Listen To You Tell Me Texas Friday 9/16/16
According to lefty political pundit Michael Kinsley, a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth. Accepting that definition, Hillary Clinton dropped a big one in a speech last Friday.
Said Mrs. Clinton,
…you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the ‘basket of deplorables.’ Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it.”
It’s a shocking statement. If you accept it at face value and do the simple math, it means that Mrs. Clinton considers upwards of one of every four Americans, whose president she wishes to be, deplorable.
Of course, Mrs. Clinton attempted to walk the statement back. The next morning she said,
Last night I was ‘grossly generalistic,’ and that’s never a good idea. I regret saying ‘half’ — that was wrong”
But one gets the sense that the statement was, in fact, a Kinsley gaffe. It is easy to believe that it was a misstatement only in the political sense. As a statement as to how Mrs. Clinton really feels and believes, one can easily imagine that it was spot-on.
It is entirely plausible that Hillary Clinton, who has not driven a car, personally paid a light bill or picked up her own dry cleaning in decades, considers a very high percentage of Americans to actually be deplorable.
Deplorable in this case is defined as, “not one of us.” “Us” is defined as the rich, Ivy League-educated, elite, bi-coastal ruling class of which Mrs. Clinton is a long-standing member.
Mrs. Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” includes those who own guns and believe in God. It includes people who have frequent need of a rag with which to wipe their hands and their brows in the routine daily pursuit of earning a living.
It includes everyone who does not have a college degree and many more whose college degrees come from an institution with the word, ‘state’ in the name. It certainly includes those with only a high school or trade school education.
The basket includes those millions of Americans who have never visited New York City and have no intention of doing so. Add in the people who have never looked down upon the American heartland from a seat in business class or aboard a private jet.
And certainly include those folks who go to church on Sunday and who persist in believing that marriage is a sacred bond between one man and one woman.
These deplorable people are the ones who answer calls from the staffs of snotty rich liberals when the air conditioning goes out, the alternator fails or the roof starts leaking.
In other words, Hillary Clinton’s basket is filled in large measure with the salt-of-the-earth people who keep the country running.
Donald Trump as presidential contender arose from the ripened realization by these “deplorables” that elites on the Left actually loathe them while elites on the right grudgingly tolerate them out of some sense of noblesse oblige.
There’s a word for that kind of condescension.
Well said Paul!
Hi Paul- Can you please explain why you redefined “deplorable” to include all the people you list in this piece? Clinton was quite clear that her definition of deplorable was reserved for “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it.” She then went on to describe a second basket of potential Trump voters who did not hold those views (and who she did not describe as deplorable) but were for Trump for other reasons. In your printed words here and spoken words on Fox 51 you changed her definition to include those who attend church, those who work with their hands, and many others… Why? Are you insinuating that the people you’re describing here also hold some of those deplorable views that Ms. Clinton spoke of? Or were you simply changing her words to fit your purpose? Both candidates in this race say plenty of things on their own that they should be held accountable for. There’s no need to do anything other than report their actual statements.
Yes, Chris, I can explain it quite simply. In fact, it is explained about midway through the piece when I say, “Deplorable in this case is defined as, ‘not one of us.” I make the statement based on years of observation of liberals in general and Mrs. Clinton in particular. If you disagree with Barack Obama, your disagreement isn’t principled, it’s racist. If you believe that marriage should be defined as being between one man and one woman, you’re homophobic. If you believe that in the area of foreign policy America should affirmatively assert its own interests, you’re a xenophobe. If you believe that unfettered, un-vetted immigration from Middle Eastern nations that have a history of promoting terrorism is potentially dangerous and should be curtailed, you’re an Islamaphobe.
In other words, any opposition to the policies and beliefs of those on the left cannot possibly be principled opposition. One’s opposition can only be because of malign or evil beliefs or motivations.
In the rarefied circles of the Ivy League elites who populate the upper echelons of the federal government, people who work with their hands, rather than being respected, are condescended to. The minute those people assert the right to own a gun or assert a belief in traditionally-defined marriage, or say that it might be a good idea to slow down on letting un-vetted Syrians into the country, as a very high percentage of them do (look at the “internals” in the polls), they become, in Mrs. Clinton’s estimation, deplorable.
