Guest post: "We can't compete with Trump's hate - and we shouldn't"

[JosephineMumsnet]

I'm not sure how many Brexits today is supposed to be worth. I started to lose count at around 3am. Then again, the shock is not quite the same as that of the morning of 24 June. If anything, given 2016's track record, it would have felt odd for the US election to go any other way.

Perhaps I have no right to be upset. After all, I'm not even American and even if I was, every expression of dismay will be that of a member of the smug liberal elite (since that is now what anyone who is not virulently right-wing has become). Even so, the parallels between politics in the UK and US seem to be overwhelming. We are witnessing a thuggish take-over by far-right bullies who pose as anti-establishment heroes, men who pretend to smash up the system while their own dominance remains untouched.

Donald Trump – just like the UK's Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage – is someone whose privilege has exempted him from having to follow the same rules as everyone else. He has been able to pose as a rule-breaker even though the normal rules of engagement never applied to him in the first place. Being a woman meant that Hillary Clinton could never have behaved as Trump did and got away with it. Yet precisely because of this she was dismissed as a member of the elite propping up the establishment. But Donald Trump is the establishment and it is rotten to the core.

George W Bush's victory in 2000 might have been bitterly disappointing – not to mention mired in controversy – but this is a disaster of a different order. Bush may have been racist, misogynist, classist, a warmonger, but he was within the bounds of what one might call a small-d democrat. Trump is not.

The dark turn taken by 2016 politics in both the UK and US has involved a shift to mob rule via the threat of violence. Mainstream UK newspapers call judges enemies of the state; Farage calls for Leave voters to take to the streets to 'get even' with politicians intent on 'watering down' the results of a vague, advisory referendum; a female politician is murdered in broad daylight by a far-right activist; and the man who hinted at the assassination of his female opponent is voted into the White House.

A contract has been broken. The likes of Trump and Farage would suggest that it is a contract that has enabled the elite to exploit the people. They would suggest that doing away with the superficial niceties of political discourse rightfully undermines those who use connections and educational advantage to manipulate others. But dispensing with the niceties means nothing if you replace them with threats and even more lies. It simply leaves us with nowhere to go.

I worry about how the left will respond to this disaster. Following Brexit many of us looked to ourselves, seeking refuge in self-blame. After all, if there's something you could have done, then perhaps you could do it now? But I do not want to see conversations about how Democrats should have listened more to 'the people’s' concerns about immigration and racial diversity. Plenty of those who voted for Trump were not the dispossessed; they were white college-educated men, drunk on years of being told that their dominance was under threat. There is no point in the left attempting to appease people who think this way. You just become a fellow hater, albeit someone whose mediocre, half-hearted hate can never compete with the full-blooded, unbridled hatred of men like Trump.

We need something more solid than that. This morning JK Rowling – whom I'd love as our PM – tweeted this: "We stand together. We stick up for the vulnerable. We challenge bigots. We don't let hate speech become normalised. We hold the line." That is what we must do. That is all that we can do. We know who is put most at risk by Trump's victory. The worst thing we could do is to sell them out on the basis that a politics that represents everyone is just too much to ask.

Rich white men are a minority. They do not have the right to intimidate everyone else into submission. This particular battle may be lost but people with compassion, love and the will to do right are not going anywhere.

Smug dystopian bastardry of the highest order.

What, the notion that something might just be wrong even if 'the people' want it?

I saw that Trump was having trouble filling some security administration positions because people are refusing to work for him.

You guys are here because you can't get speak freely about this in your real life.

Those denouncing Trump can, then fluff their chest and believe they are on the right side of history.

Free speech is being threatened under the guise of 'right and wrong'. If you just thought "you can have free speech, but..." you just proved my point.

No one should be attacked for trying to see both sides. Shame on the 'liberals'... seeing both sides should be the definition of liberal!

What did you all think of his unabridged acceptance speech? I assume you all listened to the whole thing to be speaking with such authority.

What parts did you like/dislike?

Fame, we are here because, like you apoarently, we like to discuss things on Mumsnet.

You have no idea what we do in 'real' life.

Nonsense merrymouse.

See what I did there... I made sweeping judgements based on a few soundbites you have all supplied me with.

See how that works?

I heard his acceptance speech. I thought it hilarious that a man who rode to the White House on a tide of hate could possibly talk about unity and working together without a hint of shame.

At least he didn't seem to mock any disabled people this time, so that was a positive.

