [28]. He’s also floated the idea of Myron Ebell to lead his Environmental Protection Agency transition team — a notorious climate change denier [26].

If the researchers in the climate field are correct about the looming irreversible damage being caused by climate change, then the next few years are going to be imperative to changing the course of the globe. Professor Peter Boghossian and Phil Torres write in an article (which sounds alarmist, albeit, but is backed by scientific consensus) for Truthout:

“It’s also what makes the 2016 presidential election the most important political event in the history of human civilization. When voters enter the booths in November, they’ll be deciding not only what kind of country we’ll have for the next four to eight years, but also how livable our planet will be for millennia hence.”[29]

I think the real hazard here is the vice president-elect, Mike Pence. Allan Ritchman, the professor who made headlines by predicting a Trump victory presidency despite what all the polls were saying also predicted, though from a methodology which is less reliable, that Donald Trump will be impeached. If this were to happen, a Pence presidency would probably ensue and this, I can only assume, would be disastrous. Ritchman is quoted as saying:

I’m going to make another prediction,” he said. “This one is not based on a system, it’s just my gut. They don’t want Trump as president, because they can’t control him. He’s unpredictable. They’d love to have Pence — an absolutely down the line, conservative, controllable Republican. And I’m quite certain Trump will give someone grounds for impeachment, either by doing something that endangers national security or because it helps his pocketbook.”[30]


I can only hope that we’ve progressed our social values far enough that we do not start impinging on the rights of LGBTQ+ citizens and minorities under the command of Pence and a Republican controlled senate.

As of now, what Donald Trump is going to do is all speculation. He has already flip-flopped on so many of the issues that got him elected that I think most of the people who voted for him will be saddened to see that no real change will occur. This is also a good time to point out that it seems a rash of hate crimes are happening around the country. I can conjecture that racism and sexism, and bigotry did play a part in Trump’s election but I contest the claim that it was all it boiled down to. That is an easy over-simplification. Lefties, in large, spent the past years demonizing the largest voting bloc and then cried when they came out in force and voted against their candidate? Surprised? Yes. Taken aback? Shouldn’t be.

Well, congratulations to those sneering moral masturbators who circle jerked to their supposed superiority. Those who decry everyone who disagrees with them as lizard brained red necks, internalized racists and misogynists, Uncle-Toms and idiots for not thinking exactly along the lines of the group they’ve ascribed them to because of the color of their skin and their sex. “Stay in your box, Albert,” they said, “because you’re  a Latino you must hate Trump and love Hilary.” Well, 29% of Latinos still came out to vote for Donald Trump [31]. “Stay in your box, Nicole,” they said “because you’re a woman you must hate Trump and love Hilary.” Well, 42% of women still came out to vote for Donald Trump [31].

The Left mobilized the largest voting demographic — the white middle to lower class — in this country with its rhetoric, and Donald Trump only capitalized on it. It told them they were hateful human beings, laughed at, spoke down to, and treated them like the leftover black sheep of a country intent on wiping them out. And they came out to defy it with a flaming bird to everyone’s face and the establishment — however erroneous that decision might have been.

Because when you enter the ballot box to vote, nobody is watching to see what you do. No one is sneering at you, ready to throw 25 different buzzwords and variations of “racist, sexist, and xenophobic,” at your face. The Left is to blame as much as the real bigots, xenophobes, and misogynists who voted Donald Trump into power, of which there is undoubtedly many.

And then after all was said and done, so many had the audacity to cry about it — actually cry — whinge, moan, complain, riot, and double and triple down on the thinking that has led us here. We can expect another Trump Presidency in 2020 if we continue on this path.

To be honest, I have no sympathy.

I finish with this John Stewart Mill quote from On Liberty:

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.” [32]


Malhar Mali likes to write about how and why people think they way they do; secularism, human rights, politics, and culture. You can connect with him on twitter here.


Header Photo: Gage Skidmore


  1. Falcone, Dan, and Saul Isaacson. “Noam Chomsky: The Middle East Is on Fire,       Thanks to U.S.” Alternet. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2016.
  2. Mizner, David. “Don’t Blame Islam.” Jacobin Dont Blame Islam Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2016.
  3. DeVega, Chauncey. “White Rage against the Machine: President-elect Donald Trump Is a Historical Shock – Unless You Study American History.” N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2016.
  4. Trump Supporters, I Love You. Perf. Dylan Marron. Seriously.TV. N.p., n.d. Web.

