Angry Trumpers?


By D. J. Webb

We have been constantly told how nasty, divisive and hateful Donald J. Trump has been in the contest for the Republican nomination for the US presidency. Decent people don’t support people like that, right? Surely we’re all rubbing our eyes in disbelief that the trailer trash are supporting him?

Clearly, I have no knowledge of what Mr Trump is like in private. I could easily believe that all billionaires have to be unpleasant people to get where they are. They have to have the killer instinct. However, what we are being told does not really relate to Mr Trump’s personal behaviour, but to his political views. We are being told that George Soros, billionaire, is a sweet guy because of his left-wing views, whereas Donald Trump, billionaire, is unpleasant because of some right-wing views.

This narrative is extremely self-serving for the left: it nicely sets them all up as, by definition, sweet people. Funnily enough, being a pleasant person has nothing to do with the way you treat people you meet in your life; it is all to do with a number of cheap political views on race, sex, and now things as disparate as “transgenderism” and climate change.

Curiously enough, the views that make one pleasant shift with the political fashion. Two or three years ago, it was considered quite sufficient to support civil partnership for homosexuals. Then, apparently overnight, it was considered bigoted not to support full “gay marriage”. There is a constant shifting in the cultural goalposts, to keep us all on our toes, so to speak, in a way that only those fully abreast of bien pensant opinion can keep up with. We are all potential bigots if our opinions do not shift as fast as those of the cultural elite.

The labelling of those who are left behind the curve in the Culture Wars as “bigots” is in itself problematic. If you don’t like what has happened to society since the Cultural Wars dug themselves in, you are a hater! Such people are thought to approve of Mr Trump’s candidacy (as well as Marine Le Pen in France, UKIP in England, the Alternative for Germany and other similar parties). But where is the evidence for this claimed bigotry and hatred?

The Oxford English Dictionary defines “bigotry” as “intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself”. If we use this definition of the word, surely those who despise the views of those who haven’t kept up with the Culture Wars are the real bigots. The sheer assumption that people who oppose immigration, multiculturalism, transgenderism, breastfeeding in public and a large number of other cultural phenomena must be totally wrong is bigotry.

You can hold an opinion profoundly while still believing that your opponents could well be good people who have some justification for their views: this is the non-bigoted way of dealing with opposing opinions that is really a prior condition for a free society. Once we are unable to conceive of there being more than one legitimate opinion on a host of subjects, we are on the brink of wrapping up free speech and even democracy altogether. On many university campuses, feminists such as Germaine Greer who oppose transgenderism are no longer even permitted to deliver talks. This is bigotry in its fullest sense: if people are “no platformed”, it is because there is a bigoted assumption that only one view should even be voiced. Those who hold the wrong views need to be repressed.

Whatever you think of Mr Trump’s presidential bid, and his likely ability to implement anything substantial for his electoral base, the problem is that a whole section of society, loosely defined as the white working class, are seen, in advance, as not having a legitimate voice in society. The liberal bigots, in a case of the pot calling the kettle black, then claim that this is because such people are “haters”. Are Mr Trump’s supporters attempting to close down rallies by his opponents? No. It is the left who are attempting, by violence, to close down his. The hatred and bigotry they show towards his supporters is a logical consequence of a self-righteous view of the world that demands to be defined against others who are not so righteous: just as the Pharisee in Luke 18 prayed “God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers”.

In fact, and contrary to most newspaper reports, Mr Trump has not called on his followers to hate Mexicans or any other immigrants. There is little in the way of detectable hatred among his followers at his rallies. It seems some politically incorrect supporters accept the media designation of them as “angry men”, some telling the media that they are angry with the establishment, but the spirit of his rallies is characterised more by a carnival atmosphere.

After years of being told what to think, it is a liberating experience for many to hear politically correct sacred cows being slaughtered. I doubt many Trumpers believe that Mr Trump could reverse the demographic change wrought on America, but the fact that he hints—and it is often no more than a hint—that he understands their views places him on their side culturally. Mr Trump’s right-wing credentials have, in fact, grown in the telling.

In other words, Mr Trump’s candidacy is more a symbol of the lack of a connection between elite views and those of the ordinary man in the street than evidence of seething mass rage. It seems the ability of the elite to influence the average Joe’s views is receding rapidly. Current polls show Mr Trump will perform badly against Mistress Clinton: I think such polls underestimate Mr Trump’s ability to enthuse millions of discouraged voters to turn out and vote. But whether he is elected or not, it is to be hoped that his candidacy helps to change the Republican Party for good. The prospect of that happening is producing real apoplexy in the American Establishment: it seems the real angry white men are the Establishment figures who assumed they would have it all their way for good and can’t bear to see real competition in the field of ideas.