I did not redefine deplorable. Hillary Clinton did.
While I may disagree with your characterizations I do understand your point of view; but I also feel you are guilty of some pretty sweeping generalizations. For example- 71% of Democrats or those who lean Democrat describe themselves as having a religion, the vast majority of those choosing Christianity (including both the current president and the current Democratic candidate). Why would candidate Clinton consider those who believe in God (as you state above) deplorable? That would include herself and almost 3/4 of those in her party (not to mention a high percentage of Independents and Republicans). Again, I believe the candidates have said, and will say, plenty to judge them on directly. I see no value in creating strawman arguments to knock down when there are direct statements, facts, and proposals from both camps that deserve careful scrutiny and dissection.
To vote for the democratic party candidate, which would be Hillary, is not to vote democratic, but should be more accurately called voting “democrat” as there is no longer anything democratic whatsoever about the democratic party, in my humble opinion. As a Catholic and a Christian, voting for any “democrat” is anathema to me as a patriotic American who loves our country and cherishes our Constitution. I will be proudly voting for Donald Trump, the republican nominee of the party of Lincoln.
[Note – I agree 100% with Mr. Gleiser’s piece as it is succinct, to the point, and in no uncertain terms.]
My wife and I have a Trump sign in our yard, so ipso facto, we are two “deplorables.” I have a liberal friend (form childhood, a writer) who thinks like Clinton. Because conservatives are not just wrong, but morally wrong and morons to boot, he, along with Hillary and her crowd, see themselves as not required to stand their views against other views. They see no obligation no argue their points against the “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic” uneducated. Rarely is Hillary honest. This time she slipped and forgot to lie.
One-fourth is less than “47%.”
One fourth is half of 50 percent. If 47 percent support Trump and half of half of them are “deplorable” then it comes to “upwards of one of every four Americans,” as I stated.
Hillary looks at everyone as something sticky on her shoe sole because she is the only one in the whole world who knows what everyone wants, whether we realize it or not! SHE is only describing herself when she speaks of deplorables. That is one thing I have come to realize about liberals, when they start speaking trash about something or someone, they generally are speaking of themselves.
Once you accept the truth that the “Democrat” Party uses a name that is now false and that effectively camouflages their true beliefs, you can interpret everything they say as a deliberate deception to cover up their true goals that have not changed for 90 years (progressive era). The fact that 71% of their supporters (or lean that way) is religious is testimony to their effectiveness at the art of the BIG LIE. The Democrat Party exists on one of the biggest lies in human history, FALSE COMPASSION, and therefore hides the fact that it is a neo-Marxist party that would outlaw ALL traditional American beliefs that are embodied in the Constitution.
If Hillary was to be elected ALL churches and religious institutions would be forced to adopt their dictatorial Marxist policy and preach it accordingly, or lose their tax exempt status, i.e., the first step. The second step is outlaw Biblical standards and proclamations as “hate speech,” punishable by imprisonment and ultimately, execution itself (ref. the Stalin-Mao era). Once the foundations of Christianity in America are destroyed by government edict, the rest is easy – – – “unalienable rights from God” will have disappeared. The US borders will become non-existent and the third-world influx of slavish dependents will overcome any residual Constitutional beliefs of “limited, ethical, representative government with checks and balances.” It is the miracle of the Constitution (our founding) and a government that obeys it (rarely now) that has slowed the decaying of guard rails that have prevented our plunge into a third-world dictatorship headed by the Democrat-Marxist elite. It is sad that the Republican Party and all traditional institutions (including big business) have been seduced by the lure of crony capitalism, a way of governing by graft, favoritism, kick-backs, and bailouts that have corroded the virtue of a merit based economy and society at large.
Simply stated, the Constitution and ethical government (by way of laws and not by man) is the number one enemy of the Democrat Party and has been their target for total destruction for 90 years. Their “progress” to date tells me that they are not worried. Blood is in the water and the sweet smell of success to defeat the Constitution, etc., is at hand.