Opinion: Who Are You Calling ‘Deplorable’?
Donald Trump’s lies didn’t make him a liar in his voters’ eyes, while in contrast, Hillary Clinton became the face of the liberal lie.
Haaretz | Carolina Landsmann
Had she won, Hillary Clinton could certainly afford to admit in her memoirs that she would rather have achieved her victory against a more “decent” candidate. A candidate befitting her stature, whose defeat would further attest to her greatness.
Because what’s the big deal in beating someone like Trump? Throughout the campaign she appeared to believe it was beneath her to contend against him; that a candidate like her deserved a worthy rival. It was clear in her concession speech that she was in total shock that America had preferred Trump to her. One who thinks Trump embodies everything bad in the world cannot but be offended that he was elected over her.
In the course of her campaign Clinton presented the possibility that people would vote for Trump and not for her as the voters’ problem, not hers. In other words, she saw it as something that says more about them than about her. This culminated in her saying that half of Trump’s voters were “deplorables.” This was an important moment in the campaign, because it was rare in its honesty. If there was anything intolerable throughout this campaign, it was the feeling that her face conveyed total lack of authenticity. Most of the time she looked too tense, too reserved, as though hiding something, maybe her burning hatred for Trump and his supporters.
In an interview with Channel 2 News anchor Yonit Levi she dropped for a moment, Trump-style, the politically correct masks of her camp and launched into “locker room talk”: “There are what I call the deplorable … the racist and … the haters,” she said with uncontrollable laughter. At a New York fund raiser she said, “You could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. …The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic …”
Trump may be deplorable, but he realized immediately that she had lost the election, that she was exposed for who she was – one who likes the people’s rule, but hates the people. She loves America, but hates Americans. Trump detected that this hatred was implanted in her like real racism. That’s why he emphasized that she called his voters not only deplorable but “irredeemable.”
“Hillary Clinton was SO INSULTING to my supporters, millions of amazing, hard-working people. I think it will cost her at the polls!” he tweeted.
Tens of millions of women voted for him because they understood that although he talks about women the way he does, he doesn’t hate women; masses of Hispanics voted for him because they understood that although he talks about Hispanics the way he does, he doesn’t hate Hispanics. They didn’t buy the comparison between him and Hitler. Like Trump they believed that under the liberal humanistic talk and slogans, the only one tainted with hatred was Clinton: “She has tremendous hate in her heart,” he said. Trump’s lies didn’t make him a liar in his voters’ eyes, while in contrast, Clinton became the face of the liberal lie.
Democracy’s weakness is also its strength – the majority rules. So anyone who wants the country to be ruled by people like him, who share his values, must see to it that most people have the conditions that foster his good values. Trump’s supporters may be deplorable, but they’re not morons. They made it clear in the polls that if they don’t have the America they want, no one else will, either. George Bernard Shaw put it well: “Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.”