  5. Ponnuru, Ramesh. “Trump Didn’t Win Because of Racism.” Bloomberg. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2016.

  6. Stolztfoos, Rachel. “Michael Moore: They Voted For A Guy Named ‘Hussein’ Twice, Trump Voters Are Not Racist.” The Daily Caller. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2016.

  7. Cohn, Nate. “Why Trump Won: Working-Class Whites.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 2016. Web. 10 Nov. 2016.

  8. Christopher Hitchens. Xplore Inc, 2016. 12 November 2016.

  9. Sainato, Michael. “Hillary Clinton and the DNC Have Only Themselves to Blame.” Observer. N.p., 2016. Web. 11 Nov. 2016.

  10. Crook, Clive.”Revenge of the Deplorables.” Bloomberg, n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2016.

  11. Sarah Silverman To Bernie Or Bust: You’re Being Ridiculous At DNC 7/25/16. Perf. Sarah Silverman. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2016.

  12. Lopez, German. “Trump Was Elected by a Little More than a Quarter of Eligible Voters.” N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2016.

  13. Rutenberg, Jim. “News Outlets Wonder Where the Predictions Went Wrong.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 2016. Web. 11 Nov. 2016.

  14. Cieply, By Michael. “Stunned By Trump, The New York Times Finds Time For Some Soul-Searching.” Deadline. N.p., 2016. Web. 11 Nov. 2016.

  15. Anderson, L.V. “White Women Sold Out the Sisterhood and the World by Voting for Trump.” Slate Magazine. N.p., 2016. Web. 11 Nov. 2016.

  16. McWhorter, John. “The Idea That America ‘doesn’t Talk About’ Racism Is Absurd – The Boston Globe.” N.p., 2016. Web. 11 Nov. 2016.

  17. Soave, Robby. “Trump Won Because Leftist Political Correctness Inspired a Terrifying Backlash.” N.p., 2016. Web. 11 Nov. 2016.

  18. “Days of Cal | Berkeley in the 60s.” Days of Cal | Berkeley in the 60s. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2016.

  19. Murray, Charles. “Charles Murray: The Trouble Isn’t Liberals. It’s Progressives.” WSJ., 2014. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.

  20. Williams, Joan C. “What So Many Don’t Get About the U.S. Working Class.” Harvard Business Review. Harvard University, n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2016.

  21. O’Neill, Brendan. “The Sneering Response to Trump’s Victory Reveals Exactly Why He Won.” Coffee House. Spectator Magazine, 2016. Web. 11 Nov. 2016.

  22. Diamond, Jeremy. “Abortion and 10 Other Donald Trump Flip-flops.” CNN. Cable News Network, n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2016.

  23. “Remarks by the President on Mass Shooting in Orlando.” The White House. The White House, 2016. Web. 11 Nov. 2016.

  24. “Read Clinton’s Speech About the Orlando Shooting.” Time, Time,
  25. “Obama: Why I Won’t Say ‘Islamic Terrorism'” CNN. Cable News Network, n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2016.
  26. Plait, Phil. “Trump’s Cabinet: Yeah, It’s Probably Even Worse Than You Imagined.” Slate Magazine. N.p., 2016. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.

  27. Yuhas, Alan. “Stephen Bannon and Reince Priebus Will Lead Trump’s White House.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 2016. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.

  28. Shapiro, Ben. “I Know Trump’s New Campaign Chairman, Steve Bannon. Here’s What You Need To Know.” Daily Wire. N.p., 2016. Web. 14 Nov. 2016.

  29. Boghossian, Peter, Prof., and Phil Torres. “It’s Not Alarmist: Trump and the Republican Party Could Destroy the World.” Truth-out. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2016.

  30. Stevenson, Peter W. “‘Prediction Professor’ Who Called Trump’s Big Win Also Made Another Forecast: Trump Will Be Impeached.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2016.

  31. Cassidy, John. “How Donald Trump Became President-Elect.” New Yorker. New Yorker, n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2016.

  32. Mill, John Stuart, and David Spitz. On Liberty. New York: Norton, 1975.

Video References

Digital content is available for free, but content that isn’t subject to the whims and demands of its sponsors is rare. Areo is one such publication. Fielding writers and creating for you is our passion, and we want to devote more of ourselves into this venture and continue to produce independently. If you find value from our articles, support us on Patreon:


Leave a Reply