With reference to teaching children about equality, it only exists under the law which is informed by our western values and Christian Judaic traditions. Equality of opportunity is upheld. Other than that people are not equal, morally, intellectually, physically or in their life chances, some of which are inside their control and others not so are compensated for. Furthermore not all cultures are equal either. Teaching children otherwise is the greatest lie of our times and is enfeebling our country.

I thought that our universities had been shut down, is it not the fact that some universities ban speakers and censor content rather than offend?

This morning JK Rowling – whom I'd love as our PM

Good grief. What stupidity. I am sure that Rowling is a lovely woman but that does not make her prime ministerial quality. People need to stop thinking that because they like someone, eg Michelle Obama or J K Rowling, that that person is suitable for political office.

Furthermore not all cultures are equal either. Teaching children otherwise is the greatest lie of our times and is enfeebling our country.

No, it's enfeebling to think of cultures in terms of being better or worse or equal, as though there is some kind of top ten of cultures.

Merrymouse your comment doesn't even make sense. What are you on about?

Sorry, that was in response to reapwhatyousow

We stand together. We stick up for the vulnerable. We challenge bigots. We don't let hate speech become normalised. We hold the line

About 18months ago, for obvious reasons, I set up a separate twitter account to follow (but never respond to) a load of high-medium profile accounts on the Trump/Republican side, and via looking at their followers I ended up following a shedload of grassroots supporters that seemed to have a small, but solid following.

What Rowling said is more of less how they see themselves.

Many don't like Trump all that much, he was more of a means to an end, a way out of the same old, same old, in their view.

By and large the economic vision that held the most sway was Sowell's. And he is held in very high regard by the majority of them. Sowell is a conservative, but his perspective is not one of hate, or bigotry. I'm not informed enough about economics to know if he is right, or wrong. But he is an impressive figure, and when he talks he does sound like he is making sense. So I can understand the appeal.

They see themselves as sticking up for the vulnerable.

They see themselves as standing up to bigots.

They regard the other side as being guilty of hate speech, all while denouncing hate speech.

When they voted Trump, held nose or otherwise, they saw themselves as holding the line, against everything Rowling underlined.

I think one of the issues is that people are very polarised and have created themselves a nice, tight echo chamber. Most of their perspective about "t'other side" comes through the sometimes very over egged filter of their own side. Less often from a wide range of horses' mouths.

Having sat back and listened extensively I don't think the moral fibre quotient, desire to pick "the right thing" for the country, intelligence levels, or -ism/-ist/-phobic leanings are as strongly slanted to one side of the political divide as is often presented.

Set aside the extremists on either side, and I saw a lot of common ground in terms of baseline "what's right", just some rather different ideas as per how to achieve "what's right" most effectively.

Plus the other side don't appear to have sprouted horns and forked tail since a large slice of them voted for Obama.

They didn't convert me to conservatism. Nor Trumpism. But they did make some points that hit home. Not least that one side cannot claim the entirety of the moral high ground.

In fact, I think one of the bigger issues is that one side has convinced itself that its unilateral halo polishing is justified. While the other feels like David. A status quo that may be flipped on its head over the next presidency.

It is incredibly hard to have a political debate, because it tends to descend into ad homs and brickbats, rather than pulling apart the perceived causes of issues and trying on for side (theoretically) various solutions. Without political debate, at grassroots level, all you really have is football fandom. Where each team waxes lyrical about heroism and "obvious" technical superiority of their own side, how much the the side bribes the ref. And then here comes the (mostly verbal) fisticuffs when the ball goes in at the "wrong" end.

It's not all bad news. It has convinced me of the need to overtly work with DS to make sure he doesn't inadvertently seal himself into a echo chamber as he develops his political opinions. And IAAP I'd like him to learn from my mistake of decades of rushing to demonise the other side, as a lazy alternative to actually listening to the content at source. Which has proved at lot more informative than leaping to conclusions about the motivation.

Don't want him following in my faltering footsteps in that regard. It shouldn't have taken me til I was in my late 40s to break the seal and at least be willing to actively listen on the sidelines, to gain a more nuanced, more accurate picture of the opposition.

Turns out, extremist fringes aside, we are not as different as we seem at first glance.

The above possibly being necessary even here. IME watching on twitter, nobody gets boiled more, by the left or right, than one of their own side who is not toeing the "omg they are practically baby eaters !" line. Possibly due to the influence SM has had on our communication.

I suggest you read a bit of Nicolai Sennels - but his blatant truth-telling may be too hard to bear.

Re personal responsibility (in anything) some people instead of asking Where did we go wrong? automatically ask Who did this to us? That's the mindset of those currently demonstrating in the streets.

