By Scott Kirwin
The cover of The New Yorker has a distorted close up picture of Donald Trump’s face with the word “Loser”. It’s not surprising that America’s most liberal publication takes issue with the Trump candidacy and its supporters, blaming them personally for all the ugliness of this campaign. Yahoo! carried the cover in its newsfeed, ironic due to the internet company’s failure to disclose to authorities (and its buyer Verizon) that a hack compromised its entire user base. So a hacked internet portal was promoting a hack magazine supporting a hacked presidential candidate who herself is a political hack.
The New Yorker’s median reader is 51 years old, makes $100,877 and has a net worth of $439,835. He (51% of readers are male) is most likely white. Although the magazine’s press kit doesn’t provide this information, US census income demographics show 14% of whites earn over $100,000 versus only 8% of blacks and 9% of Hispanics. Trump supporters are used to being called many things, but there’s nothing more infuriating than being called a “racist” by a publication run by rich white people and read by rich white people who probably only run into minorities when they surprise the maid.
With the American press completely corrupted by the Democratic Party it’s up to foreigners like Thomas Frank, writing for The Guardian, to provide objectivity. Frank notes that the WikiLeaks dump of John Podesta’s emails “are a window into the soul of the Democratic party and into the dreams and thoughts of the class to whom the party answers.” That class is not the working class or the middle class the Democrats claim to represent but instead are the liberal elite itself.
“The dramatis personae of the liberal class are all present in this amazing body of work: financial innovators. High-achieving colleagues attempting to get jobs for their high-achieving children. Foundation executives doing fine and noble things. Prizes, of course, and high academic achievement.”
Also Silicon Valley billionaires interested in low wage programmers from overseas, and of course bankers. Frank states, “(o)f course Hillary Clinton staffed her state department with investment bankers and then did speaking engagements for investment banks as soon as she was done at the state department. Of course she appears to think that any kind of bank reform should “come from the industry itself”. And of course no elite bankers were ever prosecuted by the Obama administration. Read these emails and you understand, with a start, that the people at the top tier of American life all know each other. They are all engaged in promoting one another’s careers, constantly.”
We “deplorables” who couldn’t re-fi our mortgages, or lost our homes after the 2008 crash are furious that we find ourselves at the cusp of being led by the very elite that caused the crash in the first place. Many of us came from the Democratic Party, whose leadership seemed more interested in providing voting registration to illegals, then turned around and called us “racist” for being upset by the crime they brought to our communities. How many Syrian refugees has Martha’s Vineyard taken in? Frank notes “(i)t is when you search “Vineyard” on the WikiLeaks dump that you realize these people truly inhabit a different world from the rest of us. By “vineyard”, of course, they mean Martha’s Vineyard, the ritzy vacation resort island off the coast of Massachusetts where presidents Clinton and Obama spent most of their summer vacations. The Vineyard is a place for the very, very rich to unwind, yes, but as we learn from these emails, it is also a place of high idealism; a land of enlightened liberal commitment far beyond anything ordinary citizens can ever achieve.”
We were angry long before Donald Trump left the Green Room to campaign for the presidency, but the elite didn’t become aware of our discontent until this campaign. We tried working within the system to change it, providing the Republican Party with the largest majority in Congress in 3 generations. Yet the candidates elected by the Tea Party immediately turned their backs on those who sent them, joining the GOP’s own elite which had more in common with the Democratic elite than the party’s own rank and file. In 2012 we did as we were told by the party elite and nominated Mitt Romney, a party insider with more in common with the wealthy liberals who denigrated him for his wealth, trashing him all the way to the re-election of Obama.
This election was going to be different with or without Trump. If Trump hadn’t been there someone else would have been. If Trump loses someone else will take his place, someone with even more charisma and less ties to elites. We’ve seen indicators of what such a candidate would be from Trump’s off-the-cuff remarks that create liberal talking points and inspire his supporters. There is plenty more his successor could run with and perhaps win with.
If the Democrats want open borders with Mexico, then they should be forced to tear down the walls and cut down the gates surrounding their wealthy enclaves. If they want to bring in more Syrian refugees, they should be resettled in their neighborhoods not in the upper Midwest. If liberals want to ban guns, they can start by disarming their security details and rely upon the police. Of course then they might want to reconsider their attacks on law enforcement. If they want to raise taxes, then they should stop hiring accountants to prepare their taxes and instead pay the IRS whatever percentage their tax bracket demands. If they are so concerned about Global Warming, they should avoid air travel completely or at the least fly commercial airlines like the rest of us instead of the CO2 spewing private jets they use now.
One of Alinsky’s Rules is “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” We’ve done the first two, and WikiLeaks has started to personalize our enemy by naming names. After the election it will be time to stop using terms like “liberal elite” and replace it with names. They think this election has been ugly, but they ain’t seen nothing yet.