As it happens, anger is more than justified when one considers the success of the elite plan in America and Britain to transform the population demographically. Should we just walk off the stage of history without a murmur, or should we, in the words of the poem, “rage against the dying of the light”? Be that as it may, Mr Trump is not galvanising popular fury, but igniting genuine enthusiasm among people who have tired of being presented with identikit politicians to vote for. Isn’t that what they used to call democracy? You’d have to be a bigot not to approve of it!

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Angry Trumpers?

  1. I should have added that in recent primaries people of all income and class backgrounds have supported Trump: it’s not just the working class. Liberal bigotry is a form of cognitive dissonance: the world as it really is is comprehensible to them, because they work in a prejudiced framework unconnected with empirical reality. One of the empirical facts is that intelligent, wealthy and upper-class Americans do also support Donald Trump over the other candidates….

  2. Pingback: Rational Review News Digest, 03/24/16 - SCOTUS divided on ObamaCare contraception mandate - Thomas L. Knapp - Liberty.me

  3. Trump is pretty much the third coming of Roosevelt — like both US presidents of that name, he’s a rich, self-entitled northeastern progressive demagogue posing as a populist. And as with both US presidents of that name, it seems to be working.

    • Demagogue: “a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power by arousing people’s emotions and prejudices.”

      This applies to all the candidates. Do you mean that Trump is doing it better than others?

      • Yep — although what I’d go with the Oxford definition, which also works fairly well for most or all politicians: “A political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.”

  4. I think the premise that this is just about tolerance/intolerance, moderacy/bigotry and enlightenment/ignorance is flawed. The reality is that it is the intolerant, ignorant bigots who are right in this debate, and the tolerance, moderate and enlightened who are wrong. That is, if you define ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ in terms of what sustains a race, and thus civilisation. That is why I believe the anti-whites are ‘right’ and the whites are ‘wrong’ – that is to say, ‘right’/’wrong’ within the framework of racial survival. What we are witnessing is evolutionary pressures being played out. Somebody who contributes to this blog, a Mr Knapp, has been seen in the past calling for a ‘post-evolutionary’ society. That, in a nutshell, is why whites are ‘wrong’.

    If, as a libertarian, you want to define the priorities differently, then that is your business. You might think that what counts is not racial survival, but who is well-mannered or who stands for upholding property rights or Common Law, or whatever. The white liberals who support Bernie Sanders and, especially, Hillary Clinton, will generally be highly educated, tolerant, moderate and enlightened – or at least, perceived that way – and smartly-dressed too. They probably come across well at dinner parties, and so should be right at home in a seminar on ‘Freedom and Property’ or some such. So at one of your seminars, they are ‘right’. But they are useless if ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ is about sustaining a race (and thus the civilisation it produces), which I think it is.

    This is an era when we need bigotry. In any case, I maintain that the disposition of the bigot is not shameful. A degree of obduracy and bigotry are necessary if our society is going to survive. The ‘liberal bigotry’ that the author rightly highlights is just a reflection of the interests of particular groups in society that wish to overthrow what they see as a repressive social order. If blacks, and fanatical whites and Jews, want to block a highway to stop people getting to a Trump rally, it’s not because they are disrespectful of free speech and free assembly and similar things (though they may be). It’s because they know such tactics work, and they work because they have support from others. Rioting and low-intensity hustling and intimidation are part of a broader strategy of enforcing conformist opinions and dominating the terms of thought and debate using force and coercion. Genteel ideas such as free speech and free assembly don’t come into it. It’s not a case of ‘Jack disagrees with Mary, and Jane disagrees with Jill’. This is not a tea party. There is no room for sitting down politely to listen to the other side’s opinions, and those who do will lose and in 50 years nobody will care that the losing side were more polite or peaceful or freedom-loving, or more respectful of property, or understood the rules of debate and other philosophical niceties. All that they will be remembered for is handing over their country to Third Worlders.

    [quote]”As it happens, anger is more than justified when one considers the success of the elite plan in America and Britain to transform the population demographically. Should we just walk off the stage of history without a murmur, or should we, in the words of the poem, “rage against the dying of the light”? Be that as it may, Mr Trump is not galvanising popular fury, but igniting genuine enthusiasm among people who have tired of being presented with identikit politicians to vote for. Isn’t that what they used to call democracy? You’d have to be a bigot not to approve of it!”[unquote]

    Trump IS an identikit politician. For proof, watch his recent conference speech to a certain ethnic PAC that represents a certain unmentionable alien minority in the United States. The man was practically crawling on all fours with his tongue out. They should re-name him ‘Donald Labrador’.

    A Trump presidency will be ‘business as usual’, with the accent on bu$ine$$.

    I maintain what I have said previously on this bog – the best outcome for white Americans (and the rest of us) would be Trump as the GOP candidate losing narrowly in the general election to Hillary, preferably with loud whispers about ballot-rigging on the Democratic side. The result will be an explosive situation, which I regret to say is what is needed. America cannot be ‘saved’ or ‘made great again’. The light needs to go out.

  5. Pingback: A View of Trump from Abroad — No, Not What You'd Expect

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s