The result was predictable. I'm a Londoner but even I knew that Trump would win the election. How can that be, especially as so many political journalists of many years standing got it wrong? It wasn't party change for the sake of change but rather no longer wanting to accept non-movement. Hillary Clinton has an excellent public persona; she speaks well, her smile looks genuine and when she is meeting & greeting members of the public she appears to be really genuine.

Trump is America's chance for some improvement in the quality of life for so many people. Not the young people in NYC, Chicago and elsewhere who are still in love with the newness of their lives and careers and work in offices and shops, but those citizens whose wage depended on the manufacture of things to put in those offices and shops.

They see a very large number of hostiles being allowed to settle in the USA, who are financially supported and given a place to live and are allowed to decide that they actually don't want anything to do with their American neighbours. Every minority seems to have an organisation or foundation or supporters behind it, except for the hundreds of thousands of workers, mostly men, who can no longer support their families, and this is not a temporary situation.

If the reasons that Trump gave for running for the presidency are truthful, then he should be lauded and applauded. Why not give him a chance? Whatever his flaws it does not mean he does not love his country and wants to create work opportunities esp. for the blue-collars.

Seriously? You felt the need for a 'guest post' for an election to lament an election in a foreign country?

Get a grip. America can deal with its own racists, like these ones streamable.com/6nwo taking the cue from overreactions like this one to beat up a white man.

It doesn't need any help from Mumsnet.

Seriously? You felt the need for a 'guest post' for an election to lament an election in a foreign country?

Get a grip. America can deal with its own racists, like these ones streamable.com/6nwo taking the cue from overreactions like this one to beat up a white man.

It doesn't need any help from Mumsnet.

it is OK to believe in Allah or God, or have no Faith, or have religion without a deity, or polytheist, that we respect eachothers opinions and faiths, etc

Interestingly that message is not getting through to second and third generation immigrants in USA and UK, who still believe an adulterous woman should die, that apostates should also die, boy children are given less discipline than daughters, and when they grow up younger brothers should 'rule over' their older sisters and her choices in life.

Too many hostiles have been allowed into USA, provided with apartments and $ support. The blue-collar workers who have not had employment for years see all this preferential treatment. How do you think they would vote ..... for more of the same?

Yet liberals are the first to use censorship if people don't agree with them

^^ ABSOLUTELY!

iPost 👌👏👏👏

Mumsnet there is the blog post you could have a run with to demonstrate how switched on and unbiased opinion pieces can be!

Also why did my yellow emoticons turn a different colour? 🙄

"
Interestingly that message is not getting through to second and third generation immigrants in USA and UK, who still believe an adulterous woman should die, that apostates should also die, boy children are given less discipline than daughters, and when they grow up younger brothers should 'rule over' their older sisters and her choices in life."

What do you expect? There are dozens of posts daily on here that would have been considered illegally blasphemous against Christianity a century or so ago. But anti-Islamic comment will be deleted - there is a de facto blasphemy law preserving Islam's fundamentalism.

I second what another poster said to our Guest; having JK Rowling for Prime Minister IS drivel and shows how out-of-touch Miss Smith is. Votes for JKR would be from 18 yr olds who are still naive, idealistic and have no life experience.

To get UK out of the morass does not require fluffy pink unicorn ideology, but rather someone robust enough to make difficult and perhaps unpleasant decisions.

Furthermore not all cultures are equal either. Teaching children otherwise is the greatest lie of our times and is enfeebling our country.

I agree, ReapwhatyouSow. Some cultures coming into the UK are not life-affirming, are cruel and anti-equality.

They see a very large number of hostiles being allowed to settle in the USA, who are financially supported and given a place to live and are allowed to decide that they actually don't want anything to do with their American neighbours.

Except, that if this were true, it would be possible to point out who these people are, quantify their numbers and what they are being given, and explain how they are showing that they are hostile.

Some cultures coming into the UK are not life-affirming, are cruel and anti-equality.

What is a culture? Where does it begin and end? How do you define who belongs to that culture? Which bits of a culture do you pick out when you decide whether it is better or worse?

It is more productive to talk about the values and ethics that we as a country, in law, expect everybody to live by regardless of culture, than to try and judge people by what we perceive to be their culture.

This isn't really about the UK. Fundamentally it is about the democratic right of another country to pick a President without whining and wailing from a foreign contingent.

Where was the guest post when Duterte - who had prior to becoming elected, shot thousands of people as Mayor - became President of the Philippines. Where is or was the upset then?

Not one single thread on that subject, the murderous President of a large country, yet Trump somehow warrants a 'guest post'.

The people of the USA, not the UK, chose Trump